2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 26, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 7

[ Page 1529 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

jack poole

Hon. M. de Jong: By now, most of us will have learned of the passing of a great British Columbian and a great Canadian that, sadly, occurred a few days ago. Few people have given back as much to their community as Jack Poole has over the course of his life. As an entrepreneur, he built houses that families turned into homes. As a philanthropist, he donated millions of dollars to causes like health care research.

As the chair of the 2010 bid committee and the 2010 Olympic organizing committee, he dedicated eight years of his life to bringing our province a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The sad irony, of course, is that in a few months, when the flame is lit, Jack Poole won't be there to see that dream become a reality. Yet he ignited a flame in all of us that will go on burning through the generations. There's no question that the many philanthropic activities that Jack Poole sponsored will continue to benefit British Columbians.

[1335]

I know that all members of the House are thinking of those contributions, thankful for Jack, for his family sharing him with us, and will want you, Mr. Speaker, to convey our thoughts, condolences and prayers to Darlene Poole and the entire family.

C. James: I just want to add the opposition's words to the Government House Leader's, as well, to offer our condolences and our thoughts. British Columbia really has lost a true British Columbian. Although Jack Poole was not from this province originally, I don't think anyone would have seen him as anything but a British Columbian, with the incredible contribution he made to our province, with the legacy that he has left.

Most importantly, I just want to close with remembering Jack Poole, the person. For all of the huge accomplishments — and I think the House Leader has identified them very well, incredible accomplishments for one individual — he was always humble about his accomplishments. He was always humble about his beginnings, about his roots in life. I remember him proudly showing me his Métis heritage card and being so pleased about the National Aboriginal Achievement Award that he won and, again, sharing that with his community and with all of his family.

So I just want, on behalf of the opposition, to add our words, our thoughts and prayers to his family and to his friends as well.

Introductions by Members

R. Cantelon: Today is Drop Everything and Read a book day, and I'll speak about that briefly later, but joining us in the gallery are several teacher-librarians who are here to celebrate that day with us: Heather Daly, Karen Lindsay, Moira Ekdahl, Val Hamilton, Gwen Ingham, Michele Farquharson, Cheriee Weichel and Pat Parungao.

L. Popham: I would like to welcome my mom, Lorna McKintuck, and my mother-in-law, Joan Popham, to the House today. This is their first time. They enjoyed a wonderful lunch downstairs. I'd also like to make a note that they're very loyal viewers of the legislative channel. So I apologize to Hansard. They're down two today.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that today I introduce my father, Neil Horne, who is joining us in the gallery. I would like the members to make him welcome.

V. Huntington: I was very pleased today to have been made aware that attending in the public gallery are Dr. Jane Sterk, leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, and Mr. Julius Bloomfield, a businessman and realtor from Naramata, whose announcement…. He has just been appointed deputy leader of the Green Party of British Columbia. I hope everybody makes them welcome.

R. Lee: In the gallery today I have a constituent, Pat Parungao, visiting. Pat is a school librarian and a member of the B.C. Teacher-Librarian Association. She's in Victoria celebrating National School Library Day. Would the House please make her welcome.

D. Thorne: I would like to add a welcome to the teacher-librarians that are in the audience, particularly Heather Daly, who is the district library manager in my school district of Coquitlam, district 43. I'd also like to honour Karen Lindsay, who last week was chosen B.C. Teacher-Librarian of the Year.

Hon. I. Black: In the House today we have a number of guests from the B.C. Technology Industry Association who have come to Victoria to help promote awareness and understanding of the technology sector throughout British Columbia.

There is a good list of them. I'll rattle them off as quickly as I can. We've got Penny Wilson, Paul Gorton, Paul Lindahl, John Madigan, Rob Eisses, Pascal Spothelfer, Cindy Pearson and Karam Bayrakal here joining us in
[ Page 1530 ]
the House today. I'd ask all members to make these really important British Columbians feel most welcome.

[1340]

C. Trevena: I would like to introduce, on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, the hon. David Hawker, the former Speaker of the Australian Parliament. He is accompanied by his wife, Penny, and his son, James. They're studying our parliamentary system, and what better way than watching our question period. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

TEACHER-LIBRARIANS AND
PROMOTION OF READING

R. Cantelon: Yes, today is Drop Everything and Read a book day, and that's good advice to everybody in this House and everybody in our communities. We have today with us some teacher-librarians who are facilitators in helping students find the magic of books and learn from it. They will develop, among other things, critical thinking — something that we could all use more of, and I'm sure you're very well aware of that concern here in the House.

Yes, the Internet is fine, but teacher-librarians today are facilitators in helping to answer the questions, encourage the questions and encourage students to seek the answers in books. The Internet is very well and fine, but to give a whole context to critical, proper thought is to pick up a book and read it. A lot of that is happening. It's very, very helpful to the students. It's very important, personally, in my family. My son is married to a teacher-librarian and carrying what will be, I hope in January, a grandchild into our family. So I'm informed very directly and personally about the importance of teacher-librarians.

There are new forms of it, new forms that we're taking, reading to the students in the schools. The WOW Bus, Words on Wheels, is working. It will be in Pouce Coupe, in Dawson Creek, and it's a very prominent feature in my own riding as well.

Early learning is extremely important. So we have a simple message today: drop everything and read. Take a book home with you. Read. It will make you think. It will make you a better person. We think this is a message we would like to take to children, parents, government, communities. So let's celebrate and support our valuable teacher-librarians and all the work in getting that message out today.

DROP EVERYTHING AND READ DAY

D. Thorne: As my colleague just told us, October 26 is National School Library Day and the third anniversary of the B.C. Drop Everything and Read Challenge. The Drop Everything Challenge has grown by leaps and bounds since 2007. It's a simple yet powerful idea that promotes the importance of literacy in our society.

I was lucky today to be able to participate in the challenge. I read aloud to about 100 students at James Bay Community School under the supervision of teacher-librarian Stephen Marta. It was a great experience. It brought back many memories to me of reading aloud to my own children when they were young, definitely one of my favourite memories.

All over B.C. today, parents, politicians and local celebrities converged on their local schools to point out the pleasures of reading and the importance of school libraries. For many years studies have proven that next to socioeconomic factors, the single greatest influence on student achievement is a healthy school library program.

Student achievement is up to 20 percent higher in schools where the library has a robust collection of resources which have been selected by a fully trained teacher-librarian who has adequate staffing time to teach both students and teachers. Public education aims to provide a level playing field for children, and the school library program is at the very heart of that equity. Sporty or clumsy, brainy or arty, introverted or out there, there is a place for every student, teacher or administrator in the library.

So let's all take up this challenge from our school librarians: when we get back to our offices today, every single one of us, drop everything and read. Let's do it now.

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, what would you say if I told you about a venture that will create 200 long-term jobs in northern B.C. — a venture that will also create 4,000 construction jobs and many more indirect jobs? This welcome news is, of course, the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

This massive infrastructure project will have significant benefits for all of northern B.C., but especially for my riding of Nechako Lakes. For the northwest coast, we will see enormous safety improvements. New systems will be put in place to make all sea travel safer, and many other improvements will benefit everyone, including new guidance systems that will safeguard the coastal environment like never before.

[1345]

Along the project route, roads will be improved and power lines upgraded. Every kilowatt of power used will be replaced by investing in new, renewable energy. Sites used for the pipeline will see matching investments made on a hectare-for-hectare basis. Every tree that is removed will be replaced with a new tree.

Enbridge is also committed to utilizing local employment wherever possible. For companies like Tahtsa Timber,
[ Page 1531 ]
Gulbranson Logging, the KDL Group and many others, this means jobs for forestry workers, first nations, youth and many others.

Over the long term Enbridge is working on a benefits package that will likely include a community trust, significant skills training, an environmental package, marine operations and response and the potential for first nations to participate in equity and sole-sourcing employment opportunities — not to mention the millions that will be paid in local taxes to help communities fund such needed projects.

There are few projects that will have such a positive impact for northern B.C. The Enbridge Northern Gateway is one such project that will provide a short-term boost and long-term benefits for everyone.

ARTS AND CULTURE IN
MOUNT PLEASANT AREA

J. Kwan: Mount Pleasant has the highest percentage of people working in the arts and cultural sector in Canada. There are more than 250 artist studios and 38 exhibition centres including artist-run centres and commercial galleries. There are many artists who are engaging in innovative ideas who struggle to make rent, to access studio space and have performance venues. Artist-run centres and live theatre not only provide original works but are crucial to holding public discussions and artist talks and to publishing emerging ideas which contribute to the public sphere of B.C.

The Pacific Association of Artist-Run Centres represents arts facilities that exhibit contemporary art, which parallels the larger public institutions and private commercial galleries, offering an alternative to artists in determining how to represent their work.

Many of these organizations are based in my constituency — The Western Front, Artspeak, Access, the Or Gallery, the Gallery Gachet, VIVO and many others. These spaces are vital to the cultural fabric of B.C. Internationally renowned artists such as Stanley Douglas, Jeff Wall and Ken Lum have a long history in the Downtown Eastside, where they have studios, have shown their work or used the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood as part of their artwork.

I'm sad to report that Mount Pleasant is losing a place and space that has for 35 years made a distinct and important contribution to the artist-run-centre community in Vancouver. The Helen Pitt Gallery suffered a fatal blow to its operations recently and, as a result, earlier this month laid off its director and will close its doors at the end of this week.

Arts and culture nourishes the heart and soul of the social and spiritual fabric of communities and is a significant contributor to both local and provincial economies. Every dollar invested is a return of $1.36 to the province. It's a smart investment. I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing the arts and cultural community and thanking the Helen Pitt for their 35 years of contribution.

ZAJAC RANCH

M. Dalton: Just north of Mission along the banks of Stave Lake, there's a wonderful facility for needy children called the Zajac Ranch. On different weeks there are unique camps for children with spina bifida, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy and eating disorders. There's a cleft palate and craniofacial camp, a kidney and organ transplant camp, as well as other camps for children with chronic illnesses and disabilities.

Over 30 years ago, Mel and Wendy Zajac formed a non-profit foundation in honour of their two children, Mel Jr. and Marty, who died in separate sporting accidents. The Zajac Ranch provides an extraordinary opportunity for children with needs by offering innovative and unique programs in a caring and supportive environment. Swimming, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, horseback riding are among the many physical activities offered to campers between the ages of seven and 17 years. Other activities include drama, music, arts and crafts, which enable children to express their creative side.

Zajac Ranch also has a close relationship with nurses and doctors throughout the province, including many of whom work in B.C. Children's Hospital, ensuring that they meet with the medical requirements for our campers. The on-site medical centre provides 24-hour care to the campers.

[1350]

A week ago, along with the Deputy Premier and the members from Mission-Abbotsford and for Richmond East, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a state-of-the-art swimming pool. It was made possible through private donations and a $330,000 contribution by the provincial government.

It is because of the enormous efforts of Mel and Wendy Zajac as well as the private donors that so many children afflicted with chronic illnesses and disabilities are able to enjoy the life that they deserve to have and still receive necessary medical attention.

GITXSAN SUMMIT

D. Donaldson: For three days last week Gitxsan hereditary chiefs, the [Gitxsanimax spoken], and members of their house groups, [Gitxsanimax spoken], met in the village of Gitsegukla for the Gitxsan summit to review the year's progress and discuss the future. There are good reasons to celebrate.

The Gitxsan matrilineal hereditary system is strong. It is based on a deep connection between members of the house group and the [Gitxsanimax spoken], or traditional territory. Each [Gitxsanimax spoken] has a distinct land base in the 30,000 square kilometres of
[ Page 1532 ]
traditional land, and it is why the Gitxsan reject the precondition of the land selection model at the treaty table.

Under that approach, some [Gitxsanimax spoken] will be left out. That is why Gitxsan are negotiating on how federal and provincial jurisdictions will coexist with the Gitxsan [Gitxsanimax spoken] or laws on the entire [Gitxsanimax spoken.]

Against this positive backdrop, it's important to realize how significant it is that the hereditary system is still so strong and that these summits take place at all. The onslaught of the dominant culture that this Legislature represents has been devastating to the Gitxsan and other first nations in Stikine.

A quick snapshot of some of the results of that onslaught since I was elected in May, just in my community alone. In June a 21-month-old Gitxsan child is murdered; a relative is charged. He is a minor and deemed not fit for trial. In July a young Gitxsan man takes his life by jumping off the Hagwilget Bridge after a torturous four-hour negotiation. Then last month Rodney Jackson, a loving father of seven, was shot dead in the woods by an RCMP emergency response team.

That is the reality we face on a daily basis. It is not the reality that existed before contact. It is a reality constructed by successive federal and provincial government policies and laws.

We need to reflect on and take strength from the examples set by the Gitxsan — the ability to collaborate at the summit for the betterment of all in the face of those horrific realities. It is up to us in this House to show that we too can collaborate, to be inclusive and to accept a diversity of world views and enact policies and legislation reflective of that attitude.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON TOURISM INDUSTRY

C. James: Earlier this month when we asked the B.C. Liberals what analysis had been done on the impact of the HST on the tourism industry, the Minister of Finance dismissed any concerns. Now a new report has come out by the Council of Tourism Associations, which says B.C. could lose 15,000 tourism jobs because of the HST.

To the Minister of Tourism: 15,000 jobs could be lost because of the HST. Why are you and your government knowingly taking a hammer to this important industry?

Hon. K. Krueger: We have received the Council of Tourism Associations' report. We're analyzing it. We've been working with them. They asked for a meeting immediately after the HST was announced. I met with them the following week — the Minister of Finance and I did.

The fact is that the thing that drives the tourism industry, the hospitality industry, is customers — customers with money in their pockets. There isn't anything we could possibly do that is better for our economy and job creation than the implementation of the HST.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I find it incredible to hear those words from the minister. Wouldn't the government think it might be a good idea to meet with the industry before you looked at bringing in a tax that's going to kill 15,000 jobs?

Let's take a look at the B.C. Liberal record on tourism. The government got rid of Tourism B.C. before the 2010 games. Months before we're hosting the Olympics, Tourism B.C. is gone.

[1355]

After the Olympics they're going to be hitting the industry with a tax that could remove 15,000 jobs in this industry because of a tax brought in without consultation, without any analysis, when the industry is struggling to stay afloat.

Again, my question is to the minister. Why is he imposing this job-killing tax on a sector that creates the highest number of jobs in this province? Why is he hurting tourism when it's such an important part of our economy in British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, 129 OECD countries have a value-added tax. The value-added tax is 20 percent across Europe. Independent economists worldwide agree that a harmonization of sales taxes is an economic driver.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: We would have been at a serious disadvantage to compete in other provinces, such as Ontario, if we hadn't proceeded. The HST is going to deliver $880 million in benefits to the construction industry. The construction employees….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: There will be thousands of British Columbians in industries that pay family-supporting wages to their employees who will have jobs because of the HST and will be spending that money in the hospitality industry.

Interjections.
[ Page 1533 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: This minister and this government refused to tell the tourism industry before the election that they were bringing in the HST. In fact, they said just the opposite — that they weren't going to bring in the tax. Now they refuse to consult the industry. In fact, they refuse to even acknowledge that it's a problem.

Here is the cost of the B.C. Liberal HST betrayal on tourism alone: 15,000 tourism jobs at risk, revenues could plunge by half a billion dollars, higher prices for businesses and for consumers. An entire industry will pay the price for this government's mistake.

My question is to the minister. Does he think tourism experts are making it up? Does he think they aren't telling the truth in the information that they brought forward? My question again to the minister: why does he believe bringing in the HST is going to be a good thing for an industry that has said it's going to kill jobs in our province?

Hon. K. Krueger: It's an amazing thing to be hectored by the NDP on taxation. We're the government that cut people's personal income taxes to now the lowest in Canada for the first $118,000 in income. But those people…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: …spend the money that is left in their own pockets and bank accounts in the hospitality industry. We're the government that eliminated corporate capital tax, which the NDP….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: We're the government that has cut taxes over a hundred times and made the economy of British Columbia come back from worst-performing in the country to best-performing in the country — under our watch.

Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition and her caucus don't listen to the mining industry, the forest industry, the construction industry.

S. Herbert: When the Minister of Tourism, who has now suddenly found his voice on this issue after we've asked over 16 questions on it…. When we ask him about the impact on tourism, the minister refuses yet again to provide a straight answer. When he finally agrees to comment, he dismisses the industry's concerns.

This is what he said in August. He said, "The HST is going to be good for all concerned, but there will be exceptions," refusing to say who those exceptions are. Well, the exceptions are the over 15,000 jobs killed by the HST, the over $500 million in revenue lost, small businesses eliminated and consumers stretched even more. And he's saying the HST is good for all? When will he stop his rhetoric, and when will he end this tax?

[1400]

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd like to tell the member opposite that industry, and particularly small business, has not forgotten the NDP's commitment that they would add 25 percent in payroll costs just as a result of being elected, spending other people's money yet again. We listened to all of the industries.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: I met today with the technology industry. I asked them: "How is the HST going to affect you?" They said, "We love the HST," and their employees will be spending money in the tourism industry and in the hospitality industry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Herbert: I'd like to remind the minister that he's the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, which I guess under the B.C. Liberals are all taking the axe these days. Maybe that's why he doesn't want to talk about the issue. Meanwhile people lose their jobs. Meanwhile businesses go under.

That's shameful. According to the tourism industry, the B.C. Liberals HST betrayal could mean over 15,000 jobs lost, Minister. That's today. Not in the '90s, not in the '80s — today. And up to $545 million in revenue lost each and every year.

To the minister: why does he continue to sit idly by and talk about other things when it's the tourism industry that's taking the axe under this government?

Hon. K. Krueger: Of course, we're on the threshold of hosting the biggest event in the world next year. At least a quarter of a million visitors….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.
[ Page 1534 ]

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: At least a quarter-million visitors will be coming to British Columbia to be part of the Olympics. Some 15,000 foreign journalists will be covering British Columbia, not just during the Olympics but before and after. We're working hand in glove with the Tourism B.C. people within the ministry to market British Columbia through this fantastic opportunity.

B. Ralston: The chair of the council of tourism industry said in response to this report when it was released: "I hope they understand the impact this will have on our industry." When the HST was introduced in August, the council said: "This will have a devastating impact on our industry." That was in August. They've now prepared a careful, rational analysis of the impact of the HST on their industry.

Over a half a billion dollars in tourist, visitor dollars — revenue — will decline, based on this report. Up to 5,000 direct jobs and 10,000 indirect jobs lost in this industry.

What is the minister telling tourism operators in Kamloops about the HST? Is he being honest with them? Is his message to tourism operators in Kamloops: "Suck it up. It's good for you"?

Mr. Speaker: Just wait a second.

Just be careful of your choice of words, Member.

Hon. K. Krueger: Actually in Kamloops.... Flights into Kamloops are up 33 percent overall. The manager of the Kamloops Airport says it's mainly attributable to golfers. People are spending money in British Columbia, much to the disappointment of the members opposite, I'm sure.

And 72 percent of the tourists in the market in British Columbia this season have been British Columbians. They got money in their pockets because of the fiscal plans of this government, which include the HST.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
OPEN-NET FISH FARMING

L. Popham: This weekend Marine Harvest Canada admitted to another mass escape of 40,000 farmed Atlantic salmon in the Broughton Archipelago — another escape, another significant threat to our wild salmon.

This again demonstrates the urgent need to transition all open-net farms to closed-containment technology. B.C. could be a world leader in closed containment, or we can continue to watch our wild salmon stocks collapse.

Will the Minister of Agriculture commit today that the province will take the lead on moving the aquaculture industry to closed-containment technology?

Hon. S. Thomson: The incident that the member opposite refers to was reported to us immediately as per our regulation, which is required. It is the most comprehensive regulation in the world, in terms of our environmental regulation, that we have for the aquaculture industry. It's under investigation, led by the Ministry of Agriculture, by the Ministry of Environment, by DFO. We continue to take this incident very seriously, and we're going to continue to investigate fully.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Closed containment would have prevented this escape of farmed salmon, but this government continues to refuse to show any leadership on aquaculture. There are seven pending applications for new fish farms and multiple applications for expansion before the Minister of Agriculture. Given the Liberal government's abysmal record on this issue, will the minister finally take action to preserve our wild salmon by committing today that there will be no expansion of open-net fish farms in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Thomson: The ministry's and the government's approach to closed containment is consistent with the recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum, one of the most comprehensive reviews done.

As you know, we're in a process of transition of jurisdiction of finfish aquaculture to the federal government. Those reports are going to continue to inform our direction with the federal government.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Agriculture has said that his government has a transition strategy to closed containment. For eight years this government has done nothing but reject those solutions to make aquaculture more sustainable in British Columbia and to protect our wild salmon stocks. That's their record on fisheries management for eight years.

You know, we've got the Chinese government in British Columbia concluding R-and-D agreements with B.C. companies for China — not British Columbia — to develop this technology, and there's not any interest by this jurisdiction to do the same. We could be leaders. We could be building green jobs if we did that.

In just over 90 days B.C. is going to transfer jurisdiction for fisheries management to the feds, to DFO. Now, sport fishermen, commercial fishers and marine biologists are all afraid that this minister, who has seven applications on his desk, is going to approve them…

Interjections.
[ Page 1535 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: …and rush them through before the deadline. So I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture today: will he assure this House that he will not do that — that he will not rush through new applications for open-net fish farms before the transfer to the federal government in 90 days?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm sure the members opposite have read carefully the Hinkson decision. What the Hinkson decision said was that the provincial government was to continue to manage its responsibilities for the aquaculture industry until that transfer is complete in February.

We're continuing to work to that objective in terms of providing certainty for both the industry and the environment in our negotiations with the federal government. But as you know, the courts said that we continue to manage our responsibilities under the industry during this time period.

[1410]

B. Simpson: I would take the Minister of Agriculture's response as a yes. It's feeding the rumours and the fears out there that this government is going to expand open-net fish farming before they transfer it to DFO.

Now this minister knows that first nations leaders…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …are very concerned about both expansion of open-net fish farming and the transfer of responsibility to DFO. They have expressed this concern to this minister and this government. They don't want platitudes. They don't want to be put off. They want an answer from the government.

In estimates debate the minister said that it is now a DFO responsibility to consult, making a complete mockery of the new relationship.

The First Nations Fisheries Council meets this week. I ask the Minister of Agriculture: will he agree to go there on Friday and explain directly face to face with the first nations leaders why this government is abdicating their responsibility to DFO — an agency that the first nations do not trust — and why this government won't take the lead to make sure first nations are fully and completely consulted with before expanding open-net fish farming and transferring responsibility to DFO?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I just indicated to the members opposite, the court decision said that we continue to have the responsibility to manage the industry during this time period. As you know, that involves extensive consultation — environmental assessment, extensive consultation with first nations in consideration with any licence applications, any amendments to licences. We are continuing to do that. We are continuing to consult. I have met with groups during this process, and we will continue to do that.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
IN COLUMBIA VALLEY

N. Macdonald: On October 14 three major traffic accidents occurred in the Columbia Valley the morning after a snowfall. In the most serious accident a gentleman was struck by an out-of-control vehicle when he stopped to put on chains. It is clear from the police reports that those accidents occurred because of a failure to properly maintain the roads.

Winter is just beginning. The system for road maintenance in this province is again breaking down. Why isn't the minister meeting her responsibility to provide safe roads for British Columbians?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again the member opposite stands in the Legislature today and fearmongers about the way that roads are taken care of in British Columbia. That is an embarrassment and irresponsible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: The men and women who work across British Columbia work very hard every single day to ensure that the number one priority they have in this province is safety of the travelling public. In fact, our contractors work very hard to ensure that. I can assure you that today they are working to meet those standards in every corner of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The most serious accident has been investigated by the RCMP, and they've been clear that the fault doesn't lie with the drivers that are on the road. The fault lies with the condition of the road. Adequate maintenance was not done by the contractor, Mainroad group. As a result, the road was not driveable.

We all knew that the weather was going to turn, that there was going to be a snowstorm, but the highway maintenance operator chose to put only one vehicle on the road — one vehicle for all of the Columbia Valley. The result was predictable, and it was tragic — three accidents, one person seriously hurt.

The question for the minister: does the minister believe that on October 14 in the Columbia Valley, Mainroad met its contractual obligations to keep our roads safe?
[ Page 1536 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Anytime there is an accident in British Columbia…. Certainly, our utmost concern is safety in the province of British Columbia. In fact, our maintenance contractors work rigorously to very high standards to ensure that our highways are safe and appropriate for travel.

I can assure you that those contractors are audited. There is vigorous maintenance to make sure they are meeting the standards that are expected of them. But we live in a province that has extremely difficult geography. Weather is unpredictable, and I can assure you our maintenance contractors do an exceptional job in this province.

[1415]

H. Bains: For the information of this minister, highway snow removal contract section 3.1 states: "The contractor must…when snowfall is forecast, proactively…notify and deploy resources in advance which are sufficient to respond to the anticipated snow." That didn't happen in this situation, because this minister felt there was no need to enforce its own rules. That's what happened out there.

My question to the minister is this. Will she stand up and tell this House what steps she has taken to ensure that these road maintenance rules are enforced today?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite is the critic for Transportation, one would assume that he would have done his homework. In British Columbia there are actually rigorous contracts in place that audit the work done by maintenance contractors. I can assure you that as weather is unpredictable, maintenance contractors are prepared. They get ready to do the work that's necessary. I can assure you that in every single circumstance, there will be monitoring and evaluation to ensure that those contractors have done exactly what's expected of them.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: This minister's promises and statements are so hollow. It does nothing to give comfort to the motorists in British Columbia. The contractor in this particular situation, Mainroad, East Kootenay contractor, has been cited for 28 safety violations, and they still went on to collect $178,000 in performance bonuses. So much for the enforcement by this minister.

Will the minister promise to do a thorough investigation of this accident and send a clear message to all contractors in this province that tells them that the time to ignore these safety rules is over and the people on our roads are safe?

Hon. S. Bond: I live in the northern part of British Columbia, and I can assure you that I have confidence that maintenance contractors across this province meet the standards that are expected of them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the member opposite should well know that we have over 120 people in the Ministry of Transportation that actually monitor the standards, monitor the contracts to make sure that those contractual obligations are being met. That will continue. We will continue to ensure that the travelling public is safe in British Columbia.

MI'KMAQ CHILDREN'S CHOIR
PERFORMANCE AT OLYMPIC GAMES

K. Corrigan: In 2007 the Se't A'newey performance choir from Newfoundland took the B.C. Premier at his word when they accepted his invitation to perform at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. The Premier invited the choir in the presence of Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who followed up with a note of congratulations to the singers in which he said: "See you at the Olympics."

Ever since, these young performers from the Mi'kmaq First Nation have been practising for hours every week for their moment to represent and make Canada proud on the world stage. Now it appears that the Premier made an Olympic-sized false promise to the singers. Instead of offering to find a solution so that these talented young singers can take part in the games, the Premier has been backtracking on his invitation.

To the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations: when is the Premier going to stop claiming that the choir heard him wrong and instead make sure that these young Mi'kmaq singers perform in the Winter Olympics?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

Hon. G. Abbott: I haven't even started to talk yet. It brings back some great memories, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier was much impressed by the choir, and the Premier is much concerned that any misunderstanding that occurred can be remedied.

I am pleased to advise the member that today, at a discussion with Tewanee Joseph of the four host first nations, who are welcoming the world to the 2010 Olympics…. We believe there will be at least three opportunities around February 26 for the choir to perform in high-profile venues and events, including the Aboriginal Business Showcase and including the Aboriginal Showcase at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre.

Those are very exciting events, and I look forward to discussing the issue further this afternoon.
[ Page 1537 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Chief Misel Joe wrote to the Premier a few days ago and said:

"As aboriginal people, our lives are governed by the following guiding principles: truth, respect, honour, wisdom, humility, bravery and love. Our young people have been raised with these guiding principles as part of their daily lives. It teaches them who they are. When you extended this invitation to them, your words were taken as your honour.

"This is why we are expressing the devastation that our children now feel and the lesson they have learned that your words mean nothing."

We have now a consolation prize, but I don't think it's enough to address the devastation that these children feel.

My question for the minister today: is this government going to apologize to the people of Newfoundland and to the first nations people who have been devastated in this way?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I said in my earlier answer, the Premier was much impressed by the choir. But the member, I think, surely knows that the Premier doesn't arrange the entertainment at the opening of the Olympics.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member well knows that.

We are looking forward to extending at least two opportunities and quite possibly three high-profile opportunities for the aboriginal choir to perform around February 26 at the Olympics. We look forward to discussing those opportunities further with the Chief and with the choir master of the Mi'kmaq choir.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development. In this chamber, committee stage of Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

On section 1.

M. Farnworth: If the minister could just explain the intent of section 1 and how it's to function.

Hon. K. Heed: Madam Chair, we wanted to have the regulation-making power specific for the graduated licence program, in that we needed to clarify some of the restrictions with the different classes of drivers here in British Columbia.

In specific, we wanted to ensure that we were dealing with the hands-free component of the graduated licensing program and the additional penalty points that are applied to individuals in the graduated licensing program. These are specific to this piece of legislation versus having it in the general GLP regulations.

M. Farnworth: Is there any grandfathering taking place then, as a result of this section? If so, what does it comprise of?

[1430]

Hon. K. Heed: There is no grandfathering. It will apply to all individuals in the graduated licensing program.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Farnworth: Under section 3, this will add "3.1 — Use of Electronic Devices While Driving" to the Motor Vehicle Act. Under the definitions, the definition includes the definition of electronic device as: "(a) a hand-held cellular telephone or another hand-held electronic device that includes a telephone function, (b) a hand-held electronic device that is capable of transmitting or receiving electronic mail or other text-based messages, or (c) a prescribed class or type of electronic device."

The section also defines the term "use" in relation to an electronic device. Is there anything that's not captured by this clause? Will this clause take into account changes in technology over the coming years? As we've seen, the change in technology has just been dramatic. We understand what's out there today, but is this clause able to catch changes in technology into the future?

Hon. K. Heed: With the change in technology — and it seems to be almost daily — we have built in here that addition where it will cover the changes of technology with respect to this.

M. Farnworth: The reason I'm asking is that I want to make sure, as I fully expect — and probably the government does too — that at some point there will be a challenge to the legislation, as there often is. The answers that we get are quite important in terms of, if a judge is looking
[ Page 1538 ]
and making a decision around the case: what was the intent of the legislation?

So I just want to make sure that we are clear that the intention of the legislation is, no matter what the technological advances and changes there are in technology, to prohibit the use of technology whilst driving. Whether it's cell phones now or computers or TV screens or DVDs or CDs or Blu-ray or whatever it is, I want to make sure that this section covers that and that we're clear about that.

Hon. K. Heed: The future will be defined by regulation. Built into that will be the restriction that will allow governments to address future technology as they desire.

M. Farnworth: Under this section, you've got (a), (b), (c) and (d). Subsection (d) says: "taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device."

The minister has indicated that the changes in the future will be done by regulation. Is that to mean that specific activities related to the use of electronic devices — that a number of them will be by regulation even at the present day, never mind the ones in the future? Are we anticipating doing some of them by regulation at the current time?

[1435]

Hon. K. Heed: It is limited to certain activities. Currently we have "holding the device," "operating" the device," "communicating orally by means of the device." Then, looking at section (d) "taking another action…." That's to deal with anything else that we have not currently thought of as of today.

L. Krog: I met with a representative on Friday of the Nanaimo Amateur Radio Association. People operate ham radios. Their vehicles are licensed specifically for that purpose. Indeed, they have to as a condition of their licence. They are required to comply.

Manitoba has passed legislation recently, and they exempted anyone whose licensed under Canada's federal Radiocommunication Act. I'm just wondering. Can the minister advise the House: will this extend, in fact — this ban — to CB operators?

Hon. K. Heed: Through regulation, we are looking at exceptions, which will include amateur radio operators who hold a valid radio operator certificate issued under radio communications Canada.

L. Krog: I'm just looking at the definition section — "electronic device," as it reads in the bill itself. It talks about "(a) a hand-held cellular telephone or another hand-held electronic device that includes a telephone function." Is the minister satisfied that that section, in fact, covers a CB, when we talk about telephone function?

Clearly, section "(b) a hand-held electronic device…capable of transmitting or receiving electronic" e-mail or other text message doesn't apply. And "(c) a prescribed class or type of electronic device…." I take it that it could fall under that section, I suppose.

Can the minister advise what section he believes the CB would fall under? Is it (a), or is it (c)? Or either?

Hon. K. Heed: It's (c).

L. Krog: Obviously, this is a matter of some concern to the individuals involved in amateur radio associations. These are people who perform a valuable public service. These are people who, in the time of a disaster, will be available to transmit vital information, regardless of what kind of disaster it is. These are people involved in search and rescue.

I think those people need to hear from the minister today. Is it the government's intention, then, to seriously look at an exemption? Is the government going to exempt, or is it simply a matter for consideration?

Hon. K. Heed: We are taking this matter very seriously, and we're giving it serious consideration.

N. Macdonald: On the same topic. During the second reading speech, I indicated as well — and the minister was here and nodded — just the concerns around this issue.

[1440]

Basically the same that has been outlined before — just the concern that the people that use ham radios and not only provide a service during regular times but are often key parts of search and rescue and in times…. I think what I cited was the 2003 fire around Cranbrook. When other systems had broken down, this system was up and working.

So just to reinforce again that idea that the minister has the ability with this regulation to provide exclusions, and this is one that, certainly, we've heard very clearly is an area that needs to be dealt with.

Hon. K. Heed: We certainly recognize the value of these individuals when there's an emergency here in British Columbia and the fact that they're volunteers. We will be consulting with them, and we will seriously be considering their recommendations.

M. Farnworth: This isn't a particularly long bill, so some of the questions — I think most of the questions — are probably appropriately dealt with under section 3. Even if they may stray into section 4, I think we can deal with them here.

One of the issues is under section 214.4(c), dealing with permitted activities, and that is: "…configured and equipped to allow hands-free use in a telephone function, is used in a hands-free manner and is used in accordance with the regulations, if any."
[ Page 1539 ]

Can the minister tell the House how he intends to apply that, what regulations he is anticipating in the immediate time frame, and are there any regulations that he's looking at over time?

Hon. K. Heed: This will be dealt with through regulation on the exact manner. Let me just talk a little bit about this. The intent was just, like, a one-touch motion for the individual from where he or she knows their device is — secured somewhere in the vehicle or on their actual person. It's just meant to be momentarily to make that one touch to receive or make that particular phone call.

M. Farnworth: Would that also work as voice-activated, for example, in terms of the Bluetooth system that's used by many people? Would it be an impact on how that is used and operated?

Hon. K. Heed: That would also apply to Bluetooth, yes.

[1445]

M. Farnworth: I just want to make sure that I understand exactly how the hands-free is going to operate. If you have a hands-free in your car, and it's a one-touch — that you can touch, basically, a number, and it dials it up and connects you — that's fine. You can't use a dial pad pressing a keyboard. I see the minister nodding affirmative on that. If I'm wrong, he can tell me.

The other question, then, is if it's voice-activated, that is permissible under this legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: The member opposite is correct. Voice activation will be permittable.

M. Farnworth: One of the questions I had in second reading that I said I'd like to explore with the minister, and it's slightly out of the purview of the bill in the sense that it doesn't lay it out here in legislation, and I'm not so sure if it would lay it out in terms of regulation, but certainly I think it's an important….

It's a function that needs to take place in conjunction with the implementation of this legislation. And that is, for example, to look at the effect of this legislation over a number of years — let's say over two, four, five, six years — with ICBC not only in terms of the number of infractions that we see involving the use of electronic devices and cell phones and other devices prohibited in the legislation but in relation to accidents, settlements, all those types of things — those questions that will arise, particularly from those who are critical, saying that we don't need this type of legislation.

Will the minister be committing that ICBC will, in fact, be compiling statistics and following through and that we will be working to see exactly what the effect of this particular piece of legislation is?

Hon. K. Heed: We did make some changes in 2004 in the collection of data with respect to distracted drivers. We are now going further with the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles branch and ICBC to collect data as it pertains to hand-held electronic devices. We're going further — not just distracted drivers but to this particular category — and we'll be collecting that data immediately that this bill goes into effect. We'll be measuring the successes — hopefully, successes — as we move forward.

M. Farnworth: Will we be able to see the impact of that data and the collection of that data publicly without having to go through FOI? It would be really handy if it was released so we can see how effective this is.

Hon. K. Heed: It is our intent to ensure that that data does become public so we can determine the effects of this particular piece of legislation.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad to hear that answer because I think one of the things it's important that we realize, and a member has mentioned it during the second reading debate, is that we want to make a shift in people's habits. I think one of the key components of that, of course, is education, which means having the statistics and the facts and the figures to show whether something is working or not and whether the public is changing their behaviour.

I say that's twofold because — from the perspective of government and of opposition, because we all support this legislation — that's the best way to show that this is the right way to go. But also, there are individuals, there are groups out there, who don't see the need for legislation like this and who don't think this type of legislation should be in place.

I think one of the most effective ways to counteract those arguments is to be able to say, "Here is what the statistics show here in British Columbia. Here's what they show by way of infractions" — and you can look at it in different parts of B.C. So that's something I want to make sure that we are monitoring and following up on in the future.

That brings me to my next question. One of the issues that clearly has been highlighted by the minister in his remarks, and by members of this side of the House in our remarks, is the issue around young people and the issues regarding the licensing and the prohibition of driving even using hands-free during the learning stage.

[1450]

So I have two questions in that regard: (1) how long does that last for? (2) Is the ministry planning any programs aimed at educating young people prior to them even applying for their driver's licence, recognizing that this is one of those things where we need to change behaviour at a very early age?
[ Page 1540 ]

Hon. K. Heed: First of all, I just want to make some remarks with respect to the member opposite and what he brought up earlier. That data is so important to us, because really, that's going to guide us, as we move forward, with respect to dealing with the problem of distracted drivers here in British Columbia. That was right from the outset. We were going to determine that. We look forward to some positive data, if I can use that term, as we move forward.

The graduated licensing program. The individual in that program is in it, on average, two and a half to three years. So the prohibition would apply to them during that particular time.

As far as the education goes, even during the first month that this is actually in effect we'll be embarking on a very comprehensive education and prevention program for all of British Columbia with respect to this piece of legislation and the problem with hand-held devices and distracted driving.

A major component of that will be the individuals that will be in the graduated licensing program — whether that's for the youth who are just getting into driving through the school system or whether it's people that do come into British Columbia that have to go through the graduated licensing program — getting the information to them with respect to this problem we have and the expectations on that.

We'll work not only with ICBC. We'll work with other partners out there in order for us to get this critical piece of education to these drivers.

M. Farnworth: I think one of the key things about the success or failure of this piece of legislation is going to be how it applies to young people and the graduated licensing program. I really do want to emphasize that I think there need to be resources put at the very front end of this, even before kids start thinking about their driver's licence.

Whether you do it through the education system…. I think that's the obvious place to do it. But in that run-up to those years — 13, 14, 15 — I think there needs to be some way of starting to get that message around intelligent use of technology in motor vehicles. I really do think we have to find a way to start to get that message as early as possible.

[1455]

Since the introduction of this legislation, driving on the weekend I paid more attention to just what other people are doing in a vehicle. I was really surprised at how many…. You can see them, and they're using their BlackBerrys while they're driving. That is just insane. That's why I say that I'd like to see resources, especially at that front end, because I think that's where you're going to have the biggest success in changing behaviour.

Now, coming to a specific in terms of the graduated licensing program. I know if you're caught drinking and driving that there are severe consequences, not just in terms of the Criminal Code but also in terms of what happens to you within the graduated licensing program.

Have any decisions been made around penalties or what happens to you as a driver if you're within the graduated licensing program and you're caught using a cell phone, watching a DVD, a TV, BlackBerry messaging — any of those things that are prohibited by this legislation? What sort of consequences will you face?

Hon. K. Heed: On the first point of the member opposite's comments, we'll be looking at the Ministry of Education to be a partner with us, because we certainly realize that giving education now is going to change future behaviour. Our intent is to start at a very young age, but our intent is also to start at the parent level. So it can be both ways, where the parent can educate the kids.

I've seen it in my time. The kids have actually educated the parents, too, when they're in a vehicle driving. The example I often use is the seatbelts — children telling adults that the law is that you must wear your seatbelt. It changes the behaviour both ways. So we're looking forward to that.

As far as consequences to individuals in the graduated licensing program, when they're caught using any electronic device in the vehicle — you know, regardless of whether they're on hands-free or not — the fine will be $167 plus three points.

When you're in the graduated licensing program, you must have a period of no infractions in order for you to get out of your particular program. For example, if you have two offences and each of them is three points, you actually go back to the start of the graduated licensing program. So you're in all of those restrictions for an extended period of time if you're caught in excessive violation.

[1500]

M. Farnworth: Of course, that's going to affect your insurance premiums. Now, if you're engaged in a drinking-and-driving incident whilst driving a vehicle, that has a significant impact on your insurance premiums with ICBC. Will the same thing happen if you are found to have been in an accident caused by the use of a hand-held device or device prohibited by this piece of legislation? Will that specifically also impact your insurance premiums in the same way, for example, that drinking and driving does at the present time?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, it can impact the insurance rates of that individual, whether it's an accident or by way of points, and that would be one of the factors that they would look at.

M. Farnworth: Is one of the potential consequences the confiscation of the device that was being operated while using the vehicle?
[ Page 1541 ]

Hon. K. Heed: No, confiscation is not part of it.

M. Farnworth: I raise that because sometimes one of the most effective tools, particularly with repeat offenders, is the confiscation. We do that, for example, if you're involved in street racing.

I'm just wondering if that is something that has been considered, particularly for, let's say, repeat offenders. If it's a TV in the vehicle, if it's a DVD, if someone is deliberately and has a number of violations…. I think that may be an effective way to show an individual that their behaviour is not only dangerous but that also: "You know what? You're going to have to find a way to live without that device that you deem so necessary that you're willing to put other people's lives in danger."

So I'm hoping that the minister would think about implementing something like that as one of the policies or by regulation.

Hon. K. Heed: We are not looking at it at this particular time, because of the privacy issues with respect to it. We feel that we have comprehensive consequences as a result of that, with the fine and the particular fact that an additional three points are part of it.

M. Farnworth: I just want to come back to one of the issues. The minister, in his remarks to a previous question, said that they're looking at this as a partnership with Education, for example. Is the minister aware of any resources that have already been targeted, in terms of being set aside, to be able to fund a potential program or programs in conjunction with the Ministry of Education?

Hon. K. Heed: Nothing specific has been set aside. We anticipate that this will be part of our general education program with respect to creating safer roads here in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: Any plans to take something to Treasury Board for approval? I can tell the minister that this side of the House would be very supportive of a request by him, if he were to take it to Treasury Board, requesting some funds be available to educate young kids in the run-up to getting their driver's licence, and for the budget for next spring, this would be something that we would be very supportive of. So I would ask him that he should do something like that.

[1505]

Hon. K. Heed: I thank you very much for offering your support here, but our intent is to have this done all within existing budgets.

M. Farnworth: Somehow I'm not surprised by that answer, but I think it is a mistake, in the sense that this type of program, given the nature of the behaviour that we're trying to change — in much the same way that seatbelts, in much the same way that drinking and driving….

I think you're going to find that there needs to be a campaign, probably an advertising campaign, that goes along with this in order to drive home to people that this is unacceptable behaviour now in this province. That's why I think it's important that we have some resources targeted to school-aged kids. I hope the government reconsiders that position.

Let me ask this question. Are there going to be resources dedicated to a public campaign around the need for people to change their behaviour and around the fact that this law is going to be in place and that people need to no longer use cell phones or other electronic devices, as spelled out in the legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: We have support with respect to this legislation from several organizations and groups out there. We'll be coordinating and working with these partners as we go forward on this critical piece of education. They include the police, the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, the BCMA, ICBC and other groups that seem to be clamouring at the bit to get involved, to assist us to deal with this problem.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying, and that argument can be applied to just about any traffic issue that we're dealing with. I mean, if you say anti–drinking and driving, yes, you have the BCMA on side. Yes, you have parents and teachers and educators on side. Yes, you have ICBC on side, and yes, you have BCAA on side as well.

But the impetus, the real opportunity, to advance a campaign is done from the provincial level. The BCMA is not able to do a sustained campaign on this issue. Neither is the BCAA, to a certain extent. They have much fewer resources than we do as a province or with our Crown corporation, ICBC.

That's why we do it with drinking and driving. We do it around seatbelts. I think we're going to need to be doing it around technology and the inappropriate use of technology while driving.

So I'd like to know: is there a plan in place to use provincial resources, through either the province or ICBC, (1) to let people know that this legislation is now or will be in effect and (2) for a sustained campaign to remind people of that and to encourage the change in people's behaviour that we're hoping to achieve by this legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: Some of these individuals have actually sought us out and have indicated that they definitely want to be our partners as we go forward on that. As a matter of fact, they've already identified funds in order
[ Page 1542 ]
for us to embark on a comprehensive education piece as we go forward on this particular item.

When you talk about 177 fatalities in the province of British Columbia and over 1,400 serious accidents, you can see that ICBC is a major partner here as we deal with this particular issue. It is of significant importance to them.

[1510]

M. Farnworth: Well, there may well be organizations that want to partner with the government, but if we don't have anything to partner with, if we're not bringing anything to the table, then it's not really much of a partnership.

Again, my question is: has the government identified or earmarked financial resources to be able to do a sustained campaign around this legislation and the fact that, once it's introduced, things change for people in this province in what they can use within a motor vehicle and the use of technology in a motor vehicle?

Key in that should be a commitment by the province to have a sustained campaign, and that requires financial resources, whether it's in the form of actual, well, money but also in personnel. Has any sort of plan been put together? Have resources been identified to implement a campaign around this legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: As I mentioned earlier, we've got people that are phoning us and knocking on our door wanting to be involved in our education piece as we move forward, and I mentioned a few of those individuals. They are informing us that they've identified resources in order for us to do it.

My direction to staff has been to work with those particular people, to coordinate those resources and to do what we can to ensure we have that comprehensive education piece in the plan. I'm informed that the groups have met, and they're already involved in discussions with respect to this piece of education.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister, then, tell us the approximate value of these financial resources, or these resources that have been identified, to implement a program?

Hon. K. Heed: No, I don't have a figure with respect to the cost.

M. Farnworth: We have a piece of legislation that all sides of the House think is important. We're trying to achieve a significant societal change in the use of technology in vehicles. The minister has indicated that other organizations have said they have resources available, but we don't know the size of the commitment they're prepared to bring to the table, as the minister says, to be in partnership.

So I have two questions. Can the minister find out what is out there amongst organizations who want to engage in a program? That's one question.

The second question, though, is…. Then, what the minister is saying is that right now there are no plans by the province to denote or to put in place any new resources to facilitate the implementation of this act. By that I mean that there are no plans for additional resources to create a sustained awareness campaign around the implementation of this legislation and the changes that we're trying to achieve.

[1515]

Hon. K. Heed: The education piece has already started. I think that when we announced in the throne speech that we were going to introduce this piece of legislation, some people started changing their habits. With the introduction of the bill, I know some people have gone even further and changed their habits. I'm sure that once it becomes law, if we can get this through, they'll change their habits even more. Of course, the education, as I mentioned, is a very, very important piece of it.

We will count on the additional resources from many of the people I've mentioned in order for us to get a comprehensive education piece in, whether it's in our schools or with some of the new devices that we have available through Twitter or Facebook or something of that nature, versus some of the more expensive ads.

If those partners want to come on board and if they want to look at the TV ads, etc., certainly, we will look at them for resources in order for us to do it. We will work with the Ministry of Education to ensure we get the material into our schools at a very young age, and even into our universities, with respect to this piece of legislation.

Again, the full commitment of the partners, which has been quite revealing even before the introduction of the bill and now since we've introduced the bill and as we move this through, is kind of refreshing in a way. They are meeting. They're discussing it. They know my commitment to make sure we have that comprehensive piece of education.

M. Farnworth: I don't doubt that the minister wants this to succeed. I don't doubt for a minute that he expects the Ministry of Education to participate. But I don't think the best of intentions are going to succeed if we don't have the resources necessary.

The reason I'm dwelling on this is because, if we're going to do this, it needs to be done right, which means having resources in place. That means not taking them from somewhere else to do that. I'm particularly concerned about that right now, at the adult population.

The minister says: "You know, some people have changed their habits." Some people will do that. There is always a segment of the population that, if some-
[ Page 1543 ]
thing's changed, will adapt very quickly. The trouble is that it tends to be a small component of the population. If it was the case, we wouldn't need to remind people year after year after year about the dangers of drinking and driving, about seatbelts or even anti-smoking campaigns.

The fact is that when people have an ingrained behaviour, you can't just pass a law and then say, "Oh, we're going to do something," and people will adapt to it. They don't. You have to remind them again and again and again through a sustained approach, and that requires resources.

What I'm hearing is that we're expecting our partners to be doing that, when in fact, the most important partner, the province, isn't bringing new or additional resources to the table. I think that's a big mistake.

I don't think we can do it by taking resources away from drinking and driving and saying that we're going to focus them on this. I think there has to be a commitment by government to put new resources on the table for this piece of legislation to be as effective as we all hope it can be.

[1520]

We have a budget coming up in the spring at the same time that this particular piece of legislation comes into effect. I think that without that commitment for additional resources, this legislation will not be as successful as we want it to be.

So my question to the minister is this. Will he be going to Treasury Board with a request for some funding to put in place a program that deals — I've talked about the education aspect — with the adult side of the equation and looking at funds for a program similar to what we do with drinking-and-driving advertising or seatbelt advertising — something of that nature?

Hon. K. Heed: We do have existing resources that are available within government. We have professionals on staff that have designed public campaigns and have been involved in public campaigns, whether it's this particular one with distracted drivers or whether it's drinking and driving or some other behaviour that creates unsafe conditions on our roads here in British Columbia.

We're confident that without spending large volumes of money, we're going to work with our partners and we're going to work with the individuals that have come forward that want to be part of the education program. We're confident that we will be able to come up with a comprehensive education program. As a result, we will not be going to Treasury Board for additional funds for this.

M. Farnworth: I agree with the minister. I don't necessarily think it's something about spending large amounts of money, but there does need to be, I think, a financial commitment there on the table.

Anyway, the minister said that there are resources available. Are they financial? Are they staff? Can the minister give us an indication of how much?

Hon. K. Heed: From government, we will be utilizing staff resources — individuals that have been very successful in previous campaigns, whether it be crystal meth or some type of other problem that we were actually facing. We'll be depending on our partners with respect to other resources available.

M. Farnworth: Well, staff resources are a good thing, but if we're going to model it on the same thing as crystal meth, I will guarantee you that you will be needing additional financial resources. The crystal meth awareness program required additional resources. It required a commitment of financial resources from government.

The next question, then, flows from that. The minister said that he would like to see a comprehensive education plan in place. Does the minister have a timeline for the introduction of a comprehensive education plan?

Hon. K. Heed: The start of that program would take place January 1, 2010.

M. Farnworth: I didn't quite hear the first part.

Hon. K. Heed: January 1, 2010.

M. Farnworth: Who's going to be doing the comprehensive education plan? Is it being done in the ministry, or is it being done outside the ministry?

[1525]

Hon. K. Heed: Staff within the ministry will be working with our partners for that particular piece.

M. Farnworth: And who are the partners?

Hon. K. Heed: To name a few of the larger ones, it's the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the B.C. Medical Association.

M. Farnworth: One of the questions that I know local government has is that…. Traffic fine revenue currently goes to them. Will the fines that are levied for infractions under this piece of legislation be counted as traffic fines, and will that revenue be going to local government?

Hon. K. Heed: This will follow our current guidelines with respect to returning 100 percent of the traffic fine revenue back to local government.
[ Page 1544 ]

M. Farnworth: Just to make sure. Yes, it will be going back to local government — the fines levied under this? Okay.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Heed: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Bond: I call committee stage on Bill 16, intituled Body Armour Control Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 16 — BODY ARMOUR CONTROL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 3:29 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

On section 1.

M. Farnworth: Section 1 is the definitions, and it says: "In this Act: 'body armour' means (a) a garment or item designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting the body from projectiles discharged from a firearm, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or (b) a prescribed garment or item."

I'm going to ask this question at this particular point in time. I've indicated to the minister the nature of the question. It may seem somewhat odd, but it was asked in all seriousness, and sometimes, you know, we do have to be on the lookout for unintended consequences.

I had a question from an individual who's involved in — and I gather they're quite popular — the medieval re-enactment societies. They wear, I gather, armoured costumes that they were concerned could be viewed as being captured by the act. I just want to ask the Solicitor General whether, in fact, that is the case or if, as I believe, the act is intended for entirely different articles other than what the people who are members of medieval re-enactment societies are concerned about.

Hon. K. Heed: The body armour as described does not apply to those individuals. The definition here applies to projectiles discharged from firearms. So that would not apply to those individuals.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that explanation.

The next question under definitions is around "security business licence." It means "a security business licence issued under section 16 of the Security Services Act." Are there any applications — for example, during the Olympics, I'm thinking of — where this legislation would impact on the Olympic security side of things, particularly security who are coming from outside of the province?

Hon. K. Heed: Security individuals that will be coming to the province for the Olympic Games would have to be licensed individuals, and once you're a licensed individual under the Security Services Act, you will be exempt.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Farnworth: One of the issues under this section has been around the prohibition on the possession of body armour. It limits the possession of body armour to those who have a valid permit to possess it. Exemptions include persons with a valid security worker's licence that authorizes them to work as either an armoured car guard, a private investigator, security consultant, a security guard or a body armour salesperson. Other exceptions include valid security businesses and other exemptions by regulation.

Apart from those individuals that I have just enumerated, what's anticipated by regulation? Are there any other exemptions that the ministry is planning by regulation?

[1540]

Hon. K. Heed: The other exemptions, certainly, will apply to police, correction officers, conservation officers, sheriffs and individuals that have actual permits. We
[ Page 1545 ]
will be looking at the full exemptions, and it would be explored as we move into consultation with some of the interest groups and with the industry with respect to this type of garment.

M. Farnworth: That was actually the question the minister was anticipating me going to ask, I somehow think.

Clearly, I would imagine — and I guess the minister can confirm if this is the case or not — that the military would fall outside the scope of this legislation and operates under federal jurisdiction.

The minister raised the issue of consultation. If the minister can tell me, what consultation has taken place prior to the introduction of the legislation, and whom did the consultation take place with?

Hon. K. Heed: We consulted with about 650 security businesses through a survey. We also consulted with 15 companies that are involved in the wholesale and manufacturing of body armour. We've also consulted with the police and with people within the ministry and other ministries that utilize body armour for their staff.

M. Farnworth: What was the form of the consultation? Was it just by survey?

Hon. K. Heed: We had in-person conversation with delegates from the policing community, in-person discussion with some of the businesses. The majority of them were conducted through surveys to get their responses with respect to this. Within government we had personal discussions with the areas within my ministry and the other ministries that would apply to staff that utilize body armour.

[1545]

M. Farnworth: What were the key concerns and issues raised by the police in the discussions?

Hon. K. Heed: The police indicated that they would be very, very supportive of this type of legislation here in the province. They were concerned with the, if I can use the term, "gangsters" that had access to body armour — if they were frequenting public spaces and having that invincible attitude when they did have this piece of body armour on. The police certainly wanted the ability to seize this body armour from these gang members.

M. Farnworth: What concerns were raised by the manufacturers?

Hon. K. Heed: From the manufacturers we received only three replies with respect to the discussion around this. One of them indicated that they were against licensing, having to be licensed to sell, stating that the persons who purchase from them are mainly police or law enforcement officials. We had another individual that we had a discussion with, a fairly large distributor and supplier of body armour, and they were supportive of this type of legislation.

M. Farnworth: How about the private security services? It sounds like, after discussions with the police, and with the manufacturers providing about three responses, the bulk of the responses would probably have come from the private security area. I'm wondering if the minister could address a question around what their key concerns were and issues that they raised.

Hon. K. Heed: Out of the 650 surveys that we sent out, we had about a 10 percent response rate. All of them were supportive, and they indicated mainly because they would be exempt and able to wear this type of garment while they were executing their duties.

[1550]

M. Farnworth: The primary issue for them was that it would not impact on their ability to conduct their business and their operations for which they're licensed and which they operate under existing security-based legislation. I see the minister nodding.

I must admit that I can't pass without making a comment that in request to the scope of the consultation, the minister said 650, but the actual number of responses is only 65. That's about 10 percent. That's not too great a response rate, I would wager.

Having said that, for those people who are critical of this particular piece of legislation — of course, I don't think any of us in this House are — clearly, the prospect of legislation did not generate that much controversy. In response to requests for their opinion, only 10 percent of the people who were asked for their opinion bothered to respond. I take that as a positive thing in our efforts to regulate this particular activity around the sale and the wearing of body armour.

The next question, then, that flows from this is in terms of consultation — as we've heard from the manufacturers; we've heard from the private sector; we've heard from police — and that's with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I gather he has some concerns. Was he consulted about the legislation, and if he wasn't, why wasn't he?

Hon. K. Heed: We will be conducting a privacy impact assessment on this piece of legislation, similar to what we did under the Security Services Act. During that process and the process of developing regulations specific to this piece of legislation, he will be consulted.

M. Farnworth: I'm just wondering why he wasn't consulted already. Was it oversight?

[1555]
[ Page 1546 ]

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to this piece of legislation, we're aware that this piece of work has to be done, and staff have advised that they will be conducting this privacy impact assessment in the very, very near future.

M. Farnworth: While we're still on the topic of consultation, what sort of consultation took place with the federal government?

Hon. K. Heed: I've had some discussion with some of my fellow provincial ministers with respect to the problem of gang members having access to body armour and wearing it in public spaces. From staff's point of view, we have not had any direct discussions with the federal government.

M. Farnworth: I think that's actually an important consideration that needs to take place, just from the perspective of here in British Columbia, particularly as it relates to, for example, Border Services and the interception of body armour. One of the things I'd like to make sure that we are doing as a province is letting Ottawa know that this law is on the books, that we take this issue very seriously and that we expect that seriousness to be communicated to Border Services.

Just so that they are aware that body armour coming into…. I don't know what existing federal regulations there are about the importation, but certainly from British Columbia's perspective, with these regulations in place, someone bringing it across our border crossings in British Columbia now has to be licensed. It is regulated, and you are not able to bring it across.

I'm a bit surprised that that has not taken place, and I would ask the minister to ensure that that is in fact taking place and that those discussions are in fact held.

Hon. K. Heed: Staff will be doing their due diligence with respect to that during the consultation period. They will be talking to our federal partners. They will be talking to the federal RCMP and the Canadian Border Services Agency with respect to those particular subject matters.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Farnworth: Not so fast. Section 3, under "Terms of exemption":

"If the basis on which a person who possesses body armour is exempt under section 2 (3) from the requirement to hold a body armour permit changes so that the exemption no longer applies, the person, within 14 days after that change, must (a) return or sell the body armour to the person's employer, if the exemption was based on the person's employment and the employer is exempt from the requirement to hold a body armour permit, (b) destroy the body armour, or (c) sell the body armour to a person who holds a valid security business licence authorizing the sale of body armour."

There are a number of questions around this particular section of the bill. Two primary ones are: how is this confirmed, and how is it monitored?

[1600]

Hon. K. Heed: The practice within — and I'm familiar with that — police, corrections, sheriffs and other government agencies is that they would return that body armour to their employer.

The other area we have is the interdiction of this particular body armour when, in fact, individuals are actually caught with body armour in violation of this piece of legislation. There are consequences, you know — fines or imprisonment.

If the member opposite would like to refer to section 7(d), there's some additional information with respect to this particular issue, what that will look like. We will also talk about what that would look like through regulations that apply to this bill.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister is saying. I have some concern around the issue around "(b) destroy the body armour, or (c) sell the body armour to a person who holds a valid security business licence authorizing the sale of body armour."

We can talk about that more in section 7 where it comes up, or we can talk about it here. But how does he anticipate section (b), "destroy the body armour," working?

[1605]

Hon. K. Heed: We'll be looking to the registrar to set policy and to have a process to acknowledge that the garment has been destroyed with respect to that. Or the individual, and that will be determined by the registrar through policy, can return it to the manufacturer or supplier-distributor with respect to having it destroyed.

M. Farnworth: I think this is an issue that should be addressed in legislation. That's why I am going to move an amendment under section 3(b).

[Section 3(b):

To add the words "in the presence of a designated law enforcement officer" after the word "armour"]

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: The reason I make this amendment is that when you're talking about the destruction of something — whether it is a weapon or whether it is, in this particular case, body armour — I think it's crucial that we have a level of confidence that that indeed took place, rather than allow opportunities for something to slide out — for something to say it has been done and for body armour to end up in a criminal element.

[1610]
[ Page 1547 ]

I think that we should be a lot tighter. I think that it should be done in the presence of a designated law enforcement officer. That is something that could be determined. In front of a police officer, in front of the designated law enforcement officer would give that level of, I think, scrutiny and accountability and oversight that the public expects, as opposed to, "Well, by regulation we're going to do something," or by saying: "Well, there's a process, and you sign an affidavit."

I'd like to see that it is independently verified, and I think the best way to do that is by a designated law enforcement officer who sees the fact that it has been handed in, for example, to the police station or that it has, in fact, been destroyed — that the physical body armour has been destroyed. I think that that would be an appropriate amendment that would give the public a great deal of comfort and also clear direction in terms of what is meant by destroying something as opposed to just saying that it was sent back to the manufacturer.

I think the amendment is one that is worthwhile, and it's offered in the spirit of making this legislation stronger and better. I hope that the minister accepts it.

Hon. K. Heed: If I could just ask the member opposite for a clarification on his amendment. He is proposing the amendment with respect to section 3, which deals with the terms of exemption, and how we have been responding with respect to his questions related to section 7 — just some clarification on that.

M. Farnworth: I'm happy to provide that clarification. It would apply to section 3, and then it would also be our intent that it would also apply in section 7, in section 7(d)(ii)(B) — okay? So in section 7(d), it would be "on or before the last day of the term of the body armour permit, the permit holder must" do all those things — right? — complying with the act. But if they did (ii)(B) it would be "destroyed," and again, the destroyed is in the presence of a law enforcement officer.

The Chair: If I might suggest to the member that that would be a separate amendment, for clarification.

M. Farnworth: Yeah, that's fine. If that's how the Chair feels it should be dealt with, then I have no problem dealing with that. But in both those particular cases, where the issue is around the "destroyed" part, I think it would be appropriate that it be done in front of a designated law enforcement official.

Hon. K. Heed: I appreciate the member opposite proposing an amendment. The government will be voting against that particular amendment.

[1615]

We feel that the terms and conditions of body armour permit as set out in section 7 addresses that — in particular, the individual providing the "evidence satisfactory to the registrar that the body armour has been," and then there's a series of things with respect to that. In addition, under (e) of section 7 the permit holder must comply with the terms and conditions of that permit. That would be set out further by the registrar.

M. Farnworth: The Chair has indicated that they'd like the amendment dealt with under both sections, which are section 3 and section 7, if I am correct in my interpretation of what the Chair has said.

I understand the minister's comments were made in regards to section 7, but if we're dealing with section 3(d), I would ask if the minister has an issue and a problem with, in subsection (b) under section 3, putting the amendment after "destroy the body armour" and dealing with it in that particular section in section 3.

Hon. K. Heed: I do appreciate the member's comment. Government will be voting against the amendment as it refers to section 3, simply because these are terms of exemption. They apply to those individuals that are already exempt. The majority of them will be government people — federal, provincial — you know, sheriffs, police, etc.

M. Farnworth: I am shocked, shocked that they would reject the amendment. But having said that, I understand what the minister is saying, that we're dealing with the issue around exemption. That's correct, but the section is very clear in that even if you're exempt, within 14 days after the change, then the individual must "return or sell the body armour to the person's employer, if the exemption was based on the person's employment and the employer is exempt from the requirement to hold a body armour permit."

That exemption is because there's a change taking place. That's where section (b) comes in, and then section (c). It's not a question of the individual or the organization is exempt; it's because there's been a change in their status around the exemption. Therefore, the requirements for either subsections (a), (b) or (c) then come into effect. That's why, even though it deals with the exemption, I think that when you're talking about the issue of the destruction part, I would like to see it take place in the presence of a designated law enforcement official. I think that's the key point.

Hon. K. Heed: We will be voting against this. I think it's of no surprise to the member opposite. You can imagine that police have an onerous task out there. Certainly, this section was giving them credit. It was those individuals that are actually holding those positions that will legitimately have a reason for having
[ Page 1548 ]
that body armour in the course of their particular employment.

These are people that we trust. They're people that, you know, as I mentioned, would have legitimate access to that armour.

[1620-1625]

The Chair: Will all members please take their seats.

The question is on the amendment to Bill 16: "Section 3(b): to add the words 'in the presence of a designated law enforcement officer' after the word 'armour.'"

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1630]

M. Farnworth: I've had a few moments to recover from the trauma of my reasoned amendment being devastated, voted down — shocked, shocked.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I know exactly, as the member says, to put it behind me.

So we move forward to the next question. The minister indicated that part of his rationale for not going ahead with the amendment is that the registrar would be developing guidelines. I'm wondering: will those guidelines be done by regulation? Will they have to come back to order-in-council, or will the registrar be able to develop the guidelines independently of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? And when will the guidelines be developed?

Hon. K. Heed: It will be done through policy with the registrar, and the timing of that will be with respect to when the bill actually becomes law and as it is in place.

M. Farnworth: So once this bill becomes law, there's a transition period that the minister talks about. Will this, then, be a requirement of that transition period? Will these regulations by the registrar be required to be done within that six-month transition period?

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, and we anticipate it will be done before the end of the six-month period.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Farnworth: "Applying for body armour permit." So you can apply for a permit.

"An individual may apply to the registrar for a body armour permit or renewal of a body armour permit.

"(2) An application for a body armour permit or renewal must (a) be made in the form and manner required by the registrar, (b) include authorizations for the registrar to carry out the prescribed checks regarding the applicant or permit holder, and (c) be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

"(3) An applicant for a body armour permit or the renewal of a body armour permit must meet all conditions and requirements imposed by this Act or the regulations."

A number of questions come to mind in this particular section, one of the first being "in the form and manner required by the registrar." So the legislation comes into effect. Will "the form and manner required by the registrar" be done before the legislation comes into effect, or will that be covered by the six-month grace period — or transition period as opposed to grace period?

[1635]

Hon. K. Heed: For clarification purposes, the bill will be put into place through regulation. During that
[ Page 1549 ]
time what the member opposite is referring to will be in place.

The six-month transition period is meant to ensure that individuals that currently have body armour, that aren't exempt — that the industry and the wholesalers comply with the legislation.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that clarification, which then raises the question…. I guess in some ways it applies more to the end of the bill in terms of when the bill comes into effect. Because the questions, I think, appear throughout the piece of legislation, I'll deal with that question now, with the Chair's okay. When the bill has passed, how long before the regulations are in place and how long before the bill is actually proclaimed into becoming law is what I'm going to ask the minister.

Hon. K. Heed: We hope to put this piece of legislation into force through regulation. After that, as I mentioned previously, we would involve some additional consultation with some of the key stakeholders out there. It is our intent to have this in force by regulation early in the new year, and at that point, we'll embark on the six-month transition period.

M. Farnworth: Clearly, one of the issues in applying for body armour…. It's addressed further down, and I guess we'll focus more on it in the body armour permit and refusal of body armour permit. But in the application, clearly, a criminal background check is going to be key. Are there any impediments or issues around doing the criminal background check with regards to other provinces whereby body armour would still be legal? Are there any issues around that?

Hon. K. Heed: The checks with respect to criminal records will be made through the national database, Canadian Police Information Centre, known as CPIC. We will also utilize the corrections branch records system that we have.

[1640]

If the individual is of criminal character or associates with gang members, we also have the ability, through our British Columbia system, to interact with other systems throughout Canada based on some of the experiences of other law enforcement and the intelligence of other law enforcement with respect to whether or not the individual has this type of conduct as far as behaviour goes.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Farnworth: Thank you, honourable section. The minister's comments bring us to "Refusal of body armour permit." In this section….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I thank the hon. member for correcting me because, as I know, I've corrected him on numerous occasions when he's made many small mistakes, so I appreciate his correction.

Anyway, on "Refusal of body armour permit," hon. Chair, I'm dealing with section (1) and then subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), and they're fairly broad in their application. I think that's a good thing, because I think one of the key issues that we're trying to deal with in terms of this particular piece of legislation, as it deals with regard to gangs, is the issue around whether or not, in some cases, an offence has been, in fact, committed or convicted.

I think there are a number of examples where there are gang members who are charged with something who have yet to be convicted or whom have yet to be charged, but it's pretty clear it's going to happen from the type of activity that they're engaged in. Therefore, the ability to deny the ability to purchase body armour…. I think we need to ensure it's there in legislation. The bottom line is that owning body armour is not a right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as far as I'm concerned.

I do want to ask the question with regard to that…. For example, where it says, under section 5(1)(e): "the registrar considers that it is not in the public interest for the applicant or permit holder to possess or continue to possess body armour." That's a fairly broad net that's being cast. Is the Solicitor General confident that that will stand up to any court challenge?

Hon. K. Heed: In several of the circumstances the police may be called upon to assist in providing additional information for the registrar so that he or she may make their actual decision based on public interest. He or she will also be assisted by inspectors with respect to dealing with that.

[1645]

I point out in subsection (2): "The registrar must hold a hearing before making a decision under…" this. So a hearing can also be held with respect to that, and it gives the applicant some confidence with respect to the registrar making the appropriate decision.

M. Farnworth: Now comes the next question on this section. "(2) The registrar must hold a hearing before making a decision under subsection (1). (3) The registrar must give the applicant or permit holder written reasons for a decision under subsection (1)."

How is that hearing to take place? Is it an open, public hearing? Is it a closed hearing? What conditions are in place in terms of…? Can an applicant have legal representation or no legal representation?

Hon. K. Heed: That is actually prescribed under section 20, "Hearings," where "The registrar may hold a hearing
[ Page 1550 ]
under this Act in writing, electronically or orally or by any combination of written, electronic or oral hearings."

M. Farnworth: We'll explore in detail further in section 20. But I just want to know whether the minister's view is that the way it's being held in here will satisfy and is not going to result in any problems under court challenges, for example.

Hon. K. Heed: Yes, I am satisfied.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Farnworth: Section 6 is: "(1) The registrar may issue or renew a body armour…for a term not exceeding the prescribed period. (2) The registrar may (a) impose any terms and conditions on a body armour permit that the registrar considers appropriate, and (b) amend or remove those terms and conditions. (3) The registrar must give the applicant or permit holder written reasons for a decision under subsection (2)."

Are there regulations that need to be put in place before this section of the act will be enforceable or able to be implemented, and if so, when?

[1650]

Hon. K. Heed: Under section 6(1), the term is guided by regulation. Under (2) (a), the imposition of the terms and conditions will be by the registrar, and that will be with respect to the actions of the individual, the time, location, etc. So there will not be any need for regulations with respect to this.

M. Farnworth: When the registrar makes a decision and gives written reasons for a decision under subsection (2), that is final. There is not an appeal process. Or is there an appeal process?

Hon. K. Heed: There is no appeal process for terms and conditions.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

M. Farnworth: Section 7 deals with the "Terms and conditions of body armour permit," and this is the other area where we said that we would make an amendment under section 7(d)(ii)(B), which is the issue of the destruction of the body armour. To get the debate on that going, I would move the motion that I had before.

[To add the words "in the presence of a designated licensed law enforcement officer" after the word "destroyed,".]

The Chair: Member, for clarification, last time you said for "a designated law enforcement official" and this time for "a licensed designated law enforcement…."

Interjection.

On the amendment.

Hon. K. Heed: The government will be voting against that amendment. Again, referring to section 7(d)(ii), "provide evidence satisfactory to the registrar that the body armour" — for example, under (b) — "has been destroyed," that does not preclude a police officer or a law enforcement or some other official there being present while the body armour is actually being destroyed. We feel this provides what's required with respect to having that evidence, which is satisfactory that it has been destroyed.

M. Farnworth: Again, I'll just make the point briefly that this, I think, gives that added level of surety that the public expects in terms of legislation. I don't think it's an amendment that is problematic. I think it's one that most people would say is the right sort of amendment to make.

If something is being decommissioned, then I would like it to take place in front of an individual who understands fully exactly what it is they're dealing with — a police officer, a law enforcement official has that expertise — and that it is truly destroyed and decommissioned. I think it's an appropriate legislation.

I know, I can tell the minister would love to do it, except others who are more….

An Hon. Member: Less informed.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says:"Less informed."

Less constructive — are sort of saying, no, that we can't do this.

Anyway, be that as it may, it is a constructive amendment, a positive policy alternative, a positive policy suggestion put forward by the opposition. We will sit down and take the vote. I know those members are told about free votes, and here's your chance.

Anyway, with that, we can vote on the amendment.

[1655]

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. Farnworth: Jeez, they use their power to defeat an amendment, and the next thing you know they're wanting to rush through all the sections. But the minister has
[ Page 1551 ]
lots more questions to answer. How can we possibly be efficient if we don't give the minister the opportunity to answer questions? I mean, after all, we know that question period is not the place to get answers.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Well, it's an important bill, Minister.

So part 2 is on sale of body armour, licences to sell: "Except as authorized under this Act, a person who does not hold a valid security business licence or a valid security worker licence, authorizing the sale of body armour, must not sell body armour to another person."

I think one of the key issues, one of the key concerns we have is around how this will apply to other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia, and I'll ask the question with regards the rest of the country first.

So let's say you've got a body armour shop in Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island or Manitoba or Alberta, and you're selling body armour. Does this legislation impact on the ability to sell?

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to body armour that's been sold, manufactured or distributed outside the province, the only way we will be able to determine whether or not an individual has purchased body armour through those means will be the detection of that garment here in British Columbia and that the individual is in possession of that particular armour. Other than that, this won't apply to those wholesalers, distributors and manufacturers outside of British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: So if someone is operating…. Is there any ability to control or regulate with distributors outside of the province? For example, legitimate, responsible companies may advertise products — life insurance being one that comes to mind or car insurance, relating to ICBC — and they may say, "not available to residents of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba" — in the case of car insurance, for example. Or, in the case of other items quite often you'll see, "not available for sale to residents of Quebec or Ontario" — other jurisdictions.

Has that been put in place? Have we got mechanisms in place to ensure that, for example, if you're a manufacturer or distributor of body armour based outside of British Columbia that they can make it clear that this is not for sale in the province of British Columbia?

[1700]

Hon. K. Heed: When one punches in under a Google search "sales of body armour," I'm advised that you will get about 8.6 million hits worldwide with respect to that.

Our intention is to notify all distributors, manufacturers and wholesale individuals across Canada, once this bill becomes law, advising them of the legal ramifications of individuals that do have body armour in their possession here in British Columbia.

As I mentioned, we'll be working with the Canadian Border Services Agency to deal with body armour that does come across the international borders into Canada.

M. Farnworth: I think it's a bit more serious than saying that there are 8.6 million hits when you do a Google search. The fact of the matter is that if you're in the car insurance industry, and you are selling car insurance in this country — or, in fact, in British Columbia — you are specifically not allowed to sell that product in B.C. It says so on the advertisements, whether they're in print or they're on radio or they're on television — whatever it is. If you read the thing, it says: "Not for sale to residents in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba."

Life insurance products. Many life insurance products, the life insurance companies that sell those products and distribute those products, make it clear: not available for residents of some provincial jurisdictions; not available to residents in the state of Tennessee, Georgia, California or wherever.

I think the government needs to be proactive in ensuring that distribution companies and those that manufacture know that they cannot just ship to British Columbia just because someone orders and says they want it. I think we should be doing everything we can to make sure that it's clear. "We cannot ship the product to British Columbia."

In fact, in a number of U.S. jurisdictions that is the case already. That's not something new. If you do a Google search and look at suppliers out of the United States, it will say that they cannot ship to, I think, the state of Connecticut. In other words, don't even ask.

I think we need to be doing the same thing here in British Columbia with those same suppliers. Don't ship to British Columbia. Don't even ask unless you have all the necessary permitting and paperwork in place.

So that's one. I'd like to know how the Solicitor General's ministry intends to deal with that particular issue.

Hon. K. Heed: The effectiveness of this particular bill is to give law enforcement an additional tool to deal with the gang violence we have here in British Columbia. This is certainly something that, even from my experience, I've found would be a very, very valuable tool with respect to dealing with this particular problem.

As I advised the member opposite earlier, we will be sending out correspondence to the manufacturers, wholesale distributors for all of Canada. My intent is not to have staff spend time on sending out correspondence to 8.6 million people worldwide with respect to this, but we'll work with Canadian Border Services Agency.

If we start to see a trend with respect to a particular supplier, wholesaler or distributor outside of British Columbia that is bringing their product in, we'll look at
[ Page 1552 ]
that. We'll examine it at that particular time. If we have to seek out that individual manufacturer, distributor or individual, we'll do it at that particular time.

[1705]

M. Farnworth: Again, I don't expect anyone to send out to 8.6 million people. In fact, I will wage there are not 8.6 million people selling it. There's a huge difference between number of hits and the number of people actually selling something.

But I do think the ministry should be proactive because they know who the major manufacturers are, and they know who the major suppliers are. This is not exactly something that, you know, is a cottage industry where I'm setting up my own body armour manufacturing plant. It's a pretty specialized product that we're talking about.

So we should be in contact with the major suppliers right off the get-go, saying that in British Columbia the regulations have now changed. I would like a commitment from the ministry that they will, in fact, do that as quickly as possible.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to the ongoing discussion on this, we have said that we would send out correspondence to the manufacturer, distributors, suppliers and wholesalers in Canada indicating to them what the practices are with respect to their companies' involvement here in British Columbia and the legalities with respect to individuals in British Columbia being found in illegal possession of body armour.

M. Farnworth: I would hope that that would include the United States as well, because I would suspect that they are probably one of the larger manufacturers of body armour, never mind in North America, but most likely on the global market.

Then let's address one of the other ways in which body armour can come into the province, where there is some control and, I think, the ability to have much tighter control. That is through other provinces and their own provincial auction websites.

After all, we did see in this province a situation where — after the government had announced the ban to crack down on body armour, saying that they were no longer going to tolerate the sale of body armour, and they were going to regulate the sale of body armour.... We saw the rather surprising appearance on the provincial government auction website of body armour for sale by the province of British Columbia, after they said that they wouldn't do it and that they would regulate it.

So my question to the minister is: can he assure this House that we have been in touch with other provincial jurisdictions to ensure that on their provincial auction sites — although the sale of body armour may be legal in those provinces, for example — they cannot and must not sell it to individuals or organizations who are living in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Heed: I'm informed that all of the registrars across Canada with respect to security services have been notified with respect to the pending piece of legislation.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad to hear that that is, in fact, taking place. Now, if we apply the same principle to the manufacturers outside of the provincial jurisdictions, I think we will be helping to make this legislation much more effective.

The next question: has the government worked with other provinces in terms of…? The minister said a moment ago about detecting body armour coming across the border at Border Services. How about with Canada Post? Are there issues around there where the province can be proactive in terms of Canada Post and the shipping within Canada, or is that something that the government has not contemplated?

[1710]

Hon. K. Heed: As you can imagine, there are several avenues where we can be proactive. We have been proactive, and we'll continue to be proactive, not only in British Columbia but across Canada, with respect to ensuring that everyone is aware that we have restrictions in place on the possession, sale and distribution of body armour in our province.

This is the first law to be put in across Canada, and we're well aware that others will be interested in what we're doing with respect to how we deal with it. As we move forward, if we identify particular areas that we have to go out and have some discussion and notify these people — whether it's FedEx, Canada Post or whoever — we will advise them if they're not already aware.

I'm making an assumption that once this is passed, several people will be made aware. Several individuals, organizations, etc., will officially be made aware through correspondence from our government. I'm sure that others will pick it up on the public piece that will be out there with respect to this garment.

M. Farnworth: The minister is right. This is first-of-its-kind legislation in British Columbia or in Canada. I think that's important. I think one of the things that we should try and do as much as possible is to make sure that not only is it a success, but also that we can, at this particular stage, look at ways to (a) improve it but also (b) identify areas where the province can make the legislation even more successful and that we can also avoid unintended consequences, which I think is a real problem.

One of the things that I have come to learn in my legislative experiences is that it is usually easier to get
[ Page 1553 ]
it right at the front end. Sometimes trying to get legislation up the legislative food chain to get changes made down the road can be exceedingly difficult. That's why I want to make sure that we are getting as much covered the first go-round so that we don't have to do amendments down the road.

The minister mentioned FedEx and UPS. I guess one of the issues is…. Are we looking at, or has the ministry looked at, for example, UPS, FedEx and those private courier organizations in terms of things such as insurance, like what is inside the package — that these organizations understand that we have made some significant changes in terms of issues around body armour and licensing and, if it comes to their attention, that there's a role for them to play in terms of permits and things like that, ensuring that those are in place? I just wonder if the ministry has looked at that particular issue.

Hon. K. Heed: We have not specifically gone to these organizations with respect to this piece of legislation here in the province. We have not identified a concern with them at this particular time. They are responsible organizations, and I'm sure with the piece of legislation that we do eventually put in place that there will be some broad publicity with respect to it.

Again, whether it's one of these delivery services that are transinternational in nature, or it's some other avenue we can detect that's being used in an irresponsible fashion, we'll seek out that particular way or firm or business and have discussion with them.

[1715]

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

M. Farnworth: Section 9 deals with the permit cancellation or suspension. The minister knows that under section…. As he's already said, hearings are done under section 20. Is there anything under section 9 that will involve hearings or the ability to have hearings?

Hon. K. Heed: If I can just direct the member opposite's attention to section 9(2): "The registrar must (a) hold a hearing before making a decision under subsection (1)…" — that is, to suspend or cancel.

M. Farnworth: Exactly. So that's what I'd like to do, with the Chair's indulgence and the minister's indulgence. This is now the second place where we've got the issue of a hearing. If we wait until section 20….

Perhaps it would be appropriate, then, if I can raise the questions around hearings under this section, and if I have any additional, under any other sections…. It would make the passage of this section, I think, go a lot easier and relate it to the policy thing, as opposed to dealing with it under section 20.

The Chair: Port Coquitlam, proceed.

M. Farnworth: This is the second area where the issue of a hearing comes up. If we go to section 20, it says: "The registrar may hold a hearing under this Act in writing, electronically or orally or by any combination of written, electronic or oral hearings." My question then becomes: are these hearings closed hearings, or are they open, public hearings?

Hon. K. Heed: Generally, these are closed hearings, but it does not preclude the individual who is the subject of the hearing having some type of legal representation.

M. Farnworth: So it does not preclude an individual from having legal access. How about media access? Will the media have access to these hearings?

[1720]

Hon. K. Heed: These are regulatory hearings. They're hearings that are held between the permit holder and/or the licensee, and these are hearings that are held with the registrar under the Security Services Act.

M. Farnworth: But my question was: does the media have access to them?

Hon. K. Heed: No, the media does not have access.

M. Farnworth: How about the ability to access the hearings under the FOI Act? Are they covered by the FOI Act in the ability to access, for example, who has applied for a hearing or what took place at a hearing? Is there any access under FOI?

Hon. K. Heed: The matter would be dealt with under the current procedures under FOI, and we would expect that those privacy concerns would be dealt with through the FOI. We are not proposing something extraordinary from the current procedures under FOI.

B. Ralston: Would the registrar be permitted at his or her discretion to open the hearing to the public? Is that contemplated in the rules of procedure?

Hon. K. Heed: No, the registrar would not have the ability to open it up to a public-style hearing.

B. Ralston: I'm interested, then, in the authority that the registrar would have to make or be prohibited from making that decision. Is it contemplated that there will be rules of procedure that will be promulgated by regulation?

[1725]
[ Page 1554 ]

The minister may not recall, but the previous Attorney General — several Attorneys General ago — Geoff Plant, engaged in a process to rationalize and systematize the operation of quasi-judicial tribunals. I'm not sure where this falls in that spectrum, but certainly there was some effort to standardize those.

I'm interested in where in the spectrum of administrative hearings the minister says this hearing falls. Secondly, what would be the rule or code of procedure that would guide this, and how would that come into effect?

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to the hearings, there's a broad scope with what the registrar can actually gather prior to him or her making their decision. Very seldom are oral hearings actually ever held.

Specifically to the member opposite's question, with respect to opening up the hearings or the authority of the registrar to deal with that particular thing, we are trying to determine that information. We're just going to do a little bit of research with respect to that, and I would like to get back to the member at a later time, in the interests of carrying on with this discussion.

[1730]

B. Ralston: I thank the Solicitor General for the response. I'm not clear from the answer. Maybe I'm just not understanding the response, but where is the authority to promulgate or put into motion the procedural regulations that are going to guide these hearings?

I'm looking at section 22. There's a fairly broad standard regulatory section in 22(1). Is it contemplated that rules of procedure to guide the registrar will be included by regulation? Because certainly, this section 20 is very broad.

I'm interested in where the authority would come from, because the minister, by his answers, has apparently determined that there are some things that the registrar will not be able to do, yet section 20 doesn't say that.

Hon. K. Heed: There is no regulation with respect to section 20. This closely mirrors what we have in the Security Services Act, and that authority for the registrar is specified in policy.

B. Ralston: Then can the minister tell me what the policy is? I'm not familiar with it. Secondly, why is it not going to be included in the regulation?

I guess I'm concerned. Obviously, there's some public interest in this bill. There's certainly some media interest. I expect there will be scrutiny. Some of the people who come before this hearing may be represented by counsel. So I don't think these are the usual types of more academic questions that one asks about the operation of this kind of administrative hearing.

These may well be live issues in the future, and I think it is probably a good thing if that's clear and out on the table at this point. So is there a written policy, or is it a kind of common-law, one-registrar-tells-another kind of policy? And if so, why would that not be either included in the act or included in the regulations?

Hon. K. Heed: For the member opposite's reference, it is section 2.8 titled "Hearings" under the Security Services Act policy. It refers back to Security Services Act section 4(2), 15(3).

B. Ralston: Well, the minister will forgive me if I don't have that immediately at hand. Given that I think it unlikely that this matter will be adjourned for me to get that document, could he please, at least briefly, give me a description of what the procedure is there, particularly in reference to the points that I've asked about the discretion of the chair to open the hearing to the public or open the hearing to the media?

[1735]

There are obviously…. This is contemplated in section 20 that there may be written, electronic or oral hearings. Even if a member of the public or the media does not attend the written, electronic or oral hearing, is there an opportunity, then, to have access to a transcript, to a digitized CD of the hearing to transcribe it later? There are a number of mechanisms that are used to gain access to proceedings that don't necessarily require attendance there.

But obviously, the first priority, I would think, would be the issue of whether or not a member of the public or a member of the media could come in person. Secondly, the other issue is about how to have access to transcripts of the proceedings.

Hon. K. Heed: With the issue that's at hand right now, I do have access to the policy here, which the member opposite does not have access to. But in fairness for what we want to cover here in the time, I would ask that we deal with this once we come to section 20, so we can actually at least satisfy that member with respect to some of the questions he has at that particular time, and that we move forward and deal with that once we come to section 20. At that time we will have done our references with respect to the issue.

B. Ralston: I'm just consulting with the Opposition House Leader on this issue. Presumably, since the policy is there — it's there in writing — a photocopy could be made and conveyed over to me.

I guess, looking at the Security Services Act, that this, I gather, follows it in some respects. Has there been litigation or legal challenges to hearings under the Security Services Act, and if so, what were the nature of those?

[1740]
[ Page 1555 ]

Hon. K. Heed: I have been advised that we have not had any legal challenges with respect to those hearings.

M. Farnworth: I just want to say to the minister that we have…. I appreciate the Chair's allowance for us to deal with the questions relating to section 20 in section 9, and I was just going to say that if you have a copy of the policy, if you could get that over to us, that would probably make things go really, really…. That would be great. Thank you. What I'll do is if we have any further questions under section 9, then we can always deal with them as well under section 20 on the hearings.

The issue around the enforcement and the hearings, I guess this is…. I asked the question around FOI and the ability under FOI to access that, and the point I want to make is that there are hearings, and then there are hearings in the sense that one of the key purposes for this particular piece of legislation is to control and regulate the sale of body armour, specifically because we've had a problem and an issue with gangs in British Columbia, and this is seen as an effective tool to help deal with that issue.

Unlike if you're going for a hearing for, you know, a routine matter, I think there is a public interest component around the issue of hearings when it's involving potential criminal activity. And I think there is a public interest component there that would be useful for the registrar to have the ability to say either, you know, "Yes, this hearing should be open," that there is a public interest component in that…. In the same way that within the legislation and previous sections there's a public interest component in being able to deny a permit, there's that public interest component.

I just wonder: has the ministry or the minister given any thought to that aspect of the legislation? We're not talking about a security company that has to appear before the registrar, but in terms of that gang component which this bill is trying to deal with, I'm wondering, has any consideration been given to the ability of the registrar to have an open hearing?

Hon. K. Heed: If I could just ask the member opposite for clarification, whether he was referring to the hearings in general or specific to section 9, because this is where the individual has his permit cancelled or suspended.

M. Farnworth: I guess the question could apply both in the general as well as the specific in the sense that if a case, for example, has been made for you to carry body armour, to wear it, and then subsequent to that comes evidence, for example, that an individual is involved in gang activity…. We know that a number of criminal organizations have made it their effort to infiltrate governmental organizations for the purposes of, you know, finding out and knowing what's going on.

[1745]

It wouldn't be the first case in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada where this happened. There have been a number of cases. I can think of one involving, for example, Border Services, where someone was charged because it came to light that they were letting vehicles cross the border or they were tipping off when an investigation was likely to take place. It could be the specific, in this case, in the hearing around a permit that there may well be a public interest component.

Even on the general side, dealing with gang activity, I wonder if the ministry has considered that there may well be occasions when it's in the public interest that there be a public hearing.

Hon. K. Heed: I guess the question with respect to, "Is there any public interest with respect to the hearing…?" I don't believe there would be.

Let me just make mention of this fact. I'm advised that under the Security Services Act, since it was enacted, 100 percent of the hearings have been in writing.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

M. Farnworth: Careful. In your enthusiasm to pass the bill, Member, there's an important issue that I think we need to talk about, and that's section 15, "Register of body armour."

"The registrar must establish and maintain a registry in which the registrar must keep a record of (a) every body armour permit issued by the registrar and the current status of the permit, (b) every security business licence and security worker licence, authorizing the sale of body armour, issued by the registrar and the current status of the licence, and (c) every application for a body armour permit, security business licence or security worker licence that is refused by the registrar and the reasons for the refusal."

This actually, in some ways, I think gets to part of the issue we were canvassing in section 9 and under section 20 around hearings. That is, the registrar must keep a registry. I think one of the interesting parts of this particular section is section (c): "every application for a body armour permit, security business licence or security worker licence that is refused by the registrar and the reasons for the refusal."

The registrar is required to keep a record. Is that record open for public inspection?

[1750]

Hon. K. Heed: No, that record is not readily available to everyone. If people needed information with respect to that, they would have to go through the FOI process.

M. Farnworth: Are there any extraordinary provisions applied to that particular section that would be over and above the regular FOI process?
[ Page 1556 ]

Hon. K. Heed: As I stated earlier, this will go through a privacy impact assessment, and during that consultation the Privacy Commissioner will be advised with respect to this and will be consulted with respect to this bill.

M. Farnworth: Will those consultations with the Privacy Commissioner be public in terms of knowing what was asked and what was not asked in terms of the issues being raised?

Hon. K. Heed: The privacy impact assessment. If someone wishes, they can make an FOI request with respect to the work that was done on that. On the issue with the Privacy Commissioner, if he chooses, that's certainly up to him to make that decision.

M. Farnworth: Will the registry then be inputted or be able to be incorporated into police databases?

Hon. K. Heed: There are certain rules with respect to the databases that we have — whether it's in law enforcement or whether it's in government. Currently, law enforcement does not have access to the government database. So I guess the simple answer to the member opposite is: no, police will not have access to that.

Of course, if they would like information with respect to that, they can consult with the registrar or vice versa, the registrar can consult with the police.

B. Ralston: This gives rise to the obvious question. A police officer is running a roadside check and takes a name from someone. The person is wearing body armour. They don't produce a permit. Is there no mechanism to consult the database to say: "Yes, this person is the person who's made an application and been refused"? I mean, there's a penalty section which has just been passed. There are some fairly serious penalties for doing that.

How is it proposed that the law be enforced if there's no access to the registrar's database?

[1755]

Hon. K. Heed: It's incumbent upon the individual that has a permit with respect to wearing body armour that he or she produce that permit while they're wearing such garment. Also, if you're in the exempt category — for example, security licences — you would have that security licence with you to present to law enforcement.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm going to give another example that I'm sure the minister will be familiar with in another lifetime.

The person is stopped. They are wearing body armour. They're asked to produce their document. They say: "I have one. I don't have it on me. I forgot it." It looks like there's a penalty for that in "Offences," section 13(3), but I'm not sure how, then, one is able to pursue a potential prosecution or investigation for actually wearing it when they're not entitled to be, if there's not access to the database, unless…. Maybe the minister can clarify this for me.

Hon. K. Heed: The individual who has that body armour would have to have that permit, to possess it even if it was sitting in the back seat of the car. Now, yes, police have discretion when they're dealing with an individual.

It clearly states that if an individual cannot provide his permit with respect to having that body armour in his or her possession, the police have the authority to seize that body armour and issue a notice to that individual which indicates a fine or if the police officer sees it appropriate to go through a different process to have that member appear in front of a legal body. At that time the individual that the body armour was removed from can put his case forward if he or she wishes to dispute the seizure and the penalties with respect to having that body armour.

M. Farnworth: The issues around the registry itself. The ministry will be having discussions with the Privacy Commissioner in terms of the Privacy Commissioner's concerns around the registry. The ministry will be having those consultations take place, and those consultations will take place before the proclamation and the implementation of the legislation. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Heed: That's correct.

M. Farnworth: One of the questions that the public will have, and I want to just sort of get it on the record, around the issue of the registry…. There have been some other examples of registries — I'm thinking at the federal level — that end up costing huge amounts of money — enough money, probably, to rebuild B.C. Place.

An Hon. Member: Maybe not.

M. Farnworth: No, no, actually, I think that in this case, they probably could. I'm thinking of one of the federal registries.

[1800]

But my question around that: is the minister expecting the register to cost much money? Does the minister have any idea of…? Is there going to be any budgetary increase? Is there going to be a significant cost associated with the creation of the registry, and if so, how much?

Hon. K. Heed: We do have a licensing scheme which is in place with the security services division. We would be adding, to that particular piece of technology, a process to replicate the current system that's in place, to
[ Page 1557 ]
deal with the permits with respect to body armour. We don't anticipate additional costs. We certainly have the structure, the individuals, all of that, in place currently, and we will utilize that in order to deal with this specific piece.

M. Farnworth: What I wanted to confirm is that we're not anticipating the creation of something new, such as, I think, with the federal gun registry — the long-gun registry was an example — and that we are using an existing registry and expanding it to take into account what's being proposed in this particular piece of legislation.

I don't think I have any further questions, then, on this particular piece of legislation, other than — as the minister said, they are in consultations with the Privacy Commissioner — that the register will only be available under FOI requests. In particular, I think, one of the issues where probably the greatest sort of interest is, is around those issues where individuals are refused by the registrar and their reasons for the refusal. Again, those will be accessed under FOI.

With that, I have no further questions on section 15.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister just explain the concept and what is meant by section 16 and the certificate evidence?

Basically, then, section 16 is for the issue of evidence in regard to a hearing…

Hon. K. Heed: Or for prosecution.

M. Farnworth: …and for prosecution. Is that what this section is in regard to — in the terms of if you're bringing forward a permit or a reason for refusal — that that is classed as a certificate of evidence?

[1805]

Hon. K. Heed: Just to clarify this particular issue, I'm reading from 47(1) of the Security Services Act: "A certificate signed by the registrar regarding the status of a licence or a document in the registrar's records is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the matters stated in the certificate."

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

Hon. K. Heed: Madam Chair, I move an amendment to section 18 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 18, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Reconsideration

18 (1) An applicant or permit holder may request the registrar to reconsider a decision under section 5 (1) [refusal of body armour permit], 6 (2) [body armour permit], or 9 (1) [body armour permit cancellation or suspension] or 12 (4) [administrative penalties].

(2) The time limits in section 51 (1) (a) and (b), and section 51 (2) and (3), of the Security Services Act apply for the purposes of a request under subsection (41) of this section.]

On the amendment.

Hon. K. Heed: This is a minor amendment with respect to deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text as shown as underlined. It's just some section changes and adding in the words "administrative penalties."

M. Farnworth: For those people who may be watching outside the chamber at home and have been following the proceedings since this bill…. The amendment introduced is amending the piece of legislation that we are currently debating, before it's even been passed, which is why one should always scrutinize the legislation.

The only disagreement I would take with the minister is that amendments are never minor. They always mean something again. I'd just like the minister to explain exactly what will be accomplished by this amendment, but also, equally as important, why we have to have this amendment and who suggested that we should have this amendment and why.

Hon. K. Heed: For the members opposite and the audience that's out there watching this at dinnertime on Monday, the amendment to 18(1) is intended to extend an applicant or permit holder's reconsideration ability to the registrar's imposition of administrative penalties under section 12(4). This was inadvertently omitted from the previous version of Bill 16.

The amendment to 18(2) is intended to correct the reference to subsection sub (4) to subsection sub (1).

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm that this is one of the issues that the Privacy Commissioner raised in his perusal of the legislation?

Hon. K. Heed: I don't believe that that concern was raised by the Privacy Commissioner.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm, then, with those issues that the Privacy Commissioner has raised, that the minister will be addressing them in the ministry's consultations with the Privacy Commissioner.

Hon. K. Heed: That is correct.
[ Page 1558 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

[1810]

B. Ralston: I want to thank the minister and his staff for providing me with section 2.8, the hearings policy manual from the security licensing process and licence conditions policies.

The minister has said that there were very few actual hearings that took place under that policy, but the policy that's set out here says that the registrar will determine the appropriate hearing format, and it leaves it open to the registrar. So I'm wondering why the minister seems to have decided in advance that there will be relatively few actual hearings.

Hon. K. Heed: I'm guided by some additional information with respect to the member opposite's question. When we're talking about actual oral hearings, I must tell you that most often the hearings are in writing. We made reference to the registrar's ability to deal with these particular hearings. I am further advised that the registrar is guided by the Administrative Tribunals Act. The policy with that act is to have open hearings.

We're talking again about the oral hearings, unless there's good reason not to. That reason could be to keep the matter confidential. Section 41 actually guides an oral hearing. It states: "(1) An oral hearing must be open" unless it's not practical, not desirable, to have information disclosed.

B. Ralston: The minister had said earlier that, in his view, hearings would not be open and that there would be no access for members of the media that might wish to attend. Again, looking at what's been provided to me, this policy — three pages here — is silent on that issue.

Could the minister, in light of what he's just said, clarify that? Was that a misstatement earlier, or is there further guidance or response that the minister can offer on that issue as well?

[1815]

Hon. K. Heed: As I alluded to earlier, on the advice that I do get before I stand up here, I must admit that what I'm advised is that under the Security Services Act there has never, ever been a request to have an oral hearing. It's almost exclusively done in writing. I'm further advised by staff that they're guided by the Administrative Tribunals Act. I've stated with respect to what that entails, and they'll continue to be guided by that act, so I have clarified with respect to the advice that I have available to me.

M. Farnworth: In essence, then, the act may well consider a public…. The hearing may well be open to the public, despite the fact that that has not happened to date. I would make the point that given the nature of what we're dealing with, it is quite different in many ways from what other administrative tribunal hearings deal with. There may well be a public openness or a public component to these hearings.

Hon. K. Heed: As it refers to oral hearings, and like I mentioned earlier, we have not had one to date. I'm not saying we won't have any. We may have some of those hearings now. But as I mentioned, we will be guided by the particular act that I just mentioned previously, the Administrative Tribunals Act, with respect to the hearing.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

M. Farnworth: This is the transitional section, and I just want to…. We touched on this briefly. The transitional section is outside of what's going to happen after the bill is passed, in which case, regulations have to be determined by order-in-council but also by the registrar. So this transitional provision comes into effect after both of those processes have been completed. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Heed: It will come into force, the transitional period, after the law is put into effect through regulation.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us how long he expects that process to take?

Hon. K. Heed: I think I may have alluded to this previously, but we would be looking for this to take place in early 2010.

M. Farnworth: I would just like to ask: in the meantime until that's done, if some gangster is wearing body armour, do the police have the power to enforce the regulations and the intent of this act?

[1820]

Hon. K. Heed: With respect to this piece of legislation, the authority will come after the transitional period. But law enforcement have the authority — and they have been doing so for quite some time — to seize body armour as it relates to a Criminal Code offence or a Criminal Code investigation. I'm advised that law enforcement does on several occasions seize body armour under those particular grounds as it relates to gang members wearing this body armour in public places.
[ Page 1559 ]

M. Farnworth: But in terms of this act, if someone is just driving and happens to be pulled over and is wearing body armour, we don't have the ability, until this is passed, to ask them if they have a permit, to ask them if they're abiding by the law? Is that correct?

Hon. K. Heed: That is correct.

M. Farnworth: So with that, I will say that I want to see these regulations in place as quickly as possible because until they are, in essence, there is a grace period for criminals, and I don't believe there should be one. I would encourage the minister and the government to get their regulations and the consultation done as quickly as possible.

Sections 23 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Heed: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 16 — Body Armour Control Act

Bill 16, Body Armour Control Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read for a third time — considered as reported?

Hon. K. Heed: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Body Armour Control Act

Bill 16, Body Armour Control Act, read a third time and passed.

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

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HOUSING AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $2,714,603,000.

Hon. R. Coleman: This ministry was created in 2008 and brought together 2,500 staff from five ministries to better address our social priorities and integrate services. Our $2.7 billion budget provides housing policy programs and homeless initiatives, income assistance and employment programs, gaming policy, grants, enforcement and liquor control and licensing. Some of these programs are also delivered through Crown agencies like B.C. Housing, Community Living B.C. and the Homeowner Protection Office.

The ministry also contains two commercial Crown corporations, the Liquor Distribution Branch and the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which generate about $2 billion in net income annually for government.

I look forward to the questions from the member opposite and our discussions this afternoon.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to engage in the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development with the minister.

I think that I passed along a note to the minister's office, but just to give a sense of where I'm going over this next couple of days, we're going to start today with a few questions around the overall budget numbers out of estimates. The broad, top-line numbers deal with gaming and gambling-related issues for much of the rest of this afternoon.

Tomorrow morning we'll start with Community Living and then move to income assistance and poverty-related issues. Then sometime tomorrow afternoon there are a number of members who have questions specific to their constituencies — I expect mostly related to grants or housing matters. We'll finish off the last couple of hours tomorrow afternoon with individual members having the opportunity to present questions to the minister.
[ Page 1560 ]

Then when we get to Wednesday, there's a little bit around some of the employment programs, but primarily housing-related matters on Wednesday. So for the minister and staff to kind of know what the thinking is. I think that's consistent with the note that we had passed along to the ministry.

As the minister says, this is a large and a comprehensive ministry, and it involves an awful lot of different pieces. So what I'd like to do to start is to understand a little bit about the budget matters as they relate, and what I've been doing for this is looking at the first set of estimates that was put out back in February and then the subsequent set of estimates that was put out on September 1. We'd like to talk to the minister a little bit about that.

What we see when we look at the amounts of money, overall money in those two, is about $80 million of difference in the net amounts for the 2010 estimates in the two sets of books, for the March and September. Could the minister confirm that largely that amount of money is comprised of the projected increase of somewhat over $100 million for income assistance payments?

[1435]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think I should introduce my staff at the table with me. Deputy Minister Cairine MacDonald is to my right. The assistant deputy minister who deals with finance and all the numbers is to my left, Sharon Moysey, and Molly Harrington, one of our other assistant deputy ministers who is policy and legislation and a plethora of other things within the ministry, is here with me today.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Through to the member opposite, yeah, that really is, for the most part, the changes with regards to caseload.

S. Simpson: So when I look at the sets of numbers, I see that there's about an $80 million increase, of which we had a little bit better than…. I think $100 million was the projection, or something a little over $100 million was the projected increase in income assistance payments, largely caused by the large increase in employables because of the economic downturn.

Could the minister tell us: is there a cut there of about $20 million, and where does that cut fall?

Hon. R. Coleman: The budget was increased by $101.97 million, initially to take care of the caseload pressures coming into the…. That was what the budget was in February. During the restated budget operations there were some transfers that took place.

The first one was the community programs for the transition houses that were transferred to PSSG, which came off our books and onto theirs. That was one of the drops in dollars, and that was $17.36 million. An HR function from the Public Service Agency of $746,000 was picked up there, and the charge-back consolidation in the Public Service Agency of $2.5 million, which brought it over $20 million, which is the difference the member is referring to.

S. Simpson: Could the minister…? I look again at the budget items. I notice that the amounts as they relate to…. The housing vote appropriation went from what was the net in '08-09 of $444 million to a number of about $359 million — $359.5 million — in the net for estimates in the September document. Could the minister tell us what that reduction is?

[1440]

Hon. R. Coleman: Some of the detail we'll get into when we get to B.C. Housing being here. But basically what it is…. The budget moves around. The reason it moves around is, for instance, the change related to B.C. Housing funding, which is mainly due to a number of the following.

One was the conclusion of a program that we had out there of $50.9 million, which is an affordable housing trust program. I'll get into the details for the member, but I suspect that was our delivery of a federal program for first nations off-reserve housing.

There was a decrease in funding, basically, on the fast track, which we did because we fast-tracked some memorandums of understanding to get some predevelopment costs done last year, where the apparent net budget…. By the time it came to September, those dollars no longer needed to be dealt with in that manner, simply because we now have a different capital program in place with regards to some matches with the federal government on different housing — whether it be seniors or some of the stuff we're doing with first nations or some of the stuff we're doing with others.

What happens is a put-and-take. The actual operating subsidy of B.C. Housing stays pretty constant, but the dollars for different programs will come in and out. Once they're finished, they'll adjust.

Also, the other thing is how we're doing, frankly, with our interest on our debt — if our interest is lower than we actually restated throughout the year. So that's the explanation for now. I'm sure that we can get into deeper detail when the president/CEO and the chief financial officer are here.

S. Simpson: One more question related to that. I'll place it now, but if the minister would prefer to discuss it on Wednesday, I'm happy to put the question off until then.

When I look at the differences, again, between the March 31 book and the September 1 book, there is an item called "community programs and housing" of a little
[ Page 1561 ]
over $49 million. There is no line item for that in the vote descriptions. Could the minister tell us what that is?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that is a transfer of the transition houses to the ministry, to B.C. Housing. In the past we took responsibility for the housing portion, and then that's the piece…. The $17.7 million was then sent for the programs relative to transition houses over to PSSG. That's what that block of money was.

S. Simpson: One of the items that I'd like to talk about a little bit…. Again, this is just differences in the two books. The minister will know that, initially, in the first set of information, there were some fairly explicit numbers about staffing levels — FTEs. Those numbers don't appear in the September update materials. Could the minister tell us what the situation is in terms of numbers of FTEs in the ministry today versus what we had a year ago?

Hon. R. Coleman: Since February, due to the pressures through the budget, etc., we did look across government with regards to our different programs and staffing requirements and what have you. In this ministry since April 1, 2009, there have been 39 resignations and 43 retirements for a total of 82 voluntarily leaving the ministry. Some resignations and retirements have now been backfilled.

Since April 1, 151 — that would be 65 external placements and 86 internal placement staff — have been placed in positions through the skills database and through internal organization. In other words, they may have moved to a different job within the ministry, whatever the case may be.

[1445]

Since April 1 there have been ten vacancies that have not been filled. There are 65 vacancies that have been eliminated, 19 auxiliary positions have not been renewed and there are 18 layoffs in the ministry — ten of included staff and eight of excluded staff.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe what I'll do to just get the numbers as clear as we can around FTEs…. Again, when I look at the service plan that was issued in February '09 — which has a resource summary on page 24 of the February service plan — the service plan suggested that in the area of income assistance there had been 1,418 FTEs in the '08-09, and the estimate for '09-10 was that the number would reduce to 1,347. Can the minister tell us: is that number still accurate?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just, maybe, to answer the question this way, if it works for you, and that is that those numbers are pretty well close. However, with people coming and going, sometimes retirement or whatever, they wouldn't be exactly accurate on any particular given day. But those stated numbers would have been at the time the numbers were put together and would probably still be pretty close today.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe we'll save a little bit of time here, because I have a series of numbers. Just generally, we have on page 24…. I'm sure that the minister has this document. We have a series of estimates for FTEs — and I realize that things get tweaked, a couple here, a couple there; I'm not so concerned about that — for the '09-10 numbers on that page. Would those numbers be relatively accurate all the way down still today?

Hon. R. Coleman: So maybe for the member this might do it — who knows? But we'll hope.

The ministry staffing actions which commenced in January 2009 have resulted in the elimination of 249 positions. So 128 positions were eliminated between January and April 2009. Since April 2009 an additional 121 positions have been eliminated. The ministry projects that the FTE count will be approximately 2,463 upon completion of all staffing action, and this represents about a 9.2 percent reduction from the March 31, 2009, FTE count of 2,712.

S. Simpson: So the number then…. Just so I'm clear here, the minister is saying that we're at…. About 2,463 is the new FTE count. In February the projection had been that 2,564 would be the FTE count. So in there we've lost about 100 FTEs during that period.

[1450]

We have the categories here that show the numbers staying pretty constant — small changes between what was '08-09 and the '09-10 estimates. Could the minister tell me which of the categories…? They're the ones that are used here by the ministry in terms of core business categories. Are there any of those areas where, say, more than ten jobs have been lost in an area?

Hon. R. Coleman: In a number of areas across…. I should emphasize for the member that there have been no cuts to front-line services in any offices for income assistance across B.C., but there has been some consolidation on the management level and some adjustment to the number of people we have employed in management with regards to that. That would probably be our largest number, which would be about 80 people.

On the employment programs, we've stayed pretty constant. On housing we reduced by about 11 employees; on the gaming policy side, about another nine employees. From liquor control and licensing, which is a $1,000 vote that manages within the fees that it's paid…. It has been left stagnant to meet its goals.

The other one would be executive support services, where we eliminated about 44 positions with regards to executive and support services. That would be things like our communications side, some of our legislative
[ Page 1562 ]
branch — some of those people. We actually went in and reduced a number of positions within there as well.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that. One other question that relates to the FTEs. The almost-300-person increase in FTEs in the employment category that we saw last February…. We saw a big jump there, and I assume that relates to bringing in federal folks. But just so we could confirm: that's in regards to the agreement that was signed and the province taking responsibility and taking a number of federal employees on to administer that. Would that be correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: That would be correct.

S. Simpson: Moving up to the core business area, the operating expenses. Again, I'm just looking at the two documents, and the numbers are relatively close all the way through.

The area where there's a little bit of a discrepancy is when I look at the restated estimates for '08-09, we see the housing number goes up. I guess it's actually about $20 million, because I see in the current…. I have to get my plans right here over which one's which. Oh, the September one has it separate. So I'm assuming that in the one document the housing endowment fund is a line item of its own; I'm assuming in the other document it's included in the overall housing number.

Could the minister tell us the difference in the restated estimates between what we saw in September, which had the estimates at about $425 million for housing, $435 if you include the endowment fund figure, versus $454 million in the March number? What's the discrepancy there?

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: I suspect that's the transition houses coming in and the numbers…. I see a nod from my CEO. If we get into the housing side, we could bring him forward. Yeah, that's probably part of it.

That's how it gets restated because it was transferred partway through the fiscal year and then would be restated in the full year's numbers coming into April 1. Then, of course, the transfer out to PSSG had an effect, coming from the April 1 budget through to the September budget.

S. Simpson: I assume that as the housing number falls off somewhat, that just relates to the comments the minister made earlier about adjustments to programs and such.

In addition to, obviously, income assistance payments — statutory obligations around income assistance — the other area where there's a significant increase in the budget is in Community Living B.C. Maybe we can talk about this tomorrow morning, but just for the sake of the number, could the minister tell us what we're going to spend that extra $50 million on?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually very good news for the developmentally disabled community. We went into last year's budget cycle, and based on the data and information provided with CLBC and issues around a wait-list, we were able to achieve, through finance and through our discussions, an increase in funding for Community Living B.C. for two things. One was to provide more services for those people who would be on a wait-list and also some additional services to people who had developmentally disabled disabilities in B.C.

The member is probably aware that there's a new definition being worked on as a result of a court case where IQ 70, which used to be the previous measurement that we would use to define a person who would be eligible for services with the community…. Now we're working on the new definition, and there's funding to be able to transition to that new definition so that we'll be able to handle the additional intake of people that we think would come as a result of the court case.

S. Simpson: There are a number of other questions, but some of them get more specific, and they relate to housing and that. I'm going to push those questions off, and we'll deal with those a little more directly when we have some of the officials here later in the week.

I think at this point, for the purpose of much of the rest of our discussions this afternoon, I'm going to talk about gambling and gaming-related matters with the minister. We'll start with maybe some discussion around issues related to problem gambling.

We saw a B.C. Medical Association report recently — March of this year, I believe, was their report — that suggested about 159,000 people in the province have gambling problems, are problem gamblers; 128,000 have problems and about 31,000 have severe gambling problems. Does the minister agree with those numbers — that those numbers are accurate?

[1500]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I've been joined by two additional people, so I'll introduce them to the members opposite. On my left is Derek Sturko, assistant deputy minister of gaming policy and enforcement branch for British Columbia. On my right is Michael Graydon, president and CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

That study, as I understand it in just talking to my assistant deputy minister, is basically one that recognizes that there's a percentage of the population that will exhibit the characteristics that could lead them to becoming problem gamblers. It doesn't mean they necessarily do, but it does mean there's that characteristic and percentage.
[ Page 1563 ]

That's based on a percentage that is pretty consistent across Canada with regards to the numbers by population. Some are a little bit lower in each jurisdiction or higher in other jurisdictions, but there's not a dramatic trend-line change between one jurisdiction versus the other.

S. Simpson: Is the minister suggesting that…? Well, maybe I'll break that into two questions. First of all, is it the minister's view that when he talks about people who may have a problem but may not be totally engaged, he is talking about the 128,000 people? Or is he talking about the 31,000 who are deemed by that report to have some serious gambling addiction? Does he differentiate between those two groups in terms of his comments?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's both. People who show the characteristics…. It doesn't mean they're necessarily having a problem gaming situation today. Some people have higher characteristics and issues than others.

The report, from my understanding, is an extrapolation of those numbers based on percentages and doesn't necessarily relate to the number of people we would have coming through our help line or through other people and seeking services in B.C. It's very difficult. It's a bit like trying to define how many people have a drinking problem in the province. You know, people seek help in a variety of different ways and what have you, and not all of them would be known to us.

We do know that there's an extrapolation of numbers, a percentage which says that's possibly the number. But that doesn't mean it's definitive.

S. Simpson: I'm sure we wouldn't base it on the number of people who've come through the programs, because that number is obviously significantly less than the numbers in the medical association report and in the kinds of numbers that we see in other pieces of research being done. We're going to come back to those numbers.

If it is the view of the minister that those numbers are an extrapolation and may not fairly reflect the problem, could the minister tell us what numbers he thinks might reflect the problem?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'm not going to base the debates on a B.C. Medical Association report that may be in a member's hands and that isn't in the hands of this side of the table for issues around the budget and estimates debates this afternoon. That would be inappropriate for both the budget and the estimates debates, and to take a report over the plethora of reports that could be out there would be, frankly, irresponsible on my part.

[1505]

I have asked my ADM to get you some numbers that we don't have at the fingertips right at the moment. We've sent basically some electronic communications to see if we can get you those numbers as soon as possible.

S. Simpson: The numbers, then. Let me just make sure I understood the minister properly. I accept that somebody hasn't seen the B.C. Medical Association report that's been out since March that quotes these numbers and lays these numbers out. My question to the minister would be: has the ministry done its own analysis of levels of problem gambling and serious gambling addictions in the province? If so, could the minister tell us what that is?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's clarify the previous comment with regards to the report for the member. I recognize that the report came out in March, but what I stated was that it isn't the foundation for the building of a budget in the provincial government, because it's a report from the B.C. Medical Association in his hands.

These are estimates debates based on our business as government, to do what we have to do. The member should understand that. This isn't going to be a debate about people's opinions in reports. This is actually an estimates debate, and if we could keep it to that, that would be the best way.

Basically, yes, we do. We do problem gambling prevalence studies on a regular basis. We do them because we want to measure British Columbia's gambling habits, problem gambling rates, views of gambling and awareness of available services so that we can improve our programs.

We have studies that basically say that about 4.6 percent of our population, like most populations, exhibit the behaviours that could lead to problem gambling. The overall prevalence rate has not increased since 1993 through to 2008. About 0.9 percent of B.C.'s problem gambling would be severe problem gambling issues with regards to folks that exhibit those issues — not always having the problem. But that would be comparable to all other Canadian provinces.

S. Simpson: The reason we're going to talk about problem gambling and that…. Of course, it is a budget item. It's the government and this minister who chose to cut the funding for problem gambling by 34 percent. So I'm looking to understand why, in fact, that decision was made, when it's clearly having a negative impact on British Columbians, and why there are questions being raised about whether that was an appropriate thing to do.

We'll just follow up on some of the minister's comments in the list that he read. The minister talked about the numbers: the 4.6 percent — I believe was the number — and the 0.9 percent. One of the things that we know…. And this comes from an Ispos-Reid public affairs report,
[ Page 1564 ]
British Columbia Problem Gambling Prevalence Study, which was submitted to the gaming policy and enforcement branch in January of last year, doing some work.

The minister talked about the 0.9 percent of severe problem gambling. That's more than double the levels that there were in 2002. These 2007 numbers are more than double the numbers than 2002. Could the minister tell us what the assessment of the ministry is as to why we've had more than a doubling in the increase of severe problem gambling in the province, in terms of that category?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of reasons that could be the reason, and one is the prevalence of on-line gaming that's taking place. An explosion has taken place since 2002.

The study found that more British Columbians are aware of problem gaming today and the services around it than in 2002. And 66 percent of British Columbians were aware of the problem gambling help line in 2007, but only 45 percent were actually aware of it in 2002, and 46 percent of British Columbians were aware of the province's free problem gambling counselling service, compared to 29 percent in 2002 — which would lead to some of those statistical changes over that period of time.

S. Simpson: The other number that the minister gave us was the 4.6 percent estimate of British Columbians who have a gambling problem — not a serious addiction, necessarily, but a gambling problem.

Again, the research that's been done for the branch suggests that with the exception, I believe, of Alberta and Saskatchewan, that number is somewhat — or, in some cases, significantly — higher than most of the other provinces in the country — at least six other provinces. Manitoba and Ontario are both at 3.4 percent; Quebec, 1.7 percent; Newfoundland, 3.4 percent; P.E.I., 1.6 percent; Nova Scotia, 2.1 percent; and British Columbia at 4.6 percent. Then Alberta and Saskatchewan are both higher than British Columbia, in the mid- to high 5 percent range.

Could the minister tell us what his view is as to why we seem to have a problem that goes from somewhat higher to more than double the estimates in other provinces?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: first of all, as to the 4.6 percent, I never stated at all that that was the number of people that were problem gamblers in British Columbia. What I stated was that those are the people that showed the characteristics of possibly becoming problem gamblers under the statistical measurements or the characteristics that are measured.

Just so the member knows, we have been developing a new and more detailed measurement over the last number of years with regard to how we measure the issues in and around gaming in B.C. The rest of the jurisdictions that the member quoted from are not. They have some catching up to do, and they are trying to come up to our system of measurement and our data. They're not there yet, so their numbers are not accurate, relative to what we have in British Columbia, for the data that we use.

[1515]

S. Simpson: Well, the data that I have here came from the Canadian problem gambling index. What it says is that an estimated 4.6 percent of British Columbians are problem gamblers, including 3.7 percent who are moderate problem gamblers and 0.9 percent who are severe problem gamblers. Those numbers come from the Canadian problem gambling index, and I'm sure that they draw the same way in other provinces.

I would expect that in provinces like Ontario and that, which are spending ten times this amount when you include it all in — ten times as much money on problem gambling — their research is probably not bad in these areas.

Again, my question to the minister is: is it his view that the number that we have — the 4.6 percent problem gambling in British Columbia, significantly higher than a number of provinces and higher than at least six provinces in the country — is a number that's a statistical problem more than a real problem in terms of: "It's a problem about reporting; it's not a problem about people"? Is that what the minister wants us to know?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe for a point of clarification…. We use the Canadian problem gaming index, which we codeveloped with some other provinces in Canada. It used to be measured based on an American model for measurements, which was not as accurate for data and information. Some provinces are still not fully on to the Canadian problem gaming index, and that's why….

What I can do is find out for the member which ones are on the actual full index. That might give him a better statistical, basically, comparison across the country. I can tell the member that the study of behaviours in the province…. The 4.6 percent that is really in British Columbia has not changed for about eight or nine years now.

S. Simpson: We'll continue to talk about this, but I'd like to approach it in a slightly different way.

The minister, we now know…. We have about 159,000 people identified by at least a couple of reports, including the work that was done by Gemini Research and Ipsos-Reid for the gaming policy and enforcement branch. Their work — and of course the work of the B.C. Medical Association — and their numbers are comparable numbers, the same numbers. I assume they come from probably similar or the same sources.
[ Page 1565 ]

The minister has in this budget reduced the amount of spending for problem gambling by about 34 percent. It's down from $7 million to $4.6 million, I believe. Could the minister tell us why the decision was made to reduce that at a time when there are plans to in fact expand Internet gambling?

[1520]

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, a number of things have taken place with regards to the pool of money that the member mentioned. First of all, $500,000 that was part of the advertising of the program has moved into the central pot for advertising to run advertising programs versus just being run for the branch.

The program itself was not fully utilized last year, and its budget figure — so basically somewhere around a million…. Actually, more than that. We probably used about $4.9 million…. We used about $5.384 million. Take $500,000 for advertising on…. We anticipated that we could manage the program within the budget envelope. The $7 million wasn't used.

In addition, the same time as we did that, B.C. Lottery Corporation increased the problem gaming stuff within our establishments — stuff that we run within the casinos for the clients who would come through the legal establishments — by about $2.6 million in additional funds put into issues in and around gaming issues like voluntary self-exclusion, game sense, facial recognition and better training for our staff to recognize people who may have some problems and divert them off to get the help they need.

Basically, we've had one — the corporation on one side has raised…. This one here has been put in a place where, if the budget were to go up…. We've always had the philosophy that if the budget needed to go up, we would go back and explain an increase in usage. When the budget isn't being fully utilized, then you adjust it into the next fiscal year.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how this budget — the $4.6 million — relates as a percentage of the net revenues, which I believe were $1.1 billion and a bit last year, out of gaming…? How does the amount — the $4.6 million — compare as a percentage of revenue to deal with problem gambling versus, say, our friends in Ontario or other jurisdictions that have gaming programs?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't believe that it should be, first of all, done by a percentage of revenue. It should be basically on the programs that you're trying to design and use.

Just to caution the member on Ontario, Ontario is not using the money for problem gamblers. In large part they're actually spending a lot of money on addiction research and expensive conferences. They do not have anywhere near the rigour of the programs that we have within our legal establishments. They do not make that investment even close to what we're doing in our establishments. That's what I'm being told. So we have a two-pronged attack, both on one and on the other.

[1525]

The member should also know that the whole thing in and around gambling and problem gamblers shouldn't be…. It would be no different than saying that…. We have programs in gaming in B.C. that are basically for everyone. Whether you have a problem or you have an addiction as a result of being on the Internet on pokerstars.net or some other site like that somewhere around the world, you can still come into our program and ask for help.

That piece is a social piece that we try and do. Then we also have the piece within the legal gaming side that we try and help people out with. That's what we do with most of our programs across government when addictions could come into play. We try to have programs available for all those that need it, but where we have our own establishments, we also try and make sure that we have additional services in those because…. We're as responsible to the player as possible.

S. Simpson: The amount of money, the $4.6 million, is less than half of 1 percent of the profits that the province realizes out of the gambling — less than half of 1 percent.

It's my understanding that that is the lowest level in Canada. There are seven provinces that have problem gambling programs in Canada. As a percentage of the profits, that is the lowest level of any province in Canada that has a program. They vary up to Nova Scotia, which has about 5 percent of its profits committed to problem gambling issues.

Would the minister agree that British Columbia spends less as a percentage of profits on problem gambling than any other province that has a program in this country?

Hon. R. Coleman: We spend programs, trying to base it on efficacy. We don't base it on percentages. I know that the member wants to get into a debate about percentages from one jurisdiction to another. British Columbia doesn't have VLTs in corner stores and restaurants and hotel lobbies across British Columbia. We have a totally different gaming structure in B.C., which changes the outcomes you will get with regards to how people will actually game.

To try and do apples-and-oranges comparisons would be — well, there's a pun I guess I could use — fruitless. With regards to trying to compare one jurisdiction over another, it really is about the fact that we have…. I think if the member does the research, he will find that we more than doubled the investment in problem gaming starting in 2001.
[ Page 1566 ]

We've continued to increase that investment both inside our institutions and within the gaming policy enforcement branch. We have a very strong education program with regards to gaming in B.C., which I think is probably comparable to, if not better than, most jurisdictions in Canada.

We'll continue to try and improve on our outcomes and, frankly, obviously our deliverables. So it is a case of trying to compare one jurisdiction to another where the ownership is different, who owns the machines and casinos is different, where the machines are placed within the jurisdiction is different, where the other issues are….

It's pretty difficult to…. I would never go down the road saying just because you give a certain percentage, that means you're being successful. It doesn't mean anything unless you tell me where the machines are and how many there are, what's the percentage of machines to population, what other games are in your jurisdiction and how you're delivering on those.

S. Simpson: We will get to the discussion where we're going to talk about where those machines are. They're going to be in darned near every household in this province as people who have a computer are able to play Internet gaming, which we know is the most serious area for problem gambling in terms of what the experts will tell us. We're going to talk about that in a few minutes.

The minister has suggested that the fact that British Columbia, as a percentage of profits, spends less than any other province that has a program shouldn't be portrayed or looked at in terms of numbers.

What I will ask the minister, then, is: could the minister tell us what research or analysis the government has done to determine the success of problem gaming programs in this province? Has there been any research done, any empirical evidence provided, to show that the programs that the province has put forward are being successful compared to programs that are available in other jurisdictions?

[1530]

Hon. R. Coleman: We basically measure our counselling programs. We do regular follow-up with regards to people's change of behaviour and how the programs have worked for them, and we publish those reports on the website.

S. Simpson: My question to the minister was: has the ministry done any research and analysis of the effectiveness of those programs and had any independent research or analysis done of the effectiveness of the programs?

Hon. R. Coleman: Research — no, we don't. Basically, we do try and measure the efficacy of the programs. We don't take on programs that we don't think have had…. Basically, programs have usually got research behind them that indicates they have some measurement of success behind them.

What we also do is regularly meet with other jurisdictions to see what's working for them versus us and try and share the best practices across the jurisdictions.

S. Simpson: Were those meetings or those discussions or those reviews done before the decision was made to cut the budget from $7 million to $4.6 million?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I stated clearly before, the budget is based on what is the usage of the dollars that were available based on our programs — the 1-800 line, people requiring help. That's why the budget was adjusted this year over last — because we didn't use it all last year. If it goes up, we would go back to Finance and say that we have an increase in usage of these particular counselling programs and what have you, and we feel we have to adjust the budget accordingly going forward.

S. Simpson: We'll get back to this. Could the minister tell us what programs for problem gambling are in place for this coming year — this budget year — that will comprise the $4.6 million?

[1535]

Hon. R. Coleman: Not counting what goes on in the casinos and gaming establishments across B.C. where they're spending the money with regards to the items that I already described to the member, in addition to that, we have immediate response which is the toll-free problem gambling help line that is still available in 14 languages and referrals at no cost for counselling for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

All gaming service providers are required to attend the appropriate response training program provided by the GameSense advisers to learn how to respond to patrons who may be experiencing distress.

On the treatment side, professional out-patient counselling and intensive treatment day, evening and weekend services are provided free of charge to problem gamblers and those affected by someone else's gambling. The B.C. Lottery Corporation has the voluntary self-exclusion program which enables people to exclude themselves from casinos, community gaming centres, commercial bingo halls or Play Now websites.

Individuals are also provided with a problem gambling help line and the treatment resources. There's public awareness, which is basically to let people know things, "Know your limit and play within it" — those sort of things that are out there for people to understand along with the 1-800 line in a variety of languages.

There's also prevention where we work with groups that may be higher at-risk populations, such as youth,
[ Page 1567 ]
post-secondary students — which is a program, Know the Score — some programs for seniors and those type of things. Basically, we're making sure that all products and facilities promoted that are operated under BCLC gaming service providers or gaming event licensees must comply with B.C. responsible gaming standards.

S. Simpson: The out-patient counselling program that was mentioned — could the minister tell us how many people have availed themselves of that service?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not off the top of our heads. We'll try and get that number for the member.

S. Simpson: One of the things that we know…. The prevalence study that was done has shown that more than half of British Columbians had no idea that the government provided any problem gambling counselling of any sort.

Could the minister tell us what the expenditures were? I know there's the half a million dollars he spoke about before, which is going into communications generally. But what efforts were made to let people know that those services were available to people who may not have known they could take advantage of them — the half of British Columbians who didn't know the programs existed at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think I quoted the number of higher than 50 percent to the member earlier when I came to the awareness piece of it. I think it was 60-some percent that had the awareness. But just to the member's question, 66 percent of British Columbians were aware of the problem gambling help line in 2007. Of course we've continued to do that.

[1540]

In addition to what we do through the gaming policy enforcement branch is $1.3 million in additional spending being spent on advertising by B.C. Lottery Corporation to deal with issues around GameSense and people's issues in understanding what they're doing.

There isn't a thing you can buy in a legal area of British Columbia with regards to gaming that does not have warning or information on it with regards to the 1-800 line and "Know your limit, play within it." At the point of purchase, there is continually stuff that's running so that people will get…. We try and get to the public in every sense we possibly can with regards to it and continue to do that. All of those things combined are basically the investment we make in making sure the public awareness is higher.

S. Simpson: The first budget, the budget that was cut — the $7 million — must have included…. I would presume it included a number of programs or expansion on existing programs to have made up that extra couple of million dollars that was going to be expended, which the minister has told us people didn't avail themselves of — or a portion of it people didn't avail themselves of. It wasn't taken up. The money wasn't spent.

Could the minister tell us what was anticipated in a $7 million budget that has been now cut to $4.6 million for these purposes?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll say again: $500,000 went out of this budget because it was used in advertising. It has now gone into the central pool for advertising because it's no longer run through the branch. That would take it up to $5-point-some million.

It wasn't that there wasn't anything cut. It was: who was availing themselves of service and at what level? "What were you actually spending?" As we came into this budget cycle, ministers each asked every one of their operations: "What are the actual dollars to meet what you spent last year or you anticipate spending this year versus what you think they might be if you didn't have some budget pressures?"

When you look at a program and say, "Well, it's not all being used," you say: "Then we don't really need it this year unless we have an increase." Then what you do when you do your budget presentation is advise of any risk, whether it be this budget or the housing budget or health budget or whatever the case may be. You say these are things that we think we can adjust based on what we think the usage might be.

If the usage goes up, we would then have to go back to Finance and Treasury Board to advise them if we thought one part through the fiscal year that we were going to have an increase in usage to the point where we thought we would need more dollars. We would deal with it at that point in time. That's just good budgeting. That's all it is — and actually asking those questions.

I think it's actually healthy that we do that sometimes on a more regular basis. I think at times when you have very good revenues and things in government, there are tendencies to say we could add a program or maybe look at a different program. But this measurement was based on, "What are you using? What do you think you're going to use?" — not what you think you have, but what you think you're actually going to use.

That was the direction given to members of my staff through the budget process by myself to do that. We had the discussions around that. We've identified that if there was an increase in need, we would go back if necessary. At this point in time we don't have to go back.

S. Simpson: The minister talked about asking his officials: "What are you going to use?" I guess part of the question, when it deals with the matter of problem gamblers, should be: "What do you need?" more than "What are you going to use?" But that's a matter that we'll certainly talk about more, I'm sure.
[ Page 1568 ]

The minister talked a few minutes ago about, I believe — and correct me if I'm wrong on this — how since 2001 the government had doubled its programs or expenditures for problem gambling since then to today. Is that correct? Is that what the minister said?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I said that in 2001 we doubled it from $2 million to $4 million. Since then it's been measured based on…. I don't know whether you've ever asked your children: "What do you actually have to spend on something?" versus "What do you need?" I know you get a totally different answer when you ask them for what they need. They all want a lot more.

The reality is that the questions are both one and the same — what you need, and what you're going to spend, or what you should be spending based on what you need. That's why I couch that explanation that way.

S. Simpson: Maybe this is a good way to follow up on that. What I'd like to do now, just to get a better sense of it, is to get a sense of…. In 2001 the minister says that the government doubled the funding for programs for problem gambling to about $4 million. Today it's $4.6 million, so it's increased, and it's gone up and down again, but probably, with inflation in there, it may be even less.

I can do the math in my head, but it must be pretty close. Being seven, eight years out, $600,000 may be less in real dollars than what it is today.

What I'd like to do, just to put that in some context…. What we know is that in British Columbia in 2002 we had two full-service casinos, and in 2009 we had 17 full-service casinos in the province. We had 436 slot machines in 2002. We have in excess of 10,000 in the province today.

We saw government revenues — and this may be part of it…. Government revenues from gambling were about 2.2 percent of government revenues back in '92 when gaming started and had grown to over 5 percent in 2006. I'm not sure what the numbers would be today.

What we do know is that we've had a massive expansion in gambling in the province in terms of the numbers of casinos and in terms of the importance of gambling revenues over the last 17, 18 years as a percentage of revenue.

Does the minister think that when you put that kind of…? And we're going to have Internet gaming expanded significantly in the near future. Does the minister think, with that being the case, that if $4 million was the right amount in 2001, that something less than that in real dollars should be the right amount in 2009 — should be "what you need," as the minister says? Should that be what you need considering the increased proliferation of gambling and facilities in the province today?

Hon. R. Coleman: So let's be clear to the member. In 2001 there were no in-casino programs of any kind for people with problem gambling in British Columbia. A huge investment has been made in those over the last number of years, and they exist on every document, every machine, every ticket today. That did not exist in 2001. That's now not necessarily an annual cost to that particular piece of it because it's actually a standard practice that has been put in place with regards to how we manage gaming in B.C.

There was no Gaming Control Act that actually covered all the rigour in and around this industry in 2001. I won't get into what that led to back in the '90s with regards to some difficulties we had in this sector — both politically and, frankly, legally — in some departments, the courts. But I can tell you that if there wasn't anything in the Lottery Corporation in 2001, there is today $3.9 million alone just going into stuff with regards to problem gambling on top of all the education programs, literature and other things that are there.

So to try and compare the two eras is somewhat difficult. There are actually…. The member is right. There were two casinos you would call full-service casinos in British Columbia back in 2001, but there were over 18 casinos in B.C. There are still no more than that many casinos in British Columbia today — just so we're clear on that.

Our bingo sector was in significant duress coming through the early 2000s, and some adjustments had to be made in order to actually make their businesses work differently for the support of them.

[1550]

Some other decisions were made within gaming, which I'm happy to discuss with the member as we come through our discussions for the rest of the afternoon.

S. Simpson: The reality of the numbers, as I understand them, is that we have had this massive growth. We've seen per-capita gambling in B.C. increase from about $189 per capita in 2002 to $556 in 2008 — a greater amount than Ontario, than Quebec, greater than the Canadian average. The reason for that — part of the reason — has been the expansion in gambling and gambling availability in the province. That's what we've seen.

We know that in 2002, 300 slot machines and 30 gaming tables was the maximum size of a facility in this province. We now have at least three — and probably four now, I believe, but at least three — where the numbers are more like a thousand slot machines and 70 tables, so we have seen a significant growth in the amount of gaming. That's what it is, and that's fine.

The point here is whether, in fact, there's been the due diligence done. The minister has not offered one shred of evidence that the ministry has done any work or any due diligence to determine whether they're meeting the needs of problem gamblers. Not one shred of independent evidence has been provided.

So the question is: are you spending enough money to meet these needs? My question to the minister, again,
[ Page 1569 ]
would be: what independent evidence, if any, has the ministry done in the last couple of years, and particularly, done to support the cut in budget for problem gambling? Or is this strictly intuitive on the expertise of individuals of the ministry and the political direction of the minister?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going into the judgmental comments with regards to the preambles of this particular question. I do know that we have a 1-800 line, which you avail yourself of 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That did not exist in 2001.

I do know that we have programs for you to get counselling and assistance if you have an issue with gaming in British Columbia, whether you gamble in a casino or whether you gamble on line or whether you gamble outside this jurisdiction — in the U.S., like Washington State — or whether you go to an illegal poker house or whether you go where there are other illegal activities in and around gaming. We don't actually say that you can't get services no matter where you happen to have developed the problem.

I do know that when we made the decisions in and around gaming in 2002, they were based on a number of things. First of all, we were going to have a gaming control act. We were going to have a director who would make the decisions on policy and enforcement in British Columbia with regards to gaming, not a minister. We would have nobody in a political position to decide where a project or something to do with gaming could go.

We made the decision that instead of deciding to do what happened in the 1990s, where someone thought it was a good idea to put a casino in Wells, B.C., without a market study of any kind whatsoever — because they wanted to have a destination casino because somebody wanted to make a particular political jurisdiction happy, only to find out a few years later that it just cost everybody a bunch of money, and it just hurt the community and hurt the credibility of the whole structure of gaming in B.C. — that we weren't going to do that.

I know that we made significant decisions — that we would say to a Crown corporation: "You are now the people that will deliver the business in British Columbia. Here are the parameters that we've established through the Gaming Control Act in policy, which can change from time to time, but the policy change comes through a process, and you will conduct your business on that basis."

I do know that if you went to people and asked them what they thought of casinos today versus what they were in the late 1990s and early 2000s, they would tell you today that they think it's more a place you can go for an evening out, in an environment that is a lot cleaner, that is professional, that the entertainment value is there, that the food services and other services in and around it to allow for an adult evening out to take place is there.

Was it there when we were…? Whether you be in the charitable sector or not, sitting till two or three o'clock in the morning in a smoky facility above the Langley hotel, with roulette and sic bo and blackjack, as a charity trying to see if you could have a way to do business in B.C. with very little controls from the standpoint of what it should have been under the Gaming Control Act…. Have we improved that? Absolutely.

[1555]

Have we allowed this business to modernize? Have we allowed it to meet the needs of its clients in British Columbia? Yes, we have. Do we still have, and did we then have, thousands of people that got on a plane and flew to Vegas or drove down the I-5 into Washington State and gambled in different casinos down in Washington State or other jurisdictions? That's correct. Have more people…?

The fact of the matter is that you had a choice to make in 2001-2002, and that was: we have something that has really got a reputation because of a history of problems within governments and politics that needs to be fixed and done at arm's length from a government and a minister. So do we go write an act and say: "This is the environment, and do your business on behalf of British Columbians"? Or do we allow it to continue in the state that it's in?

We chose the first — that we would allow this market to do its thing. Now, there can be argument from the member opposite whether that was the right move or not, and I'm happy to take that criticism.

But as we've done it, we've continued to try and educate. We've continued to have information available at point-of-purchase and everywhere else so that people could understand things like odds and like the risk, and continued to have the opportunity for them, if they need help, to get it. I think that's the way you should do the system and continue to do it.

S. Simpson: I think the point here is that we have had a significant expansion. As the minister says, for the majority of people who participate in gaming, who go attend casinos or go to the River Rock or any of those places and enjoy the entertainment…. Most of those people — the vast majority of British Columbians and visitors who do that — in fact have an enjoyable evening out, and that's the end of it. They go home, and they've had a good day, and that's their entertainment.

The problem here with this particular sector, industry, as it is, is that there are people who get hurt by this in some way, shape or form. The independent research by the B.C. Medical Association and the research by others — like the folks who do the problem gambling prevalence reports — is that there are 159,000 people or so in British Columbia who fall into that category of people who can be hurt by this activity because of the addictive nature of their personality as it relates to gambling.
[ Page 1570 ]

There is a social contract related to this question of gaming, and we know that. We can go back into the '90s when gaming started to expand in this province, and clearly, there was a level of discomfort with the population about whether the government should be engaged directly in the area of gaming.

An understanding, I believe, was reached with people — the social contract I call it, for lack of a better term — that there would be some limitations on how that gaming would be engaged. There would be a significant portion of that money that would go to charities and communities. There would be programs for people who are vulnerable, and we would move forward on that basis.

The challenge we face today and the challenge of the budget — we'll talk more about this over today, and I'm sure it will be a point of discussion tomorrow afternoon with a number of my colleagues — is whether that social contract continues to be protected — the integrity of that contract. That's part of what this discussion is about.

The situation that we have here is that there have been cuts in the amount of money, and it doesn't appear, from what the minister has said, unless I misunderstood him, that…. There has been no evidence provided, no empirical evidence, to support the decisions to reduce the amount of funding and supports for problem gaming.

The minister said that this is an arm's-length matter for him in terms of his activities and how decisions are made. So my question would be….

The decisions to cut the budget from $7 million to $4.6 million, I assume, were decisions that were made as they relate to the enforcement branch. The minister can clarify if it's the enforcement branch or the Lottery Corporation to make those cuts in funding. Were those done at the initiative of the branch with their recommendation to the minister? Or was this done through a direction from the minister to tighten those budgets up?

[1600]

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: When I was talking about decisions earlier, I was talking about…. You have a director in charge, the policy and the enforcement side, and the branch of government. You have a corporation that is given a shareholder's letter of expectations. The minister doesn't make a decision and say: "You'll put Casino X over there." He does not make a decision: "You'll enforce that but not that." But he certainly is part of the whole discussion across the larger government priorities with regards to budget.

Let's be clear to the member opposite. Not one single program has been stopped as a result of the adjustment of this budget on the program side for problem gaming — not one. The services are still there for anybody that needs them today. What we did was we looked at what we were using and said: "Maybe we don't need to use it all this year, because we don't have, for lack of a better description, the customers to actually use up those funds."

At the same time as we've done that, we've increased in the casinos an additional $2.6 million that has gone into programs with regards to issues around GameSense and facial recognition and additional training and those things that I spoke about earlier.

To the member opposite — just so we don't go down a road that he misunderstands the whole issue around the B.C. Medical Association type of report and that sort of thing — there is, in every jurisdiction in North America, a percentage of the population that shows characteristics of people that could become addicted to something. It could be alcohol, it could be drugs, and it could be gaming. And it could be other things, quite frankly. But those would be the main ones.

What governments do and jurisdictions do is that they set some rules around this. In the case of our province, at 19 years of age, you cannot go into a gaming establishment in B.C., nor can you go into a bar to buy a drink. You cannot purchase alcohol in a liquor store or in an off-sale unless you are of age. You cannot go in and buy a lottery ticket in a place in British Columbia legally if you're under-age. You put rigour around these issues, because they're going to exist in your jurisdiction one way or the other.

I can remember, and I don't know how, that my grandfather always seemed to manage to get his Irish sweepstakes ticket. I know that he used to go play cards with buddies in a place where maybe some dollars changed hands. I know of people long before legal gaming came into place that — and, frankly, from law enforcement when I was Solicitor General — were quite significantly involved in organized crime, who ran illegal poker houses in our jurisdictions across this province.

I do know that when it moved from there to the legal establishment, a casino in B.C. and a number of those poker houses that were funding organized crime shut down. It moved to an environment where people felt safe and felt that they could go there. It took away the opportunity for the criminal.

We have a responsibility under the Criminal Code for the conduct and management of gaming in B.C. That's why the province does this. We have the responsibility under the Criminal Code to be responsible for the conduct and management of legal gaming in our jurisdiction.

We have built a business plan and some rigour around it. We continue to work on that business plan and rigour on a regular basis to make sure that we're providing something that's safe; something that's, frankly, entertainment value for our customers.

At the same time, we recognize that there are some social issues with regards to it. So we'll have the problems, for instance, that…. We have the counselling and
[ Page 1571 ]
what have you available, and none of those have been cut. They are there. They are available. It's just that we're only using the dollars that we think we're going to use this year versus what we thought we might use. That's the biggest adjustment to this particular thing.

S. Simpson: I don't suggest for a minute that the 159,000 people identified by the B.C. Medical Association are a result of the Lottery Corporation's activities and its work.

[1605]

As the minister says — and the minister is correct — there's a portion of people in every jurisdiction who have a tendency or are prone to an addictive personality. It may play itself out in alcohol or in gambling or something else. There's no question about that. In this instance, 159,000 people that the Medical Association and others have identified, where this plays itself out in British Columbia in gambling….

The responsibility of the government, having made the choice — and this is not a criticism of the choice, clearly not, but the government has made the choice — to be involved in gambling through the Lottery Corporation and state-run gambling…. That's a decision that's made. It generates a significant amount of revenue for the province. There's no doubt about that. But there is an obligation that comes with that, and the obligation is around protecting, to the best degree possible, people who have those issues.

The minister talks about how we deal with this in other areas, and there's no exact science to this. The minister would also know, of course, that we have rules in bars that say that if you start overserving people, you get in trouble, and that they have obligations to deal with that.

There may be questions about whether, in fact, we do that in casinos. There will be even bigger challenges about how we do that with the Internet. The question here, really, is about the government's responsibility and obligation to meet the needs of those folks, and part of that is a question of due diligence. It's in saying that in 2002 we put $4-odd million into problem gambling.

We're now in 2009. We're about to move forward with another expansion in a whole brand-new area around technology and the Internet, which may, over the next number of years, be the biggest area of revenues of any of these areas, depending on how technology plays out there.

The question I would have then is: has there been analysis between 2002, when the government put the $4 million in place in the first place, and today? Has the government had any independent analysis or assessment of its problem gambling programs and whether they were meeting the objectives of helping to support those people who suffer from this problem? Has any of that been done over the last seven, eight years?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the 159,000 people that have the addictive tendencies towards gambling will exist in your jurisdiction whether you have one casino, zero casinos or ten casinos. Those folks exist. They have those tendencies.

Now, you can have them go to a situation where they decide to go into a casino in British Columbia, which is a legal entity. We do, for the member's information, watch people with these tendencies, we do have people talk to them on the floor, and we do try and encourage them to seek out help if we think it's necessary.

Just for the member's information, 71 percent of the gamblers in the past year were aware of the problem help line in British Columbia, up from 66 percent two years ago, and 50 percent of non-gamblers were aware of the help line. Those people don't gamble in B.C.

But we also do random audits on our programs for their efficacy. We do that on a regular basis to make sure that that's taking place. At the same time as we do that, we have increased the investment on the whole education program that has basically accumulated over a number of years.

[1610]

If you take an example, in 1997 or '96-'97, I think — or somewhere in there — the former government started to change the rules in casinos. There was no investment in the B.C. Lottery Corporation otherwise on any other problem gambling programs.

They continued to grow that through the 1990s and did some investment, to their credit, early on, to start in understanding that this could be something that they should be helping with, considering that they wanted to have the social contract with the public that if we're going to have gaming in a legal environment, there would be some programs.

If you set that aside for a second and come through whatever area you want to, you continue to invest. We've actually increased the investment by a number of millions of dollars through the Lottery Corporation in the in-house programs, the education and all of those things. We have a way better relationship with regards to things in and around gaming with the player in British Columbia, and the education. Anyone that needs counselling can get it, and when they get it, we actually do audits on them for their efficacy.

Now, as we do all of that and look at the situation in and around gaming in B.C. and do all of those things, we also need to be reminded — we're going to have, I'm sure, the on-line gaming discussion at some point in time today, but let's deal with it for a second, because the member brought it up — that there are 2,000 websites today, totally not controlled, that a person on the Internet in British Columbia can access. They're in the Caymans; they're in the East Indies. They're in islands across the world where nobody actually has any control.
[ Page 1572 ]

There's no such thing as a tag on the line that says: "Know your limit; play within it" or "Here's a counselling program that you can seek." None of that exists on most of these sites. A lot of them are run by what would be less-than-credible organizations, funding activities around the world that you and I would not be proud to be funding.

Now you have this taking place in your jurisdiction, so do you allow for a British Columbian, just like you did with a casino, to have the ability to go and do that on line in a controlled environment, where we can watch your patterns and where we can actually ask you if you have a problem if the pattern deviates? We can actually deal with that and help you, instead of your going on line and just giving somebody your credit card — who blows it up to the top and doesn't actually care about you as a person or an individual.

Whenever governments enter into the responsibilities that are given to them by whatever level of government, in our case the conduct and management of gaming in B.C. — or, quite frankly, things like liquor — it is our responsibility under the Criminal Code to try and build around it the responsible programs for your citizens. You cannot control what other citizens outside a jurisdiction do. It's just not within your control, and the Internet is a classic example of that.

S. Simpson: I'll go back to the question that I asked the minister before that. Has the ministry done any independent analysis of its problem gambling programs, over the last number of years since 2002 or up to today, to assess whether those programs are working as effectively as they could, based on best practices?

[1615]

Hon. R. Coleman: We're actually going through that now with an organization that we've done business with. I'll get the member the correct name for the organization with regards to putting all of our gaming establishments in B.C. through that lens. At the same time, our measurements have been by people and individuals on other things with regards to that.

So for instance, 95 percent of our clients indicated that after counselling they gambled less. That was 35 percent. So 35 percent of our clients say they gambled less after our counselling — working with them or not at all. That was 60 percent of the people that went through our counselling stopped gambling altogether.

That's how we've been measuring it. However, at the same time, we are putting this together in a nationwide relationship to try and get it so that we can have some better data going forward.

S. Simpson: Well, you know, the decisions to cut…. There are certainly entities around the country who look at these matters and at decisions about how you meet the social contract, which investing in problem gambling is part of.

I look at a quote here from Garry Smith, a researcher at the Alberta Gaming Research Institute. When talking about British Columbia and its program, he said: "B.C. didn't necessarily have a leading-edge program in the first place. It wasn't like they were breaking down the doors with a great program, and now they've cut it."

The minister talks about some kind of a national program. Maybe he could just explain this a little bit further. Is this that British Columbia is moving ahead and looking at its own programs with a study or an assessment that it's contracting to have done, or is there a national analysis study being done by somebody to which British Columbia is a participant?

Hon. R. Coleman: Both, I'm told. I don't have the parameters here today, but I do know that we're expanding research with our partners across the country on everything dealing with problem gambling, or issues along those lines, and that there is some best practices being done. We routinely meet with the Western Canada Lottery Corporation. Basically, we're one of the participants in that with regards to programs that are or aren't working in other jurisdictions. We're also participants on a national level, as well, with regards to that.

I actually don't buy much criticism out of a jurisdiction like Alberta because, quite frankly, the Alberta model is not a model we accepted in B.C.

It was the right move when that decision was made prior to 2001, and it's still the right move today. If you're going to have it in establishments like gaming centres and casinos that are run under the jurisdiction of a Crown corporation, which are the only ones that can actually allow those types of machines to be in the public, in a controlled environment with people under the age of 19 not being allowed to access and a Gaming Control Act with a statutory responsibility…. That is not something they really did.

[1620]

They actually put VLTs in all kinds of places — bars, hotel lobbies — in those jurisdictions. And let me tell you something. The reason we did that back then — and it was the right move by two successive governments — was because of the impact of those things on problem gambling. They are right there in their face in places where they can't be controlled.

[The bells were rung.]

Having said that, hon. Chair, it sounds like the bells have asked us to come for a break.

The Chair: We will recess for the division and start up shortly after the vote.
[ Page 1573 ]

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

S. Simpson: As the minister had referenced earlier, we'll move the discussion a little bit now to the Internet gaming issues and to the issues related to the proposals that the government has announced to expand Internet gaming.

Could the minister outline the plan a little bit for us? I know that there's been the announcement that weekly accounts will now go from $120 to $9,999 and that there will be some expansion come March, I believe, in terms of the type and number of games that will be available under that new expansion. Could the minister tell us what that expansion is and what it's going to entail?

[1635]

Hon. R. Coleman: We actually have on-line gaming now in B.C. We have about 100,000-plus customers that buy their lottery tickets on line and play Keno and whatever the case may be with the games that are presently available. That's who we've launched this on-line gaming site with — our customers in British Columbia.

Our intention is to add casino-style gaming in March 2010. That would be games that are presently available on other Internet sites across the world. In April and May it's also our intention to launch peer-to-peer poker, which are games that you can play peer-to-peer. That will not only be launched just in British Columbia to our customers, but we have an arrangement where we'll also, at the same time, go on line with the Maritimes and Quebec. Those other provinces have been wanting for some time to have a relationship with regards to that form of gaming.

Basically, in each jurisdiction, whoever plays in British Columbia will still have to be a B.C. resident, will have to provide that information to us to prove that they are B.C. residents. We are not going to go into Washington State and ask for customers because we'd be breaking U.S. law. We're not going into Alberta to ask for customers. If a customer base ever came on line with us or went on line themselves, that would be their responsibility.

Each jurisdiction across Canada has, basically, like we have now with Play Now. It's a highly regulated and secure on-line gaming site with stringent residency, age and privacy protection and responsible gaming safeguards, such as self-exclusion programs and education and what have you.

We're taking what we're doing and adding more games to it to try and attract a customer that today is probably spending money in other jurisdictions around the world and may want to do it at home in a more stringent environment where their privacy is protected, their credit card information is protected, their gambling safeguards are there and where we also have some programs around issues on who can game and how with regards to age and restrictions.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that you can go on line today and play Keno or buy your lottery tickets or play the poker games that aren't actual skill-set poker. They're kind of predetermined, much like buying lottery tickets or whatever you do.

But what we're talking about here, I believe, is quite a shift. It's something very new. I expect that you would never have gotten people to go anywhere near contemplating $9,999 a month to play Keno or buy lottery tickets, largely, whereas some of the new gambling and gaming, in fact, will do that.

[1640]

The minister talked about other jurisdictions buying into this. Are there any other provinces today that have Internet gaming of the type that the government envisions commencing, I guess, in March when they start to bring on the skill games, for lack of a better term? Are there any other jurisdictions that have those kinds of Internet gaming with limits, spending limits or account limits, anywhere near what British Columbia has approved?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we first started looking at this, it was us in B.C. Atlantic Canada was doing something else and talking about it. Today it's a collaboration to do the same thing between the four provinces in the Maritimes plus Quebec and us. Basically, the platform would be the same for all of us. We felt that if we could get to that arrangement…. They've all sort of wanted an arrangement so that there was a relationship that made some sense.

Some of the other jurisdictions are not as far advanced in their process of approvals or whatever, but we would anticipate that at some point in time we would reach the situation where maybe all the jurisdictions would be on the same platform across Canada. That was really the goal to start out with, I think, for everybody in both the Western Canada Lottery Corporation and the other lottery corporations across the country.

The game we're launching in March is not a skill game. It's a casino-style game, so it's like a slot machine–type operation. It's just not much different from what you would see in a casino, although I do have some relatives who think they have the skill to figure out how they could go in and play — I don't see that their odds are any better than anybody else's — and friends who think that they can figure out that stuff, but that's not skill.

But yeah, the peer-to-peer stuff will be. That'll be taking on competition like — I'll probably get it wrong — one of the live poker sites where you can actually play the game with a live dealer on line, and those are more skilled types of games.
[ Page 1574 ]

S. Simpson: The other jurisdictions, Quebec and the Maritimes — are they buying into the British Columbia model entirely, or will they be setting spending limits for their own jurisdictions that are separate from B.C.?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're working on that now. Indications are that they will be raising their limits, but each jurisdiction will not be required to live by the limits of the other jurisdictions. The early indications are that they will follow the B.C. model.

S. Simpson: The minister said that they will be raising their limits. Is the minister aware what their limits are today? It's a long way. As we went from $120 to $9,999, we jumped a long way. Is there any indication about where they're going with the limit increases?

I ask this question because, obviously, a great amount of the concern on the part of people who have been critical of this decision has to do, as much as anything, with the dramatic increase in limits to almost $10,000.

[1645]

I'm trying to determine here whether these other jurisdictions that are looking at moving into Internet gaming and working their way into that are looking at limits that are anywhere comparable to the kinds of numbers that British Columbia has approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I should let the member know that the sites on line today that I refer to, which go to both legal and illegal establishments around the world, have no limits. So we would be the only sites with any form of limit, and the limit is only to have a range for people. People actually have to set their own numbers on line by filling out the form and saying, "This is what I want to spend in a particular week or on a weekly basis," or whatever the case may be, so that that gets established.

The people in the Maritimes today have no Internet gaming. Quebec has nothing, so there's zero today. Quebec's indication is that they will probably buy in to a standard with us — the same standard for all of those things. In the Maritimes they have none of this either, but they will have around the time this all comes in.

Their weekly limit is actually higher than ours was by about $800 a week, but they will now look at the whole thing. Each jurisdiction will set their envelopes at a provincial level or however they do it at their level. Indications are that it looks like we're all going to be much the same.

S. Simpson: What I take from that is that the minister is waiting to see what they do. Fair enough, but at this point I think, if I do my math correctly, we're saying that the Maritimes are about a thousand-dollar-a-week limit or so — something in that range would be where they were at this point — versus $10,000. Could the minister tell us how the determination, the decision, was made to land on the number of $9,999?

Hon. R. Coleman: Any large cash transaction of $10,000 or more has to be reported through FINTRAC in Canada. Since this isn't a large cash transaction, because we're not taking cash over the computer, we felt that the $9,999 was probably able to keep it under the ceiling. There may be some discussion in and around that.

We are in discussions with FINTRAC, who are the people that monitor large cash transactions in Canada. The member should know that anybody requesting a cheque of $500 or more from our discipline-type site…. We go back and look at how the money came into there. If it's not a verifiable win but it has actually come as a result of a transfer from a bank account now asking for the money, we report it to FINTRAC and hold the money until we verify the source of the dollars that came in.

[1650]

S. Simpson: The minister talks about having this discussion with FINTRAC. My understanding — and I could be corrected on this, then — is that in any transaction that was $10,000 or greater, they would have an interest, and there would need to be some reporting on that. For the purposes of this, if I….

The minister speaks about cash. So if I put $10,000 on my credit card or transfer $10,000 off my credit card, does that not constitute a cash transaction once I've put that money into an account?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's why we're working, frankly, with FINTRAC over the next number of months before we launch the casino games and the other, which will bring the player who wants to spend the higher dollar. That's part of the business and development.

When we looked at this, we picked the number because we wanted to be at least competitive in the market when we tried to build the business — but not have no limit at all. The member's description of a cash…. If you take a zero-balance credit card and you dump 20,000 bucks on it, the financial institution and the credit card company all have a responsibility to FINTRAC in the reporting of that transaction. Those disciplines are in place, and our disciplines at our end are.

Let's say somebody came in and said, "I'm going to put $5,000 into my account this week on my credit card," and next week asks for their $5,000 back, off their account. They wouldn't get a cheque until they confirm that that money that was originally on their account was legal money. We would report that to FINTRAC — anything over $500, actually. I'm just using that as an example.

The complexities of this are being worked out as we come through it into the spring, and we will have those pieces that the member described ready to go when we
[ Page 1575 ]
actually do go on line. We're not locked into the number, quite frankly, Member.

The $9,999 number was just to get ourselves into the marketplace in a relationship that FINTRAC and we felt that we could start out at. We're not seeing a bunch of transactions because we don't have any games that are on there that require that type of betting today.

Over time, as we sort of mature into this piece of the business, we will adapt it to make sure it matches up then with the other jurisdictions with those types of regulatory processes.

S. Simpson: There is a professor, Prof. Richard Wood at the University of Lethbridge, who's…. I don't think he necessarily likes Alberta's gaming policies either — out of the university. But he's recognized as an expert in the area of gambling.

In a study that he produced on Internet gambling in Canada, Prevalence Patterns and Land-Based Comparisons — and policy options — he talks about the prevalence of problem gambling being "three to four times higher in Internet gamblers compared to non-Internet gamblers" So reads the report.

Having problems with gambling is one of the features that best predict someone is an Internet gambler. The report also notes that a significant portion of on-line gambling revenues come from problem gamblers — a little over 41 percent identified in Canada versus about 27 percent internationally.

[1655]

My question to the minister is this: in developing this program and making the decision to move from what was a very modest amount of $120 to what is quite a significant amount — almost $10,000 — did the ministry do any analysis of potential impacts on problem gamblers of having that amount of money available there, based on research that suggests that the Internet is probably the prime site for problem gambling?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think you actually provided the answer and the question at the same time. In September 2008 a report was commissioned by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation gaming expert Dr. Richard Wood, who studied the issue of setting gambling spending limits. He found no evidence that higher spending limits increased problem gambling on line or in gaming facilities.

But at the same time, what the member describes is one of the challenges we face, and that is this. You have the availability of on-line gaming in an unregulated marketplace in, many times, what would best be described as less than favourable legal climates for people who are citizens of this province or anybody else in the world to go on line and gamble.

There is nobody that, frankly, cares whether your credit card is at its max or not. They'll just take your credit card and spend it all if you want to spend it. There is nobody that really cares what the disciplines are on how the money came into the account or how it goes back out, with a check or any discipline. There's nobody that actually cares about whether you have a problem or not, and there are about 2,000 of those sites today.

The challenge that faced government as we looked at this and…. We sort of talked about the studies and the information the same as what you've described and said, "Gee, do we have a responsibility to provide a legal option with some rigour and discipline to it?" versus just allowing this to continue at its present pace and where the money goes and all those other sorts of things.

We worked through a number of issues as we did that over time and looked at this thing. We came to the conclusion that for British Columbians we could offer, because we already have a site with 100,000 customers on it, the opportunity to do this without having them be of the fear that somebody is going to steal their credit card information or their banking information, that somebody is going to steal their identity — because there's no control on that either with regards to this type of activity — or they're going to be put on some other list for some other targeting for some other issues and sorts of things.

Or do you actually create a platform where the age limit is enforced, the residency is enforced, the information is protected in a very secure site under the direction of a regulatory and Crown corporation relationship — that you actually run this thing for British Columbians that wish to play on line, to play in a legal environment that is a lot safer for them and for their families?

Does that mean that we're going to stop the 2,000 sites from existing? Absolutely not. But what it does do is at least allow us to take our responsibility for the conduct and management of gaming in British Columbia, for British Columbians who are residents of British Columbia, to at least a level where they can make the choice to be on a legal site that has those rigours to it.

S. Simpson: The fact that there are a number of sites out there, as the minister points out — illegal sites or non-governmental sites, U.S. sites, international sites — where lots of people go and lose their money is not unto itself a reason why the government of British Columbia should be engaging in that activity and, certainly, engaging in that activity without having put in place the protections that need to be there for folks.

Professor Wood, who talked about those things, also was quoted in September in the National Post when asked about the fact that the government has cut the funding for problem gambling from $7 million to $4.6 million. Professor Wood's comment was that he found this "deplorable." "The province has close to 200,000 'moderate or severe' problem gamblers, according to government statistics. Odds are," he says, "it will soon
[ Page 1576 ]
have many more." He relates that specifically to Internet gaming.

[1700]

What we know when we look at the work here is that the thing we're finding out about Internet gambling, as we learn more about it, is that it's young people who are most inclined to get involved in Internet gaming.

In the demographic characteristics that Professor Wood and his colleague Dr. Williams found in Internet gambling in Canada…. They found that something less than 20 percent of non-Internet gamblers are under the age of 29.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Remarkably, over 50 percent of Internet gamblers fall into the category of under the age of 29. This is young people that we're talking about, probably young people who have not necessarily been engaged for some long period of time in gaming who are now going to be involved.

The question I have for the minister is: what consideration has the ministry and the corporation given to what looks like a significant shift in the potential target demographic for who's going to engage in these games, based on the research that's been done? What work has been done to ensure that we're not creating an increased problem here with young gamblers being caught up with problem gambling?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's try and be clear here. That demographic is gambling on line today — not gambling on line on a site that's owned by the citizens and the government and the taxpayers of British Columbia, but they're gambling on line in the Caymans or they're gambling wherever. Whatever demographic they are, that activity is out there today.

It is not being run, necessarily, by people who actually care about anything but the dollar, who have no intention of having any discipline among their sites, no protection of identity, no protection of credit card information, no information with regards to issues around problem gambling and all of those things that exist.

When we launch our site with on-line casino games and then subsequent to peer-to-peer poker-type games, we're not going to take all of those gamers off those other 2,000 sites, whether they are British Columbians or whatever.

I should be clear about one thing in that there's a huge issue in the U.S. with regards to what they're doing. They have not come to any understanding, whether it be state or federal, as to how you even conduct and manage gaming in that particular country. It's fraught with all kinds of issues.

But Dr. Wood also said that responsible gambling means empowering players to make informed choices. Restricting players' choices can decrease players' motivations to take responsibility for their own actions, and mandatory limits are unpopular with the majority of players.

He says that in the context that, you know…. These studies talk about the prevalence of on-line gaming, so what's the responsible thing to do? Sit back and watch something that's going to affect a particular group of people or individuals with regards to a choice for adult gaming on line?

I know of an individual whose 16-year-old child spent their entire credit card limit on line playing games in a country that we have no jurisdiction or control over. The parents picked up the bill and had a big challenge with it.

Would that happen on a discipline site in British Columbia? No. Because the right prompts and questions, the disciplines, the individual's information, spending limits and controls are set by the individual who actually registers as a customer. They don't care about any of that on those other sites.

We can go down the discussion of what Internet gaming is, and you're absolutely right: it's a challenge. That's why we feel that, at the very least, we should try to control it in our jurisdiction for legal customers in British Columbia and, in this case, also the Maritimes and Quebec — judging from the conversations we've had with other people across Canada — at least in a Canadian jurisdiction where we would have the disciplines to protect the identity.

[1705]

That doesn't mean that this stuff is going away, but it's not unlike when we put poker into the River Rock Casino. When we put poker in the River Rock Casino, at that time the police on the Lower Mainland told me that three or four Hells Angels illegal poker houses shut down. The people made the choice to go to the publicly controlled, safe and secure environment.

Frankly, when they're there, we can at least watch their spending. We can help them with their issues if they have them, and we can educate them while they're on line and at the same time protect their information — none of which is done on the other 2,000 sites that may exist out there today.

S. Simpson: When the minister talks about these 2,000 other sites out there that British Columbians are going to participate in, I'm not comforted by the minister saying: "We're going to be the best of a bad lot here in terms of dealing with Internet gaming."

What we know about Internet gaming — again, when we look at the work that Professor Wood has done — is that part of the challenge with this…. I've now been getting stories from people who have had tragic experiences with their families around gaming, who have got caught by problem gaming and have run up exorbitant
[ Page 1577 ]
amounts of money and created all kinds of problems with their families.

I'm sure that nobody wants that to happen, and I'm sure the minister doesn't. But that does appear to be part of what occurs on a more frequent basis with the Internet than with the requirement for somebody to go to a casino and be part of that social interaction that happens in a casino. Whether it's playing a table game or a slot machine, they are there, and there is social interaction.

As the minister has talked about, there are staff in those facilities whose job it is to observe and look for people who may be in distress or appear to be having anxieties — and, hopefully, support those folks when that occurs. None of that happens at midnight or at one o'clock in the morning when you're at home by yourself on your computer, and that's what we're talking about here.

What we know are the advantages of Internet gaming, for folks who answered and dealt with the survey. Between "24-hour availability" and "I don't have to leave the house" — 70 percent of people identified those as the reasons that they happen to like this particular system. We know that a significant growing number of those are going to be young people under the age of 30 who have no interest in going to a casino and don't like that environment, but who are very comfortable on their computer at home doing what they do at home on their computer.

If the government is doing the due diligence to be able to deal with this issue and allow this massive expansion at a time when it looks to many of us like it's just finding new ways to generate revenue, which is fine…. What work is the government doing, particularly now that it has cut by a third the money it invests in problem gambling? What analysis or assessment is it doing about the unique aspects of problem gambling that we know relate to Internet gambling?

How is the government moving forward to develop programs or initiatives that are unique to dealing with the problems of Internet gaming, which clearly is an area of special concern for people who have expertise in this field?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear. You're right. There's a bad lot out there. We're not part of that bad lot, and we're not the best of that bad lot. We'd be the only jurisdiction that would actually have you have a residency requirement, have controls on your spending, have you make the decision on what your spending is, have education for you on line with regard to any difficulty you have with gambling and advertise to you with regard to how you should know your limit and play within it, and those sorts of things.

We're not part of that. We're actually trying to get to where we started to get a number of years ago across Canada. B.C. is participating in a federal-provincial-territorial working group mandated to address the issues related to Internet gaming in Canada.

All jurisdictions across Canada have agreed that Canada needs a consistent approach to the regulation of Internet gambling, and the gambling section of the Criminal Code needs to be updated, particularly with regard to the use of the Internet. The working group met last February 12 to 13, 2009, and there's another meeting this fall. It is going to submit a progress report to the deputy ministers this fall.

[1710]

The mandate for this group was expanded to include the modernizing of the Criminal Code as it relates to Internet gaming, working with Internet providers to crack down on illegal on-line gaming sites and Canadians gambling on Internet sites located outside Canada.

As we have come through that, it's become clear to each of the jurisdictions involved that one of the best things you could do would be to try and put as many people that are going to do this into a regulated environment where their IDs are protected; where they can get help if they need it; where their limits are in a position where they can be managed by them actually making the decisions on their limits and not somebody just running up a credit card because they happen to have the credit card number; and where we can actually monitor the efficacy of the entire system as we've done, quite frankly, in the adult environment of gaming in casinos and community gaming centres.

So if the debate is that the members opposite would prefer that there be all kinds of illegal gaming sites allowed to continue in Canada and that the government would not step up to its responsibility under the Criminal Code for the conduct and management of gaming in this country, that's fine. I can appreciate that.

At the same time, if we're going to stand up to our responsibility under the Criminal Code for the conduct and management of gaming and there is this environment that exists out of there, I think you have to decide that either (a) you could ignore it, or (b) you could provide for your citizens, in a controlled environment, the protection they deserve if they choose to use your site and if they choose to do this form of gaming which is out there today.

We've chosen to try and build a platform that will deal with the issues in and around the legal forms of this activity in Canada so that we can do it in such a way that we can allow our citizens to know that they're protected, as I said, for identity theft, credit card information and banking information, and that we tie it into a regulatory and disciplined process legally in such a way that we can monitor transactions and some of those sorts of things.

If somebody still wants to go on line with cash and try and go outside that system because they don't want
[ Page 1578 ]
to be in the legal environment, they may do that. But at the same time as they do that, we have monitoring systems on credit cards and international transactions and those sorts of things that we will try — which is not the responsibility, by the way, of the B.C. Lottery Corporation or the gaming policy enforcement side of British Columbia, because those are transactions in the financial arena that are monitored by different agencies across the country who we share information with.

S. Simpson: Well, the view of the opposition is that the $10,000 limit — to go from $120 to $10,000 in a blink — is exorbitant and a mistake and that people will be hurt by it. The problem is compounded and exacerbated by cutting the supports to problem gambling by a third at the same time. So you escalate the risk in the highest risk area, and then you chop supports by a third to help people who get captured by that. It simply makes no sense, and that's the position of the opposition.

Could the minister tell us what analysis or assessment, if any, was done of other jurisdictions that do engage in government-run Internet gaming at these kinds of levels with games like poker or Internet games, casino games? What analysis was done of those options and how they were working and whether there were challenges created by that before the decision was made to proceed?

[1715]

Hon. R. Coleman: We were participants in a study in the early days of this with the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation. We'd made our decision to proceed in British Columbia because we feel that the jurisdictions are going to get there sooner or later.

There are only a couple of jurisdictions in the world — Sweden and Spain, who we have spoken to — that are doing this today. So it really is us making the decision as to whether we should try to have a legal, safe environment for people who are going to Internet game in B.C. Or are we going to allow it to continue that they are going to be exposed to the vagaries of international bad behaviour by people like organized crime and other people like that? So we made that decision.

I want to reiterate to the member who keeps going to the $9,999. Dr. Wood made it very clear. He studied the issue of gambling spending limits. He found no evidence that higher spending limits increased problem gambling on line or in gaming facilities. The reality is that the 99.1 percent of gamblers who do play in a legal environment, or whatever environment they play in, are actually not there because of a spending limit but because they enjoy the activity at whatever level they feel they personally can afford.

That takes place in this environment around the world. I think that getting stuck on the number is wrong. I do believe that we are, in some ways…. That's why we're working with the Maritimes and Quebec as we bring this in through to the spring, where we'll start to launch some games. We are breaking some ground. I would expect that if we have our regulatory and, you know, our gaming control and our disciplines in place in Canada that we will, maybe, set an example for other jurisdictions around the world to start getting a handle on this.

At the same time we're not going into those other jurisdictions looking for customers. We are only allowing this for citizens of British Columbia, because those are the laws that we operate within. We don't intend to go any further than that. Because the reality is that that's what our law says, and so we are responsible for the conduct and management of gaming in the province of British Columbia. We will put on line a suite of activities for people in British Columbia so that they can make a legal choice in a protected environment versus what exists out there today.

I think that in many ways that is the responsible thing to do, versus just allowing it to continue out there with no options for your citizens who are going to do this, who are not being cared about by the other people who are in this business around the world and have no disciplines around it to protect your identity or your information or even have an interest in whether you may need some counselling or help or provide you with information where that may be available.

S. Simpson: Well, the minister talks about the large number of people who will participate in this and not do themselves any harm, and I suspect that's true. Since we both seem to be quoting Professor Wood a fair amount, as I'd referenced before, Professor Wood notes that over 41 percent of on-line gambling revenues comes from problem gamblers. Those are Professor Wood's numbers as well.

So what I hear him saying with this is that this is unique in many ways. People who go out to enjoy a casino…. I think what we're seeing…. I think that the minister and probably the ministry could tell us that we're seeing a shift in terms of the dynamic of casinos in this province. The larger casinos, the full services, the River Rock — the places like that that offer entertainment, food and beverage, as well as the gambling option — are the places that are now growing in popularity.

[1720]

People are coming to those — the vast majority of people who don't have a problem but want to go and have an evening out and maybe want to play a few slot machines or a couple of games of poker, but they want to see a show, and they want to have dinner and a drink. They're going to those facilities that offer a little bit more of the — for lack of a better term — Las Vegas experience of kind of a full entertainment package.

That makes sense. When we talk about this being about entertainment, that makes sense for people to go and do that.
[ Page 1579 ]

That's not what happens when you're on your computer at midnight playing Internet poker, whether you're doing it on this site or doing it on one of the other sites that the minister has talked about. The problem here is that there are a significant number of people who potentially get into trouble here.

The question I guess that I'm looking for here…. The minister talked about other jurisdictions. I could be corrected on this, but when I was looking at some of the other jurisdictions I looked at the British model — the national institute for lotteries or whatever they call their national body. They have Internet gaming as well.

I believe that what they say on the site is that they set their limits at the equivalent of about $650 a week Canadian. They're explicit that the reason they set that limit is it allows people to enjoy this as a game, but it's not so high that it potentially gets people into trouble. They saw that as the responsible thing to do as a level of government. Of course, their citizens face all the same challenges that ours do — about the Cayman Islands and sites around the world that you can get to at the push of a button — but they chose to do that.

So my question goes back, though, to a comment that the minister made about the discussions that were had before British Columbia chose to move forward. I believe he said that there were some meetings or discussions of an interprovincial group. My apologies if I got the terminology wrong. He said that after those discussions, British Columbia decided to move ahead.

Could the minister tell us: were there any other jurisdictions during that discussion that were supportive of British Columbia's position and looking to move ahead at that time on this kind of an effort with those kinds of limits?

Hon. R. Coleman: Gaming in England is an entirely different subject. In England they have been betting on things like the birth weight of a born heir to the throne of England for generations. They'll bet on just about anything. We don't do that in Canada. We don't have what they call a "parlay," which is allowed on a single event and that sort of thing.

And I don't think, if you….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: But that's nothing the provincial government can do. That's federal law, so we are bound by whatever laws.

I'm not sure what the argument is from the member. If the member is saying that today 41 percent of the people that are gambling on line are problem gamblers and they're gambling on an illegal site where there's no opportunity for them to get an education or to understand how they can deal with the problem if they're a problem gambler or how they could actually have their identity protected or how the counselling programs are not offered to them unless they phone the 1-800 line through the provincial government — because that line is out there for everybody. That, versus saying that we as a jurisdiction have the conduct and responsibility and management of gaming in British Columbia under the Criminal Code.

We have an on-line system today that allows you to play Keno or the poker game — which, the member is right, isn't a skill game, but then that's about my level of expertise anyways — or to buy the lottery tickets. They're customers, and they register, and we have their information.

If you look at it and say that the limit isn't the issue, it's just a matter of really…. I mean, the 41 percent of problem gamblers that the member is talking about who are gambling on line are all on sites where there are no limits, no protection — no nothing at all.

[1725]

Maybe in British Columbia for people who do want to do on-line gaming, we could be there for them in a number of ways: (a) we can protect their identity, (b) we can protect their finances, (c) we can actually identify issues in and around them, and (d) we can watch how a cash transaction takes place in such a way that we can put it into the overarching piece of what we would want to do to manage that.

In addition to that, we'd provide an environment that is, frankly, where the person that does this is…. At least the dollars are going back into health care and education and not sitting in the pocket of some organized crime agency or some other group somewhere else in the world. I think that's the struggle.

Just for clarification, for the member, to his last question. There are two processes here. One is the federal-provincial-territorial side, which is the regulatory, legal side of government: deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers of gaming who get together to identify issues in and around the legality of Internet gaming — what laws need to be developed in the country and that sort of thing.

Then you have the business side, where the providers, which in this case is the Atlantic Lottery Corporation or the B.C. Lottery Corporation, are in discussion for this side here with regards to what, if there are some legalities allowed, the business would look like for the protection of the citizen, which they have the responsibility for on the business side. That's the interprovincial lottery group.

As that's come through, it's been very clear that maybe some will not be ready by spring. But it's pretty clear to all other jurisdictions in Canada, in the early indications and discussions so far, that they want to move to a model like what we've identified here in B.C. for the entire country.
[ Page 1580 ]

It's because they feel that there should be a platform that is compatible, that there are disciplines that are compatible, that the protection of the consumer is compatible and that we do this within this country in such a way that it makes sense.

It's not that we, as a country, are going into the business outside our country. But the people in Canada who want to do this legally and want to do it on line would at least have a place where they can go to do it legally and be protected and, at the same time, have the programs in place to identify them and help them if we think they need help, whereas they're getting none of that today on line in the other 2,000 sites that exist out there.

S. Simpson: The gaming policy and enforcement branch has the responsible gambling strategy that it uses, and presumably, that's what supports, among other things, the dollars and resources that go into problem gambling.

Has the gaming enforcement branch looked at or done any analysis of the need for additional programs or supports that would be required with the expansion of Internet gambling, as is anticipated? I think that the government is looking to go up to making about $70 million, maybe in 2011 and 2012. I think that was the number.

Has the enforcement branch looked at programs that would be specifically targeted to supporting problem gambling among Internet gamblers as those numbers of people increase?

I would note for the minister it's not that I think that 41 percent of…. I don't think that's what the report said. So 41 percent of people who gamble on line aren't necessarily problem gamblers. They spend 41 percent of the money. I don't imagine the percentages are that high, but they spend most of the dough.

That's the concern — that these are people, probably a much smaller number percentage-wise, who put way too much money in, in terms of their own capacity. We want to be careful about telling people what to do with their money, but if you're not telling your wife or husband as you're do this too, you're creating another problem.

[1730]

My question, again, getting back to that, is…. I know that the B.C. responsible gambling strategy is in place. What work is being done to create aspects of that or particular initiatives under that strategy to deal with the Internet?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're dealing with them today. People are coming to our 1-800 line today. There are people coming to our 1-800 line and getting services and counselling from us whose problem is on line, not in a casino or not in a gaming centre. Our services are open to all of them now.

The difference is, if you went to our site today, where we aren't actually into the interactive gaming piece yet…. But if you look on site you'll find: "Know your limit; play within it." The 1-800 line will pop up. There will be little ads that will tell you that if you have a problem, this is where you can go, and this is who you call.

You have a discipline around…. You set the limit, so if you decide that you are going to spend $500 a week, because that's what you're prepared to spend, you have your account. You can put your $500 in there. If it goes up, and you're at $800 because you had a win or whatever, you can access that. You can add money to it at the base of your discipline that you've put in place.

On line today none of that discipline exists, nor does any of the personal protection exist. Your question is: what are you going to do about the increased number of problem gamblers from on line?

I would submit to you that, conceivably, if you had someone that was on the edge of having a problem gambling and went to our discipline site with the education and the counselling in their face, saying, "Here's your opportunity," that those people would be in the group, the 60 percent of people who said they stopped gambling altogether or the 35 percent of people who said they changed their spending habits after they got help — versus where they're at today: there is no help. There is no discipline.

There is no system other than when they get into extreme trouble, because somebody could care less about their credit card, care less about their credit rating, care less about where they live from, care less about whether they steal their personal identity. Then when they've done that to these folks over here, they come over to us for counselling.

I would submit that to say the sky is going to fall because we're going to actually put them into a more controlled environment, meaning that the assistance we're giving is going to go up…. It may actually go down because those customers come to us today. Those folks come to us because they have scammed in an illegal gaming environment and have an addiction problem and a financial problem in an environment where no government took any responsibility to having something in place where they could have some discipline.

That's where the tough decision comes. That's why we made the decision that we would build an environment for those folks that choose to game on line, because they're going to game on line.

If they choose at least to come to the site where we will tell them, "Your identity is protected. Your credit card is protected. Your personal information is protected, and there are services for you…." If they choose to do that versus going on some site run by, for the lack of a better description, some organized crime group that wants to fund money into some other drug operation that's going to just destroy more lives…. I'd rather they actually made the choice to come to the legal site if they're going to make the choice to gamble anyway.
[ Page 1581 ]

We know that we won't solve all of everybody's problems as a result of this, but at least we should have the legal discipline and controlled choice for those folks in our jurisdiction, because we have the responsibility for their conduct and management in our jurisdiction.

S. Simpson: I thought this might have something to do with the fact that the government projects to make an extra $50 million a year out of this, when we know that part of the objective in the service plan for the BCLC is to maximize the return within the mandate that it's given. This would obviously add to that return.

My question to the minister, then, is this, based on his last comments. Is the minister then saying that because this is a government site that's going to encourage people to come and play on line…?

[1735]

One thing that we know that the BCLC does very well is the promotion of its product. They do that very well. If they're going to do that and encourage people to come on line….

Because this is a government-run system, those people who are inclined to problem gambling will be better off and, as a consequence, we may not have to deal with any additional problem gambling in the province by having these increases from $120 to $10,000? We're not going to create any more problems by doing that, because all of these people are going to move from some other site to the government site to gamble now? We're going to be better off, and we're going to have less problems from that? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and answer the question. I'm not saying what the outcome will be one way or the other. What I'm saying is this. Let's go back to gambling — period — in B.C. You could choose to have modern facilities where people will go to a casino in British Columbia like the member described at the opening part of his comments today, where we have people that go to River Rock. There's entertainment. There are meals. There's opportunity. It's an adult activity.

People are making the entertainment choice to go to that particular facility versus drive down the I-5 to Skagit casino and drop their money in Washington State or go to some illegal gaming establishment and drop it in the hands of organized crime or whatever the case may be.

Yes, the B.C. Lottery Corporation's mandate is to make sure they do a good job of that — to promote its facilities and to make sure that the discipline is there within the casino — but if you walk into a casino today in British Columbia, the machine will have something on it that says: "Know your limit, play within it." It will have something that says: "Here's a 1-800 line." It'll have something….

There's a kiosk in every casino that is actually staffed by people to assist people who are having problems and floor staff who are trained to identify people that may have a pattern that says, "Maybe this person has a problem with gambling addictions or how they manage it," or whatever the case may be — knowing sometimes that it's a management problem for people to understand, to know, what their limit is and how they should deal with that.

Or you could say: "Let it be free, and let everybody go out there. No disciplines. Government has no discipline in it, so let's ignore it." Well, we don't do that in Canada, and we don't do that in British Columbia because we have the law, the Criminal Code, that says the conduct and management is with the provinces. We have a law in British Columbia called the Gaming Control Act. It sets down the standards of operation and the laws and regulations in and around gaming and those sorts of things.

As we do that, we come across changes in the business. The biggest change in the business — as the member has already articulated and, I think, articulated well — is that we have this piece of the business that's on a computer, on line and available to anybody, whether they're 19 years of age or 16 years of age or even 10 years of age, if they have a credit card.

People go on and gamble today with no discipline on some of these sites. Families have woken up and found themselves in debt with a credit card from one of their children because of the fact that some nefarious or irresponsible or illegal operation decides that they're going to ignore that discipline within the gaming environment just to make a buck. Those folks have problems and come to us for counselling, whether it be retreats, group counselling, family advice, family treatment. Those types of treatments are available for anyone, whether they've gone to a casino in B.C. or gone to an Internet gaming site.

I guess the piece where the rubber hits the road for us — and when I speak of us, I talk about the province; I mean, all of us on both sides of the House — is: do we sit back and say: "We should just allow that to continue and offer no legal alternative to it"?

[1740]

Or should we present a legal alternative to it — a legal alternative where you have to be registered to play, you have to have proven your residency requirements to be there, you have to have proven through a variety of default questions and information that you are of age to play and that you are now making an adult choice?

Do you also want to have a system that says that if you choose to say, "I'm going to have a $500-a-week limit or $1,000-a-week limit, and here's my MasterCard…."? Do you think they should have the right to think that that particular card's information is protected — protected from someone that wants to duplicate it and do credit
[ Page 1582 ]
card fraud around the world, someone who wants to share the list of information and spending habits? Do you want it protected from theft and want the information protected?

Do you want your own spending habits protected, so they're exclusive to you so that that information is not going out to somebody that can come in and buy a list, or do whatever? Do you want a system that says: "We recognize there will be some people that may come onto our site, and we want them to know that if they have a problem managing their finances with regards to on-line gaming, there is this phone number to call, and when you call this phone number, there is counselling available for you at no charge"?

Do you want them to be able to look at something every once in a while on line when they're playing, saying, "Are you overplaying? Know your limit, and play within it" — reminders to people to sort of default away or push their chair back from the table and say: "I'm not doing any more tonight"?

Or do you want them to be in a situation where it's all about, "We'll give you another prize if you spend another hundred bucks. You'll go into this raffle. You'll get this. You're going to get game-player points to do this," and not care about the outcome for the individual on line?

I know we can't stop all things that aren't working so well for society. We tried that with prohibition on alcohol. We know that we have to have certain disciplines around it for age and adult choice and those sorts of things. For those folks within our society that have a difficulty with it, we should be there to help, and that's why we have the counselling programs available for anyone on the 1-800 line.

So as we do all of that and we come across something that exists like exists today, I believe that you should step up to the plate and come up with a site that protects those things. Now, that doesn't mean that every client is automatically overnight going to decide to go to that site. But maybe we can actually get some management or control underneath this little piece.

That's the summary of this. I'm sure we may have to continue this part of our discussion tomorrow.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, I'm back in the days four years ago when we sat till six at night. That's good. So I am happy to continue this discussion, therefore. I was actually hoping we could finish today, so that's great.

So that's where I'm coming from and where we're coming from. I know it's counterintuitive on one piece to the fact that these sites exist and that there are problems with them. But I don't think that we should ignore that they exist and not do anything to try to have, at least in Canada, some management of this thing at some discipline level.

S. Simpson: I'm going to just have one or two more questions on this particular piece, and then I'm going to try to deal with one other piece related to this, and we might be done this tonight. That would be my preference as well.

The minister speaks about the protections that are in place, and I fully understand how the government protects against unscrupulous use of credit cards or personal information. I can understand how that all works, that the government is obviously going to do a better job of that. But the minister speaks about protecting from underage users and that.

The question I have is: what kinds of tools are available, or is it simply a matter of you asking me, when I log onto the site, a number of questions about whether I'm 19 years old or whatever those questions are, and if I answer yes to those questions, though I'm really 17, I get to play because I'm prepared to give you false information?

[1745]

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member's information, if you wanted to go on line tonight and register to play Play Now on our website, you wouldn't be playing tonight. You would be asked for a bunch of information, which includes information about yourself that only you would know — your driver's licence, some other credit information and what have you.

Before you're actually allowed, then, to be registered on this site, we do a third-party verification. We take Equifax, who go out and confirm this information about you — that you are who you say you are, you are where you live. All of those things are verified. At that point in time you are the only one that sets your limit that you would spend on a weekly basis. Nobody else can set it for you. Only you know that information, and our system knows that. That is password enabled.

So there's a process of password, back to us, who confirms the password and confirms back into the Equifax system. We don't just let you come on tonight and put a credit card on line and say: "I want to play." That will continue. That's the type of discipline going at that, whereas I would suspect that if you wanted to go play on some of the on-line sites, you could probably go on there this afternoon in 15 minutes, and they'd gladly take your credit card and let you play. They won't put the same type of rigour to that.

We actually have been very successful in our play…. We have not had a problem with people 17 years of age trying to defraud, or being able to defraud, the ability to register here because of the rigour that we put into it with the Equifax system and the third-party validation.
[ Page 1583 ]

S. Simpson: On this, and to close in a minute out of this Internet gaming discussion, because I do want to try to close off this piece of estimates today, what I hear the minister saying…. We've obviously had some disagreement, particularly as it relates to the Internet gaming and to the problem gaming. The minister is saying that he thinks that reducing the budget by 34 percent was okay, because that's in line with what got spent, regardless of the success of the programs.

I also heard the minister say that they have not done any independent assessment or analysis at this point. There may be internal assessment but no independent assessment of the success of those programs in dealing with these issues.

I also heard the minister say in regard to Internet gaming that while there clearly…. This is about capturing a piece of that business from those who, for lack of a better term, may be obviously much less scrupulous than the B.C. government, who are out there — the private sites that you can access from anywhere in the world on the computers — and that B.C. will have more rigour in terms of protecting people's information and that.

What I didn't hear the minister say, though, is that there are necessarily any dollars or additional resources for problem gambling and, in fact, that maybe because of the way this will be structured, problems will go down, not up. Time will tell on that. We'll see how that all works.

Where I want to go now, though, for the next few minutes relates to the issue of crime and gambling. Obviously, the minister and I have both made comments about Mr. Pinnock and his comments that were made and were referenced. We've exchanged some comments on this in the media and have some disagreement on this. We don't need to rehash all of that — about whether he was accurate or not.

I'd like, for me, to clarify how the decisions were made to reduce or to eliminate the team — the illegal gaming enforcement team, I believe it's called — and how the decisions were made to do that. I've heard the minister say that he made the decision that the team would not be supported, that that was his decision. I've heard that there's a consultative team or committee made up of, I believe, five members — three appointed by the government, two presumably by the RCMP or by law enforcement — who make those decisions or recommendations.

[1750]

So my question is: how does that decision get made? Is it a minister's decision to end that team and move onto the other programs or services that are available? Or is it a decision of that consultative team — where that decision was made?

Hon. R. Coleman: Probably I said that I'd take responsibility for the decision. I'm the minister responsible for this, so I take responsibility. There was a board that oversaw IIGET, which is the director of police services, two members from government, a member from the RCMP and a member from the B.C. chiefs of police.

In 2008 they met, and the discussion at that time was that they weren't satisfied with the outcomes or the success of this particular operation because it was having trouble staffing, getting a mandate, identifying where it was going. It had been put in place with a notion that an integrated team might be of value.

The decision was made to fund it for an additional year, which was until the end of March of 2009. The advice from the folks on that board, including the director of police services and others, was that this thing was not effective, that it wasn't working in what it should be and that we should no longer do it.

The reason is that we weren't getting the outcomes. Now, there may be some issues with personalities and what have you, with individuals who are with this team, but I can tell you that having watched it and observed it over the years, it didn't get to where it needed to get.

What I did see happening, though, was an exceptional amount of people being hired and brought into the enforcement branch of government — former RCMP officers who were now making a career choice to, frankly, learn about gaming and investigations and the integration back into organized crime so that they could work with the ISU and the other organizers at the gang task force, who cooperated and integrated and provided information and brought expertise to investigations that law enforcement was doing. They were actually a value-added to the whole package of how we fought organized crime, money laundering and that sort of thing.

When the recommendation was made to me, I said: "Fine. I agree with you. Let's focus on our guys being fully integrated with law enforcement to do what they're doing already and get better at it." So we have more people in that operation today — actually double the people in that operation today — than there were in the IIGET model. They are people that actually understand gaming and gaming investigations, who are now focusing on that relationship as it interrelates back into law enforcement.

Law enforcement…. My discussions with the ones that I discussed this with were that what we really need is to know that there's a resource of people that we can come…. When we come across, let's say, a Hell's Angels investigation, and there appears to have been some money laundering relative to gaming, we can call on that investigator to come in to be part of our investigation, who will understand that aspect of the business.

[1755]

The average rank-and-file member of a police force understands the basic laws with regards to gaming. They are our front line still, and they will always be. No matter what type of enforcement you are involved in, policing is the front line.
[ Page 1584 ]

The structure that we talk about…. What I get was that it never got to there. Whether it was anybody's or any individual's or any group's particular fault, it didn't get there. It didn't accomplish it. Many times it was transfer in, transfer out. We were sometimes at only 50 percent staffing. We actually resourced it with two people from government, in addition to the funding by government of the 12 officers that went in there.

It was one of those things that just, frankly, didn't work. If it doesn't work, you have to say to your law enforcement community, whose advice you take on this — senior people in policing who give you the advice: "Well, we're the board, we've looked at it, and this is our recommendation." You take the recommendation, and you move on.

The biggest piece of this for me was: "What do you guys need in law enforcement as a resource on investigations?" They said: "It's right there. You have these guys. They're phenomenally good at what they do. They know how to investigate this. They have their resources, and they understand all the connections in the business. You've got 20-some-odd of them working for you in your enforcement branch of government, and we're integrated with them. So that's where we should drive this model."

We agreed that we would try and drive that model and see if it works better than what we tried before.

S. Simpson: When the minister commented on this…. I'm kind of getting this secondhand, looking at media reports and that of the comments of the minister, so I'm always aware that I should ask about those things. What I also saw was that the police, law enforcement, offered no comment when the minister said that he accepted responsibility — or however the term is for making the decision that this team would end and that they would move to the model that the minister has talked about.

When the law enforcement, the RCMP in particular, were asked about this, they offered no comment on this. Could the minister tell me — and it's not uncommon for the RCMP to offer no comment on something — did he have the support of law enforcement and of the RCMP to bring that team to a close?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe not some of the people, the six or eight who were there at the time on the particular team, but certainly in the law enforcement community, I would have to say, yes, I did — from the management side, from the senior management side, and from the people that give us advice on the operation of police services in B.C. I would say yes.

S. Simpson: Then just to be clear on this. The RCMP detachment here, the folks at the senior levels in the RCMP, having responsibility for this team on the law enforcement side of things…. It was also their view that the work of this team could be done better in some other way or fashion and that it should end, it should be terminated, and those officers would all go back to whatever other activities they had. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess that's the best way of describing it. We have a board: a director of police services, responsible for police services for the province of B.C.; senior management of the RCMP; a member of the B.C. Chiefs of Police. That board recommended in 2008 that we give it one more year — they were concerned about its effectiveness — and that they would look at it again in a year and make a recommendation.

They felt that it wasn't achieving what they thought it could achieve and also identified that we had some pretty good people that could achieve a number of the goals within government in a relationship with law enforcement, because these guys are all former law enforcement officers. As we came through that, they made their recommendation in 2009, a year later, saying: "You should actually shut this down."

So do I, if I'm…? Assuming that the board is made up of senior management of the police, the RCMP, the B.C. Chiefs, the director of police services…. You're asking me whether law enforcement supports it. That was the makeup of the board.

That's how we do a number of boards, by the way, whether it's the board that might oversee an integrated homicide team or organization or whatever the case may be. They are the ones who actually give the advice with regards to these things.

[1800]

So the advice was there. We agreed, and we decided that the IIGET team wouldn't be funded in 2009-10 because we weren't going to continue it.

S. Simpson: I think I'm getting there. So maybe this is the question with regard to that. The team, or the board…. I believe that the minister said it's a board of five, including at least a couple of senior police officials, as well as government officials, in addition to the Chiefs of Police and RCMP, and then a number of government officials related to law enforcement, as well, in the ministry. Was there unanimity in that committee? Does the minister know? Were they unanimous in this view, or was there a split view?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's safe to say that it wasn't unanimous, because one of the members of the board is a member of IIGET. So there wasn't unanimity, but there was a decent majority on the board that followed through on the recommendation after they took the year to look at it. I wasn't at the meeting to decide who voted what way and all that sort of thing. I do know that the
[ Page 1585 ]
majority of the board made this recommendation to government, and we acted on the recommendation.

S. Simpson: Just a little bit around some of the substance of the issues that have been raised. The interesting thing here is that we know that Mr. Pinnock's responsibilities on that team were largely around illegal gaming, yet much of the comments related to what goes on in our established facilities, our legal facilities, our casinos and that, are related to money laundering or to loansharking or those kinds of issues.

Could the minister tell me: has he done any review, or does he intend to do any review of the activities that are going on? Considering that Mr. Pinnock was a pretty respected 29-year member of the force, the comments that he made were obviously very strong and very direct in terms of concerns that he had.

I know that the minister doesn't agree with Mr. Pinnock, and I accept that. But do those concerns raise any flags for the minister that he has asked for any further assessment or review of what, in fact, is going on in casinos to see whether some of the issues raised by Mr. Pinnock deserve further attention?

[1805]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think you have to be careful how you couch the comments in an interview with regards to the question that was phrased: "What do you do about illegal gaming activities in British Columbia?"

Then you answer it from the standpoint that you have a law enforcement community that does criminal investigations — will come across gaming issues as well as they'll come across illegal drug activity, organized crime and what have you — that are all engaged as part of the overall investigation of crime in British Columbia; over to an enforcement branch that has built the expertise to do certain types of investigations, etc.; to the relationship we have with FINTRAC on large cash transactions and tracking of funds in the casinos and in our operations; to the on-site security that you have, which is in the millions and millions of dollars with regards to watching for people that are cheating and monitoring all the things you do.

So if you said, "How much do you spend on enforcement and investigation and protection with regards to the security of the legal gaming enterprise in B.C.," it's a substantial multi-multi-multimillion dollars.

So that the member understands, this particular small operation, which was 12 people — not the thousands of officers that are engaged in investigations in B.C. or the serious crime units — was brought to the board, which is made up of senior people in management of the police force, the director of police services, members of government and a member of IIGET, a year before it was decided to shut this down.

They said: "Basically, we're not sure that you actually have a business plan here. We don't get what your goals are. You seem to be not exactly integrated the way an integrated team should work, or you're not providing the service that we think an integrated team should work, so we're going to give you an extension of a year. During that year we want you to come up with a comprehensive business plan on what you think IIGET should be doing, how that should be accomplished and what analysis you would do." They never, ever provided a business plan.

Then you come through that period of time. There's no business plan. They still haven't met the questions on the first one. Then, obviously, the next question is: how can you restructure this so that the integration and enforcement, if you decide to shut this down, works?

You look at what you have. You look at the teams that have had significant millions of dollars additionally invested in them that are now dealing with issues in and around organized crime — which, with organized crime, doesn't ever stop just at the wall of a gaming activity. They will have crime in gaming. They will have crime in prostitution. They will have crime in drugs. They will have crime in illegal liquor. They will have crime in a whole plethora of things that they drive as organized crime into a society.

So you say: "What's the best way on the integration side to manage this thing, to do it in such a way that it makes sense?" Whether you want to poke fingers in ten different directions or not, you give them an opportunity to perform. They don't perform. You give them an opportunity for a business plan. They don't provide it. You say: "Well, now we have this money. Should we invest it differently and not have this team because it's not reaching the effective level we want it to?" The answer in this case, which was a recommendation of the majority of the board, was: "Yes, let's shut this down." That's what we did.

We continue to have a very strong organization with regards to people who are trained in enforcement in B.C. We still have a continued good working relationship with the police forces in B.C. with regards to illegal gaming and legal gaming, and we'll continue that, because that practice was going to continue whichever.

What I get was that it initially was thought it was going to be that the organization would take something to a different level and never achieved level 1 instead of even level 5. This is the challenge that we faced with this particular decision.

I think the decision, based on that situation, was probably…. Well, I mean, you take the best advice you get at the time, you make the decision, and you move on to make sure that the efficacy is there.

We are constantly, just so the member knows, through intelligence not just in British Columbia but in any jurisdiction that deals with any form of gaming in North America and around the world, keeping our ear to the
[ Page 1586 ]
ground and involved in discussions. Our investigators are talking to people in other jurisdictions, because there's always one more new scheme in this type of an environment that our guys have to know about, advise our casino operators and their security teams, advise the police about, advise everybody.

That integration of information is the key to success. I believe that we have the team in place who are trained and understand that and have the connections to continue that integration.

[1810]

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

S. Simpson: Absolutely. I have one more question. Just before I ask the question, just for the purposes of staff for tomorrow, I would say that what we will be discussing, as I'd pointed out…. There are some grants discussions to be talked about tomorrow. I don't know what that requirement is around staffing, but I would want you to know that I fully expect there'll be discussions around grants and money so that whoever is appropriate…. In terms of gambling and problem gambling and all that, we'll be done that portion — for whoever doesn't have to worry about that anymore.

It brings me to the last question for the minister before we finish. My question that I asked…. I appreciated the comments of the minister. I understand that the minister was not satisfied with the work of that team and the work, and he laid out pretty much his issues there.

The point is this. Mr. Pinnock, a 29-year officer who clearly had enough confidence and support to be heading this team up and to be engaged in this, raised a series of concerns and issues related to the potential of gang activity and criminal activity within facilities. He raised a number of those issues.

So what I'm asking the minister is this. Does the minister dismiss the concerns of Mr. Pinnock entirely, or does he believe that there may be enough merit there from this experienced officer that he and his officials are looking into whether the concerns raised by Mr. Pinnock warrant further action?

Hon. R. Coleman: Look, I'm not going to get into the discussion into the expertise or the reputation of an individual member of policing in British Columbia. The member opposite should know that that's not the only person that would give us information with regards to what goes on in their facilities, and we are always alive to any issues with regards to that, whether they're made by this individual or anybody else, or any complaint or activity.

The mandate of our guys is to look into it, investigate and deal with it and change policy or direction or whatever, and go after those issues with regards to any activity in gaming. The member knows that whether it's gaming or liquor or any vice, there's always a certain element that's attracted. We're always aware of that, and anytime we can get information that helps us to do better, we will, because that's the only way you improve.

So thank you, Member, for this afternoon, and we'll get into the other stuff tomorrow. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:13 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175