1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 21, Number 17
[ Page 16319 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I have a number of introductions I'm going to make before I begin this afternoon. This is Mary Butterfield. On the other side of the House is another sign language interpreter, Maureen Woodward. I'd like the House to make those two welcome.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's the first time you ever wanted to.
In the gallery this afternoon are representatives of the deaf community from Vancouver: Bob Barr, Peggy Fee, Roger Carver, Patty Dobie and Cheryl Collins of the Deaf Children's Society. I'd like the House to make them especially welcome.
Also in the gallery this afternoon is former Supreme Court justice and former member of this Legislature, Mr. Tom Berger, and his daughter Erin Berger. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
L. Reid: I would like the House to welcome this afternoon Angela Goran. Angela is a young woman that I've had the absolute privilege to meet over the last year and a half. I'm absolutely delighted when a young person of such excellence comes along. Angela is off to Germany to represent the Rotary this coming year. I'd like us all to bid her welcome and also bid her a fond farewell.
Hon. E. Cull: I notice in the public gallery today some prominent Victorians: Donna Jones, who is the chair of the Public Schools Employers' Association and also a member of the Greater Victoria School Board; Carole James, who is the chair of the Greater Victoria School Board and also of the B.C. School Trustees' Association; and Valerie Lannon, who is a local businesswoman. I ask all the members to make them most welcome.
D. Symons: It's my great pleasure today to introduce to the House Bill and Kathryn Fischer. They have come all the way from Covington, Louisiana, which is just outside New Orleans, to see Kathryn's cousin in the House today. Would people please make them welcome.
J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce some people who have come here from Duncan to visit the Legislature. The visitors today are Ms. D. Goran, who is an instructor at Malaspina College, Cowichan campus, as well as ten other adults. I'm sorry that I don't have all the names, but I would like the House to join with me in making them very welcome today.
Hon. J. Cashore: We have guests who have come all the way from the area of Chicago to see what happens in the B.C. Legislature. They are Charlotte Stewart and her sons Brian and Scott Stewart, and Catherine Lewicki and Tilly Lewicki, along with my daughter-in-law Donna Cashore. Would the House please make these visitors from Chicago welcome.
S. Hammell: I would like to take this opportunity, as government caucus chair, to thank the three interns who have been working with us for the past four months. We have been fortunate indeed to have had the collective talents and intelligence of Linsay Curry, Brent Mueller and Megan Reiter working with our members during this session. The intern program attracts the brightest and finest minds from the university, and we in the New Democratic Party government caucus have been particularly fortunate this session in the assignment of these three young adults. On behalf of the government members, I would like to wish Linsay, Brent and Megan the very best in their future endeavours and thank them for their fine work in the past few months.
V. Anderson: Visiting in the House today is Paul Lepage from Ottawa. I welcome him here and ask the House to make him welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: Following the comments of the member for Surrey-Green Timbers, I would like to extend the sincere thanks of the Liberal caucus to the three researchers that worked with us over the last few months: Madeline Giovando, Elizabeth Walker and Darcy Hallett. They have been instrumental in holding this government to account. They have been an extremely valuable asset to us, as the interns are every year. I think we had a spectacular group this year, and I hope to have interns of just as good quality next year.
REPORT ON ABUSE OF STUDENTS AT JERICHO HILL SCHOOL
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I rise to make a ministerial statement. As I mentioned earlier, assisting us today are Mary Butterfield and Maureen Woodward, who are providing the simultaneous translation of my statement in American Sign Language. Representatives from a number of agencies that serve the deaf community participated in a briefing this morning in Vancouver. I understand that many of them are now watching from the Vancouver cabinet offices. I welcome them, too, to this announcement.
On June 10, 1993, the Minister of Education announced in this House actions that our government was taking to address a grievous injustice in British Columbia's history. The injustice I refer to is the sexual abuse that took place over many years, beginning in the 1950s, at Jericho Hill School in Vancouver.
One of the government's actions in response to this history of abuse was the appointment of former Supreme Court justice Tom Berger as a special counsel to provide advice to government on how to resolve civil claims against the government by former Jericho Hill students. Mr. Berger has now completed his duties as special counsel. Today I will table in the House the report he has submitted.
[2:15]
This is an important day for the deaf community. I want to recognize their support for the students of Jericho Hill School and their commitment to finding justice for those students who suffered abuse. I want to thank Mr. Berger for the thoroughness and sensitivity with which he undertook his assignment. Once again in his distinguished career, he has
[ Page 16320 ]
performed an important public service. At the same time, I want to acknowledge our debt to the ombudsman, whose interim report on this issue in 1992 led to the creation of the interministry Jericho committee and focused our attention on the issue of sexual abuse at Jericho Hill. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Brenda Knight and Pam Manson, the health care professionals who listened to the students' stories and believed them.
Most importantly, I want to recognize the victims and the survivors of sexual abuse at Jericho Hill. Their allegations, as a group, have been acknowledged and validated by the ombudsman and by Mr. Berger. Mr. Berger's report tells a deeply troubling story of events at the school. The terrible consequences for the students and their families did not end when they left the school. Their suffering continued, and continues still.
The government recognizes that the consequences of abuse affect us all. They have an impact not only on the justice system, but on all aspects of our society. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated series of events. The inquiries into Mount Cashel in Newfoundland and Grandview in Ontario are by now well known. As well, the RCMP investigation of abuse at federally mandated Indian residential schools in B.C. warns us that other, similar situations may yet be disclosed.
The events described in Mr. Berger's report and elsewhere should never have occurred. There is no excuse or justification for what happened. The victims bear no responsibility for events over which they had no control. We regret that they were exposed to these terrible experiences; we regret this especially because they were young and vulnerable children. It took great courage on their part to come forward and disclose the abuse they endured.
Government acknowledges its responsibility to ensure the care and well-being of children in its care. Government also has a responsibility to provide the appropriate means for early detection of the circumstances of abuse, effective intervention should it occur, and support to facilitate the healing process for survivors of sexual and institutionalized abuse. Accepting this responsibility also means that we will help victims and their families heal the wounds of the past and prevail over the pain that was inflicted upon them.
The province was responsible for the care and well-being of these people when they were children. To the extent that the province failed them, we must see that they are now compensated. As a society, we must explore new ways of repairing the harm that this abuse caused and that continues in the lives in the victims.
Mr. Berger's report offers a model crafted to be sensitive to the needs of these sexual abuse victims. Primary among his recommendations is his proposal that the province establish a compensation scheme for individuals who were sexually abused at Jericho Hill School. The government accepts and endorses this recommendation. A panel will be established to review claims and to award compensation where appropriate. The process Mr. Berger recommends, which the government accepts, is an informal, non-confrontational process that will not require the claimants to repeat their stories over and over again or to see these stories reported in the media.
In our view, establishing this panel will provide a more accessible avenue to redress than a court review would, and it will save victims the emotional strain and energy required to pursue what can be a long and involved procedure in court. The panel will have the power to compensate individual former Jericho Hill students for pain and suffering, according to the severity of abuse, up to an amount of $60,000. We will also provide claimants with assistance in presenting their cases to the panel. The panel should be in operation by early 1996.
But healing involves more than just the payment of financial compensation. In order to maintain the trust of the survivors of abuse, we will continue to provide timely and sensitive counselling services to all people who were sexually abused in provincially funded or operated residential facilities through the residential historical abuse program. In fact, we anticipate that the funding and services for this program will be expanded. We are also asking staff to meet with the deaf community to discuss the provision of services to that community and how those services can be enhanced. The government hopes that by providing compensation benefits and therapy services, we will help empower the survivors to continue the healing process and to escape the isolation their experiences have imposed on them.
It is vital that we learn from the past. To ensure that students are protected in the future, the government has put in place improved standards of care for children residing at Jericho Hill. Since May 1994, substantial improvements have been made, including training for staff on child care and on the reporting of abuse, establishing a parents' advisory committee, the introduction in the '94-95 school year of a deaf social worker as a permanent resident staff member, and requiring in-house communication training for hearing staff in American Sign Language and for deaf staff in written English. The government is also moving ahead with plans for new cottage-style residences closer to the new provincial school in Burnaby.
The deaf community and the many people they work with provided vital support for addressing these issues. I want to acknowledge the efforts and support of the many individuals and organizations, in addition to the ombudsman, who have worked to overcome the consequences of this abuse. The Jericho Hill intervention team interviewed students and staff and concluded that abuse had taken place dating back to the 1950s. The team has also provided counselling services under the residential historical abuse program to about 150 former Jericho Hill students. The deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind well-being program has played a key role in coordinating services for members of the deaf community and their families, and the deaf access office has acted as a single point of contact for those affected by abuse at Jericho Hill. This occasion also gives me an opportunity to make an additional announcement that is long overdue. Language is one of the most important definers of culture around the world, and British Columbians express themselves in a diversity of languages. For many years, deaf culture has been expressed in American Sign Language. It is clear that ASL is a real, whole language. It is fitting today that I can announce that the government formally acknowledges ASL and its importance to the deaf community and culture.
I believe that a coordinated and sensitive government response at all levels will help bridge the gap in trust experienced by survivors of sexual abuse at Jericho Hill. Government takes seriously our responsibility to ensure the well-
[ Page 16321 ]
being of children in our care. We are determined to do all in our power to prevent abuse from happening in the future and to speed the healing process where it has happened in the past.
I ask leave to table this "Report of Special Counsel Regarding Claims Arising Out of Sexual Abuse at Jericho Hill School."
Leave granted.
J. Dalton: Firstly, I would like to welcome the representatives of the deaf community and, of course, the representatives both here and in Vancouver of Jericho Hill School. I thank the Attorney General both for the statement he has just made in the House and for the tabling of the report. I would like to thank him as well for the briefing we received this morning on this report.
Certainly there's no question that Mr. Berger's report is welcome. The recommendations he has made in the report are very positive; the Attorney has given us an outline of those recommendations. Even though we cannot comprehend in any way the hurt, injury and humiliation that those people have suffered over the years, if in some small way Mr. Berger's recommendations will help to alleviate that pain, then of course we are all much the better for it.
Unfortunately, as we see in an account in today's Vancouver Sun -- the Attorney General made reference to it -- this problem that Mr. Berger has researched and brought recommendations forward for is far too commonplace in our society, and, unfortunately, is true right across this country. We see evidence from investigations in this province, New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories. I hope that we all are learning something from this. I think we are. But we must be ever vigilant as to the background in our society that would even give rise to this. Though we could never think of such hurt and humiliation, the fact is that it has happened, and we must try to prevent it ever happening again.
[2:30]
As far as the recommendations themselves are concerned, as I said earlier, they are very welcome; they are very positive. We are pleased that the province has accepted responsibility -- as well it should -- for the Jericho Hill problem. We are pleased to see the compensation scheme that Mr. Berger has placed in this report. We are certainly pleased that the panel that will be put together to take this compensation scheme forward will, as the Attorney General said, be an informal process, so that these people do not have to go through the unpleasant experience in a courtroom situation of having to testify again to something that they have too many times had to talk about.
We're also pleased to see in the report that therapy will continue to be provided for victims of sexual abuse. There will be preventive measures taken at the school and residence -- guidelines for children and staff -- dealing with privacy, safety, staff training and other items that are documented in the report. I'm also pleased to see that a recommendation has been brought forward by Mr. Berger that the province should, in consultation with the deaf community, consider means of providing interpreters for medical purposes; sign language training for parents, professionals and staff at Jericho; improved interpreter training; and training for more interveners.
Without question, we are pleased, even though the circumstances leading to the report give us no pleasure. We are pleased that Mr. Berger has produced this report, and I want to thank Mr. Berger for that. I want to thank the Attorney General for bringing this report forward and the government for taking the initiative to produce this report. In particular, of course, we must extend our best wishes to the people who have suffered, to the deaf community and to everyone at Jericho who has been impacted by these circumstances in some way.
R. Neufeld: On behalf of the B.C. Reform caucus, I rise to respond to the ministerial statement of the Attorney General in regard to Jericho Hill School. First of all, I would like to welcome those from the deaf community who are in the galleries, those who are witnessing this on TV in their homes through the interpretation process and those who are in the Attorney General's ministry office in Vancouver. This is obviously a day that many people who have lived through this process are, sadly to say, glad is finally here, because there is some recognition, as the Attorney General spoke about earlier.
Thomas Berger has produced a good report. I thank the minister for briefing us on it. It brings to light some of the things probably many of us think will never happen to us or will never touch us. But when we are elected to office to represent all kinds of constituents across the province, it comes a little closer to home. The sexual abuse that took place for many years in that school is real and unacceptable. We just cannot believe the extent of some of it and how long this abuse went on for. To those people whose lives have been affected dramatically, and there are many, we send our sincere condolences and our thoughts are with you.
We commend the government for accepting responsibility and the Attorney General's department for setting up the panel to hear the complaints, and for having brought forward a compensation scheme that will in no way compensate these people for what they have gone through, but which is at least something. We apologize to those people on behalf of British Columbians for what has happened to them. The remedies that are in place are many. It's another good move by government. The government should be commended for the enhancement of services and the therapy program, and for recognition of ASL, the American Sign Language.
I thank the minister for bringing forward the report in this session so that we can deal with it, and I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to it.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement, and also I offer my welcome to those who are here today.
The kind of abuse covered in this report is perhaps the most terrible because it is perpetrated by people who are in a position of trust. I congratulate the government in the action that it has taken today. However, I did not hear much about the abuser in the comments of the Attorney General. Furthermore, we need to know that swift and firm action will be
[ Page 16322 ]
taken against those people found to be perpetrators of such abuse and that they will be brought to justice.
If there is to be compensation -- and indeed there should be compensation -- we have to recognize that while the government perhaps created the venue within which abuse occurred, they were not the perpetrators. Those perpetrators must be brought to account and must be responsible for paying those people who receive that compensation. We need to know who they are and where they are, to make sure that those people cannot ever again be in a position of trust where they may continue to perpetrate such abuse. I hope that challenge is one that this government is prepared to take up, and I hope that's a challenge this society is going to hold them to -- this government or any future government that may come forward.
Hon. B. Barlee: It is my distinct pleasure to table the audited financial statement of the British Columbia Heritage Trust for fiscal year 1994-95. All members are certainly welcome to peruse this particular statement.
Hon. E. Cull tabled the 1995 annual report of the auditor general in accordance with section 10 of the Auditor General Act.
SEVERANCE PACKAGE FOR ENERGY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN
G. Campbell: The very first promise the NDP made was that there would be no special deals for friends and insiders. We now have confidential information about another sweetheart deal to an NDP insider. Dick Gathercole was first given $100,000 a year for the so-called B.C. Energy Council, and he was then paid for nine months after the council was axed. We now have a confidential document that shows there was a $130,000 severance to the NDP's good friend Dick. My question to the Premier is: can the Premier explain why his good friend Dick Gathercole received a $130,000 payoff for only two years of work?
Hon. A. Edwards: When Mr. Gathercole became the councillor for the B.C. Energy Council, he was hired at the level of a deputy minister. So when the B.C. Energy Council's work was ended and Mr. Gathercole had no job left, he was treated in the same way that other deputy ministers are. That is exactly the package that he accepted.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: Looking at the picture in this pamphlet, it doesn't look anything like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; it looks an awful lot like the Premier of the province, who said that there would be no special deals for his friends or for insiders if he was elected. Dick Gathercole, who is a good friend of the Premier's, has received almost $400,000 of B.C. taxpayers' money for just two years' work. While the average B.C. family's take-home pay has been going down every year that this government has been in office, this government has been using tax dollars to pay off NDP friends. How can the Premier justify to working families in British Columbia paying his friend Dick Gathercole almost $400,000 for just two years of work?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the minister has made it very clear that Mr. Gathercole was treated as a deputy minister is treated.
I find it ironic that the Leader of the Opposition is making an issue out of special deals for special friends. I saw $2.4 million of city contracts go to the Leader of the Opposition's campaign treasurer, campaign chair....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Hon. Premier, hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions and seek answers.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. It is not within the Chair's ability to force a member to respond. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
Please proceed, hon. Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Not only did the $2.4 million go to the Leader of the Opposition's treasurer -- the equivalent of a brother-in-law -- but when the staff objected, he directed, in two memos, that those contracts continue. I would like to see that behaviour considered under our conflict laws now, hon. Speaker. Then he awarded a monopoly travel contract to George Taylor, who has contributed to his campaign and whose phone banks he has used on at least four occasions. This Leader of the Opposition should look in the mirror about his own behaviour.
D. Jarvis: Well, Dick Gathercole's NDP pedigree has been very lucrative to him, but it's been a disaster to the B.C. taxpayers. Mr. Gathercole's severance package gives this NDP hack the opportunity to buy additional years of service to qualify for a huge taxpayer-supported pension. How can the Premier possibly justify a handsome public service pension for this NDP stalwart with just two years of service? I ask the Premier what kind of message this sends to the working families and taxpayers in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Harcourt: You can tell that the opposition have put up the white flag. They have run out of questions. All they can deal in is muck. These are questions they have asked before. They have run out of steam. They have no ideas, and the people of British Columbia have seen that very clearly today. They don't want to talk about British Columbia having the top economy in Canada or about this government defending medicare from them and their friends in Ottawa. They don't want to talk about what they do in terms of mining the Tat, clearcutting the forests of this province, blacktopping the agricultural farmland and turning Howe Street back into running the stock exchange. They just want to throw mud, and I can hardly wait for the people of British Columbia to render judgment on this opposition.
D. Jarvis: It's better than white lies. Dick Gathercole's gold-plated severance and pension arrangement is sickening to British Columbia taxpayers. The golden parachute crafted by his NDP friends not only allowed him to be paid for leave while sitting on his duff until February 1995, but now we'll be carrying this hack on our backs well into the next century.
[ Page 16323 ]
Why does the Premier of this province have such contempt for British Columbia taxpayers that he would sanction what amounts to a lottery win for Mr. Gathercole?
[2:45]
Hon. M. Harcourt: That question has now been asked for the sixth time. I think it would have been far better for the member to have got up and thanked this government on behalf of his constituents for Indian Arm Park and Cates park. That's what he should be thanking us for. He should be thanking this government for quadrupling the park space in the lower mainland, with some of the finest parks ever right adjacent to his riding. I'll tell you: this is the fourth time they've asked the same question. They are abusing question period because they have run out of ideas.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME IN COMOX CASE
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health. On February 21 of this year, a tragic incident occurred. It took two calls to 9-1-1 by Doris Ellis of Comox before a B.C. ambulance dispatcher finally sent an ambulance the four miles to her residence for this medical emergency. The second call was made 11 minutes after the first. Her mother, Lucy Gordon, passed away at home before the ambulance arrived 11 minutes after the second call. Both the Minister of Health and the Premier confessed that human error resulted in the ambulance not being dispatched after the first 9-1-1 call was made. What disciplinary action has been taken against the dispatcher, and what procedures are now in place to assure us that similar tragedies will not occur again?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll take this question on notice and provide the member with full details.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. Does the member have a different question?
L. Fox: Yes, hon. Speaker -- a new question to the Premier. Doris Ellis has asked you, Mr. Premier, for a public apology describing the dispatcher's actions and what has been done to ensure that this situation never happens again. So far, you've refused. Doris Ellis has waited four long months for a full explanation and an account of what action has been taken. Will you now take the appropriate action, do the honourable and right thing, and issue a formal public apology for the human error that delayed the emergency vehicle attention that Lucy Gordon needed so much?
The Speaker: Essentially, the question relates to the one taken on notice, hon. member. If the Premier wishes to add anything that's....
Hon. M. Harcourt: I was just going to say that it is a very serious matter. The minister responsible, the Minister of Health, is going to bring back the appropriate response for the member.
GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF CRAIG BAY PROPERTY
F. Gingell: This government continues to disregard the advice and counsel of its most senior public servants. Treasury Board recommended spending no more than $3 million to settle the Craig Bay land dispute, yet this NDP government paid $7.8 million. Apparently the price tag for this NDP government's pride and inability to follow any expert advice is almost $5 million. To the Premier: by what right does the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture commit the taxpayers of British Columbia to an additional $5 million for this policy of land appeasement?
Hon. E. Cull: As the chair of Treasury Board, I'll answer this question. We did indeed take expert advice. The members of Treasury Board staff who had suggested the original price are not independent appraisers. An independent appraisal was sought in May of this year, and we paid fair market value for the land.
PREMIER'S REMARKS CONCERNING TREASURY BOARD STAFF
F. Gingell: Last week the Premier belittled Treasury Board staff by calling them bean counters, because they had the common sense to question this precedent-setting, inflationary Craig Bay settlement. The Premier smearing the reputation of Treasury Board is a serious and unusual occurrence. To the Minister of Finance: as chair of Treasury Board, you must see this as a personal affront. I've been waiting in vain for a rebuttal from her. Or does this minister share the Premier's opinion on the advice and incompetence of Treasury Board staff?
Hon. E. Cull: I have the highest regard for Treasury Board staff, as I do for all employees who work for this government. In fact, I regard them so highly that I take their advice when they say: "Seek an independent appraisal."
POLLS RELATING TO ADOPTIONS BY SAME-SEX COUPLES
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The government is planning to open the door to adoption of infants by same-sex couples. Can the minister tell us if the government has conducted any polling on this subject to ascertain how British Columbians feel about same-sex adoptions, and if so, would she agree to table those polls today?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I look forward to engaging in this debate later on when the bill that is before the House is debated.
DECISION RE CT SCANNER FOR NORTH ISLAND
L. Reid: For months the Liberal opposition has been calling on this government to stand up and demonstrate some leadership around the location of the CT scanner on the North Island. The regional board is unable to decide, because this minister has cancelled their committee. Now a coroner's inquest into one death has said that it might have been avoided if the CT scanner, currently sitting in a crate, was up and running. Would the Minister of Health finally show some leadership, choose a location and get the CT scanner operating, so that there are no further unnecessary deaths?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat what I said earlier: this government is committed to providing CT scanner services on
[ Page 16324 ]
the north end of Vancouver Island. When the people who live on the north end of Vancouver Island devise a health plan to tell us where it should be, we will fund it.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: That is an absolutely insensitive response on behalf of this minister. The people who are dying do not accept that as any kind of reasonable response. These individuals are travelling tremendous distances for that service, and they are being put on hold. This is the same government that talks about health care being a priority. Well, the people on the North Island do not accept that from this government today. I am asking this Minister of Health today to tell the people on the North Island and this House when the decision will be taken. Do not slough this off onto a committee. Come forward with some decision as to when they can expect that service in the North Island.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's very strange that the member opposite would characterize representatives of the communities, municipalities and people who live on the north end of Vancouver Island as a "committee." They are the representatives who will have the responsibility for ensuring design of good health care. I might expect this....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. members, we can't hear the answer to the question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess I should expect it, because this Liberal opposition does not believe that people who live in the north end have any right to design health services for the north end. They do not believe that people in any region have the right to design their health services. They believe that somehow there's some all-knowing person in this chamber who knows that. That is not true. We are going to ask the people of North Island to design this service, and we will fund it.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I call the summary of the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
R. Neufeld: First of all, I would like to thank the minister and her staff for providing the answers to many of the questions that were posed to her. I know that she just stepped into the portfolio, and of course she must have found it difficult. But I must say that the minister, as she has demonstrated before, did extremely well. It was also a pleasure to question the previous minister, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. It is not that often in one sitting of the Legislature that you can question two ministers on one ministry. It was interesting to get responses from each of them.
The issues about land, air and water are issues that all British Columbians are more aware of each and every day. We are all concerned about the quality of our environment, and we would handle the problems and situations in different ways. The government has moved in the right direction in some areas, and has overreacted in others. Certainly British Columbians will be affected by these moves, some more dramatically than others.
I believe that we must have tough environmental laws, but they must be laws that will still encourage development and jobs for all British Columbians. It may be politically appealing to some to continue to close areas of the province to development, but in the main, we must keep a careful balance for all users. With that, I would ask the minister to reaffirm to the House that she will look after the Crown leases for recreational land leases, which are frozen now, and the agricultural land leases that are also frozen at this particular time.
I think that a lot of British Columbians do not appreciate how big British Columbia's land mass is. Just to demonstrate that, we continually hear about the last pristine watershed. In my constituency, the Muskwa-Kechika set-aside area, which is to be studied for a couple of years, is approximately 53,000 square kilometres, which is about one-third of my constituency -- one-third. If you take Vancouver Island, it only encompasses about 31,000 square kilometres. They set aside an area in my constituency that is almost twice as large as Vancouver Island in total. I think, and rightfully so, that people who live in the lower mainland, in Vancouver or maybe on this particular end of the Island don't have the opportunity to go and look at the rest of the province and see just how massive British Columbia is. It is a huge province with a huge amount of resources and all kinds of pristine areas that we should keep intact forever, keeping in mind that we also need some development so that we can have jobs for young people, and so that we can continue to enjoy the services we do today.
M. de Jong: I would echo the initial remarks of my colleague from the Reform Party insofar as acknowledging the efforts of the minister, under very difficult circumstances and within a very short period of time, in appearing to answer a whole range of questions. It is certainly a ministry that crosses the ambit of governmental activities and environmental concerns throughout the province. Much has occurred within the ministry, not the least of which was the change at the very top, prompting one of the participants in the debate to comment that, insofar as the change of ministers is concerned, it was the best of times and the worst of times, but not necessarily in that order.
Nonetheless, in our debate during the course of the estimates, I tried to.... I think the minister was also a willing participant in the debate that we had concerning the need to set measurable objectives wherever public funds are being expended. It's no less true in the case of environmental policy and environmental action on the part of the government. I was pleased, in reviewing.... I should also acknowledge the efforts of some of the minister's and the previous minister's staff in providing briefings. I was pleased to see a discernable difference in some of the documentation, some of the strategic planning that has been undertaken within the ministry, from documents of three, four or five years ago. There is an attempt being made to set objectives, to employ things like critical success indicators and some that measure service delivery times. Some of that is beginning to appear.
[ Page 16325 ]
[3:00]
The minister has acknowledged that there is still a long way to go, and I am going to encourage her -- I tried as best I could during the course of the debate to encourage her and ministry staff -- to embark down that path all the farther. The reason it is so significant is that the government has purposely and, I think, in many instances, positively embarked upon an aggressive environmental legislative agenda. That has necessarily resulted in a whole new range of obligations being placed on staff within the ministry. That will work if the ministry is able to redirect and concentrate its efforts and prioritize in a way that will allow for meaningful action to be taken.
When the ministry embarks on things like recycling programs, the first program.... I think it's essential -- and this was the message that I tried to bring home to the minster -- that the ministry set those objectives for itself. Before embarking upon these waste management programs, it must set the objectives for itself and the criteria by which those programs are going to be measured, so that we can determine whether or not the funds are being expended in a way that actually reaps some positive reward for British Columbians.
It's no longer sufficient for us to simply say: "Yes, we think we're doing a good job." The taxpayers want us to be able to demonstrate that we're doing a good job. That's all the more important in the environmental field, where, as I say, this government has played an active role in initiating an aggressive legislative agenda. The follow-up for the ministry is to be able to convince opposition MLAs -- but more importantly, British Columbians -- that they're getting a good return for their dollar. I hope that the minister will follow through on her commitment to ensuring that that is the case and demonstrating that that is the case.
Hon. E. Cull: I too would like to say a few thank-yous as I start my wrap-up remarks. I do want to thank my critics and the other members of the House who came into question me on my estimates. They were incredibly tolerant of the fact that I've only been in this position since early May, and I thank them for their understanding of that.
I also, though, want to give credit to and acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, because it was his leadership and vision that drove a lot of the positive initiatives we were able to talk about with great pride during the estimates. I think it's easy and convenient for me, as the current minister, to stand up and participate and take credit for some of those actions, but clearly the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin had a lot to do with the very positive outcome that we were able to have during the debates.
Finally, I do want to acknowledge staff in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. They do excellent work, and they work under very challenging conditions. We have given them tremendous new responsibilities, but we have not given them tremendous new resources to deal with those responsibilities. Instead, we've asked them to prioritize, to reorganize and to assist us in meeting our goals without having to violate our budget restraints.
I want to go back to the beginning of the debate on the budget estimates. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin started by pointing out something I take every opportunity to comment upon -- maybe that's because of my dual responsibilities right now as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment. That's the fact that we have the best credit rating in the country and also the best environmental rating. I stress that this is no coincidence. The fact that we have got an AA+ credit rating is the result of the best job creation record in the country, the highest level of business investment in the country, a 20 percent increase in investment, and one of the strongest economies in North America over the last number of years.
The Minister of Small Business, who can never resist the opportunity to talk about his portfolio, has just handed me an article out of today's newspaper, which talks about the small business boom here in British Columbia. Last year retailers posted a sales gain of over 45 percent from the previous year.
An Hon. Member: Let him speak.
Hon. E. Cull: One of the members opposite says let the Minister of Small Business speak. We only have seven minutes for this wrap-up debate -- that would certainly not be enough for my colleague.
Hon. Speaker, this is a serious matter. We have the best credit rating in the country because we have a dynamic economy, and the financial houses which have rated our budget and our economy have been impressed by the way that we have managed our economy and by our ability to meet or beat our benchmarks.
That has gone along with the best environmental rating of all the provinces. We have an A minus from the World Wildlife Fund primarily for our parks and protected-areas strategy. We've created over 100 new parks in the last number of years. We are well on our way to meeting our commitment of protecting 12 percent of B.C.'s representative ecosystems. We have dealt with those contentious issues, which used to tear this province apart, on a valley-by-valley basis through the CORE process and the protected-areas strategy. Instead of trying to pit those who care about the environment against people who depend on our natural resource sector for jobs, and instead of forcing us to choose which ones we're going to go to, we have brought people together around the table.
I'm not saying that it has been easy; I'm not saying that there's been 100 percent consensus. But there has been tremendous progress over what we saw taking place in this province only five years ago when I first joined this Legislature. I would like to think that the environmental credit rating, as I refer to it, is not only in recognition of our land use policies but also in recognition of the fact that we've brought in the toughest pulp mill emission standards in the country. We have the toughest standards when it comes to the protection of our ozone layer, and we have the toughest standards to protect riparian rights for streambeds and to protect our fish -- that very important environmental and economic resource for this province.
As all good students know -- and maybe because I'm a parent of a student and the report card is coming home tomorrow afternoon -- you can always improve on your marks. There is work that we can to improve not only our AA+ credit rating but also our A-minus environmental rating. We are continuing to work on a number of very important issues.
Recycling: getting the household hazardous wastes out of the waste stream, out of the storm sewers, out of our streams
[ Page 16326 ]
and creek beds and into a recycling program through the paint care initiative.
We continue to work on our clean air strategies to make sure that we bring to British Columbia the toughest automobile emission standards possible, that we look at what's happening in other parts of North America, and that we bring similar or tougher standards here to make sure that we avoid the 2,800 preventable deaths that studies tell us will result and the over 30,000 additional hospital admissions that will occur if we don't clean up the air in the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland. As the member said, there's more work to be done on a number of environmental issues, most of which we canvassed.
The opposition gave a bit of a mixed message during this debate. They raised many important issues, but their leader has said that one of their priorities will be to reduce environmental standards, not to maintain them or to increase them. Their leader questioned the amount of parkland that we have protected on Vancouver Island and said it is too much. I think it is unacceptable that the opposition would take us back to the old days when it was jobs versus the environment instead of jobs for the environment.
I think it's clear -- and I do want to end my remarks on a personal note -- that those of us living here in Victoria or in the greater Vancouver area enjoy one of the highest-quality and best parts of North America. The Georgia Basin is a very desirable place to live, from both an economic point of view and an environmental point of view, but it's a very fragile environment. We have an opportunity to do something that most other cities in North America don't have a chance to do. They never had the opportunity to protect their environment, because they didn't have the quality that we do, or they squandered it years ago. We still have the chance to make the right choices, not only for ourselves but for our children, so that we can leave our kids a cleaner environment than we inherited ourselves. We can make sure that we maintain high-quality air, that we clean up our water, that we protect green spaces and biodiversity in this province so that our children and our children's children will have the opportunity to enjoy what we have been so privileged to enjoy as citizens of this area.
I now call the wrap-up debate on the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
R. Neufeld: Before I start, I would again like to take this opportunity to thank the minister and her staff for answering many of the questions that were put forward during the debates. Generally speaking, we had some very good discussion around quite a few areas that are very important to all of us in British Columbia, not only for those living in the south but also for the people living in the north and in the Kootenays.
Upon dealing with the Columbia River downstream benefits, it obviously became a very big issue with this government. They included $250 million in the budget from the Columbia River downstream benefits -- wrongly, I think -- to balance the budget, and this minister had to defend the reasoning for the inclusion of the $250 million from some supposed deal they thought they had.
The minister also had some difficulty justifying the cost to generate electricity out of the three dams in the Kootenays from the Columbia Basin Trust Act: the Waneta, Keenleyside and Brilliant. It became very obvious that those costs are going to be much higher than what we are experiencing now, and all British Columbians will pay the price.
The minister was also very elusive about the water levels in Williston Lake and the effect of dropping the water levels to the 2,150.... It will have a dramatic effect on the community and the jobs in Mackenzie.
We dealt extensively with the oil and gas industry, the difficulty that the oil and gas industry is having with operating in the north, and some of the new rules and regulations in place that make it that much more difficult. In fact, I just received a letter from CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, that says the cost of doing business in British Columbia is getting so high that they're not sure whether they want to continue to do the work they have been doing here. That's unfortunate for all British Columbians and especially for those young people who work in that industry.
It was also evident that the mining industry is moving out of British Columbia, and has been moving out for a long time, to other areas of the world where a lot of the environmental rules and everything else are a lot more competitive, and where people can go and make a living and have a job.
It was unsettling to hear the remarks of some of the members of the government. This was not the minister, but one of the members from the Cariboo, saying: "We don't care about the mining industry. They can leave British Columbia for all we care, because the minerals will still be here, and we'll have them forever." That's reprehensible to say those words about an industry that supplies what it does in British Columbia.
[3:15]
D. Jarvis: We in the opposition spent close to 13 hours asking questions of the Minister of Energy in her estimates. The minister and her staff were quite open and cooperative. However, throughout the estimates, it was a great exercise in futility, as far as we're concerned, to try to understand the mind-set of this government towards the resources in this province. Regardless of the fact that we are all concerned with our future, our environment and our resources, roadblocks were continually being brought forward that are impairing this province's resource production.
Personally, I believe that processes such as CORE and land use planning that are used for the more visible resources, such as agriculture and forestry, really should not be applied equally to the hidden resources -- in other words, those below the ground. It's obvious to all except this government that you can't continue to handle mineral resource extraction and exploration in the same manner as you do logging. The mineral is hidden, difficult to find and expensive to assess. You just can't plan your exploration or extraction under existing land use processes, without a separate land use policy for mining.
The other aspect is the continual enforcement of rules and regulations pertaining to both the environment and mineral tax departments. Perhaps "enforcement" is not the word; perhaps "unusual, harsh application of the rules" is what should be used. The perception in the industry is that these
[ Page 16327 ]
agencies are there to penalize the industry and not to assist them. The lack of cooperation between the government agencies and the industry is so evident that there is absolutely no trust there at this time. This does not bode well for the future of mining in the province.
With respect to the energy field, it is the feeling that there's a lack of openness by the government for doing business, unless it is through B.C. Hydro. The restrictions and assessments to produce power in this province are high-handed. It's not conducive to the benefit of the B.C. consumers, be they residential or industrial. Hydro is being used as a cash cow in this province, to no one's benefit other than a cash-starved government. Gas and electricity prices are falling everywhere except for the benefit of British Columbians. Special levies and hidden taxes appear to be the norm, rather than open encouragement to a relatively old industry with new technology that would bring further benefits to British Columbia.
I'm very reluctant to say it, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has really not served the constituents in this province as she should have over these past four years. It's obvious from the estimates that a smoke-and-mirrors socialist policy has taken precedence in this ministry. We thought the '72-75 Barrett government was bad; this government will go down as one of the worst in the history of British Columbia.
This ministry has been systematically emasculated to the point where its major revenue branches in Energy have been taken away and put into other ministries. As well, decisions on mining are now ostensively handled through the Ministry of Environment. Rules and regulations are continually appearing from this ministry that give the perception that there are heavy-handed restrictions through land use. There is encroachment by principles.... We see the loss of tenure and compensation through new laws, and we have an industry compromised and in limbo due to unsettled native land claims.
Regardless of what the minister says, the attitude throughout this province about exploration and development is being eroded through a philosophical bent of this government. The minister and her government are not advocates for mining, and they do not understand the changing principles of the energy industry. The time is here to set fair rules, rules that create a better business climate for this province. The resource industry says to the government: "You can set the rules, but you can't be the referee too." This province requires a program for economic growth, and we hope this government will soon realize that position.
Hon. A. Edwards: I want to begin by thanking my officials. The ones who were in the House while we did our estimates, of course, do not participate in the debate -- the sparkling debate, samples of which have been given for us today and which involve us all with such great interest -- but they sat through 13 hours of estimates. I'd like to thank them for their very good work and also the other staff who worked with the rest of us, although they weren't in the House.
Again, I'm just going to put a couple of things on the table. This ministry, which is small, does account for 9 percent of provincial government revenues. It accounts for 5.6 percent of the gross domestic product and more than 13 percent of British Columbia's exports. We are dealing with something important when we deal with energy, mines and petroleum resources in British Columbia.
There are several things we talked about during estimates that I think were most important, and one of them was the B.C. Energy Council. I believe that I spoke about this more than the others because it's all good news. I talked about the Energy Council bringing it's report in, and how our ministry responded on May 31 of this year. Of the recommendations that the council put forward, we have already accepted more than three-quarters of them and have already started acting on half of them. It is not just my ministry that's done that. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is doing it with the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, which is now being worked around the province.
We have an electricity market structure review, which we did talk about somewhat, although not to any great extent. The Utilities Commission is assessing the opportunities that we have for allowing independent power producers into the power mix in our province, which also allows them to get into the export market. Their report, which will come in mid-summer, will allow us to bring out that policy.
I talked about the clean vehicles and fuels program in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and also the AirCare program in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. These programs are part of what the Energy Council talked about. There is the B.C. Power Smart program, where energy efficiency and demand-side management is becoming more and more important. Of course, the very specific parts of doing that under the B.C. 21 Power Smart program across the province and the community-based energy efficiency program that my ministry has a particular part in.... We expect that the legacy from this program will be a long-term understanding and a revitalization of people's interest in energy saving and in water saving. You can't do one without the other, it seems. We will be making an impact on 83,000 British Columbia homes under this program.
As well, we talked a bit, although not enough -- I wish we could talk more about these positive things -- about the infrastructure programs, where 3,000 commercial and residential properties in British Columbia will be provided with natural gas services because of the extra boost we were able to give them under the infrastructure program. I talked a bit about the national energy code, where we are attempting to get energy standards improved, get them even better, so that we will be more energy-efficient and people will be saving more money because of energy efficiency not only in their homes but also in their businesses, and perhaps industry will be joining as well.
We have a new energy standard for residential buildings that is providing consumer savings of up to 25 percent for every house that meets these standards. We are continuing to obtain public input on new standards for British Columbia on a broader scale. We are doing another review of the code. We're going to be introducing even more standards and implementing a program that ensures that we have the workers to implement these standards. These people will know how it's done, and it will happen. We'll have an estimated 10 percent saving for the average new house and 7 percent saving for new commercial buildings -- I'm talking about new buildings. This is an important increase. You can always make a bigger saving on a renovation or a retrofit.
We talked a bit about B.C. Hydro's request for proposals -- another recommendation of the B.C. Energy Council. With
[ Page 16328 ]
those proposals we will be able to make a contribution, we hope, to the better and more efficient generation of electricity. We talked about the fact that a number -- I believe five -- of the submissions were demand-side management proposals, whereas 43 were supply-side proposals. This request for proposals and the kind of activity that it engendered will give a huge boost to independent power producers and to people who want to look at what they can do for energy efficiency. As a result, our whole system is becoming more efficient and better for all of us.
We talked about the electric systems operation review. This was directed by government to B.C. Hydro; B.C. Hydro came back, and we responded to their report. They have now been given some direction to take some follow-up steps, which again will make for the continuing public input process that was so useful for the systems operation review. As well, we will be addressing some information gaps, so we will know better how our systems work in British Columbia.
We talked a lot about the Columbia River Treaty. Of course, we have continued to talk about that as we continue to do the work that we have to do to search for a resolution on that issue.
I don't want to end without talking somewhat about mineral strategies and the fact that we now have a working Advisory Council on Mining. Even in this year's budget we continue to have a $2.5 million Explore B.C. program, and the prospectors' assistance program continues at $500,000, with miners applying for up to $10,000. There have been grants allocated to 68 prospectors this year already. Mineral exploration was up 41 percent last year, with every indication that it will continue at that higher level.
We talked about, and I was certainly proud to announce, a number of new, reopened and existing mines. We're up to 23 major mines in British Columbia now. We have worked with the mining companies that are doing that. We had a significant infrastructure announcement at Quinsam mine near Campbell River, where a special financial arrangement with the government allows Quinsam Coal and Marubeni Corp. of Japan to work together for a significant expansion of production at Quinsam Coal, at a time when the market for coal is increasing significantly in the Pacific area. We opened the first mine in western Canada in six years at Eskay Creek this year. We will have new goldmines at Quesnel River. We will have the Bralorne mine reopen after many years of being closed. We expect to see coal being produced at pre-1992 levels, with prices up and everything going well.
There were many things to talk about -- many good things. The Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry is working hard to see that we continue to have excellent resource industries working in this province.
Hon. E. Cull: I call the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services in Committee A, and in this House, committee stage on Bill 33.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 33; D. Lovick in the chair.
[3:30]
On section 1.
F. Gingell: With the agreement of my friend from the Reform Party, I would ask that we deal with sections 1 through 4, which all deal with the Motor Fuel Tax Act. I wonder if the minister, for the purpose of getting it recorded in Hansard, could briefly describe what's accomplished by these amendments.
Hon. E. Cull: The first section explicitly imposes a tax liability where coloured fuel is used for unauthorized purposes. Persons who use coloured fuel for an unauthorized purpose are required to pay a tax equal to the difference between the 3 cents per litre that is applicable to coloured fuel and the 11 cents per litre that is payable on clear fuel. This tax, obviously, is in addition to the tax that is already paid on the coloured fuel, so the total tax is equivalent. The main thing around it is to deal with abuses where people buy coloured fuel, but for a purpose that is not authorized. So it's to prevent anyone from getting a competitive advantage by using coloured fuel in that fashion.
Section 2 adds a subsection to part 5, and it establishes that collectors who import or otherwise acquire fuel for sale in the province are required to pay a security to the director in an amount equal to the tax that would be payable on that fuel if it were sold retail. The major oil companies are appointed as collectors.
Section 3 is consequential to establishing new subsections under section 1 of the bill to explicitly impose a tax liability where coloured fuel is used. It corrects a cross-reference. There is an inaccuracy in the act right now, so it corrects a cross-reference to section 13 of the act, clarifying that only contraventions of subsections 13(1), (2) and (3), which establish unauthorized uses of coloured fuel, are offences under the act.
Section 4 is another consequential amendment, to establish the system of security payments under section 2 of the bill. It authorizes making regulations to prescribe the method, conditions or requirements for collecting and remitting security payments and to prescribe different methods, conditions and requirements for different classes of persons.
R. Neufeld: I don't know whether the minister remembers or not, but I've had some difficulties in my constituency with dyed fuel; I'm speaking about one gentleman in particular. Previous to this, if a wholesaler sold fuel to someone and put clear fuel in their tank and charged them the marked tax of 3 cents -- and that's wrong, you are not supposed to do that -- and if there was an audit completed by government, what would happen is that the auditor would come in and sample the fuel in the tank. If it was not marked fuel, but the bill proved that it was billed as dyed fuel, the auditor then would go back to the distributor and say: "You knew better than that, so now you pay the tax on clear fuel," which is 11 cents.
In effect, the government -- as a penalty, I suppose -- would receive the 11 cents from the wholesaler, and would also receive the 3 cents from the customer who bought the fuel. I know, in fact, that that is what happens -- or it did before.
This bill, as I understand it, changes that. If that same thing happened, what would happen to the seller of the fuel -- the wholesaler -- is that they would pay the difference between the 3 cents and the 11 cents. Am I correct in assuming that?
[ Page 16329 ]
Hon. E. Cull: The auditors would only assess the difference between 3 cents and 11 cents. If you are correct that there have been cases where both the 3 cents and the 11 cents have been assessed, that is not correct. It should not have been done, and my staff can investigate to see whether that has happened. This makes it very clear that if there is inappropriate use of coloured fuel, or if fuel is taxed at the coloured-fuel rate, the difference must be paid but not a double amount -- no double-counting.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. That it the way I interpreted this, so obviously that is the way it is.
Since we are dealing with all these sections, what takes place now with someone who moves fuel -- and I'm not talking about a major oil company, because there are all kinds of processes in place with major oil companies, which take care of the movement of fuel and the taxes that are applied from.... In my constituency it all comes out of Edmonton, so they are major oil companies. But we have smaller operators who will buy fuel in Edmonton and transport it into British Columbia. They have no dyeing privileges, but they sell it in British Columbia as marked fuel. What process do we use, or where in the act...?
As I say, the rest of the sections may deal with this, and maybe I just haven't figured it out. Could the minister explain how we deal with people who have no dyeing privileges who move marked fuel in the province and tax it at the marked-fuel rate of 3 cents? The fuel isn't coloured; it's clear.
Hon. E. Cull: If the person bringing the gas in or receiving the gas does not have dye privileges, they're likely not a collector under the act and should not be selling marked fuel. That's one half of the answer. The other half of the answer is that if that does happen, we can catch that through an audit both of the purchaser and of the weigh scale records.
R. Neufeld: The audit procedure, and I'm familiar with it.... I would dispute the fact that you'd have it from the weigh scale, because there's no documentation at weigh scales as to whether you have dyed fuel or marked fuel -- none whatsoever -- in the transportation of fuel products.
In the audit procedure -- in what I see laid out here -- could the person who's receiving the fuel remit to the province, on the 15th of the month after, the 3 cents a litre for the tax that should be applicable for that use? You do have that; you have people who move fuel into British Columbia and people in British Columbia who can rightfully burn purple fuel -- diesel fuel. How do they get the tax back to government? The person who's moving it from Alberta will not collect it in most cases, because they're not registered, either for dyeing privileges or for the social services tax. Is the user then able to contribute the applicable tax to government? How would that happen?
Hon. E. Cull: I guess there are a couple of things here that need to be considered. Alberta dyed fuel, if it is not dyed in accordance with B.C. requirements, is not eligible. The member is acknowledging that he does not know that. If clear fuel comes in and it is received by somebody who is not authorized to dye it for the marked rate in British Columbia, then they can't sell it at the marked rate. Since they can't sell it at the marked rate, they can't remit the taxes for marked fuel; they have to remit the taxes for clear fuel. Unless you are a collector under the act -- to be a collector, you would have to be licensed to dye the fuel -- you can't sell the fuel as if it was marked, even if it is used legitimately by end users who could legitimately buy marked fuel.
R. Neufeld: I want to tell the minister that I'm not trying to be difficult. Diesel fuel and furnace fuel are one and the same thing; it's the pour point that distinguishes them. Stove oil is different.
Maybe I'll set up a hypothetical situation that is in fact real. On the Alaska Highway, there is a lodge that generates its own electricity. For generation of electricity, you burn purple fuel or dyed fuel. That's how the process goes, and to get into that part of it, there are some taxes that they get back -- but I'm not worried about that. They burn marked fuel. Now, they have a supplier hauling fuel out of Edmonton who does not haul Alberta-dyed fuel; it hauls clear fuel out of Edmonton to that person on the Alaska Highway and puts it in his tank to generate electricity. That fuel, obviously, is clear. There's no dye in it at all, and the only difference between dyed fuel and clear fuel is the dye that's put into it. For the minister's information, for thirteen years of my life I did this, so I know a bit about the dye act. To get out of a situation where the government isn't receiving any tax, the person who receives that clear fuel and burns it to generate electricity should somehow be able to remit to the government the 3 cents that is rightfully the government's tax. How do we do that through this process? Is it another part of the act that allows that, or is it in some of these changes? Maybe that makes it a little clearer for the minister.
[3:45]
Hon. E. Cull: I should tell the member that the situation and the answers I'm about to give are not dealt with in the act. We don't change the circumstances around the example the member gave. I'm talking about the existing circumstances under the Motor Fuel Tax Act, and they continue. They are not amended by this legislation, so we're talking about the underlying legislation, if you like.
In the case that you gave, the lodge owner brings in clear fuel -- even if it is being used in a case where they can legitimately use marked fuel -- and if he buys clear fuel he has to pay the clear fuel tax. And he is required to remit 11 cents per litre, not 3 cents per litre. If he wants to take advantage of the tax break that is given for coloured fuel through particular uses, he has to buy coloured fuel or has to buy fuel from somebody who is a legitimate seller of that fuel. You can't just take clear gas, whether it comes from inside or outside B.C. and say that you are using it for a use that would allow you to use coloured gas and pay the lower tax. You have to buy coloured fuel, or buy from a legitimate seller of coloured fuel.
R. Neufeld: I guess that's the crux of the problem. We have those situations, and it's not just a lodge owner. There are lots of drilling rigs and campsites in my constituency in the north that are supplied from Alberta. The fuel is hauled in from Alberta, where some agents may have dyeing privileges for British Columbia fuel and some may not.
That process is happening. To be fair to the person, maybe we have to do something else in the legislation to allow this person to be able to do it somehow. I thought maybe it
[ Page 16330 ]
was in further sections. What you are doing is not allowing that person to be able to go out in the market and purchase fuel at the cheapest rate they can so that they can continue their business. You have to understand that those people are a little upset with government to start with, because they are not under the hydro grid system, and they have to generate their electricity with diesel fuel. It's something that we should encapsulate someplace and catch to make it easier for those people to be able to have a business. That's what I'm trying to get at, and I hoped to see that in here, but obviously it's not.
Hon. E. Cull: The amendment doesn't deal with that problem. While I understand what the member is saying about the difficulty of businesses obtaining fuel for various purposes, particularly in the part of the province that he represents, we're trying to balance two issues. There is the need to maintain the integrity of the tax system. We give a tax break for certain uses of fuel. If we don't have a way of auditing or monitoring that and being sure that those who are selling the fuel at the lower tax rate are doing so in a legitimate way, then the system is open to incredible abuse. People who buy fuel, such as in the example you have given, have the choice of buying from a legitimate B.C. seller of gas who can sell coloured fuel. Alberta suppliers of fuel also have the ability to apply to the consumer tax branch to receive a permit to sell marked fuel in British Columbia. So it's not as if this is a major obstacle or barrier that someone has to go through to have the right to sell the gas. Perhaps not everybody is aware of what they have to do to comply and to sell the cheaper gas.
R. Neufeld: I'm certainly not trying to indicate that we should change the integrity of the tax system. I know the minister has used that term before, and I'm not advocating that we should fool with the integrity of the tax system. I am saying that we should be responsive to businesses in the province so that they can continue to operate, and this is one area where there are some difficulties that we could address through legislation.
My second question goes back to section 1, where it gives the government the right to fine or collect the difference between the tax that was paid and the tax that should be paid on the fuel, depending upon its use. Did we not have this authority up until now? I think this goes back a ways. Have we not had this authority before and, if we did, under what section?
Hon. E. Cull: The amendment is being brought in because of a recent court decision which undermines our ability to make such assessments. So we're protecting the integrity of about $5 million of tax revenue.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
On section 5.
F. Gingell: Section 5 is a somewhat complicated and convoluted exercise to deal with telecommunications and the intent to have tax-free residential line charges and the remainder to be taxed. Because this is a communications exercise and so many services are rolled into one package, did the ministry consider making all of telecommunications charges for services tax-free?
Hon. E. Cull: Again, we're not trying to make any radical changes here. This bill is not being brought in in an attempt to reduce taxes; in the same way, it's not increasing any taxes. It's to deal with administrative issues with respect to the various taxes covered by the bill. This section simply provides greater legal certainty around the administration of the way we have taxed telecommunications services. The member was briefed by my staff, so I know that he has most of the background on this. But as the member is undoubtedly aware, in recent years we've seen great introduction of new technology and the like, and the existing legislation has not kept pace with the application of the tax. So this does not change the practice that has been in place; it simply provides greater legal certainty to it.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
F. Gingell: The briefing that I got from the minister's staff indicated that these changes to do with returnable and reusable containers were related to some case called the Gray Beverage case. Could the minister advise the committee if this taxation of returnable and reusable containers deals with goods other than ones that are for personal consumption? Does this deal with oil drums, for instance? Are they captured into this net?
Hon. E. Cull: They could be if the oil drums were returned and then reused, so it's any container of a product that's used by a seller to deliver the product to the end user.
F. Gingell: My memory's getting dim and it's many years ago, but when one bought 45 gallons of lubricating oil delivered in a drum, the purchaser paid for the oil and paid all the taxes on it but was not purchasing the drum. They were just putting up a deposit. In my days, it was $5, and it's now probably $30 or $35. The drum deposit was not a taxable transaction. Will this remain as a transaction that is not taxable?
Hon. E. Cull: The issue of deposits that are paid by the purchaser and the tax that is paid on the container are quite separate. Obviously the purchaser pays a deposit as an incentive to return the container, but the tax that is paid by the oil seller, in the case you outlined, is on the input to his product. It's a container that is used to carry his product to the market and back, and so he pays a tax on it the same way other products would be taxed if they were inputs into the sale of the product.
F. Gingell: Let's use a set of circumstances where the drum moves only between a manufacturer and a reseller. They don't pay any tax on the lubricating oil they purchase because it's going to be resold, taxed when it is being resold and the tax remitted. I presume that the manufacturer paid tax on the container when they acquired it. Is that the case? Was it paid at that point?
Hon. E. Cull: The manufacturer would pay tax on the container only if it was going to be returned to the manufacturer for reuse. If it is sold with the product and not returned, then no.
R. Neufeld: This is obviously a new tax, then. I don't go back as far as the member for Delta South and the $5-a-barrel
[ Page 16331 ]
deposit, but $30 was standard when I was in the business. When a customer came into my bulk plant and purchased a drum of oil, the oil was charged out with the applicable taxes on the fluid, and there was a line-item deposit of $30. There was never any 6 percent or 7 percent sales tax on that $30 at any given time. It was a deposit. The person took that drum to wherever they wanted to. Some drums were returned, and some of them weren't, but in most cases, at $30 a barrel -- and I think it's probably $40 now -- people would return them. Will the minister confirm that if it stayed the same as before, there would be no 7 percent tax on the $30? Is this now putting a 7 percent tax on that returnable container?
Hon. E. Cull: As I said, this is not a new tax. By longstanding tax application, manufacturers and sellers who purchase returnable or reusable containers to deliver their products, such as beer bottles, pop bottles and the like, have been considered to be the consumer of those containers. They are the consumers, so they pay the tax.
Oil is a bit of a foreign substance to me, so let's move down to something I feel more familiar with, say, buying pop. As a consumer, I would pay the deposit on the pop bottle. That's not the 7 percent sales tax; that's a deposit to provide some incentive, primarily for environmental reasons -- I think it's under the Litter Act -- to get the product back into the system so it can be reused. But either the manufacturer of the pop or the bottler of the soft drink would have to pay the 7 percent tax on products they consume. In this case, they are consuming a glass bottle to deliver their product to the market.
F. Gingell: I thought this was pretty straightforward when we started. We're saying that Safeway is selling the pop, taking a deposit on the bottle and giving the deposit back when the bottle they own is returned. You didn't buy the bottle. You only put a deposit on it and had it in your care, and then you returned it to Safeway. There isn't any tax charged on that transaction. Now, if we go back to the transaction between the manufacturer and the retailer, isn't the same true? Doesn't the bottle always belongs to the retailer? The manufacturer sells to the retailer, so there's no tax involved here. Then when it's sold to the customer, the customer pays tax on the contents and a deposit on the container, but gets their deposit back. Surely the same would apply to the manufacturer.
Hon. E. Cull: Let's try another example. We'll use the soft drink manufacturer. When the soft drink manufacturer buys bottles to put their product in, they pay the 7 percent sales tax on the bottles. When they are then sold to the retailer, there is no 7 percent tax paid. There is only a deposit paid with respect to the end user. As I said, it's an environmental levy of sorts -- a very old one, I guess; 25 years old under the Litter Act. So the 7 percent tax is paid on the bottle that is consumed by the pop manufacturer.
F. Gingell: I think if you go back and look in Hansard afterwards, that's contrary to an answer you gave us earlier on. I said that when the manufacturer buys the drum, they pay 7 percent tax on the purchase of that container at that time, and the drum always remains the property of the manufacturer and is returnable. When it's returned, they get their deposit back. Does this change to the act in any way impose a tax on used empty bottles that are moving from the retailer back to the manufacturer for refilling?
Hon. E. Cull: No.
[4:00]
F. Gingell: Then what does this do?
Hon. E. Cull: What this does is ensure that when the soft drink manufacturer purchases new bottles to put their product in, they pay the 7 percent sales tax. It deals with the ambiguity that's been left behind as a result of the court decision. Its purpose is to make sure that the existing practice is maintained -- that the original intent of the legislation and its application over many years are maintained. When they are collected from the end users and go back to that soft drink manufacturer, those bottles are not then retaxed. So it's that initial acquisition of a container or package for their product.
Sections 6 to 15 inclusive approved.
On section 16.
F. Gingell: Section 16 starts a series of sections that deal with the Tobacco Tax Act. As I understand it, this section really deals to an extent with tobacco that moves across provincial boundaries, ensuring that the taxes in fact get paid. I understand that this also arises from a court decision or case where retailers purchased from an unbranded wholesaler, who was liable for the tax they had collected and who promptly vanished on everyone.
I wonder if the minister could assure the committee that the retailer would in no way get caught having to pay the tax twice. I appreciate that the first time that it was paid, the province maybe didn't get its payment. But I wonder whether the penalty here was that the retailer could be caught paying the tax twice: once to the original vendor who didn't pay it to the provincial government, and secondly by form of an assessment.
Hon. E. Cull: Section 16 just deals with the definition of raw leaf tobacco, so maybe we could pass that section and go to section 17.
The Chair: I agree.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm just trying to keep everything neat and tidy here, hon. Chair.
On section 17, the question that the member asked was: would a retailer be in a situation where they might have to pay the tax twice? I can't think of a situation. My staff assure me that it would not arise.
What happens under what we call the precollection system we have here, to greatly simplify the horrendous administrative system we'd have to have if we didn't have this system, is that when wholesalers of tobacco products sell their product to the retailer, they include an amount in it equal to the tax that has to be paid. They remit that tax to us. The retailers, when they sell the product at the taxed price, reimburse themselves for the amount they had to pay to the
[ Page 16332 ]
wholesaler. Otherwise, we'd have literally thousands and thousands of retailers who'd all have to be on a tax remittance system. It would be incredibly complicated for many of those small retailers.
F. Gingell: Are these complications caused by the particular sections of the British North America Act or the constitution that divide the rights of provinces and the federal government to tax?
Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows, provinces can't impose an indirect tax. This makes sure that the direct tax is appropriately applied to the consumer but provides a much more administratively simple system for the retailers and wholesalers, as opposed to having it all done at the retail level, where the administration would be very problematic. It has worked well for many years as a result of the more simplified system we've put in place.
Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.
On section 20.
R. Neufeld: Just briefly to the minister. This is a question I should have asked much earlier in the bill. This section obviously deals with tobacco. If we just substituted "motor fuel," with the indulgence of the Chair, would this mean that someone who's selling from a service station -- a retailer -- has to prepay the tax to government of what their anticipated sales would be?
Hon. E. Cull: The way the system works is that the retailer, when they purchase the product from the wholesaler, pays a security that is equal to the tax. When they sell the product to the consumer, the consumer pays the tax, and the retailer reimburses himself or herself for that security paid to the wholesaler. You almost need to have three boxes so that I can draw pictures on them.
R. Neufeld: Would this change anything that happens now with retailers? This is tobacco, but it's assumed to be the same in the fuel tax, as I understand. A service station always purchases their fuel with the tax added on. Petro-Canada or Esso makes out a bill with all the taxes added on, and when the fuel arrives at the service station, the service station person just pays, carte blanche, the whole bill. This does not change any of that. It seemed to me that the person almost had to go to their records and pay into a security deposit the amount of tax they would have collected. Then once they collect the tax, they get it back. It just seemed to me to be a....
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct. This does not change anything that happens in the practice right now. It just provides greater legal certainty as a result of some court decisions that have put the whole system at question. As I said, the system is administratively much simpler the way it has been organized. We want to protect that administrative simplicity, because the alternative is really a nightmare.
Sections 20 to 30 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 33, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. E. Cull: Committee stage on Bill 44, hon. Speaker.
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 44; D. Lovick in the chair.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
F. Gingell: Section 9 gives the minister the authority and permission to set up a B.C. Securities Commission Securities Policy Advisory Committee, which I believe has already been done without the authority she has received under this act. Could the minister advise whether the announcements that were made three or four weeks ago in fact total...? Does that fill the slate? And will the members of this committee be paid?
[4:15]
Hon. E. Cull: No, the members are not being paid. And yes, that does complete the list of appointments to the committee.
F. Gingell: Subsection 8.1(2) has a fairly wide description of the matters on which you seek advice. Has the ministry developed any more detailed descriptions? If so, would it be possible for them to be made available to members?
Hon. E. Cull: The terms of reference that were developed are not any broader than what you see in the legislation. The intent is that the committee does have a very broad mandate but it is entirely advisory. The committee can make decisions about the types of things it wishes to advise the commission on. Similarly, because it is an advisory committee to the Securities Commission, the commission may ask for advice on particular matters. I have asked them to look at the implementation of the Matkin report in particular, so they are doing that. That is part of their overall responsibilities.
It's very clear that this advisory committee is not to the government, it's to the Securities Commission. I am looking for the advisory committee and the Securities Commission to develop a close relationship so that the advisory committee can be as helpful as possible to the Securities Commission.
F. Gingell: I was wondering whether the ministry had considered the advisability of allowing this committee to report directly through the commission to the minister. As the minister knows, I support the series of actions that she has taken to make changes to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and to the British Columbia Securities Commission. But all these things are a case of, think, you going in the right direction, and in a year's time we will know how successful this has been. If amendments or changes are required at that point, you or whoever is responsible would bring in such changes.
[ Page 16333 ]
Wouldn't this committee be an excellent listening post for you? They will be well aware of the issues, of the problems and of the way in which their recommendations on the matter of policy have been dealt with by the commission, and it might be a very useful tool for the ministry and minister to have in order to get a feel for how the whole process is moving along. And for them to have that right, rather than just being able to do it on a permissive basis, might be an amendment that's well worth the minister considering.
Hon. E. Cull: The main reason for establishing the advisory committee was to answer a criticism that the commission was not receiving diverse advice in an appropriate fashion, so this committee has been established primarily to advise them. But I'll note to the member that I appoint the committee, and I would feel very comfortable asking the committee to provide advice directly to me on any matter.
G. Wilson: I'm going to have to give bad news to the minister. Unfortunately, I have to leave for my constituency very shortly, and I know the minister is going to be really disappointed that I can't do a thorough, clause-by-clause debate on this. I would also like to say that I appreciate the briefing that the minister made available to my research staff; it was enormously helpful. I also appreciate the assistance of those lawyers who are involved in securities work in providing information on this.
To be quite frank, I think the disagreements we have are those in principle, and so I'm not going to belabour every section and try to put in amendments that would clearly change the intent of the bill. I want that to be on record now, so that it is not seen that we have somehow capitulated to this government if we don't debate each clause line by line.
Let me say that one of the concerns we have, and I think the member for Delta South raised it, is the question of reporting, of how this advisory committee is going to have a function to report through to the minister and of the extent to which there can be a process where the minister may use this policy advisory committee as an opportunity to have some kind of direct, unfiltered review of information with respect to how this procedure is going to work. I think the member for Delta South.... I agree with his comments that sometimes you just have to let things proceed to see how well they work, and if they don't work, then we may have to come back and make some changes.
The policy advisory committee, it would seem to me, and the structure in section 9 would be an excellent opportunity to have some kind of independent assessment or review process that the minister might be able to take advantage of. I wonder if its mandate would be broad enough to be able to provide for that, or if the minister has any concerns that because it has to be filtered through the commission because it provides advice to the commission on administrative, regulatory and legislative matters, it in fact hasn't weakened the functional part of what this policy advisory committee is all about. If the minister might tell us her thoughts on that, it might clarify her view.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure if what the member is asking is whether I'm trying to create or should have created through the advisory committee some sort of ongoing monitoring group that would not quite be a Matkin commission but would monitor the progress of the Securities Commission and report to me on a regular basis. I have to repeat: that was not the intent of this advisory committee. As I said, I appoint the committee. I think there are excellent people on this committee, and I'm sure that if they had concerns, they would bring them to me. On the other hand, I have every confidence that if I asked them to provide me with advice on what they saw happening, they would do so in a very forthcoming manner.
I want to be careful not to suggest that the Securities Policy Advisory Committee is the ongoing monitoring committee with respect to the securities industry in British Columbia. I ask the member to go back and take a look at the response to the Matkin commission and then at our six-month status report on the actions. What we are attempting to do is pull together a variety of approaches: improved legislation and regulations, new powers and tools, additional expertise at the commission, new faces at the VSE, an advisory body to the commission, more money to operate the activities of the commission, a securities fraud office, the RCMP -- a whole variety of things come together.
I have used the expertise of the Vancouver Board of Trade and some of the professional associations that have been involved with the securities industry, such as chartered accountants and the securities branch of the B.C. bar -- I don't think I've got the name right there, but it's close enough, anyway; I'm sure the member knows of which I'm talking.
What I want to do is actually focus a number of spotlights on this part of our economy and our business in British Columbia, and not just turn over the responsibility of being watchdogs to a handful of people. That is not good enough, quite frankly. They have an important role to play, but I'm not going to burden them exclusively with that job. There are many cases, many situations, where what we are attempting to do is improve accountability to the public and the investor and improve public scrutiny. That will be served through a variety of means.
I said, when we started this debate earlier, that for the foreseeable future I intend to issue six-month reports; I intend to monitor whether we are meeting our objectives. If we are not meeting our objectives, I intend to review the various measures we've taken and change them, toughen them, introduce new ones or do whatever is required.
This is an issue where it might be easy to say that we'll just do something that looks like a quick fix to fix the problem, and then we'll go away and go on to other tasks. This, as Mr. Matkin said very clearly, is more than just a technical problem; it's a problem of reputation. You do not fix a problem of reputation overnight. I think you have to be very diligent, following up month by month. That's got to be the commitment here, and we will do that as long as is necessary or until people see that securities regulation in B.C. is being run as well as or better than anywhere else.
G. Wilson: All of that is encouraging; those are encouraging words. It was interesting.... Having probably had more briefings on this bill than I have had on any other, I was asked the other night what I had learned from my briefings, and I said: "To keep my wallet firmly in my pocket." I think that's what I've learned.
F. Gingell: Caveat emptor; let the buyer beware.
G. Wilson: Exactly. Caveat emptor indeed.
[ Page 16334 ]
The last question, then, is on section 9, section 8.1. It is the question of advice on legislative matters relating to trading. Could the minister tell us if that's with respect to matters of legislation within this House, or if they're talking about, essentially, within the commission itself -- those trading regulations that may be there?
Hon. E. Cull: It's interesting what the member says he has learned through all his briefings. What I have learned is that if you know enough about the industry to provide good advice on it, you're probably in a conflict of interest, and if you're not in a conflict of interest, you don't have the expertise that's needed. It creates grave problems for those of us who are trying to bring about reform.
The legislation referred to here is indeed the legislation that would be before this House.
Section 9 approved. On section 10.
G. Wilson: I just have one question with respect to fines, where it excludes "revenue from fines referred to in section 138...." I just wondered, having looked at section 138, why that was put in there.
Hon. E. Cull: They're criminal offence fines, and this is not a change from the existing legislation.
Section 10 approved.
Section 11, section 13 approved.
On section 11, section 15.
G. Wilson: On a point of order. On section 11 we're dealing with a number of sections, as I read it -- section 13, section 15 -- until we get to section 12. So what have we passed?
The Chair: We have passed section 11, section 13, and we are now on section 11, section 15. I'm sorry; the numbers are awfully confusing -- I agree, member.
G. Wilson: Yes, they are. Just one question to the minister with respect to the hearing and review procedure in terms of the role of the executive director. I wonder if the minister might want to simply explain the role of the executive director with respect to discretion on hearing and review. It seems that the way this reads, there is considerable discretion that may in fact be exercised under part 17, section 147(3). I think it's the appropriate time to ask what that role is going to be.
[4:30]
Hon. E. Cull: This is just a new section which now allows the executive director, or what used to be called the superintendent of brokers, to request a review of the self-regulatory organization. That power was not there before.
G. Wilson: I understand that difference. The question is one of discretion and whether or not the executive director can be bound in that sense and, if so, how. Because there is nothing in the future.... In fact, in the next section it says that it may appoint.... Everything is may, may, may. What it does is provide, it seems, exclusive discretion. If we were going to change that section, why would there not be some provision for mandatory review?
Hon. E. Cull: What this does.... Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my initial answer. The executive director can ask for a review of a hearing. He may not want to call for a review in every case that there's a hearing. That's why it's discretionary.
Section 11, section 15 approved.
On section 12.
G. Wilson: I think that most of my questions on this section have actually been answered through work with others, but I just had one that it was requested we get on record. It is on sections 15.1(1) and 15.1(2). It says that "the executive director may appoint in writing a person to review the business and conduct of a self regulatory body or exchange..." and so on. Then it says if "the self regulatory body or exchange is complying, or has complied, with this Act and the regulations," and then it says "any decision made under this Act or regulations, or the charter, as defined in section 1 of the Financial Institutions Act...." What was asked was if the minister might give an example of where that act may have application. It's more specific than that if the minister needs, but I think that a general response would be suitable.
Hon. E. Cull: The charter that's referred to here is simply the constitution and bylaws of the self-regulatory organization. Section 15.1 allows the executive director to appoint a person to review the conduct of an SRO to determine whether it has complied with its constitution and bylaws.
G. Wilson: All right. I wasn't quite sure I understood that answer, but let me ask it in light of section 15.1(2). Another concern that has been expressed is the degree to which, on production of appointment, a person conducting a review may have access to premises and records, and so on. I wonder if the minister might explain that. Having read the existing regulation and legislation, I understand how we've come to this point. The concern is that there seems to be a broadening of powers here, given that there is reference to the Financial Institutions Act in terms of the bylaws of a self-regulatory body. Could the minister just tell us whether or not this is an expansion of powers with respect to the provision to enter and review records?
Hon. E. Cull: The reference to the Financial Institutions Act is only with respect to the definition of charter. It doesn't broaden it to the act; it's just using the definition of charter from the Financial Institutions Act.
G. Wilson: All right. But section 15.1(2) talks about the production of the appointment:
[ Page 16335 ]
"...a person conducting the review under this section may
(a) enter the business premises of a self regulatory body or exchange, during business hours,
(b) examine the records referred to...
(c) examine property, assets or things of the self regulatory body...
(d) make copies of the records referred to... and
(e) make inquiries of the self regulatory body or exchange, or persons employed by the self regulatory body...."
There are several questions with respect to the powers that are provided. The question that we would like the minister to respond to, so that we have a Hansard record, is whether or not she sees that as an expansion of powers -- number one. Number two, with respect to inquiries of the self-regulatory body, how can they be undertaken? Are they compulsory for those who are employed, if that individual seeks to get that information?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, it is a new power, and it deals with the recommendation that the Securities Commission conduct compliance reviews of SROs. Without this authority, we would not be able to do so. Subsection (2), essentially, gives the person conducting the review the ability to carry out the review. If they can't examine records, etc., they are not going to be able to conduct much of a review.
Now, all the security provisions of the Securities Act would still apply in this case, with respect to documents that could be viewed and all the rest of that. So it is a new power; it deals with compliance reviews. But the whole question of what a properly limited administrative search is.... It has to comply with the Securities Act overall, and obviously, I guess, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other laws that would apply.
G. Wilson: I think we ought to be a little more clear on this, because it says "make inquiries of the self regulatory body or exchange, or persons employed by the self regulatory body or exchange...." Now, when someone makes inquiries, we need to have a firm understanding as to whether or not the employee is compelled to give information to that person. Is there something in this legislation that compels that individual to provide information? Perhaps the minister might point to it. If the information is provided, what liability does that person have if the information provided is not true?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, subsection (6) provides the authority. It says that a person must not withhold, destroy, conceal, etc., the information that's needed. The second part of the question was: what is it that would protect somebody if they gave information and it turned out to be incorrect? Provided that the information has been given in good faith, with due diligence and with no intent to mislead or somehow misinform, then the individual would have conducted their duties responsibly and would not be subject to any liability. There is no onus on the person to guarantee the accuracy of the information; there is an onus on the person not to provide false information.
G. Wilson: But the concern has been expressed by employees. Let's be clear that with respect to acquiring the information that's needed, if in fact there is a reason to go in and examine, then I would argue that we need to get that information accurately provided. The concern is with respect to the employee. If the employee is compelled to provide information, and no one will "withhold, destroy, conceal or refuse to give any information, or withhold, destroy, conceal or refuse to produce any record or thing reasonably required for review under this section," the employee needs to know where their liabilities are. It may well be that information that is deemed confidential.... The employee may be put in a position by this person to be required to disclose information that superiors would not have them disclose. So there is a problem here with respect to those who are employees within the business, to the extent that they are liable if they are under this request. That's the question.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: I was a little concerned that the Clerk might be blocking the view of the TV audience. I'm sure there are people out there who are riveted to their seats at this point in the debate, and maybe there are people in the securities industry who are very interested in this exchange.
With respect to people being required to give evidence, the member's question, I think, is: can they be sued for having given such evidence? If they are required to give evidence, they can't be sued for having followed their responsibilities under the act.
F. Gingell: Am I correct in saying that these are the sections that give the B.C. Securities Commission the ability to go into the Vancouver Stock Exchange and review their actions, and this is the strong recommendation of the Matkin commission?
The Chair: The minister said: "Yes, that's correct."
G. Wilson: These questions are important with respect to those who would argue a different interpretation than the minister, and whether this is a riveting debate or not is kind of irrelevant. What's relevant is that we get something on the Hansard record. I can assure the Chair that there are many other pressing things that we could all be doing, but this is important.
I ask the question, then, with respect to records. In exercising the powers, the carrying on of "copying at the business premises of the self regulatory body or exchange" may be done, it says, "or giving an appropriate receipt" for removal of records. On the one hand, there is clearly a cost implication. One assumes that that is going to be borne by the business premises. In the second instance, it says that these records must be returned promptly. I wonder what is considered prompt, because that's a question that's also come to us from those in the industry.
Hon. E. Cull: The term here does have a legal interpretation, and it is what a rational person would consider to be prompt. But the law has not defined whether promptness is hours, days or some other determination, and it could only be determined by the court interpretation of the act.
Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.
The Chair: I believe section 15 is a multiple section; therefore I'll do them seriatim.
Section 15, sections 20 and 21 approved.
[ Page 16336 ]
On section 15, section 22.
F. Gingell: You can't do what you've not been licensed to do -- i.e., piggyback on your....
Interjection.
F. Gingell: No, that's fine, thanks.
Section 15, section 22 approved.
Section 15 approved.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper:
[SECTION 17, in the proposed section 30 (3) (a) by deleting "a person described in subsection (2) (a), (b), (c) or (d)," and substituting "a person described in subsection (2) (a), (b), (c), (d) or (f),".]
Amendment approved.
On section 17 as amended.
[4:45]
F. Gingell: A moment ago we had a discussion about the word "prompt," which clearly hadn't been defined. Other than some other changes, one of the big changes is to add the word "immediately," I think. It is a new word, and not in the print of the act that I'm looking at. Has there been a problem or has a dispute arisen with licensed dealers or brokers not reporting these items and arguing that it was an issue of timing?
Hon. E. Cull: The staff who are with me advise that they're not aware of any particular cases where timeliness or the lack of moving quickly has been a problem. But the language is new, as the member has pointed out. The intent is to make very clear that when there is a termination or suspension of a salesperson with a registered dealer, the registration of the salesperson must be immediately suspended; there shouldn't be a time delay. In the interests of protecting the public interest, very quick action on that is required.
F. Gingell: This section also brings in a requirement to report one's transgressions -- convictions, charges, indictments, bankruptcies, findings of fraud, theft and deceit -- and the appointment of receivers. Recognizing the problem that usually people who are involved in circumstances described under subsection 28(3)(b) are not quick to report them, can the minister assure the committee that the B.C. Securities Commission has a practice or process in place that ensures that these kinds of happenings -- which are normally reported through court registers and such things -- are regularly scanned on a proper basis by the Securities Commission, to ensure that they don't have to rely on people who are in difficulties to advise them?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I should point out, since this has been a little confusing, that we appear to be in section 28 under section 17. I don't know whether we've skipped over 25. I made a mistake when I said that the language was new -- "immediately." It's not new in section 25 of the act; it is new in section 28. It is related to the material changes, the requirement to report those and to take action promptly.
Because this is a new provision, obviously the Securities Commission doesn't have a scanning process in place to ensure that these notices are made in a timely manner. I'm not certain exactly what process they will put in place to give effect to this part of the act.
F. Gingell: The point I was trying to make was that people whose actions have got them caught under this section are not likely to be prompt about reporting them. It seems to me that the commission shouldn't sit back and rely on a requirement to immediately report such things as criminal convictions, bankruptcy, fraud and indictments.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct, and I'm sure the Securities Commission staff, who are undoubtedly watching this, are making notes as we speak.
G. Wilson: To the great regret of the Committee of the Whole, I'm sure, unfortunately, time will allow me only one last question before I have to spend a pleasant evening with my constituents in Powell River. That question is with respect to 28(3)(a).
An Hon. Member: You can't leave.
G. Wilson: Any opportunity to get home at this point is a welcome one, I'll tell you.
But let me say that this section, as I understand it, talks about advising an employee. One of the concerns is with respect to 28(3)(a)(iii), which says: "...the employment of the...advising employee by a registered adviser...." I guess what people are asking is what the minister has in mind there. That concern is based on several long cases -- if the minister would like, I can pull them out -- where in the past this has been problematic. The minister, I'm sure, knows what those cases are; I don't want to read them all into the record. If the minister could just explain that, it might suffice.
Hon. E. Cull: My staff advise me that the change that is made here is to ensure that the commission is advised about changes of employment, from both the employer's and the employee's points of view. If the member looks at the existing legislation, he can see that a salesperson is required to file some information. This broadens it to deal with their employment by a registered dealer or of an advising employee by a registered dealer.
G. Wilson: I'm correct, then, in receiving advice from the minister that this in fact expands that regulation requiring a broader base of information -- rather than narrowing it, as has been interpreted by some.
Hon. E. Cull: I think it is becoming a bit clearer. There is a new category now of "advising employee" that must be registered, and that's what this is capturing.
Section 17 as amended approved.
Section 18 approved.
[ Page 16337 ]
On section 19.
F. Gingell: I think that section 19, which is such a little bit, has some underlining issues that are intended to deal with problems that arose through certain previous issues to do with commercial paper. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee exactly what this accomplishes and how it brings certain transactions in.
Hon. E. Cull: The member is right. This looks like a very innocuous section because it is mostly referring to numbers and other sections, and not particularly clear unless you read the existing legislation. This makes three amendments. It clarifies that the exemption from registration applies only to an exemption from the requirement to register to trade securities, not from any requirement to register as an underwriter or as an adviser. Secondly, it implements an ombudsman's recommendation to remove the ability of issuers who trade short-term promissory notes and commercial paper to individuals without being registered. Thirdly, it removes registration exemptions related to prospecting expeditions and syndicates that were formerly set out in some other sections of the act, which are referenced here under subsection (c).
F. Gingell: Has the ministry been advised by the commission as to what this might do to their workload? Are we talking about a large volume of transactions?
Hon. E. Cull: We are not able to assess their workload, but I would point out that we have just provided significant additional resources to the Securities Commission, and I'm sure they will be able to handle any workload increase.
F. Gingell: Just to complete that, it might be noted that this will probably add to those resources that you have added.
Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.
On section 22.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 22 standing in my name on the order paper:
[SECTION 22, in the proposed section 36.1 (1) by deleting "on behalf of the issuer or security holder" after "is engaged".]
Amendment approved.
On section 22 as amended.
F. Gingell: Has there been any change in the general rules that govern the actions of dealers in what is called "cold calling" people?
Hon. E. Cull: We were just having to look back, because that's actually dealt with in section 20. I'll just point out to the member that what the amendment to section 20 with respect to cold calls does is make sure that you can't escape the prohibition by using and advising an employee or an agent to make the call. That's where the change comes about.
F. Gingell: Moving to section 22, section 36.1(2), this requires any "person engaged in investor relations activities" to clearly identify that. This deals with issues or matters that will be in writing. If these things are done by telephone or other oral communication, is there going to be a problem with a lack of proof that the communication has been made, or that the investor relations person has clearly told the person to whom they're speaking what their role in this process is?
Hon. E. Cull: This section deals with printed material. The member is talking about verbal representations, which would be very difficult to regulate in any fashion.
F. Gingell: Yes, I realize that, and that was why I asked the question. I wonder whether there is anything in the act or whether you consider that this covers the issue of verbal communications -- i.e., a person engaged in investor relations work clearly recognizes their responsibility to advise whomever they speak to on these matters of their interest.
[5:00]
Hon. E. Cull: This is a very difficult area. We are the only jurisdiction that prohibits cold calling, so we do have a bit of an improvement there.
With respect to what the member is asking about -- is there a requirement that advisers identify themselves as such through verbal representations? -- there really isn't something that can zero right in on this outside of the general prohibitions that are in section 35. The difficulty is determining what was said between two individuals.
Sections 22 to 37 inclusive approved.
On section 38.
F. Gingell: We are bringing in some statutory duties for managers of mutual funds. The management of mutual funds was covered before, so this isn't something new, but it is being expanded. When I read what was in the act and what is in the act now, I don't have a clear feeling of what you've added to it.
Hon. E. Cull: What this section does.... I won't go into the details of each subsection unless the member has more questions. But generally, section 38 adds a number of new sections to the act. Currently the act does not impose a statutory standard of care on persons responsible for managing a mutual fund. The new sections together establish a consistent standard of care for mutual fund managers, and prohibit certain related-party transactions in order to address the conflict-of-interest concerns that have been raised.
I'm trying to see if there's anything I should add at this point. No; maybe I'll just let the member continue with his questions.
F. Gingell: The act previously had sections that dealt with issues of self-dealing loans to insiders and areas that we see as conflicts of interest. Mutual funds have been, I imagine, a difficult issue for the ministry to deal with, because so many mutual funds are sold by employees of a mutual fund rather than by brokers who offer an array of mutual funds -- although I'm sure that people who sell mutual funds for one brand also have an array of different funds.
In the consideration of all the matters you looked at in determining that these were the amendments to be brought forward, were there any issues to do with the rather complex
[ Page 16338 ]
issue of the sale of mutual funds that you decided couldn't be dealt with or that you weren't able to put a rope around?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure if the member is referring to the Stromberg report, the Ontario report on mutual funds that was done recently. These amendments add in some sections that other provinces have had but that B.C. hasn't had, with respect to mutual fund regulation. But there are a number of issues raised, coming out of the Stromberg report, that the Canadian Securities Administrators -- CSA -- and the OSC is reviewing, and that we are looking at here. We have not conducted or completed our review of those recommendations. So it's quite likely, or possible, that we would consider amendments at a future time to deal with those recommendations.
Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.
On section 41.
F. Gingell: When one looks at section 41 and, if I may, section 42 as well, the powers and ability of the Securities Commission to obtain information -- to search and seize -- have been expanded quite considerably. The B.C. Securities Commission doesn't deal in criminal matters or with adjudication on the criminal issues. And their employees, who tend to be lawyers, accountants and auditors, aren't trained in the role of bailiffs or peace officers, who are used to the search-and-seize process. Does the minister have any concerns that perhaps this has gone a little far? This is one of the sections that I do have some concern about. It looks as though there's a bit of overkill in these powers. Private homes can be entered if there's a search warrant. You're talking about these actions being taken by people who have not normally been trained in that process.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, while this does expand some of the powers, what this does is ensure that the investigation powers are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So it expands the scope of where they can obtain documents but limits the purpose. The amendments are being made to make sure that the rights of individuals, subject to the Charter, are protected.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on this section, then, following the concern raised by the member for Delta South: these expanded investigative powers are modelled on what basis? Are they modelled on the Ontario Securities Commission model? Are they from recommendations of the Matkin report? I'm just trying to figure out what model we're using here to expand the investigative powers of the executive director in a very significant way.
Hon. E. Cull: I understand that it's largely consistent with other jurisdictions. I wouldn't say that it's exactly consistent, but it is largely consistent. It does place some restrictions on warrantless investigations. Where a warrant is required, all of the other protections would apply.
D. Mitchell: The new section is 125.1(1)(d), where the executive director can now require information "in respect of matters in the Province relating to trading in securities in another jurisdiction...." I'm just wondering if there are any concerns or legal opinions that the minister has about the enforceability of that section. Is that fairly straightforward? I just wonder about dealing with trading in securities in other jurisdictions. Are we going to be able to handle that and enforce it here in British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: What we're doing here is limiting the purposes. There are already some of these powers in the existing act. What we're doing is limiting the purposes that you would have. You can require this information without a warrant. As it is right now, it's wide-open. What we're doing is saying that it has to be for certain purposes under the act.
Section 41 approved.
On section 42.
D. Mitchell: Just a brief question on section 42. The minister has already referred to the balance that she's trying to achieve here. There are now certain areas where a court order is going to be required before entering a premises for searching and seizing documents, but the explanatory note to section 42 refers to the legitimate expectations of privacy and of balancing those against the requirements for a Supreme Court order. Could the minister just explain the balance that's being achieved with section 42 of this bill? This is a sensitive area. Investigators appointed under section 126 can have quite extraordinary powers. In what cases would it still be necessary to go to the Supreme Court to get an order for search and seizure? In what cases would that still be necessary?
Hon. E. Cull: They'll need a search warrant in all cases, except where the individual needs the approval of the commission to carry on business, or needs their approval to do something. This is not a change in terms of where a warrant is required; it's a narrowing of the purpose for the warrantless orders.
Sections 42 and 43 approved.
On section 44.
F. Gingell: Section 44 is the section that deals with the issue of people paying fines. I would direct the minister's attention to a newspaper item of yesterday's date -- David Baines in the Vancouver Sun -- that deals with the issue of fines not being paid. Some of these fines were assessed by the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and in one of these cases a fine was imposed by the Toronto Stock Exchange. This article, which would seem to have some validity, expresses some concern about the ability of the Securities Commission or the Vancouver Stock Exchange to actually collect the fines and assessments that they assess. I wonder if the minister would speak to that issue, as far as the B.C. Securities Commission is concerned.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, this section does not deal with the collection of fines or the ability to enforce that. It concerns something called "disgorgement." The issue the member is raising is not dealt with under this section; the legislation that applies to it is not changed.
I believe the article he is referring to just deals with the generally difficult problem, which is that you can order fines, but you may have difficulty collecting them, because this is
[ Page 16339 ]
not a court. However, eventually you could get a court order to require the fines to be paid.
Section 44 approved.
On section 45.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the amendment to section 45 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 45, in the proposed section 144 (1) (b) by deleting "securities or exchange contracts" and substituting "security or exchange contract".]
Amendment approved.
Section 45 as amended approved.
Sections 46 and 47 approved.
[5:15]
F. Gingell: I was a bit quick to approve. I thought that the changes in section 155.1 were part of section 48; I didn't realize they were part of 47.
Has there been any process in the past that has allowed taxation of fees and costs? If there has been, what has been the history of success?
Hon. E. Cull: Under the current law, if the commission determines costs and there is a belief that they are incorrectly determined, your only choice is to go to court to appeal them. What we're doing through this amendment is allowing an individual to appeal through an administrative process to have a review of those costs.
F. Gingell: The second part of the question that I asked was: what has been the recent history of appeals being made? I appreciate that it's not taxation of fees and costs that is covered here, but you said there was an appeal process before.
Hon. E. Cull: I think the Court of Appeal has suggested that such a process be put in place, I guess, because of cases that have come before them.
Sections 48 to 50 inclusive approved.
On section 51.
D. Mitchell: On section 51, we're dealing with the issue of conflicts. Section 159.3 says that where a commission rule conflicts with a regulation made by cabinet, the regulation prevails. Could the minister just comment on what this implies about the independence of the commission, when cabinet can make a regulation that will always take precedence over any commission rule? What does that say about the supposed independence of the commission?
Hon. E. Cull: What we've done is try to move the rule-making authority from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so that cabinet doesn't have to pass each and every rule that would have to be done under order-in-council. However, we've been very careful not to take away the power of cabinet to overrule or to set its own rules. So while this gives the authority to the commission, it does not take away from the authority of cabinet to change those rules or overrule them. This is consistent with some of the studies that have come out on rule-making authority, which is not necessarily the practice in some of the other jurisdictions. We've spent a lot of time discussing this with the Securities Commission and the industry, and we think that we have struck the appropriate balance between executive council responsibility and the Securities Commission.
D. Mitchell: Just one further question on this section. We also deal with policy statements in section 51. This also strikes at the issue of the independence of the commission, I think. Given what the minister has just said in response to the previous question, we're also dealing with the policy statement section under 159.5 of section 51. Again, the independence of the commission here.... I wonder if the minister could just tell us about these policy statements. What is the purpose of them? This is clearly different from a policy statement that might come forward from the minister responsible. When the minister responsible makes a policy statement, that's something that's different. What is being contemplated here is a policy statement from the commission. What's being contemplated here? Why are we dealing with policy statements in this fashion?
Hon. E. Cull: The member will appreciate this is an incredibly complex area of regulation. The commission has for some time issued policy statements that clarify or interpret various parts of the legislation, decisions or administrative practices, etc. This section clarifies that the commission continues to have that authority to issue policy statements and related non-binding instruments to facilitate the exercise of its powers.
Sections 51 to 60 inclusive approved.
On section 61.
D. Mitchell: Section 61 is the commencement clause. Could the minister advise the committee when it is contemplated that these amendments to the Securities Act will take effect?
Hon. E. Cull: There may be some provisions that could come into force immediately. But there are regulations related to the legislation, which are actually out there right now in draft form for discussion. We wanted to be able to bring the act into force along with the regulations. So when we finish the consultation on the regulations, the proclamation of the sections that they give effect to will be brought into place.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry. When you ask when, I don't know; I can't give you a precise date. But clearly, we're trying to move on this as quickly as we can, because these are all good, new tools for securities regulation in British Columbia. The sooner we get them into place the better.
Section 61 approved.
Title approved.
[ Page 16340 ]
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 44, Securities Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as amended?
Hon. E. Cull: With leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 44, Securities Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 51.
ADOPTION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 51; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
V. Anderson: I want to ask about a number of the definitions in section 1. Could the minister indicate the meaning of "direct placement," and the meaning of the phrase: "...none of whom is a relative of the child"?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Direct placement refers to the practice of a birth parent or a guardian placing a child directly with another person for the purposes of adoption. It is not considered to be a direct placement if a birth parent places a child with a relative of the birth parent for the purposes of adoption.
V. Anderson: I'm still not sure I'm any wiser than I was before with that description. What if a birth parent decides to place the child with a relative? What is the distinction between that and "none of whom is a relative of the child"? Where is that covered in the definitions?
Hon. J. MacPhail: That actually is called a relative placement. Direct placement means someone other than a relative.
V. Anderson: So you're talking about a relative, but you have not included a relative placement per se. You have just defined relative, but the relative placement can be direct, as well. Is that what you are saying?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
D. Mitchell: On section 1, I'd like to just ask about a couple of the definitions. I reference some comments made during second reading debate in principle on this bill by my colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. He talked about the aboriginal sections of the bill and what is really being contemplated here and why those sections are required. In section 1, under definitions, we have a definition of an aboriginal child. We also have a definition of an aboriginal community, which is interesting, because it says it's to be designated by the minister. I wonder, on that issue, whether or not it's going to bear any relation to "aboriginal community" as defined for any other purposes by this government. We also have a definition of an Indian band. This definition is pursuant to the Indian Act, which is a piece of federal legislation. Could the minister just comment on these definitions -- why they were required. Perhaps she could respond, at the same time, to some of the general philosophical concerns that were raised by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as to why this bill deals with aboriginal British Columbians in this manner.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Of course, we did have this debate thoroughly when we debated the Child, Family and Community Service Act, and the issues are the same. The definition of an aboriginal child is the same as the definition of an aboriginal child in the new Child, Family and Community Service Act that this Legislature passed last year. It establishes a comprehensive meaning of who is to be considered an aboriginal child under the new Adoption Act. The definition includes not only a child who is registered under the Indian Act or whose biological parent is registered under the Indian Act but also children whose parents are of aboriginal ancestry and who consider themselves aboriginal. The definition is designed to ensure that the rights given to aboriginal people under this act are extended as widely as appropriate to cover all those individuals who are or consider themselves to be of aboriginal descent, including non-status and Metis people.
An aboriginal community is defined broadly to mean any aboriginal community designated as such by the minister. This definition is designed to provide a mechanism to formally recognize certain aboriginal communities that are not considered to be official Indian bands under the federal Indian Act -- for instance, urban non-status aboriginal communities and Metis communities.
[5:30]
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for those explanations of these definitions. Just one further question. Under the definition of an aboriginal child, she referred to the fact that this would include a British Columbian who considers himself or herself an aboriginal. I wonder who would determine that. Clearly it can't just be left up to some kind of an honour system, I suppose. Someone would have to be able to determine whether a person who considers himself an aboriginal is in fact such under this act.
Under the "aboriginal community" definition that the minister just referred to, why is the Minister of Social Services being given the power to designate an aboriginal community in the province? How does that relate to any of the ongoing discussions before the B.C. Treaty Commission and the other dialogue that's taking place over land use issues, for instance, that are also defining aboriginal communities? Will they be in concert with those definitions?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I mean this in the kindest sense; I don't mean this to be cheeky at all. Just to refresh our memories, I am going to read from the debate that we had around the Child, Family and Community Service Act last year. This act -- and this includes the Adoption Act -- doesn't give any special rights beyond bringing people to the table to allow the
[ Page 16341 ]
courts to decide what is in the best interests of the child. That's all this act is about. If a person defines herself as an aboriginal, all that means is that she wants to bring her community.... In determining consent, she brings her community to the table in planning for the best interests of the child.
As you know, we have policy tables established with the First Nations Summit and also the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs where child welfare, including adoption, is an issue of policy discussions. So far, the issue is not of a treaty-making process, but there is provision later on in the act for us to allow for aboriginal communities, if they are capable of it, to provide adoption services to their own community. This definition is relevant, really, to determine the best interests of the child.
D. Mitchell: I wholeheartedly support that objective of this legislation: keeping the best interests of the child at the forefront. It should be paramount. This legislation speaks to it, and I support it on those terms.
I still have a little bit of difficulty.... I hope the minister bears with me one more time on this. A British Columbian who considers herself or himself to be an aboriginal is an aboriginal child under the definition of this act. Is there any test to determine whether someone is? I think this has an implication that goes well beyond this act in British Columbia. At this point in 1995 we are dealing with the B.C. Treaty Commission process where land claims, for instance, are being considered. I understand that's a totally separate process. But could someone who considers himself to be an aboriginal come forward with a claim against the Crown for land? I don't want to get into the ludicrous, but I think it's important to understand what tests would be used to determine whether or not someone is in fact an aboriginal. Is it simply up to the individual to consider themselves as such?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that last year we had discussions asking if it is one-sixteenth or one-thirty-second, or just if you say you are. This is not new debate, by any means. Let's just keep in mind that there are two parts to this. One is that the person has to declare himself or herself an aboriginal, and they have to have an aboriginal community in which to participate. So this hon. member declaring himself an aboriginal may be in his own interests, but he wouldn't have a community to attach himself to unless he's aboriginal, and I think the hon. member is not. So it would not be relevant to determining the best interests of the child, because there would not be a community to participate in the determination of that. It's self-declaration, but in the context of attaching yourself to an aboriginal community.
D. Mitchell: Under these definitions, could an Indian band be regarded as an aboriginal community?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, for the purposes of this act they could.
J. Tyabji: I don't want to revisit a lot of the debate we had last year, but one thing that is different this year is that we have before the House the amendment to the Human Rights Act, which is making it into a human rights code. I'm just wondering if the minister or her staff referred to the Human Rights Act before us. The reason I'm asking -- and I believe it's directly relevant to this section -- is that when we were in debate on that, we asked which would take precedence. Would this act, with its differentiation between aboriginal children and other children who are non-aboriginal, take precedence over the Human Rights Amendment Act? The minister responsible for the Human Rights Code responded that the Human Rights Code would take precedence over all other acts. The purposes of the Human Rights Code actually prevent discrimination prohibited by this code, and that would be any discrimination on the basis of race or culture. I'm just wondering to what extent, because we have the Human Rights Amendment Act before the House right now, and because this government stated clearly in that debate that the overriding concern is to eliminate discrimination and have no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of British Columbia, which is not differentiated between aboriginal and non-aboriginal.... How do they reconcile the new Human Rights Code with the definitions of aboriginal child and aboriginal community that are set up in this act, given that the minister has decided to have a definition of aboriginal child that is not under the Indian Act? By statute there's no reason to differentiate aboriginal children.
Hon. J. MacPhail: There's no conflict between this act and the Human Rights Code. Secondly, in anticipation of a subsequent question, section 15.1(2) of the Charter of Rights allows for a specific definition of aboriginal.
J. Tyabji: Isn't that specific definition for the sake of the Indian Act itself? When we canvassed this debate last year, we talked about the fact that the federal government has the responsibility under the constitution to do that designation. The provincial government should not have the ability to differentiate by statute people who aren't covered by the Indian Act. Under subsection (c) of the definition of aboriginal child, we're talking about aboriginal ancestry, which is undefined, and someone who considers himself or herself to be aboriginal, whether that's a birth parent or the child. So clearly the provincial government, under a social act, is taking the initiative to add a new definition of aboriginal that is outside the Indian Act. I don't even know if that could withstand a constitutional challenge. It seems to fly in the face of the Human Rights Code.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, we've got to make sure that this is all done in the context of understanding that it's merely one point in determining the best interests of a child. I'd also note that about 30 percent of children up for adoption are of aboriginal origin. This is very much similar to the debate we had last year. We are adopting the constitutional definition for aboriginal child and applying it to this act as a way of determining the best interests of the child. We have had a constitutional opinion saying that there is absolutely no conflict.
J. Tyabji: Has the minister been canvassing some of the other jurisdictions where there is legislation in place that specifically prohibits any kind of treatment that would be focusing on ethnicity? Actually, some other jurisdictions, such as the United States, are trying to move away from that, because they are finding bias and discrimination in the placement of the adopted children.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Our act reflects the practice and the codification in law of other jurisdictions in Canada.
J. Tyabji: Is the minister saying that in other adoption acts across Canada there's a specific provision for aboriginal children? If she is, could she direct us to them?
[ Page 16342 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Nova Scotia.
J. Tyabji: Is the definition the same, or does it make specific reference to the Indian Act and stay within the confines of that act?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Some adopt the definition of the Indian Act, and some do as we do, which is to adopt the constitutional definition.
Hon. Chair, just before we proceed, because I know the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara will ask me, I want to introduce the people who are with me. I am learning to be polite before being ordered to do so. On my left is Bernd Walter, the superintendent and assistant deputy minister responsible for family and child services; Jeremy Berland, director of family and child services; and Claire Reilly, legislative counsel with the Ministry of Attorney General. Behind me is Trudy Usher, the adoption program manager, and Mike Davies, who is a lawyer with the Attorney General legal services branch.
J. Tyabji: Has the minister reviewed the Multiethnic Placement Act of the United States and the decisions that have come out with respect to how it cross-references with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Of course, the 1964 Civil Rights Act in that jurisdiction bans discrimination based on race, colour or national origin in any placement receiving government funding. The Adoption Act is clearly going to be something that will be fully regulated and administered by the Ministry of Social Services, which is one of the ministries of government. Have they looked at the American act? If so, to what extent was the differentiation of aboriginal versus non-aboriginal taken into account?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pretty impressed with my staff already. Yes, here it is: the Multiethnic Placement Act. Yes, it was considered in determining our act, and of course, the Multiethnic Placement Act fits in exactly with what we're trying to achieve here and is, hopefully, successful. In determining the best interests of the child, the children's cultural, ethnic and racial backgrounds will be part of a best-interest determination.
J. Tyabji: I want to leave this definition because I know that in section 3 we can canvass a bit more extensively about placement.
On section 1, under "adoption agency," it says: "...a society licensed in accordance with the regulations...." Could the minister share with the House to what extent those regulations have been drafted up? I understand there's going to be a public process in place over the next year. There's a lot of anxiety about that, especially when we're talking about adoption agencies. I'm not sure if there's another section of the act where we will be able to canvass some of the legislation that will govern those adoption agencies, because I know the minister is talking about the Society Act. So if there are no regulations in draft form right now, what will the process be for bringing those about so that we can have a better definition?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, we will be able to canvass this thoroughly in section 92, where it talks about the process for drafting the regulations. But there will be an extensive public consultation with all the stakeholders involved.
J. Tyabji: In that case, will the definition of adoption agency be something that may.... Although it says a society, it doesn't refer to the Society Act. We're talking about private agencies being regulated, but they may have a different structure from what they would have under the Society Act. The reason I ask is that there are some agencies that don't have enough human bodies in them to meet the requirements of the Society Act, but they would be able to regulate it under this act.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The agencies will be established under the Society Act.
J. Tyabji: Maybe it will be in section 92, and I'll come back to that then.
On "designated representative," following up on some of the questions from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, he talked about the treaty process that's ongoing. I note that when used in relation to an Indian band or an aboriginal community, a designated representative means a representative designated in accordance with the regulations. Clearly we don't have any regulations in place right now. Would that designated representative be someone who has anything to do with another parallel process with respect to aboriginal people?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's possible.
J. Tyabji: If that's possible, could we have a couple of examples of how there would be a crossover of duties?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Bands structure themselves in many ways, but the representative could be an elected councillor, or it could be the executive director of a child and family services agency that has responsibility for the band, or it could be a child welfare portfolio holder of some sort.
[5:45]
J. Tyabji: Why was there no definition of a home study in the definitions section? The reason I ask is that when we talk about placement -- and certainly in section 6 we see that a home study becomes one of the crucial aspects of this act.... I'm wondering why there's no legislative definition of what would involve some of the basic ingredients -- unless that's covered by another act, such as the Family Relations Act.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I'm sure everyone knows, the home study is the process that will be used to assess families who wish to adopt a child. The purpose of the home study is to assist prospective adoptive parents in evaluating their abilities to meet the needs of a child by adoption, and to gather information which will enable the birth parent, the ministry or the licensed agency to make placement decisions. Just so you know, those who will be able to complete a home study will be the licensed agency or the ministry. Home studies completed by the ministry and licensed agencies will be comparable and therefore transferable between the two. Also, the process for establishing home studies is part of the regulations.
J. Tyabji: As that regulation process comes in, we will actually develop a definition for home studies. The licensed
[ Page 16343 ]
agencies the minister is referring to: are we're talking about adoption agencies? Are we talking about agencies that also work on family relations home studies?
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. We're not talking about family relations home studies, just adoptions.
L. Stephens: I have one point of clarification around the definition of aboriginal child in relation to Metis. Could the minister clarify if Metis falls under the Indian Act, and could the minister clarify the definition of Metis?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Section 35 of the Constitution Act defines aboriginal to include Metis and Inuit.
L. Stephens: The Indian Act is superseded by the constitution, and by extension you're saying that the definition of aboriginal child also means a Metis child under the Charter and the Indian Act as well. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
Section 1 approved.
The Chair: Before I go on, may I just offer the committee a caution and a suggestion. We have approved the bill in principle; this Legislature has done so. Section 2, the purposes section of the act, is not an opportunity to recanvass the second reading debate. Obviously some questions are allowed, but we are not about to.... I would be violating the rules if I allowed a long debate recanvassing the principles of the bill to occur. So with that cautionary note, shall section 2 pass?
On section 2.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, thank you for your caution. I think that section 2, the purposes section of the act, is a very short but very important section -- one that I certainly support and that the House, I think, supported in second reading stage.
Section 2 refers to the child's best interests, and indeed the following section, section 3, also deals with the same thing and goes some way in determining some of the factors that might be considered when defining the child's best interest. But there is a question of interpretation here, and I think it's appropriate to raise it under section 2. Indeed, oftentimes there are several parties in the adoption process. In the event of a dispute, a conflict or a question of interpretation as to what the child's best interests are under the purposes section of this act, who would decide what the child's best interests are?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The courts and/or the superintendent.
J. Tyabji: What struck me about this section is that it would appear that because of its placement in the bill, the child's best interests obviously will supersede many other sections. When we get into the disclosure section, I'd be interested to know to what extent the child's best interests will continue to be paramount if there is a court challenge of any other section of this bill? Is it the intent of this section to protect the child's best interests by court interpretation to supersede any section which may be interpreted to not be in line with section 2? Hon. J. MacPhail: Maybe I can explain it this way. The child's best interest is paramount, and if there is a conflict in terms of parties, the child's best interest will be paramount.
I suspect you are referring to the disclosure section later on, but that's for adults. There wouldn't be a conflict at that point between an adult adoptee or anyone else that.... I'm saying that they would be defined as an adult and not a child.
J. Tyabji: Maybe this would be of assistance. I know there's some legal counsel here. Under the Limitation Act, there are some things which do not have a statute of limitations in terms of the amount of time someone can apply to the courts for remedy on. If someone at the time of adoption was a child for the purposes of the definition of this or another act -- and if this act is to say that in all cases the child's best interests are paramount -- could an adult who was adopted when a child, through the Limitation Act and through this act, make application for information -- if the courts would rule that the child's best interests were paramount in receiving that information?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, the Limitation Act does not apply here; it's not relevant to this act.
J. Tyabji: Would that also include a case where the adopted child may have been prevented from accessing medical records that may have been directly relevant to that person's quality of life later on? The reason I ask that is that the Limitation Act amendments this government brought in were specifically for people who had suffered injury because of a government or group taking an action that caused an injury against that child.
I could see a case that may be made -- I don't know; I'm not a lawyer; you've got a couple of lawyers there -- where if an injury were suffered because of withholding medical records, that child's best interests were not being met. It could be possible to....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member for Peace River North is saying you can't withhold that. But I know there were quite a few records.... I'm not talking about after this act; I'm talking about people affected by the government's actions prior to this act, who may have suffered injury because of that. Under the Limitation Act, there's no statute of limitations for them to make an application to the court for remedy.
The minister is shaking her head. Maybe we won't be able to cover it under this section. But if this section of the act is to take precedence over other sections, and if there was an injury suffered.... If the Limitation Act now allows them to have unlimited time to take action against that injury, would there be any provision for this section to take precedence over any other section of the act?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to give a short.... In terms of the example that you gave, it's my view that this act does not apply. It certainly isn't under this section. I can't give you any more comfort than that.
[ Page 16344 ]
V. Anderson: I just want to comment on this section. I appreciate very much the clarity, the brevity and the comprehensiveness of the wording. It simply says that it's there to develop "new and permanent family ties," which is specifically what this is about. It's clear. It also goes on to say: "...giving paramount consideration in every respect to the child's best interests." It seems to me that that's a very clear statement. No doubt there will be situations that we could not even dream about at this point, which courts or others may have to deal with down the line. Courts deal with questions of religious matters, when blood transfusions are not allowed by a certain religious group, and the court overrides that under other acts, in the child's best interest. I think it's very clear here that the paramount consideration of the child's best interest means that everything else has to be interpreted by that, and I affirm that.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. Tyabji: Under section 3, I think one thing that should be noted for the record is that this is a vast improvement; obviously, a lot of the language in the bill is a vast improvement. Section 3 is where the Adoption Act actually offers better protection for the child than the Family Relations Act, and I think the minister should be congratulated.
In subsection (1)(e), we're talking about "the quality of the relationship the child has with a birth parent or other individual." I note that "other individual" isn't even limited to family member. Could the minister say why that language was chosen, and where she thinks that will be applied?
Hon. J. MacPhail: This section actually flows -- I'm glad the hon. member zeroed in on this -- from the Child, Family and Community Service Act, where the same principle is recognized. In the 1990s there are all sorts of different relationships between children and caregivers. It's not always a parent or even a brother or sister, but sometimes it's a foster parent, a grandparent or a relative even more distant than that. The concept is that stability is key, and that there are relationships between caregivers and children that aren't necessarily contemplated by just defining parents.
J. Tyabji: Section 3(1)(c) says: "...the importance of continuity in the child's care." I hope subsection (c) will ensure that the other individual would have to be someone captured in that continuity reference. If the minister could just put that on the record, that would be great.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I agree.
V. Anderson: Seeing the time, and so that we may be able to deal with this section more fully, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 3:08 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 38: minister's office, $371,984 (continued).
K. Jones: We're starting off with the gambling part of the ministry -- gambling policy, gambling practice implementation and the Gaming Commission activities. I'm going to start off where we started off yesterday. We asked the minister to give us an idea of what the media was saying in the news yesterday. Apparently a leak from his office and a statement from one of his colleagues gave up cabinet confidentiality. I think the minister should give us an indication of what he's doing to find out the cause of that leakage and what action can be taken with regard to that.
The next item would be to have the minister give us an outline of the changes that he is bringing to the gaming policy as of today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the investigation, I can tell the hon. member that to investigate another minister or ministry is the prerogative of the Premier and not of one minister vis-a-vis another. I don't believe a leak occurred, so that matter would remain there.
Moving on to the next issue, with respect to the details of the announcement, there are no major changes to gaming in British Columbia. The review that has been conducted over the last couple of years has made clear that the Gaming Commission has dealt with these matters in a very competent manner and with a great degree of skill. I do not believe that our government ought to be engaged in the micromanagement of issues such as hours, betting limits, the number of tables or types of games. Those are issues that belong in the jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission.
The mandate that we've given to the Gaming Commission is: one, to enhance, protect and promote charitable gaming as it's been run in British Columbia, along moderate lines; two, to make any necessary changes that they believe are needed within the context of that moderate gaming to protect charitable gaming and enhance it; three, to enhance participation of first nations in gaming, as there has been essentially no participation to date; four, to see that any increase or changes in the number of facilities, types of games, betting limits, hours and such do not negatively impact on what happens in
[ Page 16345 ]
British Columbia today so that charities and charitable gaming aren't impacted negatively.
That's the net essence of what we have done today, and I will put on the record for you that there are no major casinos in British Columbia being anticipated, envisioned or envisaged. There will be no major casinos in British Columbia for entry with or without foreign or domestic passports.
K. Jones: I'm concerned about the fact that the minister and the NDP government are attempting to expand the whole gambling process, and they don't seem to be taking any consideration of the fact that the public out there is saying they don't want any further expansion of gambling. In taking this stand, the minister is abrogating the responsibility for controlling gambling by saying: "It's the Gaming Commission's responsibility. It's no longer my job to keep it under control."
We are going to let it operate completely without any change of the regulations and without any legislation, which the minister and the previous minister promised would be brought forward in order to make sure that the public's opinions and desires were put into actual law so that there would be some control over gambling in British Columbia. We continue to have a situation where there still is no control, and it's at the whim of some government-appointed members of a commission, who will do the bidding of the minister and the party in power. Could the minister tell us how he can justify abrogating his responsibilities for gambling in British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have made the decision, and we believe the decision to be in concert with the wishes and desires of the overwhelming majority of the people of British Columbia.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what public input was used to come to this very important position, where the minister and the government would no longer take responsibility for gambling expansion, but would leave it only to an unguided Gaming Commission, which has no legislation to work under?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Gaming Commission functioned in this province long before this party came into power. We've looked at the record of the Gaming Commission, and it's an excellent record. We provided some guidelines. In terms of the input, municipalities representing at least 55 percent of the people of British Columbia passed resolutions telling us that they did not want any major casinos or VLTs, and the decisions were made in accordance with their wishes. Prior to that there was the Lord and Streifel report, which sought input from the people of British Columbia. There have been consultations with municipalities as well as with first nations. There has been significant and comprehensive consultation in British Columbia, and the decision was made to proceed in the way we are proceeding.
[3:15]
K. Jones: Just to quote a conversation I had last year with a member of the gaming branch who is responsible for determining how gaming is operated within the province, they "don't have any authority to enforce any action against any violators of the gaming policy as it is presently set down, as it is only in regulation form." They cannot identify nor can they put a stop to any gambling operation in British Columbia, because they don't have the authority to do so; nor do they have any staff to do it. Could the minister explain how the government's decision to give up responsibility for the Gaming Commission and the branch is going to make any difference other than just opening up gambling on a wide-open basis to the whims of the commission?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the gaming branch has the requisite authority.
K. Jones: I'm afraid the minister must be incorrectly informed. The fact is that there hasn't been a single prosecution by the gaming branch when things have been brought to its attention.
Could the minister give us some details concerning a community gambling operation that has been investigated? Has action been taken against it and a stop put to the gaming operation? I realize there is the ability for individuals to be prosecuted where there is an illegal or fraudulent action within the operation of a casino or a bingo, but there is no control over the agencies or the holding of various lotteries or draws that are being perpetrated around this province.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the gaming branch has the ability to lift the licences where there are infractions or violations, and that has been done numerous times over the years, I'm told. If the member is concerned about the prosecution of individuals who violate laws, I believe he then has to speak to the Attorney General's ministry, and they'd be able to deal with that issue appropriately. That does not fall under the jurisdiction of the minister before you.
K. Jones: The minister must know that the only violations that can be enforced with regard to gambling are those under the Criminal Code. There are no laws that are related to gambling and the operations of gambling. We do, as you're already aware, sell offshore lottery tickets in this province. That's been going on for two years, after a law that specifically identified all the reasons under which prosecutions could be put forward.
Not one single charge has been laid within the province of British Columbia against those people. It has been well publicized. There is a raft of complaints with the Better Business Bureau. There is a total failure by the Attorney General to follow through and enforce the laws of this province. He himself says he can't do anything about it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there have been some investigations into that matter. The hon. member knows that selling lottery tickets offshore is illegal, but it is still happening in illegal fashion. I understand investigations have taken place. Whether or not any prosecutions have taken place, again, is not within my knowledge.
K. Jones: As the minister responsible for gambling in this province, the Lottery Corporation, ticket sales and all the illegal operations within the province are your responsibility, hon. minister. Therefore you should know why there haven't been. It's important that these issues be addressed, and your predecessor has done nothing about it. The Attorney General has done nothing about it. We have a government that is
[ Page 16346 ]
totally caught in a quagmire with inaction on the enforcement of gambling processes.
There's nothing done about illegal slot machines or illegal video lottery terminals. There's nothing done about the pinball machines that may be illegal. There has been no action taken against the various card clubs that are operating illegally in the province. There's no action taken against the blatant selling and advertising of lottery tickets in this province, which are totally illegal and have been illegal for over two years.
We have a continuance of these things with no action being taken on the part of previous ministers or this minister, and the minister and the Attorney General are fully aware of these. Saying that there have been investigations.... Well, we were promised that there was an investigation underway two years ago when the legislation was brought in at the last minute, on a rush basis, to try to strengthen the former minister's ministry for failing to have any control over it at that time.
We've gone through two ministers; we're into two ministers since that previous minister, and that problem still hasn't been addressed. It's strictly under investigation, and nothing else. We can't continue saying that we have some control when we have absolutely no control. The minister has to answer to the public and say what he is going to do in the way of getting control of this situation.
Where are the regulations? Where are the laws that are supposed to control gambling? Where is the enforcement agency? Where is the capability of the inspection people or the approving people to do their jobs? They can't do it; they don't have the legislation to do their jobs. They can't even investigate an advertised lottery in the local Province and Sun newspapers to find out if it is in violation. They've admitted to me it's in violation of gaming regulations, but they can't follow through on that. What's wrong? We have a total abrogation of the responsibility for gambling in this province, and minister, it's all in your lap. You've got to take some action, and it's got to be done today.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In matters of criminality or violations of law where prosecutions are warranted, the police investigate and determine if charges are to be laid, in consultation with the prosecutors. In terms of the grey machines issue, which the member raised on June 15, government representatives met with senior law enforcement officials and representatives of the UBCM and city of Vancouver to discuss ways and means of functioning together to deal with this issue. I believe they are working on a coordinated strategy to deal with that issue.
The Chair: Hon. member, I just want to put a caution on the floor. A lot of the enforcement issues you're talking about aren't in the purview of the ministry and aren't in these estimates. I'm sure you appreciate that point.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, you're absolutely correct. But making it possible to enforce them is in this estimates. It is this minister's ministry which has to draw up the regulations that will give the authority to the agencies, some of which are under this minister's purview, which are responsible for making decisions as to what is illegal gambling and what can be out there in the way of legal gambling. It is that decision that we're trying to get the minister to take responsibility for and to explain what action is going to be taken by him and his ministry.
He can't say that he hasn't had the benefit of previous ministers' years and years of work on this. The gaming branch came into being in 1987; the lotteries started back in the sixties. This issue isn't something absolutely new that the minister has come upon. The minister himself has made statements in the press objecting to the gambling policies of the government of the day, with regard to casinos in downtown Vancouver. He knows that it's a serious problem; it's a problem that the people of British Columbia are not happy with. He has stated this on behalf of his constituents. Therefore this is not something on which any of us can take the approach: "It's something new, and I'll have to look into it." All of us are fully aware, and have been for quite some time, that it is out of control. There is no proper procedure, there is no regulation and there is no enforcement in British Columbia. What are you going to do to change that?
The Chair: I would remind the hon. member to go through the Chair. Using the word "you" and addressing the minister directly is not the way procedures work here.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is legislation anticipated in the next few months or perhaps at the next sitting to bring about a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with gaming. I'm not going to say to the member that I need to consider this issue; I have been considering nothing but gaming for the last two months of my life. I'm pretty certain that the decisions we've made on gaming are the correct ones, and that's the end of my answers on this issue.
K. Jones: It seems that the minister does not want to discuss the issue of gaming; obviously it's a tender subject. Perhaps the minister would be willing to just look at the announcements made today. Could the minister tell us how increasing the types of games, the betting limits, the hours of operation and the number of tables will ensure that community benefits from gambling are protected?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do not recall talking about increasing betting limits, hours of operation, the number of tables or the types of games. In fact, I very clearly remember saying that that's a matter that the Gaming Commission has to deal with within the context of the guidelines that it has been provided by me in a letter. The overarching consideration in those guidelines is that any current charitable gaming is not negatively impacted -- in fact that it is protected and enhanced if possible.
K. Jones: You still haven't answered my question with regard to how changing the number or types of games, the betting limits, the hours of operation or the number of tables will ensure that the community benefits -- the community will benefit, I presume -- from gambling are protected. How are you going to protect the community by increasing the types of games, the betting limits, the hours of operation and the number of tables in our casinos?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Within the context of the guidelines, the opportunity exists for the commission to review the limits on all of those issues and make adjustments if necessary,
[ Page 16347 ]
particularly to protect, promote and enhance charitable gaming within the context of the onslaught from the state of Washington and the province of Alberta on resources that are British Columbian. Those, to my mind, should remain in British Columbia to the extent possible, within the context of moderate gaming, and enhance the proceeds to the charities.
K. Jones: Does the minister then perceive, through the Gaming Commission taking responsibility for the increases of these items without the minister having to be responsible for them, that these could just continue to whipsaw between Washington State's actions, aboriginal casino actions and the operators of British Columbia charitable casinos, up and up and up until they become major casinos? There has to be some point where you have to say no.
[3:30]
The people of British Columbia have already said no, hon. minister, but you're not listening to them. What they want to hear from you is: "We don't want any further expansion of gambling in British Columbia." That's what they're saying to you. That's becoming very clear to everybody. There is a message that has to be listened to, and you can't just pass that responsibility on to the Gaming Commission. That responsibility belongs to the minister and the cabinet that he is part of. We can't continue to have that type of pass-the-buck approach being taken.
I'm glad to see that the government is stating that they are supporting the commission's policy of not registering publicly traded companies, ensuring that investment in and management of gaming activities resides with British Columbians. Does that mean that a private investor in British Columbia may set up a casino operation, perhaps a resort-destination casino operation or even a charitable casino operation, and have the approval of the government?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Within the context of gaming as it is today, yes, private British Columbian companies can apply for licences for casinos, and those applications would be considered in the context of the guidelines that have been issued to the commission and in terms of community acceptability, community impact, the impact on neighbouring areas and the marketability of a particular area or site that might be proposed.
Let me again make it clear to the hon. member that there will be no major casinos in British Columbia -- Las Vegas style or otherwise. There will be no major casinos in British Columbia for entry, for gaming, with or without foreign or domestic passports. That's very clear to me. I'm very clear and very firm on it.
K. Jones: Could the minister then tell us: if there are no Las Vegas-style casinos, are there going to be casinos along the lines of the aboriginal casinos in Washington State and Alberta. There are proposed ones within the province of British Columbia which are going to have restaurants and slot machines and alcohol and gaming tables.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, not the Washington-style casinos.
K. Jones: What about the rest, hon. minister, like the British Columbia proposals that have already been put forward in conjunction with the aboriginal people in Kamloops, Prince George, Nanaimo, Becher Bay and, maybe, Osoyoos. What about all these? Have we got a few in Vancouver too? Certainly there's the Tsawwassen band, which the minister's committee has been dealing with, as the chief of the Tsawwassen band is on the aboriginal gaming commission.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is still no. Perhaps one should get off the site-specific questions, and let me answer it once and for all so that we can move on to the next issue. There will be no major casinos in British Columbia, only B.C.-style casinos with charitable gaming.
K. Jones: Could the minister define the B.C.-style charitable casino? Is that limited to the number of tables and games that are presently available in the province of British Columbia with no alcohol, no slot machines and no restaurants? Is that the style, and how many additional British Columbia-style casinos are actually going to be allowed in British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me give you some of the characteristics of B.C.-style casinos: no slot machines, no VLTs, no alcohol, a moderate number of tables and lower betting limits. That's what we have in British Columbia today, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: Apparently there was a meeting a few months ago at which the Premier and the hon. minister had a conversation, and apparently it went something like this. The Premier said to the minister, who was a private member at the time: "I have good news for you, and I have bad news for you. The good news is that I'd like to offer you a position at the cabinet table. The bad news is that your official critic is going to be the member for Surrey-Cloverdale."
Now, hon. Chair, I can tell you that the minister may not have made the right decision when that offer was extended to him. Nevertheless, here we are. I think my colleague the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is somewhat too hard on the minister, who is a new minister. Actually, today I think he should be given some credit for.... I hope he would agree that we've actually had a statement of policy here in the committee that there will be no Las Vegas-style casinos, including those that have been bandied about in the media in the last few days that might require a passport, either foreign or domestic, to enter.
I think the minister has stated rather unequivocally that that is not on. That's not an idea that will come to pass in British Columbia, and we can only hope that he will speak with his colleague the Minister of Tourism on that issue -- his somewhat enthusiastic colleague.
With respect to the announcement that the minister made today which he's been discussing in the last few minutes in this committee, the minister has said that there will be no significant change at all in gaming policy. I think the line of questioning he has been trying to get at is: "Well, is that in fact the case?"
It seems a little bit interesting that the minister says that there won't be any change, but on the other hand there are some small changes around the edges. Perhaps it's a question of degree; I don't know. But there's one statement with respect to aboriginal gaming that I'd like to ask the minister a question on and that is in his news release issued today. It states: "The government has consistently said it supports the objec-
[ Page 16348 ]
tives of first nations gaming participation to enhance social, economic and cultural developments in their communities."
Is that not a change? Government may have consistently said that, but we've had some confusion and some false starts along the way over the last year or two with the minister's predecessors in terms of expectations that were raised in aboriginal communities in British Columbia about what may or may not be expected in terms of aboriginal gaming.
The minister, when he became minister responsible for gaming, shortly thereafter made a rather definitive statement that there was going to be one gambling regime for all British Columbians. Indeed, that statement is reiterated in today's announcement.
But when we talk about the government supporting participation for first nations gaming to support social, economic and cultural development in their communities, what are we really talking about here? Is there not a change being contemplated here? And if in fact we're not going to have Las Vegas-style casinos or perhaps American-style aboriginal casinos, but we're going to have a style of gaming policy that's made in B.C., what is it contemplating here? Are there going to be "kind of casinos?" Maybe we're not going to call them casinos. Are we going to have gaming complexes, entertainment centres or hotel complexes that have some kind of gaming adjunct located on or off reserves or native lands in the province of British Columbia? That's what we'd like to have a clear statement on.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, I think it's important for us to recognize in British Columbia that the need for economic development on reserves is very great. Ten percent of the working population of British Columbia is unemployed, but 33 percent of the employable population on reserves is unemployed. The aboriginal communities have maintained right from the beginning of this review that what they would like to see would be some funds coming out of gaming that would go toward the economic, social and cultural development of their communities. Those communities aren't as developed in terms of infrastructure or charitable organizations and associations.
There are 4,700 charitable organizations in British Columbia that benefit from charitable gaming. Within the aboriginal communities, perhaps there aren't the number of charitable organizations that can take those proceeds and do the work that needs to be done. What we had to do was look at mechanisms that would have the same style of casinos or gaming go on reserves, within the context of moderate enhancement. There has been essentially no participation in gaming by the first nations, particularly on reserves. There are no on-reserve casinos in British Columbia.
L. Fox: There are lots of bingos.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are lots of bingos, but there are no on-reserve casinos. There are 18 casinos in the rest of British Columbia. I think that one would agree that to be fair we should open up that process so the Gaming Commission can make decisions based on the same considerations it uses in reference to other communities, such as community impact marketability, etc.
Once we were past that, we set guidelines for the issuance of licences by the Gaming Commission. We then had to deal with the issue of whether, if we imposed exactly the same regime on on-reserve casinos, the first nations in British Columbia would be able to benefit in the way we and they think they should benefit -- for economic development purposes.
The guidance we gave to the commission was essentially this: the Lottery Corporation should be involved for the purpose of dealing with the legalities, and the Lottery Corporation should be the notional operator. They would contract with a site on the reserve, which they may have chosen with the band. The division of the proceeds would be the same as it is in ordinary B.C. casinos, except that the amount -- or substantially the same amount, and that's up to the commission to determine in exact terms -- that now goes to charities from the off-reserve casinos would go into a revenue pool. That revenue pool would be under the auspices of a board, which would be set up under legislation that is anticipated in the next few months, composed of community, first nations and government representatives. The board would administer the revenue pool for the benefit of.... It would develop guidelines and criteria for distributing that fund to all first nations in the province.
D. Mitchell: That was quite an informative answer from the minister. The only thing that I find curious is his reference to legislation forthcoming on this matter in the next few months. That's pretty hard to predict or even imagine. I suppose it's possible that the government might be able to bring in legislation and pass it into law before the next election, but quite frankly, I think it's unlikely. I'm not really sure what legislation might be required in this regard and whether legislation is in fact required.
[3:45]
I'd like to ask the minister a few technical questions about the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Before I do, I'd like to ask the minister for a description of the relationship between the B.C. Gaming Commission and the Crown corporation known as the B.C. Lottery Corporation. What, if any, relationship exists between the two in a business sense, a reporting sense or in terms of coordination of activities with respect to gaming and lotteries in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: A revenue pool can be established legally in the legislation or even through an OIC. We are envisaging a gaming coordinating council that would coordinate gaming of all sorts in British Columbia, so there might be eventually a relationship between various bodies that conduct or control gaming.
At this point, there is no relationship between the Gaming Commission and the Lottery Corporation. With respect to any on-reserve casinos that may be approved by the Gaming Commission, there would have to be a relationship for the commission to be able to approve an on-reserve casino. The Lottery Corporation would have to be involved.
D. Mitchell: With respect to the B.C. Lottery Corporation, I'd like to ask the minister about the tabling of its annual report and the release of that annual report to the public. I'd like to find out why it takes so long to have the annual report of this particular Crown corporation made public.
When I look at the record, it seems that it was just very recently -- June 22 -- that the minister tabled the 1993-94
[ Page 16349 ]
annual report for the B.C. Lottery Corporation in the House. Is that normal? Is that unusual? Here we are, partway into the 1995-96 fiscal year, and just a few days ago the 1993-94 annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation was getting tabled in the Legislature. Can the minister tell us if it's been available to the public in any other fashion prior to its tabling in the Legislature?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is not unusual to see reports being tabled that late. However, it's undesirable; I would agree with the member. I'm not aware of anybody else seeing the report before it was tabled. I only saw it a couple of days before I tabled it, so I'm not aware of where the report had been prior to it coming to me.
D. Mitchell: The reason I'm asking about the annual report and whether or not it's released in advance.... I'm referring specifically to the financial statements that are included in the Crown corporation's annual report. I note that when the annual report was tabled, it referred to the fact that the Lottery Corporation had an increase in total sales of lottery tickets of some 4.1 percent from the previous year. That's a news release that was issued by the Ministry of Government Services, not by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. But when I take a look at one of the trade journals....
This is interesting. I had a copy sent to me of a trade journal that is referred to as International Gaming and Wagering Business. I'd never heard of this publication before, but there's actually a monthly publication in the industry called International Gaming and Wagering Business, and it's apparently distributed worldwide. In the May 1, 1995, edition of this publication, they had a country-by-country review, internationally, of all lottery revenues -- all the lottery sales reports of the year.
When it comes to North America or Canada, it's broken down by state or province. In Canada, it's broken down by province and includes not only the B.C. Lottery Corporation but the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, Loto-Quebec -- the Quebec lottery -- and the Western Canada Lottery for the prairie provinces. It looks at the government lottery corporations and reports their sales figures.
The thing that I find curious is that they have 1993-94 sales figures for the B.C. Lottery Corporation in their May 1 issue -- well before the report that includes those financial statements was tabled in the Legislature. How could this be, hon. minister?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, I was pleasantly surprised myself to see some wonderful things at the Lottery Corporation office in Richmond. I visited them a couple of weeks ago with my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, I think.
An Hon. Member: Burnaby Mountain.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Burnaby Mountain. She sits on the board of the Lotto Corporation.
A program has been designed and developed by someone who works with British Columbia Lottery Corporation that in fact has the capacity to take information from all across the world -- Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and parts of North America -- collate it and put it under your fingertips. The information concerns what's going on with personnel in various lottery corporations, what kinds of sales they are doing, what kinds of games and machines they are using, what their activities are and in fact even the kinds of tickets they might have. You can see them on the computer. It is from that kind of coordinating source that that information may be available. It may have been put on what I might, for lack of a better term, call the lotto Internet.
D. Mitchell: The minister raises some interesting points here. On the one hand, information-sharing may make sense. On the other hand, we have to be sensitive to the kind of information that we're sharing, particularly when we are talking about the financial statements of a Crown corporation owned by the people of British Columbia. When information -- perhaps sensitive, competitive information -- is electronically shared throughout an international industry before it is even available to the people of B.C. or their representatives in the Legislature, I have serious concerns. Again, it depends on the kind of information that's being shared on this lotto Internet.
If this leading industry publication received its information from that source, then I would have to be concerned, because the numbers they are recording for total sales for the B.C. Lottery Corporation in 1993-94 and 1992-93 do not seem to be the same as those reflected in the minister's news release. In fact -- this was curious to me -- statistics in the May issue of International Gaming and Wagering Business show that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is the only Canadian lottery corporation to have a decrease in sales over those two fiscal years. I have a hard time believing that was the case, but I wonder whose numbers are correct and where such a publication is getting these numbers. If it's over the lotto Internet that the minister referred to, one wonders about the value of such a method of communication, because the numbers seem inaccurate. Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the sales have in fact gone up. I don't know the margin by which they've gone....
D. Mitchell: You said they were 4.1.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The sales are level. I understand the sales are continuing at a certain level; they haven't gone down or up. I have also been advised by staff that this may be raw data and not audited as it's picked up from the lotto Internet.
The point that you make, hon. member, with respect to us knowing first what's going on rather than the world outside knowing first is a valid point, but as access to information and the hunger for that information increase across the world, information is going to cross boundaries and change the way we do things. I'm not suggesting I agree that that's how it should be, but sometimes we may not be able to control it. I would certainly look into that for the member and ask B.C. Lottery Corporation to explain how those figures may have been available to that journal before they were available to us. I will pass that information on to the member.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate that commitment from the minister. There is a natural sensitivity about releasing information. First, it should be accurate; second, there is the question of whether it should be released before it's available to the shareholders of the corporation -- i.e., the general public of British
[ Page 16350 ]
Columbia. Maybe there's a case that it should be, but I haven't heard that case, and I don't think the minister is prepared to even try to make it right now.
The member for Surrey-Cloverdale raised the issue of offshore lottery sales. I listened carefully to the minister's response. I would just like to ask him one or two supplementary questions on that issue, because it does affect the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Two years ago, in the dying days of the legislative session, the government brought in Bill 80, as it was called at the time. It was about the time in the session that we're in today, when the House was expected to adjourn very shortly. It was a ....
An Hon. Member: It was the last bill.
D. Mitchell: It was the very last bill. It was Bill 80, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and there was a little clause that banned the sale of lottery tickets from the B.C. Lottery Corporation offshore. It's interesting in that context, because thinking back to that period, two years ago, we were in an environment when the industry, as it existed in British Columbia -- several retailers were engaged in selling British Columbia lottery tickets offshore -- was involved in some consultation with the government. In fact, there was a prospect of regulating the industry not banning the industry but regulating the industry. The industry group was proposing that they would welcome regulation.
That's not what happened; the industry was banned. I don't think the member for Surrey-Cloverdale has it quite right. I'm not sure, but I think the sale of B.C. lottery tickets offshore was banned in that bill. It wasn't the sale of all lottery tickets. In other words, we weren't trying to exert our jurisdiction over the sale of lottery tickets from elsewhere in the world, but we were banning the export for sale -- I think resale is the right term, technically -- of lottery tickets created and produced here in British Columbia offshore.
I'm not sure why that happened. I don't think there's ever been a satisfactory explanation, but I can tell the minister that when I questioned the hon. Attorney General on this, he referred to various investigations that were going on. It was very mysterious. The Attorney General couldn't specify because they were ongoing at the time. We never did hear any conclusions of these investigations. We never did hear any report, but there was an estimate at the time that through Bill 80, the B.C. Lottery Corporation was going to lose up to $20 million in revenue in lottery ticket sales -- fairly significant.
I know that the minister supports lottery sales because they help health care. In fact, that was the theme of the news release that he issued just about a week or so ago when he tabled the annual report of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Presumably, the more lottery tickets we sell in British Columbia, the more revenue we're going to have for government activities such as health care.
I wonder today, two years later, since we haven't ever had any closure on this issue, why export lottery tickets were banned from British Columbia. If we are in fact losing up to $20 million in revenue for the B.C. Lottery Corporation a year, how can we continue to justify that? Is the minister able to enlighten us any further on that issue?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that that legislation was passed. It was part of an international coordinated effort to deal with reselling tickets from various countries to other individuals in other countries. I also understand that over time the B.C. Lottery Corporation has recovered and increased sales from other sources. I can't give you the net impact figures with respect to the loss of revenue from here. That may have been the estimated amount. I don't recall that, but I'm told that the sales have increased over time and the Lottery Corporation has recovered from that impact.
D. Mitchell: I'll just ask one further question on this. I don't want to belabour the point. I think other members would like to get involved in asking questions. I'll revisit the minister later on in his estimates when we move on to other agencies within his ministry.
On the issue of offshore lottery ticket sales, I thank the minister for his answer. There never has been any closure on this issue. I don't want to pursue the legal aspect of that; I'll do so with the hon. Attorney General. I just draw to the minister's attention that other lottery corporations in Canada do engage in the practice -- not themselves necessarily, but other provinces do not ban the sale of tickets or products that are created by other publicly owned corporations offshore.
[4:00]
I wonder if British Columbia is losing out here, and I wonder why. If there are specific legal reasons the minister can or cannot comment on, I'll just have to accept that, I suppose. The Atlantic Lottery Corporation, Loto-Quebec and other lottery corporations in Canada apparently do allow or don't ban -- or do not prevent -- the sale of their products outside of the country or offshore. I wonder why we've taken this action here. Have there been specific problems in British Columbia? Are there specific cases we haven't seen any closure on which are currently before the courts?
Why would B.C. Lottery Corporation so willingly forfeit up to $20 million a year in lost sales? That's what I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to look at this from a business perspective and understand why the B.C. Lottery Corporation would forego those revenues without ever having any kind of public, satisfactory explanation of this. It's curious; it's never been answered. If the minister could help answer it, I think it would answer a lot of questions out there.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that other provinces, although they don't have laws specifically banning resales, will not willingly participate in resales if they know that resales are happening of their tickets offshore. I understand there is a body that deals with those issues, and there is an understanding to not participate in offshore reselling. Within Canada, I think, anyone is free to buy the provincial tickets. Within Canada there are no problems. Offshore, I think, all provinces have a united front. Although other provinces are not legally involved in it, the understanding is that all provinces will not knowingly participate in offshore sales.
K. Jones: I just wanted to add a little bit of information to this issue of offshore ticket sales. Actually the legislation does ban all tickets sales in the province of British Columbia. It is not restricted to the Lottery Corporation's ticket sales at all. It bans all forms of ticket sales in the province. It's for that reason that we really have to wonder why the government hasn't done anything about enforcing that. Things are being blatantly sold under the nose of this government, and there is
[ Page 16351 ]
absolutely nothing being done to regulate that, even though people are losing millions of dollars to these unscrupulous operations in the province.
They are documented. We saw just a couple of days ago in the Province a two-page spread story explaining what's being done. People are being ripped off by the use of their credit card, tickets aren't being paid out and there are ticket sales going on when people haven't even requested them. There's some real question about whether some of these people are getting any of their money back or whether there are even tickets being purchased with the money that's been sent to these companies. We have a serious problem, and nothing is being done about it.
This is a jurisdictional item. Two years ago we checked right across this country. Every jurisdiction within the country prevents the sale of offshore or outside-the-province lottery tickets -- to other provinces, states or otherwise. Every state in the United States also prevents the sale of tickets from their territory to another location, with the exception of Pennsylvania, which had a technical difficulty in their legislation, and they were in the process of correcting that as well. We were the only place in North America that was legitimately allowing the sale of offshore or out-of-province tickets, and we were the mecca for people making millions of dollars in profit from such sales.
I cannot understand why it's taken this government two years of dithering, even when they had everything clearly laid out to them. Even when the best form of legislation has been brought in to control it, we still sit on it. The CLEU has called for this government to take some action in the area of gambling, and there has been no action taken. What's happening? Doesn't anybody in this government listen to what people and law enforcement agencies around North America are telling them?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The matters that the hon. member has been discussing with respect to that question relate to a criminal justice issue. Far be it from me to give him advice on how to deal with that.
K. Jones: It's unfortunate that the minister doesn't take responsibility for the fact that it is the minister's responsibility to establish the basis on which these actions can be followed through by the justice agencies. There has to be some direction from his government to do something. There is no direction coming from his government, and the minister and his colleagues have to be held responsible and accountable for it. This minister has the ability, and the former minister had the ability, and failed to do anything about this. Why hasn't the minister or his predecessor -- because this minister is responsible for the actions of the predecessor as well....
The staff has still been operating, supposedly, on this issue, and there seems to have been no action brought forward in the way of regulation. Last fall there was a promise that there would be legislation in this session of the House, and there is nothing here. Do we have a problem within the ministry such that they can't produce a simple piece of legislation? What's happening?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
The Chair: Before recognizing the hon. minister, I would remind all members that discussing any minister's perceived need for future legislation is strictly out of order. What is in order is discussion of the estimates that are before us.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I have no further comment on the member's question.
The Chair: The hon. member continues.
K. Jones: I'm afraid I wasn't dealing with perceived need; I was talking about past failures. I think that's within the purview of this session. I continue to assume, by the minister's failure to give a response to that, that he is accepting the full responsibility for the failures of the ministry to produce anything to deal with a very serious problem within our province. It is affecting people who are looking to our province, thinking that there was fair and honest business going on here. They are being hoodwinked and being robbed of their savings and their investments, because there is a failure of this government to take any action in the field of gambling. That's a very regrettable situation.
I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of whether the ministry endorses the American Indian lottery program.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the details of such a program.
K. Jones: This program is going on within the province. It's being canvassed to innocent people through their fax machines. It talks about high-stakes bingo and how people can get involved in it. It talks about video lottery terminals coming to B.C. It talks about electronic bingo being installed in local halls in British Columbia. Could the minister please elaborate on these activities that are reported to be occurring in British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the details, and I will not comment on something that's alien to this province, on the fax or otherwise. Once I'm made aware of the issue, I can deal with it, and then perhaps the member can deal with the officials of my ministry. They'd be able to assist him.
L. Fox: I wanted to have a brief discussion around the whole issue of gaming. Recognizing that the minister has today produced a news release outlining a gaming policy for British Columbia, I listened with intent when the member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi was questioning the minister around the gaming issues. The minister pointed out that within this new gaming policy some reserves, upon approval, could in fact achieve B.C.-style casinos within them.
I understand the need for economic development on reserves; in fact, I have witnessed how giant bingos have been conducted on reserves within my constituency and seen the kinds of dollars that they brought onto those reserves. The first question that I have to ask the minister is: if it's been very difficult for the Gaming Commission or the RCMP to enforce the rules of today on those bingos, what assurance do we have that we're going to be able to hold those casinos to the laws of British Columbia? We've had great difficulties trying to enforce British Columbia laws on the bingos on reserves.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: B.C. Lottery Corporation would be the notional licensee of any casinos on reserve; therefore, it would
[ Page 16352 ]
be rather simple and easy to lift that licence. In addition to that, there is a new structure. Some structural rearrangement is taking place which might see the gaming branch being strengthened and reinforced to deal with some of those issues. Finally, if I have anything to do with it, in the context of gaming -- I've said this before -- there is one law for all British Columbians, and all of us must obey that law.
L. Fox: I don't doubt your word and the intent of what you're trying to do whatsoever. But we both know the jurisdictional arguments that are taking place over what can be allowed on a federal reserve and who has jurisdiction over that. While it's one thing to remove a licence, it's another thing to try to stop the activities within a non-licensed facility. There has been hesitancy in the past; many giant bingos have not had the appropriate licensing, but there has been a hesitancy to send in the RCMP to shut them down because of this jurisdictional problem. Can I achieve, through these estimates, the assurance of the minister that none of these casinos or further gambling will be licensed until we are sure that we have the authority to enforce the laws of British Columbia on native reserves?
[4:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is my respectful view, hon. member, that British Columbia has both the legal jurisdiction and the mechanisms available to enforce the laws of British Columbia on any reserves in the context of gaming. Someone may doubt or dispute that, but it is the position of the government of British Columbia that the province has the jurisdiction to enforce its gaming laws. It's important to remember that when you provide legitimate or legal gaming activity on reserves, then there is less motivation and less incentive to engage in illegal activity, the kind of activity where you have to go in and deal with law enforcement.
L. Fox: I have just one final question on this subject. Can the minister explain to me why the province has been unable to shut down the illegal bingos on reserves if indeed it has the authority?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, we have to understand that law enforcement is within the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General, so enforcement issues rest with the Attorney General.
Secondly, in terms of the jurisdiction, let me just reclarify. I believe there have been court decisions as high up as the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the province's jurisdiction in terms of enforcing provincial laws on gaming has become abundantly clear. What's left now is for the Supreme Court of Canada perhaps to give us a final ruling. I understand that this decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is my belief that the province's right to govern gaming would be upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
With respect to any inability or reluctance to deal with law enforcement previously with respect to bingos, this is not to lay blame, but the responsibility rests with the law enforcement agencies, including the police. If I had anything to say about that, hon. member, I would say that we need to enforce that law.
L. Fox: I hadn't intended to ask another question on this, but I suppose there's a lot of weight being placed on the Supreme Court decision. My question is: prior to that decision coming down, are we going to hold off any approval process? Or are we going to put a whole lot of faith in the Supreme Court? What happens if the Supreme Court overturns an earlier decision, which is now being used as a precedent by the provincial government?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Ontario Court of Appeal is the highest court in Ontario, as is the Court of Appeal in B.C. Any decisions handed down by the Ontario Court of Appeal or the B.C. Court of Appeal are rather persuasive in terms of persuading me that we have the jurisdiction. This is hypothetical, but let's assume that in the event that the Supreme Court of Canada rejects our position, then we're back to square one. Whether we have licensed gaming on reserves is of no relevance. Gaming could go on without us having to license or not license it.
So we have not really done any damage in the long run. By licensing now, we're actually attempting to provide a legitimate means to satisfy the aspirations of the first nations, which they made very clear to us during discussions with them. They want to engage in economic development, which is sorely needed, as the hon. member would agree.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
L. Fox: I would like to address some broad concerns about the social costs of gambling. I, for one, look upon gambling very, very cautiously. I see the benefit that the charities gain out of it. But I also see, when I go to my corner store, the kinds of folks who are spending $20 and $50 on lotto tickets, and I know very well they have better uses for that money in terms of feeding their children, supplying housing and so on. I'm very concerned that the process we use today is basically taking away from those who can afford it the least and bringing it back to government. It comes out of one pocket of government into the hands of those who need it, and it immediately returns to government through gaming.
I'm sure the minister shares my concerns there, and I'm wondering if there have been any studies done on what segment of our population spends the most on things like 6/49 tickets, scratch-and-win tickets and perhaps bingo, and how that affects their day-to-day lifestyle and quality of life in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me first say that I'm neither a proponent nor an opponent of gaming or lotteries or anything of that nature. In fact, my position is that I'm simply the minister in charge, and I do what people in British Columbia will that we do on their behalf.
It is my understanding from the studies that the poor do not make up the majority of lottery players. In particular, research shows that it is the middle-income earner who plays lotteries. People who have difficulty meeting their daily needs aren't purchasing lottery tickets. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's people who know they have a disposable income that they can spend on lotteries and the like.
However, the point the hon. member makes hasn't escaped my attention. I have become aware of that; I was aware of that issue before. This is, I suppose, an age-old debate that will go on. The fact is that the world around us has engaged in lotteries and gaming, and if we don't provide
[ Page 16353 ]
legitimate means of providing some gaming opportunities for people in British Columbia who want to engage in them, they would simply go across the border or into other provinces and drop their money there. Some of them might come back with the problem-gaming issue, which we then have to resolve by spending our Health dollars.
This is a huge public policy issue in the long run, and I share the pain and anguish that one suffers when one goes through this debate. It is not an easy debate. However, this is not something that will roll back the clock.
K. Jones: I'm interested in asking the minister, with regard to his announcement today, whether there is an aboriginal gaming commission advising the ministry or the Gaming Commission or branch.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is an aboriginal gaming group, a subgroup of the First Nations Summit, which was engaged in negotiations with the negotiators from the gaming implementation review committee of the province. As the member is aware, those negotiations were terminated shortly after I took control of this ministry. However, in formulating our policy subsequent to that date, we have taken into account the consensus that we were able to arrive at on the issues that we were able to arrive at consensus on.
K. Jones: The minister has already stated that there's an administrative board to deal with aboriginal gaming. What are the actual functions of that board?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no aboriginal board that advises the minister; there is the Gaming Commission. It is our view that in order to have aboriginal gaming, first nations gaming, conducted on the same lines within the jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission, it's important for us to have some representation from first nations people on that Gaming Commission. It will be important for us to have some representation on the gaming coordinating council that's envisaged in the next short while. It is my view that it is important to consult with them. There is currently no board that deals with the aboriginal issues. There is only the group from the First Nations Summit that we were dealing with.
K. Jones: I take it from what the minister said that the Gaming Commission will be expanded. Could the minister tell us how many members will be added to the Gaming Commission? Will the current members be retained?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Gaming Commission is not expanding at this time. There are seven positions on the Gaming Commission. There are currently five commissioners and two vacancies. At this time it is not my intention to expand the Gaming Commission.
K. Jones: Seeing that there are no aboriginal members on the Gaming Commission at the present time, I presume the minister is going to make appointments of aboriginal persons to the Gaming Commission vacancies that exist. Will they both be aboriginal?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe this is a place where I can make that kind of policy. It is something that I have on my mind. I have not determined whether we will have one, two or three members from the aboriginal community on the Gaming Commission. However, I am sure the member would agree with me that it's important for us to have that representation if the Gaming Commission is to function smoothly.
K. Jones: The minister talks about a gaming coordination council. Could he describe it?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Technically, that again is a matter of future policy. I wanted to give the hon. members an idea of what I was thinking at this point. There is no rigid or solid structure to the gaming coordination council. As the hon. member knows, we do require comprehensive gaming legislation to bring all of the various components in gaming under one set of guidelines and control. I have been thinking in that direction. One of the bodies that I've been thinking about is a council that might assist us in coordinating various components of gaming. At this point I have not thought beyond that.
K. Jones: Would that coordination council also include the two different types of horse racing -- thoroughbred and standardbred?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, of course, that the Racing Commission, the B.C. Gaming Commission and the B.C. Lottery Corporation would be included in any comprehensive legislation that we envisage.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member -- and my comments are not directed to any particular member but to all members, the minister included -- I would caution that discussions of future legislation are not in order. If the members could relate their comments as much as possible to the estimates, it would assist the Chair.
[4:30]
K. Jones: Just following the announcement of the minister about the gaming coordination council, I thought this was well within the jurisdiction of gaming policy. The type of thinking that the minister has is appropriate for discussion at this time. We need to know, since he has been given a mandate to utilize a fairly substantial budget among the various gambling sources, in order to let the public know what direction the whole operation is going. I think it's very important that we have the minister's thoughts on where he is going; that's the reason we're asking. It doesn't mean that they have to be definitive; they're certainly not legislative. We want the minister's direction, his philosophy and his ministry's advice concerning that direction. Would the minister elaborate a little further with regard to what role that council might have besides trying to bring some cohesiveness to the various forms of gambling?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I stand somewhat corrected. I understand that the gaming coordination council was part of an announcement made in October 1994 by the Premier, so it's beyond my thoughts. I think it is a certainty under the legislation that may come at some point. As for the legislation, I have no idea at this time. This body would in my view be a coordinating body, which would eliminate overlap, create efficiencies and deal with the small gaming pie that exists in British Columbia.
[ Page 16354 ]
K. Jones: Could the minister explain more about his announcement in regard to aboriginal gaming casino operations? I presume it's rather wide-open. Could it be any form of gaming and not just restricted to casinos?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe it would be any licensed form of gaming -- licensed by, of course, the gaming branch and the Gaming Commission.
K. Jones: If it's any form of gambling, would that include original aboriginal forms of gambling, which they may choose to develop as a new form of gambling and have on their sites?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: While that's a very interesting question, the answer would remain in the domain of the B.C. Gaming Commission. At this time they will have to provide that answer. I don't believe there are any aboriginal games per se that are allowed within B.C.-style casinos.
K. Jones: The minister's decision to give the Gaming Commission a free hand to make whatever considerations it wishes gives them a rather wide-open mandate. Is the minister going to put any restrictions on their role as a gaming commission? I know he has put one restriction on it -- i.e., they're not going to allow Las Vegas-style casinos.
Stepping down from that, he hasn't defined where the cutoff is between what we have now and what we could have, going all the way up to 5,000-seat casino proposals, such as were put forward by aboriginal bands in Kamloops and Prince George with the backing of a famous promoter from the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Is that type of proposal now within the realm of the B.C. Gaming Commission's ability to approve?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will repeat the answer I gave to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and that is that we've given a very clear mandate to the commission: one, it is to protect, promote and enhance charitable gaming as it exists in British Columbia on and off reserves; two, to enhance participation of first nations gaming in British Columbia; three, to make any adjustments that may be required to deal with the effects of Washington State or Alberta in specific terms and any other impacts that may happen, and to deal with those adjustments in the context of the moderate gaming that we've had in British Columbia; four, any adjustments, increase or changes that may take place within the mandate of the Gaming Commission with respect to gaming ought not and must not impact negatively upon existing charitable gaming in British Columbia.
It is a comprehensive mandate, and that is as specific as I intend to be with the commission. The commission is an arm's-length body, and we have consulted with them in the formulation of this policy. They feel quite comfortable saying to us that they'll be able to deal with these issues in a fair fashion.
K. Jones: I appreciate the candidness. I assume that the ministry is precluding any casino larger than the current size and that there would be no operation of casinos in British Columbia that wouldn't be operated with a charitable component as part of the operations. They would be making a charitable pay-out in all categories.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: To what the hon. member seeks, the answer is substantially yes, with a slight variation with respect to first nations gaming. There aren't the numbers of charitable organizations within their communities, and as I've indicated, it is their desire to be able to participate in and benefit from gaming. What they said was that they require some mechanism where the proceeds from the on-reserve gaming that generally go to charity would go into a revenue pool. There was consensus on this between the first nations and our people on behalf of the province that this should be done, and that's the only variation. That money would be utilized under the auspices of a board made up of the community representatives, the first nations and the government representatives to make sure that the revenue pool is utilized to meet the fundamental need of economic, social and cultural development within British Columbia's first nations communities across the province.
K. Jones: What method of control would the minister have over the distribution of those funds? Could that fund be used to pay for...?
Let's start over. I believe the fund was intended to provide social and economic benefits to bands throughout the province. Could that fund be used for lawyers to defend court cases of persons charged with putting up roadblocks in the province, in their attempts to gain recognition for their independence?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That was a long question, and I'll give an answer to one aspect of it. With respect to the availability of moneys from that fund for legal services with respect to any individuals involved in roadblocks, the answer is N-O, no.
K. Jones: Thank you, minister, for your reassurances. What method will you have of controlling that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The government has at its disposal all of the legal mechanisms that it can put in place to deal with that issue.
K. Jones: What legal processes would be applicable if there is no legislation that controls the operation of this type of gambling?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I didn't hear the whole question, but I understand that the hon. member is seeking clarification. One would require a specific statutory authority to do what I have indicated will be done, and that statutory authority would be provided.
K. Jones: That would indicate, then, that aboriginal gambling would not be available until after legislation was brought in, as indicated by the minister, some time in the legislative session in the spring of 1996. Is that what the minister is saying? There would be no approval of aboriginal gambling in the province of British Columbia until well after the legislation had been approved in the spring of 1996. Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll say a couple of things. First, of course, when an application is made to the Gaming Commission, the commission will take its time processing that application. Before any funds can begin to flow into the revenue pool, of course, there might be a time lag of six months to a year between now and then. Hence there is sufficient time to bring the legislation in.
[ Page 16355 ]
Secondly, if we have to follow an alternative course of action, we could deal with it under the order-in-council provisions, as the B.C. Gaming Commission is currently established under an order-in-council.
[4:45]
Of course, thirdly, I understand a fund could be temporarily set up in the interim under the Financial Administration Act for that purpose until a legislative scheme is in place.
K. Jones: The minister really doesn't bring a lot of confidence to the people of British Columbia with that statement. They are well aware that legislation by order-in-council and by individual bodies of the government is really sort of behind the scenes.
It seems to be a typical process of this government's past practice to hide everything behind the scenes instead of bringing it out in the open under public scrutiny. Perhaps the government doesn't feel that the public knows best. Maybe the government doesn't have the confidence that the public can make good judgments in regard to this. They always have to try and.... Perhaps they didn't get their act together or they didn't have it ready in time, but they want to get the message out there that they are doing a giveaway. Perhaps it's part of the negotiations around land claims. Is this part of the tradeoff that's being promised in the land claims deals in order to get settlement? Is aboriginal gaming being put on the side, even though the legislation wouldn't be there? Would it be implemented by order-in-council with behind-the-scenes funding arrangements that don't allow the people of British Columbia to have any say in the process whatsoever? It just comes via secretive government, which seems to be a regular practice of this government.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we sometimes need to re-examine our attitudes on issues such as this. One can get stuck in the notion that somehow anything done for first nations is a favour that's being done to the first nations. Historically, first nations have not participated in gaming in British Columbia. It's important if we are going to build a society that has pride in the way it treats its people -- a compassionate, egalitarian, equal, accepting, caring society -- that on all fronts it be equal to the extent that it can be.
I think it's important for us to understand that gaming is just one minor part -- not an insignificant part, but one minor part -- of the total setup of society, and if we are to say that we are a society that prides itself on equality, then we have to enhance first nations participation in gaming.
Therefore I don't believe I want to view everything that one does for first nations in the context of settlements of land claims. There are a lot of aboriginal issues before us that have not much to do with land claims; first nations gaming is one of those issues. I have said it very clearly before: it is not a treaty right; it is not a right to be negotiated; it is not an aboriginal right. The province has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with gaming, as it does in the rest of the province.
I want to assure the member that we will put all of the appropriate safeguards in place with resect to this revenue pool prior to any dollars being paid out to any groups within the first nations.
K. Jones: On this question of shared benefits to be applied through the first nations, could the minister tell us how those aboriginal groups who are not represented by the First Nations Summit are going to have any opportunity to participate in this shared arrangement? It's interesting that the shared arrangement is being proposed, because when the government's friends in the labour movement supported a casino for downtown Vancouver, the aboriginal people rejected a percentage participation in that form of gambling.
Could the minister tell us how, at this time, it would work for those aboriginal bands who are not represented by the First Nations Summit?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, welcome back into the hot seat.
Once it's understood that there are approximately 200 bands across British Columbia and that we have given a mandate to the commission to not expand gaming per se -- though enhanced gaming for the first nations in the context of moderate gaming facilities in British Columbia -- that would mean that very few bands or reserves would get casinos -- very, very, very few.
If there are only a few gaming facilities across the first nations reserves, one would want to make sure, as government, that the revenue pool is arranged in a such a fashion that all aboriginal groups and communities across British Columbia would be able to apply to the fund, and those applications would be assessed based on criteria that would be developed as we proceed. Before any funds are paid out, the criteria would be placed, and the application guidelines and the appropriate safeguards would be in place so that no funds are going out of the pool until or unless we are certain that those funds are going to be utilized for purposes of economic development.
K. Jones: If the minister is now deciding that aboriginal groups deserve to have an opportunity for a gambling component, would the minister also be supporting a proposal that's come to my attention, asking for support to establish a casino in the Richmond area, from a group of persons who have Chinese background? Or perhaps it could be from some other persons who are from the Indian continent or from Switzerland. Is equal consideration given to people of a certain ethnic background who come forward to the Gaming Commission? Are they going to be given the same consideration for a casino as the aboriginal people are?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: First, I think it would be inappropriate for me to deal with any specific applications that may or may not be before the Gaming Commission, because it's that body that in the end makes those decisions. It's an arm's-length body, and I will not interfere in the day-to-day functions of the commission, whether through the estimates or otherwise.
In terms of the other larger issue that the member raises, I am firmly of the view that we need to have a society in British Columbia that attempts to integrate all of us across the spectrum of society. However, in the process of doing that, one can not ignore the historic inequalities, inequities and injustices that have occurred. That is not to say that you make amends by way of any kind of compensation, but you make amends by putting in place mechanisms that bring people forward and make them equal citizens to the extent possible so that we
[ Page 16356 ]
can go on living in a society that we can be proud of. The effort that we are making to enhance first nations gaming should be seen in that context.
Although I belong to a visible minority, and I'm aware of all the injustices that have occurred to people from different backgrounds in Canada, I would be the first to say to the hon. member that the hon. member is wrong in comparing people from different ethnic or other backgrounds and saying that they should get the treatment that we are now trying to provide to first nations for economic development purposes in the context of gaming.
K. Jones: The minister is stating that it's not his desire to interfere in the process of the commission. Could the minister tell us under what guidelines or criteria the Gaming Commission makes its decision on approving a particular application for a casino?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just read the criteria for the hon. member. If he's going to take time, I might as well take the time and put the criteria on the record. I quote from the letter that I have written to Mr. Macintosh, dated June 27, 1995:
"The government of British Columbia advises that, in reviewing proposals for new gaming facilities, the Gaming Commission should consider the following: the government's stated objective of enhancing first nations opportunities in gaming; the submission of a satisfactory business plan outlining the revenue potential and marketability of a given location, as well as the impact on existing gaming operations; the results of consultation in the community in which a facility is to be located; evidence of consultation with adjacent communities, including evidence that the business plan has been provided to adjacent municipalities for comment; evidence of satisfactory infrastructure for proposed facility; appropriate background checks and vetting of bingo and casino management companies; and other criteria the Gaming Commission" may consider necessary.
K. Jones: Are those the only criteria on which the Gaming Commission is now making its decision on any applications that come before it for casino licences?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The last few words of my previous answer were, "and other criteria the Gaming Commission may consider necessary." The Gaming Commission has shown some competence and skill and has exhibited a record that led us to believe, subsequent to the full review that we had, that the Gaming Commission is the most appropriate body to deal with those issues.
K. Jones: That would indicate that the Gaming Commission has no criteria other than those which the minister has just stated and their good judgment. There are no other criteria. In other words, all the previous criteria that have been used by the Gaming Commission are no longer valid, and the minister has abrogated that and has put in place the ones that he has just read out.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have, through my other answers previously to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and to the member who's currently asking the questions, elaborated on all the various guidelines that we have given to the commission. The commission is very happy that they are finally able to carry on making the decisions that they're best suited to do. That's the end of my answers on questions with respect to gaming.
[5:00]
K. Jones: Listen up, minister. You haven't heard the question of....
The Chair: I beg your pardon, hon. member. That's inappropriate language.
K. Jones: What's inappropriate?
The Chair: To say: "Listen up, minister." That's not appropriate.
K. Jones: Why is that inappropriate?
The Chair: You want to address him with the respect that is due a minister of the Crown, hon. member.
L. Fox: Through the Chair.
The Chair: And through the Chair.
K. Jones: Through the Chair, the minister has not been listening to the question that's been asked of him. If he does not have the answer, perhaps that's what he should say. I'm wondering why the minister is unable to give us the simple criteria under which the current Gaming Commission makes a decision as to whether a licence for a casino in British Columbia is given. That was the question we were asking, and I don't know where the minister had his attention, but it certainly wasn't around this operation.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would actually encourage the member to get a copy of the letter I wrote to Mr. Macintosh. If he doesn't have it, I'll be happy to provide it to him.
K. Jones: I have it; I have it in my hand.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: He has it in his hand, actually. He has highlighted almost all of my remarks in that letter. Good for him. I would encourage him to have a chat with Mr. Macintosh, who is highly accessible. Mr. Macintosh would be able to fill him in on some of the other criteria that they've used over time. What I have indicated in my letter is the essence of the guidelines that I'm going to provide to the commission in guiding its work.
L. Fox: I'm interested in a statement the minister made with respect to consulting neighbouring communities. Could the minister tell me how that process would work? Would it be the Gaming Commission that consults or would it be done in cooperation with the respective band, the respective municipality and the Gaming Commission?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The consultation could take many forms, and it could be multifaceted. It could have the commission consulting directly with the neighbouring communities. The commission could also ask the applicant to show some further proof of consultation with the same or other communities as well. I would not want to indicate to the commission that they should follow one or the other. My understanding is that the commission does go through a rather rigorous process of approving licences at this time. I can tell you that after
[ Page 16357 ]
receiving the guidelines from us, the process will be much more rigorous than it has been. What we have said is that it's important that the existing charitable gaming arrangement in British Columbia must not be negatively impacted by any enhancements or changes or adjustments that are made in British Columbia. That's a very, very important guidelines.
L. Fox: Just a bit of follow-up. The minister earlier stated that he envisioned very few of these types of casinos. I would assume from that that we would see them in more populated areas. Obviously you need population in order to provide sufficient folks who wish to gamble. I'm encouraged to hear that the 1,600 bands, or something like that, that we have....
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Two hundred.
L. Fox: Two hundred bands -- sorry -- that we have in the province of British Columbia have agreed to a pooling process. That's encouraging.
The question I have relates to another issue that I've been addressing in each of these estimates for the last three years. The minister may not be aware of the issue, but I'm sure his staff will be. I've been arguing that the existing 30-mile or 50-kilometre radius -- I forget which it is now -- around the casino benefactor should be expanded in the rural parts of the province. In the Prince George area, for instance.... I see the member for Prince George-Mount Robson here, and she heard the argument when she was the minister responsible. We have casinos in the Prince George region that tell me that 25 percent of their business comes from around Prince George -- outside the benefiting area where societies can benefit from casino activities. Yet constraints don't allow neighbouring communities or societies within those communities to be recognized societies in respect of qualifying for casinos for the purposes of getting some dollars back into their respective communities.
For instance, should either Stony Creek, which is a pretty proactive reserve around Vanderhoof, or Nak'azdli which is a pretty proactive reserve in the Fort St. James area, acquire a casino, that would take some small percentage perhaps, but at least a percentage, away from the Prince George casino. Our neighbouring communities just outside of that radius would once again lose the opportunity. The societies within those communities lose the opportunity to capitalize on the gaming that's done in Prince George.
I know the Gaming Commission was looking at this issue. Perhaps I could ask, firstly, if there's been any movement or change or if we can foresee some change with respect to that. Secondly, is there some agreement that there might be a bit of competition with respect to the same gambling dollar?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the commission is actively considering that issue at this time. I don't think a decision has been made. However, there is a study being commissioned by the province that would deal with market assessment across the province, and that would assist the commission in dealing with the catchment-area issue that the hon. member has raised.
I think one of the guidelines we have provided the commission is that new facilities in particular and any adjustment to existing facilities not negatively impact existing charitable facilities or charitable gaming in either a general or a particular sense. If you approve a new facility 51 kilometres away from a particular facility because it's not in the catchment area, obviously it's going to have an adverse impact, particularly in a population centre which is not as large as perhaps Vancouver might be. I think the hon. member raises a very important issue, and I understand the commission is actively considering the issue.
K. Jones: I would just like to reiterate what I said last year with regard to a similar situation in the Kitimat-Terrace area. Perhaps because they're just 50 miles apart, they have not been allowed to operate in one community, and all their revenue goes to the other community. If the minister is going to consider, for instance, a casino on the Haisla lands adjoining Kitimat, that again is going to impact the people in Kitimat. Whereas the people of Terrace have off-track betting, horse racing by television, bingo and charitable casino opportunities, the small bingo operation in Kitimat is unable to get the revenues because most of their people are going up to the larger community, which has more return.
Is this review going to look at the potential of aboriginal casino sites as well? Is it going to identify where there is an appropriate location for aboriginal casinos?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The assessment by the Gaming Commission with respect to licensing facilities and site decisions would use the same criteria across the province, whether it's on-reserve or off-reserve. In the end we are a society that lives together as a whole. I don't think we can ignore the neighbouring communities or the impact on neighbouring communities of what we do next door, 70 kilometres away or 50 kilometres away.
I, however, will stand corrected. I'd like to correct an impression that the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca had with respect to the aboriginal communities across the province agreeing to the pooling of the revenue. That's not my understanding. My understanding is that the First Nations Summit negotiators, who spoke to the province before negotiations were terminated, had agreed to a certain extent that this kind of arrangement would be feasible in order to ensure economic and social development for first nations. This is an arrangement that the government proposed, and this is an arrangement that government has decided upon. It's an arrangement for which we will be seeking -- and in fact have already sought -- the participation of first nations. The prospects look reasonably good.
K. Jones: Does the minister also include in that consideration the pooling of a percentage of the lottery funds for aboriginal use?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, proceeds from the lotteries aren't included.
K. Jones: Has the minister or his staff ever had a proposal put to them that a portion of the lottery funds should be given to the aboriginal people?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The protocol with respect to negotiations with the first nations is -- and was, with respect to the gaming negotiations -- that we will not talk about any specifics with respect to issues that may have been dealt with unless there was consensus on those issues. I think, out of
[ Page 16358 ]
respect for the protocol that was agreed upon, it would be important not to say anything. The understanding clearly is that at this point there are no lottery proceeds going to the aboriginal communities.
K. Jones: So we've really got secret negotiations going on between the aboriginal people and the government, and we're going to hide behind all that secrecy. The public doesn't have any right to know. We're just going to continue with this attitude: "You'll take what you like whenever you get it, public. We'll be damned if you're going to get any knowledge about what's coming. We'll make our deals with the aboriginal people, and the rest of the people in British Columbia can go wherever they want to go."
That sounds like the typical attitude of this government over and over and over again. I find it just unbelievable that the minister can't give us the facts on what has been negotiated or on what has even been suggested by aboriginal people to the minister's staff. That has to be something the ministry is considering, and the public needs to know what the ministry is considering. I think it's shameful.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. The minister has the floor.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If there are no negotiations, I don't think anything can be secret. Negotiations were terminated in a very public fashion by me, and I don't believe any negotiations on gaming have taken place since then. I'm certain in telling the hon. member that there are no lottery proceeds either going to the aboriginal revenue pool or anticipated to be going to the aboriginal revenue pool. Perhaps we can move on to the next topic.
[5:15]
L. Stephens: I have a few questions to ask the minister around community service clubs' access to bingos and all those kinds of things. I wrote a letter to the minister a couple of days ago about some of the concerns that organizations in my communities have around the particular issue of charitable gaming. I know that in 1993 there were changes to the policy around charitable gaming in communities, particularly around the service clubs. I have a letter here dated July 29, 1994, which sets out the accountability process. I wonder if the minister would talk a bit about the accountability process that was set in place with the new policy back in '93. I'll read from this letter specifically. This is to all community service clubs from Richard Macintosh, dated July 29, 1994, and it says: "Community service clubs which have been granted a two-year bingo licence must comply with the maximum donation clause by June 30, 1995." I wonder if the minister could comment on this particular directive and inform me a bit about what is happening.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the deadline was there if commitments had been made by the groups to do something that didn't jibe with the policy, and the community service clubs had to be in line on that particular date. Prior to that, if there had been commitments made, they could be dealt with without any difficulty.
L. Stephens: This whole question has left a lot of the community service clubs in many of the communities concerned about access to bingo halls and so on, and I have a stack of letters from individuals and organizations in my constituency. Could the minister reassure the community groups that this particular policy is still in place for charitable gaming? Or is the minister contemplating changes? A number of these organizations were really concerned when they heard that there was going to be a change in gaming. They thought charitable gaming would be included in the announcement the minister made this morning. If the minister could clarify what is happening with community charitable gaming, that would be appreciated.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would be delighted to. In fact, I will read you some stuff I have here.
"Community service clubs are the only licensees permitted to donate gaming proceeds to other charitable or religious groups. The new policy places restrictions on the amount but not the number of these donations. Community service clubs may make a onetime donation" -- this is a new policy -- "to other licensees and to non-licensees up to a maximum of $1,000 per calendar year. With the prior approval of the commission, community service clubs may make donations of gaming proceeds of greater than $1,000 to other licensees and non-licensees. There should be some accountability of where the money is going."
If you require any further details, my staff would be happy to provide those in writing to you as soon as possible.
L. Stephens: I understand, and I want to make sure I get this correct, that the $1,000 donation is per year per organization. Is that correct? Could an organization donate $1,000 to a charity two or three times during the year, but to a maximum of $1,000 per donation? Can they do it two or three times during the year?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think I would be getting into a slippery area if I tried to elaborate on this policy. This is a policy that's been recently reviewed by the commission. I would ask that you deal with Mr. Macintosh of the commission, who would be happy to deal with this. He will give you the details of various permutations and combinations that can take place for $1,000 apiece, or several times a year or not, rather than me confusing you, and then you having to unconfuse yourself with Mr. Macintosh.
L. Stephens: I will in fact speak with Mr. Macintosh. One further question is around hospital foundations and whether or not the $1,000 maximum donation.... How does that affect hospital foundations...
K. Jones: Donations to them.
L. Stephens: ...and donations to hospital foundations and donations to hospitals from the foundations in excess of $1,000?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would suggest that the hon. member speak to Mr. Steve Letts, who is sitting behind me; even today, after she finishes with these questions, he can provide the details to the hon. member. If there are any further questions, he could seek those answers for her from the commission; then the hon. member wouldn't have to seek those answers directly.
[ Page 16359 ]
K. Jones: Further to that issue, I'd like to make some suggestions. As the gaming critic for the official opposition, I've received a lot of concerns, and I've talked to a lot of people about the issue of service clubs being able to raise money and donate it to various causes. They do it very efficiently, hon. minister, and I think this restriction is really putting them in a bind. I've had a lot of complaints. They feel that they work so hard to raise the money, and they have so much demand for it, but the amounts are too small.
If the amounts were raised to $2,500 or $3,000, it would provide for most of the projects that they get asked to provide for, such as a special wheelchair for a handicapped person or a specially contoured or elevating bed for a person who is disabled. It's key that they be able to provide that, because our government bureaucracy and health care system don't move quickly enough to respond to the immediate needs these people have. Our service clubs are able to do that. They're able to step right in, within a week, make a decision and provide that service. So if we could raise that minimum amount from $1,000 to about $2,500 or $3,000, most of their concerns would be addressed.
One other aspect is that for the area over $2,500 or $3,000, which is currently $1,000, there is a need to simplify the application process. People say that they can spend six months trying to get an approval for a simple thing like a request for $2,000. It doesn't make any sense, hon. minister. It should be possible for them to be able to make a request, say, for up to $10,000 for a donation to Langley Memorial Hospital Foundation to purchase some equipment that costs $50,000, which is identifiable, visible and a good support to the community, without having to have anything more than a simple letter request faxed to the commission. Actually, it should be to the branch; the commission should not even have to be involved in this. The branch would then fax back approval within a week. There should not be any problem in doing that, hon. minister. Could you respond to these suggestions and help the people out there who are working so hard in our service clubs to provide needed services to our communities?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That, I understand, is the process with the commission for prior approvals. A letter is now sent to the commission, and within a week, I'm told, these matters are routinely approved. However, the member makes a good suggestion. If that's not the process, we would pass that on to the commission.
K. Jones: Sorry, I gave the minister too many things to consider there. What about the $2,500-to-$3,000 limit? Raise that $1,000 up.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is an issue that the commission has obviously deliberated over for some time, and they have imposed this limit, unless there is prior approval. If the member has some concerns about it, I think he should pass them on to Mr. Macintosh, because this decision has not been arrived at in consultation with the ministry. It's an arm's-length commission; I understand that it's functioning appropriately now. There were some concerns. My office received many letters. I understand the commission has recently reviewed this. This is the most current position. However, if the member seeks further change, I would suggest that he speak to the commission. I'd be happy to forward his concerns to the commission, as well.
K. Jones: I realize that the commission is quite gun-shy on this subject. It came out of the NDP-backed Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal, and it's a direct result of attempting to protect against unscrupulous operators who have been playing around the Nanaimo area in the charitable organizations that are backed by the NDP. But really, most of our charitable organizations in British Columbia are not like that. They are honest, and they are very much able to -- and do -- administer books that are open and that fully meet the requirements of the gaming branch and the Gaming Commission. So they should not be treated like the scandalous situation that occurred in Nanaimo.
I realize there need to be some controls. The failure to have controls is the problem that resulted in the scandal in Nanaimo, through the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and others. They have been prosecuted for their failure to look after the best interests of the charities that they were representing. But the real fact is that we have to deal with the rest of the province, which is mostly honest. A reasonable level of approval would be appropriate in that area, and I hope the minister would consider that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm certain that the commission would be interested in the comments of the hon. member, and I would ask that the hon. member pass them on to the commission.
D. Schreck: I believe it was during that Abbotsford by-election that a statement attributed to a representative of Great Canadian Casino Co. was that a Liberal government would be the best thing for the casino industry that ever came to this province. Personally, I hope we avoid that day. That decision will be determined in another forum.
I simply observe the clock, and I see that it's now time to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]