Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 5, Number 22

Part 2

[ Page 4369 ]

The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of

Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and in this House, the estimates of the Ministry

of Employment and Investment.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT

(continued)

On vote 24: minister's office, $374,000 (continued).

P. Reitsma: I have a couple of questions as a result of a petition I'm going

to send to the minister. I inadvertently thought I could present a petition, which

I've learned cannot be done at committee stage, of course. I will be sending to the minister

a letter addressed to the minister from the undersigned 88 members and friends of

the congregation of St. Columba Presbyterian Church at 921 Wembley Parks in Parksville, in

the district of French Creek. They hereby petition you, sir, as the minister responsible

for gaming:

"To prohibit in British Columbia the establishment of for-profit casinos. We further petition that the installation and operation of all forms of video lottery terminals and slot machines be prohibited. It is our firm belief that any expansion of gaming beyond that currently operated by the Lottery Corporation of B.C. or charitable gaming licensed by the B.C. Gaming Commission would lead to further addiction to gaming, with the consequent erosion of normal family life, and result in additional social costs."

Again, that will be hand-delivered either later today or tomorrow.

My question to the hon. minister is: what measure of comfort from the minister can

I take back to members and friends of the congregation this weekend? Is the minister

willing to listen and to respond to the concerns, fears and feelings expressed by them, and is

the minister willing to address the concerns expressed?

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly respect that a diversity of opinion exists in

the province with respect to these issues. Certainly we are not trying to force this on

any community, and I welcome the member forwarding a petition to me.

P. Reitsma: For my information, once the petition has been dropped off,

what time element can we expect in terms of responding? Would the minister respond to

the letter sent, within, say, a week or two weeks?

Hon. D. Miller: We try to respond to any correspondence that comes to the ministry

as quickly as possible.

K. Krueger: Just before the dinner break the minister had given me an answer

to a question I put about the predicted creation of jobs in British Columbia as a result

of the gambling expansion. I was asking: once you subtract the number of existing jobs

that disappear according to the so-called black hole effect, which is documented in the

KPMG report . . . . I was asking how many net jobs would be created in

the minister's mind, and the minister answered that he believed there would be a net gain.

But I'd like him to try and quantify that. How many existing jobs will disappear and

be subtracted from the projected new jobs from the gambling expansion for what net gain?

[6:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I can't give a number to that, Madam Chair.

K. Krueger: Does the minister agree, though, that it is likely that existing jobs

in other areas will disappear as a result of gambling expansion?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

K. Krueger: How is it that this government believes that somehow in British Columbia

we'll magically have a different experience than other jurisdictions all around North

America who have experienced the black hole effect and have documented it to the extent

that even the minister's own consultants discuss it? Why is it that this government doesn't

expect increased problems with gambling addiction and problem gambling when every other

jurisdiction experiences that? What is it about British Columbia that could possibly lead

this government to believe that it can charge on into an area as controversial as this, and of which so many people are so fearful, without experiencing the

negative effects that other jurisdictions have experienced? Why doesn't the minister think

that there'll be a loss of any other jobs at all in other areas to the black hole effect

or this incremental process that his own consultant talks about?

Hon. D. Miller: Because it's a modest expansion, hon. Chair, and we'll have

to wait and see what proposals come in on the destination side.

K. Krueger: Let's focus on the so-called modest expansion, then. I'm looking

at the auditor general's recent report entitled "A Review of Government Revenue and Expenditure

Programs Relating to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Gaming," and on page 6 of that report

the auditor general records the net revenue that the province has enjoyed as result

of gambling activities. We'll work through them.

It shows that the B.C. Lottery Corporation's net revenue in 1992 was $219 million. By1993 it had gone up to $227 million, for an $8 million gain. By 1994 it had gone up to$234 million, for a further $7 million gain. In 1995 it went to $235 million, a $1

million gain. In 1996 it went to $244 million, which is a $9 million gain. And those figures,

the gain that I am talking about, are year over year.

In charitable gaming receipts the 1992 net revenue to this government was $11

million. In 1993 it was $12 million. To save a little time, I'll mention that there was a $1million gain each year from charitable gaming receipts. In 1994, $13 million; in 1995, $14million; and in 1996, $15 million. So we've been charting up, at $1 million per year,

a very gradually rising graph.

This minister has projected from this gambling expansion, which is in that area of

what we've called charitable gaming thus far, a $50 million increase for this fiscal year -- 50times the increases that we've seen in that area over the last five years -- and in

every year following that, a $270 million increase -- 270 times. Now, I'm not talking about 270year over year; I'm talking about 270 more than we would have experienced without

this gambling expansion. So it is a real stretch, and it's a wonder to me that the

minister doesn't choke on it every time he refers to that as a modest expansion; there's

nothing modest about it.

[ Page 4370 ]

The B.C. Racing Commission net revenue to the provincial government was $14 million in1992, $14 million again in 1993, $12 million in 1994, $16 million in 1995 and down to $15million in 1996. That industry is already experiencing some difficulties without

the ministry's gambling expansion.

Let's roll those figures up. In 1992, then, the total of the three is $244 million revenue

to the British Columbia government. In 1993 it was $253 million, which is a $9million gain; in 1994 it was $259 million, a $6 million gain; in 1995, $265 million, a $6million gain; in 1996, $274 million, a $9 million gain.

So it wasn't till last year that we got up to the level of income -- of revenue --

that this minister is predicting we will have the year after next from his expansion alone.

In other words, the combined activities to date of all these different types of gaming

in British Columbia only finally last year reached the level that the minister says is

going to be added to the province's revenues by his expansion alone next year.

The $274 million that the province enjoyed as revenue last year came at a price.

We already have, according to the minister's own sources -- the Angus Reid surveys that

his government commissioned in 1993 and 1996 -- close to a 4 percent level of problem

and pathological gambling in this province. There are lots of consequences to that.

There is no doubt that if people are spending their money gambling, they don't have

the money to spend on other things. They don't rent movies with it, don't go to the

theatre with it, don't go to restaurants with it, don't go to coffee shops with it. They don't

buy groceries with it, don't go to bakeries, don't take the kids out, don't go on

holidays. They don't have that money for any other activity -- and, of course, there are many

that we could list -- because they're spending that money on gambling. For every dollar

that they don't spend in the rest of the economy and do spend in gambling, there's a loss

to the rest of the economy.

I'd really like to see the minister stop using the term "modest" when he is talking

about an expansion that will add, in this area of gaming alone, so-called charitable gaming receipts of $270 million up until now -- a sum that the B.C.

Lottery Corporation with all its ticket sales, plus the B.C. Racing Commission with all of

its activities and the 6,000 to 8,000 jobs that the industry says it adds to the economy,

and the charitable gaming people with all their activities . . . . All of

those combined only in 1996 attained that level. So it isn't modest. There's nothing

modest about it at all. It's false to refer to it as a modest expansion.

It will affect jobs in the rest of the economy. It will affect people's lives in

a great many ways. Obviously the minister isn't going to give a different answer than

he just gave, but I submit to him that he's wrong.

Now I want to turn to the issue of gambling addiction and the effect on people's

lives. There are many different assessments of how much of casinos' revenues derive from

people who are problem and pathological gamblers, people who are psychologically sick, but

they range as high as 61 percent. So 61 percent of the revenue dollars are coming from

those people -- presently about 4 percent of the B.C. population. Does the minister have

any prediction or has he procured any professional opinion as to what percentage of his $270million per year from this gambling expansion will come from psychologically sick

people, from problem and pathological gamblers?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I did respond to a question about the future revenue potential

earlier this evening.

K. Krueger: Perhaps the minister didn't hear my question, because I was

asking him, of the revenue that he's projecting, how much he anticipates will come

from psychologically sick people. Rather than his overall figure, what percentage of that

is likely, in the minister's opinion, to come from problem gamblers and pathological gamblers?

Hon. D. Miller: Not being schooled in the profession, I don't know what psychologically

sick means.

K. Krueger: I suggest to the minister that he has an obligation to know

what psychologically sick means, what problem gambling means, what pathological gambling

means, what other jurisdictions' experience has been.

This is the minister who has stick-handled gambling expansion to the point that it

is today. This is the minister who announced, the very day that he got the ministry, that

he was in favour of Monaco-style casinos. This is the minister whose Premier said publicly

he had been injudicious in his remarks about gambling expansion. This is the minister

who thereafter went ahead and announced gambling expansion, apparently without a debate in

his caucus, apparently without a debate in his cabinet, certainly without a debate at

his party convention, where the matter was conveniently slid off the floor.

So this minister has shouldered a huge responsibility as he's gone along, pressing along

with this dangerous course that so many people in British Columbia have tried to warn

him about. I've certainly seen their faxes and their letters. The originals go to him; the copies come to me. They're very disturbing.

Perhaps I should go into some of the examples. Here's one; this is a particular family's

experience. "My name is Arthur Mennier, and I have a story about VLT machines . . . . " Again, the minister keeps indicating that he

doesn't have a whole lot of knowledge about these various issues, but I submit to him that

the VLTs are not tremendously dissimilar to . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order.

The Chair: Minister, on your point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: There are no VLTs in British Columbia, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I'm sure the member will recognize that, as

the minister has said.

K. Krueger: It's our opinion, Madam Chair, that that wasn't a point of order.

Certainly I hear what the minister is saying. He has repeatedly betrayed his ignorance of

various subjects in the whole matter of gambling expansion.

I submit to him that his slot machines are very similar to VLTs and that he will experience

similar effects in British Columbia to what this gentleman outlines. This gentleman

is a B.C. resident, a Kamloops resident. His father is a New Brunswick resident.

"I have a story about VLT machines and my father, Roger Mennier, that I would love to share with the NDP government and the people of British Columbia. I moved to British Columbia back in 1988 from New Brunswick. Before I moved, New Brunswick had VLT machines, but they were in pubs or clubs, and they were also illegal. I think they were a problem back then, but since the government in New Brunswick has made them legal, the problem has multiplied greatly. The reason is that only people who go to bars played the machines. Now that they're legal and easily accessible, everybody from old- to under-age is playing the government-approved cancer.

"A few years after I arrived in British Columbia, the government legalized VLT machines in New Brunswick. I did not hear much about them until my father started playing them. It started about five years ago. How I found out is that I would talk on the phone with my father. He'd tell me about playing the machines. He would never go into detail about it at first. From time to time, I would talk to other members of my family, and they would try to play down his addiction by telling me that he wasn't spending much money or that he played very little.

"February of 1993, I travelled back to New Brunswick for a three-week visit. All I had for cash was $125 when I got there; it was supposed to last the three weeks. Considering I was staying with family, it should have been enough. Well, the same day I arrived, I received a crash course on the day-to-day operations of VLT machines from my father. We went from store to store trying out our so-called luck. It started to feel great, and you know why? I was winning. Some kind of beginner's luck, I guess. At the end of the day I was ahead $100, but my father had lost $300.

"Unknown to me, which I learned during the next few days, my father was spending anywhere from $100 to $1,000 a day on the VLT machines. I also learned that from time to time he would stop playing, but it never did last. One month or maybe two months would pass, and he'd be right back at it.

"It's time I showed you how much money my father had. In savings, RRSPs, Canada savings bonds and insurance policy combined, he had $200,000; in a separate RRSP, $35,000; also he owned and loved 100 acres of wooded land since 1964, with lumber worth close to $40,000.

[7:00]

"Now back to my story. By the time I was told how much my father was losing, I had spent my $100 in winnings, plus $100 of my own money. The whole situation was making me feel pretty down. This was not good. I had $25 left to last two and a half weeks. The following week wasn't a good time at all. I learned what I had told you earlier about my father's expenditures; also, that a lot of people I knew were hooked on the VLT machines; also, about violence, theft and, yes, even divorce. It just turned my stomach to see and hear what was happening. I also started to feel an awful need to play those VLT machines, and everywhere I went, I could not get away from those machines.

"The hardest part of all was watching my father throw everything away. Funny thing is, he voted for the government that legalized those machines. This is how he was repaid: to legally blow his retirement in just a few short years. I decided to cut my vacation short by one and a half weeks. But before I did, I tried to convince my father to seek help at one of the government-approved VLT-funded organizations. It's sort of a contradiction, don't you think? Well, he refused to go. So I took it upon myself and called them for him. I gave them my father's name and phone number. They contacted him, and he went to a few meetings, and then stopped attending.

"Well, back in British Columbia, I tried to forget about the whole thing. Every time I talked to my father, he'd complain more and more about his addiction. It's the winter of 1995, and he's told me he logged his property and received approximately $40,000, but it was spent on the VLT machines. He also indicated that he had lost a large amount of his retirement, but he wouldn't give an amount.

"Now we're in the present. The date is February 14, 1997, at 12:00 midnight. And I just got off the phone with my father. It's 4:00 a.m. in New Brunswick. It wasn't a very nice talk we had; mind you, talking to him is enjoyable, but the topic is pretty well sickening. The reason he was up so late was that he had been drinking and was worried about how his life was turning out. He just can't seem to stop playing those VLT machines. He sounded very sad and frustrated. He also gave me an account of his finances.

Then: $200,000 in savings, RRSPs, insurance policies, Canada savings bonds; $35,000 in a separate RRSP; $40,000 and 100 acres of wooded land. At present: from a $200,000 balance to a $9,500 balance; he still has that $35,000 RRSP; the $40,000 that he received from the lumber on the 100 acres of wooded land is all gone. He still has the 100 acres of land, but for how long? One thing that really hurts is that he bought that land over 30 years ago and held onto it so maybe his grandchildren could enjoy it. You see what this kind of action will do? It tears people's hopes and dreams apart.

I do pray that everyone who reads this will support [the Liberal opposition] in trying to stop this disease from continuing."

[ Page 4371 ]

I seem to be unable to convince the minister that any of these statistics that we

read about are real or are statistics that he should extrapolate to a likelihood of the

British Columbia experience. But I wonder if an anecdote like that moves him at all. It's

a personal experience related by someone whose family is suffering. The literature I

read says it takes between six and eight years for a full-blown gambling addiction to

develop. The letter from Dr. Millar said that the prevalence rate in Alberta is 8.6 percent.

We know that our rate here in British Columbia is 4 percent.

The material that I receive, as I mentioned, says that up to 61 percent of the

income enjoyed by casinos is from people like that: people who are squandering their

retirement; people who are destroying their families; people who are wrecking their health and

the health of the people they love -- many of whom are abused. These problems --

pathological and problem gambling -- are very real. They're something the minister has an obligation

to know about. If people with those problems are providing 61 percent, or even 40 percent,

or whatever it is, of the casinos' revenues, then surely the government ought to

seriously question whether it wants to enjoy revenue from that kind of activity -- and from

that kind of grief being brought into people's lives.

So in his assignment to the Ministry for Children and Families to deal with the addiction

question in some way, what parameters has the minister set? What expectation will

he have of the entrepreneurs who own these destination resort casinos and the people who

own and operate the new charitable casinos, and the people who own and operate the existing

charitable casinos that just recently had a massive increase in their betting limits

and their projected revenues? What obligation will this minister and this government

put on those entrepreneurs to help pay for the problems of these desperate people?

Hon. D. Miller: The enhanced revenue derived from the very modest expansion

of gaming will allow a program with about a $2 million cost to be developed in British Columbia.

K. Krueger: As I understand it, that $2 million will come out of the government's

share of the gambling expansion revenue. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct.

K. Krueger: My second last question, then, which obviously wasn't clear to

the minister, is: what obligation will the other people have, who are partners in

this unfortunate enterprise? Is there any expectation that they will provide matching funds

for a program dealing with the problem of pathological gambling?

Hon. D. Miller: No, but we expect they will be responsible. One of the advantages

of the modest expansion that we're proposing is that they will be controlled-access. Through controlled access, there are ways in which people who

have those kinds of problems can be restricted. And the revenue that we derive from

the enhanced gaming will, for the very first time in this province, allow a program to

be developed.

[ Page 4372 ]

K. Krueger: The minister has said there will be an expectation that the operators

will be responsible, that they will find ways to intervene when they notice that someone

appears to be showing signs of a problem in pathological gambling. That's what I just

understood him to say. But in doing that, if 61 percent of their revenue is coming from

those very people, they will be working at cross-purposes to their profit motive. Wouldn't

the minister agree?

Hon. D. Miller: We assume that the operators would be responsible. And I'm

sure they would want to be.

K. Krueger: There's the word "assume" again. It's come up a number of times

in our discussions already. There are clearly a whole lot of assumptions foundational

to the ill-advised decision of this government to proceed with this massive gambling

expansion.

I'm going to read some quotes from a gentleman named Robert Goodman, writing in the

Free Press in New York in 1995. It's an

article entitled "The Luck Business."

Mr. Goodman says:

"Gambling doesn't create new wealth. It simply diverts or recycles dollars that families and individuals would have spent in the community on food, clothing, appliances and other staples of life. Local residents rather than tourists constitute the overwhelming majority of gamblers in these new casinos, shifting large amounts of discretionary spending from existing businesses to gambling. Gambling casinos are detrimental to the local economy. They divert consumer spending from restaurants, theatres, clothing and furniture stores, and other small businesses.

Traditional businesses are at a disadvantage when forced to compete against casinos. Four years after casinos opened in Atlantic City, about one-third of retail businesses closed."

Then a quote . . . . The minister has previously said that he doesn't regard

this writer as an authority. I'm not sure why he'd say that. He's a professor of economics

at the University of Illinois, writing in a 1995 study. His name is Earl Grinols.

"Gambling casinos are not an answer to unemployment. Although some jobs are created in these casinos, existing jobs are lost in the communities as a result of the related decline in local businesses. Riverboat casino gambling in Illinois produced little discernable impact on reducing unemployment. The net effect was that roughly one job was lost for each gambling job created."

The minister has talked about our mutual concern about poverty. His hypothesis

is clearly that there will be a positive effect working against poverty in this gambling expansion. But these people who've gone on down the gambling expansion road ahead

of British Columbia are saying otherwise: there's a negative effect. I think we ought

to learn from their experience, and it's not too late to do that. I think it's wrong that

our KPMG report blithely dismisses the economic impact as insignificant, because clearly

it has been significant elsewhere, and tremendous problems have resulted.

As to the question of the $2 million allocation and the assignment to the Ministry

for Children and Families, I've found that ministry tremendously cooperative with me in

many areas and on individual constituent files and so on. But I haven't found them at

all cooperative on my request to provide me with a briefing meeting regarding what

they've done so far with the minister's assignment to them.

I'm not really surprised, because just before the session started there were social workers

from my constituency who were protesting in front of the office of the Minister of Environment, the MLA for Kamloops. They said they were overworked, there were too

many cases on their plates, and they couldn't look after them all. They are fearful

because other social workers elsewhere were suspended when terrible things happened to

little children. That's the sort of thing that they expect will happen when they have more

cases than they can handle and the resources of the Ministry for Children and Families, according

to those workers, are stretched to the limit.

I was astonished that cabinet would agree to assign this responsibility to the

Ministry for Children and Families. If they don't have sufficient resources to look after

the children in their care, how can they possibly take on something as large and as

important as this?

I think probably the reason why they're not giving me a briefing meeting is that

they haven't got anything done, or haven't got much done, on this issue.

Again, that follows the sorry precedent of this government, which has repeatedly published

its intention to have a program to deal with these issues. In the report from Government

Services, of which I read parts of into the record a few hours ago, there was a projection

that they would spend -- this same group of people, the NDP cabinet; same people, different positions -- $1.6 million a year on their gambling addiction

program. Well, that's $4.8 million that they should have put toward the problem already and

haven't done. The minister has repeatedly said that this program will be a program for the

first time in British Columbia. Every other jurisdiction in Canada already has such a program.

I think it is to the shame of the New Democratic Party and this cabinet that British Columbia

doesn't have any such program and that these people are fending for themselves.

Whether it's slot machines or existing levels of gambling, the problems are already here. We know that. The other day in estimates, I referred to the Jiany family and

the horrible incident in Vancouver where the gambling-addict father reportedly set fire to

his house. His daughter received terrible injuries as a result. Her mother, his wife, was

also badly injured and terribly abused. I have received calls, like the one I got one day

from a woman in the interior whose husband had a gambling addiction. He was spending $500

a night just on break open tickets in the pub. This is blood money that the government

is talking about. This is money that has tremendous human consequences, and certainly

there's a huge obligation to be doing things right.

The Minister of Health committed to me last summer that programs would be brought

on for the assessment and treatment of gambling addicts. Now the Minister of Employment

and Investment is talking about how we're going to do it for the first time. Well, a year

has passed since then. How many more people have been hurt by this problem, and how many

have moved further down the road to full-fledged pathological gambling problems? I don't

think that $2 million is enough when we're talking about revenues of already $274 million a

yearend, with the minister's projection, another $270 million a year. That's over half

a billion dollars. Where did this $2 million number come from? How did we arrive at

that, especially if these same people thought that the right number was $1.6 million before

they doubled the revenue that they expect from gambling activity as a result of their expansion? How was the $2 million arrived at?

[7:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Initially it developed on a comparative per capita basis, and

then there was some added to that. I would remind the member that his comparison with

other provinces is completely inappropriate, in that British Columbia is not proposing to

do what other provinces have done -- that is, allow the proliferation of VLTs or

major casinos. It's not going to happen here in British Columbia. It's a completely

different situation.

[ Page 4373 ]

K. Krueger: We seem to have to just agree to disagree on how different

the situation is. My information is that the slot machines for which this government

has already gone to RFP are not a whole lot different from VLTs and that, actually, there's

an addiction issue there as well.

I just had this bizarre item from the news the other day concerning the Windsor example, which the minister has repeatedly raised as a success story. The item on the

news was that there's a problem in the Windsor casino: slot machine players are so committed

to their playing that they won't take a break to go to the bathroom and, as a result,

they urinate in cups at the machines. Workers have to come around and empty these cups,

and they have to wear protective clothing and take preventive measures because of all

the concerns about body fluids and so on.

Doesn't the minister think that if that happens in the casino in Windsor, which

he considers a success story, that will happen to people playing slot machines in

British Columbia as well?

J. Smallwood: I'd like to draw to the Chair's attention, and to the member across

the way, standing order 43. It deals with tedious and repetitious debate. Hon. Chair, I've been in the House for most of the day, on and off, and it seems to me that

the same line of questioning . . . . Indeed, some of the issues that have

already been dealt with this morning are being repeated.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I appreciate the intervention, and I recognize

that others have been feeling the same way, though they've maybe not said so much.

I would caution the hon. member that the arguments being used have been heard in

the House before, and I would encourage him to move on to a new line of discussion.

K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, I don't believe that anybody has ever talked in

this House before about people having to pee in paper cups in a casino because they don't

want to leave slot machines that they're playing. This government is introducing slot machinesto British Columbia for the first time, and we can anticipate effects on our health caresystem . . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, please take your seat. Some words you used in your lastcomments were not appropriate in this House. The Chair's position is that . . . . I'm cautioning about repetitious argument, and I would request that you take that underadvisement.

K. Krueger: Whatever word you're referring to, I withdraw. If I should have usedthe word "urinate . . . . "

The Chair: Hon. member, take your seat, please. The point I'm trying to make,and perhaps I'm not making it as concisely . . . . There are two issues: (1)tedious, repetitious argument; and then (2) beginning to argue with the Chair. Those arethe two particular points that I wish the hon. member would take under advisement.

K. Krueger: I have asked the minister -- and perhaps he'd like to respond --whether or not he anticipates that we may experience problems that extreme in the slotmachine installations and gambling expansion intentions for casinos in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Miller: No.

K. Krueger: The throne speech for this session included a statement that thegovernment intends to, I believe, bring on litigation against the tobacco industry for itsdangerous and addictive product. When we hear of examples as extreme as the one that Ijust quoted from the Windsor experience and realize that people get that desperatelyinvolved in an addiction, I think that we have to think about gambling venues as adangerous and addictive product as well.

I wonder if the minister has any legal opinionsabout the precedent that's been set by the government bringing on such an endeavour -- I'mtalking about the legal action against the tobacco industry -- when the government isgoing into a dangerous and addictive product itself. Have we had the benefit of any legalopinion in that area?

Hon. D. Miller: Sorry, what was the question?

A solution for the problem in Windsor -- which will never happen here -- might be toput the slot machines in the washroom.

K. Krueger: I don't think it's a laughing matter; it's a serious matter. But theminister has already said he doesn't think it'll happen here.

I was asking about the precedent that's been set by this government with regard toarguing, or intending to argue, in litigation against the tobacco industry that it owesthe health care system a debt in British Columbia because of its dangerous and addictiveproduct. I'm asking the minister if he has had the benefit of any legal advice as towhether he and this government will have to face the same sort of argument in a statementof claim from gambling addicts and their families as a result of gambling expansion.

Hon. D. Miller: No.

K. Krueger: According to the KPMG study, the province of Ontario is using 2percent of its gambling revenue for addiction assessment and treatment programs. If indeedwe are going to have $540 million a year in revenue as a result of the gambling expansionin British Columbia, plus the existing levels of gambling revenue, then if we follow theOntario example, we would be somewhere around $11 million per year in funding of programsfor assessment and treatment of gambling addicts. Does the minister have an open mind asto increasing the commitment to funding these programs in the short term or the long termand perhaps using a percentage of revenues?

Hon. D. Miller: The budgetary issues are the responsibility of the Ministry forChildren and Families. We will spend what we think is appropriate in terms of an effectiveprogram.

K. Krueger: Saskatchewan spends $1.48 per capita on similar programs, which isequivalent to about $6 million for British Columbia. Nova Scotia spends more -- $1.60 percapita. Alberta spends nearly $2 million -- a much smaller province than us.

[ Page 4374 ]

The KPMG appendix says: "Unfortunately, the impact that more liberalized gaminghas on the incidence of problem gamblers is not currently known. The few studies that haveattempted to make this assessment have proven inconclusive." My understanding is thatmost independent people who study the issue say that the problem increases with expansionand with an increased number of venues. The study goes on to say:

"Most provinces have been developing services and some have two to three years of experience with treatment services. Where available, treatment services in Canada are new and under development and, according to current research, reach only a small portion of probable pathological gamblers."

My experience -- I have talked to experts about this, including the one in Kamloopsthat I named, Mr. Greg Scriver -- is that there's a very limited prospect of success intreating the problem once it's developed. The KPMG people are saying the program will onlyreach a small portion of probable pathological gamblers. Experts who do this treatment aresaying there's often a very limited success ratio with the ones they do treat.

I have given to this government a proposal from the University of British Columbiaconcerning a centre for addiction studies, which would be of great benefit to the provincenot only in the area of gambling addiction but in other addictions as well. Business casesincluded, I personally presented this to the ministerial aid for the Minister of Health,and I was advised by the Minister of Health that she had passed it on to the Minister ofEmployment and Investment. I would like to know his views on the proposed centre foraddiction studies at UBC.

J. Smallwood: At the risk of being repetitious myself, the question with respectto the treatment programs was asked this morning. This morning the minister indicated thatthat program was the responsibility of another ministry and not relevant to theseestimates. The hon. member persists. He has now three times asked questions with respectto programs that are not in the purview of this particular ministry. Again, I would remindthe member that the questions should be relevant to the minister's estimates, and theyshould not be repetitious.

K. Krueger: The minister had some visitors moments ago and may not have heardthe last part of my question. For the benefit of the member who just spoke, the ministerhimself is making decisions on a daily or weekly basis. A lot is evolving in this wholearea. The minister and I have been having a fairly productive discourse. I appreciate hercomments, but I don't think that there's anything repetitious about asking this ministerhis views on the proposed centre for addiction studies at UBC.

This is the minister that all the other ministers refer me to, and I expect that maywell happen with the Minister for Children and Families, who has been unable to producepeople to give me a briefing. I'm speaking in estimates today with the minister who hashis hands on the purse strings, who has made the decision to proceed with this expansion,who has been responsible for the revenue projections and who certainly has it in his powerto deal with a proposal such as the one that I'm talking about from UBC. I hope he isinterested, because there is a lot here of value.

So I am respectfully asking thisminister's point of view. For starters, I hope he's had an opportunity to read thebusiness case and the proposal for a centre for addiction studies at UBC. Perhaps we couldstart with that: has the minister been able to do that?

Hon. D. Miller: My own broad view, which is in no way connected to theresponsibilities of my ministry at all, is that if there are surplus moneys available fordedication to post-secondary institutions, they ought to go into programs to providepeople skills to find work in our economy.

K. Krueger: The UBC proposal attempts to set up a process whereby people can beprovided with the skills to cope with life when they've developed problems that very muchinterfere with their ability to cope with the aspects of very troubled lives that areblemished by addiction. Certainly we have experts in place at UBC and programs ofinstruction . . . .

The Chair: I do believe that you have covered this topic before, so I suggestyou move on to another topic.

[7:30]

K. Krueger: The KPMG study, on page 23, indicates that there is difficulty inforecasting problem gambling trends on the basis of the brief Canadian experience. Havingheard the answers that I've heard from the minister so far in these estimates, I think Ineed to find out whether he personally has had the opportunity to review the literaturefrom other North American jurisdictions about their much longer experience with regard togambling addiction.

Hon. D. Miller: No.

K. Krueger: I sense I'm trying the patience of the minister and the House, or atleast the Chair and some of the members opposite. I'm not quite sure why I'm running upagainst this brick wall on an issue that I think is of concern to most members opposite,perhaps to every MLA in this House.

I would like to feel some assurance that if theMinistry for Children and Families has difficulty in springing free the human resources tobring this program on, there is an escape valve for them -- a pressure release valve --whereby perhaps the Minister of Employment and Investment could second some personnel ormake the necessary efforts within cabinet to find another minister that could do so tobring on these programs. Is that a possibility?

Hon. D. Miller: It's clear from the debate that we've had thus far on thistopic, both yesterday and today, that the member for Kamloops - North Thompson hasdemonstrated, I think, a very strong and genuine concern for people who may have problemswith gambling addiction. It goes without saying, and I said very early in this debate,that I certainly respect that. I do respect that, as I respect opinions that may differfrom my own that are genuine regarding the issues that are raised by gaming -- the moralviews, which, again, I consider to be important in our society. In no way do I wish todenigrate those views.

I do think, hon. Chair, with all due respect, that he has demonstrated his point. Hehas made his point, and I think he's made it effectively. It's clear that he's done agreat deal of homework in terms of canvassing the literature, in terms of looking at theindividual correspondence that comes in to him. I applaud the member for the kind ofcommitment he has shown. Believe me, sincerely -- no disrespect at all -- we have afundamental difference; it's clear.

[ Page 4375 ]

My view and the government's view is that we can reasonably have a modest expansion ofgaming opportunities in our province -- one that's regulated well, one that prohibitsthose under 19 from playing, one that provides benefits and opportunities for new jobs,particularly in the destination tourism business that might benefit some of our smallercommunities around the province. We can check the flow of revenue loss that's going acrossthe border. We can retain that revenue for useful, good purposes here in our province. Thefact that we have a difference of opinion, in itself, is not bad.

It doesn't mean thatthere is any sort of absolute right or wrong when it comes to debating these kinds ofquestions.

I repeat that the government did what I consider to be a very thorough andcomprehensive analysis of the current literature about the current circumstances in otherprovinces; it consulted widely with social agencies, municipal agencies, police, etc.We're prepared to move ahead for the first time in our province to develop a program.There are some $2 million to try to deal with people with those kinds of problems.

Therefore, in discussing these issues, we have, in my view, gone around and around andaround. And really, all we've established is that there's a difference of opinion.Sometimes that's the conclusion you come to. So, with all due respect to the member, wehave been very lax in terms of the latitude of the debate. And I've been quite happy totry to do that -- occasionally, less than happy. But I think there comes a point when, inthe opinion of the chamber, we seem to have exhausted the debate. As I say, I respect themember for the work that he's done. We do have some differences.

We have made somedecisions on this side of the House. We are moving forward. I know the member will bevigorous in watching what we do. But I think we have virtually exhausted the possibilityfor debate on this subject, and we are seriously offending the rules with respect to beingin order. So I don't know. I'm happy to answer specific questions relative to this, butthis sort of generalization that we're into now, I think, is testing the patience of theentire House.

K. Krueger: I well remember the reputation of this minister when he was inopposition and his ability to persist on an issue from day to dreary day, from week toweary week, if need be, if it was an important issue. I believe I've learned good thingsby his example and will continue to learn from the things that he does that I regard aspositive.

Hon. D. Miller: You've got to know when to fold them.

K. Krueger: He says I've got to know when to fold them. I get input from thepeople who feel that they haven't been listened to on this issue -- a lot of them and alot of input. Once again, the minister has been very upfront about his purpose incommissioning the Peter Clark study. It wasn't a public consultation process. Thisminister never did a public consultation process. It was done previously, with a differentresult.

This minister made a decision. There are people all around this great province. The 75of us in this chamber represent four million people, of course. There are people allaround this province who don't feel they were heard on this issue. Gambling addiction ispart of the issue, but there are a whole lot of other parts, too. There are voters andpeople who are too young to vote all over British Columbia who are confounded by thequestion of why a government would press on in a direction that is so potentiallydestructive to them.

And why a minister would make this decision, contrary to the decisionmade by previous ministers in the same portfolio, when there is so much to indicate atremendous downside . . . .

The state of Minnesota, for example, is not a whole lot different in some ways -- as tothe size of population and socioeconomic considerations -- from British Columbia. This iswhat they had to say, what their media had to say, after six years' experience with thetype of gambling expansion that this minister has launched:

"In less than a decade, legalized gambling in Minnesota has created a broad new class of addicts, victims and criminals, whose activities are devastating families and costing taxpayers and business millions of dollars. Many are people who have never previously broken the law, but who turn to robbery, forgery and embezzlement to support their habits. Thousands have ruined themselves financially, and a handful have killed themselves. Thousands more will live for years on the edge of bankruptcy, sometimes working two or three jobs to pay off high-interest credit card debt.

They are mostly middle-class people, whose appetite for wagering grew from the office football pool or church bingo to pull-tabs, race tracks, lotteries and casinos, when state and federal government began legalizing them in the mid-1980s."

There are 56 pages to this study. I don't want to tie up too much of the House's time,but it wraps it up. It's the Minneapolis Star Tribune I'm quoting from. Itsconcluding words are:

" . . . as the Star Tribune articles have documented, gambling's most significant economic impact lies in ruined lives, families and businesses; in bankruptcies and bad loans; in the suicides, embezzlements and other crimes committed to feed or cover up gambling habits; and in the increasing costs to taxpayers of investigating, prosecuting and punishing those crimes.

"All of this was predicted before Minnesota's gambling craze took hold -- but the warnings were dismissed as moralistic rantings of religious zealots out to spoil everyone else's fun. The price of Minnesota's love affair with gambling is turning out to be every bit as high as opponents had said it would be -- not only for those who get caught directly in its web but for everyone else as well."

And in between these two quotes are 56 pages about some of Minnesota's 150,000 problemand pathologically addicted gamblers. They are true stories about the pain and anguish oftheir families; the cost to their communities; their crimes, bankruptcies and debt; theirattempts to stop gambling, get help, get treatment; their shame, hopelessness and suicide.

Reading from the October 4, 1994, news release of this NDP government, that's headlined"New Programs for Problem Gamblers":

"Studies indicate that the number of British Columbians who are currently problem gamblers is in the mid-range of Canadian provinces. By allowing only moderate expansion" -- there's that word again -- "and restricting new gaming to adult-only premises, British Columbia is seeking to minimize the incidence of problem gambling. In addition, action will be taken to address problem gambling through a comprehensive prevention and treatment program."

So for the time being, I'll leave the issue of problem and pathological gambling. Iappreciate what the minister said. I'm really concerned that he has indicated some doubtas to the legitimacy of all these concerns. Because if he didn't have so much on hisplate, if he were able to concentrate full-time on reading about the experiences elsewherein North America, I'm convinced that he'd be even more upset about the prospect ofgambling expansion than he was ten years ago when he spoke the words into the record thatI read at the beginning of this part of his estimates debate.

[ Page 4376 ]

I want to look at the issue of crime and the potential for crime in British Columbia asthe result of gambling expansion. The recent round of applications for casino managementlicences included, I think, 11 or 12 applications that were rejected for one reason oranother. Were any of those applications rejected because of the involvement of organizedcrime?

Hon. D. Miller: That was, I believe, the Ministry of Attorney General.

K. Krueger: Once again, when I spoke with the Attorney General, his generalresponse was that this is the man I should talk to: the Minister of Employment andInvestment.

I'm going to come back and talk to the Minister of Employment and Investment some moreabout these issues, and probably repeat that question -- without wanting to offend. ButI'm going to give him a little break from me and yield the floor to my colleague fromVancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: In the year that I have served in this House, there are three issuesthat have really dominated the kind of mail and phone calls that I get in fromconstituents in my constituency office. The three issues are: no-fault insurance,education cuts and gambling.

[7:45]

I find that in dealing with people on no-fault insurance, they're coming from a veryinformed position. They've obviously got personal knowledge of incidents or potentialincidents or concerns. That's one whole issue.

The other issue is that of spending cuts in education. I find that there are parentswho are enormously frustrated with that. I get original letters -- very thoughtful letters-- from parents who are fearful about what's happening to their children.

But the letters that are probably the most passionate, that talk about their personalknowledge of personal tragedy, are the letters I get involving gambling and the expansionof casinos. They are often letters that are written in a shaky hand on a hasty note thathas obviously been in a drawer for five years. I get phone calls from individuals, myconstituents, who are very concerned about the direction that this government is going in.I want to give voice to those concerns. I want to try to relay some of the frustrationsthat my constituents have with the direction that this is going in.

I have had lettersthat have been sent to me by individuals whose personal family members have wound up withvery serious debts.

When we talk about treatment of gambling addicts -- as we were discussing earlier --the treatments that happen around the world are there to pick up the pieces. The programsthat are there are not to solve the problems but to pick up the pieces. The real tragediesthat I have had relayed to me involve people who eventually do get into gambling addictionprograms, but it's only after it's too late. It's only after they have lost enormousamounts of money. It's not just the individual, of course, who's affected: it's thefamily; it's the children. These are true, profound tragedies.

I was very concerned when I heard the minister talk about $2 million going to thetreatment of gambling addicts, and it's something that I want to come back to. I just wantto, for a moment, visit the problem as I know it and as it has been relayed to me by myconstituents.

I understand that in Vancouver alone there are something like 18,000 pathologicalgamblers, and even that number is out of date today. Provincewide they talk about a numberin the thirty thousands. Problem gamblers: over 100,000. I'm sure that other statisticswhich have been used in this House, perhaps by my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson,may be different, but I know that this is an area in which the studies have obviously comeup with different numbers, depending on how the studies were done. The fact of the matteris that regardless of which of these studies you look at, we wind up with frighteningnumbers when we're talking about pathological and problem gamblers.

If we look at the numbers with those types of problems across Canada, province byprovince, we find that in British Columbia we have fewer pathological gamblers than inother provinces. The fact of the matter is that we don't have the gambling opportunitybeing thrust in the face of British Columbians, as is happening in other provinces. Thereis a real fear that the potential for a much greater problem in British Columbia is there,that British Columbia is not any exception.

In fact, there are those who believe thatBritish Columbia, faced with the same kind of gambling opportunities as other provinces,will have a higher rate than other provinces for various demographic reasons, which wedon't need to go into.

They also talk about the cost of a pathological gambler to society being about $40,000.Again, that number may be out of date at this point. If you take that in terms of lostwages and costs associated with health and family breakup and police problems, in thelower mainland alone you're looking at the cost of pathological gamblers being in theneighbourhood of $1 billion.

The other thing that's quite distressing in these studies done in the lower mainland isthat they find pathological gamblers are almost twice as likely to be high schooldropouts, and they're three times as likely to be unemployed. So when we talk about theproblem that exists, we're talking about those people who are most vulnerable in oursociety. As government we have an obligation to be concerned and to prevent the problemsfrom happening before they arrive. As I mentioned, if you look at that number in just thelower mainland alone, it's a staggering number. Provincewide, of course, the problem ismuch greater.

I also wanted to talk about advertising, because I know it's a subject that has not yetcome up at this stage in the debate. If we look at lottery advertising across Canada .. . . Advertising is used to create a market. There is a real concern about theadvertising that may be used by casinos and casino operators to promote their facilitiesto patrons. This is a problem that has been brought up many times, and I would like tocome back to that with some specific questions for the minister.

The other thing we have to be cognizant of is that as gambling opportunities haveincreased in other jurisdictions, the amount of money spent by individuals increasesexponentially. For example, around the start of this decade the average Albertan wasspending about $283 a year on lotteries and gaming. By 1993 that had grown to $1,170, andby '94-95 that had reached over $1,400 per individual. That's a staggering number, becauseyou realize this isn't each person in Alberta spending that kind of money. In fact, you'retalking about a small percentage of the population that is spending the enormous share ofthat money.

We're talking about a few individuals who are spending far beyond their meansto take care of their gambling problems, and that's something that we just don't want tosee happen in British Columbia.

There are a couple of anecdotes that were given to me from an article, passed on to meby a constituent, talking about a couple in Halifax who are in their sixties, bothretired. They went into the new casino in Halifax for a free breakfast offer. While theywere there, the casino gave them some free chips to start them on the VLTs -- I also wantto come back to the difference between VLTs and slot machines, because that's afundamental issue that we have to address that I don't believe has been addressed in thisdebate yet.

Within three months, apparently, this couple had flushed their entireretirement savings, a total of $65,000, into these machines. Now they are trying to payoff their debts, and they're worried about having enough money for food.

[ Page 4377 ]

As this points out, gambling problems are devastating for elderly people, but the otherthing is that we find they are also very devastating for young Canadians. They say that upto 14 percent of Canadian adolescents are problem gamblers or have the potential to beproblem gamblers. There's a story that's related in this

article about a 20-year-olduniversity student who went to this professional for help last spring. He began betting onsports results when he was 16. He graduated to betting on bookmakers, and over a two-yearperiod he lost $20,000. That was his education fund; his student loans were gone. He hadused his parents' credit cards until he was caught at that. He's in treatment for sixmonths, and he's working hard at making restitution to his parents. This is a classicexample of: yes, we set up programs for addicted gamblers, but it's only after they havetotally destroyed their lives, their families' lives and others.

This is something we haveto approach with a great deal of concern, and it's that concern that I want to pass on tothe minister on behalf of my constituents.

I want to deal just briefly with a couple of the myths that exist. One argument I haveheard is that legalized gambling is necessary in order to allow us to get rid of illegalmachines. I want to refer to some quotes by Robert Lenny of the Peel police department. Hebelieves that legalized gambling will have little effect on existing illegal gambling. Heargues that legal gambling will in fact lead to an increase, not a decrease, in illegalgambling. Because one of the things they have noticed in that jurisdiction is that newgamblers can be recruited. They come in through legal machines and then are drawn intoillegal operations. Illegal operations can often flourish under those situations.

I also know that the issue of jobs came up in the discussions I was following carefullyearlier -- that this is an opportunity to create jobs. I think the minister has used thenumber of 5,800 new jobs in British Columbia as a result of expanded casino operations. Ialso know that I've been approached by organizations such as the horse racing association,which argue that the potential they see is a direct loss in jobs in their industry ascasino gaming expands; that this is to a large extent a zero-sum game; that it's not thecreation of new jobs in our society, but that in fact there are jobs which currently existin other organizations that are simply being transferred to casino operations.

I also want to come back to this issue of VLTs versus slot machines. The minister hasfrequently said that these are not VLTs, they are slot machines. Well, the constituentsthat I've talked to felt betrayed when the announcement came out that we weren't going toLas Vegas-style casinos but that in fact what we are going to do is greatly expand thecasino operations that we currently know. They felt that they were misled when they werepromised by this government in the election that there would not be Las Vegas-stylecasinos.

They feel that this government is splitting hairs when it comes to the definitionas to what a Las Vegas-style casino is. They felt there was a commitment in the wordsspoken by the Premier that there would not be expanded casinos in B.C. So you wind upsplitting hairs over the definition of a casino. They feel betrayed.

I want to address the issue of slot machines versus VLTs, because this is the one thatthey took greatest offence to: "We're not having VLTs. We've heard the public thatthere should not be VLTs, therefore we're not bringing them in; instead we're bringing inslot machines." I would like to ask the minister on behalf of those constituents whohave put this question to me -- and I couldn't answer it, so I will put this question tohim: have there been any studies done on the psychological addiction caused by VLTs asopposed to slot machines?

Are there any studies done that show that slot machines are anyless addictive than VLTs? Because in the sense of most of the constituents that approachedme . . . . In their opinion, they're the same thing. In fact, there arearguments that these machines are actually worse. So I would like to ask the minister:have there been studies done regarding the addictive factor of VLTs versus slot machines?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm unaware of any.

C. Hansen: Some of the organizations that have been involved in this field -- infact, organizations that are in the business of supplying entertainment equipment -- areof the opinion that slot machines are in fact worse.

I have never played a VLT, but I have watched it being played. It is a mechanical gamethat produces little coupons that come out: you put your money in, and you basically windup with a little printout that gives you your credits at the end of it. I must say, I haveactually pulled the handle on a slot machine. I think I spent about a half an hour doingthat one day. I must say, I didn't find it a particularly pleasurable experience, and it'snot one that I would go back for.

But I know that there are those who argue that theimpact of a slot machine -- the noise that it makes, the sound of coins falling into thebin where the coins are collected -- is in fact what triggers the addiction in apathological gambler. As I understand it, pathological gamblers really get an adrenalinrush from certain aspects of gaming, and one of the aspects of a slot machine that givesthem that adrenalin rush is the sound of a slot machine.

And they don't get that adrenalinrush from a VLT, although there are obviously other aspects of VLTs that do give problemgamblers a high, because they are seen as being extremely addictive.

[8:00]

I would therefore like to ask the minister on what basis they chose to introduce slotmachines instead of video lottery terminals? Is it the case that they were cheaper? Is itthe case that they were . . . ? He has already acknowledged that they have nobasis to argue that they are less addictive than VLTs -- and as we know, VLTs are calledthe crack cocaine of gambling. So if it's not a case of VLTs being less addictive; Iexpect it's not a case of them being cheaper.

I wonder if it is the case that the onlyreason they're bringing in slot machines is because they couldn't bring in VLTs, otherwiseit would be blatantly flying in the face of an election promise that was made. So myquestion to the minister is: why was the decision made that somehow slot machines wereokay while VLTs were not okay?

[ Page 4378 ]

Hon. D. Miller: The prevailing conventional wisdom is that there is asubstantive difference between the two, and based on that, we made a decision to allowslot machines.

C. Hansen: When you say there is a substantial difference . . . . Could the minister explain what that difference is? What is it that makes slot machinesacceptable where VLTs were not acceptable?

Hon. D. Miller: I attempted to do that quite early on in the estimates.

C. Hansen: I followed that debate very carefully while I was here in the chamberand also, with the benefit of the speaker, while I was in my office. I know there werediscussions about the difference between VLTs, and how slot machines could be converted ata very low price into VLTs. I know there were those kinds of discussions. But I did notrecall hearing any discussion about why the provincial government felt that slot machineswere somehow in the public interest while VLTs were not in the public interest. I'm quiteconfident that I'm not being repetitious here, hon. Chair.

So again, I ask the minister:when he talks about the differences between VLTs and slot machines that somehow make slotmachines acceptable, which were his words -- that there were differences . . . . Could he explain what the differences are that make them more acceptable in BritishColumbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I did attempt to earlier. My failure to convince is notsomething I can do anything about.

C. Hansen: I want to address one of the other myths that comes up from time totime about reasons that B.C. should expand casino gambling. One of the arguments that I'veheard the minister use is that this is a way we can keep money in British Columbia. Iwould like to ask the minister if there have been any studies done as to how much lessmoney will leave British Columbia for places like Nevada as a result of our expandedcasino policy.

Hon. D. Miller: We covered that quite extensively already.

C. Hansen: I don't believe we ever got into the area of trying to quantify whatthat would be. I know that the minister, even in his opening remarks in this debate, mademention of the fact that one of the reasons was to keep money in British Columbia thatwould otherwise go to Nevada. I would like to point out to the minister that in the UnitedStates over the last ten or 15 years there has been a significant, exponential increase inthe amount of money that was been wagered.

In fact, just to quantify that, between 1974 and 1992 the amount wagered on gambling inthe U.S. rose from $17.4 billion to a staggering $329 billion. That was an increase of1,900 percent in 18 years. Around the United States there has been a significant increasein the number of casinos. The number of states that have allowed casino gamblingthroughout the United States has increased considerably. The argument that has been used,time and time again, as to why states in the United States should allow the introductionof casino gambling is: to prevent the flow of money from those states to Nevada.

"Ifwe didn't want the citizens of that state to go to Nevada and spend all their money and wewanted them to spend it here at home, then we should introduce casino gambling in thisstate." The argument was used time and time again.

The net result is that those states have brought on additional casino gambling. Has itresulted in a decrease in the amount of gambling in Nevada? No, it's resulted in asignificant increase in the amount of money that has been wagered in Nevada. As theminister should know, there are studies that have been done which show that as gamblingincreases in British Columbia, it increases -- not decreases -- the amount of money thatwill go to the United States and to the other so-called gambling meccas.

As people have gambling in their home towns, as they have gambling or casinos that areeasily accessible, they have the opportunity to learn it, to develop that taste for it,which starts to trigger the problems that problem gamblers find. As my colleague fromKamloops-North Thompson mentioned earlier, the addicted gambler has about four years tobuild up that addiction, so it becomes truly a pathological problem.

Today when people have gambling opportunities in Nevada, where they can book theirholidays, they can save up for it, they can put money aside in their savings, they canbook an air flight or a bus trip, and they can go down to Nevada and spend a weekend or aweek playing the tables and plunking quarters or dollars into slot machines, the majorityof them obviously come home much poorer than when they went down there. But it's aholiday; it's a break. Some of them may come home with some big credit card bills as aresult of it, but it's not something that triggers the addict.

It's not something thattriggers the problem because they can leave it behind. They can leave it in Nevada whenthey come back to British Columbia. It's not something that has the opportunity to buildup, to feed into that four-year cycle of becoming a problem gambler.

I was quite shocked, as I know a lot of my constituents were, to read the comments madeby Peter Clark when he said that the social problems would be taken back home to theUnited States by those who would come to Canada to gamble. I was wondering if the ministerhas quantified to what extent we could expect Americans, residents of Washington Statecoming into British Columbia, to gamble in our newly expanded casino operations.

Hon. D. Miller: We've not done any work on that.

C. Hansen: Certainly I found those comments by Peter Clark as an acknowledgment,and I think many did find it as an acknowledgment, that in fact these social problems doexist, that these social problems are real. To say that it's Americans that are going tocome and gamble and take their social problems home with them is probably one of the mostna�ve comments that I have read during this whole discussion that has been taking placeover many years now -- going back to the Seaport Centre proposal in Vancouver when thisdebate really, truly got started.

I want to turn for a minute to the issue of advertising, which I commented on earlierbut that I do want to pursue in greater detail. One of the things I was asked at anall-candidates meeting, actually, during the election campaign last year was what Ithought about expanded gaming and the lotteries that were being run in British Columbia --the B.C. Lottery Corporation. I know we don't want to get into an extensive debate at thisstage about the B.C. Lottery Corporation, because that debate is obviously yet to come.But I have always felt that lotteries are a necessary evil in our society, if you want tosay that.

There are those who want to buy lottery tickets. Certainly as a child growing upin this province, I can remember relatives and neighbours of mine who were buying theirIrish Sweepstakes tickets. I know that it was a big deal in this province when somebodywon money in the Irish Sweepstakes. Certainly in the late sixties and early seventies,when governments in Canada started looking at bringing in legalized lotteries, they werebrought in to meet a demand that was there.

I think that as we saw lotteries grow and wesaw governments become addicted to the revenues from this form of gaming, we then got intonot meeting a demand but instead trying to create the demand.

[ Page 4379 ]

At this all-candidates meeting, I made a commitment to one of my constituents whoattended that I would speak out in this House against this style of advertising that theB.C. Lottery Corporation uses. That lottery advertising isn't there to make people awareof the opportunities that are there -- the fact that lottery tickets are available; it'sthere to create a demand. Government becomes the pusher; government becomes the one thatis feeding the problem.

I can remember when the B.C. Lottery Corporation first started selling the Provincialand other lottery products in this province. The ads were very much focused in on thecharitable uses of lottery tickets. I remember the ads that showed the community projectsthat were done with lottery revenue. They focused in on sporting activities like the B.C.Summer Games and B.C. Winter Games, which benefited from the lottery revenues that werethere. That was the type of advertising that was put forward. It was advertising that madepeople feel good. Even if you spent a dollar on a lottery ticket and you lost it, at leastyou felt it was going to a good cause.

But the advertising has taken a fundamental shift in this province. It is no longerthere to simply meet a demand. The advertising that is there today is driving the demand;it is trying to entice more British Columbians to spend more money on lottery tickets.It's enticing them to spend beyond their means. I think it is a result of the addictionthat government has today to gaming revenues.

The reason I raised that subject of the B.C. Lottery Corporation is because I thinkit's directly relevant to the expanded casino gambling that we are seeing today. I wouldlike to ask the minister if any consideration has been given to the advertising standardsthat must be followed by casinos operating in this province.

Hon. D. Miller: For casinos, they are in the casino operating standardsestablished by the commission.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could outline for us the parametersof those standards. What are the restrictions in terms of . . . ? Do we have,for example, advertising standards that are as restrictive as tobacco advertisingstandards? I was wondering if the minister could enlighten us.

[8:15]

Hon. D. Miller: I didn't know you could advertise tobacco.

C. Hansen: I think that probably makes the point better than I could make thepoint. My question to the minister is: what are the restrictions that are placed oncasinos in terms of the type of advertising that they can engage in?

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have any documentation here. Essentially, I gather, thedifference is that you can advertise in terms of enticing people out for a fun evening, orsomething like that, but you can't advertise big pots or the lure of money.

C. Hansen: I would like to ask the minister: has there been any review orconsultation on those advertising standards in terms of whether or not they are adequateor whether or not they should be changed? In particular, in terms of this review that'sbeen underway, is there any consideration to alter the advertising standards that exist?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm unaware of any of that work; it's set by the commission. Igather the advertising is fairly minimal and somewhat local.

C. Hansen: I want to follow up on the questions that were asked earlier today bymy colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson regarding the $2 million that would go forgambling addiction treatment. Does the minister have any estimate on what the cost wouldbe of treating one pathological gambler?

Hon. D. Miller: No. It's not in my ministry.

C. Hansen: It's certainly an issue that's germane to the expansion of casinogambling that is taking place. I think the minister on several occasions has explainedthat this is an issue that would be dealt with as casino gambling expands -- that therewould be treatment programs put in place. So I'm surprised that he doesn't have thatnumber, because it is something that is certainly germane to this discussion. I waswondering: does the minister know how that $2 million that has been committed for gamblingaddiction programs will be spent in this province?

Hon. D. Miller: We had a very, very extensive, completely out-of-orderdiscussion around a program that is not within the purview of my ministry.

C. Hansen: I think that it is very important that any ministry that proceedswith the expansion of a program, as is happening here, not look at the isolated concernsof one ministry. I think that it is obviously incumbent upon this minister, in heading upthis policy, to be steering the broad effects of this on all ministries. Certainly inother estimates debates, as we have raised these issues and asked questions about theimpact that the expanded casino gambling will have on various parts of our society, thoseministers have said that those are not questions for their ministry.

They have said thatif we want to talk about the effects of gambling on women in this province, if we want totalk about the effects of gambling on health care, if we want to talk about the impacts inother sectors . . . . What we have been told in other stages of theseestimates debates is that for anything to do with gambling we should be asking thisminister. So I am certainly surprised that the minister isn't playing that leadership goalwhen it comes to the interministerial issues that evolve from this gambling debate.

Certainly, if you take $2 million of gambling addiction funds and you divide that amongthe 30,000 gamblers in this province, it results in a very, very small amount of moneythat's available to deal with each of the problem gamblers in this province. So I wouldcertainly urge the minister to gain that kind of knowledge, because I think it is germane.I would like to ask the minister in that regard if there is such a thing as aninterministerial committee that deals with the concerns of expanded gambling.

Hon. D. Miller: Not a formal committee, but there is cross-ministry discussion.

M. Sihota: The other day I was listening to this debate on gaming, and I notedthat the member for Kamloops-North Thompson made comments about comments that I had madewith respect to gaming when I was in opposition. It is kind of interesting to be sittingin the House today, because you hear, at least in terms of the themes, the kinds ofconcerns that we were raising in opposition back then.

[ Page 4380 ]

I want to say that the concerns that are being raised by hon. members, in terms of theimpact of gaming upon society, are legitimate concerns. There are indeed experiences inother jurisdictions that one can learn from -- studies that have been done and work thathas been done -- that point to the potential implications of gaming. No government shouldbe oblivious to those types of concerns. I think it's fair to say, with the thought thathas gone into the policies that we have developed as a government, that we have reflectedupon the views that we took when we were in opposition.

We have reflected upon the workthat has been done. And I think it is fair to say that there has been a healthy debate. Iknow I've participated in it, because my feelings on this matter haven't changed much fromthe days that we were in opposition. I think it is fair to say that we've had a healthydebate within our caucus and within cabinet around these matters. It is that debate whichthen forms the instructions that go to staff, some of whom are in the House today, interms of the approach that government wants to take -- the tenor, tone, content.

You know, no one here is trying to create a scenario where the kinds of difficultiesthat have been experienced in other jurisdictions are replicated here. But we are entitledto -- and we should, as a society and as a province -- take a look at the various publicpolicy options that are available to us. The changes, incremental as they have been, thatthis government has brought forward have been quite moderate. I have to commend theminister -- maybe I should say this when he is in the House -- for taking into account thevarious opinions and attitudes that the different members in our caucus, and in theopposition, have.

I think it should be understood that we as a government listen. I think that'sreflected . . . . I heard the hon. member talk about education, no-fault andgaming in his opening comments, and as a government we try always to listen to thosereasonable arguments that are put out there. I think today's decision with regards tono-fault reflects that. That's probably all I'm going to say about no-fault.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Look, you guys, don't . . . . One of these times youshould understand that I'm making a serious speech, so you should control yourselves overthere. But if you don't, I can entertain you in other ways, as well. And similarly withregards to . . . .

But I honestly believe that when the member for Vancouver-Quilchena stood up, he triedto make these points not in a rhetorical way but in a thoughtful way. So I'm not going torespond to those three over there in the corner in a rhetorical way, except to say thatthe issues -- be it education cuts, as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena referred to aswell -- are issues also that . . . . We try to listen to where the public's atand, in the difficulty of dealing with complex public policy issues, try to take thoseinto account and accommodate them.

Similarly with respect to gaming. It's not as if correspondence flowed . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Gosh! I can't give a serious speech without getting these kinds ofnotes in here -- people suggesting that I'm speaking just because I have an urge orsomebody else has certain urges.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I've been looking forward to what I might say about this topic in theHouse, given what I've said in the past. Actually, it's well recorded in Hansard ,I'm sure. I'm surprised no one's thrown it back at me over the years.

But in all seriousness, you know, it's not as if the letters from people in BritishColumbia who are interested in this debate don't arrive at the desks of all of us on thisside of the House. It's not as if we don't take those into account. It's not as if we inour discussions amongst ourselves don't talk about things like addiction to gaming or theimpact of this if the pendulum swings in particular directions. It's not as if we don'ttalk to staff about them. It's not as if we don't ask for their opinions, their expertise,their guidance, their knowledge, their input. That's taken into account, as well.

I think that at times the debate in this House, often for political purposes, gets intorhetoric and hyperbole, and doesn't . . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: I know a little bit about that; I'll confess to that at 8:30 atnight. But I think there are also times when people have to legitimately sit back and askthemselves whether or not the changes in policy that the government has brought forwardare ones that warrant that type of rhetoric. Or are they changes in policy wheregovernment has demonstrated an attentiveness to the concerns that are being expressed?

If we were to move away from the rhetorical end of this chamber, I would make theargument in all candour that, given the full range of views that exists in our caucus, thechanges have been quite modest.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: "Modest" -- I know that's not a word familiar to the memberfrom North Vancouver. But they have been very, very modest changes. I think that, ifanything, members opposite should be recognizing that the government . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Yes, that's right. And recognize that these very modest changes are areflection of the reality of a government that listens, and then carefully, in a verycalculated and thoughtful way, makes what I think are, as I said at the outset, modestchanges. With that, I thank the members for their attention.

Some Hon. Members: More! More!

The Chair: Hon. members, I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

[8:30]

C. Hansen: Before the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin rose with that intervention, Ibelieve we were talking about addictions. But we certainly enjoyed the member'sintervention, which . . . . Anyways, I won't comment on that.

[ Page 4381 ]

I did want to come back to the issue that I was addressing just before that time, andthat was with regard to the issues that arise as a result of gambling expansion, thepublic policy issues that affect other ministries in the provincial government. Certainlywe've talked about health issues. The minister indicated that when it comes to things likethe gambling addiction programs, that's obviously an issue for the Ministry of Health.There are some very serious issues around law enforcement, criminal activity, that I knowmy colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson wants to deal with at great length. I may havethe opportunity to raise some of those issues myself.

But I think what this points to is the obvious need for coordination ofinterministerial programs to deal with problems that are going to arise as a result of theexpanded gaming. My question to the minister, which I did not get a direct answer to, waswhether or not there exists an interministerial committee to deal with these problems.

Hon. D. Miller: Indeed, I answered the question.

C. Hansen: I was listening very carefully at the time, and the minister did notgive an answer as to whether or not such a committee existed. I'm just wondering whetherit's yes or no. We've heard examples of . . . . Certainly the other day wewere talking about job strategy and an interministerial committee that supposedly existsfor the implementation of this B.C. jobs strategy.

Given the role that the minister has in implementing this policy in British Columbia, Iwould assume that this minister would play the lead role in coordinating that kind ofinterministerial work. So I'm wondering. Could the minister tell me: is this somethingthat is being done at the minister's level? Is it something that's being done at thedeputy minister level? Or is it something that's being done at other staff levels?

Hon. D. Miller: I really do think I said in response to the member's lastquestion -- previous to the last one -- that there was no formal committee but that thereis interministerial work. I'm sure I said that; I'm just repeating it.

C. Hansen: If the minister did say that, I must have misheard or misunderstood,because I was of the impression that I didn't get a clear answer on that. Could theminister explain what kind of interministerial coordination is taking place on theseissues?

Hon. D. Miller: In general it's between Children and Families, liquor licensing-- those kinds of discussions. In order to achieve a desired result, you don't always haveto form a committee. In fact, some might argue that committees aren't all that productive.I've heard that argument made in this House before, and actually I think I've heard itfrom the opposite side.

C. Hansen: Certainly I won't take issue with what the minister has said. It'sobviously not a case of how a process takes place. It's the fact that the job has to getdone. If the job gets done with officials talking to each other . . . .

I guess I'm surprised that this isn't done in a more coordinated way. It's apparentfrom the minister's comments that this is much more ad hoc and informal than I think thepublic would expect when it comes to this kind of interministerial coordination.

Could the minister tell me if there is any centralized resource base when it comes todata, for example? Is there a centralized library of data on gambling that can be sharedamong the various ministries that are obviously affected by this expansion?

Hon. D. Miller: There's an extensive bibliography in the appendix to the report.The member might want to refer to that.

C. Hansen: I'm very familiar with the bibliography. In fact, I've been throughseveral of those documents. But I guess my question is . . . . Bibliographiesare one thing, but I gather that there is not a centralized resource, because I think whatoften happens is that different ministries wind up with different sets of data thatthey're working from, which is obviously not going to produce good public policy.

I will leave that subject for a moment, but I would like to ask the minister about anissue that has been extremely topical in the city of Vancouver. That is the issue ofsmoking in public places -- specifically the issue of smoking in restaurants, which theminister is very familiar with, I'm sure. I am wondering if any consideration has beengiven to the effects of second-hand smoke on employees who work in casinos.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not aware of any work.

C. Hansen: As the minister is very much aware, there is a growing movementacross this province to restrict smoking in public places. The minister is only too awareof it, I'm sure. We've seen the outright ban on smoking in restaurants in Vancouver thathas been imposed by city bylaw, and we've seen that spread across the province. I amwondering what the minister's policy would be if a municipality passed a bylaw to prohibitsmoking in a casino.

Hon. D. Miller: It's the purview of municipal governments; it's got nothing todo with my ministry. Some might argue that prohibiting it in restaurants has driven peopleinto bars, but it's just a theory.

C. Hansen: Is there any consideration that . . . ? Would theminister ever use provincial powers to override municipal decisions when they come toissues around gaming?

I think there was a fairly clear, direct answer, and I'm surprised that the ministerisn't prepared to give an answer. My question is: is the minister prepared to useprovincial powers to override municipal bylaws as they affect gaming operations, casinos,etc.?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm at a loss to read the member's mind, hon. Chair. Perhaps hehas a specific question he might like to pose.

C. Hansen: I felt that that was a very specific question, and I think it'sdeserving of an answer. Certainly it has been argued that the provincial government hasthe power to override a municipal bylaw. In fact, that is an argument that has been inother areas of . . . . It's an argument that has certainly occurred in recentyears. If, for example, a municipality were to use zoning bylaws as a vehicle to restrictthe expansion of a casino operation, would the minister respect the power of themunicipality? Or would he try to use provincial powers to override such a bylaw?

[ Page 4382 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm not the Minister of Municipal Affairs, although I didhave the great delight of holding that portfolio for a brief time.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, actually, it was . . . . It achieved the desiredeffect, actually.

But again, I'm at a loss to try to decipher what the member is trying to get at.Perhaps, as I say, if he had a specific question, an example of what he's thinking about,I might try to hazard a guess, but . . . .

C. Hansen: I don't think I could get more specific than I was. The question thatI asked is: would the minister use provincial government powers to override municipalbylaws as they affect casinos? How can I make that question more specific? Do you want meto mention a specific casino in a specific municipality? You know, that certainly wouldnot make the question any more clear.

Okay, let me come back to the issue that I raised earlier about smoking. If a city wereto pass a bylaw to ban smoking in a casino, would the minister respect that bylaw? I'm nottalking from a personal point of view; I'm talking about whether or not he would use thepowers that he has and that the government has to try to override that kind of bylaw.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's pure speculation on my part, because my ministry hasabsolutely no ability in these issues. But my own view is absolutely not. We have not donethat in the city of Vancouver, which has banned smoking in restaurants. Why on earth wouldthe member think that we'd want to do it in any other establishment? Those are issuesbefore municipal governments.

C. Hansen: The reason that I raise this subject is that an official of hisministry had made a comment to a civic employee in one of the municipalities in thisprovince to the effect that this government would not allow a municipality to frustratethe implementation of this expanded gaming policy. It was of great concern that it was .. . . This comment was taken as somewhat of a veiled threat. I just wanted to makesure that the minister did not support this comment that was made by one of his officials.

Hon. D. Miller: We're circling around an issue that we canvassed extensively, adnauseam, just hours ago in this chamber, and that is the legal position of the LotteryCorporation versus an attempt made by the city of Vancouver, through a bylaw, to restrictthe Lottery Corporation from placing Club Keno machines in bars. The outcome of that isclear. The law prevailed and the law will prevail.

C. Hansen: I will leave this subject, because obviously the minister is notprepared to give answers in this area. But I say that there is a real concern that theprovincial government will use its power to override bylaws and the wishes ofmunicipalities, as we have seen happen in the past. I asked for a commitment from theminister that he would not use those powers to override municipal bylaws, and the ministerwould not give an answer. Unfortunately, we can only be left to surmise what may or maynot happen in that regard.

On that note, I'll let the minister respond to that, and then I will turn it over to mycolleague from Vancouver-Langara.

Hon. D. Miller: I highly recommend, for the member's edification, that he get Hansard from today and read it, and he will find the answers. Seek and ye shall find.

V. Anderson: I have listened with great interest throughout the day to thediscussion and . . . . I was going to say "debate," but it reallyisn't debate. It's a discussion back and forth, with one side trying to present a point ofview and the other side sometimes responding and responding in different ways, dependingon what part of the day you listened to.

My own position has always been that I'm not in favour of gambling and lotteries. Inever have been and probably never will be. So that is clear and upfront. The people whoelected me have always understood that. Some of them elected me with that agreement, andothers elected me in spite of that agreement. But they all know quite clearly where Istand and where I have stood for some time.

[8:45]

One of the things that I have been interested in as this topic has developed . . .. I have known quite clearly that there are some members on the government side whohave a position essentially the same as my own and have made it clear over a period oftime. I have also known people on our side of the House who probably haven't had aposition exactly as mine and have made that clear over a period of time.

However, I have watched the development of the process with interest, and as theresearch has been done and the items and information have come forward, I find that themembers on the government side of the House are moving to a more free and liberalinterpretation -- using small-l liberal in the sense of saying there's a whole variety ofoptions that you would choose.

The ones on this side are moving to a more set position andsaying that when you weigh the balance of probabilities, the good against the bad, thegood is certainly not prevailing and there would be far more harm caused to the people andthe families of this province by the extension of gambling than there would be by leavingit as it is or even cutting it back -- even as we've tried to do with traffic on thehighways at this particular point.

What we seem to have to do is give a certain amount of free rein to people in whetherthey drink and drive, for instance, saying that that's a freedom they have and it's theirown responsibility. But when suddenly that responsibility is taking the lives of otherpeople, when that responsibility is endangering the youth of our community, then theybegin to say: "Whoa, we've gone too far; let's back up."

It's interesting that even in that discussion, most of the discussion seems to be onthe basis of money rather than upon lives or health or protection. Even in announcing thenew traffic safety regulations today, the highest comment about those was how manymillions of dollars would be saved. Very little was being said about how many lives wouldbe saved, how many injuries would be prevented and how many families would continue to bewhole throughout some of their family life together. Much that we've been hearing todayfrom the government side of the House has been in dollars and cents.

What we've been hearing from this side of the House, in large part, has been about whateffect it has upon people, upon families, upon the society in which we live and ourrelationships with one another. I'm surprised about that, in a sense. As I've said oftenin this House, in the CCF tradition in Saskatchewan, out of which I came, it would havebeen the other way around. The CCF -- the forerunners of the NDP -- would have beentalking about people and families and making society a welcome and open place. They wouldbe putting the financial considerations second, if not much further down the line.

I've been surprised at the kind of interaction that's gone on today, and I just wantedto comment on some of those that I've been listening to. On one hand, the minister hassaid on quite a few occasions today that there will be freedom of communities to decideabout whether they have any expansion at all in the gaming, gambling, lottery operations-- whatever mode we want to call it. But on the other hand, the minister has said:"There's no freedom to cut back from what's already been done." There's nofreedom about the extension that has taken place in this last year.

Those new machines,those new betting limits: there's no freedom about that. That has been decided. Ifcommunities don't like it, that's tough. They can decide, maybe, about what's going tohappen in the future, but they can have no decision about what's happening today. So onthe one hand, the minister says no, there is no decision; on the other hand, he says veryclearly -- and he said it over and over again today -- that municipalities will have thefreedom to decide.

[ Page 4383 ]

It's this kind of double-sided conversation that is confusing the people of ourcommunity and making them distrust all of the politicians, not just members on thegovernment side. I've listened to this throughout the debate today, and if you go back onthe tapes, you will hear this. If you like tedious repetition, there was a repetition of:"Yes, you have freedom; no, you don't have freedom." That went on during theday, and that's a concern that I have.

One of the things I discovered a number of years ago when I was studying theology wasthat people were trying to look for answers, and that they never seemed to find theanswers that solved the problems until they discovered that more important than theanswers was the question. What is the question that's being asked?

All day long I've heard the minister play with that exact dialogue. He's been adelicious skin game all day as I've listened to him play with the questions that are beingasked. Instead of saying, "Do you want gambling, or do you not want gambling?"and making it a clearcut answer, the minister is saying: "What are the possibilities?Do you want this kind of gambling, this kind of gambling or this kind of gambling?"It doesn't take long to see through that. We have all probably done it with our childrenwhen we want them to do something. You say: "Do you want to go to bed?" And ofcourse they say no.

Then you say: "Would you sooner go to bed now and get a spanking,or would you sooner wait a little while and do something else?" We give them a numberof choices, but in reality we have limited the choices to exactly what we wanted toachieve. I've heard the minister doing that always, all through today.

I know he's looking at me -- startled -- but I've heard him doing that all day. He setsout a series of questions in a way that if you accept his questions, there's only oneanswer that you'll come back to: the one that he's trapped you into.

Hon. D. Miller: Logic.

V. Anderson: "Logic," he says -- at least I think that's what he'ssaying. Yes, it's logical, if you let him get away with that.

That's the kind of thing that's been happening today. The minister has been very set inphrasing his comments and his questions in a way that, if you don't back up, sounds verylogical, sounds very reasonable and very acceptable. In fact, he's been unusually logicaland reasonable and acceptable today, because it's the most devious way to get his messageacross: draw people into it. It's been a wonderful exhibition of salesmanship, if youlike, only I'm hoping he's not going to sell the product as a result of it. What it doesdo is cloud the issue of what is at stake.

As the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has commented, the government caucus had tostruggle with this. They had to struggle with this to come up with some kind of acompromise that they all could accept and in part, in clear conscience, try to live with.That's fine in a government that won't accept any varieties of opinions, that doesn'tallow persons to have a free vote, that doesn't allow people to stand up and come to aconsensus but allows others within that consensus to publicly say: "Yes, we'll goalong with the consensus, but we have a personal view, which is different."

What we're talking about here is not just the question of gaming; it's gambling withdemocracy itself, with the freedom for us to work together yet maintain our individualopinions. The minister pointed that out quite effectively during the day when he, in allseriousness at this point, acknowledged that there were some people who approached thisparticular topic -- as probably he would see me approaching it -- from a moral orreligious point of view, depending on which set of terms you want to use. He used themoral point of view.

Then he said alongside of that, quite cleverly, that you could dealwith it from a moral point of view or you could deal with it from the point of view ofcommunity planning and zoning. The implication was that if you were dealing with it from azoning point of view -- like the height of buildings, the kind of traffic that goes by,the square-foot kind of situation -- then you were dealing with a non-moralistic or amoralkind of discussion, and therefore you have freedom to deal with that and set your moralssomewhat aside. As he said it, it sounded almost reasonable, except that I couldn't buyhis argument.

To me, when you're dealing with zoning, you're dealing with the lives ofpeople, you're dealing with the environment in which they live, and you're still dealingwith the morality of that particular zoning.

Whether the minister is aware of it or not, we are dealing with a moral question here,as we are with every other issue in this Legislature. If we set aside our morals, if weset aside our convictions and our faiths and don't use them, then we have lost the wholebasis of our democracy in the first place. Our democracy is not a question of zoning; it'sa question of our living in relationship with each other in the most effective way. I wasstartled as I listened to this pattern of what I felt was -- and I'm not saying whether itwas done deliberately or not, because I don't know -- deception, for a person who comes inand listens to just a portion of the conversation and gets drawn in.

During the day it came up so many different times -- and we just had a part of thatdiscussion now -- that we're saying: what is the effect of health on this topic or what'sthe effect of family?

And the minister is saying, using the formal structure ofgovernment: "Well, that's not my responsibility." But when we were looking atthe care of children in our province, for so many years we said the health of children waslooked after by the Health department, the social needs of children were looked after bythe Social Services department, the corrections of children were looked after by thecorrections department, and the education of children were looked after by the Educationministry. What we did was divide children up into different bits so that nobody dealt withthe children.

So we quite appropriately -- and I've encouraged and worked just as hard as thegovernment members -- brought into being the Ministry for Children and Families. We putthe pieces together and deal with people as a whole. The minister kept referring to .. . that in this particular issue it is the responsibility of the Ministry forChildren and Families to deal with addiction. But the Minister for Children and Familieshas been saying of late, and quite properly so, that the main focus in dealing withchildren is prevention.

That's what we're talking about here: prevention; not dealingprimarily with addiction after it's created but preventing it in the first place. It's notreally realistic, nor is it fair. Nor, from my point of view, is it moral for us to besaying in one ministry: "This belongs to another ministry and not to us."

[ Page 4384 ]

I have to disagree with the minister when he says that he has no responsibility. Iagree that he was asked earlier in the day as he was asked just now: what was theinterministerial activity that took place in planning and in undertaking theresponsibilities of whether they go ahead? In one sense, we acknowledged that there musthave been some interministerial discussion, if we assume that this was brought to thecabinet table. Therefore at least the ministers of each ministry of the government satdown, we trust . . . . Although we don't know, because we don't know what goeson in those halls.

I was going to say hallowed halls, but I'm not sure if I would havebeen truthful in saying that or not, not knowing what goes on there. They must have talkedtogether and agreed with each other somehow as to how this was going to take place. Butone of the things that I discovered when I was Aboriginal Affairs critic for a time isthat aboriginal issues were being dealt in different ministries of government, and theywere counteractive to each other because each did not know what was going on with theother.

[9:00]

One of the things that I'll be asking the minister later -- and I'll give him noticenow -- with my Multiculturalism critic hat on, is: what is the ministry doing in the areaof multiculturalism? As the minister is aware -- and each one gives me a blank stare whenI ask that -- the Multiculturalism Act requires each ministry to have a multicultural planand process for each year. In these areas -- the same with Women's Equality -- this is anissue of concern for every ministry.

I'm surprised to discover, with a government that has been moving to an interactiveprocess with this particular issue, which is so important right across the province, thatwe're now getting the response that it's not an interactive process. We may talk about itinformally with each other once in a while, but that's really all it is because we'regoing ahead with it, anyway.

The minister has been quite clear today -- if you listened to the discussion as theissues were brought forward -- in saying that regardless of what anybody says, regardlessof whether they're right or wrong, regardless of whether they have good points, that theplan that has been put in place will go ahead and the consequences will be whatever theymay be without any studies, without any awareness, without any background, and we willdeal with them after the fact rather than before the fact.

The question was raised about treatment centres. The minister referred . . . . I'd be interested to know if the minister is willing to give us a copy of the letter thathe spoke about. Perhaps I'll ask him if he could give us a copy of the letter that hespoke about. He received a letter from . . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but there are time limits toour speaking. I thank you for your comments. I'm sure there's a question in that which theminister can respond to.

Hon. D. Miller: I've been listening very carefully to the member, actually, andI am intrigued by what I think is a thesis that appears to be threaded throughout thoseremarks. It's rather fascinating. I think the member at one point in his dissertation saidsomething like: "What is the question?" I can tell the hon. member that I'veshared that concern all day as I sat here listening. I think there are some intriguingissues that we could probably theorize about endlessly, but perhaps the member may want toadd some more.

V. Anderson: The question I was just asking the minister -- when I was cut offby the red light -- is that earlier in the day the minister indicated he had received aletter from persons who are involved in treatment centres in Victoria, expressing theirinterest in gaming. The impression was left that the persons from the treatment centre --at least, the impression that I got in listening to the minister -- were encouraginggaming so that they would be able to deal with the treatment of the addicts who were partof it.

I could understand that they might be saying they were encouraged about gettingresources to provide a treatment centre, but I would be surprised if people running atreatment centre were encouraging an expansion in gaming, which was the impression left bythe minister. If so, I'd appreciate receiving a copy of the letter, or a clarification ofwhether they were encouraging expansion of gaming or simply asking encouragement for thesupport of a treatment centre.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, in fact, we did. I hope the member appreciates . . . . I'm going to check and see that that letter wasn't received with a proviso that it not bemade public. I don't recall that it was, but let me check. Unless the group that forwardedthe letter has any objection, I'd be happy to send it on to the member.

But I really do think it raises one issue relative to gaming that, in fact . . . . I did speak earlier -- and I hope with some sincerity -- about having respect for a moralpoint of view. If society doesn't have some relative moral compass, then where are wegoing? Having said that, there's a process called rationalization, where there's shiftingground with respect to that moral view, and of course there's also reality.

Religious organizations and others that unquestionably have a moral point of view andfeel strongly about social issues and those kinds of questions clearly are engaged in thetopic we're talking about. They are engaged in using the gaming system that we have --fully engaged, largely engaged, in using the gaming system that some members over therehave spoken so vehemently against. I presume the reason they do that is that they feelthat the benefits of utilizing the gaming system -- the money that's raised -- outweighthe moral qualms. But surely there are moral qualms; there are moral discussions aroundthese questions.

The member must realize . . . . I think he appreciates what I'm saying. Hemust agree with what I'm saying: those kinds of conundrums, dilemmas or whatever emergequite often in our society, and the choices have to be made about those kinds of things.So when the Catholic Church participates in a significant way in gaming to raise revenuefor worthy causes, they must have, in debating that within themselves, determined that thebenefits outweighed the possible negative consequences.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Those aren't easy questions in our society. I don't make light of them at all. They'retough questions, difficult questions sometimes. Therefore I just want to reaffirm that Ihave the utmost respect . . . . When I met with the church leaders on thequestion of expansion of gaming, I thought it was a very respectful meeting. I was firm inmy view, and they understood that, but I certainly did not display -- and don't displayand hope I never do -- any lack of respect for people who hold moral views on these kindsof questions. I think it's important.

[ Page 4385 ]

Earlier today I also posed the question in terms of grappling with that issue: when dowe determine that we've crossed a line, that what we're doing from that line forward is anabrogation of that moral view? Who determines? What are the rules? Who has the authority?Who do we listen to? I think the answer is obvious: there is no moral arbiter of thesekinds of decisions. In all good conscience, there's not.

Should we not have advanced gaming? Should we not have come in with gaming at all backin the seventies? If we hold a strong moral view, should we be campaigning for thecomplete elimination of all forms of gaming that the state oversees. If we really, trulyhold that moral view, should we campaign for jobs to be awarded to print tickets forlotteries?

You tell me where the dividing line is. Where's the dark line that separates one set ofactivities from the same set of activities that are expanded? Tell me where that is. Ihaven't heard anybody advance any arguments on that side. What I've heard are people who,with all due respect, have taken a position opposed to gaming. I'll tell you what myopinion is. That is a political position. With all due respect, I think I'd tell you thatI believe Jacee Schaefer when she says that she consulted with the Liberal caucus and thattheir policy was much the same as this government's. I believe that to be the case.

I'm quite prepared to discuss moral issues, but let's put it in some kind of context.If we're going to talk about moral issues, perhaps we could have a little better debatethan we're having. Now, I think, quite frankly, that they have no place here. Thegovernment has, in a very simple way, examined the issues and the facts around theexpansion of gaming, the possibilities in terms of the impact on our economy . . . . We've looked at the impact that we think might be there with respect to issues of problemgaming. We looked at what we thought were some of the opportunities in terms of jobs.We've canvassed that in a very thorough way, regardless of what members opposite say.

We examined those facts, we listened to the public, and we put that together. That'sthe responsibility of government. We made a decision. Whether you like the decision ordislike the decision, we made a decision that, in my view, is an acceptable decision tothe public of this province. My job is to implement that in the very best possible waythat we can.

I respect and understand any opposition there might be to this. I don't understand theprocess we've engaged in here all day. I understand politics. I understand the politicalprocess. I understand the dynamics of the House. I understand dragging an issue outbecause we want to extend the time. I've done that kind of thing. I spent five years inopposition. I understand that. I think I've been fairly tolerant in terms of trying torespond, and I'll continue to try to do that.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: And occasionally I don't behave, but . . . .

I hope you appreciate the position I'm trying to take in this discussion. It's not tobe deceptive at all. We were very clear when we announced our policy. It was there. Therewas nothing hidden. We said exactly what we were going to do, and we're getting on withthat job.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I also appreciate hissincerity in what he says, because it is true. I'll give him credit that he says exactlywhat he's going to do. Part of the problem is that the way he says it leads other peoplenot to hear it sometimes.

I can give another simple illustration, because I was at the municipal convention whenthe minister signed the agreement that there would be consultation with the municipalities-- which led people there to believe that there would be consultation. But the ministeralso said on the same occasion -- I heard him -- that there would be cuts. From theminister's point of view, these two were quite clear, and they went hand in hand with eachother. But those who heard him failed to understand that kind of thinking, because theyfelt one overrode the other.

We're in the same situation here. So again, I understand where the minister is comingfrom. That's why, as I listened today, I could hear both sides. The minister was quiteclear that municipalities were free to consult and make their decisions, but it was alsoquite clear that the law of the province says that gaming is a provincial jurisdiction andthey will have their way, when and if they want to do that. They will make the choice whenthat is.

I think the minister has highlighted a key point which has caused difficulty in thisparticular issue from the very beginning. Because whatever supposition you start withdictates where you go from there. The minister started with the supposition that everyonewas happy with the present state of gaming. So that question was never asked: are peoplehappy with the present state of gaming? Do they want it to go ahead, or do they want it becut back? That question was never asked. So on that assumption . . . . And ifyou argue the extension and grant the assumption, then you've in large part already lostthe argument against that.

[9:15]

What I have heard from people is that it was a mistake to have begun gaming in thefirst place. The federal government started it. They got into this process and somewheredown there they got some wisdom, and they said: "No, this is not for the federalgovernment. We'll get out of it." But in their un-wisdom, they passed the devil on tothe provincial governments, who bought into it without the same wisdom.

So what you have found is that charitable donations have been difficult to receive,because people say: "Why would we give to charity organizations, sports and otherevents? That's looked after by lottery. Our health care is paid for by the lottery."So everyone is assuming that this is a process that looks after all of the ills ofsociety. The same thing has happened to a lot of the volunteers in sports groups andcharitable organizations that have had to fight for their livelihood because their normalsources of support and of financial giving had been cut off.

I don't think anyone has really looked at the studies that have been done to show theimplications of what gaming has already done to our communities and to our societies. Sowhat we needed to do -- and I'll agree with the minister here . . . . If wehad granted that we started at what is, and went forward . . . . That was thefalse position to begin with. I personally would argue that we had to go back and reviewwhether the process that we were in was good for finances, good for the government, goodfor our young people, good for health care or good for the society. That's the mistake wehave made by not going back and reviewing that process.

[ Page 4386 ]

It's like saying that we're doing fine on the highway when we're driving 80 miles anhour whether it's safe or not. "We've been getting by, we've only lost a few peoplein accidents and only a few people have been killed. So since it hasn't affected manypeople, let's put up our speed limit to 100 miles an hour." Then when we get to 100miles an hour, we'll say, "It hasn't killed many more people, and everybody else hasgot there faster and quicker, and they've used less gas and there's been less on theroad," and we'll move it up to 150 miles an hour.

It's that basic supposition of -- and the minister has used that quite well -- in hiswords, modest expansion. Modest is only relative to what you're doing in the first place.What is happening in the first place is that one has deprived . . . . Alongwith other things that have been happening, government grants to community groups havebeen cut back, because they get money from gaming. It's the same thing that we've had withregard to the poor. We don't need to worry about the poor, because they can go to the foodbank. So the food bank looks after the poor, and the government doesn't have to.

We don'thave to worry about children in poverty, because we provide them with lunch at school. Iwould attest and challenge the minister, whether they did any reviewing of whether thegaming practices that were in place . . . .

Before I put the question, I have one other comment to the minister. Not all of thechurches, and particularly the one from which I come, have been using gaming. There aresome churches that use it, but many don't. There are many churches that don't believe ingaming -- even though our organization may be doing that. I just wanted that on therecord.

But I ask the minister: before this was put in place, was there an evaluation of thepros and cons, of the good and bad effects, of the lottery gaming system which was alreadyin place? When previous questions were asked by his own government and examined underanother Premier, they heard the people clearly saying: "We don't necessarily likewhat we've got, but we can live with it.

We don't like it, but we'll live with it, becauseit's here and we don't know how to get rid of it." Instead, I hear this ministersaying that now the people said: "We like what we've got, but we don't know whetherwe want to expand it." So what studies were done about the pros and cons of theexisting system to say whether or not it had support?

There were two issues that the people raised with me when I was door-knocking:increases in taxes, and gaming. They were against both of them. I had one person in ahundred who said: "I favour an increase in gaming." All of the rest said no.Those same people didn't believe it should have been there in the first place, most ofthem, and said that it already had gone too far.

So if we accept that where we were then was a good place, that's where we made thefirst error. As long as we have made that error, then we're going to go down t