[ Page 4269 ]

The House resumed at 6:43 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and in this House, the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

R. Neufeld: A point of order. As a matter of making the House work a little better, maybe the Clerks could go back and see how long it takes to get the House convened. When we recess, it's always for 35 minutes. We come back to the House and constantly wait for government to arrive to convene the House. I would rather see us use our time wisely. It would be better for those downstairs; it would be better for all members. If it's going to take 45 minutes, then let's recess for 45 minutes -- take a break and then come back, because this is a constant thing, and it's getting worse and worse. I don't think it serves any of us any good to do that.

The Speaker: I appreciate the point made. I will take it under advisement, and I will talk to all of those people directly affected by it.

[6:45]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

C. Hansen: I want to raise the issue tonight of the archives and records service. It is not an area that falls within my critic responsibility, as it falls under the responsibilities of the critic for information, science and technology, the member for Richmond East, who was basically leading the discussion before the dinner break.

Museum and archival work is an area that has been of interest to me as a hobby and as a passion. I certainly have a great respect for the history of this province. I have put in many volunteer hours with the Vancouver Museum in years gone by, serving on the board of trustees and as chairman of that institution. I think that it was really during those years that I learned to appreciate the importance of our history and the need to preserve that history in a way that future generations can make use of as tools of their education. We can only truly appreciate where we are today, and the implications of what is happening today in our society, if we understand our history and where we've come from.

There have been some big changes in terms of the archives and records service in British Columbia in the last year and a half. For those in the province who are actively involved in trying to maintain our history, it has caused a lot of anxiety, I think. It is not so much complaining as nervousness about what direction we may be going in with the archival service.

Today the archives, as I understand it, hold something like 19,500 metres of records. We're talking about 60,000 maps, 20,000 architectural drawings, 220,000 hours of sound recordings and 10,000 paintings, drawings and prints, in addition to film and video tape.

One of the things that I learned from the time that I was involved in my volunteer work at the Vancouver Museum was that it's one thing to worry about how materials are displayed and presented to the public -- and obviously as the financial resources of a society go up and down, there may or may not be funds available to museums to, for example, put on fancy displays of their collections so that the public can appreciate these. But the care and custody of the collections themselves isn't something that can be put off for ten or 15 years to a time when there may be more financial resources available, because these things deteriorate. The same is true for our archival records of the province.

So it is with great anxiety that people who have a real appreciation for what those archival records mean to our history see the changes that are taking place. They are anxious that these interests be protected. I want to ask the minister some specific questions tonight about the future of the archives service in British Columbia. I'd like to open by asking the minister if he could give us an explanation of the changes that are taking place in that regard. Perhaps there may be some reassurance to those people in the province who are very anxious about the direction that these changes may be going in.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to say first of all that I do agree with the member. In fact, although I haven't contributed that kind of volunteer time in terms of a specific archive, our history does fascinate me. I think that it's important that we understand our history -- the old saying that those who fail to are doomed to repeat it.

There has been some change, I suppose, in that more and more there's a sense around the province of communities and societies wanting to have a sense of ownership of those archives. So we see, for example, the Law Society and the city of Victoria housing the collection of the archives either in the locale from where they came or, in the case of the Law Society, with the body representing the profession.

We've also seen the development of additional capacity in local centres -- in cities and even in the very small communities around the province. As that develops, it seems to me that we are obliged in terms of our policy or our approach to this to pay heed to that. Where the capacity exists at the local level, I think there's a reasonable argument that it may be preferable to maintain the archives at that level. We see, for example, that at the regional level a lot of the maintenance of archives was done initially through local societies -- by people who were interested in those historical issues, mostly on a volunteer basis, quite often in facilities that were not appropriate either in terms of the security or the kind of conditions that had to be maintained in terms of preservation of some artifacts.

There has been a trend right across Canada, quite frankly, spanning the last couple of decades, where on the aboriginal side we've seen the return of artifacts that in some instances were claimed to have been stolen. I recall back in the seventies the return of some totem poles to Haida Gwaii that had found their way down to the Provincial Museum. That was on the basis that they had a location where they could properly store those artifacts and where they could be maintained and be available for study, etc.

As well, increased funding over the years has allowed the development of better facilities. Just to mention one community, 

[ Page 4270 ]

in Prince Rupert -- where I live -- I am very pleased that as a result of an Infrastructure Works grant, the local museum has now moved into much better quarters.

So as that situation has improved over the years and that desire to maintain those archives at that level has increased, it has become necessary, and it is necessary now, for people who want to do the kind of work -- academic work; you name it -- that's associated with examination of this material to go to those locations. While it would be ideal to have one central repository for ease and convenience and all the rest of those issues, that's no longer possible to maintain.

Now, we have not reduced our base budget in terms of the support for B.C. archives. There have been some changes, yes. A part of that has resulted in some interruption in the normal hours when the material is open and available for inspection and utilization. My understanding is that we've completed that process now, and we can certainly publish or make available the kinds of hours that that material is accessible. I have attempted, as the minister responsible, to explain that in a variety of ways. I have written some letters on the subject. I'd be pleased to forward that material to the member, and indeed, would offer the availability of my staff to provide a more detailed briefing on some of these questions which the member may want to pursue.

So, in summary, I do agree with the sentiments expressed by the member. There have been some changes, yes. They have caused some element of controversy -- some criticism perhaps. We've attempted to respond to that in a positive way. We remain fully committed to the whole process of maintaining archival material in our province for a variety of reasons: for itself, sometimes for display and for study. We do think that that is an important function, and it will be maintained.

C. Hansen: I appreciate the minister's remarks, and certainly I will take him up on his offer for that kind of information. One of the key issues that's been raised in this debate is whether or not the provincial government will continue to be the recipient and to take custody of documents other than simply government documents. There are certainly conflicting reports that have come out in different communications, some saying the role of the archives has been turned solely into that of a keeper of government documents. Others say it's still a decision that is pending. I was wondering if the minister could elaborate on that aspect of it.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there is in fact no exclusivity on government documents alone; that's not the policy. The archives are interested in material that is of significant provincial importance. There may be items that are brought forward by individuals.

So there do appear to be -- and I guess that concerns me more than anything -- the differences of opinion that are out there. To get to the bottom of that and get it absolutely clear, as I indicated. . . . Actually, I believe I've written some letters on this question. But that is the policy. I'm not certain how that confusion is cleared up. The member appreciates that under any given set of circumstances, there are occasionally critics who occasionally have it wrong. But I am interested in having this clarified. That is our position. I'm prepared to confirm that. I've confirmed it here in the House, and I'm prepared to confirm it in any other way that might be effective.

[7:00]

I'm very pleased to hear the minister confirm that the archival service will still accept public records. But is there a changing role for the archives service in terms of whether or not they proceed in a proactive way or reactive way?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is no. There still is an active component to the program. It may be, though, working in conjunction with societies, that some of those archives -- that material that formerly would have been brought to Victoria as a central repository -- might in fact end up at another location, for the reasons I talked about in my initial statement. So it's not a completely passive role. There still is a great deal of activity with respect to obtaining archival material. It's simply that it might not end up here in Victoria. It might be, working in conjunction with these societies, in some other location.

C. Hansen: There was reference by an individual who was speaking on behalf of the Information, Science and Technology Agency, in an article in the Times Colonist for May 14 of this year. She says local communities are loaded with private archives, citing churches, unions and city halls as some of the best collectors of information. I'm wondering if those are the vehicles the minister sees as potential recipients of some of these documents.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Again, to amplify, the qualification obviously is: where the standards exist. When one is preserving documents, certain issues have to be in place, such as the ability to control climate, temperature, humidity and those kinds of things, particularly in terms of preservation of paper documents. So if the conditions are right, then more and more you'll find placement in some of these other facilities.

C. Hansen: One of the concerns is exactly, as I think the minister has just indicated, the ability of some of these local community organizations to care for documents in a way that will allow them to be preserved for generations and generations, which is what archives are all about. Certainly some of these community groups have very limited funding. I appreciate that there is a grant program that the ministry sponsors. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what the status of the grant program is and whether or not these organizations can count on continued funding.

In fact, there are going to be more pressures put on these community groups, more demands put on at the community level. 

[ Page 4271 ]

I guess the fear is a word that we've heard a lot of, and that's "downloading." There's a fear that maybe some of this archival responsibility will in fact be downloaded to some of these local community groups. Yet they won't have the financial resources to do the kind of custodial job that's going to be required, to make sure that the integrity of these documents is maintained.

Hon. D. Miller: No. I'm pleased that, although it's not a large budget item, in the face of an obviously tough fiscal climate this fiscal year, we have maintained the $225,000 funding for community archives. But again, this is a shared responsibility. Obviously, our contribution is probably small relative to some of the broader costs.

But notwithstanding that, more and more community archives and community groups are coming and saying: "We want to retain these documents." So there's a desire out there on the part of these groups to maintain these documents at their level. So, in the face of the budget cuts, we've maintained that funding. The future is not mine to foresee with respect to budget-making. But clearly, this is not a bad demonstration of good faith.

C. Hansen: One of the things that I certainly came to appreciate in the time I spent with the Vancouver Museum is the real anxiety that donors of material have. When there is something, say, that's been in a family for generations and generations or just something they found in the attic, there is a real anxiety in terms of the ability of an organization to take care of those documents properly. I'm wondering if the ministry has looked at all at any way of qualifying the technical ability of community groups to maintain and preserve documents in a way that would allow donors some satisfaction that their family treasures are going to be preserved in a way they would expect for generations to come.

Hon. D. Miller: We do work with the Archives Association of B.C., both in terms of the development of standards and in offering advice to local archives so that those concerns can be met.

C. Hansen: There was also an indication that there may be some. . . . There are actually two words used in this quote. One is "deaccessioning," which is a very charged word in the museum community. I think a more positive word to use is the other word that's used, "repatriation." The minister alluded to this earlier in terms of. . . . He referred to totem poles that had been returned to some of the villages where they were originally carved, which is certainly something we would support.

In this context, I think, the reference is to materials that are currently held by the B.C. archives, and the idea of those documents being returned to community organizations or community archives. I wonder if the minister could comment on to what extent that may happen, because this is obviously an issue that is of great concern to historians.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we do. . . . Just two examples. I did cite the Law Society earlier. They and the city of Victoria have both asked for certain material to be returned. Before we do that, we will ascertain whether or not material will be put into the kind of keeping and storage, etc., that we've talked about in this conversation. So there are requests that do come in to us. And we will act on those following an evaluation to ensure that the standards are maintained.

C. Hansen: This may seem like a mundane point, but I think it is actually very critical. I wonder if the minister could give us some reassurance that archival materials will only be repatriated to a community organization if they are requested -- in other words, that we're not going to have quantities of material from the B.C. archives that's going to be deaccessioned for an unwilling recipient.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I can give that assurance.

C. Hansen: There was probably a collective sigh of relief when people heard you say that -- or have the opportunity to read that. There is also an issue over the Wednesday closures of the archives. This is an issue that affects, albeit, a very small percentage of British Columbians, but it affects them in a very profound way. We do have professional researchers who rely on that very much. I understand that there were three very senior individuals from the archives service who took early retirement and that the Wednesday closure was seen as a temporary closure. I am wondering if the minister could advise us, first of all, when we could expect those positions to be filled and, secondly, when these individuals may expect that the temporary Wednesday closures will end.

Hon. D. Miller: Three people did take earlier retirement, and as a result of that we instituted the Wednesday closure. We also receive quite a volume of fax and e-mail requests that the staff have to deal with. We are in the process of hiring, and we expect that by the end of the summer we will have replaced those positions and will have returned to normal.

C. Hansen: I want to deal, finally, with the issue of the community grants. I understand that there were some problems last year with the community grant moneys being approved. It's largely, as I understand it, as a result of the responsibility for the archives being shifted from minister to minister, and there were staff recommendations for approval that were waiting for a minister's signature. I'm just wondering if the minister can assure us that that is up to date and that we won't see that kind of delay in approval in the future. The reason I ask this question is that you've got organizations which have commitments to staff and, in the case of last year, they didn't know whether or not they were going to have their 1996 funding until that year was virtually completed. I'm just wondering if the minister could give some reassurance for the future.

Hon. D. Miller: I understand there were some difficulties, but this year some of the money is out and flowing. It's going out. I understand that it's also earlier than is routinely normal, so it appears that that problem has been addressed.

C. Hansen: I want to close and turn this over to my colleague for Kamloops-North Thompson. But in closing, I just want to say that I'm impressed with the minister's personal knowledge on this subject. I think that will come as a surprise to a lot of people, because he has a very detailed and a very extensive ministry. This is obviously an area that is of great importance to a small number of people. I did want to compliment him on his personal interest in this subject. I know there's a lot of people in the archive, museum and history communities in British Columbia who are very anxious that, at a time when we're obviously in financial constraints in terms of government and availability of funds for government operations, the curatorial and archival functions are something that have to be maintained on an ongoing basis. I appreciate the minister's comments. I appreciate the commitments that he's made tonight. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague.

[ Page 4272 ]

K. Krueger: I have a few questions with regard to gambling in British Columbia and the gambling expansion initiative announced by the minister in March. Yesterday I heard the minister say in this House that he is not a gambling man. That really surprised me, because I think the minister has launched one of the greatest gambles that British Columbia has ever taken -- of course it has everything to do with gambling. I also heard him say the day before that he expected his estimates with regard to gambling to be, I think he said, "the highlight of the session." I hope that we don't disappoint him in any way there.

In 1987, when this minister was in opposition and was noted to be a particularly effective and aggressive member of the opposition, along with the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, they both went on record with some remarks about gambling expansion being considered by the government of the day.

[7:15]

"Look, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to introduce any form of legalized gambling into this province, whether it's on boats or on land. What the government is doing here is simply inviting crime. Let me share a few statistics with the members opposite. In Atlantic City, in the first four years they had legalized gambling in that jurisdiction, crime rates increased by 191 percent. Think about that for a second. Do you know what type of crime it was? It was street crime, purse-snatching, holding up local grocery stores. Do we want that type of crime in this area? I say no. . . .

"Las Vegas has the highest per capita crime rate in the United States. Do we want to invite those types of statistics here to the west coast. . . ? You know, it's easy to spend $400,00 on roulette wheels and rooms in ships, but what about the social cost? What about the policing costs? Who is going to pay that? The taxpayer is. . . .

"A recent study done by the University of Florida, which I will recommend to the Provincial Secretary, talks in rather lengthy terms about legalized casino operations. It reviews every study ever done on the matter in the United States. It concludes that all you do at the end of the day is invite more crime, and when you start looking at the costs associated with legalized gambling, the infrastructure costs, the airports, the roads and all that kind of stuff that you build, it loses money for the jurisdictions."

The minister himself, on March 24, 1987, recorded in Hansard at page 253, had this to say:

"I'm concerned about the proliferation. . . . And if it's a source of cash, you'll tap it over and over again, regardless of the moral position. . . . Talk about morally offensive! I ride around and I see ads on the buses for the mortgage-burner lottery, when I know that working people in this province are struggling to make ends meet paying their mortgage, and they're lined up gambling in hopes they can get out of that burden of debt."

In any event, just a couple of quotes out of this 1994 press release. This minister was certainly in cabinet at the time. The press release says: ". . .such facilities would be out of step with the quality of life British Columbians expect and value so highly in this province. The people of British Columbia have expressed serious and legitimate concern. . . ." It's true that that press release refers to Vegas-style casinos, but the minister has commented publicly about these words and how he floated the term "Monaco-style" casinos when he first began talking about this expansion in the fall of 1996. These are just words. The real question, of course, is whether or not British Columbia is going to welcome casinos within its borders.

I was at the press conference on March 13, 1997, where the minister was unable to define a Vegas-style casino. I don't blame him -- nobody can, really. It's just a pair of words with a hyphen between them. What it finally came down to was that he thought a Vegas-style casino was either big or very big, and that's as good as I can come up with. The fact is that a casino is a casino, and it has similar effects.

Continuing that press release from October 4, 1994 -- of course, these are the same people in government. . . . A comment was made by the Premier of the day, Mr. Harcourt -- I assume it's okay to use his name now:

"My first priority for any new, additional gaming revenue is to put more police officers into our communities. I've directed the Attorney General and my ministers to report back to me on new community-based policing and crime prevention programs for consideration as first uses for these new revenues."

These are this government's own words from not that long ago -- two and a half years before this gambling expansion announcement -- more or less deriding jurisdictions that go into this type of expansion because they're just looking for a quick fix. It's the terminology that people use with regard to junkies, helpless people, people who have become addicted to something and need a quick fix -- a quick economic fix.

It goes on to say that British Columbia's economy is the strongest in Canada and does not require attractions like Vegas-style casinos. Well, we know it's not the strongest in Canada anymore; it's number ten of ten. Maybe we need an economic fix, but I don't think and many British Columbians don't think we need it at the type of expense that's going to come along with this expansion.

Without preamble, there was another NDP government press release, this one dated May 24, 1995. The then Government Services minister, the present Attorney General, issued another press release, in this case ruling out video lottery terminals, which, of course, aren't all that dissimilar, I think, from slot machines. He says:

"Our decision. . .is part of our ongoing commitment to ensure that our made-in-B.C. gaming policy reflects the values and interests of British Columbians. Public opposition to the proposed introduction of VLTs has been mounting since last fall. We have received hundreds of letters from groups and individuals opposing VLTs, and municipalities representing about 50 percent of B.C.'s population have stated their objections.

"When Premier Harcourt announced the framework for a new gaming policy last October, he made it clear that government would listen to and be guided by British Columbians on their implementation of those decisions. We have listened, and that input has helped guide us to this decision today."

[ Page 4273 ]

I just completed a few questions in the estimates of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. She pretty much had to admit that she hadn't done any studies, forecasting or impact analyses in her areas of responsibility -- small business and tourism and culture -- insofar as the potential effect of this gambling expansion on them. As with many other cabinet ministers, I had the distinct impression she was taken by surprise by the gambling expansion announcement, and therefore hadn't done her due diligence with regard to the area that she's responsible for.

All that being said, we have all of these remarks by the NDP government -- the same people who are still in cabinet today, except for one, and constant rumours are that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will be back. Certainly one of his colleagues has referred to him as "the MLA for everywhere," so he is considered within caucus to be an authority and knowledgeable. He had those comments that I quoted.

Most of all, I'm interested in this minister's own comments in 1987 that gambling expansion was morally offensive and that it was wrong for working people who were trying to pay a mortgage to line up gambling in the hope that they can get out of that burden of debt. Of course, there are a tremendous number with a huge burden of debt in 1997. So my first question for the minister is: if he felt that way in 1987 but he announced an expansion in March of 1997, what changed him?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I was a member of the opposition, I guess. I'll leave that, for what it's worth. Being given the responsibility for this file, I started to look into this in some detail.

I guess we could trade quotes back and forth for a long time. I certainly have the ability to generate some quotes in terms of members of the opposition, in terms of what appear to be favourable statements about the expansion of gaming possibilities in our province. Certainly the member himself draws a line somewhere between what's currently taking place in our province -- the level of gaming that's currently taking place in our province. . . . I don't believe he finds any moral qualms about that -- at least, I've not heard him express those. In fact, we know his very strong support; in fact, I support that member in the position he took to award a contract to a British Columbia company to print lottery tickets.

This debate may be characterized by a difference of degrees, I suspect, but having made a commitment to go a certain distance in terms of gaming or in support of gaming, I'm kind of curious as to where one draws the line. In that respect, I do. . . . Whether or not Ms. Schaefer was accurate in her statements in the May 31 edition of the Sun, I'll leave for others to judge. But she did say, as the election day chair for the Liberals -- and she said this before she signed on with the Liberals -- that she pinned them down on their gaming policy, and it was virtually the same as the current NDP initiatives. That source is someone who doesn't support this party, but clearly worked actively for that party and must have had some reason to say that.

Really, let's get into the substance of the issue. I indeed floated the concept, and we have in fact made a decision as a government not to allow the development of the so-called Las Vegas-style casino. I actually agree with the member, as well. I mean, how does one define what's in a name, whether it's Las Vegas-style or Monaco-style or Toronto-style or Montreal-style or Windsor-style? Essentially, we're talking about large destination casinos. We've ruled that out. We've said in a very direct way: "They will not be allowed in our province. They're not going into the city of Vancouver."

We've ruled out the proliferation of VLTs. In fact we've ruled out VLTs. There will not be VLTs in British Columbia. So we'll avoid the situation that has erupted in some neighbouring provinces, notably Alberta, of unrestricted access to these VLTs -- everywhere you turn you find them, those kinds of things. Instead, we've said that we think there's a case for a modest expansion of gaming in our province. We know that the current charitable gaming provides significant support in the hundreds of millions of dollars to charitable organizations in this province. That's very important -- that's a very important source of revenue. We see, for example, that there is a significant loss of potential revenue, as people go down to Washington State. So we're losing opportunities to capture that for charitable purposes.

We did an extensive study of what's happening across Canada. We invited experts to provide analyses, and we produced the Peter Clark report. We used that information to guide us as we developed our policy: a modest expansion on the charitable side; the potential installation of slot machines at the racetracks to try to protect that very important industry in our province from a revenue loss; the ability to develop regional destination casinos -- fairly modest in scale, no bigger than the current charitable models -- which we think provides an opportunity for resort development and hence tourism development, and new jobs and new business opportunities. In some parts of our province they're going to approach that very carefully. We've said that the communities adjacent to the municipalities in question have a role to play. We have to receive an indication of support from that level before we would approve these destination casinos.

On balance, we have paid attention to some of the criticism that has come from the opposite side. We have paid attention to the public of British Columbia. We have tried to act only after we've done the kind of research that's important when you're making these decisions.

Finally, there does appear to be a level of public support. I believe there was an Angus Reid poll that suggested quite a reasonable, good level of public support for the kind of approach that we are taking. On balance, I think it was measured. We've described it as a fairly modest expansion of gaming opportunities in our province.

[7:30]

K. Krueger: I thank the minister for that informative answer, which included a lot of reassurances on points that 

[ Page 4274 ]

have already been covered. I was hoping to raise them, and he's probably saved me quite a number of questions. I'd like to flesh out a couple of answers a little bit.

First, as we exchange these remarks about our own statements and activities of the past, again to clarify the record on the issue of the contract in Kamloops, I think the minister has acknowledged that this was not an expansion issue. Rather, it was an existing level of activity within our province, and certainly within my constituency. What passed between us was a visit by me to his office, with an assurance that if he chose to negotiate the contract once again with Pollard Banknote, as this government did in 1991, there would not be any criticism from this member, being that there were no other companies in western Canada, let alone B.C., that could bid on that contract. Everyone in Kamloops was concerned about losing the contract to Asia or Georgia or somewhere in Europe.

In any event, one of the points that's been brought home to me very clearly as I studied gambling over the past year -- not a subject I was particularly interested in, nor had much knowledge about before that -- is that it's really hard to turn the clock back on a gambling expansion; that as you open the doors and the current runs through, you can't really close the doors again very easily, and the social consequences and costs that flow, continue to flow, and in fact they seem to spiral upward. Even if a jurisdiction doesn't continue to expand the actual activity, the consequences tend to grow on themselves. So trying to reverse a level of gambling that's already been allowed in a jurisdiction is sort of like closing the barn door after the horse is gone -- and you're lucky if you even see the tail end of the horse. It's just not going to do you any good. Just a point of clarification there.

When the minister said that large will not be allowed, those are comforting words, to some extent at least, and I would like that to be pinned down. The current maximum that the minister has set for a casino of any kind in British Columbia -- be it what's being referred to as a destination resort or be it a charitable casino -- is 30 tables and 300 slot machines, as I understand it. When the minister says that large will not be allowed, is he assuring the province, the public and this Legislature that no casino larger than those numbers will ever be allowed by this government?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct. We've said that 30 and 300 are the parameters.

Just to touch on the Pollard Banknote issue, when I said I support that member, I mean that. I do support maintaining jobs in British Columbia, and there's a fundamental principle that governs that issue. In other words, if the Lottery Corporation were to simply look at the bottom line in terms of their cost of doing business, they could have gotten a contract that was cheaper by about $2 million. But they didn't. They applied broader criteria than just the bottom line. In other words, what are the benefits, if any, to British Columbians? When we do that kind of evaluation, we see that the benefit in terms of GDP, employment, provincial revenues, etc., is significant when all of that is factored in.

What is important, though, is the principle. I wouldn't mind if the member would confirm that that principle is one that is supported, because that principle can be applied in a number of different ways. The fundamental principle is that we're prepared to use the vehicle of the Crown corporations in a way that benefits the public in terms of job creation and those kinds of issues. We see that applied in many different ways in B.C., and I'd certainly appreciate it if the member might indicate whether that's a principle he supports.

K. Krueger: When I'm a cabinet minister, I'll be happy to talk about the principles that I support, but for the time being, I get to ask questions.

I was interested in the very definitive answer the minister gave that there will not be VLTs, which is somewhat encouraging, because the press release that was issued on March 13, 1997, is entitled: "Government Rules Out Las Vegas-style Casinos and VLTs in Bars and Pubs." A lot of people have been kind of alarmed by those last four words "in bars and pubs," and are concerned that VLTs might show up in gas stations and 7-Elevens. That's actually been the case in the Maritimes, and there's a lot of really sad history already flowing from the prevalence of VLTs, there and in Alberta.

Does the province and the Legislature and the public have the minister's assurance that this government will never allow VLTs anywhere in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and again, for an important reason, and the member touched on it. One of the issues is access. We see that currently there are some games that can be accessed, but VLTs are fairly odious. What we've said is that the slot machines that will be allowed will only be allowed in controlled environments. We are restricting play on those machines to people who are 19 years and older. The only way you can have a controlled environment is in the scenarios that we've described: in the charitable casinos, in destination casinos, at the racetracks. I think that's an important issue and one of the very strong reasons that we did not allow the proliferation of even slot machines other than in those controlled environments.

K. Krueger: I take that as a yes, that the minister is guaranteeing British Columbians that VLTs won't be allowed anywhere in British Columbia. Those last five words didn't really have to be on the press release, where it says: ". . .VLTs in Bars and Pubs." They just flatly won't be allowed in British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: I think a careful scrutiny of Hansard will indicate that I said yes when I got to my feet to respond to the question. I'm sure there are endless quotes of me saying that in media interviews and the like.

I can't predict the future. I'm currently the minister; this is the current administration. What might happen in the future is beyond my control, but I am responsible for the policy adopted by this government. The policy of this government is that we are not going to allow that.

K. Krueger: I thank the minister. I don't mean to be irritating, but I have been concerned about that particular phrase. The press release and the press conference largely dealt with what was going to be allowed, which was an awful lot of what had been presented as the options. The press release was entitled "Government Rules Out Las Vegas-style Casinos and VLTs in Bars and Pubs" -- in other words, what wasn't going to be allowed. It seemed pretty specific about what wasn't going to be allowed, in the title. So I feel reassured about what the government meant by that.

I'd like to move on to the word "modest," because modest and moderate are two words that have been used by the other side of the House a lot with regard to this gambling expansion. Massive is a word that's been used a lot on this side of the House, because we see a 2,000 percent increase in 

[ Page 4275 ]

betting limits and an 1,800 percent increase in projected revenue from these types of gaming as a massive change in the province of B.C. I wonder if the minister would define the terms "modest" and "moderate" in percentages. What would it take in percentages before an expansion or any type of change exceeded modest or moderate?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm tempted to say that modesty prohibits me from doing that, but I won't.

I and the government have described these changes as modest, and I think that is quite accurate. If one looks across Canadian jurisdictions to see the normal initiatives brought about by provincial governments -- of all political stripes, by the way. . . . This is an issue that appears to transcend political labelling or political parties, because Liberal, Conservative and NDP administrations in virtually all Canadian jurisdictions have embarked on fairly significant increases.

I'm not sure whether there is a mathematical equation to a dictionary description. There's clearly not, so people are free to use whatever language they think makes their point. Occasionally politicians are accused of hyperbole, and with some justification -- certainly not when using the term "modest" but perhaps when they use the term "massive."

If one looks at those other Canadian jurisdictions not only in terms of what they have done already but in terms of what they are now proposing to do, I think Ontario is about to launch a "massive" increase in VLTs. So on a relative scale, what we're doing here in British Columbia, quite frankly, is very, very modest.

Now, indeed, we did increase those bet limits. But go back to the issue that I think is an important one. If we're losing, some argue, as much as $70 million annually in revenue because British Columbians are driving down to Washington State, is it not reasonable to say: "If we can match that, perhaps we can retain the revenue here in British Columbia and use that revenue for purposes that we deem appropriate here"? I think that makes sense.

If the member wants to characterize that as massive, well, I can't do anything about that. But when one looks across the total policy that we've announced, it is indeed a rather modest expansion of gaming opportunities.

K. Krueger: Well, that's twice the minister has touched on the issue of revenue going to the United States of America. I've certainly read the Peter Clark report and the KPMG appendix carefully, and I don't really see a prediction of any revenue specifically being salvaged for British Columbia from the United States, if that's the aspiration here. Were there any independent studies done as to that specific question? What reduction might there be in the traffic of British Columbians to the United States -- to Reno, to Vegas, even to Washington -- and would there would be a reduction if we opened these venues in British Columbia?

[7:45]

The significant issue is that if we're losing -- and I think it's reasonable to use a low number, say $30 million. . . . If $30 million is going across the border, by British Columbians going down to Washington, and they're prepared to stay at home and go to casinos in British Columbia, then that's money that stays in our province and money that's available for the kinds of programs I talked about.

K. Krueger: To clarify my question, I'm trying to narrow down the target the minister had in mind. I have read Jacee Schaefer -- whom the minister quoted a few minutes ago -- being quoted as saying, and I've actually heard Peter Clark say to a public meeting in Kamloops, that neither of them believes that a single British Columbian will be dissuaded from travelling to Vegas or Reno as a result of the gambling expansion that's been announced here. People go there for other reasons: entertainment and the lifestyle down there -- Disneyland for adults, as people refer to it. So I wonder if the minister believes that anyone would be dissuaded from going to Vegas or Reno or anywhere in Nevada as a result of this gambling expansion.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, really, it's not for me to say. I think the principal revenue drain that we can deal with, and that we've dealt with through the increase in the bet limit, is to Washington State -- in other words, the people who take the drive on an evening and come home on the same night.

I appreciate that Vegas is an entirely different experience. It's an interesting question. I said to Mayor Owen, the mayor of Vancouver, when I met with him and George Puil and Councillor Kennedy last year and they voiced some concerns about the position of the city of Vancouver in respect to gaming: "Well, Mr. Owen, don't you gamble?" "Oh yes," he said, "I've been down to Vegas and Reno." Whether he'll stop going there and spend his money at home in B.C. as a result of these changes, I don't know. It's hard to say. Those are individual choices. I can't comment on it.

But we're not going to try to compete on the attraction side. We've got lots of natural attractions. Really, I think when you look at B.C., the opportunities in B.C. . . .. One of the reasons I was intrigued by the notion of a larger-scale casino was because Vancouver and the lower mainland are arguably truly international. I've travelled in Europe, and I've travelled in the Asia-Pacific. I meet people here on a regular basis from major cities around the world, and I haven't met anyone in that capacity who doesn't tell me how much they like Vancouver. It's truly international. I just met the new consul general from Japan, who just recently arrived in Vancouver. I asked: "Is this considered to be a good posting?" He said: "Number one. This is the best posting in the world in the consular corps." So you can see that Vancouver has this international appeal. In that respect, perhaps it's like Sydney, Australia.

There was some. . . . I think the Clark report indicated that the potential of a larger scale was really to attract revenue from non-British Columbians. As much as 50 percent or more would come from people who travel to British Columbia and are prepared to leave some money behind. We've rejected that, because the public didn't want it. I'm just trying to explain to the member why I was kind of intrigued by it. I thought: well, that's an economic project, and we're concerned about the economy and jobs. That's why I looked at that. But the public spoke out and we listened. That's why we have this, as I say, relatively modest expansion, relative to what could have been.

[ Page 4276 ]

K. Krueger: It's certainly great to hear those international endorsements of Vancouver. I know we all feel the same way about Vancouver. We're proud of it, and people who live there love it and appreciate very much what they have.

Recently there has been growing alarm with regard to crime in Vancouver, a lot of which flows from addiction problems. Inevitably I'll have to talk about addiction problems in these estimates, and gambling addiction in particular. There are a lot of cross-addictions between gambling and other addictions -- alcohol and drugs -- and very often people who are addicts become desperate people. They've got to get hold of money so they can go and do the thing they're addicted to. That's one of the many reasons why the people of Vancouver made it so clear that they weren't interested.

Again, there's a huge body of evidence that with an increased number of venues in a jurisdiction comes an increased number of addicts. With an increased number of addicts comes an increase in crime, because three out of four pathological gamblers will turn to crime to fuel their habit. When you have people, such as cruise-ship customers, coming into Vancouver and being warned to stay away from Gastown because of crime, I know that's a serious concern to all of us and certainly to the provincial government. Gambling expansion will probably -- almost surely, by everything I've read -- exacerbate crime problems in British Columbia wherever it occurs.

I wonder what the minister's initial response to that concern is.

Hon. D. Miller: Just an observation, but the people who do come in on the cruise ships can gamble, because they have gaming on those cruise ships. They have card games and slot machines and all of those things that the member thinks are so wrong. It's interesting that they can pull into Vancouver, but they can't get off the ship and do what they can do on the ship. I don't know if there's some irony in that or not.

Again, the Clark report looked at the issue of crime. The KPMG report on the one-year analysis of the Windsor operation, the letter that is contained in the Clark report from the chief of police of Montreal and the experience of the community of Windsor, at least with respect to those major operations, led me to the conclusion that it's not a significant problem. Where there are some difficulties, the revenue derived from gaming provided the resources to have extra police or whatever. In fact, the analysis of Windsor is that downtown Windsor is safer now that the casino is built than it has ever been, and that's the testimony of merchants who have businesses in that downtown core. So while I'm not dismissing the notion of some of the negative consequences of gaming, neither have I seen sufficient evidence to become an alarmist about that.

Additionally, the issue of problem or pathological gamblers. . . . In fact, that's a fascinating topic because of the divergence of views. It's interesting that academia produces a lot of papers, but it's also interesting to note that if you scan those papers, those treatises that are written on any given subject, you'll find opinions as varied as you may find in this chamber. I don't think there's any real documentation or definitive work on the question of problem gamblers. There are some statistics that are accepted, or relatively accepted. They tend to be very, very small in terms of percentages.

Again, it's incumbent on any jurisdiction that derives revenue from that source to try to provide offsetting programs. We do that with alcohol; we do that in other ways. We are, for the first time, developing a program -- and it's in another ministry, so you can quiz that minister on the program -- that will try to offer some assistance to people with those problems.

We find that people with those problems will participate in gaming wherever they can find it, whether it's legal or illegal. In fact, there's a huge amount of illegal gaming that takes place. Presumably, one of the benefits that might be derived from our policy decision is to try to reduce the amount of illegal gaming and be able to provide the kind of programs I've talked about.

K. Krueger: That little aside about the customers gambling on the cruise ships before they get here. . . . If this minister ever goes on a cruise ship, I hope he has an opportunity to do some fishing, because I've never met anyone as good at finding red herrings as he is.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The minister asks what my colleague and I were discussing. I honestly do receive a great deal of material that indicates that pathological gambling is a very serious problem. I know an expert who lives in Kamloops. He's the chief counsellor at the University College of the Cariboo. He unabashedly tells people that he's a gambling addict himself. He had to self-treat, because there was nobody to help him. Fortunately, he's had a great deal of education and was able to bring himself out of that tailspin, but it was a terrible one. I have met and heard of a great number of people who have the problem.

This government commissioned studies by Angus Reid in 1993 and 1996 that indicated that close to 4 percent of adult British Columbians have pathological gambling problems. The number did grow a little between those surveys, even though expansion was pretty much frozen in British Columbia.

I hadn't realized that the minister thought there was any question about whether that's a real problem or not. I would encourage him to read the material in the Legislative Library, because it is real. It affects people in terrible ways. The Jiany case was on the front page of our provincial newspapers recently: the gentleman -- well, the individual -- in Vancouver who set his home on fire and tried to burn his daughter and his wife to death. He was afflicted with gambling addiction. It had been a problem in their marriage and in their home for many years. The other day in the House I mentioned a woman I talked to who'd had to live in fear of her father all her life because he was a pathological gambler. He actually lost their house periodically. She never knew what would happen next if he came home after having a bad night gambling. He'd beat her and her siblings and her mother. It's a very serious problem. I'll deal with that more a little later. I'll also deal with the letter from the chief of police in Montreal and the comparison between the Windsor casino and the type of operation that's contemplated here.

But before I go on to those things, the minister had touched on something key earlier. That is: what principle do you start from when you consider things like gambling expansion? I think that was in the initial answer to my question: what changed the minister, from 1987 to 1997, from finding gambling morally offensive to embracing -- from my point of view and the opposition's point of view -- these massive changes in British Columbia?

[ Page 4277 ]

[8:00]

I'm not sure if the minister has had a chance to turn his mind to those two terms, hard-core and soft-core gambling, but I'd like to know his opinion on what I just said -- that people actually feel the line is being crossed here. It hasn't happened yet, except for the increase in betting limits and the increase in hours, and there haven't been any new venues in British Columbia yet, since the announcements. It's not too late to reverse the decision. That's what people feel. What does the minister feel about the difference between the hard-core and soft-core gambling?

Hon. D. Miller: Really, I've described and will continue to describe the expansion that we are bringing in. It is relatively modest. In terms of the horse racing industry, a number of years ago there was expansion of off-track betting for the first time. According to the kinds of criteria that are being used in this debate, I guess that might have been opposed by your caucus at that time, it seems to me, based on the kind of arguments that you're mounting. Yet it was accepted very, very well. It's in place. People can go into off-track betting establishments in communities around this province. They can wager on the horses. That was a significant change, and yet it was accepted by society rather well.

I don't know. I think there's a balance between freedom of choice in society and allowing certain activities. When I raise the moral question, what intrigues me to some degree is that while indeed I do think of myself as a moral person with personal views on issues, I guess for those who mount the moral argument, I have to question where the dividing line is between what we have now and a modest expansion. Where is the moral argument that somehow we've reached the limit now? Was that moral argument, according to those who want to use it, not one that was valid three or four years ago when we brought in off-track betting?

I can't describe for people in this province where the moral line is, nor do I intend to. I simply try, in a reasonable way, to deal with questions of morality. I believe very strongly in having moral views on issues, and I have very strong views on some issues. As a matter of choice, not because I abhor gaming, I just don't do it. As an individual I've never felt the need to and have no desire to. If I have a few bucks in my pocket, I'd rather get rid of it in ways that I choose as opposed to gaming. Really, with all due respect to moral arguments, which have a place in our society and are important, tell me where the moral line is crossed.

It's a matter of opinion, I suspect. People gamble on the VSE. There are no limits on the VSE. You can spend all the money you want gambling on penny stocks on the VSE, and that's your right. It's not considered gaming -- maybe by some, although I don't want to attack the VSE. It's an important capital market, particularly for the mining sector.

You see the point I'm trying to make. I think it really is a matter that is individual as opposed to collective. Collectively, people spoke out when we went forward and said, "What about this, a major casino?" and the answer came back no. So we listened to that; we listened to the public. We tried to fashion our policies respecting those public wishes. Finally, I can only cite the penultimate poll that was done -- I believe it was Angus Reid -- which tested a lot of these questions with the public: "What about regional destination casinos?" The response came in very, very favourably.

On balance, I think there has been a bit of a furor on this issue that was perhaps unnecessary, but that's the way it goes with these kinds of issues. I think things are reasonably settled now. We're proceeding to try to implement the policy, and I think there will be a benefit to that -- enhanced jobs and those kinds of opportunities. If we can contribute to the economy of the province, then I think we're all better off.

K. Krueger: On this question of what's moral and what isn't, the only person I've found referring to gambling expansion as a moral issue thus far in Hansard is the minister. What I tend to see more is a cost-benefit analysis. Very persuasive material suggests that for every $1 in revenue that a jurisdiction enjoys in the short term with gambling expansion, it incurs social costs that even by crude financial measurements run between $3 and $7. Over the long term and the not very long term, there isn't a payback. There's a significantly larger cost than any short-term benefit.

Of course, we're just talking about dollars and cents thus far. When you talk about the grief in people's homes and families and the actual loss of life that come with gambling expansion, we're talking about things that matter a whole lot more than the bucks. Again, I certainly could produce -- I don't want to take up too much of the House's time -- really heart-wrenching stories from my files, things that people have written to me about the effects on their families. Again, the material I read says it takes up to six and even eight years for full-blown gambling addiction to develop in an individual. So there's something of a lag effect in many people; sometimes it's quicker. But there is a tremendous cost.

I wonder -- we'll go into some detail on various aspects of what the social costs are said to be -- if the minister has had anyone project for him what the social costs of this gambling expansion will probably be over the long term, compared to the revenue that he has projected.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: Again, looking at literature -- not that I'm personally familiar with all the literature -- I don't think there's anything at all to suggest the magnitude of social costs that the member refers to. There was a study by a Professor Grinols, but to the best of my knowledge, the information I've received is that that has been discredited in terms of any kind of peer review. There is absolutely no support for that theory. But I am interested in the issue of the social consequences or the social impacts. In fact, I have my own views on some of those social questions in our society. Primarily, I've always believed, and still believe, that most of our social ills 

[ Page 4278 ]

are related directly to two very important factors. One is people's economic circumstance, and the other is their ability to have some hope and optimism about the future. The two are, quite frankly, linked very closely.

I have to tell you that where you see the breakdown in the social fabric of society, where you see people who fall into problems with alcohol and drugs, is where you find poverty and a lack of people thinking that they've got any hope. Quite frankly, sometimes in those cases you may see people turn to gaming as. . . .

It has, in my view, far more to do with those kinds of issues. Gaming runs the gamut from bingo, which is viewed by lots of people I know as kind of a social entertainment. . . . But there are levels of addiction with bingo. The consequences might not be as severe, but there are levels of addiction. But there are some positive things, as well, about bingo in terms of that social milieu in some communities that you ought not to disregard. Profiles on gamblers in the higher things like the major casinos tend to produce a profile of white males of middle to upper income. So it's an entirely different profile. It depends on the kind of gaming that takes place.

So I don't know. This sort of correlation that's automatically drawn in terms of, with all due respect, an argument of convenience is one that I think really needs more reflection, more thought and more analysis. I'm prepared to bet, if I can't prove, that poverty and loss of hope have far more to do with the social ills of our society than gaming can ever hope to contribute.

K. Krueger: When it comes to things like working against poverty or protecting children in this province, this official opposition is going to be there shoulder to shoulder with the government. I know that we all share those concerns.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: No, I'm not taking that as any kind of a cheap shot.

I do believe, though -- and a lot of what I've read leads to me to believe -- that gambling creates poverty and that it preys on the hope that the minister was talking about. So it's a very insidious and nasty thing. And I've read those studies, too, that say that in these large-scale casinos the predominant customers seem to be, as the minister said, white males, middle to upper income. I don't remember the white part, but middle to upper income certainly.

The studies also say that the people who lose out the worst in gambling venues and in gambling expansions are the people who are spending such a huge percentage of their meagre income in that forlorn hope that they'll win the lottery. It's more likely they'll get struck by lightning, but still they hope that it just might be them, and they'll spend their last few bucks that they ought to spend on their kids and groceries. In Manitoba, for example -- and again, thank the Lord we're not going into VLTs here -- I've read that there is more money spent on VLTs than there is on groceries, which is phenomenal. They call those things the crack cocaine of gambling, and it sounds as if they are. They're a really bad influence on societies where they're established.

I want to touch on the poll that the minister referred to. I think he was referring to the one that was taken in January and was released recently. Rather than get him to stand up. . . . I see he's nodding his head. That was an Environics poll. We were curious why it was delayed, since it was taken the first week of January and only released in late May, I believe. Perhaps the minister could answer that.

I'd like to also make the comment that we don't regard that as an honest poll. It started out by questioning the people on their views on gambling expansion, and they were fairly typical views. Again, all the literature I have read says that an uninformed population will tend to vote about 50-50 when polled about gambling expansion. Fifty percent of the people are instinctively opposed and fearful of it and maybe find it morally offensive, like the minister did in 1987; the other 50 percent enjoy gambling and think it would be kind of nice to have more venues. That tends to about 30 percent of the population, and the other 20 percent just don't see why it would be any of their business, so they don't vote against it. But in an informed population, when people have had a chance to sit down and listen to the experts on both sides of the issues, the polling tends to break down very differently to two-thirds against gambling expansion and one-third in favour. That's certainly the gist of what I've read.

The reason we regard that Environics poll as a dishonest one is the manner in which it was conducted. I don't think push-polling is quite the correct term, but after the initial question it went on to ask questions like: if you knew that government could stop running deficits and start paying off the debt and cut your taxes because of gambling expansion, would you be in favour? That sounds pretty tempting to people, especially if they haven't had the benefit of any of the literature that the minister and I and the experts on either side of him have read. I'd just like the minister's candid opinion about the questions that were put in that poll after the initial question, whether or not he shares the view that it could be interpreted as a dishonest poll and why it was released five months after it was taken.

[8:15]

As far as characterizing the poll as honest or dishonest, I don't know that one could reasonably do that. One can surely question, and is free to question, the results of the poll and to offer opinions about the manner in which it was conducted and everything else, but I think standard polling techniques were utilized. It's been my experience when it comes to polls that when they tend to favour a decision you want to make, you like them; and when they tend to be against the decision you want to make, you tend to say: "Well, gee, there must be something wrong with the way they took it."

If I could just take a minute to tell an amusing little anecdote, in my own constituency there was a poll taken towards the beginning of the federal election campaign which showed the Reform Party with a significant lead, the Liberals in second. . .

K. Krueger: You didn't like that, did you?

[ Page 4279 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Let me finish.

. . .place, with my own party trailing considerably. So, you know, it's an election campaign. The campaign committee managed to get a release out and got a good story in the paper questioning this poll: "The sample size is too small; it's not accurate, etc." So we got our message out. Then about three weeks later, the same company conducted another poll, and lo and behold, we had risen from the bottom to second place. The Reform candidate had dropped from a good lead down to a modest lead, and the gap was narrowing. We claimed that that poll was right on -- that it was a two-way race -- and the Reform candidate said: "No, no, the sample size is too small. It's not accurate."

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Actually, curiously enough, in a general sense the poll was accurate in that the Reform candidate won -- though not by the kind of margins that they've won in other constituencies -- and the New Democratic candidate came in second, with a very good vote. In fact, I'm pleased to say that in my constituency -- the provincial constituency -- the NDP candidate actually won the majority. However, you've got to win a majority in the whole riding.

K. Krueger: My point about the dishonesty of the Environics poll is that it embarked on a process of trying to educate the respondents as it went along and to tailor the respondents' responses by information that it held out to be true, although it was very questionable.

In any event, we'll move on to other things. But first I'm going to yield the floor to our colleague from Peace River South for as long as he needs it.

J. Weisgerber: There are a few issues that I want to talk about particularly -- not from the moral perspective of gambling; I think that's an issue for individuals and perhaps communities. But I am concerned about government's addiction to gaming revenues. As I look across this country and across North America, I see more and more jurisdictions looking to gaming revenue as a way to deal with their revenue problems.

It seems to me at first look -- and, indeed, the more you look at it, the more true it becomes -- that it's one of the most regressive forms of taxation that you can develop. I believe that the money going into lottery tickets, the money being spent at bingos and the money being spent in casinos comes inordinately from lower-income people.

So for a minister who purports to be a social democrat, I think the first thing you've got to say is: "Is gaming a fair means of taxation? Should governments look to gambling as a way to bolster revenue?" I've heard the argument that it's voluntary taxation. If you don't want to pay, if you don't want to lose money gambling, nobody has a gun to your head. It's voluntary and therefore is a better mechanism for taxation than the involuntary income taxes or consumer taxes that you might have. So I'd be interested to know from the minister how he squares in his own mind this whole question of the equity of taxes.

As I watch television, I'm struck with the professionalism and skill with which our Lottery Corporation advertises. They make buying a lottery ticket sound like an awful lot more fun than I've ever found it to be when I actually went down and did it. And I, like the minister, don't go more than one or two times a year and rarely venture more than a dollar. Maybe that's the problem; maybe that's the difficulty.

It's not that I am morally opposed to gambling. I've gone to Las Vegas and enjoyed the experience. I enjoyed Las Vegas more than I enjoyed the gambling. I do think, in the broadest sense, that in this rush of jurisdictions around North America believing that gambling will bring the kind of benefits to their jurisdictions that gambling has brought to Nevada, they seriously underestimate the experience. People who go to Las Vegas are not going to stop going there because they go across the line to Washington State to gamble, nor are they going to go to downtown Vancouver and believe that that somehow is an alternative to the trip to Reno or Las Vegas.

Before I carry on too much further, I would like to hear a response from the minister on his and his government's approach to this whole notion of taxation or an alternative means of revenue generation that gaming and gambling is seen by many to represent.

Hon. D. Miller: There's no question that the proceeds from gaming present fairly significant revenue opportunities for government. There's no question at all. I can't remember off the top of my head what the numbers are in B.C., but it's fairly significant if you look at the current lotteries, bingo, etc.

A lot of that's on the charitable side -- the bulk of it -- about $130 million, I believe, or somewhere in that neighbourhood. It doesn't come to government. It goes to the charitable organizations and is distributed to worthy causes.

The public appear to support the taxation; in other words, they appear to support the notion that one reason why you might consider expanding gaming is for the additional revenue, with the proviso that they like the notion of that revenue going towards areas where they think it's important -- health care, for example. There seems to be an acceptance, broadly stated, amongst the public that that's okay.

I'm interested in the two fundamental points you raised. One is essentially a socioeconomic argument that it's disproportionate and it's regressive in that it's a tax on the poor. But implicit in that argument is that the poor, or lower incomes, are more susceptible. Increasingly, as I've thought about that, because I think it's important. . . . To go back to the quotes I made, when I was younger I had a tendency to more or less assume certain things, believe them, say they were true and not get into too much of an analysis. But more and more I tend to resent to some degree that argument.

As I was advancing the discussion about the potential for expanded casino gaming in the province, prior to us making a decision I referred to conversations that I had with people I encountered on the street, particularly people in my own constituency, about what their attitudes were on the expansion of gaming.

Really, there was an overwhelming number of people of my acquaintance -- working people, people I'd worked with in the pulp mill or in fish plants, ordinary working people -- who said to me: "Yeah, we support what you're doing." I recall that I was in a media scrum one time, and I said this. I said: "Well, no, I meet people and I'm talking to people in my constituency." And there was a report that sort of derided what I had to say, because it said that Miller said the fish plant workers support him -- as though fish plant workers weren't equal in our society, weren't capable of independent analysis and thought. I became a bit offended by that, if you take my meaning.

Who are we to say that it's our responsibility to provide additional protection because people only make a certain amount of money? Why do we presume that someone who 

[ Page 4280 ]

makes $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 a year doesn't have the same capacity to make independent decisions about what they'll do with that as someone who makes $70,000, $80,000, $100,000 or more? Where's the argument? I don't think there is one, so I don't get too concerned about that.

With respect to the final point you made, I think it's actually a very good point. There was a very good article in the Economist that talked about that very thing and put it into very good perspective, in my view. It really talked about the sort of false economy of a reliance on gaming as a perpetual source of revenue. I think that's true. I don't think that we should ever put ourselves in the position that some jurisdictions have, where they have allowed the proliferation of casinos to the point that the competition between those casinos means none of them make any money. They don't produce any net benefit. It's important that we don't allow that situation to develop here in our province.

If we simply said, "Well, anybody who wants one can have one," and you found two or three in every town, it stands to reason that they simply wouldn't make any money. It wouldn't work. But doing it in kind of a focused and strategic way, the way we are doing it, I think there is a rationale for having some destination casinos or resorts. It's not just a casino. It's important to know that when you're talking about a destination resort, the casino is a component, but along with that are the normal things that attract visitors to any particular area: hotels, golf courses, aquatic facilities -- those kinds of things, with gaming as one of the components.

You said you've been to Vegas. My spouse and I have taken weekend trips to some resort communities in our province. To the extent that the development of new resorts with a modest gaming component provides for increased opportunities, particularly in rural B.C., I think there's nothing wrong with that.

You do raise a good point, and I think our policy is cognizant of the points you've raised. I don't think that would happen here in British Columbia, with the very modest expansion proposal that we have going on here.

[8:30]

If the Lottery Corporation and others have information that suggests that no, you're all wrong, that people who earn $10,000 a year are likely to spend only one-tenth as much on gambling as someone who earns $100,000 a year, I'd be happy to look at the study. I could be convinced that I'm wrong. But I'll tell you, the kind of thing that impresses me is when the lottery jackpot gets up around $15 million or $20 million, and all of sudden people start lining up at the kiosks in the supermarkets. Then you get a sense of a kind of cross-section of who's buying the lottery tickets. That's the unscientific way that I get an impression as to who's buying the tickets.

I think bingos attract people who are looking to make. . . . First of all, I'm not opposed to bingo; I think people go to bingos for entertainment as much as they do. . . . Perhaps some people spend too much on bingos, go too often. People go to the bar too often; people go to the racetrack too often. I'm not going to get particularly hung up on that issue.

If the minister has some evidence to suggest that people gamble about the same percentage of their income regardless of what their income is, then obviously that would destroy at least some of argument about regressive taxation. I would be very, very interested and surprised if that information were available.

The other point the minister made about a proliferation of casinos destroying the purpose or the viability of them points to an issue that has confused me around the Vancouver proposal. I've heard time and time again that we should have a casino where the cruise ships dock. The minister made the point very, very well that people gamble all the way from the port they just left to the one they're coming to. So we say, and people that the minister is very well acquainted with say, that we've got to have one right on the docks. So when they step off in Vancouver, they won't get caught up in the scenery or the shopping or the Robson Street experience. We've going to funnel them into this casino because they're going to be hungry for that kind of experience, having only had 48 hours of straight gambling on their way there. I've always been confounded by that particular argument, and I would love to hear the minister's response.

Hon. D. Miller: In reverse order, and I hope I can remember all the points: no, I didn't suggest for a moment that the prime potential customers for a major casino in Vancouver were people who arrive by cruise ship -- not for a moment. I was responding to a statement made by one of the members opposite that things have gotten so bad in Vancouver in terms of crime that cruise ship passengers were being warned not to go to Gastown.

I think that's an exaggeration, quite frankly. We don't want to spread the word that Vancouver is somehow unsafe. In fact, it's very, very safe. The comments we get from Americans particularly and others who come to visit Vancouver in terms of why they like it is its geographic setting, its cleanliness and its safety. In fact, that safety issue comes up time and time again. One of the reasons they like Vancouver so much -- particularly people from the large American cities -- is because it's safe, which seems to reinforce my contention earlier that one of the leading, if not the leading, cause of social degradation in our society is in fact poverty. So I've not suggested that. Rather, I've suggested that Vancouver is an international city that attracts visitors from around the world, most of whom come by air, and that's one thing they might like to engage in. But we're not going to do it, so it's an academic discussion.

There are two points, really. One is that the surveys that we've done show that the sale of lottery tickets -- in other words, who buys lottery tickets -- represents the demographics of British Columbia. There's not a preponderance of a single classified group in our society. It represents the demographics. Finally, even accepting your argument about those who are desperately poor looking for a way out, it seems to me that what we're proposing is not something that will increase that problem at all. If you're in that category, are you going to fly to a destination casino somewhere in B.C. for a weekend? I don't think so. You're going to do what you do right now, which presumably is buy lottery tickets, perhaps go to bingos. Even at bingos now, the average player drops about $25 a night.

[ Page 4281 ]

I agree with the member. Actually, from my observations for many, many years. . . . I lived in Great Britain for a year back in the mid-sixties, and bingo was a social milieu. It was entertainment; it's where people went. They did play bingo and they spent a few bucks, but who's to say that's not a valid form of spending a social evening -- dropping some money, potentially winning a modest pot and meeting your friends and neighbours? Who are we to say that somehow that's wrong? I don't know.

I just haven't heard any arguments against what we're proposing, which is a modest expansion in a very controlled way that provides more opportunities for jobs and opportunities in our province, and to retain revenue that might be going across the border, which we can use for good purposes here in B.C.

J. Weisgerber: There are a couple more issues that I want to touch on this evening. One is that I'd like to get clarification for myself on the government's current position with respect to VLTs. I want to tell you up front that I have been concerned for some time with arguments around illegal pull-tabs, particularly in licensed premises. The argument that I've heard time and time again is that there are perhaps 5,000 of these around British Columbia and that we as a province simply can't deal with these. We have no way to deal with them, and therefore the argument that the government was putting forward at one time was that rather than have these illegal pull-tabs, the government was going to bring in its own and. . . .

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the minister says pull-tabs are VLTs. As I understand it, there was a serious problem -- or a perceived problem -- with gaming devices that were illegal.

Hon. D. Miller: Yep.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps pull-tabs is the wrong description of them. But there were some 5,000 of these machines, primarily in licensed premises. The government was unable to control or regulate these, so they thought the answer was to order a bunch of VLTs and put these guys out of business. I could never accept the argument that government, with the control it has over licensed premises -- government who can control the size of a television screen that someone has in a bar -- says: "Gee, I don't know, there's those 5,000 machines, and we're just at a dead loss. We just can't deal with this, so we're going to get in the business and run those guys out of business."

So, first of all, I wonder if the minister could bring me up to date on that issue and perhaps at the same time tell me where the government is currently standing on this issue of VLTs.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, there are so-called illegal gaming machines. I'll use that terminology, whether you call them VLTs or pull-tabs or whatever -- illegal gaming machines.

The real issue is this: the member clearly appreciates that in terms of the kind of resources that are dedicated to policing our province and the job that they have to do, there are some issues that, if you want to chase down people who are conducting illegal activities, require a great deal of time and person-power to successfully achieve a conviction. You've got to really work at it.

The members also appreciate that in any situation, priority becomes important. There are no unlimited resources. We need to dedicate those police resources where the most serious issues are: on our highways and where there are concentrated areas of violent crime -- those kinds of questions. On the illegal machines, the challenge for the police is that you have to dedicate so many resources to trying to get a conviction, because you have to catch somebody paying off. Having the machine there isn't necessarily illegal; but having a machine where you may get the pay off behind the bar is illegal. You can, hopefully, appreciate what I'm trying to say here. The kind of resources in time and effort required to get a conviction are enormous relative to the magnitude of the problem, compared to other problems of a criminal nature. So that's the issue.

One of the things that we will be doing as a result of the increased revenue that we do anticipate from our modest expansion of gaming is to give some resources to police authorities so that they can indeed be more focused in terms of cracking down and getting the kind of convictions they need for these illegal machines. But without the resources that would come from an expansion of gaming, it's pretty much status quo.

So I hope that explains the issue, the problem and what we're attempting to do to resolve that. Expanding gaming gives us the opportunity to actually be more focused in terms of going after the illegal machines.

J. Weisgerber: Well, first of all, my concern has been the linkage between the argument that we can't control these illegal machines. . . . I've been offended by the argument that we can't control these illegal machines, ergo we will bring in legal machines of our own and put them out of business.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the argument's been made more than once, and more than once by this government. So I want to say that is the concern. Now, having said that, if the desire is to control the illegal machines, particularly in licensed premises, then I suggest to the minister that it isn't nearly as difficult as he would make it out to be.

Liquor licensing is all-powerful -- the people who wanted to bring in television sets found that out. We held up an enormous proposal in downtown Vancouver because we were controlling the square inches of TV sets that they could put into the bars. And the minister tells me we can't control an illegal machine until we see somebody pay it off? I don't believe that.

With a simple change to the legislation, you could simply make it illegal for the machine to be in the bar, if that was your goal. If it was the goal to get rid of the machine, with the powers that are there, available under liquor licensing. . . .

[8:45]

J. Weisgerber: "Am I serious?" the minister asks. I'm absolutely serious. If the goal of the government is to get illegal machines out of bars, then surely the same legislation that controls the size of a TV set can control the presence of a machine for gaming inside a bar. And if the minister disputes that, then I begin to appreciate the magnitude of the problem.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to be absolutely clear. I've never once argued that we need to expand gaming in order to deal 

[ Page 4282 ]

with illegal machines. That's not a rationale that I'd want to advance. I understand that there may have been someone previous to me, who's no longer with us, who may have done that. But I don't accept any responsibility there.

The member is now arguing that there should not be a restriction on a bar owner bringing in a visual game or TV, that there should not be a restriction on the size and that somehow the heavy hand of the state is being used in an improper way by doing that. Then on the other hand he argues that the heavy hand of the state ought to be used to tell people you can't have a machine in your bar that your customers might enjoy playing and that's legal. I find the two positions somewhat contradictory; there's a bit of a dichotomy there.

R. Neufeld: Perplexing.

Hon. D. Miller: Perplexing indeed. I don't know. You've got me puzzled.

So, really, I did offer what I thought was a very rational explanation. I'm not a lawyer; I'm not a policeman. There's a Criminal Code that governs these things; there's jurisprudence that governs these issues. We're guided by that to some degree. In order to get a conviction that somebody's using a machine in an illegal way by making a payoff behind the bar or something, you have to actually catch them. You have to prove it, and you have to make that case in a court of law. That's one of the fine features of this country, which we would clearly not like to abandon. And I'm simply saying that we may have a few more resources dedicated to trying to do just that as a result of this expansion.

J. Weisgerber: The minister obviously has a point of view, and I have one, and fair enough. One question that the minister hasn't yet answered -- just for my own edification: what is the position of the government today with respect to VLTs? What is the policy position today on VLTs?

Hon. D. Miller: There are no VLTs. We will allow slot machines, where you put a coin in, in controlled environments with a 19-or-older age limit -- that is, in existing charitable casinos, new charitable casinos, destination casinos and the racetracks. You can't play if you're younger than 19. It will be a controlled environment. There will be slot machines. There will be no VLTs proliferating anywhere in this province.

J. Weisgerber: Can the minister tell us whether the government or direct agencies of government have purchased or ordered any of those machines or any similar machines?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I thought, according to an earlier briefing I had, that we'd actually purchased 1,000 slot machines. I'm advised that this is not the case. We're in the process of purchasing, but we have not received the machines yet. Now, as I recall, we originally had a placement for 1,000 and then an additional 4,000, if I'm not mistaken. But we haven't taken an order of those. The tenders are out there, I believe, but we've not made any final decisions about the purchase.

J. Weisgerber: So the government has made a decision to purchase as many as 5,000 slot machines, all of them to be coin-operated, with bet limits as high, then, as a multitude of toonies. What will be the maximum amount that someone can put into a machine before you pull the handle, using the largest denomination of coin?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that they're basically dollar machines or quarter machines, but you may be able to put in as much as $3 on any given operation.

J. Weisgerber: The last point I want to deal with is the expansion of casinos. Now, the minister has talked, over the last bit of our conversation, about limiting the number of casinos that are available. I have no argument with that. I think if we're going to have them, you certainly have to limit them. What I want to do, though, is explore a little bit the role of the community in determining where those casinos will go or whether they should be permitted.

Dawson Creek is currently preparing to hold a referendum on July 5 to decide whether or not there should be a casino there. A lot of people in the community have applauded the council for making the commitment to allow the use a referendum. But I suppose, predictably, a number of people who live immediately outside in the acreages and suburban development around Dawson Creek -- those people who live in Pouce Coupe -- argue: "Hey, this issue involves us as well. Why aren't we getting an opportunity to vote on it?"

Has the minister any thoughts about the mechanism by which communities and regions of the province are going to involve themselves in deciding whether or not casinos should be permitted in their jurisdictions?

Hon. D. Miller: We essentially are going to rely on the municipalities to determine what they think is an appropriate mechanism. In other words, it may be a band council resolution; it might be a municipal council resolution; it might be a referendum like the one that's being proposed for Dawson Creek. There may be other processes that municipal or band council governments want to engage in. But at the end of the day we have to receive a positive indication from that body that it's acceptable to have a casino located in their jurisdiction.

I've signed a letter off -- I apologize that I don't have a copy with me -- within the last week to the municipal governments. Mr. Peter Clark and the lottery advisory committee have had some discussion with the UBCM, I believe, and are open to further discussions and, indeed, travelling around the province on this question.

Adjacent communities will have input. In other words, there will be the ability for them to register their opinions and their objections, if they have any. They won't have a veto, though. It seems to me that there are issues that currently do arise between adjacent communities, and nothing in our law and our practice to date gives an absolute veto to, for example, the situation you described. If Dawson Creek wants to do something and Pouce Coupe doesn't like it, well, probably Dawson Creek might say: "Too bad." That's the way it works. But we want to have those opinions as part of the decision-making.

We've also advised the municipalities -- it's their decision -- but at least at this early stage not to get supportive of one proposal. They can; that's fine. But rather to deal with the broader question of what kind of proposal may be acceptable to this community, that, we think, gives more flexibility and more latitude as proposals do come into government in response to our RFP -- which hasn't gone out yet. It's in the making, probably the end of July. We think it gives more flexibility in terms of developing. We want quality products out there. That's all detailed in the letter. The lottery advisory committee, as well, will be interacting with those communities to have further discussion.

[ Page 4283 ]

J. Weisgerber: That raises the question of gaming on-reserve. I think of classic examples around British Columbia where reserve lands are inside municipal boundaries, immediately adjacent to municipal boundaries. Nanaimo comes to mind, but there are literally hundreds, as the minister knows. The minister mentioned a resolution either by the council or by the band council. Of course, that raises the possibility of there being conflicting resolutions in an area like Nanaimo. I wonder if the minister has thought at all about how he would then deal with a situation where, for example, the band council wanted to have a destination casino but the community surrounding it voted against. How does one then. . . ? Who prevails in a situation like that?

Hon. D. Miller: I have thought about that question. I've thought about it from the point of view the member described, and I've thought about it from the opposite point of view: what if a non-aboriginal community wanted to have casino gaming and there was an adjacent aboriginal community that didn't want that to happen? So the question, with all due respect, is not whether it's an aboriginal community or a non-aboriginal community. The question is about adjacent communities and how you deal with the interrelationship between the two. I hope the member would accept that on that basis.

There are no simple answers to that question. It seems to me that if the objection from one community to an adjacent one is simply, "We don't like it from a moral point of view," then it might be difficult for that argument to carry much weight. If the argument is, "We don't like it from more of a zoning-type approach, because it will create a traffic burden on our only street that can't handle it," or things of that nature, then there are some legitimate issues that need to be resolved.

I think, with all due respect, that when we look at this question of adjacency, we ought to do it by simply saying one community beside another community, not one aboriginal community and one non-aboriginal community. I don't think that adds anything to the discussion.

J. Weisgerber: I'm quite prepared to accept that on that basis. But it also then leads to the question of the Gaming Commission and whether or not the province continues, as it has historically, to maintain jurisdiction over gambling on- and off-reserve. What I'm looking for is some commitment from the minister that just as the question of approvals by band councils or municipal councils will be treated equally, other actions or activities around casinos will continue to be the same whether they're operated on-reserve or off-reserve.

I think that's an important issue. It's been debated; it's been questioned. To the best of my knowledge, government has continued to maintain its jurisdiction over gambling provincewide, and I sincerely hope that you continue to do that.

Hon. D. Miller: At the end of the day, the decision to allow a destination casino to be located is one that will be made by cabinet, not by the lottery advisory committee, although there's a process for recommendation. We're not going to make political decisions, but we're going to make the final decision about yea or nay. In that respect, the policy that we have announced does not distinguish between aboriginal or non-aboriginal. We take the position -- and it is the correct position -- that we as the provincial cabinet have the sole authority to determine whether we will allow a casino to be put in place or not. So there's no distinction, if you like, between our approach, regardless of which community we may be talking about.

[9:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I can't debate the legal questions, but let me address that from a practical point of view. Should the Nisga'a determine that they think it is practical and feasible and beneficial to have a destination casino located in one of their communities -- presumably, it would be in the largest, Aiyansh. . . . Should they make that conscious decision and say, "Yes, we want to do that," and convey that to government, and providing the criteria that we establish are met, etc., then I wouldn't anticipate that there would be any objectors, because the closest community to Aiyansh is Terrace. I can't remember the exact kilometres of highway. But, while we've been putting a great deal of money into it, it is not yet at a stage that is very desirable for driving. That's one of the big issues that we're continuing to work on.

So I don't know that there would be any particular issues that would arise under those circumstances. In any event, I am not aware of any legal issues that would impact on the statement I made earlier to the last question, that we have the sole authority with respect to the final decision.

K. Krueger: The minister was quoting some polls a little while ago and gave us the humorous anecdote from his home constituency about the federal election. I'm looking at a poll that was conducted by this same government. It's called the "B.C. Gaming Study," done by Viewpoints Research. Granted, this was published on November 4, 1993, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that public opinion changed between then and the expansion announcement in March '97.

But to this specific question, "Thinking about gambling activity in general in British Columbia, would you say we have about the right amount of gambling opportunities available, not enough gambling opportunities available, too many gambling opportunities available, or do you not feel strongly one way or the other?" only 21.3 percent of the people said there weren't enough gambling opportunities. There were 14.7 percent who said there were too many gambling opportunities and 39.9 percent who said there was about the right amount. The NDP paid for this poll, the Angus Reid poll in 1993 and the Angus Reid poll in 1996.

An Hon. Member: With taxpayers' money.

K. Krueger: With taxpayers' money -- that's correct. The NDP write the cheques, and it's taxpayers' money. Having done that, having spent that money, having received those results, having said in those press releases that I quoted at the beginning of this section of the estimates that the government had heard loud and clear from taxpayers and municipalities representing 55 percent of British Columbians that gambling expansion activities weren't welcome in B.C., and just looking at these particular poll numbers, would it be fair for me to say that the only thing that's really changed this minister's mind about gambling expansion in B.C. is the desire for revenue?

[ Page 4284 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I can only respond to statements I made in -- when was it? -- 1987. I wasn't involved; I wasn't the minister responsible at the time in 1993. Quite frankly, in politics that was quite some time ago. I can't recall the circumstances. I'll only add that it has some interesting comments.

K. Krueger: Interesting answer, but not to the question I asked. I think something got lost in the translation there. What I was saying was that this government has spent the taxpayers' funds on these polls and has published the results, saying that the taxpayers don't want gambling expansion. So other than revenue, is there really any other reason that the government has decided to proceed with gambling expansion?

Hon. D. Miller: As far as I know, the only money that government has is money derived from the taxpayers, in one form or another. To suggest that the NDP spent the taxpayers' money. . . . Madam Chair, when a party is in power, whether it's the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party -- if they ever make it -- the only spending they do is authorized by a budget under a ministry. And that money is derived from the taxpayer, from resource revenues or from some other fees, etc. So we can get off that little line.

I think -- and I've cited some of the polling evidence, for example -- that British Columbians see significant advantages in raising revenues through gaming when they have some levels of comfort that those revenues are going to go to the kinds of services that are important to British Columbians. Health care is an example. I also believe that there are opportunities on the economic side through expanded gaming. Certainly being able to staunch the flow of revenue into the U.S., being able to anticipate the development of resort complexes, hotels, golf courses, aquatic centres and the resultant employment that develops as a result of those kinds of developments offer us opportunities, it seems to me, particularly in some of these smaller communities in the regions of our province -- very good, real opportunities -- for new jobs and economic development -- not the fundamental underpinnings, but additional opportunities. So those are part of the reasons why we thought it was desirable to introduce this rather modest expansion in gaming.

K. Krueger: Could the minister please give us the present status of the request for a proposal put out to the companies that are interested in bringing on venues? I missed part of a comment that the minister made to the member for Peace River South, and I think he may have said that the deadline now is July.

Hon. D. Miller: We anticipate that that would be put out around the second week in July; it's not out yet.

K. Krueger: In preparing for this gambling expansion announcement and/or in drafting the RFP, has the minister or his ministry consulted with any major gambling proponents to develop the casino expansion plan? Could I have the names of any casinos or developers that the government has had advice from?

Hon. D. Miller: No, we have not, in terms of that direct. . . . I think the member is. . . . Are we talking to people who have active proposals in the province? The answer to that is no. Have Mr. Clark and his group consulted widely with experts in the field? The answer is yes. As to a list of who they may have talked to, I don't have that. I'd be pleased to have Mr. Clark forward any detailed information he has on that score: names of people, etc., that he or the committee has talked to in terms of development of the RFP, or those kinds of questions.

K. Krueger: When these RFPs are put out, then, and they are returned -- that is, the respondents return their responses -- could we have an indication of what process will be followed from there, what sort of evaluation criteria the government plans and how applicants will be chosen for destination resort casinos, for bingo halls or for new charitable casinos? Could we have some outline?

Hon. D. Miller: The RFP will have some of those criteria. We anticipate, with the issuance in mid-July, a possible return around October, and by that time we'll have worked out in much more detail the evaluation criteria, etc. But it is important to note that the evaluation will be undertaken by the lottery advisory committee, and then recommendations will be forwarded. I would, as the minister responsible, be taking recommendations forward to my colleagues.

K. Krueger: Is this, then, kind of a process that's evolving? I drew from that answer that the minister and perhaps the lottery advisory committee aren't entirely sure yet exactly how they'll conduct that evaluation process between proposals. Is that something that's still being worked out?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, yeah. I don't know that it's necessarily a simple process -- in other words, to simply put out the requirements in the RFP and then say that anybody who meets them will be granted approval to proceed. It's much more complex than that. It takes into account some of the economic questions I talked about and what the proposals are. So the final criteria. . . . I think that in a generalized sense people understand what they are, but in terms of more precise detail, that will be developed and will guide the evaluation when proposals do finally come back in.

K. Krueger: Will the RFP process outline an explicit procedure through which municipal input must be obtained by proponents -- or municipal approval must be demonstrated by proponents -- before a particular application is approved?

Hon. D. Miller: No, we have said that there will be a requirement for approval, but we've left the determination of what form that takes to the individual municipalities.

K. Krueger: I heard the minister's answer that the RFP will probably have a return date or a response deadline of approximately October. Beyond that, is this RFP process going to be open-ended? After that group of applications is dealt with, will the proponents, business people and entrepreneurs who want to do similar projects in British Columbia still be able to submit that proposal? Or will there be a whole new RFP process before any further applications are considered?

Hon. D. Miller: That's really for future consideration. We have announced the policy and will be putting that out. As we proceed with implementing the policy for the consideration of the public and everyone else, as we proceed and make decisions and hopefully have developments take place, I think it is important that it be done in a very good and outstanding manner. 

[ Page 4285 ]

We want to take the time to do it right, so that's where our attention and energies will be focused. Any future considerations are ones that we will deliberate at some point in the future.

[9:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Just as a matter of trying to give some sense of it, I believe there was some discussion of around four or five. I can't recall which precise number was used. But given the discussion we've had here tonight, it's clear that with the broader issues -- the economic and competitive issues -- we don't know what might come in. We have no way of knowing which municipalities may want to proceed or not want to proceed. So we have to get feedback from the public on all those kinds of questions.

My own view is that we've got to be reasonable. If, for example, a municipality comes forward and makes an outstanding claim, and says, "Yes, we think this is good business and the citizens are behind it," as the minister I wouldn't want to be accused of saying: "Go away, I'm not going to talk to you."

So a lot of these questions are for the future. We tried to give an indication of what we thought might happen initially. That's an educated guess, but I think we'll be in a much better position next year to kind of have a better sense of this: what's possible, what's practical, what's feasible, what's the desire out there -- those kinds of questions.

And as I said, we want to proceed in a very careful way. We want to do it right. We think it's very important, if the public is to have confidence in what's taking place, that we do it in an exemplary manner, and we intend to do that.

K. Krueger: I understand, and perhaps the minister would indulge me and just clarify it. I was going to ask if he has a number in mind that he thinks is the ideal number of casinos for British Columbia, given our present economy and our population. I understand him to say that his mind is still open on that question and that he doesn't have a fixed number.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't have an ideal number. We'll have to wait and see, of course. In theory, if there's no community in British Columbia that has the remotest interest, then there won't be any. So we really do have to wait and see what kind of response we get. We'll be in a much better position by then. Once we've put the RFP out and received some responses, we'll have a better gauge of the potential.

K. Krueger: With regard to proposals by aboriginal communities, obviously a number of aboriginal applicants have made the shortlist -- the 24 casino management companies that have been approved in the process. Will there be any unique or special consideration given to applications from aboriginal groups compared to the consideration given to other proponents of different proposals, or are they all on the very same playing field?

Hon. D. Miller: The same playing field.

K. Krueger: I've read the Peter Clark report, of course. I'd like to know whether, other than the Peter Clark report, the government has done any studies in the past year that haven't been made public or whether it has consulted with any other jurisdictions than are reported on in this report about casino strategy or gambling expansion strategy for British Columbia.

Hon. D. Miller: I just asked my staff if they've been doing anything behind my back, and they assured me no. So the answer is no.

K. Krueger: I would surely be the last to accuse them of any such thing. I just wanted to ask the question. We don't always receive the promptest release of information -- for example, the Environics poll.

Has the minister or the lotteries advisory committee undertaken any kind of specific cost-benefit analysis, other than the KPMG report that Peter Clark included in his report, to assess the actual economic benefit to British Columbia compared to the likely social cost of the announced expansion?

Hon. D. Miller: No. The work that Mr. Clark and his group published is really the kind of work that we've done on the question.

K. Krueger: If more than one casino proposal comes in for a given municipality or regional district and that particular regional district or municipality should happen to bless both -- or more than two, for that matter -- proposals, would the minister allow that?

Hon. D. Miller: I can't think of any circumstances whereby that would be allowed. It does not seem likely. The member may recall my earlier answer with respect to the process underway now. I will be sending a letter to municipalities and bands in which I ask them to try to outline what kind of proposal they might be supportive of -- not a definitive proposal, but rather in general terms -- and that gives some flexibility. At the end of the day, I can't anticipate that the local council would do that; in fact, I'm absolutely certain that they wouldn't.

K. Krueger: I suppose that one circumstance where that might happen is. . . . We're already seeing different proponents of venues suggest that they would really like to have 800 slot machines, not just 300. So you could have a creative proponent wanting to build casinos side by side, just to manage to come within the minister's announced maximum of 300 slots. Obviously that would be a fairly flagrant attempt to go around the rules, but it's entirely foreseeable.

For example, with the Osoyoos project, the casino management company has said 300 slot machines are not nearly enough for what it has in mind. They're doing their best to make the project attractive to the community -- talking about installing a sewer, protecting the desert and all those things. But they have said publicly that they require upwards of 800 slot machines to really have a destination resort casino. From the minister's earlier answer, I know that he's firm on 300 per casino. But what if they wanted to have twin casinos, or three, in order to get the 800 slots that they want? Would the minister flatly reject that?

[ Page 4286 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I would highly recommend that anybody who makes an application saying that they have to have 800 slot machines is guaranteeing that their application will be at the bottom of the trash can.

K. Krueger: The minister had expressed some hope or at least had publicly toyed with the notion that the Queen of the North. . . .

I just thought I'd pause, hon. Chair, until the MLA from everywhere is done providing his input to the minister.

The minister had publicly toyed with the prospect of having a casino on the Queen of the North, on the Prince Rupert ferry run. I wonder what the current status of that idea is.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's nowhere. It was something that arose in discussions with some municipal representatives. I subsequently received a letter from both the municipality of Prince Rupert and the municipality of Port Hardy supporting that concept. But nothing has happened beyond that. I don't know. I'd be interested in the member's views. That's a tourist operation, but there has not been any consideration beyond the expression of interest from both those municipalities.

K. Krueger: I think the minister said he would be interested in my view -- which is kind of flattering. My view is that we shouldn't have any gambling expansion in British Columbia. That's the view of the official opposition -- not on B.C. Ferries, not anywhere in British Columbia. We'd like to see the whole project canned.

I feel a remarkable spirit of rapport here tonight, and I flatter myself that perhaps the minister is on the verge of allowing me to shape policy and will reconsider this whole prospect for British Columbia. That's my recommendation -- that we call the whole thing off. I recommend that we call the whole thing off.

Hon. D. Miller: I meant to say that what the member is saying is that that's the official view of the opposition, but that I've heard there may be an unofficial view. But it's not for me to try to speculate on what some of those unofficial views in the Liberal caucus are.

I notice the member looking at the clock. I believe there is some agreement about the hour. I don't know. Again, it's not to push, but are we continuing tomorrow on this? Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair, after what I think has been a better day than yesterday. I got a bit heated in the afternoon after dinner yesterday, and if I offended anybody in that regard, I am sorry.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:46 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS,
TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)

K. Krueger: I have a couple of quick questions on the issue of gambling expansion as it relates to tourism and -- if the minister will indulge me -- small business in British Columbia.

This report, "Gaming Review: Expansion Options and Implications," was prepared by Peter Clark and KPMG and released in March. There's a table which deals with where the clientele will be drawn from in the various modes of gambling expansion, and in most instances it indicates the clientele will be 90 percent B.C.-based. The only area where it doesn't say that is under "Casinos" -- specifically, destination casinos. It indicates that 52 percent of the customers of a Vancouver Island casino would be B.C.-based -- the balance would be tourists, presumably -- 77 percent of an Okanagan-Kamloops casino; 50 percent in the rest of the province. I'm wondering: has the minister had an opportunity to read or review this report?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Certainly I'm aware of the report. Gaming is not a function of this ministry whatsoever, so I haven't been involved in it in a ministerial capacity.

K. Krueger: All right. We'll certainly cut the questions short, in that event. Has the minister had any opportunity to have a look at those projected tourism numbers -- the 48 percent for tourism on Vancouver Island, 23 percent in the Okanagan-Kamloops, and 50 percent in the rest of the province? Could she give us any prediction of how much of that is projected to be new tourism or how much is this existing tourism and drawing off from what those tourists would already have spent in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm aware that there are a number of communities around British Columbia that would like to see gaming expanded or have a casino in their community. I'm aware that the tourism industry would like to see casinos and gaming in a variety of different ways. There are a number of groups and people in the tourism industry who think we can reap benefits from some moderate expansion of gaming. Apart from that, I have had no involvement whatsoever with gaming in my capacity as Minister of Tourism.

[ Page 4287 ]

K. Krueger: The consultative study section of the report refers to what the KPMG people and a lot of other people refer to as the black hole effect, which is the negative effect on small businesses in an area where gambling expands, in that at least some of the money -- some say most -- spent in the gambling establishment is drawn away from other, existing small businesses, including tourism-style small businesses, and spent in the casino instead. A lot of people argue there isn't a net gain to the local economy. I wonder if the minister has done any independent studies or any impact forecast studies with regard to the black hole effect on the areas under her purview.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The small business community, in my travels around the province and to me here in Victoria, have not raised any concerns about that issue or about gaming generally -- quite the contrary. In my travels around British Columbia -- up in the Peace, across the north, the Kootenays, etc. -- the reaction has been, quite frankly, on the other side of the issue.

K. Krueger: The people in various communities feel a need to at least analyze their prospects and whether or not they ought to be getting involved. There's generally a concern that other communities might draw business away from one's own community if a venue were established there that people find attractive. Then they would go and do some gambling and also end up buying their groceries, renting their movies, buying their cars. . . . Who knows what other type of activity they might engage in because they went to a neighbouring community to participate in gambling? There are communities all over British Columbia feeling they have to have a look at this expansion and whether or not they ought to get involved.

I'll just briefly read this into the record. This is from the KPMG study, under tab A of the appendices to the Peter Clark report. It's page 42 of tab A, and it's entitled "Incremental Impacts." It says:

"In many situations the direct and indirect impacts may overstate the benefit to the economy, because some of the impact will be a reallocation of spending from other sectors. For example, as new gaming opportunities are provided, consumers may increase their total spending on gaming but may reduce their spending on other recreational activities. In that situation, the increased economic activity in the new enterprises would be partly offset by a reduction in activity in other sectors. Therefore the incremental economic impact of a new gaming activity is likely to be somewhat less than the direct and indirect impact."

So I interpret the minister's answer to be that there haven't been any specific impact studies done by or for this ministry with regard to the black hole effect or what is referred to here as the incremental impacts. Is that true?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm very aware that a number of communities around the province and a number of MLAs, including the member who just spoke, have supported and lobbied for gaming in their own constituencies. I have had no concerns raised with me by the business community, nor have I had communities raise concerns with me from a business perspective. At this time, I have had no involvement from that perspective in the gaming issue.

K. Krueger: To correct the record, the issue that the minister refers to had nothing to do with gambling expansion and everything to do with existing jobs and economic activity in British Columbia at the level of gaming that is already a part of our economy and our social fabric in B.C. Does the minister have any idea at all how the job situation will be affected, in tourism and in small business, by the gambling expansion that has been announced?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member has just recognized that in his community there are jobs and economic activity attached to gaming, and for that reason he lobbied for gaming contracts to be in his riding. I know that other communities feel very similarly.

K. Krueger: I'll wrap up my questions with this one. Once again, those were existing jobs in the Kamloops economy. I've had nothing to do with gaming expansion; everything was to do with the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and the plant was built in Kamloops specifically to service the B.C. Lottery Corporation's needs. The NDP government renegotiated the contract with that plant at the five-year mark when it expired. I gave some assurances to the minister that if negotiation took place again, I wouldn't be criticizing him for it.

I'll ask this question for a last time, since it hasn't been answered yet. Does the minister have any projection of the effect on the number of jobs in British Columbia, and particularly in the areas that she's responsible for in her ministry, as a result of gambling expansion? How many jobs will be lost in tourism outside gambling? How many jobs will be lost in small business? How many jobs will be lost in the horse racing industry, for example?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member has a study in his hand, and there have been a number of studies done by the minister responsible for gaming, in order to be aware of the positive or negative potential for expanded gaming. I will repeat my answer. As of this point I have had no concerns raised to me personally by the business community. In fact, there has been raised primarily to me just the kind of argument that the member himself just put forward about jobs and economic development and opportunity. Other than the contacts when I'm out in the community in the north, in the Peace -- certainly there's a great interest there -- and in the Kootenays similarly, and in casual interaction with the business community, I have had no formal concerns or any concerns raised whatsoever. I have not had any involvement, therefore, specifically from the point of view of my ministry on this issue, as it is an issue that falls in the purview of another member of cabinet.

P. Reitsma: We'll probably be done in about half an hour, as I promised the minister, so we're probably going to go fairly rapidly. Just on this particular item, I did have a question -- it's more of a statement. My information is that generally gambling, in terms of attracting what we call new tourists -- other than if you get the Las Vegas, Reno, Atlanta areas -- only makes maybe something like a 7 percent difference.

[ Page 4288 ]

A couple of small things. In 1995, I think, the program theme for that year was Stay at Home; in 1996 it was Time To Play. Did I understand the minister to say earlier that it has been put on hold and that there's no theme for 1997 but that, hopefully, the SOA will come up with something?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The SOA has decided to put that particular program on hold or suspend it for this fiscal year.

P. Reitsma: I would suggest to the hon. minister the importance of a theme. I think it's a good marketing tool and something to rally around.

Could the minister advise us if the Ministry of Tourism uses the Internet and if the ministry is availing itself of the possibility of, say, video teleconferencing with the eight regions? Is that being done or being considered?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The ministry is on line. Tourism B.C. is on line, and the ministry assisted the Council of Tourism Associations to go on line with a web page, of course. With respect to video conferencing, there is certainly some capability within government to do that -- government writ large. That is not something we have explored at this time, but it certainly is an option for the future of Tourism B.C., or if the ministry feels the need to use that particular tool.

[7:00]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Last year there were matching dollars offered to PRATA under Tourism North. This year, for a variety of reasons, the Tourism North program has been suspended. The SOA is currently reviewing all of the programs of Tourism British Columbia, including that one.

P. Reitsma: As of. . . ?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This fiscal.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

P. Reitsma: Hon. Chair, I take it by their nodding that it has been suspended as of April 1 this fiscal year.

I would like to read a letter sent to the minister, and I hope the minister will see this as constructive criticism. No names will be mentioned, but this letter was signed by Charlie Grand, who is the president of the Peace River--Alaska Highway Tourist Association. I just want to make a couple of comments on this. This was dated early October 1996:

"Four months ago I met with senior Tourism B.C. staff in Vancouver and was told that the Tourism North project was solid. Four weeks later, without further discussion, I received a short, one-page fax saying that Tourism North was cancelled. Twenty-four hours later, after much protest, it was back on again."

However, the point I would really like to make is. . . . And I hope the ministry recognizes the vast differences and the problematic ways that people get together. They had a three-day seminar and the annual general meeting of the Peace River--Alaska Highway Tourist Association in early October in Fort Nelson. Two important people from Tourism were supposed to be there. They agreed to attend and speak for a day at their meetings. It is the first time in his memory that a representative of Tourism B.C. or your ministry would have addressed his members.

Because of the anticipated participation, a large percentage of the members trekked to Fort Nelson for the meeting. That particular association comprises almost 25 percent of the area of B.C. Some members of the association that attended travelled an average distance of 500 kilometres -- again, this is positive criticism. At the very last minute the two main seminar speakers cancelled, because they couldn't come for whatever reason. They were extremely upset about it because so many people had to travel such a long distance. I'd simply like the minister to be cognizant of that. It's extremely important, because 25 percent of B.C. is contained in that Peace River--Alaska Highway Tourist Association. They don't always get together, and it was extremely important to them.

There were a number of questions posed to the minister. Some, through attrition, have been addressed. There were two. In fact, I'm not going to repeat those, because the intention with the U.S.A. is clear. So the reason I bring this up is to ask the staff, through the minister, not only to be courteous but to be particularly cognizant of the fact that when a large organization in terms of geography gets together, often it's difficult. That would have been the weekend before October 8, because that letter is dated October 8, whatever day that was, and it was that previous weekend. I'd just like the minister to be aware of that. It's not to be construed as negative but just as positive criticism.

A preamble to the next one: the Selkirk trestle, already open for business. "The Selkirk trestle opened to cyclists and pedestrians Friday" -- which was in August last year -- "completing a major link in a trail system that could eventually run from downtown Victoria to Swartz Bay." The reason I mention that is only as a preamble. Being from Europe, of course. . . . I'm proposing the possibility of a tourist event like we've seen with Expo '86, the Tall Ships and the Genghis Khan exhibit at the B.C. Museum.

Coming from Europe, the Tour de France is extremely important. Tens of thousands of people line the roads, and it's probably, by now, in the hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect business; we're probably looking into the billions. It's about a two-week or 18-day cycling extravaganza all through Europe. I know, of course, if I look at the new Island Highway, that there are bicycle paths that would be able to accommodate literally hundreds and hundreds of professional cyclists, but. . . . Has the minister considered the possibility, perhaps in conjunction with the private sector, as happened in Europe with the Tour de France, which goes through about four or five countries, as a matter of fact. . . ? Is there a possibility of considering a major cycling event in conjunction with the private sector, whether we call it Tour de B.C. or Tour de Vancouver Island? Leave it as Tour de B.C. if it is scaled to be based on the model of the Tour de France. That is one of the major events in Europe. It is just a suggestion. Has anything been looked into? Are there some comments the minister might wish to make?

Hon. J. Pullinger: With reference to the north, and the issue and letter that the member read into the record, I would simply like to point out that the meeting in question took place within the first week of me being appointed to this job. 

[ Page 4289 ]

Prior to that, this ministry was managed by another minister who had several very heavy responsibilities because one of our ministers was very ill. Therefore it's unfortunate indeed that a minister was not able to get to that conference, but clearly the circumstances would make it impossible to do so.

For the member's information, not only does this ministry fund the north in marketing dollars, in administration dollars and in program dollars, but beyond that we have also funded the Yellowhead Highway advertising program. And I have committed for the first time ever to ensure that there are seats from the north, or a seat from the north, on the new Tourism British Columbia board. Representation from the north on all boards and commissions in this province is much higher than I believe it has ever been, and my ministry staff are in constant contact with PRATA and with that corner of the province. In fact, my staff recently, within the last week or so, flew up there and had some lengthy meetings with them.

I can understand that they were disappointed that the minister was not able to attend their conference. Due to circumstances beyond anyone's control, there have been some changes of ministers and some disruption over the last year. I would ask the member to respect that fact, and I'm sure that if the people up in the north were aware of that, they would, as well.

The second issue the member raises is the issue of a bicycle race. We get requests weekly, almost daily, to fund events of different kinds, so in terms of just simply funding it, there's no possible way that government could fund events. You couldn't have a policy to fund events, otherwise it would bankrupt government, quite frankly. All of them are worthwhile, and I wish we could.

With respect of some sort of event being built into the sport infrastructure, that's certainly a possibility. If it were to come to me from the sports community, you know, we could certainly consider our options around that. I would not in any way be opposed to it, of course. I would welcome the discussion. We do fund 69 sport organizations, and we can have a fuller canvass of that under the sport part of my ministry.

P. Reitsma: I'm not asking at all for funding. I'm certain that if it were to come up, no doubt the ministry would enthusiastically be an advocate for that and maybe help in the promotion, not unlike how we promote other things.

On the first item, I must say, with no disrespect, that I think the minister missed the point. I wasn't referring to the minister whatsoever but to the two senior officials who had promised to come, and they cancelled out at the last minute without the organization knowing. Because the two senior officials were going to speak, and given the fact that it doesn't happen all that often, it kind of resulted in more than the usual amount of people coming. I was not referring to the minister at all, because I'm aware of the circumstances of the ministry at that time.

Talking about events, I noted that Vancouver tried to bid on the Summer Olympics of the year 2008, and I think there's an opportunity to bid on the Winter Olympics of the year 2010. That is a few years ahead. Could the minister advise us if there has been any involvement, directly or indirectly, by the ministry? I know that it's the sport portion of this, but it has overtones to tourism, as well.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I am aware of that bid and have received some varied representations about it. If in fact there is an appropriate time and an appropriate way for the ministry to involve itself, we will certainly consider it at that time.

P. Reitsma: As time marches on, I will be shorter with comments. Certainly the message we will take to the new special operating agency is that when we were in the north, but not only the north, we received through very genuine, honest discussions that many areas beyond the golden triangle -- which is Victoria, Vancouver, Whistler, and they will always do well, thank you very much -- feel kind of left out. Since we have a new agency now, I hope particular attention will be paid to that, no doubt with the proper representation of all the various areas. I hope that it can change, of course, as there is a feeling out in the hinterlands that they are not being recognized in terms of what they contribute. It's more of a statement, unless the minister wants to comment on that.

[7:15]

Hon. J. Pullinger: To respond to the first part of the member's comments about the north, I have indeed travelled across the north -- for a week. That's one of the first things I did as minister, and the second was to travel in the Kootenays and the interior. Of course, I travel around the Island all the time. I am very aware of the fact that until now there hasn't been a direct way, other than through COTA, for the north to have a voice.

I'm also very aware that there's a sense among communities that there's some elitism, in the sense that it's big interests driving the agenda. It's for that reason that I insisted that the legislation we just introduced and passed had a clause in it saying that the board will represent the diverse interests and people of British Columbia. It also says that Tourism British Columbia has a responsibility to develop all the regions of British Columbia. That is a big step forward; that's never been legislated before. Certainly my commitment several months ago to ensure that there is somebody from the north on that board was very well received.

With respect to the study about rail travel, the Kootenay train study, we contributed $20,000 a year and a half ago -- a couple of fiscals ago. The society is undertaking the study now, I understand. It's jointly funded by. . . . There's a whole lot of different partners. The total cost of the study was $45,000, and we contributed $20,000 of that. I hope that the report will be done in the not too distant future.

R. Neufeld: Interesting conversation.

I just have a couple of quick questions about the relationship to the north and also a correction to put on the record. It's not the hinterland; it's the heartland -- totally different.

Hon. J. Pullinger: That was said with fondness.

R. Neufeld: Exactly. But it is the heartland. I just thought I'd get that on the record.

I appreciate the legislation and the distinction about north. I have been given a number of different descriptions of what the ministry feels is north, that being 100 Mile House and north. 

[ Page 4290 ]

That's two-thirds of the province or better, actually. Could the minister confirm who she deems to be a northern representative? Is that someone from north of Prince George? Or is it someone from 100 Mile House who's going to represent two-thirds of British Columbia? How are we going to do that?

The minister is quite aware that there are some totally different interests, whether it's on the west coast or in the east or in the Prince George region. I would like a little clarification on that. I know it's not the proper place to do it, to discuss legislation, but I'd just like to get on the record. . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Do it anyway.

R. Neufeld: Yeah.

. . .exactly what the minister feels is north. Stretch the rules.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate the absolute, rigid adherence to the rules by the member.

The complaint that I heard. . . . I absolutely agree. I started from that assumption but didn't articulate it on my trip across the north; rather, I let it come to me. But what I already knew did come back to me, and that is the complaint that there was nobody north of 100 Mile House on this board and that there was a feeling in the north that somebody thought that 100 Mile House was north. Having lived in greater downtown 70 Mile House, I know it's not north.

It's my intention to ensure that there is somebody from that population strip across the north. I would love to have somebody from the east, the centre and the west. I have five discretionary seats on the board. Some of those are taken by interests that need to be on the board, so I don't have a huge amount of discretion.

I have worked very hard with the people, the tourism interests, that have been on this SOA board. I guess it's been a bit difficult for them sometimes, although I take my hat off to them. They have worked very hard to determine what it is. Their view, obviously, is very different. They have provincial associations, and the head of that may be in Vancouver or Victoria. They feel that that's provincewide representation rather than Vancouver or Victoria representation -- a legitimate argument.

I have dialogued with the board; my staff has. We've worked with them. They've been very gracious, and they do understand the need to have people from all of the regions of British Columbia and some kind of balance between men and women and some kind of ethnic diversity.

I would offer that we are at a crossroads in tourism in British Columbia. If we want to maintain our remarkable growth or any semblance of our remarkable growth, then we need to stay ahead of the game. To do that we have to make sure that all of the players are at the table and everybody is working together. I'm doing everything in my power to ensure that that happens in the composition of the board, in the mandate of Tourism British Columbia, in the awareness of everybody involved at the ministry level and who I deal with through the ministry -- as well as to ensure that Tourism Vancouver and Tourism Victoria are cooperating with the regions and that the regions are all working together to find better ways of marketing with regional trademarks to better identify some of the wonderful regions of this province.

I apologize to the member. I didn't mean anything derogatory by hinterland. That was a friendly comment from one who's lived in the interior of the province -- and loves the regions, actually.

I should mention, as well, that in that diversity, one of the issues which I have been aware of for a decade and have brought to the table and found the tourism industry very receptive to is for aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests alike to work together to assist in developing a provincewide aboriginal tourism strategy. We have some the most diverse and fascinating first nations communities and cultures in British Columbia that you will find anywhere. It's to the benefit of the first nations, certainly, and it's also to the benefit of the non-aboriginal communities for us to work together to develop that potential. The area where there's the highest demand and the lowest amount of supply -- the greatest gap between supply and demand -- is in aboriginal cultural heritage tourism.

So I'm exploring all of those diverse interests, and making sure the north has a direct voice is high on my agenda.

R. Neufeld: I didn't take it as a derogatory statement. I was just trying to get on the record that I feel my part of the country is really the heartland.

The northern strategy that the Minister of Employment and Investment is starting to embark upon is going to have a bit of a convention or a hearing this fall, probably in Prince George. It will have to do, actually, with the whole north -- northeast and northwest -- and how we better target dollars, how we better target things, to the northwest and northeast so that we can encourage more investment in British Columbia. By the way, I think that is a good move, and I've told the minister that.

The minister will also know -- and I want to put it on the record -- that PRATA has given names of three individuals, stretching from Mackenzie in the south, to either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek, with one from Fort Nelson. All three women are very capable; all have good backgrounds in tourism and in development of those kinds of things, and are very knowledgable about the north. The northeast has done its share in putting forward the names of some very capable individuals -- not just picking names out of a hat to pick them out of a hat -- who have been representative of the 25 percent of the province's land base -- that is, North Peace and South Peace.

I'm hoping, because of the diversity and difference between the northeast east of the Rockies and the coast, in the Prince Rupert area, that she looks very closely and takes into consideration that there is quite a difference. I just want to put that on the record as a comment. Those are all the questions that I have.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to respond very briefly to the member's comments. I thank him for ensuring that I have those names. Because of my interest in ensuring that the north had some representation on this board, I have had a small flood of names from the north. But I do appreciate the fact that the individuals PRATA put forward are very capable people. I just simply want to say that because of the need for significant rollover from the last board to this one -- which is a very legitimate need -- my ability to be as flexible and as broad as I might want to be in terms of how the board goes together is somewhat limited.

But the member should know the significance of how this legislation works, if he's not already aware of it. That is that for this board, the ten industry names come from the existing SOA board, and the other five will be complementary. But from that point onwards, once we have Tourism British Columbia up and running, the board itself will recommend names.

[ Page 4291 ]

So the north will therefore have a continued, ongoing interest not only in being on the board but in ensuring that there are people from the north and diverse interests. It's an ongoing process; we may not reach all of our equity goals in the first board. We'll give it our best. But I assure you there will be somebody from the north on it.

P. Reitsma: "Vancouver Boasts a World Cruising Industry," which we know; it has gone up steadily. It's good business. In the same, a couple of days later: "Crime Blamed for Tourist Chill in Gastown." The reason I bring up the cruising industry is that concerns have been expressed. A while ago -- in fact, on June 4 at 6 o'clock on BCTV -- the lead stories were the concern of how crime might affect the tourism industry in Vancouver. I think the mayor was quoted as being concerned.

Particularly, there is some talk that some of the cruise companies. . . . I think there are about six or seven cruise companies that come to Vancouver. It's tens of millions of dollars of direct business. As I mentioned, there was an article regarding the tourist chill in Gastown because of too much crime. I just wonder if the minister is aware of those concerns. I'm not suggesting to her that she get a hundred policemen right away, as have been forthcoming. But there is a concern about maybe some of the cruise companies considering not coming because of the crime. I just wonder if the minister has a comment on that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm informed that there is no evidence whatsoever that there's any slowing of growth or any hesitation on the part of the cruise ship industry to come to Vancouver, or to British Columbia for that matter, because of fear of crime. The fact is that the cruise ship industry has experienced double-digit growth over the last ten years. This year there will be 700,000 passengers coming into Vancouver on cruise ships.

Our Open Skies program, which we spoke about earlier, has allowed people to fly from the States directly into Vancouver, bypassing the normal -- or it used to be normal -- connection through Seattle. It makes it far more convenient. So that too has assisted the cruise lines in terms of increasing their growth.

So there's no evidence of a problem whatsoever. However, having said that, I should also inform the member and the House that my staff does work with the cruise industry and also with Tourism Vancouver. Should there be any problem, we're certainly well positioned to deal with it quickly.

[7:30]

There's an article: "Guide-Outfitter Startled by Opponents of Trophy Hunting. Despite coming under attack from ecoterrorists wielding everything from firebombs to a letter booby-trapped with razor blades, the B.C. guide-outfitting industry is proving to be a growth business." Mind you, I've also been involved, and I don't know to what extent the ministry is involved, in terms of monitoring it. But concerns have been expressed from people in the hunting areas that a lot of illegal guiding is taking place. Do those that guide, particularly for trophy hunting, have to be registered? Do they pay a fee? Is there any certain allocation? There's some concern about illegal guide hunting.

Hon. J. Pullinger: With respect, I refer the member to the Ministry of Environment estimates for those questions.

P. Reitsma: The correlation I saw is with people coming in. It's a tourism opportunity. People come to see B.C. and to do some hunting. I'll put it aside, and I'll talk to the Minister of Environment for that.

Could the minister advise us if the ministry is involved at all with the promotion and marketing of whale-watching?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The ministry's only involvement. . . . We don't deal with individual businesses or, actually, individual industries per se. So the involvement would be through the funding to regional tourism associations. Also, those kinds of ventures would be listed, no doubt -- in fact, they are -- in our adventure tourism publications.

P. Reitsma: That's the answer I was looking for; thank you for that.

There's a new phenomenon that is called storm-watching. I don't know if. . . . Everybody is looking frightened and covering themselves. But it is a new phenomenon.

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: No. As a matter of fact, it may be creative speaking. . . . I don't want to sound too thunderous, but. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

P. Reitsma: Be that as it may, I just want to quote from the Globe and Mail of early January:

". . .and with the new idea of promoting storm-watching, already a popular pursuit to the south in Oregon's Cannon Beach, tourists are increasingly showing up from November to February to simply take in the spectacle of a winter storm on the Pacific. Five years ago, Tofino used to be pretty much shut down in the winter months. 'Those people who came there with lots of raingear to walk in 50-mile-an-hour winds used to be considered kooks,' the Tofino mayor said. 'But there's more people doing that now. We are on the cusp of a big change.' "

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is indeed a new commercial area, but I'm sure the member would agree that this is an age-old activity, storm-watching. I was struck with that article, as well. I thought it was fascinating that somebody had the ingenuity to capitalize on what can frequently be seen as a negative or a problem for tourism on the west coast, which are the frequent and ongoing storms. But it was a great idea.

We have indeed certainly had discussions with the proponents of this. As with any emerging industry in tourism, we provide some assistance in awareness of it -- not any direct assistance to any individual business, obviously, but some assistance in awareness of a new and emerging industry. We've done so in this case. It would be included in all the appropriate publications if it desired.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate the answer; in terms of awareness, that's what I was looking for. Pardon me for what I'm 

[ Page 4292 ]

going to say, but I think they used the comment that it probably might be a howling success anyway, the way things are going to go. Certainly, in Oregon, more and more people are coming. . . .

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: There are stormy waters in front of us.

Talking about awareness, I'll go back to last year, when the cryptosporidium scare took place in Kelowna. The headline was: "Kelowna's Water Parasite Scare Ends Tourist Season Early." Was the ministry involved, directly or indirectly, in trying to combat the scare of cryptosporidium in Kelowna last year?

Hon. J. Pullinger: As well as our usual proactive role, we do run defence from time to time, too, it seems. My ministry was indeed peripherally involved with that issue when it arose a year ago, or whenever it was -- last summer. The involvement was essentially a public relations involvement to ensure that accurate, timely information was disseminated through all the proper sources so that there wasn't undue fear or negative reaction against the tourism industry.

P. Reitsma: Thank you for the answer. It took place in about the middle of August last year.

I have a couple more questions. There was a $70 million village centre and hotel condominium project planned for Mount Washington on Vancouver Island, not unlike a mini-Whistler. While it worries the residents, of course, I just wonder if the ministry has any direct or indirect dealings or advice or promotion with that. Or is it purely a private undertaking? I'm thinking of Whistler, of course, where the minister has been involved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Apart from Mount Washington perhaps being in some of our publications, to the best of my knowledge there has been no involvement.

P. Reitsma: The minister briefly touched on what I think is an untapped possibility: aboriginal tourism. I think there is great, great potential for that. The aboriginal tourism products are hot, particularly with international travellers wanting to broaden their cultural horizons. In B.C. there are 182 native-owned businesses directly involved in tourism, according to a national conference last year on first nations tourism resort development. The minister alluded to some. To what extent is the ministry involved, simply in terms of promotion, marketing and giving assistance?

Hon. J. Pullinger: In the past we have done an inventory, which still exists, and a publication based on that inventory. There's some involvement directly with familiarization tours and ensuring that first nations establishments are part of that.

We have also worked with the first nations community to help them develop what's called FirstHost, which is a SuperHost program that's run by -- owned by -- the first nations. And we're beginning to look a little more closely to see what we might do on a broader policy basis to assist the first nations in developing their tourism potential across the province. Clearly and obviously, whatever is developed will have to come from the first nations themselves. They know where their cultural line, is between what they want to have out there for the public and what they don't, and how they want to develop their resources. But I'm actively looking at ways. . . . We're just beginning that process of ways to assist first nations to develop a tourism infrastructure around the province.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate the answer. I think, as I mentioned earlier, that it's an untapped market. It has great possibilities, actually.

Leading into my last couple of questions, this is kind of a B.C. question with a national and international overtone. And let me assure you, it's not "Front Page Challenge." Last year, I related to the then minister that Canadian customs officials are asking visitors entering Canada if they have ever been convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. If a visitor has been convicted, no matter how old the charge, the visitor is assessed a fee to enter into Canada -- it's around $95 -- and they have the option of purchasing a one-year waiver for about $350. That's a very unfair policy. If a visitor is deemed to be a threat to Canada because of his past behaviour, how does paying a fine make him any safer? The visitor has only two choices: either pay the fee or turn back.

This practice is very embarrassing for the visitor. It takes up a lot of time at the border crossing. And it creates -- and this is very important -- a strong animosity towards our country. The minister at that time promised to and indeed did send a letter to the federal minister of Revenue Canada on August 9, and I just wonder if any follow-up, any reply, has been received. If not, I would ask if the minister could undertake to send the letter again. I would be happy to give her a copy. No doubt the minister has a copy.

Hon. J. Pullinger: To the best of my knowledge, that issue was resolved quite some time ago. There was indeed a problem; it was a federal problem, not a provincial problem. However, it had provincial consequences, so the ministry undertook to communicate with the appropriate bodies for the purpose of seeking resolution of that problem.

P. Reitsma: Thank you for that. I would ask the minister or staff to provide me with the evidence, in terms of correspondence received, that the problem indeed has been resolved, because I have not been advised. I asked at the time of the letter-writing if I could be apprised. Maybe it's an oversight. I ask the ministry to provide me with the information that it has been resolved.

[7:45]

P. Reitsma: We briefly talked about the "B.C. Accommodations Guide," which is kind of self-liquidating -- the cost and the income. Do I assume that the guest ranches guide, the freshwater fishing guide, the outdoor adventure guide and the "Travel Guide" are in the same category in terms of cost and recovery?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Some are, some aren't. Some are done cooperatively between tourism interests and the ministry. They have different bases, all of them.

P. Reitsma: The second-to-last question is just an observation when we were travelling north. For visitors or tourists to take a rental car to Alberta, for instance, they can rent to Edmonton and beyond on B.C. plates. I understand though, 

[ Page 4293 ]

that if they come from a province other than B.C., when they reverse they cannot do that and have to drive back. Secondly, while insurance is higher for vehicles in B.C., when a van -- and I'm thinking of tour companies -- comes into B.C. and was completely inspected in Alberta, I understand it still must be inspected in B.C. I don't know if you're the appropriate ministry; if not, I simply wish to bring it to your attention, as it relates tourism. The question is: why can you bring a van into Alberta from B.C. with no problem, renting with B.C. plates? There appears to be a concern there, and I simply mention it to the minister. She doesn't necessarily have to comment on that.

The last question, which is going to take a couple of minutes, relates to the time we went up north. This is of extreme importance not only to the north but to Vancouver Island. I'm referring to B.C. Ferries. The security of transportation, particularly if there's a monopoly. . . . The only other way to come to Vancouver Island is by air, which is very expensive. I'm not going to get into a political debate about essential service, although I'd like to. Of extreme importance is the knowledge of secure transportation. Many, many people -- particularly coming to Vancouver Island but also going to the north -- plan their holidays with their children half a year to a year in advance. When we were up north we were quite dismayed.

When we talked to the various tour operators and hotels in February, without much prior knowledge and communication or consultation, the Port Hardy to Prince Rupert ferry schedule was changed in such a way that many of the tour companies, particularly from Europe. . . . I've got a couple of names, but I won't bother the minister with those names. Tour companies generally secure space a year or two in advance in order to market their package: hotels, sightseeing, car rental, ferries, etc. They were in a conundrum because they could not cancel. There are very strict rules and regulations in terms of performance liability in Europe. While it's not your ministry, it has an absolute direct impact on tourism and on the good name of tourism.

The summer season started two weeks later in terms of the almost daily runs and was to be finished a week or two earlier. When we talked to a number of the hotels, motels, restaurants and various guides, there was extreme anger because of the lost business. Because of the time, I won't give you all the details, but some of the businesses are losing thousands and thousands of dollars. The tourism industry was radically affected by the B.C. Ferries manipulation -- as I see it -- of the Inside Passage schedule. I don't know what the minister can do about it, other than be an advocate on behalf of those of us who are in the tourism industry and correlate with your ministry to work together with the appropriate ministry.

If it is in the power of the minister, I would also ask her to talk to her colleagues and staff as well, because I know that the run from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert -- which, by the way, will fill up the hotel rooms because of the overnights -- is a money-making one. If they were to go to a daily schedule, that would be extremely profitable. I don't necessarily seek an answer.

Last but not least, the very last. . . . I don't know if the minister wishes to comment on that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm certainly very aware of both issues. With respect to the northern ferry run, there was a retrofit of the ferries which caused the run to start a few days later than normal. That was unfortunate, and I wasn't aware of that early on in the discussion of the issue, which took place some time ago.

However, this year the ferry will be operating longer than it has in the past. There's a committee that B.C. Ferries has struck in the north which includes tourism interests. There's been a great deal of consultation, and other than that one glitch, which was unfortunate indeed, I believe that that corner of the province is happy with the improved ferry service and extended sailings over last year's. And of course there is a new ferry service also. It doesn't go up to Prince Rupert, but it does carry passengers up and down the coast. It has had a good impact, and there may be some more opportunities there.

With respect to ferry strikes, I'm very aware that it has consequences. When there is some sort of lockout or strike, the appropriate action is to put pressure on both parties to resolve it. We have labour legislation in British Columbia that facilitates that. Other than that, I think we all recognize that if we want a free and democratic society, there are sometimes some problems with that, and certainly that can be one of them.

P. Reitsma: When there is a strike or a picket. . . . With that sneeze, we get the economic cold. That's something to recognize.

I have one last question on the vote. On page 212 it says: "Grants and contributions are provided to the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, regional tourism associations and other organizations to support tourism-related projects and activities." Is that through the ministry or through the SOA?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All of the funding, except for land use planning and the FTEs in the corporate branch of my ministry that do the land use planning and policy development and some tourism development. . . . All of the other functions are delivered through Tourism British Columbia, which is an SOA right now and will soon be a Crown agency.

P. Reitsma: I'm a wee bit over time, hon. Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the minister. We started off somewhat partisan, not necessarily on purpose. I think we've had a good discussion. I'd like to thank the minister for her patience, indulgence and the answers -- and staff as well.

I and our caucus look forward, as we support the SOA. . . . There's only one goal in my mind, although it may take a couple of years, and that is for the tourism industry to be the number one industry in B.C. Again, I sincerely thank the minister and her staff.

P. Calendino: Before the other members of the opposition go on with questioning on tourism, I would like the opportunity to ask a couple of questions, which may take us to the heartland of British Columbia one more time.

In the last few years, the trade direction of British Columbia has been to continue our relations with the Americans and focus our attention towards the Asia-Pacific -- which, given our geographic position, is logical. I'm assuming that, along with the trade relations, the tourism promotion and tourism marketing is following the same directions as trade.

Interjection.

P. Calendino: I said, since we have a big trading partner to the south of us and we are now focusing our attention to developing trade with the Far East, I'm wondering whether our effort in marketing our tourism industry is following that same pattern -- toward the Asia-Pacific.

Hon. J. Pullinger: To a significant degree, our primary market for tourism is British Columbians. I believe it's 

[ Page 4294 ]

56 percent -- over 50, anyway. The United States is a very significant market, the Pacific Rim less so in terms of numbers. But people from the Pacific Rim stay longer and spend more, so that's also very significant. We also have an overseas agent in Germany and in Britain as well, so we're tapping all those markets. They are all very successful in getting tourists to British Columbia.

P. Calendino: The minister has preceded my second question, and I'm happy that we're doing some promotion in Germany and in England as well. But from experience and given my background, I'm very much aware that the Mediterranean people, rather than just the northern Europeans, have also discovered North America, and they're coming in droves by the hundreds of thousands. The majority of them, I think, are going to the United States, but a number of them are now also discovering Canada.

We have great potential for developing our tourism industry for the Mediterranean people. Going to the heartland, there are great opportunities there in terms of marketing our hunting resources and our fishing resources, and this is what Europeans look for, aside from the enjoyment of the great openness and natural beauty of our country.

I think that we could market the fishing industry there, even helicopter fishing or hydroplane fishing. These people do have money, and they're not afraid of paying the $11 increases for the licence fee that we have been discussing in estimates lately. As a matter of fact, the fees are probably ten times as much in Europe as they are here, and they wouldn't blink an eye at paying that kind of money.

I would like to know what kind of effort is being put forth by the ministry, and perhaps by the new tourism board that has been established, in putting some marketing skills into the southern part of Europe as well, because there is a great market for that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's an excellent question. We work with the Canadian Tourism Commission in addition to the agents we have in Europe, and we therefore market jointly with the Canadian Tourism Commission to tap those markets. I'm happy to provide the member with some numbers in terms of our success. A little further north, from Belgium, there was a 25.6 percent increase last year in tourism to British Columbia; France, 25.6 percent; Italy -- which will be of interest to the member -- a 27.6 percent increase; the Netherlands, a 26.3 percent increase; and from Spain, a 46.2 percent increase. I certainly welcome the member's comments, and we are indeed following that suggestion.

[8:00]

I wonder whether we are also giving as much effort in promoting our winter resorts. We know Whistler is internationally known, but we have a number of other winter resorts. I know that in the Kootenays there are a lot of Germans who are taking advantage of the facilities in that area, probably more economically than they can do at Whistler. Perhaps if those areas were marketed to the French and to the Spaniards, to the Italians and even the Greeks -- you never know -- I think we could attract a lot of tourism to our area.

I should point out to the minister that for the Europeans, coming to Canada is about half the cost for them as staying in Europe and doing the same activities, so it's very attractive economically to come this way.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is absolutely right. We have a magnificent province here, with some of the best fishing and hiking in the world. We do have an awful lot of Europeans who come here, and it certainly is a market we need to continue to exploit. The member is also absolutely correct, in terms of the European market, about people from Europe wanting to come to enjoy the outdoors here.

Not so long ago, I paddled the Bowron Lakes for eight days in the rainiest summer in 32 years, and I found it was a marvellous refresher course in German. It is indeed true that visitors from Europe do like to use and enjoy the natural beauty and the wonderful outdoor adventures and vacations you can have here. I thank the member for his comments.

R. Neufeld: I'll be brief. I only have a few questions. I'd like to thank the member. In fact, he could maybe be appointed to the board for the north part of British Columbia. I'm talking about the heartland of British Columbia.

The north certainly is an attractive place for the European market and the American market. The constituency that I represent has some of the best big-game hunting, fishing, guiding and natural. . . . People just come to take pictures. It's been called the Serengeti of the North. It's the Muskwa-Kechika, and it's bountiful in all kinds of game. It brings in millions and millions of tourism dollars into the northeast and into provincial coffers. That's been going on for a long time, but it's hard to get those kinds of things out across the world. It's expensive.

We have a number of very entrepreneurial people in the northeast who deal with tourism and with those kinds of tourism things. Specifically, most of them come from either Austria, Germany or some place in Europe. They come to Canada and start these businesses. One in particular has just completed building the largest log structure in British Columbia, at mile 456 on the Alaska Highway, and he did that through German and Austrian connections for people to come there and fish. It's not so much hunting but mostly fishing and viewing wildlife, because it's there in such abundance.

It would be nice if the ministry could start pumping some more money into that. I'll go along with what the member was talking about in promoting some of those issues. When you ask those questions, usually the response you get is: "There's no money. We can't do it, but it would be nice" -- those kinds of things.

I have a note here from a constituent of mine who happened to be in the Okanagan in the spring during the Okanagan Wine Festival, renowned around the province by those people who drink wine. There was a young lady there who worked for the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. She had with her a camera crew that was filming the wine festival for a promotion, and she in fact told my constituent that the promotional film -- which was being produced by the ministry -- would be produced in different languages, including Cantonese, Japanese and German.

[ Page 4295 ]

I will ask the minister: is it common that the ministry does that around the province? If so, maybe she could tell me some of the areas of the province where we do those kinds of promotions, so I can advise people in tourism in my area how to access those kind of dollars to do that kind of promotion for some of the things we were just talking about in trying to get more tourists to the northeast.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm not sure if the member can stand any more good news after my last discussion with him. The old Partners in Tourism program didn't allow the regions to do any international marketing, and it was in many ways restrictive and in many other ways not as effective as it could be, because of the restrictions. The new program that's evolving is removing a lot of those restrictions. So I expect that the kinds of things the member is suggesting ought to happen likely will, if the local community and the local tourism association so desire. PRATA, the local tourism association, went to ITB -- which translates from German into something like international tourism bureau. It's an international trade show in Germany that they went to. They have been to those kinds of trade shows, and that kind of opportunity will be greater under the new rules.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the new program, the new rules and all the good news. I guess the question is: if it's a new program just being developed, how did this take place this past spring?

Hon. J. Pullinger: What's happening -- and we've canvassed this fairly extensively -- is that in this transition stage between the tourism marketing function being in my ministry and moving into a Crown agency, all of the programs of Tourism British Columbia are under review. The funding to the regions used to come under what was called the Partners in Tourism program. There were administrative funds and also marketing matching funds that went to the regions. That program no longer exists. It's evolving into a new program. But it did exist, and it would have been under the old program that the activities took place. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the details of what they or the Okanagan one have done. But there certainly was some latitude to do some innovative things under the old program.

The new program will be especially beneficial for the north, because (a) there will be some sort of a northern trademark which will help raise the identity of the north and assist with marketing, and (b) there will be much better strategic marketing happening for the entire north under that trademark. So I think that will have the effect of assisting in the promotion of the north in a more comprehensive, integrated way. Certainly that kind of activity is part of our government's desire to see the north supported and promoted to develop its potential.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the response from the minister. Obviously, I guess, what she's trying to tell me is that it was through a program that was in place before, through the tourism agency in that area. Yet my information tells me that the young lady, who was the leader or the person directing how the filming was done and those kind of things, was the direct employee of the Ministry of Small Business. So that doesn't seem to run true with maybe what the explanation is: that it was that tourism region doing it on its own.

If it was, the second thing that comes to mind or jumps out at me is that the camera crew was from Banff, Alberta. I just wonder about this person from the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism. Do we commonly hire folks from Alberta -- from Banff, Calgary, Edmonton -- or wherever, I don't care, to do our filming, especially when we have such vast knowledge in British Columbia to do it?

Hon. J. Pullinger: In general terms, our government has gone to great lengths to negotiate agreements to ensure that B.C. taxpayers create B.C. jobs, such as the Island Highway project agreement that has hired 1,100 people from Vancouver Island at decent, family-supporting wages. So certainly that is the intent of our government. We have put a great deal of energy into doing what we can within the boundaries or the context in which we operate, and we have done what we can to ensure that British Columbia workers get jobs created by B.C. tax dollars.

However, having said that, unfortunately I can't comment on the specifics of the situation the member is describing. If he has more information, I'd be happy to look into it, but it's so vague right now that I really can't. I have no idea who that was, what it was, what part of my ministry that person might have been from or any of the details. So I simply can't comment. If the member has more details, I'd be happy to provide him with whatever information I can.

V. Anderson: In a few minutes I'd like to ask some multicultural questions. But first, before I go into that, I have a couple of comments from the discussion that's being going on. Just the other evening we were down in Gastown, which is one of the major tourist destinations for people in Vancouver. Not very long ago, you could go down there and the streets would be packed. You could walk down the street the other night, and there was hardly anybody there. In the papers recently, as my colleague was saying, they're saying that their business has gone down 25 percent or more in the last while.

There may be a variety of reasons, but one of the reasons is certainly the concern about safety down there, both from local people and from tourist people. So I just want to add the comment that if you go down to Gastown at the present moment, it's really startling to discover what business isn't there and how few people are around. I think it's a major concern, because it was and has been for some time a major attraction. The buildings and the decor and everything are just great for tourism, but the very fact that they aren't there should be saying to us that there's a real concern, that we should be worrying and discovering why this has taken place and what the result of it is. It's right next to the cruise ship. It's handy for people to get there. It's handy to all of the hotels in the downtown area. Yet people aren't there. I think it's a major concern when we find this happening. So I just pass that along as a part of that.

Also, I was interested because my daughter works in the motel business up on the Jasper highway. It's interesting to find that a few years ago the motels were full of Japanese tourists coming through, but recently it's been Korean visitors who are booking up the tours years in advance as they come through and monopolize it, if you like. So the changes that come along are there quite regularly. There's a changing climate out there that I think we need to be very much aware of. I know the minister is very much aware of that, so I just comment in passing.

[8:15]

[ Page 4296 ]

He does publications of interest on fishing, monthly magazines on fishing. He does monthly magazines on boating along the coast -- a whole group of these. He is really interested in being able to develop a program. He has attended recently the tourism trade conference in Japan. He is interested in developing, with all of this background resource material, some kind of "Here is B.C. We welcome you to come." He has the background and the resources that I think would be very useful to the minister. If the minister is interested, I could encourage him to be in touch with you about that kind of information and background. I'm wondering if that's the kind of thing that you're looking for from the community out there.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I thank the member for his comments. I am aware. . . . In fact, I discussed the Gastown situation for some time with your colleague and now I'll repeat this for the member's benefit. While the city is certainly concerned about that corner of the city, and rightly so -- and I know the Attorney General has made comment on it, and it certainly is an issue -- from a tourism perspective it has had no impact whatsoever on the cruise ships -- thus far, anyway. We're in constant contact with them, and there is little concern at this time, although the broader issue obviously is of concern to all of us.

The second point concerns the changing face of Vancouver and of tourism. I announced several months ago several new SuperHost programs, one of which was. . . . I forget the actual name of it, but it's a program to train people to deal with their own ethnocentric biases and to move from there into providing an appropriate service, a culturally sensitive service, to people from other cultures. I think it is wonderful both in its implications for tourism and in its broader social implications of training thousands of people that way. I think it's marvellous. So we have recognized the issue that the member raises.

The other one, of course, is that we also have a SuperHost program designed to assist travellers who have a disability. Happily, that group of tourists -- that part of our society, those people with disabilities -- are more and more able, evidently, to travel around and to take advantage of the benefits of tourism and of being a tourist. So we have also brought in a new SuperHost program that deals with that.

The first one is called SuperHost Service Across Cultures; that's the intercultural one. The other one is called SuperHost Customers with Disabilities. So we do indeed recognize the wonderful opportunities that we have in British Columbia to share our province, our culture and who we are with visitors from many different places and with all degrees of ability. It's great.

V. Anderson: Yes, I appreciate those. I think it's long overdue, but it's delightful that we're doing those kinds of programs now. I think the SuperHost cultural program is extremely important, as is the SuperHost one about disabilities. I was just reading in Reader's Digest recently about Sam Sullivan, a counsellor in Vancouver who had done so many things and created so many sailing opportunities for people with disabilities; he opened doors for many. Of course, Expo 86 helped to open a great many doors for people with disabilities, because they came, they were welcomed, and they were made very much at home.

In the broader general picture, I know the minister is aware that each of the ministries is responsible under the Multiculturalism Act to report on multiculturalism each year and on its programs, activities and plans for multiculturalism. The last report that we have available is from 1994-95. I'm wondering if the minister might share what has happened in the last year in multiculturalism and what will be coming up in the coming year in the areas of small business, tourism and culture.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is correct. We recently signed off on our report on multiculturalism. It will be made public, I would expect, once all the ministries have reported.

V. Anderson: Would the minister be able to share some of the elements of the multicultural plan in estimates -- what they have planned or have done and what they are planning for the coming year?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to share the report with the members at the earliest opportunity. I think that would be the easiest way to deal with that.

V. Anderson: I think it would helpful, though, if we could just take a minute, because I know there are three kinds of focuses. It would be helpful if the minister might be able to share how she sees multiculturalism being part of small business concerns, part of tourism and part of culture. There are three kinds of different focuses. If she wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to comment on the focuses in those three areas.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Because of the extremely diverse nature of this ministry, it would be impossible, off the top, to give the member any kind of comprehensive overview of what we do. It's a very eclectic ministry. So what I will do is provide the member with a few examples and then with a report which I think will provide him with the detail that he desires.

In Tourism, we do have the SuperHost programs. We have overseas offices that obviously are cultural interfaces. We have familiarization tours and trade shows. In fact, the underpinning of what we do in Tourism -- other than the human side -- is to promote intercultural understanding, because without that, tourism can't function properly. We are a very multicultural society, as the member is very aware, and we are becoming increasingly multicultural in terms of who we welcome to this province, I'm happy to say. The underpinnings of tourism really are very multicultural, and there are very deliberate and serious efforts made to ensure that everyone in the industry has some intercultural understanding.

With respect to the museum, for instance, there has been an expansion to recognize our diverse ethnic roots in this province. Some would argue that there were first nations here, and then came the Europeans and no one else. As most of us know, that's a misperception. In fact, there have been people from Asia and from many parts of the world here since the first wave of immigrants after the first nations.

The museum has expanded its collections and programming to include that. I'm going by memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but while there have been many, many new artifacts over the last year -- 10,000 or some other incredible number -- the only entirely new display in very recent history has been a Chinese apothecary display, I believe. The museum has also come under some criticism for what it is doing. But I think that it's tremendous, because it is all part of our culture and all part of our heritage -- things like the Leonardo da Vinci exhibition, which is coming to two places in North America; the Genghis Khan exhibit; and the whales exhibit, which is very much tied up with a number of cultures. So there's a great deal of diversity there.

[ Page 4297 ]

I don't know if the member has visited the business information centre in Vancouver, but there is obviously a very multicultural look to that place. A number of people from different ethnic backgrounds who work in that building provide service in a number of different languages. The B.C. Film Commission has been working with the Indian film industry for film production here, etc.

So we work very hard to be as inclusive as we can and to celebrate and make everyone aware of the wonderful diversity we have in this province.

V. Anderson: As part of that diversity, the interesting thing that I discovered in working with persons in English-as-a-second-language conversation groups -- for adults who just wanted to come together with neighbours and talk about it with each other -- was that when you went to the library or to the bookstore, you could find tapes and documents on how to speak French, Chinese, Japanese, German, Italian and Spanish. The only thing that wasn't available was a tape on how to learn to speak English. There were no tapes or resources in our stores for many of the newcomers to our country to learn those kinds of skills. The only place they could get those was in English-as-a-second-language classes, which were filled up, expensive or available only at a time that wasn't available to them.

It seems to me that somewhere along the line we need to be able to become more adept at providing people who come, either on a short- or a long-term basis. . . . Perhaps for those wanting to learn English in Canada, the only place they can go is a place like Berlitz. It seems to me that part of the welcoming we might have is to give them some easy ways and resources to be welcomed in English and have a chance, at least, to get initial English while they're shopping and the other things that they're doing while they're here. I raise that because it's one that I hear from these persons themselves.

I'm also wondering whether, in your publications, you have been publishing the kind of material. . . . The Taiwanese community had Taiwanese festivals, and they brought over excellent performers, some of whom worked with the symphony with original symphony compositions. In the material to the tourism people, are we publicizing the kind of Vietnamese. . . ? I had the opportunity to go to the Vietnamese New Year, and for four hours they presented music and dance continuously. It was just beyond description. Are there opportunities for visitors coming across here to discover and know that these things are available to them during the year?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Many of the granting programs in this ministry are at arm's length. They would be, for instance, through the B.C. Arts Council, the Heritage Trust or a variety of different organizations like that. Where we can, we do publish things in another language. We have an extremely small ministry with very limited staff and limited resources, so we don't publish a wide range of materials in a wide range of languages. We simply don't have the capacity to do that. Where we see a need, we certainly try to do that.

With respect to the culture and cultural advertising that the member is speaking of, that would tend to take place more at the local level. We provide funding to the Arts Council, and the Arts Council funds artists and other groups. I actually don't know if they fund any publications, but they tend to be community-based. If there were translations to happen, it would happen at that level.

[8:30]

For instance, it's a surprise to a lot of people who have grown up here to realize that apart from the aboriginal language in the last century, the major language spoken in British Columbia was French. It was the major language spoken by most people, other than the aboriginal people, at one point. What I'm asking about is: in the overall view of tourism and culture -- and related to business -- the image and theme of our country, and our province in particular, is as being a place where multiculturalism has as much history as our province does. That is not something that has just happened in recent years; it's something we've always had. We're more aware of it, we're more proud of it, and we're more talkative about it, in a sense.

But it's one of the ways that we can sell, if you like -- invite people to come and convey to them the feeling that they're welcome -- because this is the kind of country it is. They can come and find vestiges of their own culture, their own history, their own background right here and can therefore be at home. We can help them be aware of it as they come. No matter where they come from in the world, we have part of that history here in Canada and have had it for a long time. It seems to me that it's one of the major themes that could be part of tourism here in our outreach.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate the member's comments. With a background in Canadian studies and Canadian history, I'm certainly aware that we have 11 of the 13 Canadian first nations language groups right here in British Columbia. It's an amazing diversity. Also, when there was a handful of Europeans here, they were mostly French but were soon eclipsed by the English. I'm very aware of that. I've actually written some essays on the mid-Island coalminers' strike and the incredible involvement of women, for one, and also the brilliant tapestry of different ethnic backgrounds that made up a very colourful pattern on the mid-Island, even in the very earliest years. It was truly wonderful.

I'm very aware of that. Our government is very aware of that. I'm very proud of the fact that through things such as the agencies, boards and commissions, we're changing and have changed the face of all of the boards and commissions of British Columbia from what they were six or seven years ago. Certainly, when I first came to this Legislature, it was predominately white Anglo-Saxon men who worked here throughout. That has changed dramatically. We've set a number of records in terms of gender, in terms of inclusion.

We have moved greatly in a variety of ways generically, as government, providing intercultural recognition, direction and activity -- and my ministry is no exception. The heritage branch recognizes the wonderful tapestry of ethnicity in this province. The museum is doing so. I've had discussions with Tourism British Columbia about the increasingly multicultural nature of this province and how we might work with that. We've introduced programs to assist workers and businesses to deal more effectively with visitors from different cultures. We certainly have supported film on different issues -- Double Happiness, for instance.

In this ministry there's certainly a very wide range of activities that happen. There's a great awareness of the multicultural 

[ Page 4298 ]

nature of our society. Within our limited resources we do everything we can to promote the enjoyment of difference and to also make people understand that one of the wonderful things about this country and province is the fact that we are multicultural and officially bilingual. That's something that has long been an attraction for the outside world to Canada, and I certainly hope that it always stays that way.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's background. Even as she talked about it, one of the images that came to my mind. . . . As I travel back and forth on the ferry and watch the tourists, one of the first places they go to is the literature rack to see all of the literature. It's mostly commercial literature there. It would be great if there could be some pamphlets about the history of B.C. and its multicultural nature in the literature rack, because that's where so many tourists go. So I make a comment on that.

I would like to raise one issue with regard to small business and multiculturalism, because it has come up in a number of places in the province. Maybe some leadership can be given through the ministry in helping people to interrelate the many languages and cultures we have in the business area. Some time ago we heard the concern, particularly in Richmond where many of the Chinese stores and markets have developed. Quite naturally, they were using their Chinese language, and the local non-Chinese people were feeling very much as if they had been alienated and cut out. I think that's something that wasn't planned by anybody or meant to happen that way, but it just happened.

I went to another part of Vancouver the other day looking for a banana, so I went into this little corner area of stores. As I looked at the stores, there were probably 20 businesses in this corner area, but there wasn't an English sign on any of those stores within that area. So a stranger like myself, having come into this little shopping area, was a foreigner in that particular location. Again, it wasn't done by design, and it wasn't meant to be exclusive. It was meant to reach out to that particular community of people. But it seems to me that this is an area in small business where a lot of misunderstanding or friction develops in communities. If we had some way of helping the small ethnic business stores that are developing to deal with that issue, it could be very helpful to everybody concerned.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member raises a good point. I'm pleased to report that as well as the very intercultural nature of the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre, we do work with organizations such as SUCCESS and Sunbrite on an ongoing basis. And we do work specifically to try to promote intercultural understanding and to determine how best -- to put it in the twenty-first century -- to interface between cultures on a business level.

V. Anderson: I relate this particularly to small business, because most of these small businesses are independent. They're probably not even connected with SUCCESS or Sunbrite. They're from a different variety of ethnic backgrounds and very independent, and it seems to me that they particularly can use support and help.

In talking to even some of the Taiwanese people, their comment was that they're going back home again. They're closing their businesses and leaving, because they haven't been able to find the help or the support to adapt or to interrelate. I know this is even more true for a lot of small business people who are not part of an association or any business undertaking and who are very isolated. Some way of relating to those independent kinds of people would be extremely helpful.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I recognize that there are certainly concerns. I would hope that the municipal governments are taking an active role at the community level. I know other ministries fund programs to help people relate interculturally in a variety of ways. We certainly do our part, but we do have a mandate primarily to support small business on that side of the ministry. We do that, and we do as much intercultural support and intercultural work as we can.

V. Anderson: I thank the minister for her comments, and I see her enthusiasm, even though she's very tired. Once she got talking about it, she started to get very enthusiastic about it and was holding herself back. So I look forward to receiving the report, and thank you very much for your concern and interest. Now I'll turn you over to our critic.

I. Chong: As we discussed and agreed upon earlier, once the Tourism part of the ministry was concluded, we would move on to the area of Small Business. Throughout this section, we will probably be seeing a number of members asking questions, and we may in fact be moving from one sort of category to another. I beg the minister's indulgence on that. The current estimates occurring in the other House are taking away some of the members, who are asking pertinent questions that relate to employment and investment and also to small business.

The first thing I would like to ask the minister is whether there is a business plan for 1997-98 that has been developed yet. If not, when might we see that? The other day I got a copy of the business plan, and it was the '96-97 year. It's not dated, and I'm not quite clear as to when these things are produced or published. I would imagine it is early in the year.

[8:45]

I. Chong: That sort of sets the tone for the line of questions we're about to ask. Not knowing what your new priorities may be, I will have to concentrate more heavily, perhaps, on what your past priorities have been. The first area I think I would like to speak with the minister on. . . .

Interjection.

I. Chong: Well, if the minister is able to share with us some of the planned governmentwide initiatives. . . . What else are we looking for? Let me have a quick look here -- perhaps some of the corporate policies that you may have in place and business priorities of the management services division, things like that. If the whole business plan is in progress, I can understand that, but if the minister has segments of the business plan, certainly she can share that with us. Then perhaps after this evening, she can forward copies of her drafts of this to us so we can follow through over the course of the next few days.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to tell the member that we're doing the Small Business part of my ministry now. The staff on my left is David Richardson, the ADM for Small Business. We have undergone a significant reorganization, as the member is aware, with a significant downsizing to cut the cost and size of government to ensure adequate funding for health and education, as was our primary commitment.

As a result, we have reorganized the ministry and under the Small Business side, there are a number of functions. 

[ Page 4299 ]

Some of them look the same, and some of them are different. The government agents remain under that side of the ministry. Things such as one-stop business registration, the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre and those kinds of programming fall under the Small Business side and are certainly a priority.

The technological approach is certainly being wonderfully well received by chambers, communities and business people across the province. Initiatives such as the one-stop business registration centres, which collapse the time it takes to register a new business from about two months down to about two weeks, is a great step in the right direction.

We're expanding that program, and we'll expand it both in numbers as well as in content. Hopefully, when we can deal with all the privacy issues, security and so on, we may be able to lift it up on line. We also have the interactive business planner that allows people to use all the information available to create a viable business plan they can take to the bank, which is very significant for small business. So there are a lot of things happening on the Small Business side.

A new focus since I've been minister is cooperative development, particularly with youth, women and first nations people, but a lot of people are most interested in functioning cooperatively with shared risk and shared benefits. Cooperatives put social and human values at the same level as market and bottom-line values, so they're a bit of a different way of doing business. Cooperatives will frequently remain where a business will leave, because as long as they're breaking even, the social value side of their mandate is reason enough to continue to provide the service or business. So cooperatives are a new thrust.

Youth, of course, is a high priority of the entire government and certainly of the Premier. We have the extremely popular youth business and entrepreneurship training. We intended to put 1,000 young people through the first level, where they find out if this is what they want or not and determine whether they'll go ahead or go on to other things. We in fact had 1,600 youth go through last year -- a phenomenal success. At the Premier's Youth Forum, his second one, one young person after another stood up and said how very much they liked this program. It really has been a remarkable success. This year, You-BET includes a cooperative stream as well, so youth have the opportunity to work together cooperatively and to form and incorporate as a cooperative, as well as enter into other business arrangements.

As well, we have business equity. We've introduced legislation that makes some changes to the programs with a view to ensuring cooperatives have access to -- finding ways to provide -- some equity capital in a variety of ways. So those are the major thrusts of the Small Business side of my ministry right now.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister elaborating a little bit more. At my rather small and short briefing that I had with your deputy minister, which was informative, we did get some information. Certainly the minister has touched on and elaborated on the program inventory of small business, and I do appreciate that.

What I'd like to do, then, is to start. . . . I will go into some of these in detail over the course of the next day or two. But I would like to touch on the actual dollars and cents. I tend to do this at the beginning of the spending estimates and have the information just for the record.

In the spending estimates book, 1997-98, there is a substantial decrease to the minister's budget this year. Where it was $141 million, it's now down to $92 million. I recognize the reorganization; I recognize the SOA being removed. But for the record, there have been a number of other changes. I would like clarification, as I say, for the record.

The first area that I see is the FTEs, which last year were stated to be 848 people. Now, I understand, there are going to be or are budgeted to be 709, a decrease of 139. Could the minister provide us with some sort of a breakdown as to where those jobs have been decreased? As I say, I do recognize that there has been a reorganization. I do recognize that the SOA has taken them up. But I would still appreciate a more detailed account of where those reductions are.

Hon. J. Pullinger: While my staff look for the positions and where exactly they came from, I'll give the member some idea where the cuts were, broadly -- in short, everywhere. With respect to the decrease, with the decrease in salaries and benefits, here's where it came from: closure of the Kelowna and New Westminster government agent offices -- actually, I have it here -- 28.5 FTEs; elimination of government agent positions in a number of places around the province where they're sharing the responsibility -- two FTEs; government agent position in another community reduced to half-time -- half an FTE; reduced hours for other positions around the province -- 4.4 FTEs; elimination of the regional economic development program and associated administrative support positions -- 38 FTEs. So that's a total of 73.4 FTEs. In the ministry there were an additional six FTEs. We have more; we have a long list. Tourism has gone from 76.5 to 25 because we only have them for part of a year. Culture, heritage, recreation and sport have gone from 133 to 126. That's pretty much where they are. That gives the member an idea, anyway, of where the cuts are.

I. Chong: I was scribbling down as fast as I could. Obviously I may have missed a few. I will check the Hansard Blues tomorrow morning, and if I have any further questions on that, I may raise it again with the minister.

The one thing I did notice in her response was that the two largest categories, aside from Tourism, were in the government agents and in the regional economic program. My tally here for the government agents is about 31 FTEs, reduced there as a result of the closure of the Kelowna and New Westminster offices. I'd just like to concentrate on the 38 FTEs in the regional economic development program for just a minute, to understand what has happened to those programs, as well.

Last year when I canvassed the minister on this, I recall that there were no expected increases for new government agent offices. I believe that at the time he mentioned that there had not been any new government agent offices for quite some time. I had asked with a view to finding out whether there were more intended offices to open, not intended offices to close. So I was quite surprised this year, in fact, that there were these two particular closures.

The other thing I want to mention to the minister is that if in fact closure is required of government agent offices -- we all understand that in light of government cuts. . . . In fact, I think I did state to the minister: had he or the ministry considered combining and amalgamating, or having municipalities, local governments, regional districts and those organizations play a larger role in ensuring that we are in fact streamlining and reducing government costs?

In light of that, I want the minister to be assured that I do support reductions and amalgamations of offices wherever 

[ Page 4300 ]

possible, but I do so with a view that those decisions have been made in light of all the other considerations. I did receive a number of calls on these two particular closures -- and I'm sure I would have on any other -- the Kelowna office in particular.

I'm wondering whether the minister can provide us with a sort of background as to the reasons why the decision was made to close this particular office, where she expected the electorate in that area would go for service and whether or not they can get adequate service going to those other offices.

Hon. J. Pullinger: As the member is likely aware, the larger communities such as Vancouver and Victoria don't have government agents. That's because as a community grows, they tend to grow government infrastructure as well as every other kind of infrastructure, and there are many alternatives.

It's the little tiny communities such as Terrace or Houston or a number of other communities around the province where, if you close the government agent, you would simply be cutting off all access to government services. Therefore I really had two choices. I could have closed a long list of about a dozen small government agents -- which, in my view, is totally unacceptable -- or I could go the other way and take the largest communities that have the most access to other means of resources and tend to have transit systems and so on, and close those. That's the choice I made: to close the larger communities -- New Westminster and Kelowna -- because they do in fact have the most options for the citizens there.

I recognize that it's wonderful to have the government agent. I would have preferred to have left it, but the reality of cutting government and cutting budgets -- and the members opposite are great advocates for shrinking government -- is that you cut people and you cut services, because that's what government does. So while none of us have been delighted to go through this downsizing. . . . And I think I can fairly speak for my colleagues, as well, that this hasn't been an ideological thing that we have done. It's a response to federal cuts and pulp prices and other pressures on government; we've had to make these cuts to keep our fiscal house in order. We've tried to do so with the least impact on individuals and communities. In this instance, that's precisely the basis of my decision.

Quite frankly, that's the outcome of the decision as well. By one government agent travelling between two offices in some instances and by entirely closing two offices in very large communities where there are other alternatives available, people have been not entirely inconvenienced, but it's far less than they would be had I made a different decision. People have options for accessing services from ministry offices. They have 1-800 phone numbers; they can pay a lot of bills and so on that they might have paid at a government agent's at credit unions or banks; they can mail certain things in or do certain kinds of business by mail. There are some private sector services, and certainly there's Enquiry B.C. So there are a variety of options, and there was a very detailed analysis undertaken, prior to me making the decision to close those two offices, to ensure that we provided the best level of service possible to those communities.

I. Chong: I appreciate the explanation provided by the minister. Certainly we do recognize that there are fiscal restraints, but in areas that require servicing by a government agent office, we also recognize that the best possible choices are made. . . . With the number of calls received by myself for the Kelowna area and also by the members who represent the Kelowna area, it concerned them, given that certainly it is a growing area. But what cutting those services has done, in fact, is place demands on some of those members' offices, as opposed to perhaps diverting them to the 1-800 numbers or the Enquiry line, as the minister expects. So I would like to ask the minister: are any other government offices planned to be closed over the course of the next year?

[9:00]

I. Chong: What I heard was that the downsizing has been concluded, but you're into reorganizing now. I'd like the minister to advise as to whether reorganizing also means possibly amalgamation and therefore closure as well. Could she provide me with some assurance that that is not the case?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have certainly got my budget laid out here. I can't predict the future, and it would be inappropriate for me to make comments about what might or might not happen in the future. But we did undergo a significant downsizing to cut the cost and size of government last fall. That process has been completed.

I. Chong: I will take that as a no at this time, because as your budget has been prepared for 1997-98 with the FTEs as planned, then I would have to expect that the budget has been provided to include that those FTEs are there for existing government offices.

What I would like to ask the minister about is the closure of these two particular offices, Kelowna and New Westminster, with 28.5 FTEs, as I understand the minister stated. Does that mean that on average there are 14 people who serve a government agent office? Can she advise what the average or norm would be for a government agent office and also confirm the number of government agent offices currently in existence?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The size of the office and the number of employees vary with the size of the community and the needs.

I. Chong: Is there a guideline as to per capita? Does that come into it in terms of rural areas, based on the number of constituents living in a particular area? Surely that must also be the reason a government agent office is established in a particular area.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The government agent system is designed to provide access to government services in the best way possible around the province. The offices are located to provide most citizens with some direct access to government through a government agent, and there are various different sizes and configurations of government agents. The level of staffing tends to be driven by the number of transactions -- i.e., the demands on the office. In one of the larger communities, there will be more transactions and therefore more staff to deal with it, and vice versa. As I said earlier, we have decided to eliminate one government agent position in some communities and have the government agent in fact serve two communities or areas through two different offices, because it was determined that we could do that.

I. Chong: At this time, I want to advise the minister that I will leave the government agent office queries I have. I note 

[ Page 4301 ]

my hon. colleague the member for Okanagan West is here and would like to ask questions, as I expect that she might, regarding the Kelowna office. Would the minister please indulge us a bit more? She may have missed your comments earlier.

S. Hawkins: I think the minister is quite well aware of some of the concerns I have regarding the government agent office that closed. There were actually two in my riding, one in Kelowna and the satellite office that had been opened in Westbank. The minister can probably also appreciate that there was quite a bit of concern from the riding. Some of the concern was about the consultation regarding the office, and some I think I raised with the Premier in a letter I wrote to him concerning the distance that people have to travel now to access some of these services.

I must tell the minister that I was at a meeting of seniors in Westbank about two or three months ago, and I had a senior tell me that the service that she needed to access was in Vernon. That's a 124-kilometre round trip for that senior, and frankly, it just didn't make sense to me. Kelowna is the largest urban centre east of Hope. It was the busiest office in the province, from what I understand, and it just behooves one to think why a service like that would be taken away from citizens who access it and use it as much as they do.

I'm wondering if perhaps the minister's staff can give us some stats on the government agent office in Kelowna compared to others in that size of community. I believe there were seven, and Kelowna was one that closed. Why was that one chosen over some of the others?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've already provided the explanation, but I'll do so again for the benefit of the member, given that that's her riding.

Place such as Vancouver and Victoria have no government agent. In the larger centres there are other services or other ways to access the service, so there are no government agents in the big communities. We made a commitment to protect health and education, and to do that we needed to cut the cost and size of government, so that makes for some difficult choices. Cutting government means cutting service, because what government does is provide service, by and large. Faced with choices about how I would reduce costs and staff in my ministry, in looking at the options I could have gone one of two ways with government agents. I could have closed a long list of very small government agents in the small communities, or I could close the ones in the largest communities where the access to other services is the greatest. For obvious reasons, I chose the latter. As a community grows, they do have motor vehicle branches, for instance, or the Ministry of Environment or whatever. We did do a careful analysis to ensure that there was some way for people to reach most of the services. A lot of the interactions can take place at credit unions or banks, by mail, 1-800 numbers, Enquiry B.C. or directly at different government offices in the community.

I recognize that it may not be as convenient for some people, but I also recognize that it would be a far greater inconvenience to shut some of the regional offices where people already drive miles and miles to get to a government agent. There isn't a government agent in every single community by any stretch, so it is a regional service. When faced with the options, it seemed to me that to ensure the best level of service possible for the residents of British Columbia throughout the province, what we ought to do is follow the existing pattern -- that is, try to make services available in different ways in the larger communities and protect the government agents in the very small communities.

S. Hawkins: The minister is quite correct that Vancouver and other urban areas don't have those offices because they do have other services. Urban areas, like the lower mainland, have good roadways, good access and good transportation modes. You come to an area like mine, and you don't necessarily have that. I did invite the Premier to come and take a drive with us this winter. Driving in those winter conditions was very difficult on seniors, and there is no transit service between Westbank and Vernon. Those folks have to get a ride out there, and it is very frustrating.

The minister said there was careful consideration given to this decision to close the office. Now, both offices were closed. There was a satellite office in Westbank. I could understand phasing out one or the other. There is nothing left for these folks, and it seems to be quite a disservice. Were there criteria? What careful consideration was given to close both offices in that area and leave offices that were less busy in other areas of the province?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think I've covered the rationale behind that decision fairly well. I would like to clarify for the member, however, that Westbank was part of the Kelowna office. It didn't stand on its own and couldn't stand on its own. It simply was a pilot, and when the Kelowna office closed, so did that. We have in fact provided the best level of service possible. I would remind the member that she ran on a platform to cut five times as much as what our government has cut and for very different reasons. So while I certainly did not relish making the cuts and I regret that I have had to close two government agents in the two largest communities that we served, it was simply the best choice to make among a number of very difficult choices.

S. Hawkins: I can understand having to make choices, and I can understand having to make difficult choices in trimming back, but I don't understand decapitation. I think that's what you've done to this community by taking out these services. Now, I understand the Westbank office leased some space, and I understand that space is empty. Can the minister tell us how much they're paying for the empty space that the office used to occupy and that we're still paying for?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All of those things have been considered. There was an analysis done of the services provided, the number of transactions, etc., in each of the offices that we were considering. Certainly such things as lease agreements, and so on, were considered as well. When you make changes, there are short-term costs involved sometimes; that's a fact of life.

But I did decide to shut that office and the New Westminster office, because that was where the greatest option for people was in terms of finding alternative ways to have the service provided. There are many other options in those larger communities than there are in the very small communities. I would like to reiterate again that people around the province frequently drive many miles to get to their government agent. They drive from one community to the next. It's a common occurrence in most of the regions of British Columbia. In the urban centres, while that certainly still occurs, there are more options for transportation and more options for accessing government services.

S. Hawkins: The minister keeps referring to this analysis and careful consideration. If there was a report done on the consideration, would she be willing to release it?

[ Page 4302 ]

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you. I'll respond and then move the appropriate motion. There was no report per se. It was just a process of going through the various variables and making the best possible decision in the circumstance.

I understand that ICBC has either already taken over the office space in question or is in the process of doing so. So there will be that service in town. Of course, ICBC has taken over the motor vehicle licensing service; I know that it's in town as well. So we have done what we can to minimize the impact on the constituents of the member. I certainly appreciate her concern. I assure her that the decision was not undertaken lightly, but it was undertaken in the best interests of all of the citizens of British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:15 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada