1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 4, Number 8
[ Page 2329 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
L. Fox presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1992.
L. Fox: Senior citizens live longer and have a better quality of life when they have companionship, security and exercise. Research indicates that pets reduce blood pressure, improve mental health, increase physical activity and prolong life by up to ten years for seniors. This bill will help seniors by allowing them to keep pets in their residential accommodations.
I hope that all parties will support this bill today and ensure a speedy passage of this important initiative. I therefore move that this bill be read a first time now.
Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In section A will be the Ministry of Government Services, and in section B will be the Ministry of Tourism and Ministry Responsible for Culture.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE
On vote 58: minister's office, $308,000 (continued).
C. Tanner: At last sitting the minister promised me some information, which she has produced. Thank you very much for the list of cultural sponsorships. Just to tidy up the Tourism package, the minister was going to give us some figures on the differences between the allocations to the various regions and what they got last year. Does the minister have those, please?
Hon. D. Marzari: Mr. Chairman, that information is on its way to the member, and it will reach him this morning, during these estimates.
C. Tanner: There are a couple of members in the House -- and we haven't heard from the third party -- who wanted to talk on tourism. Maybe we could tidy those up this morning. If the third party hasn't any questions, I have one or two members on my side who do.
We have a slight delay, because the member who was going to ask questions from here has disappeared, and apparently the third party hasn't got any questions. This surprises me somewhat, since in some respects they put us in the predicament in which you and I find ourselves at this time.
Interjection.
C. Tanner: If the truth hurts, fellow member, then you'd better wear it.
Perhaps we could just ask a question concerning the museum and culture, and if I might, I'd just like to quote Hansard from July 14, 1987, in which the member for Victoria-Hillside, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs, said:
"This last week Victorians have diligently organized -- and I on their behalf am presenting today -- an 11,000-name petition requesting that the provincial government have a second thought at the last minute about introducing user fees at the Provincial Museum."
The member went on to say, on page 2177:
"The impact on tourism and the impact on locals cannot be minimized, and it certainly will have a great impact."
Now I read it, it wasn't very articulate, but I guess it was an attempt to embarrass the government.
"My question to the minister: now that he's had the chance to hear the concern and the feedback, is the minister willing to reconsider this onerous and unfair second level of taxation and leave the museum intact?"
It's not only not very articulate, it's not even grammatically correct. However, the member was obviously trying to get an answer from the government. Could the minister tell me whether they have any intentions of removing the entrance fee to the museum?
Hon. D. Marzari: The member is quite right. The imposition of the entrance fees to the museum in 1987 did have a massive impact upon attendance at the museum. That summer, I believe attendance fell by 40 percent, and Victorians have never really completely forgiven government for imposing those entrance fees. It is this government's intent not to abolish the entrance fees at this point in time, but to assist the museum in its capital upgrading and program upgrading as best we can, using the entrance fees to assist in that process.
[10:15]
I understand the concern of this House, and I sympathize with the idea that the entrance fees should be abolished. The museum itself, to this point this year, has experienced a 9 percent increase over last year's attendance. With the opening of Chiefly Feasts last week, I'm sure the attendance will skyrocket this summer. We are looking forward to the museum coming up to, if not surpassing, the attendance records it established in 1986. The policy right now is to maintain the entrance fees where they are and to look forward to the day when we can get rid of them.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction of some schoolchildren.
Leave granted.
[ Page 2330 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: When introductions were made this morning, I noticed that a group of children from Saanichton -- a local school, grades 4 and 5 -- were eagerly anticipating an introduction. So I would like to introduce the children from Saanichton Elementary and their teacher, Mr. Varcoe. I welcome them to their Legislature -- your Legislature -- and hope they enjoy the deliberations.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, it's most appropriate that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be introducing children at this stage of the debate. I quote him again from July 14, 1987, when he said in reference to the petition signed by 11,000 British Columbians: "I have a special petition from the children of British Columbia -- which I can't table, obviously -- who have signed in their own way, and they express their concerns about the user fee for the museum." Could the minister give us two pieces of information? Does she intend to remove the user fee for children? If she does or if it has already been removed, how much income is derived from the present fee?
Hon. D. Marzari: I hope to bring information to this House later this day on the amount of revenue generated by charging school districts for schoolchildren visiting the museum. I will also provide this House with the number for the total revenues generated by the museum through general admissions.
C. Tanner: Did I understand the minister to say that she anticipated that this year's attendance at the museum would reach the limits that were reached in 1986 if we continue the increase that we've got so far this year?
Hon. D. Marzari: I've just checked with my assistant deputy minister of the cultural branch. It turns out that the 1986 figures were a record high. For ten years preceding '87, the number of attendees at the museum averaged one million a year. When admission fees were imposed, attendance dropped off 40 percent. You can do your mathematics and know that for a year or so we were looking at 600,000 visitors a year. Now, I am told, the number of visitors a year expected at the museum is close to 800,000. We have not reached the one-million figure at this point.
We must look at revenues to see whether or not imposing those fees on attendees is good or bad for the museum. If we regard the museum as an educational institution and as a product of our respect for our heritage and culture, ultimately, I would think, we must get rid of those fees. If we regard the museum as an institution that is evolving and needs capital to expand and create new programing, then we must tread the balance between charging fees to increase revenues against the 200,000 people who choose not to come to the museum because fees are imposed.
No, we have not reached the one-million figure that we enjoyed for ten years before 1986. Whether or not we do that this year, we will certainly find out by the end of the summer, when we can see what the summer turns up for Victoria in terms of tourism. But the larger question still remains.
C. Tanner: I take it that the minister will be doing some analysis at the end of this season, and then this time next year we'll have the figures to make that decision.
If I might, Mr. Chair, I'd like another member on this side of the House to talk on tourism, because she had some specific questions.
J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware, I'm from the Okanagan, and we have some concerns with regard to the Partners in Tourism funding and the 33 percent cut. There are a lot of concerns with the OSTA, particularly with regard to promotion of the tourism industry in the valley. This is a very critical industry, and they're quite gravely affected with regard to the ability to do the travel for promotion and advertising. I'd like to find out if she sees that this 33 percent cut is having this kind of impact and if she has any plans to deal with that.
Hon. D. Marzari: I spoke at some length yesterday and over the last few weeks on the necessity, in terms of our budgeting process in a tight budget year, to take a close look at all aspects of our marketing budget. As a result of that close look, both the long-haul market and the short-haul -- which is Partners in Tourism, servicing British Columbia and areas close to the south and to the east of us -- were cut back by about a third. That cutback came down heavily on certain of the partners, and the Okanagan suffered an average cutback of about 33 percent.
The reasons for doing that had everything to do with tight budgeting and everything to do with having to rationalize and do a balancing act between creating and expanding our image abroad and maintaining the infrastructure that we've got here. I've worked closely with Partners in Tourism -- its local and regional offices -- to reassure them that this is a year for planning and consolidation and to look forward to what we might be able to do in the years to come.
In the Okanagan in particular, we have worked on a special project which might come to fruition over the next little while and which will involve the creation of new tourism opportunities through the Okanagan. We're working on this with the Partners in Tourism group there, as well as with the Ministry of Agriculture, to see if we can generate some interest in the touring of vineyards. That is an excellent tourism opportunity that perhaps we have overlooked and should be developing. We have our product development branch, our information service people and our marketing people working together with Agriculture on this particular project.
In Tourism at this moment we're doing the business of infrastructure, maintaining and keeping alive and well the actual administration of the Partners project and the local offices. You're quite right. The marketing budget was cut back. We look forward to an overview, which we are doing, to help us market smarter and better and actually do some product development. These people who work in the regions -- and I've said this before and I feel it is worth repeating here for the
[ Page 2331 ]
Okanagan -- are dedicated individuals and very professional in the business of tourism. They have performed miracles over the years as they have developed their marketing skills, created their brochures, books and pamphlets and serviced their constituency as planners really, and as local entrepreneurs for the whole community, not just for their own enterprises. They deserve a great deal of credit. As I say, I'm doing my best to work with them through this tough year to do some studying and reviewing of what they have done so we can build on it and do better next year.
J. Tyabji: The Okanagan is one of the areas of the province where tourism is one of the most critical industries, as opposed to some other areas where they may have resource industries or a diversified economy. To some extent we have a diverse economic base, but tourism plays a critical role in keeping us going throughout the year. With the amount of growth that we're experiencing, we're really relying on tourism to help out the service industry with regard to economic strength. The OSTA took the third-largest cut in terms of funding. Although the minister has referred to it as being about average, it was the third-largest cut. Generally speaking, it was about $240,000. With the 50 percent financing structure, this represents almost half a million dollars in lost revenue to the local tourism industry. I wonder if the minister considered that an area where tourism is a key ingredient should experience less than the third-largest cut. It's so critical to the healthy functioning of the local economy, it should have had a lower percentage cut than some areas where other industries play a key role, and therefore tourism is a smaller factor. Okanagan tourism is an incredibly high factor, and we definitely cannot afford a half-million-dollar loss in terms of revenue. I wonder what the minister's justification is for this being the third-largest cut and whether or not she considered that areas where tourism is a key ingredient should have had some of the smallest reductions.
Hon. D. Marzari: The Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association did not receive a revenue cut. It is a marketing association; they advertise the region. It is not a revenue cut that they received. They didn't get marketing money from the province this year. That's what they lost, not revenue. We have no idea what revenue might be lost because of a loss of some marketing money.
The Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association did receive an increase in its administration contract. It went from $80,000 last year to $89,750 this year. That's not a huge increase, but an act of faith on our part to show the Okanagan that it's very important that their office and that their administration remain alive and well through this tight budget time, and that marketing isn't just the preparation of brochures and the creation of an image.
In Alberta and California and Seattle, marketing has everything to do with good product development and good service upgrading. Marketing is something that people can do in their own communities. Networks, information, word of mouth and good service can create good marketing. The upgrade from $80,000 to $89,000 is our gesture, and not a great one I must admit, but a response to our recognition that the Okanagan has massive tourism potential -- as all of British Columbia does.
In answer to your previous question, we are right now working with the Okanagan-Similkameen association on the development of a new product in the form of tours in vineyards, with the Ministry of Agriculture. Hopefully, this will become yet another reason to visit the Okanagan, and we certainly count on that.
[10:30]
J. Tyabji: I definitely encourage any development of tourism through the Ministry of Agriculture and the regional representatives for tourism. Certainly the fruit industry needs that kind of support, and the more that people are aware of these kinds of initiatives..... However, I would also put to the minister that with regard to good product development, the OSTA and other regional tourism bodies have been very good at identifying the products and developing them through their own marketing strategy.
The reason I view the money coming from the government as revenue is that it goes out through all these marketing bodies, and they definitely do count on it in order to be able to advance the product. Because there was an increase in administration, but a 33 percent cut in marketing, does the minister feel that it is more important to maintain the administrative infrastructure rather than allowing them the advancement of the marketing strategy?
I would go back to one of the questions that I asked previously, which is: if this is such an important industry in the area and plays such a key role in the local economy, why has it experienced the third-largest cut? Would the minister not consider, because this is a valuable and integral part of our economy, that it should have been one of the lightest cuts in the budget rather than the third-largest, and that areas where tourism plays a minor role should have received the amount of cut that OSTA received?
Hon. D. Marzari: The Okanagan-Similkameen did receive a large increase in 1991-92 before our government came in. In fact, the volume of the 33 percent cut you're relating to is not as considerable as 33 percent, when you consider that in years previous to 1991-92 the total marketing budget was nowhere near $750,000. That does not excuse the fact that our local Partners in Tourism and our associations are in fact reeling under these cuts. I admit to that. I have met with these people and know what they're going through. I'm proud to say that we are keeping those infrastructures alive in the regions. In the last analysis, those people are more important to me and to this province over the long haul than the marketing dollars.
We have to keep the people there fighting for the marketing dollars. They know what's going on in their regions; they know what's happening locally. They know what the numbers look like in their motels and restaurants, because they're the major players. Their administrations are absolutely crucial to the mainte-
[ Page 2332 ]
nance and ongoing framework of any marketing program.
For the marketing program itself, there are a number of things that can be done this year. For example, when I say "market smarter," I mean that there are ways in which I'm sure -- although it looks pretty lean right now -- our marketing associations might even be able to get more leverage out of the dollars that are given. A $502,000 contract is not a small marketing contract. I know it doesn't buy a great deal in terms of ads in newspapers and magazines or printing thousands and thousands of brochures and booklets describing the amenities of the Okanagan region. But I say that the people here are the gold. It's the people -- their office and their administration, all nine of them throughout this province -- that we have to keep going. I have put a strong priority on this to ensure that they survive to fight another day.
C. Tanner: As the member for Okanagan East said, the third-largest cut was in her constituency. While I understand that the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island and the Tourism Association of Southwestern British Columbia have the ability to offset some of the cuts with their 2 percent in hotel tax, that isn't true in the Okanagan. Consequently, I think that the cut in the Okanagan is particularly severe, because that part of British Columbia is very much more dependent on tourism that many other parts -- in particular, when you think that their market is relatively easy to identify: the rest of British Columbia, Alberta and the Prairies. I suspect that the marketing of their dollars in those areas is absolutely vital to the continuation of the tourists that they've enjoyed over the last few years. I'm not really satisfied that the minister has given a sufficient explanation as to why they cut the Okanagan in comparison to the others. If the only reason is that a year ago they got a heavy grant from the government, surely that merely indicates the need to give that sort of money to that area.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'll repeat my previous answer to the member for Okanagan East. In 1991, Okanagan-Similkameen received $600,000 from the provincial government for its marketing. This was consistent with what it had received since 1988: $600,000 for marketing for the Okanagan. In 1991, for no apparent reason -- or a reason I can't tab; perhaps it was an election year -- that number went up in a manner which was quite unrelated to the other eight. It went up to $750,000. The other eight -- from what I can see here; we're doing a brief overview -- went up perhaps 5, 10 or 20 percent. You can see that the Okanagan-Similkameen went up by a bit less than a third. So when you're saying that the Okanagan is suffering massive cutbacks this year, I'm saying that the Okanagan-Similkameen has basically been brought back at $502,000. It has basically been cut back one-fifth, closer to 20 percent.
When I add the fact that we are now doing some product development with the Ministry of Agriculture which is costing the government close to $50,000, you can see that special attention is being paid to that very crucial tourism region. If we are successful in getting our new product off the ground in the form of tours around vineyards and encouraging tourists to think of the Okanagan as a place where they can get on a bus and tour the various vineyards, then I think we will have done some serious marketing this summer -- not necessarily in brochure form, which is one form of marketing, but in the form of providing new products, which is, I think, as good as marketing, if not better, because we're upgrading the quality of the product and we're giving tourists something else to visit.
When the members want to say that Okanagan-Similkameen has been unfairly picked on, I would ask them to review with me the history of the funding of the Okanagan-Similkameen and to understand that this government regards the Okanagan as a unique region of this province that produces food and nourishment both from an economic point of view and from tourist possibilities, which will encourage and develop the growth of this province as a whole. It's important for members to recognize that the cutbacks have been hard. They were made in the context of difficult decisions that had to be made with a hard budget. Inside the decisions that were made was an element of fairness and -- I hope, when the story gets written a year from now -- innovation as we proceed to develop new tourism products.
C. Tanner: The minister said yesterday that besides giving us these figures and the British Columbia Heritage Trust allocations, she was going to tell us which of these agreements have been signed. Is that information available?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm going to get the final tally this morning. I don't want to misinform the House on this. I will have it in writing, properly signed, later this morning.
C. Tanner: Surely in British Columbia there are three major areas that attract tourism, one being the lower mainland, including Whistler; the second being Vancouver Island, particularly the southern end; and the third -- it's not equally important but almost as important, certainly to those people living there -- has got to be the Okanagan. When the previous government made more allocations to the Okanagan, they appreciated that fact and were consequently giving money proportionate to the area that was benefiting from the grant. It is our supposition from this side of the House that the minister is in error in making the decisions that have been made. The reason I'm asking whether or not the contracts have been signed is that if they haven't, it might be important. Realizing that the Okanagan doesn't have the benefit of the 2 percent hotel tax, it might be important to review the decision as to how the grants were made vis-�-vis this particular area. Would the minister like to comment?
Hon. D. Marzari: If tourism is to be regarded as a tool for the economic development and benefit of the whole province, and if tourism is to be considered one of those industries -- in fact, probably the best industry -- to help generate a diversified economy and take the
[ Page 2333 ]
lion's share of economic growth out of the urban regions of Victoria and Vancouver, and if tourism is considered to be the golden goose that lays golden eggs, then we have to ensure that the eggs are properly distributed throughout the whole province.
Fairness and equity became one of the major determinants for how the money was spread for marketing, for Partners in Tourism and for various associations. Economic considerations of what the tourism potentials were for the regions were also on the plate. It was very important to me and to the ministry to ensure that all of those associations were bolstered somewhat, received some kind of fair share. What we did and have always done.... Even the previous government, if it wasn't an election year, ensured the survival of these partners and associations. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that there was fairness and equity, because we considered every one of those nine regions to be very important.
There are projects and businesses that vary widely in terms of what these different regions have to offer for a tourism experience, whether it be ecotourism in the far north, whether it be the skiing on the Island, at Whistler or in the interior, or whether it be the urban experience, all these regions have their contribution to make; all these regions must be marketed. It is our job in this ministry to assist regions to physically connect themselves with each other in cooperation with the Ministry of Transportation and to economically connect with each other through some kind of fair distribution of the resource, which we can help do. We can help equalize the benefits in a bad year and help reap the benefits in a good year. These things all came into play in the decision-making.
[10:45]
Yes, the Okanagan is important, but the Kootenay Country Tourist Association is equally important; the Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association is equally important, and Rendezvous '92 points to that with our investments there. The Cariboo Tourist Association has an entirely different and unique experience to offer, and they are very important. Diversification, fairness of distribution, economic considerations -- all these come into play if you're trying to cut a small pie and make it work.
F. Garden: I think the minister has answered a question I was going to raise. The previous speaker mentioned three important areas: the lower mainland, Vancouver Island and the Okanagan. I think the minister has answered most of it, but the northern regions are as important to tourism as anything in the province.
For instance, this year there's quite a promotion going on all up and down the Alaska Highway. But the tourism that's represented in the north is not a seasonal type of thing; it's all year round. People could come up to the Cariboo for skiing and various other activities in the winter. I wouldn't like it to be left in this House that there are only three important regions for tourism in the province.
Certainly north of Kamloops there's an awful lot of people and a great deal of history in this province. As a matter of fact, they were the pioneers. We need to be directing people in that direction. I'm glad the minister did make the point that there are several tourist regions equally as important as the three mentioned by the previous speaker.
Hon. D. Marzari: I have received a notification as to which of the tourism associations have not yet signed their contracts with the provincial government for their marketing dollars for the '92-93 fiscal year. Those three that remain unsigned are: High Country Tourism Association, Tourism Association of Southwestern B.C. and the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island. It is anticipated that all three will be signing relatively soon.
C. Tanner: I must tell the minister I'm surprised that Okanagan has signed. I congratulate the minister and her ministry for persuading them to do so. Under the circumstances, if it had been me, I wouldn't have. Since the two biggest ones haven't signed, I assume it is because of the severe cuts in their budgets. Could the minister explain if there are any negotiations taking place between the various regions and the ministry? Or is the ministry saying: "We've got this much money. If you want to fight, fight among yourselves -- like it or lump it"
Hon. D. Marzari: From the time the budget was signed and delivered to the House there were discussions and negotiations with the various associations. I am not aware that numbers changed radically in the course of that discussion, but I am aware that the associations know that this is a tough budget year -- there was only so much to go around. There was a cross-marketing cut through the whole marketing division, and everybody was going to swallow a bit of it. That is, in effect, what has happened. I don't know how many hours we're spending negotiating around these numbers. I have been reasonably assured that the majority of the associations have come to grips with what's on their plate, are going to do the best with what they've got and are going to hang in there and do some planning, reviewing and working with other organizations that do marketing, particularly in the case of Vancouver and Victoria. We're going to see some good marketing, we're going to see some increase in tourism this year, and be prepared for next year's budget with some good comprehensive planning.
J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware, there is a large movement afoot in the Okanagan to get the Kettle Valley Railway set aside as a tourism park. I'd like to read into the record an excerpt from the Kettle Valley Railway Heritage Society report, prepared by Arthur Halsted:
"The Kettle Valley Railway played an important role in the history of British Columbia. Constructed in the early years of this century, the KVR has been described as the most expensive and difficult railway in the world to build. The Kettle Valley Railway Heritage Society proposes to acquire from the CPR company the section of the Kettle Valley Railway between Trout Creek and Faulder, for operation as a preserved railway and tourist facility. Such a facility in the southern Okanagan would produce wide-ranging economic benefits. Re-
[ Page 2334 ]
search into the dollar impact of tourist facilities elsewhere in North America suggests a total benefit to the community of at least twice the revenues raised by railway operations. We estimate that the economic benefit to the community would therefore be more than $4 million per annum. It is intended that the railway, when in full operation, will be self-supporting. While setting up the operation, financial help will be needed to acquire the necessary capital items and for restoration."
Tourism is British Columbia's fastest-growing industry. It is increasingly important in the economy of the Okanagan-Similkameen. Operating steam-hauled trains will provide an outstanding addition to the tourist opportunities offered. The Kettle Valley Railway Heritage Society has put together a plan whereby they need a initial injection of $1 million to set up the Kettle Valley Railway as a tourist facility. They are looking to the government for four instalments of $250,000. With the four instalments of $250,000, which could be done on an annual basis, we would then have a $4 million per annum economic benefit to the area and to the province as a whole. Not only that, it's important for us in this ministry -- not just Tourism, but Culture as well -- to be preserving important historic areas like the Kettle Valley Railway that are unique in the world.
I want to know what the minister has in mind with regard to the Kettle Valley Railway -- if she will be looking to provide the $250,000 initial infusion to set this up and if she recognizes the potential benefit of the $4 million per year.
Hon. D. Marzari: The short answer on the financial question is no. There is no money set aside for the Kettle Valley Railway. However, there is a tremendous amount of interest and active work being done on preserving the right-of-way so that the line itself, which extends from the Kootenays to the Okanagan -- 215 kilometres of it -- will be properly preserved and not alienated from what it is today. The activity right now, which is going on between the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Forests, has taken the shape of a rails-to-trails study in the Kettle Valley. It is intended to preserve the right-of-way and to create a network of hiking, crosscountry skiing, bicycling and riding trails along the right-of-way. The important thing right now is to take this abandoned railway line and ensure that it doesn't get broken up, that its potential will always remain and that its access to do programming, whether it ultimately be trails or rails, will remain open as an option for the future.
C. Tanner: If I might just correct my friend from Okanagan East, the White Pass and Yukon Route that goes through the Chilkoot from Skagway to Whitehorse was probably the toughest railway to build in the world. I've walked that route seven times, and I can assure the hon. member it's a rough route to walk through, let alone to build a railway through. However, we will give the Kettle Valley Railway the second place.
That brings me to my question concerning the E&N Railway. What are the minister's intentions vis-�-vis the E&N on the Island? When can we expect to see B. C. Rail take it over, as it was promised by the minister's party before the election? If she anticipates answering this question by the fact that it's in the appeal court, I will be bitterly disappointed.
Hon. D. Marzari: I hate to bring bitter disappointment into the House so early in the morning, but I do fear that any detailed discussion of the E&N Railway will have to wait until after the Supreme Court decision has been made as to the disposition and the various rights.
However, I can tell the member that this government takes a very eager interest in the E&N. We have discussed it across the floor ourselves as to its benefits not only as a tourism attraction but as a potential commuter rail down from Shawnigan Lake, for example. It makes eminent sense. The fact that those Budd cars are running now at the most inconvenient times for commuters mystifies me. Nonetheless, the House will be seeing the results reasonably soon of a short study that has been commissioned over the last few months. We are awaiting the final disposition of the Supreme Court of Canada.
C. Tanner: That pretty well completes, as far as I know, all the questions on tourism from the members on my side. I thank the minister particularly for bringing those reports in this morning, which enabled us to pretty well finalize the debate. Obviously I don't agree with all the reports that came in, but I appreciate the fact that her ministry staff must have worked late into the night to get them here for us today. Perhaps the minister could give us a promise that next year we will have them a couple of weeks before the estimates -- instead of on the morning of the debate -- so that we can more intelligently discuss them.
Having said that, I'd like to turn to Culture. I'd like to read a statement on culture, which I'd like the minister to comment on. Not only is culture a vital element of nation-building and a unifying force, but culture is an important element of Canadian economy. For example, in 1987 the labour force engaged in cultural activities was estimated at 400,000 people. Arts-related employment was as large as the agricultural sector; in fact, it was the fourth-largest sector of employment in Canada. Cultural revenues were estimated at about $13.7 billion in 1987, with a ripple effect on the overall economy placed in the range of $29 billion. These figures would place culture on a par with metals and the mining industry.
The minister and I have agreed that tourism is a very vital part of the economy of British Columbia, and those figures and the quote that I just gave you is for the whole of Canada. Could the minister, perhaps in an opening statement on culture, give us her idea or her indication of how important a part culture plays in the economy of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Marzari: Well, there is no doubt that culture plays an important part in the economy of British Columbia. We know that we have 4,000 people working in the film industry alone in this province. We know that the film industry, whether it be the indigenous film industry or the Hollywood North film in-
[ Page 2335 ]
dustry that discovered us some years ago, produces something in the order of $250 million a year and rising for our economy. This year, in fact, is promising to be a bumper year for film production in British Columbia, and we can look forward to that.
We also know that if we look across the community, there are at least 20,000 people in the cultural field. Cultural workers, we can call them: people who are self-declared artists or actors, working within the professional ambience of unions and workers' arrangements. There are five or six active workers' representative unions in this province, representing the performing and the technical support positions in this province. There are artists who do not declare themselves as artists, who show up at the Sunday afternoon fair with their paintings for sale. There are artists who choose not to sell anything at all, who choose not to be part of a commercial economy.
[11:00]
We know that this province, perhaps more than other provinces, has an economy based on culture and art. We are very fortunate to have this. We know too that our province has the good fortune of having 20 percent of Canada's aboriginal population; and among that population there are at least ten different language groups. I should say that 37 of the 57 language groups spoken in Canada are spoken here among our aboriginal peoples in British Columbia; this brings another richness to our economy. I say richness to our economy, because the sale of native art is a significant contributor to the economy of the arts.
I can't stop the discussion there. It is not fair to say: "Well, the arts and culture contribute to the economy, therefore we should pay attention to them." I would say that whether or not the arts contribute to our economy, we should pay attention to them, because we are a product of how we see ourselves, and our artists are our main interpreters as to how we see ourselves. Every day when we read the newspaper we are reading the creative writing of journalists, although sometimes for politicians it's very creative indeed; much more creative than we'd want to see it. However, we must recognize that our artists are mirrors: they reflect our community, and in many instances they mould our community.
At a mini-workshop that I held in February of this year, Mavor Moore came and made it quite clear that the bedrock of our Canadian culture and of our civilization here in British Columbia is culture. It is not an economic bedrock. The bottom line is a bottom line, but the bedrock which lies beneath the so-called economic bottom line has to be what we know about ourselves, what we think about ourselves, what our aspirations are, what our norms are. That -- the culture -- is the melting-pot which we have to engage in and measure ourselves by. Consequently the support of culture has been overlooked in North American society, I believe, and perhaps governments have become a bit lazy in terms of understanding that culture is something which needs nurturing, which grows out of all of us.
North American society, I think, has to come to grips with what it wants to be and perhaps reanalyze its own vision for itself. It is our artists who will help us do that. It is our artists, for example, who are the true nationalists in this country. Of the core group of performing and visual artists and creative writers who live in British Columbia -- and many of them do, in this country -- very few actually stay here all year round or all their lives. In fact, artists, perhaps as much as any middle executive in some multinational corporation, are self-propelled and move themselves around this country. Artists form that community which is perhaps most national, most networked, most able to connect with each other and talk about our Canadian identity, because they've been there, and they've lived there. That is true of every community, from creative writing through to the dance community. Our artists move through our country. They reflect our country. They define our country.
It's for that reason that I think we have to take another look at how a provincial government plugs into its cultural community and how it reflects its cultural constituency. It's with that in mind that this ministry is looking at its granting policies, is looking at its relationship with the federal government through the constitutional talks, is looking at its protective mechanisms for workers who work in cultural industries, is looking at its level of funding for the arts, is looking at the regulatory regimes, nationally and provincially, which surround cultural industries whether they be film or book publishing, and basically taking a look at how we can better reflect the constituency which moulds and defines us all.
C. Tanner: It's hard to know where to start. There's so much to talk about in this particular ministry. We're not talking about a lot of money, but we're talking about a commitment. This minister, before she took this position, was known to be a patron of the arts and a supporter of the arts and culture in this province. I think, in some respects, societies around the province, seeing her appointed to her ministry, expected all sorts of things to happen immediately, and in some ways they are disappointed. I think also that the party to which she belongs has raised all sorts of expectations, as they have in so many areas -- environmental and cultural expectations, and many others. I wonder whether the minister will comment on the fact that a number of associations are anticipating things from her that she's finding difficult to fulfil, having had six months in the ministry and having looked at the amount of money that she has to spend.
Hon. D. Marzari: This is the same discussion that we had throughout the Tourism debate. I regard the commitments made by my government -- and our party policy -- to the arts community to be valid platforms and goals. I know that the community might feel that they would like to see all things happen at once; in fact, everybody would.
My assurance to the community has been as follows. Over the next few years we will be working on each program area to assure the community that there will be arm's-length funding by the British Columbia Arts Board and that every artist and organization that applies to the Arts Board will receive fair and equitable
[ Page 2336 ]
treatment by a jury of peers. We are now developing a model for doing that. It will bring us in line with other provinces, such as Ontario, so that artists across the country might expect fair and reasonable treatment through a peer-review, arm's-length system.
We are working closely with the film community to try to ensure not only that indigenous films and local producers, directors and writers are properly supported but also that the Hollywood North component of our film industry is properly rationalized and integrated and that we develop a problem-solving shop -- if you want to call it that -- so that the film industry does not feel bereft and without an advocate in government.
We are working on a status-of-the-artist piece of legislation, which will guarantee that artists are recognized as cultural workers by the government. We will try to make it compatible with the federal legislation which Ottawa has introduced. Over the long haul, we will be working on upgrading the number of dollars put into the arts, to ensure that dollars invested by government reflect a fixed percentage of its gross expenditure as an indicator, and an indication, of the respect that government has for artists.
I think that some parts of the constituency are disaffected and feel that they have not been recognized thus far in terms of instant action. But every chance I get I am assuring the constituency that never before has there been positive planning and policy around culture in this province. There has been a lot of glitz. There has been a lot of ad hoc planning. There has been a lot of bailing out at the last minute. There has been a lot of whimsical planning. It is to the credit of the theatre groups and the artists and the orchestras and the ballet companies themselves that they have managed to keep an even keel and stay afloat through some very difficult times in the eighties. It's my concern and the concern of the ministry that we stabilize and that we not engage in expensive new projects particularly, but that we consolidate and build our base and help the constituency feel as if it has continuity where we're at right now in the early nineties, so that in a few years' time, by the year 2000, our artists and community will feel part of the mainstream and properly respected and working as a partner with government.
C. Tanner: I appreciate the problems that the ministry must be experiencing in fulfilling some of the expectations of the community of which we're speaking. In that vein, I wonder whether the minister would comment on the fact that the Canada Council is now reassessing its position vis-�-vis the arts in Canada, and in fact are going back to zero budgeting, which the minister mentioned yesterday, and saying that perhaps they've done enough for this society and this organization and they should be cutting back and putting money somewhere else. Could we see a formula or system or something like that happening in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Marzari: The Canada Council has been Canada's lifeline to the arts for some years now, certainly since the mid-seventies. I talked to the chair of the Canada Council a few weeks ago, and I didn't receive any message from Ms. Harvey that the Canada Council was cutting back. There was some frustration at the national level that the constitutional debate was leaving culture out, a few weeks ago, and both Ms. Harvey at her end and I at my end, with my colleague the Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, have been working closely on this to try to enshrine within the constitution those national agencies that are the bread and butter to artists and the intellectual lifeline in the country.
[11:15]
Canada Council has recently been integrated with External Affairs cultural programs and with SSHRCC, which is an academic granting institution for the humanities through universities. There is fear of cutbacks in the Canada Council, and I'm sure that the Canada Council is taking a close look at its mechanisms and making sure that it's producing, developing and distributing the money that it has in the right places to the right people. But as far as I know at this moment, the Canada Council will not be enshrined in the constitution, but protected by the new constitution of this country. We will continue to work closely with the Canada Council in this province.
Are we going to do zero-based budgeting in this province? Zero-based budgeting isn't exactly the title of the management style I would bring to the serious overview we're doing now inside the cultural services branch. It assists the Arts Board with its business plan. I can guarantee the member that we will be working very hard to ensure that the cultural services branch develops programs and works with its peer review and the Arts Board to ensure that arm's-length funding for the arts will occur and be properly done. It will not be politically motivated; it will be motivated by the aspirations and goals of the artistic community itself. That's what peer review means.
In the process of doing that, we will be maximizing our ability to work with the federal government. We will be attempting to sign new master agreements with the federal government to assist with building new cultural venues in this province. Communities can expect to have theatres where there should be theatres, performing places where there should be performing places and galleries where there should be galleries. Museums will be properly supported where there should be museums. Our operating grants will help to keep these venues alive and well and stable over the long haul. That is what we can expect to do -- I hope -- for our constituencies and for our communities, in partnership with municipalities, with regional plans for cultural development. Those are some of the plans that we're talking about now in the cultural branch.
I must say that in the budget cutbacks that came down through the ministry, the decision-making was collegial. We made very strong provisions to preserve and protect the cultural services branch so that we could maintain the quality and level of granting to those groups and individuals who really rely on the very small grants that come out of the provincial government.
[ Page 2337 ]
C. Tanner: I think one of the most satisfying things I heard this morning was the minister saying that they're going to make those grants on a non-partisan basis. Just how excited the past government was about cultural affairs in this province is illustrated by the joyous abandon with which they join in this debate, which is so important to the vital life of this province.
The minister makes a point when she says that maybe they won't be looking at the zero budgeting and the fact that we're hoping to have a new agreement with the federal government. Whether or not the Canada Council is going to decrease their budget, the fact of the matter is that they are reassessing their apportionment of some of their grants. They're looking at traditional grants that have been going on for many years and saying: "Perhaps we've given them sufficient money. Shall we move in another direction now?" In some respects, it's a very daring experiment that they're undertaking, because in our society people have become used to expecting funding year after year. My question is: can we see that same dramatic and courageous direction in British Columbia that appears to be taking place in Ottawa?
Hon. D. Marzari: In a document produced for the ministry by the Institute for Research on Public Policy which I have used in my discussions with the federal Minister of Culture and Communications, we have discovered -- as if we didn't know before -- that B.C. is ten out of ten in terms of access to federal funds for cultural programs. B.C., which should expect to receive 12 percent of all federal moneys divvied across the country for the upgrading, promotion and development of cultural programs, receives only 4.6 percent of the dollars available. Mind you, we can cut that down and slice it and dice it in a number of different ways. For example, if we must remove libraries, because the federal government has little involvement with libraries.... The municipalities seem to be picking up the majority of library expenditures. When we cut that down, it would appear that we are somewhere between $68 million to $160 million short of maintaining the national average or maintaining our fair share of the federal pot. The blame for this, if blame must be found, has to rest firmly on the shoulders of the previous government. It's not my purpose to stand up and lambaste the previous government. It is my purpose to ensure that this situation does not continue, and that new doors are opening every day with the federal government.
As I say, I will be working on a number of different levels with the federal Communications Department and the western diversification fund to ensure that all aspects of the cultural industries and of culture are upgraded, whether it be bricks and mortar for new theatres, better international travelling programs or upgrading the amount of money coming into our performing arts. I will be working closely with the Canada Council and looking for some advice from them on how to best massage our institutions to make them receptive to money available from the federal government.
One of our major problems in this province and one of the reasons we're number ten out of ten in receiving cultural money is that we have not created the mechanisms to collect the money. We haven't made the phone calls, written the letters or developed the business plan so that the federal government could say: "Here is our criterion for a program. Does it fit within your mechanisms?" We didn't have any mechanisms or bridge to federal funding.
I'm trying to act in good faith here to say that we will build those mechanisms and we will confer. As the constitutional talks proceed, we are even more interested in ensuring that the mechanisms we create reflect a strong British Columbia but, most importantly, reinforce a strong cultural network at the federal level, so that we're acting not only on our own behalf but on behalf of Canada itself. That's what makes this job very exciting right now. I'm hoping that, as we forge our mechanisms, create our bridges and confer with federal civil servants and ministers, we're able to do that, to give the right kind of encouragement at the right time and to ensure as best we can that Canada remains alive, as well as to build programs here in British Columbia.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the minister's comment with respect to the fact that she loves Canada and she's a strong Canadian. We would all agree with that on this side of the House. But we are here today to review the budget for the Ministry of Tourism and Culture for 1992-93. On the culture side of her portfolio, which is a very important part of her portfolio, we have some questions to ask, and we would like to get some answers to those questions.
The fact that this government has decided to put Tourism and Culture together in one ministry is an interesting decision. Perhaps one could argue that it is arbitrary, or that there is some synergy between tourism and culture. It's as logical or illogical a combination as any other that we've seen in previous years with previous regimes.
We would like to see greater emphasis and some evidence of enthusiasm on the part of the minister for the cultural part of her portfolio. We believe that culture really represents the total belief system of all British Columbians and that the cultural industries can play an important role. The minister says there is no doubt that culture plays an important part in the British Columbia economy. That's what she said in her opening statement to this committee. She said that she and the government know how important culture is to our province and that we should pay attention to them. Indeed we should. But what is this minister doing to fulfil the campaign pledge of her party, which was to double the funding as a percentage of total revenue? What are she and her colleague the Minister of Finance doing? The NDP promised that they were going to double the amount of money spent on cultural funding in this province. That would raise the total amount from 0.5 percent of total spending by the provincial government to 1 percent. And what does this budget do? It reduces funding. It doesn't double it, and it doesn't hold the line with what the previous administration had done. It reduces spending to Culture on a per capita basis.
[ Page 2338 ]
That clearly indicates what a priority cultural funding is for this province, and I think the minister should just get up and admit to the House and to this committee today that the government does not consider culture and cultural funding to be a priority. If that's the case, it's fine. The minister should simply indicate that.
I'd like to ask the minister: how does her budget address the fact that she says there's no doubt that culture plays an important part in the economy of British Columbia? Where is the support for cultural funding in this budget? We can't find it. The NDP claimed one thing and came into office doing another thing.
I would refer the minister back to the supply bill debate in this House, and she will remember it well. It was the all-night marathon session. At that time, when the minister was asked about the governing party's commitment to culture, she said it was a sad fact that our province basically pays the lowest per capita on cultural services in Canada. So she apologized at that time. What has happened since the end of March, when she said those words in this House? Has any progress been made? Has a plan been developed? What has happened that the minister can come to this committee today to defend this budget, telling us that culture is a big priority, when in fact her government has slashed funding for culture in this province? Does the minister have any answers to those questions?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, I do have answers for those questions. In fact, I have delivered many of them over the last 20 minutes. I will reiterate them for the benefit of the member, but first I would like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Marzari: I want to introduce Tom Sigurdson to the House, an MLA for Alberta, who is sitting up there in the members' gallery. Tom was very active in the first campaign of our esteemed Chairman, today in his role at the Clerk's bench. Would the House please welcome Tom.
[11:30]
I'm very happy that the member put the questions in the rather aggressive tone that he has, because he brings to this debate an element of partisanship and a bit of bluster that enables me to take that ball and throw it right back across the court. As I review the table of contents for the platform of the Liberal Party of British Columbia, I notice that the "c" word, culture, is nowhere on the list at all. Of 41 priorities, starting with "aboriginal rights" and ending with "women," the only thing that comes close to describing a cultural mandate or a cultural platform is No. 23, which is "heritage." I'm glad the member is asking the question about where we stand on culture, because I'm sure that the answers will be informative to a party that has no written stand on culture in this province. They have nothing on culture. Maybe the member would like to learn a few of the things that we're doing.
The first thing that we did in a tight budget year, in a year in which discretionary funding was cut so we could keep the deficit under control and prevent a buildup that could turn into a $3 billion deficit, was to create a business plan. We created a plan for Culture that will unfold. It will unfold under my supervision and under the supervision of a ministry and a cultural services branch that for 20 years has been bloody starved in this province, a system and a branch that for 20 years has had very little recognition in terms of its ability to bring good ideas to the fore and have a plan of action and a consistency of thought and a continuity of effort.
The first thing we did in this job was to bring about a promise to stabilize. The cuts in the budget as they affected cultural services were relegated as best we could to areas other than the cultural services branch proper. The cultural services branch, the branch which actually funds cultural activities in our province, was protected perhaps more than any other area of the ministry. So those people, that community, can look forward to continuity and stability of budget, and can expect to be able to develop their aspirations from that base of stability.
The major cut that came into the cultural branch, which I believe I explained at our mini-estimates and then reiterated three weeks ago, came about as a result of a one-shot cost of $1.3 million for asbestos removal from the museum. That $1.3 million was incorporated into last year's working budget, and in fact it was a one-shot deal. The asbestos is in the process of being removed, but more importantly, the $1.3 million was an addition last year and was not what you could call a continuous expenditure, so our numbers were somewhat thrown off by that.
Yes, there was a small cut in the cultural services branch. Although I do not relish the cut, as no one does in their budgets, this has given us an opportunity to do this year the things I discussed with your critic a few minutes ago. 1. Establish a business plan for the cultural services branch. 2. Develop status of the artist legislation which will guarantee some security of employment to the workers in the field. 3. Rationalize the film industry and integrate the services that are presently provided to give us a one-stop shop, if you will, for film producers. 4. Work towards better relations with the federal government so we can bring more dollars in. There's a shortfall there of anywhere between $60 million and $160 million that we should be getting that we're not.
Those are the kinds of things that we are looking towards in this province: the creation of a business plan, the development of a continuity with the constituency, the recognition of the workers themselves in cultural services in this province so that we can give some stability to a very fractured community and to an under-recognized community in this province. I should add to that list something I haven't raised before, which is the importance of bringing groups, associations and individuals that have not previously been recognized....
The funding of culture becomes very habitual after a while, and it's important that we break through that
[ Page 2339 ]
crest to ensure that our cultural funding patterns reflect the cultural diversity of our community, and that visible minorities and women and aboriginal culture be firmly reflected in the mainstream of what we do and how we make our decisions in the arts board and other granting agencies -- that is also an area that we are working on -- to try to make our cultural product, if you want to use a crass word like that, reflective of the entire community, not just of the white, male, middle-class community that some of our habitual cultural spending patterns have reflected in the past.
D. Mitchell: What I'm endeavouring to do is to try to have this minister stand up and with some enthusiasm defend her government's policies with respect to culture. The minister says that the cultural industries are fractured and under-nourished in the province. Of course they are. They are precisely in that state because of this government's policies, which are more regressive than that of the previous Social Credit administration. Incredibly, when this party that is now in government was in opposition, they used to criticize and rail against the Social Credit Party for the lack of funding to cultural industries. What did they do when they got into power? They slashed funding. There's hypocrisy there. We'd like to know from this minister whether there is a vision or a plan. We're receiving indications that they're looking at things, and they're studying things. Sure, that's great. Everything is under review with this government. We know that.
I'd like to remind the minister of a couple of statements she made during the supply bill debate that I referred to earlier. When she was asked whether she is going to be doing anything or if there is a plan in her ministry at that time -- this was at the end of March -- to address the lamentable state of cultural funding in this province, she wasn't able to give us any details, but she said yes, they were working on a plan. Then when she was asked whether or not she could ensure whether there was a plan developed in detail, she said that there was no plan.
So I'd like to know from the minister -- without getting into rhetoric and without filibustering these estimates any further -- whether or not there is a plan. Is there a comprehensive cultural strategies plan to address this problem this year in terms of this budget? We're talking about the budget presented to this committee dealing with this fiscal year. We're not talking about ten years from now or about the next election campaign. We're asking this minister to tell this committee, within the context of this money that we're being asked to approve today, is she developing a comprehensive strategy that's going to deal with this problem? If she isn't, that's fine. If she could just admit that, then we'll get on to the next question.
Hon. G. Clark: I wasn't going to speak in this debate, but I have listened to the bleatings from the Liberal Party opposite and I feel compelled to rise.
I want to make a couple of points. First of all, I am very proud to be a member of a cabinet with a member like the Minister Responsible for Culture. She has a tremendous track record in this province, particularly in the city of Vancouver, when it came to dealing with cultural groups when she was a member of city council, and now as a member of cabinet. I think the Premier has chosen a woman with that kind of track record to demonstrate the kind of commitment the government has to the cultural communities in British Columbia. This is the first time in history that we essentially have a Minister Responsible for Culture as a stand-alone part of the Ministry Responsible for Tourism and Culture. It's not simply recreation and sports and everything else; we've taken the cultural component. And the Premier has given it to a woman of great standing in the community like the member from Vancouver-Point Grey. I think that bodes well for the government. In addition, instead of having the cultural component dished out as part of a lottery fund application, we have moved all of that funding directly into the Ministry Responsible for Tourism and Culture so that they can develop synergies between those two very important areas of our economy.
I think it's important that we recognize also that the Liberal Party stands up here in every single budget item and demands we spend more money, as if spending more money in all of these areas is somehow a symbol....
C. Tanner: That's made up.
Hon. G. Clark: That's not made up. Every single item that has come up for debate, the Liberal Party stands and says: "Give us more money." Well, instead of simply throwing money at a problem, we've taken the cultural component that was buried in lottery funds and everything else and moved it into a separate ministry. The Premier has given a woman with a tremendous track record the responsibility for developing cultural policy. We're working hard, and the minister has stood up here and talked about an exciting plan for the development of tourism in British Columbia -- a business plan -- so that we can work with those communities to develop culture in a focused way in this province. We're going to work to do that.
This government's commitment to culture is unabated. It is clearly demonstrated by the kinds of activities this minister has undertaken -- more than by any government in recent memory. We now have a minister dedicated to promoting the interests of the cultural community. Anybody who stands up and says: "Oh, here's what you said in the election campaign: why haven't you lived up to it in the first six months in office?" I think is being mischievous.
You will see very clearly the commitment the government has over the coming years and months. I'd like to stand here in the debate on this minister's estimates and commend her for moving forward with those cultural communities that are an important component of the economy and, more importantly, in my view, of the social fabric of British Columbia and of the country. She has demonstrated that repeatedly in terms of her actions in the House and her actions as the minister.
I'm very proud that the Premier has chosen this minister in particular and that the government has
[ Page 2340 ]
chosen to move culture into a mainstream ministry and take it away from lottery funds and these kinds of capricious funding mechanisms. It is a solid attempt to elevate the status of culture in British Columbia. I just wanted to stand in this debate to comment and to congratulate the minister for her excellent work in this regard.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I request leave to introduce guests.
Leave granted.
D. Mitchell: I noticed a couple of friendly faces in the gallery this morning: two constituents of mine from West Vancouver -- in fact, from Horseshoe Bay. Dorothy and Patrick Bertram are here. I'd like to ask members of the committee to welcome them here this morning.
B. Copping: I would also like to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Copping: I'm very pleased to see today in the gallery several students from Moody Senior with their teacher, Ms. Van Ginkel. I gather there are also some visitors from Montreal. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to compliment the Minister of Finance -- minister of defence, perhaps I should call him -- for his contribution to the debate. It's unfortunate that he would have to defend the minister, because I think she was doing well on her own. But the fact that he felt it was necessary to rise to defend her actually does not reflect well on the minister or on the exercise that we're going through this morning.
I can understand why he might feel compelled to do so. After all, we know that this minister did not do particularly well at Treasury Board, and we know that the Minister of Finance chairs Treasury Board. One of the reasons for the problems with this budget was the slashing of cultural funding made by Treasury Board. Of course, the Minister of Finance must accept some responsibility for that. The fact that he got up today to apologize in the fashion that he has is indicative of the fact that he does bear it and feels compelled to take some responsibility.
That actually reflects well on the minister, because she wants to do better. All of us in this House want the minister to do better at Treasury Board the next time she presents a budget there. We hope that she does go to Treasury Board again to seek more assistance for cultural funding. When we say more assistance, we're not necessarily talking about dollars; we are talking about the fulfilment of promises and commitments made.
When we talk about culture, we're talking about funding to cultural industries, which include: book publishing, film making and sound recording; and all the associated cultural industries that play an important part in defining who we are as British Columbians and what our total belief system is. These cultural industries describe who we are to ourselves, but even more importantly, they describe who we are to people outside British Columbia. We have an export-oriented economy, and some of these cultural industries can export products as well.
[11:45]
We're simply seeking some indication from the minister as to whether or not there is a plan or a strategy beyond this budget for the development of cultural industries. We know that this budget doesn't deal with that, and it unfortunately doesn't address the need. When we were addressing the tourism component of the ministry, the minister indicated that a comprehensive plan was being produced and that legislation was being contemplated. But I'd like to ask the minister whether or not there is a strategic plan being developed for the culture side of her ministry as well which will pull together all the variegated strands in British Columbia's cultural industries and produce a bold and dynamic vision for where British Columbia's cultural industries can go and how they can contribute to the economy by producing jobs and generating wealth and activities that we will all be proud of.
Hon. D. Marzari: The member stood up and suggested that the Minister of Finance was patronizing me in some way by having to jump into the breach. I daresay that I do not feel patronized at all by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance. The fact that he stood up to speak to the importance of culture, and to the fact that we have a stand-alone or related-to-tourism ministry with a separate cultural services branch is a very important statement on his part.
However, what I do feel patronized by and what I do feel somewhat personally offended by is that the member across the floor has not bothered to hear what I've said thus far. Either I'm an extremely boring speaker -- and that might well be the case -- or he simply does not choose to hear. That too might well be the case. I have stood up to say: "Yes, there is a plan and a promise of stability and continuity; yes, we are working on legislation which will protect workers, and legislation which will provide arm's-length peer review in the distribution of grants; yes, we are working with the federal government; yes, we are working on ways to improve the financial situation for culture in this province."
I have said this today for the third time. I said it before in my opening address -- in my estimates speech -- and I said it in the mini-estimates speech. Yes to all the questions the member has asked. If the member chooses not to hear, I cannot make it more clear. If the member chooses not to hear it because he wants to fill up the time of this House, that's his problem. I would suggest that I have answered the question on more than one occasion on this very day. I have spoken to comprehensive planning, to potential legislation, to working in consultation with the community, to their disappointment and to the fact that the cultural services branch was not slashed. Cultural groups and individuals in this province who apply for grants through
[ Page 2341 ]
the arts board of British Columbia can expect that they will be applying to a fund which is pretty stable compared with what it was last year.
Community grants to culture have not been slashed. Has the member heard it? We are working on legislation and a comprehensive business plan for culture in this province. Has the member heard that? It is important, because sometimes women's voices don't get heard properly in the House, and I want to ensure that my words are heard. Perhaps a way of doing that is to leave long silences after I've made my statements.
Cultural services branch has not been slashed. The major part of the cutbacks in culture were a result of a 1.3 expenditure in asbestos removal from the museum. Cultural moneys were brought from the lottery division, where they were subject to political whim, into the cultural budget proper.
When you look at the cultural budget this year, you will not find it scattered through the blue book over in lotteries branch. You will find it consolidated and sitting within the cultural services branch in the cultural division of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. That in itself is a massive stride, although it certainly doesn't look that way to the outside world. But within the confines of this tiny world that we live in here, inside the bureaucracy, that was a major statement about culture.
We are going to work from that and work with the community itself to produce and present to this House the legislation that is required to make cultural work and cultural workers a recognized, identifiable and respected part of the mainstream of the social and economic life of our province.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for those comments, because we are looking for the minister who is responsible for Culture to be an advocate for culture. We're looking for the minister to be an advocate for the arts in British Columbia, and that's important. It's important for this minister to play a leadership role, to be an advocate for the arts, and that's what we're looking for. We are trying, in our own small way, to encourage her to take that mantle of leadership, to be an advocate for the arts. When she talks about the fact that the budget wasn't slashed, the fact remains that spending on culture, as a percentage of the total provincial budget, has actually been reduced from what it was under the previous administration, when in fact this party, when they were in opposition, advocated doubling that amount on a per capita basis.
Having said that, I'd like to go back to a comment the minister made earlier with respect to federal-provincial relations on culture, because I think that's an important issue, especially at a time when we're witnessing constitutional discussions that are talking about the devolution of powers. If in fact we are going to be witnessing the devolution of powers from the federal to the provincial levels of government in areas of cultural jurisdiction, I'd like to ask the minister very briefly whether or not during this period under review of this budget her ministry is actively planning for taking on more of the jurisdictional responsibilities within Canadian federalism for culture? Is that a direction that we're heading in, and does the minister, or ministerial staff, have any active plans to accept any further responsibilities within the larger strategic plan being formulated that she has referred to? Is her ministry an advocate for devolution of powers with respect to culture within the context of Canadian federalism?
Hon. D. Marzari: I believe that if the member reads the Blues, he will see that I've spoken to the constitutional debate within this country. I believe that if the member reads the Blues from an hour ago, he will see that I have been actively engaged with my colleague the Minister of Labour, the chair of the Canada Council and the federal Minister of Communications and Culture to find the language and the mechanisms by which we can use language other than "devolution" for what happens to culture in this country.
If the member will read the Blues, he will see that I talked about how fragile this country is and how important culture and cultural workers are to the maintenance of the intellectual railroad that culture represents across this country. If the member will read the Blues, he will see that I had previously commented in the last week or so that I had been working with my colleagues at all levels to ensure that devolution does not become the name of the game in terms of culture in this country, and that devolution and the six sisters approach does not become hooked onto the name of culture.
Rather, with full recognition of Quebec and its participation in culture and its demands of federal government for its own culture, we in the rest of Canada must speak to the persistence and continuity of the national agencies that have thus far served us well in cultural industries -- whether that be the Canada Council itself, Telefilm servicing the film industries or the other agencies, museums or whatever that help service, either in financial form or in standards and objectives, the institutions across this country. We cannot look to a six sisters approach or a devolutionary approach for culture, because we have a national culture; if we don't, then we're not a country.
I spoke to the fact that our cultural workers are truly, perhaps of all of us, the most national, because to make a living, they travel the country. Most of our writers have written from more than one province. Most of our dancers have danced in every province. Most of our performers travel the country to act and perform on stages across the country. Most of our technical people do the same thing.
These people are the thin thread that binds the country. What they do defines us and moulds us. Devolution is not the answer for culture. The language that comes out in the final constitutional format will hopefully reflect the language that the cultural community in this province has given me to take to my colleague the Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs as he goes, in turn, to Ottawa to forge the final document.
That final document will have within it, I hope, some of the language that we have worked on in this province since February of this year to ensure that culture is not
[ Page 2342 ]
devolved, but rather that it holds a special place in the constitutional arrangements of our country so that our national organizations can continue to thrive and do well, and our provinces can be bound within the framework of a national culture.
D. Mitchell: I welcome that statement by the minister with respect to culture in Canada and the national dimension of British Columbia culture in that context. The minister referred to her statements in the Blues, which she recommended that I read. I actually heard her statements earlier on, so I won't have to go back and read them; although if I do go back and read them, given the fact that we're reviewing the estimates for culture, perhaps I should wait for the movie.
We have more to discuss with respect to the federal-provincial relations aspect of this portfolio, but noting that the hour is getting close to 12 noon, I would move that we rise, report a little tiny bit of progress and ask for leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:13 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
GOVERNMENT SERVICES
On vote 45: minister's office, $330,000 (continued).
K. Jones: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the minister and staff. I hope you've had a good rest. I look forward to another scintillating morning. I hope that we can make it more exciting for the hon. members at the other end who found it a little boring yesterday. We'll have to wait and see what transpires.
[10:15]
For my first question, I'd like to go back -- just quickly -- to the B.C. Systems Corporation area that we left yesterday. Last night it bothered me that this minister, who has been fairly open with my questions and who I know believes in accountability, could be leaving the impression with the committee that there is no public forum for accountability for the Crown corporations under her responsibility. I put one last question for this year's estimates on this issue. Would the minister like to push the frontier a bit by suggesting to her government colleagues that the B.C. Systems Corporation's annual report be forwarded to the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services for full public scrutiny prior to the end of this session of the Legislature?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm certainly willing to take a lot of this stuff under consideration, and I'm willing to look at that, but at this point in time I can't make any public policy decisions with regard to a future policy. I will take it under consideration.
K. Jones: Thank you very much for a very positive approach to it. I think it's along the lines of the philosophy of both of our parties to have this openness. Maybe this will be a means of resolving some of the concerns of the public over the hidden accountability of our Crown corporations. I congratulate you for taking the lead in considering it within your caucus and the government.
On a philosophical matter, I'd like to know what the minister thinks about B.C. Systems Corporation going into competition with private enterprise to bid on government or non-government contracts. It's a policy matter -- a philosophical question only -- that we want to address here.
The Chair: Hon. member, we're dealing with supply estimates. The supply estimates do not deal with the philosophy of Crown corporations participating or not participating. I would request that we stay within the supply area that comes under the influence of the Minister of Government Services. Thank you. Do you have another question?
K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for your understanding -- to explain a little more clearly what you mean -- because I have great difficulty with the narrowness of the interpretation of this committee that you're defining here. I'm getting to the point where hardly any questions are allowed. That is not my understanding of the context of this committee.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. I hope your remarks aren't to be interpreted to suggest that the Chair is influencing or trying to control the debates in any way. I will bring to your attention Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Under standing order 61 it says: "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain high public servants nor the decision of a judicial court." That's under the standing order 61. In supply estimates the philosophical approach of a specific Crown corpora-
[ Page 2343 ]
tion, I don't believe, falls within the order of the standing orders. Do you have a new question?
K. Jones: Maybe I didn't make myself clear with the request to the minister. I'm not asking the philosophical approach of the Crown corporation; I'm asking the minister's philosophical approach, which is directly related to how she operates her ministry.
Hon. L. Boone: The act that B.C. Systems works under mandates it to provide services to the government, and it does so very well. That is what they are mandated to do under the act.
K. Jones: Just to further explore that, does the minister believe that Crown corporations should be bidding on contracts with outside private enterprises? Should they be bidding on non-government contracts? Should they be contracting out their work?
Hon. L. Boone: I believe that is allowed within the act. What I do or don't believe doesn't really apply here, as long as the corporation is acting within the guidelines of the act that empowers it.
K. Jones: Does that mean that as long as it is within the act for the Crown corporation, whichever one it may be, that you will support it doing any contracting out or bidding on jobs and encourage public bidding on government jobs as well?
Hon. L. Boone: From what I understand, B.C. Systems is bidding against private firms for government business. It's not my understanding that it has gone out and bid outside government for work. I see nothing wrong with it bidding within government for government work.
K. Jones: That's very clear. With regard to non-government contracting, does the minister support the Crown corporation bidding on jobs in the open market?
Hon. L. Boone: B.C. Systems' prime mandate is to provide services to the government, but they do work in partnership with the private sector in some areas.
K. Jones: I think we've probably explored that sufficiently. I'd like to go on further.
On May 7, 1990, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, discussed in Hansard the wisdom of the government subsidizing B.C. Buildings Corporation to cover the rental shortfall from privatized Highways operations. The government had retained ownership, through BCBC, of idle facilities such as garages and yards that were not being used by the current contractors under the Highways privatization. Since these facilities were being held for future use, there were moneys being paid out of general revenue to cover these requests from government. Our question is with respect to that problem. We are wondering whether or not the new government has given any new orders to BCBC on the need to hold onto these facilities, and whether or not a grant is still being paid out of general revenue to cover the carrying costs of these properties.
Hon. L. Boone: The member is right. There was a one-time payment to cover some differential there, but for the past few years the Highways yards have been leased at market value and will continue to be.
K. Jones: Further to that, you say that the yards have been leased. Are they leased out to people other than the highways contractors that took over these contracts?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Then I presume that they've been contracted out to the general public.
Hon. L. Boone: They've been leased to the highway contractors on a three-year basis.
K. Jones: We should get this minister on record with respect to her government's policy on the Colony Farm properties and what she has told the Buildings Corporation about future utilization of those lands.
Hon. L. Boone: We're doing some preliminary staff work. Then we'll have a public land use policy established with a lot of public input into a land use strategy.
K. Jones: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the schedule is this year in regard to getting some decision on that.
Hon. L. Boone: A number of issues have to be worked out -- some issues around the native claims area. We hope to have a public strategy in place within about six months.
K. Jones: We raised the question of wages for privatized maintenance contract workers at sites throughout British Columbia under the responsibility of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. The government, when they were in opposition, raised concerns about exploitation of workers -- often immigrant or women workers -- who have no protection at all and are working as employees of private companies holding contracts for maintenance. Now that they are government and talking about fair wages and pay equity, I'm wondering how they will apply these policies to the maintenance contracts of this Crown corporation.
Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, the fair wages policy does not apply to that area. The fair wages policy comes under the Minister of Labour's guidelines. That is future policy for this government. I'm not at liberty to comment on it.
K. Jones: I don't think you can get out of it that easily. You have responsibility for current contracts for these people. These companies are doing work under your mandate, under your current budget. What action
[ Page 2344 ]
are you taking to make sure that these people are given fair wages, and not just being exploited by the contractors?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC currently has many contracts under their jurisdiction. These contracts were tendered. We are currently living up to those tenders and to the contracts that were signed by the parties. Until such time as there is a policy change, there is no change taking place. There has been no change, as you know. The government is looking at these things; the Ministry of Labour is looking at these things. But those are future policy, and I can't comment on it.
[10:30]
K. Jones: I really enjoy quoting the minister: there is absolutely no change. The Socreds did it; the NDP does it. The workers are still getting shafted. They're not getting fair wages. That is an unfortunate situation. You have contracts opening up this year, I'm sure. What action have you taken into consideration, in your contracts and in your budget, to bring about a better standard of wages and benefits for these workers?
Hon. L. Boone: The member has difficulty in understanding, and I 'll repeat it for him once again. The fair wages legislation is the Minister of Labour's responsibility. The policy for determining fair wages is under the Minister of Labour. He is working on that with regards to how it applies and will apply to other areas of the government. It is not my responsibility to determine a fair wage policy that would apply to Crown corporations or many other sectors out there in the government. You can ask me as many times as you want. The answer will be the same. That is the Minister of Labour's responsibility, and it is not my responsibility. Therefore I cannot comment on it.
K. Jones: The minister tries to duck this one. Really, I think we all have a responsibility.... Certainly, when I'm using the term "fair wages".... We know that fair wages legislation only relates to the construction industry and has nothing to do with your ministry's maintenance work. I was using the term generically. These people should be paid fair wages and receive an honest set of benefits -- like all of us who've been union workers expect all workers to be able to get. We have fought hard to get a change of government. You are that change of government; we are that change of government. We have a responsibility to make sure that the changes are starting to be implemented. You've been six months in here. You've probably had a few contracts come up, yet you say you've done nothing. You're just carrying on the old Socred practice.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The minister has stated several times that this area does not fall under her jurisdiction. It's becoming repetitive and tedious. I request that you go to a new topic. A new question, please.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister to give us an explanation of the reason for the $151,000 expenditure to modify the legislative facilities to provide a caucus room for the NDP this year. Considering the fact that this room here is about the same size, if not a little larger, and provided sufficient room, and considering the fact that the previous government's caucus met in a much smaller room....
The Chair: Order, hon. members. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on a point of order.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, by this time the opposition should have learned that the legislative precincts come under the jurisdiction of the Speaker in vote 1. The member is clearly out of order.
The Chair: Point well taken hon. member.
Hon. member, again I'll caution that we are on the minister's estimates for the Ministry of Government Services. Would you restrict your questions to those areas under the minister's jurisdiction? If you have no further questions that fall under the minister's jurisdiction, we can go to another speaker or we can call the vote.
K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, this question is truly about work being done by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which has jurisdiction for the building operations, maintenance and extensions in this building. I'd like to ask the minister just what portion of this $151,000, or what additional funds, were required from her ministry to facilitate these changes.
Hon. L. Boone: I'll explain it to the member since he didn't believe my colleague at the end. The moneys did not come from my ministry. The moneys came from vote 1, which is the Speaker's vote. BCBC merely did the work for the construction of the offices, including construction and changes to the Liberal caucus offices....
K. Jones: Not included in this amount.
Hon. L. Boone: ...and the third party's offices. Those dollars were spent by the Speaker. BCBC merely did the work. I have no idea what the discussion was about, why it took place or any of those things. I merely know that the money was spent. It came from the Speaker's vote; you'll have to ask her about those things.
K. Jones: Just to clarify this figure of $151,000....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The minister has stated -- it's been stated many times over -- that it comes under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. Do you have a new question or a new topic? Do we have another questioner?
K. Jones: I would like to respond to the minister's statement, which was that there was money put aside for the Liberal and Social Credit office modifications. I just want to make sure it was understood by the public that that was in addition to this funding here. I was
[ Page 2345 ]
going to say that it is under the Speaker's area; but under the minister's area of responsibility, B.C. Buildings Corporation had to contract this work. It had to be worked on within your mandate. The money may have come from the Speaker's funding, but the work was actually done by, and the time allocation and the pay came from, the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Could the minister please respond to that aspect of it?
Hon. L. Boone: Certainly. I just explained that yes, BCBC did the work, and yes, its mandate was to do so at the request of the Speaker -- as at the request of any of the others. I don't know what your question is here. What is it you want from BCBC? What is it you want to know about what BCBC did? It had no input into the decision as to why the room was done or any of those things. That took place in the Speaker's office.
K. Jones: I'll leave that as is, and ask if there are any others who wish to address other issues on this topic.
W. Hurd: I have a line of questioning regarding the excellent report by Peat Marwick Thorne into the operations of the Ministry of Government Services. I realize we may be treading into dangerous philosophical areas here. Perhaps the minister could explain to the committee whether she has read this report, and what steps she has taken to implement the rather excellent recommendations that it contains.
Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to qualify that by saying that the ministry staff have reviewed the report and are looking at ways and means of implementing some of their recommendations and responding to their concerns. I guess my question to the member is: is your question related to BCBC or to the ministry as a whole? We were on a BCBC kick there for a bit.
W. Hurd: No, I was returning to a general discussion of this report and its impact on ministry operations. Particularly, I refer to the paragraph in the executive summary which states:
"This report reviews the services provided to government by government agencies, including B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Systems Corporation and the Purchasing Commission. The data available to demonstrate the comparative cost-efficiency of these agencies is not conclusive. Further, cost and quality performance standards which are accepted by clients, providers and the Treasury Board do not exist. As a result, final decisions on efficiency and effectiveness cannot be reached."
This is a fairly serious assessment of the function of this ministry and certainly a paragraph that cries out for the need for reform, particularly of these two Crown corporations and the Purchasing Commission. The committee is certainly curious, in light of the rather damning statements contained in this report, as to what steps the minister has taken to address them.
Hon. L. Boone: I think it's fair to say that the members opposite shouldn't think that the ministry is doing nothing. We do take the concerns that Peat Marwick has raised very seriously and are working to address them. The Purchasing Commission is reviewing and preparing a detailed response to the recommendations of the audit review. We are working to review all the special accounts, to review operating structure, to promote sound business decisions and to get our house in order there. The 13 financial systems which were previously operating at the Purchasing Commission have migrated to one common system, running on one hardware platform. The results are improved financial control and better interface with the government's corporate accounting system.
There are many operational changes and many reviews taking place within the Purchasing Commission. I'm sure the corporations are responding as well.
W. Hurd: This report particularly flags the B.C. Buildings Corporation, the B.C. Systems Corporation and the Purchasing Commission, because, of course, those three agencies provide services to government. The report, as the minister well knows, expresses serious concerns abut the need for a broad mandate. It says: "While the concept of agencies providing goods and services to captive markets is reasonable, implementation has been inefficient in some cases." It recommends that "Treasury Board, not the agencies providing the services to government, should take responsibility for the government's overall strategy and standards for these services." Is this a direction that the minister is recommending her staff take -- to prepare a report advocating a broader role for Treasury Board in the functioning of these three corporations?
Hon. L. Boone: I think it's fair to say that Treasury Board has already taken a much more active role in the mandate of the corporations than was taken in the past. So we're already acting on that issue.
W. Hurd: Just a further question from the Peat Marwick report, which identifies the fundamental question facing government as "whether it receives value for money when it is a captive market for its own services" -- which certainly fits the description of BCBC and the B.C. Systems Corporation. What assurances can the minister provide the committee that the charges that these two corporations are passing on to various ministries are in fact fair and equitable and competitive with the private sector? Does she receive information on an ongoing basis which would assuage the concerns of various ministries that they're receiving the optimum benefit for the dollars they spend on these two Crown corporations?
[10:45]
Hon. L. Boone: I understand that we do have private appraisers that make sure that our rentals are at market value. We've just done a review that shows that, as a whole, the rentals we have are below market value and the services we provide are also below what they would be in the private sector.
I think it's also important to note that B.C. Systems -- it's too bad these didn't come up while the B.C. Systems CEO was here -- actually competes with the private sector to provide services to the government.
[ Page 2346 ]
Therefore their costs are certainly competitive with what the government would receive in the private sector.
I think it's important that you talk to your critic about some of these issues, because the critic started out these debates expounding the virtues of B.C. Systems and BCBC and the good value they provide to the government. We have found that various people are coming to BCBC to ask for their advice on areas such as the disposal of St. Ann's Academy -- to ask for their expertise in those areas, to try and assist them. Certainly people throughout the province, municipalities and school districts alike, are recognizing that BCBC does provide very good service to the public and that they have expertise that is valuable to them.
W. Hurd: It is certainly not the intention of the committee to cast aspersions at the functioning of BCBC or any other corporation. Our primary intention here is to explore some issues raised in the Peat Marwick report, in which the government has placed a great deal of faith in the past. The independent financial review package was tabled in the House at the very onset of this session, and was certainly depicted then as accurately portraying the state of the province's finances and of the various functions of the ministry. I would assume that the minister would certainly welcome a line of questioning on the Peat Marwick report and the opportunity to tell the committee exactly what reforms have been undertaken as a result of receiving this report and acting on its recommendations.
Referring further to the report, there is a concern expressed about sources of client dissatisfaction with B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Systems Corporation and the Purchasing Commission. The concern expressed in this report was that if these sources of client dissatisfaction could not be removed in a reasonable period, "then efficiency could be increased by allowing ministries to purchase services from the lowest public or private sector bidder. In such circumstances, centralized providers may not be required." Can the minister advise the committee on the steps that may have been taken in acting on this particular recommendation of the Peat Marwick Thorne report?
Hon. L. Boone: I don't think that you will find us acting to move into the private sector -- to take those areas there. I have stated clearly that we are providing services that are below market value. We are providing good services to the public. I think that in the past you may have found some dissatisfaction, but I think both B.C. Systems and BCBC have changed their mandate, to work toward providing service and to meeting the needs of the clients out there. They are doing audits to find out the feedback they're getting from the various users of the systems.
It's clear to me that if you are receiving services below market value, there seems to be little need to go out and seek another form of providing those services. BCBC, as I said, does audit their clients to make sure that they are providing value. I think it's important to note that over the years there have been some directions given to the corporations that have not necessarily engendered that type of goodwill between them and their users. For example, I just found out that two or three years ago BCBC was instructed to build buildings to 90 percent of the requirements of the ministries. Well, surely, when you start out to build a building at 90 percent of their needs, there's obviously going to be dissatisfaction, because the people are not housed the way they should be. But that was not a decision of BCBC. That was a direction from government. I can assure you that there will be no such directions from this government regarding BCBC buildings.
W. Hurd: I have a question for the minister about the audit process she has identified, particularly as it pertains to captive ministries within government. Assuming that an audit does come back with some negative reports from a ministry of government about the price paid or the service that might have been rendered, can the minister describe what action might be taken to ensure that the problems are identified? Does she recognize the principle that the ministry involved should at least be able to check or cross-reference the service they are receiving from the Purchasing Commission -- for example -- with the private sector, to ensure that better levels of service and products do not exist in the private sector, to assist the audit process in arriving at the most cost-effective means of purchasing goods and services for the government?
Hon. L. Boone: You sort of jumped over to the B.C. Purchasing Commission. The Purchasing Commission has saved the government considerable dollars over the years by their purchasing power, because they have been able to -- I can use the example I used in my opening speech -- go to the private sector. All they are is a purchasing agent; they are not in competition with the private sector. They go out to the private sector because of the large amounts they can purchase. Because of their ability to tender and to get the best tender possible, they have saved this government considerable dollars. The Ministry of Social Services, as I explained earlier, saved some $300,000, I think, though the purchase of wheelchairs. The Purchasing Commission is consistently showing various ministries how they can save dollars and how they are able to save dollars for them through the bulk purchases they provide to them.
W. Hurd: I am somewhat curious about that response, in light of an item in the Peat Marwick Thorne report, which recommends:
"The policy-and standard-setting activities for the purchase of government goods and services should be separated from the supply function currently carried out by the Purchasing Commission. In addition, the operating structure for the commission should be examined to ensure that it provides the best value for the money."
Am I to assume from the response that the minister categorically rejects that rather urgent recommendation in the Peat Marwick Thorne report?
Hon. L. Boone: I have been informed that the report actually states that seven out of eight businesses
[ Page 2347 ]
are receiving value for money. There is some problem with the eighth, but Peat Marwick was not able to recommend a better system than we have now to provide the value to the ministries that we do. Time and time again, the Purchasing Commission has shown the various ministries that they are able to provide value, that they are able to get goods and get them to the various ministries in a very cost-effective manner.
W. Hurd: Just continuing a line of questioning on the three areas the Peat Marwick Thorne study has identified -- namely, BCBC, the B.C. Systems Corporation and the Purchasing Commission.... The Peat Marwick report states some rather strong concerns about the monopoly relationship between BCBC and most of its clients:
"...Treasury Board...must approve requests by clients for new space. Treasury Board has also agreed to allow individual ministries to decide how they use space, within the total allocation. However, it is our sense that Treasury Board staff's emphasis has been on controlling immediate costs, and not on the larger issue of space requirement planning, the analysis of overall ministry space use and the impact of special design and office use on organizational efficiency."
Has the minister identified this problem within her ministry? Is she prepared to make recommendations to the various ministries that are acquiring services from BCBC that in fact a much more efficient method of allocating office space and determining future needs must be put in place, so that this particular corporation does not end up acquiring office space that it doesn't need or is overutilizing or underutilizing?
Hon. L. Boone: BCBC works with various ministries to determine what their space requirements are, and then the ministries actually go about working within that space allocation to determine what their needs are there. The price is determined by BCBC. If the ministry feels that they are being overcharged, that it is too high, then an independent appraisal will be done and BCBC will reduce their costs to meet those of the appraiser -- if in fact they are high compared to the appraiser's.
W. Hurd: I am somewhat confused by that response. Referring further to the Peat Marwick Thorne report, it indicates.... This report was issued by that accounting firm earlier this year; in fact, it was tabled in the House earlier this session.
"...it is our perception that the province has a much larger number of separate offices, often used by the same ministry in different locations in the same town or city, than is optimal. A quick review indicates 55 separate provincial offices in one small city and 60 in another. We believe" -- this is a key point -- "consolidation and reduction of offices may be in order, and could well produce administrative savings, with an increase in efficiency."
Would this particular independent appraisal...? Would that individual or company also be responsible for identifying and correcting, or recommending corrections for, this serious problem or overduplication within the services and building office space provided by the B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: I appreciate the member bringing this to the attention of the committee. It is important to note that we are aware of these difficulties. BCBC is working to try and eliminate some of these existing problems. It will be bringing a report to Treasury Board in the future to outline its plan to consolidate and reduce some of those spaces around the province.
[11:00]
W. Hurd: I would assume some of these difficulties have built up over a period of time. Is the minister in fact issuing a directive to the board of the B.C. Buildings Corporation to prepare this report and bring it forward? Or is this report being driven by the board itself?
The reason I ask the question is that in the course of our inquiries yesterday we were somewhat confused about the relationship between the ministry and the boards of the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the B.C. Systems Corporation. It certainly had all the appearance to us that the decisions on these matters were being driven by the boards, not by the minister. Is the minister issuing specific directions to these two boards in relation to these problems identified in the Peat Marwick Thorne report? Is that the reporting schedule that is going on here?
Hon. L. Boone: It is important to know -- and I'll just repeat it for the members' interest here -- that these boards are responsible to me. I am responsible for the policy areas and, in fact, we do meet frequently with the CEOs from the three corporations that are within my responsibility. We seem to be meeting more with Dennis in the last little while than with some of the others. We have ongoing discussions on a number of these issues, including the difficulties of space allocation. The report will be coming from BCBC to Treasury Board, but through the discussions that we've had.
W. Hurd: I'm becoming even more confused, because the recommendations of the Peat Marwick Thorne report indicate that BCBC is in the space provision and servicing business and Treasury Board "has no clear strategic framework to optimize or mitigate overall space use and costs. So while BCBC may be reasonably efficient at responding to ministry space leasing requests in a cost-effective manner, neither it nor Treasury Board has been analyzing and managing overall space utilization in a way that fully supports the new deficit reduction objectives." Would this report coming forward from BCBC also include a recommendation about how Treasury Board might be more efficient in analyzing its long-term space allocations? It just seems to the committee that, without that rather strategic involvement of the Treasury Board, any cost-saving recommendations or measures brought forward by BCBC will be compromised in terms of their effectiveness in reducing these rather ridiculous duplications of government offices we find identified in the Peat Marwick Thorne report.
Hon. L. Boone: The member said earlier that Peat Marwick identified that Treasury Board was not in-
[ Page 2348 ]
volved and was complaining about that. I'm now telling you that Treasury Board is involved; that this Treasury Board has taken a much greater hands-on attitude towards allocation of space and towards the operation of BCBC and the Crowns than has been the case in the past. The space allocation will be coming forth to Treasury Board. BCBC has been working very closely with Treasury Board staff to bring about these reports. That is all I can tell you at this particular time because the report has not been tabled with Treasury Board, and I can't tell you what is in it at this time.
W. Hurd: I recognize that we may be straying into an issue of future policy here. Just an additional question on the Peat Marwick Thorne report, which recommends rather urgently that an overall space utilization review should be conducted by Treasury Board. Can we be confident in assuming that that particular recommendation will be part of the report that is being advised?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't answer for Treasury Board. I can tell you that BCBC is taking forth some recommendations on space allocation to Treasury Board. That is the total of what I can answer at this particular time.
K. Jones: We have a great deal of interest in the administration of the government. I'm just wondering if the minister could indicate to us whether there has been any change of senior staff in her ministry lately. Is the person who is presently here taking on a new assignment?
Hon. L. Boone: The deputy minister appointments are made by the Premier. I'm unable to tell you at this point whether there's one coming or not.
K. Jones: Just winding up the B.C. Buildings Corporation area, I'd like to have the minister comment in general on the philosophy of public buildings. Yesterday in committee she commented on the internal development of a set of working objectives for her responsibilities. It's a little early to share that particular thinking, but specifically on BCBC, when should the public own its own office space and when should it lease?
Hon. L. Boone: This is an important issue -- whether we own buildings or not. From my perspective and BCBC's, the larger buildings, the more stable buildings that provide community stability and that are at a central point, should be owned by the government. There are occasions when we need to get into flexible use because of ongoing changes to ministries and to programs. For those areas, I think it's entirely appropriate that we lease or rent facilities.
K. Jones: Specifically, in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale you have some space that's unoccupied -- I believe it's the old temporary court facilities. Could you give us an indication of the usage that is going to made of that property this year?
Hon. L. Boone: We've been working with the Ministry of Environment to try and develop that space for them.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us some indication of how many people would be involved in that office, for the benefit of the community? We'd like to know what sort of hope there is for further government development in our community.
The Chair: Hon. member, I believe the minister has answered that that would be under the Environment ministry's jurisdiction. It would probably follow that the Environment ministry would determine the number of people and the usage of the building.
K. Jones: Would the minister consider the possibility of obtaining local constituency office space for members through BCBC? It's an idea that might solve a number of problems that could arise out of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society investigations. As well, it would provide some long-term stability to the offices, which are there to serve the public but sometimes change locations from election to election. It's very confusing. I've discussed it privately and now wish to raise it publicly for consideration. What is your comment?
Hon. L. Boone: It wouldn't be BCBC or this ministry that would make a decision regarding whether constituency offices were supplied through BCBC. BCBC would be more than happy to respond if they were requested to do so. This would be covered by the new act we are working on with your caucus to bring to fruition, which would deal with all the members' constituency issues, such as constituency allowances and expenses for constituencies. This would be part of that, and could be dealt with through that other area.
K. Jones: I'll step down if anyone else wishes to conclude the area of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, prior to going on to the Lottery Corporation.
W. Hurd: Just a line of further questioning on the Peat Marwick Thorne report -- in particular, the rather wide-ranging recommendations with respect to government purchasing, and areas such as the Queen's Printer. I'm just wondering if the minister has read the recommendations on the very last page of the Peat Marwick report with respect to the Queen's Printer, warehousing and government air services, and if she can summarize for the committee what action might have been taken or is contemplated within the current budget estimates to address some of these problems that have been identified.
Hon. L. Boone: I'd hate to leave it on the record that Peat Marwick had an unfavourable opinion of this ministry, because, in fact, the report was generally pretty favourable to the ministry. One area that seemed to be a trouble spot was the product distribution centre. We are currently taking aggressive measures to reduce the operating costs and to enable additional health care
[ Page 2349 ]
facilities and at-home care services to take advantage of its distribution services. We're continuing to monitor the financial performance of that centre so that we can compare it to other supply alternatives.
As a whole, the Peat Marwick report, with regards to this ministry, was quite favourable. As I said, we are doing what we can; we are taking the necessary measures to try to correct any problems that were identified and to bring into place the necessary financial changes to make our operations more efficient.
W. Hurd: I'm not entirely convinced that the minister's glowing account of the Peat Marwick report as it pertains to Government Services is entirely accurate. Looking at the recommendations under item 5, it indicates: "Present government financial systems are not designed to provide or encourage sound operating business decisions." That seems to indicate a somewhat serious concern that this particular audit firm has about the functioning of this particular ministry. I refer specifically to the second paragraph under recommendations, where it says: "For this reason we" -- the Peat Marwick Thorne auditors -- "support the creation of a special operating agency (SOA) for the Purchasing Commission's commercial activities." Has the minister reviewed that particular section of the report? Does she recognize the urgent need identified by these auditors with respect to the functioning of a special operating agency attached to the Purchasing Commission?
[11:15]
Hon. L. Boone: Before I continue, I'd like to know if we are, in fact, through with BCBC, because Mr. Truss would then be able to remove himself from here, and I could get the Purchasing Commission in here, which would make things a little easier for me.
W. Hurd: I'm advised the critic has an additional series of questions on BCBC, so perhaps I could reserve the opportunity to rephrase that particular question at a later date.
K. Jones: Just basically concluding. Actually, I didn't mean to interrupt the line of questioning there, but I'm sure that we can take that up as we get into Purchasing Commission.
I'd just like to ask a question with regard to the personnel in the B.C. Buildings Corporation. According to the statistics for the annual report tabled for March 31, 1991, there were 800 employees in the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Could you tell us whether those are the current figures or whether they've increased or decreased?
Hon. L. Boone: They've gone up by a few. I could get that number for you.
I'd like to take this time to respond to some questions. Yesterday the member asked questions with regard to the project at Robson Square. We gave you some numbers which weren't entirely correct, so I'd like to correct those, if I can. The $8.4 million that we mentioned is for the general contract awarded to Dominion Construction. The total project cost is $16 million. That includes the costs of demolishing existing fixtures, consulting fees, elevator addition, systems upgrade, etc. You asked what the cost would be if this was someplace else, if it was freestanding, and we said $17 million. In fact, the cost, if it was established in a new family court building, would be $41 million. The $17 million figure that we gave you is the difference between the $16 million cost through the renovations of the existing facilities and the $41 million that it would be if we did it outside, someplace else.
K. Jones: I appreciate that clarification and detail.
Notwithstanding the concerns we have with regard to the Peat Marwick report -- and there are some definite concerns there -- I'd like to say that we feel, from the looks of the annual reporting, that the B.C. Buildings Corporation can be commended for its increase in ratings under Canadian Business magazine's Corporate 500 standings. I see in the June 1992 issue that they've moved up from 312 to 281, and I congratulate the staff and the administration for their work in bringing that about. Not that we're going to be satisfied with that level, but we expect it to get even better, especially once these items that have been addressed by the Peat Marwick report are addressed. I'm sure that will also add to the increased standing of the corporation.
I note that we have a debt-equity ratio of 4:13, and that appears to be a fairly high one. Could the minister explain to us the reasoning for that being so high?
Hon. L. Boone: I understand that the ratio you're talking about is not uncommon in the real estate sector. In fact, the value that we have on our property increases, and the book value and the actual value is much greater.
K. Jones: Am I led to believe that you are saying that if we were to appraise our properties on current market value, our debt-equity ratio would be much better and much more in line with the general marketplace, and that this is a problem that's faced by many building operations?
Hon. L. Boone: Under the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., you cannot record the increase of market value.
K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to one of our members who has one further question.
R. Chisholm: There was a proposal that we were going to have a new courthouse built in Chilliwack. BCBC was looking at three different parcels of land, and I was wondering what the status is of the negotiations on this land.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm going to have to take that question on notice, and we will provide a fuller answer, if that's adequate.
[ Page 2350 ]
W. Hurd: Just returning briefly to my question about the identification of the need for a special operating agency attached to the Purchasing Commission -- assuming that we have, in fact, completed the B.C. Buildings Corporation...?
K. Jones: We could bring that up a little later if you want. Or are you tied up...?
The Chair: Order, hon. members. Through the Chair, please.
W. Hurd: Unfortunately, I have to leave the committee, Mr. Chairman, so perhaps I could just ask the question regarding the special operating agency with the Purchasing Commission and ask for comment from the minister on this particular aspect of the Peat Marwick report.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm happy to say that that is our recommendation, that the auditor merely picked up our recommendation. It's our recommendation, and we're moving towards that.
W. Hurd: Therefore I assume that the other recommendations of the Peat Marwick study regarding purchaser and supplier development, vehicle management services, Queen's Printer, government air services, warehousing and asset investment recovery have, in fact, been identified and are being addressed by the minister? Because those recommendations, of course, flow from the overall recommendation about the need for a special operating agency.
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is correct to assume those things. The Purchasing Commission is working very hard to make sure that all the concerns raised in that report are addressed.
K. Jones: I would have liked to have thanked the chief executive officer of B.C. Buildings Corporation for his support for the minister and his presence here. Unfortunately, he left just a moment ago and I missed out on the opportunity, but I will put on the record that we appreciated the input.
I'd like to go on now to the Lottery Corporation. Could the minister introduce the person who would be advising her on lottery areas?
Hon. L. Boone: This is Doug Penrose, director of finance and administration for B.C. Lottery Corporation, and Shirley Kerr is a director with the ministry here. Depending on what your questions are on, one of these people will be advising you.
K. Jones: A number of my own questions will be put to the minister under debate on Bill 10, but in terms of the overall philosophy of where we are going with lottery dollars, I do have some serious questions for the minister.
How will the lottery-playing public know at the end of each year just where the lottery dollar has gone to support various community-type projects?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said at the beginning of my opening remarks, the Lottery Fund does not exist anymore. The lottery dollars will be going into general revenue. Half of those dollars will be going into health care, the other half will be determined by Treasury Board and allocated to various ministries.
K. Jones: Could we explore rather a basic philosophical approach first of all, so we know the context under which the Lottery Corporation is operating? There is quite a concern in the community about whether government should be operating lotteries per se. It's perhaps a philosophical or ethical question. It's maybe one that the minister's own church may have been taking a position on; I know that many churches have spoken against the concept of being in the lottery business, and the impact of lotteries on the community. What is the minister's approach to that philosophical or ethical question of whether government should be in the lottery business?
Hon. L. Boone: I think it's a moot point right now. The government is in the lottery business. To get out of the lottery business at this point is simply not possible. There are far too many people who participate in lotteries, who enjoy purchasing lottery tickets and enjoy the dollars that they win sometimes. For any government to turn around and stop the lotteries would not be possible at this particular time because of where it is in our society right now. It's fair to say that because of lotteries this government and previous governments have been able to provide a lot of services to the people of British Columbia. There is the revenue aspect of the whole lottery area.
K. Jones: That's indeed a question that all of us are going to have to address as government. We have to look beyond the question of whether people enjoy it. I'm sure a lot of people enjoy alcohol. Some people seem to enjoy many other pleasures that the government doesn't condone. The question we really have to address is: is it the type of example that government should be setting for the social standards of our community? How does the minister feel in regard to that question?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, the lotteries are there. I don't think we can question whether they are good or not. That debate should have taken place some time ago, before they took place. The Lottery Corporation currently employs 180 people in Kamloops, 150 in the Richmond marketing office and 20 in the Victoria branch. Retailers who sell B.C. Lottery ticket products employ approximately 2,400 people collectively to support the function. Pollard Banknote, the security printer in B.C., opened a branch in Kamloops and has 35 staff. They now employ 90 people to service the lottery industry. To suddenly decide that you were going to end the lotteries at this point would be entirely irresponsible and not something that any government could do.
[11:30]
[ Page 2351 ]
The good news is that retailers receive commissions totalling $37 million on an average additional income of $15,000, income that these people would not have if the lotteries did not exist. In the past year, 35 million prize claims were paid to the winners for a total of $293 million returned to the player.
Again, I know the gist of what the member is going on about: the idea that it is a tax on the poor. However, at this point in time I don't see this government or any other government going backwards in terms of the sale of lottery tickets. It's just not possible to do.
K. Jones: I take it that the basic philosophy and direction of the government will be that this is a vehicle for employment and for making money for the government coffers through this means of taxation. Therefore it is to be condoned on that basis, regardless of whether there's an ethical question on gambling and lotteries in particular.
Hon. L. Boone: It's an interesting line of questioning, seeing as how the member opposite condemned me severely for stopping the break-open ticket, a ticket that had severe problems in its management. Here he is questioning whether we should have any lottery tickets whatsoever. I would suggest to the member that if we were to suddenly eliminate lottery tickets out there, the cries that we heard on the break-open would be small in comparison to the cries that we would hear from the various people out there that are earning their incomes through the sale of lottery tickets.
Don't assume that this is condoned; we are regulating this. Lotteries are a responsibility of government, and it is our responsibility to maintain and make sure that they are administered properly and adequately. But at this point in time, I think it would be the ultimate of irresponsibility to suggest that we suddenly end something that has become an institution in British Columbia.
K. Jones: Let it be noted that we are exploring the minister's views on this to see what sort of direction the ministry is going to be guided in -- the policy direction of the ministry and, therefore, the policy direction of the Lottery Corporation and the funding program. It's really not what I'm saying in regard to it, but it's rather that we're trying to explore, from your viewpoint, where you will probably take this organization. I think you've probably made it fairly clear that it's expedient, and it's a commitment that's previously been made and, therefore, it's one that will continue.
I'd like to ask whether you'll still be publishing an annual report, of sorts, listing all the awards made from lottery dollars, as has been done in the past and as you tabled just lately.
Hon. L. Boone: On Friday we tabled the list of lottery grants and commitments. In future years there will be no lottery grant program. We will be tabling in the Legislature the community grants from the new community grants program, once it is up and going.
K. Jones: Does that mean that each ministry issuing grants will issue their own book, or will a consolidated book be presented?
Hon. L. Boone: Much as the member would like me to be the minister responsible for everything, and responding to everything, I obviously can't respond on behalf of other ministers.
K. Jones: Do you think the public will want to know if lottery funds are all going into a general pot? Why not just raise taxes? Many people who spend a dollar on lotteries must do so because they sense their dollar is going to a good cause, in addition to providing them a chance to win a pot of gold. This government is out to change all that. Would the minister like to comment?
Hon. L. Boone: I think people want to know where their money is going when they buy a lottery ticket. One of the things that we responded to was a strong lobby and outcry from people saying that they wanted their lottery dollars to go toward health care. We responded to that by making a commitment that half of the lottery dollars would be sent into health care. The other dollars will be spent in numerous ways. I think people will be happy to see that the previous slush fund, with no accountability, that went into providing services, or a fiasco such as Music '91, will not take place. This is voted money now. The money is accounted for by the various ministers. I think that is a good move. For the first time, people will truly know where lottery money went. It will be accounted for in the Legislature. In previous sittings, there was no way that a member could question anything with regard to the lottery dollars or where lottery money went. It was not voted money. It did not sit in anybody's voted things. It was not something that we were required to answer questions on -- or that the members opposite, in that case, were required to answer questions on.
I think this is a responsible way of dealing with money. It's making people responsible. It's the right way that the taxpayers' dollars ought to be administered.
K. Jones: What sort of guidelines are there going to be under each of the ministries that have lottery dollars in their accounts for the expenditure of these funds?
The Chair: Hon. member, I would caution, again, that the minister is only responsible for answering questions that are directly related to the supply estimates of her ministry, not those of other ministries.
Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, we will be administering a community grants program. The majority of the dollars that are allocated in our budget are for grants already committed through the previous GO B.C. fund. A lot of those dollars will not be up for grabs this time around.
We are obtaining information from the public right now. There are letters and briefs coming in to us to indicate the communities' priorities. What we are
[ Page 2352 ]
trying to do is determine a reasonable level. Under the previous GO B.C. grants, the ceiling was $1 million; prior to '88, the ceiling used to be $50,000. GO B.C. had only been there for a short time, but this $1 million ceiling seems to have hit a lot of people. They seem to think it's been there forever, but it was only for three years that the $1 million ceiling was there. We will be looking for information from people as to what they think is an adequate level of funding, what the ceiling should be, and where the priorities should be. Are there priorities in providing sports programs? Are the priorities in providing social services or community services? What are the priorities of the communities? We will be developing guidelines from that and making them public, after the consultation process is finished and we've found out what the people out there want their money to go toward.
K. Jones: One of the concerns that people have -- and we've explored this with other ministries who've had their estimates previously -- is to find out what money raised by the Lottery Corporation is going to actual community programs. The difficulty is that each ministry states that nothing in their ministry is allocated grant money from the Lottery Corporation fund-raising. Therefore it's basically going into a slush fund, as you say was the problem previously. There is really no accountability tying the money raised to the money going back to the public. Suspicion is that a good lot of that money isn't going back to the public, that it's just being taken into general revenues and being used for whatever the minister chooses in her ministry. I know you can't speak for all the ministers, but within your ministry, is there a clear delineation of the moneys coming from lottery sources into your ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: I think this is where the problem lies. It's not shown as lottery sources. The lottery money goes into general revenue. Treasury Board then allocates that money to the ministry. We have money in our ministry that is allocated for a community grant program, and that's what these moneys will be spent for. It's not saying it comes from lottery money or whatever; it comes from general revenue. It's there, and we will be spending it on a community grant program. That's why we're going out to the public to get information as to how we can develop guidelines that properly reflect their concerns.
In the past, as I've said, there was no accountability whatsoever. As the minister responsible for lotteries, I was at liberty -- as we found out with Bill Reid -- to do whatever I wanted with those funds. The minister could do whatever he or she wanted with the dollars in that Lottery Fund. There was no accountability whatsoever. We are putting accountability into the system. We are saying that ministers have to be responsible for the dollars; they have to go to Treasury Board. They have to make their case at Treasury Board as to how those dollars are going to be spent -- and that's how those dollars will be spent.
In the past, there was truly a slush fund out there that people could tap into for anything that they wanted, regardless of whether it met any guidelines or any of those such things. We had special grants that were awarded all the time. You'd find the government would say: "How is this being funded? It's being funded as a special." "A special" was the way they used to talk about it. That no longer takes place. Ministers have to make their case in budgetary process; they have to go to Treasury Board; they have to get approval at Treasury Board. Those are the budgets that we have. Those are the budgets that we must stay within, and we must spend it for what was originally intended.
K. Jones: The minister has stated that there is now going to be accountability in the expenditure of grant funding or the money raised. There's a little problem in the middle. The Health minister has a slush fund of half the money that's coming in, and the Minister of Finance has a slush fund of the remainder to be divvied out to whatever proposals are brought forward. There appears to be no identification for people who are purchasing lottery tickets to know where their money is going. Their money could be going into building highways or any frivolous type of operation that may come out of the government offices. There is really no control over it going to help their community build an ice arena, provide funding for the local kids' softball team or hockey club, or for the girls' grass hockey program. There is no tie between these, and that's the area that everybody has got a great deal of concern about. Is there any way that you can help us clarify that problem?
Hon. L. Boone: There never was any tie. It was at the discretion of the minister of the day as to whether or not he or she gave dollars out to a particular organization. There was no accountability whatsoever at that time.
[11:45]
This is not a slush fund that the Minister of Health has. Those are voted dollars that she has; she must account for those dollars in the Legislature. She is accountable for those moneys when they come up in her estimates. It's not a slush fund. She can't just tap into it. The moneys that go to the Minister of Finance don't go to the Minister of Finance, they go into general revenue. Those dollars are voted from general revenue through Treasury Board, which is a very intensive process. Let me tell you, it is not an easy one to go through. Those people are very hard-nosed with regard to where the taxpayers' dollars are going. Now, they may make the decision that at this particular time, reducing the debt is an important thing to do, so reduced dollars will go into some programs so that we can achieve government goals. But there has never been a link between a sports facility and the lottery ticket that you purchase in B.C.
K. Jones: I think I know where most of the other 50 percent of the lottery funds will be going, other than the 50 percent going to health care. But maybe the minister could state for the record how much is going to each ministry. For example, I gather that her own ministry is getting $40 million this year for community grants. For
[ Page 2353 ]
the record, where are the non-health dollars going? You're still really responsible for those dollars, aren't you?
Hon. L. Boone: No, I'm not responsible for those other dollars. I'm responsible for the dollars that are voted within my ministry -- that is, the community grant money. That is entirely my responsibility. The responsibility for the other dollars rests with Treasury Board, who allocated them to various other ministries.
At this time, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada