2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 17

[ Page 16805 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, I met yesterday with the legislative interns, as did the Leader of the Opposition. The legislative internship program provides a unique opportunity for young British Columbians to experience the political process from the perspective of both the public service and the political life.

This is the last week of their caucus assignments, and I want to thank those assigned to our caucus for their hard work and enthusiastic contribution to the research department. Deborah Cooper, Sean Edwards, Sean LeRoy and Jennifer Vornbrock have been outstanding. They took on very important projects and met often difficult deadlines with grace and good humour.

Marc Coward, Jennifer Erickson, Simrita Johal and Gerry Muir have done similar work for the opposition. I know Simrita was asking me questions about how many weddings I have to attend every weekend, because she comes from the same community that I do, and we had an interesting conversation. Will the House please make them all welcome and wish them well in their future endeavours.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce, from the city of Grand Forks, Tony Goode, the administrator; Lynne Burch, the city clerk; Steve Burt, a councillor; Jake Raven, a councillor; and Kerri Medley, the economic development officer. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are two Dosanjhs in the gallery from my ancestral village. One of them lives in Surrey; the other one lives . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is a dusty village, yes. The other one is here from Britain, and his father and my father were the best of friends particularly in their later years. His father is currently residing in Britain, and, of course, my father passed away some time ago. The first Dosanjh is Sandokh Singh Sandokh, who I just talked about.

[1410]

Sewa Singh Dosanjh is the other Dosanjh, and he was the village headman for a while in Punjab . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Headman, yes. There is a word for it, but you wouldn't understand. The people accompanying them are Avtar Singh Nirwan, Joginder Singh Gill and Baldev Singh Danoa. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Today in the members' gallery we have a number of special guests from China. They are from the Shanghai Administration Institute. The delegation is headed by Zhu Minyan, who is a professor at the Shanghai Administration Institute. Mr. Minyan and his colleagues represent the largest post-secondary institution of its kind in Shanghai. During their time here, their group will be expanding its knowledge of public administration education in Canada. I ask all members to join me in making them welcome.

J. Cashore: In the gallery today are four people who work on a daily basis to enhance the quality of life for seniors in the Coquitlam area. Alex Graham is president of the Burquitlam Intermediate Care Society, which runs the first-class Burquitlam Lions Care Centre. He's also the president of the Lions Club, which raises thousands of dollars each year for the care centre. He's accompanied by his wife Mary. With them is Ellen McManus, the administrator of the care centre, and her husband Ron. They're in Victoria to deliver a petition urging the government to provide the necessary funding to expand and upgrade the care centre. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Abbott: In the gallery today are two friends from the Truck Loggers Association, Tony Toth and Rick Jeffries. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have the pleasure today of introducing four people. First of all, Wanda Hop Wo is my constituency assistant. The note here says that she works very hard in my constituency office, so I suspect she wrote the note. However, that is absolutely true and then some. With her is her son Jon Aaron Hop Wo, who is a student in French immersion at Cowichan Secondary School. Jon Aaron has received honours in both academics and athletics.

With them are two people from a little farther afield. Yoshiki Yamamoto is visiting here from Kyoto, Japan, and has been staying with the Hop Wo family and going to Chemainus Secondary School. Yoshiki is participating in the Cowichan district's very successful international student program and will be returning to Kyoto for the summer and then coming back to the Cowichan Valley in September to continue his studies. Also with us is Izumi Yoshida, who's also visiting B.C. from Japan.

Izumi is also an enthusiastic participant in the international student program and has been attending Frances Kelsey Secondary School. I'd ask the House to make these extraordinary young people -- and, of course, Wanda -- very, very welcome today.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2000

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 2000.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs while debate on the government's estimates for 2000-01 continues. The first interim supply for this fiscal year granted by the Legislative Assembly was for one-quarter of the tabled estimates for voted expenses. This funding will be exhausted by June 30, 2000. Therefore a second interim supply is required to provide for the continuation of government programs for one additional month while debate on the estimates is concluded. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 16806 ]

SUBSTANCE ABUSER

REHABILITATION ACT

G. Plant presented a bill intituled Substance Abuser Rehabilitation Act.

[1415]

G. Plant: I move that a bill entitled Substance Abuser Rehabilitation Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

G. Plant: In 1997, I introduced a bill entitled Motor Vehicle Amendment (Substance Abuser Rehabilitation) Act. Its purpose was to require repeat impaired drivers, at their own expense, to undertake assessment and treatment for substance abuse problems before they could get their driver's licence back. Later in 1997 the government introduced its own legislation, giving the superintendent of motor vehicles the power, in appropriate cases, to order persons to undertake counselling for substance abuse as a condition of obtaining a driver's licence. That provision was

section 5 of the Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. Three years have passed.

Section 5 has not been proclaimed, but the carnage on our highways continues; 40 percent of all fatal traffic crashes in B.C. are caused by drinking drivers.

Hon. Speaker, the criminal law has an important role to play in keeping our streets safe, but some people who drive while impaired need help with a substance abuse problem. These people are a menace to the public and themselves every time they get behind a wheel. They should not be allowed to drive without getting help.

Three years ago

section 5 was the government's answer to the victims of impaired drivers. But like so many of this government's initiatives, once the press release was issued and the fine speeches made by the cabinet ministers, nothing happened. My bill, therefore, is simple. My bill simply proclaims

section 5 -- the government's legislation -- into law immediately. It would take five minutes. The victims of impaired driving would like to repair one broken NDP promise. I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

QUESNEL SPINAL CORD INJURY CASE

AND B.C.'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. On Saturday, a 32-year-old woman was involved in a motor vehicle accident west of Quesnel. She sustained severe spinal cord injury. Here is a log of the doctor's frantic attempts to get treatment for his patient.

They called the Vancouver General Hospital spinal unit at 9 p.m. At 9:30 they were advised: "There are no beds available." Will the Minister of Health tell us what he thinks that the doctors in Quesnel should have done with this car accident victim once they discovered there were no beds available at VGH?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can't comment directly on a particular case, and clearly this is a tragic situation. What I can tell you is that we are working closely with the health authorities to identify what the critical pressures facing each health authority and community health council are in British Columbia and to look at ways of resolving particular issues in those communities, to ensure either that there are services available when they're required or that, in the larger context of how we, in tertiary care centres -- that the facilities are acquired so that people can have access to them when they're required.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Cariboo North has a supplemental question.

J. Wilson: Yes, hon. Speaker. That's all we're asking for -- that services are available when they are required.

When the doctors could not get a bed at the VGH, they phoned the Vancouver trauma hotline searching for any bed in British Columbia for this spinal cord injury. The doctor was told at 9:45 p.m. that there were no beds available anywhere in British Columbia. Will the Minister of Health please tell us what he suggests that the doctors in Quesnel should have done with this patient at this point?

[1420]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We recognize around this particular time of year that we're coming into a period where there are particular stresses placed upon the health care system. That's why we're working with health authorities to identify what some of those key pressures are. That's why we're trying to address the issues around, for example, the shortages of nurses, so that we can get beds open when they're required.

There's a host of things that we're doing, and we're doing them as efficiently and as quickly as we can. We recognize the challenges that are there. That's why we've devoted the resources to ensure that we can meet those challenges, and we will continue to work with the authorities to ensure that we can.

C. Hansen: I think the minister's comment that we are coming into the most difficult time of the year is accurate. It's still ahead of us; the worst is yet to come.

Well, at 9:45 last Saturday night the Vancouver trauma hotline told the Quesnel doctors to call Alberta. Fortunately, they managed to get hold of a physician at Foothills Hospital in Calgary, and that Calgary neurosurgeon said that she was appalled that that situation would happen anywhere. She made arrangements to make space available at Foothills hospital in Calgary. The doctor in Quesnel was then told that there were no B.C. air ambulances available to move his patient to Calgary. Will the Minister of Health tell us what the Quesnel doctors were supposed to do at that point?

Hon. M. Farnworth: One of the things that our health care system is able to do is work cooperatively with other provinces to ensure that we can . . . . When situations arise, which they sometimes do, and the first interest is the health and well-being of that patient, then we find the closest avail-

[ Page 16807 ]

able place for them to be. Sometimes there aren't beds available, and what's important is that we find the services for that person. And if it's in Calgary, it's in Calgary.

Likewise, if you're in Alberta and you're in an accident, and there's not a bed available there, we will find one here if there's one available. They can move one here. That's how our system works: cooperatively.

We have challenges in our system, and we're working to deal with them. We're working to deal with them in terms of finding 400 new nursing spaces that are coming on this year. We're working on them in terms of strategies to attract physicians to regional and referral centres, so that we have the supply of physicians that are required. We are working with health authorities to ensure that the resources they're getting go to meet the challenges that are facing them, and we'll continue to do that.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.

C. Hansen: Well, frankly, flying patients that need trauma care from province to province is not acceptable.

Hon. Speaker, it took 12 hours to get this woman into the care that she needed, and she got there by way of an Alberta air ambulance that came to pick her up. This patient was failed at every step of the way by B.C.'s health care system. Will the minister tell us why this system in B.C. is so bad that we have to rely on Alberta hospitals, and we even have to rely on the Alberta air ambulance system to get our patients into care in that province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm going to repeat for the hon. member what I just said. We as a province don't operate in isolation. One of the beauties of our health care system is that provinces work together. We work together to put the needs of the patient first, to ensure that there are beds available. If there's not one here in British Columbia, then we will take advantage of one that's available in Alberta, and vice versa.

When we're trying to look at how we reform the health care system to ensure that there are the resources that we require -- whether in British Columbia or Alberta or Ontario or Quebec -- and that there's a standard of health care available, we work cooperatively with Ottawa to identify what the pressures are, what the challenges are and what funds are required to meet those challenges. That's how we do it, not operating in isolation, but recognizing that the system is the strongest when it works together for everybody regardless of where you are.

[1425]

Nobody likes the fact that we get pressures and sometimes there aren't beds available here in B.C. But it does occasionally happen, and at that point in time I am glad that provinces work together in the way that we're working with them and working with our health authorities to identify the challenges and meet those challenges.

C. Hansen: The minister knows that it happens too often that British Columbians cannot count on the health care system being there for them when they need it. Will the minister assure this Quesnel family that they are not now going to be sent a bill for the air ambulance service that Alberta had to provide?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, they're not going to be sent a bill.

What we're working on is to ensure that we have the services that are required. That's why we're working with health authorities; that's why we're working with health providers in this province to identify the challenges. That's why we're working with other provinces and, in a cooperative, non-confrontational manner, with Ottawa to get more funding into the health care system to meet the needs of the people of this province for whom the health care system works on a day-to-day basis.

M. de Jong: The words, actually, that I kept waiting for the minister to say are: "It's unacceptable." It's about a patient who, on Saturday night, was brought into a facility in Quesnel and whose doctor worked desperately and, at the end of the day, unsuccessfully to find treatment for that patient in British Columbia, who called VGH -- no room -- and called the trauma centre -- no beds in all of British Columbia -- and then managed, through advocacy on behalf of this patient, to find a bed in a crowded facility at Calgary Foothills, only to discover that it was beyond the capacity of the province of British Columbia to transport that patient to that facility in Calgary.

Why is it that health care under this government in British Columbia has been allowed to deteriorate so seriously that you can't find a bed for a trauma patient, and when you do, it's in Alberta, and then you can't get your patient to the bed in Alberta?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're dealing with types of injuries that require, quite often, specialized services, so not just any location is suitable for a patient to go to. Is it unacceptable that there's not a bed available? Of course it is; no one denies that for one second. But what we want to ensure is that the individual gets the care that is required.

And if it means that we work with other provinces to see that that happens, we will do so at the same time as we work in our own province and with other provinces to find out how we improve the system -- to improve the system, to work, to deal with the pressures that face the system and to ensure that those pressures are funded. That's what we're trying to do.

We have invested over $600 million this year in additional funding to the health care system. We have a system that is based on needs, which serves the people of this province, recognizing that certain areas are able to provide the specialized care that's required because they have a critical mass in terms of population and in terms of physicians and in terms of specialists to provide that type of service.

Sometimes the beds are full, and that's why I come back to what we said. We work in a cooperative manner with other provinces, and if they need help, we're there to provide it as well. It's one of the beauties of the Canadian health care system which we are committed to maintaining.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: Well, I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of this 32-year-old patient, but I dare say she's not very impressed with anything the minister just said or anything this government has done over the last nine years. It wasn't there for her when she needed it most.

[ Page 16808 ]

It's getting worse, Mr. Speaker. In spite of all the minister's protestations to the contrary, it's getting worse. How many patients in British Columbia have to go looking in Alberta for the care they deserve?

[1430]

The minister and the government are in denial. And the question for the minister, the question for the government, is: at every step of the way, when this doctor and this patient had doors slammed in their faces and heard there was no room at the inn, what advice did this minister have for them? He had none. I take it he's got none today, except: "Well, we'll see how it goes." Why doesn't the minister just admit that he and his government have failed patients in British Columbia and continue to fail them time and time again?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess today is this member's attempt to redeem himself from the last time he asked a health care question in this House.

We recognize the challenges that face health care in this province. That's why we are working on issues around a nursing strategy, so that we have nurses now but also in the long term to provide the care that's required, so that two or three years down the road we know there are nurses here then and there are nurses here today. Secondly, that's why we're working to look at issues around physician supply with the BCMA, for example, so that we can have the required number of specialists and physicians in the different parts of the province that need to be there when they're there.

That's why we're also injecting $600 million this year into the health care system to meet the needs of our province.

But you know, we in this province can have the best system in the country, and it will still have challenges. What we have to do is ensure that when situations arise, there's the ability for people to get the care they require. And as I said, if it means that we work cooperatively with other provinces, we do. They can rely on us when they face times of challenge as well. Every province in this country right now is facing the same challenges and the same pressures on it. That's why we're working to address them and will continue to do so.

That's why I would like to hear what their suggestions for dealing with the pressures facing the health care system are, because we've heard precious little to date.

C. Clark: The minister is right. We in British Columbia could have the best health care system in Canada today, but we don't. After a decade of New Democrats, we have one of the worst health care systems in this country. That's because of the negligence of this government.

This minister stands up, and he still doesn't get it. This example is not an isolated incident of what's happening in our health care system. The system is broken. My question to the minister is this: when is he going to clue in, recognize that it's broken, roll up his sleeves and do something to really get it fixed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The red light's on for you.

The only thing that's broken is that member, who is a broken record every day in this House. This is the same opposition that said $6 billion is enough for health care. This is the same opposition that's proposing a massive $3 billion tax cut to business and industry and selling off Crown assets to pay for it. At the same time, not one penny of that will go into health care in this province. What is their plan?

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Petitions

J. Cashore: I rise to present a 3,000-signature petition in support of the expansion of the Burquitlam Lions Care Centre as promised by government in 1993 and '96, in view of the cost savings to be achieved by meeting the urgent need for long-term beds.

Motion without Notice

Hon. D. Lovick: By leave, I would move that the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills be designated as a committee to review statute revisions pursuant to the Statute Revision Act.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[1435]

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call Committee of Supply in both chambers. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In this chamber, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 38: ministry operations, $29,752,000 (continued).

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, if I could just take the time to answer some questions that I took on notice from the sitting this morning, the member for Richmond Centre asked the question about how much is billed for photo radar. We now have the statistics up to May 31, 2000. I gave the statistics up to December 31, 1999. The amount billed is $82 million to date; of this, the amount collected has been $78 million. So there's an outstanding amount to be collected of $4 million over the course of the . . . .

The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove asked a question about criminal proceedings. Criminal proceedings are open to the public, so ICBC staff are entitled to attend proceedings and take notes. However, there is no policy in the corporation that requires ICBC staff to attend at criminal proceedings.

[1440]

[P. Nettleton in the chair.]

Regarding the attendance at juvenile criminal proceedings, provided that the proceedings are open to the public,

[ Page 16809 ]

ICBC staff would be free to attend. But of course, the corporation would not be able to attend any criminal proceeding, whether against a juvenile or an adult, should the court order that the proceedings be sealed. Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings are entirely separate matters. There are, of course, different standards of proof and different evidentiary requirements.

On the body shop accreditation programs, I'll just give the information about the update on that -- that all major automobile optional coverage insurers in British Columbia deal with a select group of repair shops that they deal with exclusively. So the practice of ICBC accreditation is probably less in terms of directing people than other optional coverage insurers, and the whole industry trend is toward direct or approved repair. ICBC's accreditation program is inclusive; it's not exclusive, the way other insurers have it. And of course, as we've already said, a body shop doesn't need to be an accredited ICBC car shop in order to do business with ICBC customers.

Roughly 60 percent of ICBC accredited car shops would be considered small operations. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour suggested that it was the multinational companies, but 60 percent are small operations with annual sales ranging between $150,000 and $750,000.

The public insurers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba have accreditation programs very similar to ICBC, and industry trade associations in Alberta and Ontario have their own accreditation programs. That brings us up to now.

D. Jarvis: Some of the other members have questions that they want to bring up. Just prior to the lunch break, I was talking about the public trustee. And I don't know if I mentioned, at that time, the monetary figure. Would the minister have the information as to the dollar figure where it clicks in that they must report it to the trustee? If so, should it not be at $1?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, I'm still taking that question on notice. I now understand that your question is: is there a threshold? So I'll find that information out.

D. Jarvis: I would like to introduce the oyster lady, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

J. Reid: I have a question with regard to gross vehicle weight and recreational vehicles and licences. Over this past year, there has been a changing attitude in ICBC, as far as what was going to be enforced and what wasn't. I just want to make sure that I have the up-to-date information and explore some of the ramifications of what's going on in this situation.

For clarification background, it's my understanding that trucks are assigned the gross vehicle weight rating by the manufacturer. It's also my understanding that this is set perhaps lower than is necessary, in order to protect the interests of the manufacturer. The province accepts that rating. In the past, these weight limits were commonly exceeded, and it was last year that there was a concern that weight limits should be enforced.

Now, ICBC has responded and made a decision -- and I'm looking for clarification on this -- to not enforce the gross vehicle weight restrictions on vehicles of 5,500 kilograms or less if the vehicle was manufactured before January 1, 2001, unless obvious safety violations have occurred. Could the minister confirm whether that's the present situation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I can give you . . . . Again, I'm sure the member is much better informed on the application of these than I. So I will read this information to you, and if it's not a satisfactory explanation, perhaps we could have a briefing on this very technical matter.

I'd be happy to move on to hear the concerns around application of it, but let me give you the information that I have here: "On February 3, 2000, the following amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act regulations were enacted:

section 19.11(3), repealed and amended to exclude vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 5,500 kilograms or less and manufactured before January 1, 2001, from the requirements of

section 19.11(1), which specifies that the vehicle must not exceed the manufacturer's GVWR."

[1445]

J. Reid: Okay, that's the confirmation that there's going to be an exemption for the older vehicles. So the question then is: with that exemption, is it that those vehicles are still illegal but there isn't going to be an enforcement of that illegal situation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, sections 25.15(1.1) and (1.2) are added to provide for enforcement of unsafe, overweight conditions for vehicles that would now be exempt from

section 19.11.

What do they say? Well, I can get that information.

Section 25.15 gives enforcement officers the ability to issue a notice-in-order when they have reasonable or probable grounds to believe that a vehicle is overloaded or unsafe and is exceeding the gross vehicle weight rating or gross axle weight rating. The exempted vehicles may be subject to enforcement under the addition of 25.15, if they are overweight and unsafe. All vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 2001, will be subject to 19.11(1) and may be issued a violation ticket if the vehicle exceeds the GVWR.

J. Reid: Thank you for that. Yes, that's what we've stated. The question is: are those vehicles still illegally operating? We've just decided -- ICBC has decided -- not to enforce that. The implication here is that for people who are operating those vehicles, their concern is if there is an accident. Now, they might not be enforced; those sections might not be enforced anymore -- that they're operating overweight -- as long as there's not an obvious safety violation. But if they're still operating illegally, and if there's an accident, then what position are these people in?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The exemption makes them legal.

J. Reid: Thank you for that. Now the question is . . . . For vehicles manufactured after January 1, 2001, nothing has changed in the situation, I presume. So what became legal the day before now becomes illegal. Where is the common sense in this situation? What's the government trying to achieve?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The whole purpose for this is to make sure that businesses make informed choices about the vehicles they need in order to comply with the law.

J. Reid: In particular, I'm concerned about RV users. Certainly, in my constituency there are an awful lot of people

[ Page 16810 ]

who are retired and enjoy the use of recreational vehicles. Government is recognizing that there was a situation where the gross vehicle weight rating wasn't necessarily an unsafe situation. It has recognized that. So now the question is why, in the future, it's going to start enforcing . . . . Something that the day before was reasonable now becomes unreasonable. Is there another way that we can look at this that makes better sense and makes better sense for people on the road?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In order to actually achieve what we're trying to achieve here in assisting people who purchase vehicles -- in other words, that they make the informed choice that they need in terms of size, etc. -- retailers are also required to inform the purchasers of the GVWR. We're actually looking at -- perhaps the member could comment on this -- making that a requirement by regulation.

J. Reid: Does the minister think that there is some kind of a problem perhaps in the way the GVWR rating is given, seeing that it's given in a very conservative way, so that people can obviously safely operate vehicles in excess of that rating? ICBC has admitted this and yet isn't dealing with the real problem here. Instead it is making an arbitrary date decision to bring in compliance. Certainly people need to be informed of what their choices are when they're purchasing a vehicle and to be informed of what is safe for them to operate as far as weight goes.

But at the same time, we're still restricting people who could be operating vehicles entirely safely within the capability of their chosen vehicle and saying that, as of this date, we're no longer going to consider them safe, even though we considered them safe the day before.

[1450]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand the problem, and if the member has solutions, I'd be happy to hear them. I'd welcome them. The approach that we're taking is this. People were in vehicles where they would unknowingly exceed the GVWR. With the addition of a couple of snowmobiles, they would unknowingly exceed the limit. What we're trying to do is give a period of grace and give them the best possible information not only from ICBC but also from the retailer and then say that after a certain period of time, this is the way it should be.

People were finding themselves in violation unknowingly because of the addition of extra trappings to the vehicle. But there's also an issue here of . . . . I agree with the member that there are safety considerations that have to be taken into account. So we have taken the approach that we think this is the best possible approach over a period of time. If the member has other solutions, I'd be happy to hear them.

I just want to let you know that we did do this in consultation with the RV association and the Safety Council, etc. But I'd be happy for more input.

J. Reid: Continuing on with the issue of RV users and overweight vehicles, there's another complication. That is that people who are driving the larger RVs actually need a class 3 licence. A lot of these people don't know that they need a class 3 licence. So the question is: how many people does ICBC estimate should have a class 3 licence who don't and are driving RVs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I remember once when I was the minister responsible for social services and welfare -- that included social assistance -- and they said: "How much fraud is there in the system?" Whatever fraud was in the system, we captured. So I can't give you an estimate of undetected licensing violations.

J. Reid: Then ICBC hasn't identified this as a problem within the system -- either a problem to people, a problem on the road or a safety concern.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if the member is giving it to us as notice, we'll surely look into it. But the corporation is unaware of it as being a problem, other than a regular problem of enforcing the law.

J. Reid: I have a constituent who was driving a truck with an RV, who realized when he took it over the weigh scales that he was considered over the size limit and needed a class 3 licence. Wanting to be legal and wanting to do everything in his power to be able to operate safely, he looked into that and had to take the test for a class 3. This requires $15 for a written test, $50 for a road test, $75 for a medical that's required every two years and another $17 for a licence fee so that he could legally drive his RV.

Now, the problem with this, other than the cost and the hassle and the stress that go along with it, is that the entire process is geared for truck drivers, not RV drivers. Yes, there are people who are operating RVs that are over, who should legally have a class 3 licence. But the whole test, the whole procedure, is geared for truck drivers.

For example, he had to know about handling explosives, and he had to know how to adjust the straps to hold down loads, but he didn't have to know about the actual operation of his RV. Does ICBC have any plans to look at the concerns of people who are driving RVs to be able to, just in the former situation, realize that there is a problem? These people are driving illegally, and in the case of an accident there certainly could be very serious repercussions for them.

[1455]

With the present system of ignoring that this is applicable to RVs, there is no testing or mechanism that takes into account the usage and the safety concerns of RVs. Again, as ICBC looks at these problems and identifies areas of concern, is there anything that is going to be done to actually provide the services required for conformity and legality for people who are driving these large RVs?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting proposition to add another . . . . I think what the member is suggesting is that we need another licence class for RVs -- another test or another licence. That's a lot of red tape. It's an interesting proposal coming from the Liberal opposition. We can sure look at it. It certainly hasn't come as a problem to us, but we'll look into it.

J. Reid: The concern is that people don't want to be operating illegally. They're concerned if they're in an accident . . . . They're concerned that they can get away with it. That's not the point. They don't want to get away with it; they want to make sure that they are conforming to the laws. So the question is: with this test that exists, with this class that exists, is there any way of looking at the current situation and making sure that there's something so that RV operators are being adequately tested and adequately prepared for the vehicles they're driving, so that they can be legal, which is what they want to be?

[ Page 16811 ]

R. Neufeld: When you're dealing with a driver's licence class . . . . When the person went to license a vehicle, that would be the time, I would assume, that an ICBC office could check to find out whether the person who's licensing that vehicle actually has the licence to be able to operate it. It'd probably be a fairly simple procedure. There are some motor homes that are huge and should actually require a better class of licence than what you normally would have for an automobile.

I want to ask a couple of questions around driver's licence and also tridem-drive trucks. Just for my clarification, can the minister tell me how long British Columbia has been experimenting with tridem-drive tractors on our highways?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take it on notice and get it to you, as the staff in the other room can hear the question.

R. Neufeld: I'll continue on with it, and maybe whoever is getting the information can listen and get it for me.

It's not a trick question. I'm just not sure how long we as a province have been doing it. I know we've been doing it, and we've been doing it specifically in the logging industry -- tridem-drive tractors. I would like to know what the rationale is and why -- and I think it's quite a number of years now, probably five or six -- we are just having that kind of an experiment in the logging industry. I would think that by now we've either decided that tridem-drive tractors are fine on our highways or not. There are huge investments made by people in the logging industry to buy this type of equipment.

I'm asking why we can't now expand that to other types of trucking in the province of B.C., that being tractors that drive up and down the highway hauling freight or those, specifically where I come from, that haul huge loads in the oil and gas industry -- why we wouldn't look at tridem-drive tractors there. I don't know whether the minister has that information here or some idea about it or whether she would get that for me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get that information along with the original question.

[1500]

R. Neufeld: One other issue I have -- fairly quickly -- it's a driver's licence issue also. This goes back quite a few years. I didn't realize it was even around. A gentleman in Fort Nelson came to me just recently. He has a class 1 driver's licence. He has been driving a truck all over British Columbia and Alberta for quite a few years. He's probably 50 years of age. And when he got his driver's licence -- and there's quite a number of people in Fort Nelson that got their driver's licence quite a few years ago -- there was no British Columbia driver examiner that went to Fort Nelson. They do now. So the RCMP administered the test.

The differential was that this person -- whoever that happened to, if an RCMP officer administered the test -- could not drive south of the 55th parallel. These people obviously have been operating all over the province and all over Canada, and they go on holidays and all kinds of things. But to close them off their driver's licence and say that they can't drive south of the 55th parallel, I think, is something that we should look at seriously in ICBC. I think it would just take a stroke of a pen to say: "Look, that regulation is no longer needed. It shouldn't have been there."

These are people who are my age, who have been driving for years in all kinds of conditions and who all of a sudden find themselves in a legal position where, again, their driver's licence says they can't drive any further south than Fort St. John, which is, I think, a bit bizarre. But it happened. I'm wondering if the minister would look favourably at just carte blanche saying that if anyone has that on their licence when it comes up for renewal, we would remove it from their driver's licence. If I could get that assurance, I would sure appreciate it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll look into it and get back to the member very quickly.

K. Krueger: I was pleased to hear the minister and the corporation's answer to the GVW issue. It was certainly a thorny issue last year, and there were actually RV magazines in North America that were urging people not to go to British Columbia with their RVs, for fear that they would end up having them towed and not being able to use them on our highways.

This GVW issue, however, is still an issue in the ranching community. When we hosted the cattlemen on Agriculture Day during this session, they asked that a number of issues around the GVW concerns be addressed. I don't know whether these were put to the minister through her caucus. She's nodding, so I'm going to be really quick about it, and she can just confirm if action is being taken.

Of course, the GVWs are set rather lower than the vehicles' carrying capacities, because that protects the manufacturers warranty and helps them avoid warranty claims. I don't think there have been many claims in ICBC's history that were deemed by ICBC to relate to the vehicle having been operated while overweight. I wonder if the minister can confirm that -- that there have been very few, if any, claims in ICBC's history related to a vehicle having been operated overweight.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm informed that when the police attend an accident, they don't separate out the cause of accident by input. For instance, they wouldn't say that it's road conditions over gross vehicle weight over improper loading or that. But the police themselves inform the corporation that being overweight is an issue. But we don't have statistics, because at the time of an accident police don't separate out the inputting factors of the accident.

K. Krueger: I worked for ICBC for 20 years and reviewed a lot of files and knew a great number of claims personnel. I don't recall ever dealing with a light vehicle that was thought to have had its accident because of being overweight. I just wanted to put that point on the record. Certainly we're all concerned about vehicle safety, and with commercial trucks and so on it is rightly a major concern. But we certainly don't want to be damaging the ranching community or the recreational vehicle community or our tourist industry by unnecessary regulations. Again, I'm pleased with what we heard today.

[1505]

Just to get the ranchers' concerns on the record, they say they're still having problems with inconsistencies across the province, where staff in some areas appear much less lenient on the GVW issue than in other areas. They say that ICBC is unique in Canada -- according to the ranching community

[ Page 16812 ]

countrywide -- in such close attention to GVW issues, that some enforcement people are very legalistic and that there's a lot of confusion in ICBC staff regarding how to properly license and permit them.

They've asked ICBC for a written guide and been told that it's almost done, but it wasn't done at the time they were speaking with me. Maybe the minister could just confirm what's happening with the written guide.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Minister of Agriculture and I are working on and have signed off on the written guide, which has been signed off by ICBC as well. I thought it had been distributed, but if it hasn't yet, I'll check and give you a copy of it.

K. Krueger: Well, that's great. Thank you for that. Was the ranching community consulted in the development of that guide?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

K. Krueger: The consensus around the table dealing with the ranchers was: "We need a clean set of regulations, and we need proper enforcement of them." It sounds as though the corporation and the ministry have been working in that direction, and I'm pleased to hear it.

About the concern with staff being, as the ranchers put it, all over the road on these issues, I wonder if the corporation has undertaken or would commit to undertake a bit of a training program to make sure of consistency along with the publication of that guide.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Training of corporation employees is ongoing. I'd be happy if the member could provide us with examples of inconsistencies -- not by name, but examples of inconsistency that would form the basis of the training.

K. Krueger: I'll ask the ranching community to do that, and I'm really pleased about the progress on this issue.

On another ranching issue, cattle are frequently victims of motor vehicle crashes as well, and this often happens in areas that are open range. Again, there have been some inconsistencies over the years. This has been a cyclical problem over the 25 years that I've followed ICBC matters -- a problem with staff not really knowing how to deal with cow claims, frankly. Adjusters are trained to investigate accidents and try to determine how a court would split liability between drivers, sometimes they try to split liability between a driver and a cow.

The courts in the past have held that if a driver is negligent at all, then the owner and operator of the vehicle is obliged to pay the value of the animal if an animal is killed in a collision. So the corporation had a pretty clear-cut policy about that for a number of years. Over the last several years, we've been hearing complaints, and the cattlemen brought them to us again. They're getting into these liability hassles with the corporation over claims where their cattle are hit in open range.

I want to make it clear to the minister that we're not talking about a situation where an animal has escaped a fence and got onto a public highway where they're not allowed to be. We're talking about an incident where a driver has connected with an animal and either injured or killed it. I wonder if the minister could confirm what the corporation has resolved on this issue, and I do know that the claims division has been working on it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There has been no change in policy. Again, if there are problems, though, in terms of the application of the policy, we'd be happy to look into it. But there has been no change in policy in this area.

K. Krueger: Well, then it's probably simply a matter of training. Like every other business, the corporation has to hire new people and train them. It's probably a matter that could be cleared up with a claims division bulletin, and I'd recommend that to the corporation.

Also on the matter of interactions between vehicles and cattle, which always end up unfortunate for both sides, the province used to participate in fencing programs that protected cattlemen's stock from these unfortunate incidents. Many of the roads that we still use in British Columbia actually started out as ranchers' wagon trails and ended up being public roads. The province has cut back substantially and eliminated its funding for fencing in a number of areas. They're contributing very little anymore to fencing and protecting cattle, and obviously the cattlemen would like to see that situation reversed.

Has the corporation, as perhaps part of its road safety mandate, been contemplating a fencing program to deal with this issue?

[1510]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. Correct me if I'm wrong; we should get this information. I think the Minister of Agriculture just recently has announced a program in this area. Or if not, he certainly is . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, then the answer is: I'll look into it.

K. Krueger: Just to put the matter in perspective, a tremendous amount of fencing can be done for far less than a single claim for a serious injury would cost. People are often seriously hurt in animal impact. A large animal coming through the windshield does terrible damage to the occupant. These programs in the past often involved the provision of materials and the property owners doing a substantial portion of the labour. Things like that can be worked out. I'd like the corporation and the ministry to agree to have a look at bolstering whatever little funding is still available through Highways and through Agriculture and to deal with this issue.

Perhaps the minister didn't hear that. I asked if the corporation and the minister are willing to make a commitment that they will consider, as part of their road safety budgeting -- which I believe is in excess of $10 million per year now -- looking into this issue of participating in fencing and alleviating this concern about collisions with stock.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I had said yes, I'll look into it. I thought the member was just filling out what more I should look into. I had made that commitment.

K. Krueger: I missed that. To ranchers, it's very similar to governments paying for sidewalks and streetlights in the city. I thank the minister for those commitments.

I wanted to ask, in the interest of people who provide emergency service to accident victims all around the province,

[ Page 16813 ]

usually on a volunteer basis and often with equipment that they've raised money for themselves, if the corporation is willing to change its longstanding policy of not paying for the Jaws of Life and for emergency foam equipment for these emergency personnel. I'd like to see -- again perhaps from the road safety budget, but from some budget of the corporation -- provision for purchase of the Jaws of Life, replacing them when they need to be replaced, fixing them when they need to be fixed, providing the protective fire-retardant foam that you have to use along with that equipment. Would the minister update us on ICBC's policy on the Jaws of Life and similar equipment?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, this will inform the discussions that are ongoing now with the Attorney General, so I appreciate the input. Those discussions are occurring.

K. Krueger: Then just to flesh out the request a bit, these people are called out in the middle of the night. They clamber down steep banks; they go into rivers. They put their life and limb at risk. I went to a meeting up in Clearwater one evening, where a number of volunteers who had rescued several people from a mangled car were being counselled by a doctor. They had been scratched and cut, and there was blood all over the vehicle, and they learned that they had been exposed to hepatitis C. They take tremendous risks, and it just isn't right that they aren't provided the equipment.

They actually have to chip in themselves and have bake sales and what not to try and get this necessary equipment. So I'm pleased to hear that's being considered. I hope the minister will throw her weight behind the request that that equipment be paid for, for these wonderful volunteers of ours.

[1515]

I want to move on, then, to an issue that brokers have been raising. That is apparently a pilot project of some sort with a broker named Sussex, having to do with renewing policies over the phone and having the licence plate decals couriered to the people who do such renewals. Is that a fact, and could the minister and the corporation advise this House what the details of the pilot project are?

Hon. J. MacPhail: ICBC has been willing to work with all brokers on alternate distribution methods. This has been going on for about 18 months, looking at alternate methods. So the corporation's focus is very much on customer service. ICBC has been advised by the Sussex Group that the method of selling Autoplan renewals by way of call centre contact has received the appropriate approvals from the regulatory authority.

There is a dispute, though. There is no question that there is a dispute between Sussex and IBABC, and that's where the dispute lies. ICBC is also launching initiatives that will make it possible for even the smallest brokerages to take advantage of e-commerce by providing access to state-of-the-art hardware and software programs. So ICBC is working from the point of view of helping all brokers into the twenty-first century and always from a customer focus.

K. Krueger: How long, though, will Sussex have the exclusive right to provide renewals in this way when other ICBC brokers don't?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no universal request for this kind of access. Other brokers are looking at other ways of delivering service in alternate ways that will be even more beneficial to them. There isn't a request for exclusivity, nor is there a request for universal inclusivity.

K. Krueger: That may well be because the other brokers didn't know that this was happening. The way many of them found out about it was by seeing Sussex ads in the yellow pages. As I understand it, when some of them complained to the corporation, the matter was put on hold for a short while. Now I hear Sussex ads on the radio. Definitely this puts Sussex at a competitive advantage, because other brokers haven't been allowed to renew policies over the phone or to courier decals. People have had to actually deal with a roadrunner who comes out from the agency or go into the brokerage themselves.

I take the minister's answer, then, to indicate that if other brokers want this ability to service their customers in this way, they need only ask for it. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just so you know the history of this, the program was put on hold for 30 days when the Insurance Brokers Association brought it to the corporation's attention. Everybody else was caught up to speed in having access to it if they so wished, and then Sussex went back into delivering this form of service. I'm informed that as recently as the brokers' convention of a few weeks ago, this was not a sticking point. But if the member has different information, I'd be happy to hear that. The corporation is very much interested in getting everybody on to even broader forms of communication with customers. That's what we have to do in order to remain in the game.

K. Krueger: Perhaps it isn't a problem at all. The minister didn't hear part of my last question, which was: if a broker wants to be able to provide this service, just as Sussex is able to, is the minister saying they only need apply to the corporation and they'll have that ability?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

K. Krueger: That clears that one up quickly. The brokers have long been considered by the public to be one of the best assets that the Insurance Corporation of B.C. has. A number of them have longstanding concerns that the corporation would really like to shrink the number of brokers it's dealing through. This was perceived as an indication that that might be happening. Just to clear up the record on that question: does ICBC have a goal to reduce the number of brokers that service its clients?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The corporation has never had a quota for brokers. It's irrelevant to the corporation.

D. Jarvis: On this same subject, with regards to brokers, I understand that the brokers contract is coming up fairly soon. Have any negotiations been started with regards to renewing the present brokers licence, and is that . . . ? Well, I'll leave it at that point there.

[1520]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The initial five-year accord, by agreement of the parties, was to be the period in which both the

[ Page 16814 ]

Insurance Corporation and the brokers association would look toward what the relationship would be like in the new millennium. There's still a few years to run on that.

The example of Sussex going into e-commerce and how that forms a relationship between the corporation and brokers is exactly the kind of discussion that is taking place. Those discussions are ongoing. How the contract gets renewed at the conclusion of those discussions is still up for discussion. It's going very well.

D. Jarvis: In view of Mr. Thompson's co-op and mutualization discussions or feelers, have there been any studies by ICBC with regards to going to a direct rating?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

D. Jarvis: I wanted, then, to ask a couple of brief questions. Could the minister explain to us what the status is and how the Punky Lake Wilderness Camp program that's out in the Chilcotin was initiated?

Hon. J. MacPhail: ICBC received 71 grant applications for the auto crime 2000 program and awarded 50 grants. There's a panel that reviews it. There was a 30 percent decline in auto theft reported to the Williams Lake claims centre over the period that the Punky Lake Wilderness Camp Society has been in operation. Punky Lake Wilderness Camp Society has also now received funding from the National Crime Prevention Centre, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the federal aboriginal justice directorate. So there has been a 30 percent decline.

D. Jarvis: With regards to Punky Lake, I understand that it's only been open since May 8. I was wondering. This is a 30 percent reduction in this short time, in a month and a half. Can you tell me what the problem was prior to that? How many cars were being stolen in the Williams Lake area? How many are today? It's rather surprising, if not startling.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Punky Lake plan has been awarded grants under this program for the last two years. In their 2000 grant application, Punky Lake reported an overall 45 percent reduction in the 1998-99 period. Sorry, it's been going on for two years.

D. Jarvis: Thank you. I hadn't been aware of that. I had phoned up to the RCMP in Anahim. The constable there said the camp is not officially open; this was on May 8. Also, he expected an invitation to the opening, and he hasn't received it yet. He has no clients, as far as they know there. That's something to think about, I guess.

[1525]

In any event, I just wondered what the status of it was. Not that I disagree with it, but if there has been a 30 percent drop in the rates there, then that's probably good.

I wanted to ask the minister with regards to fines, mostly through motor vehicle and others because of photo radar, etc. I've got one here. I seem to get a lot of calls pertaining to people that have tickets that are outstanding for a long time.

On May 8 this one lady received notice from a collection company in Montreal, Quebec, about an outstanding ticket in Vancouver. It was four years prior to that. I was just wondering what extent we go to, to get a ticket. I imagine that for $100 . . . . It seems surprising. She's given me the whole background list on it. And the fact that the summons she got, this last one from the collection company in Montreal . . . . The ticket was four years old. Her driver's licence was wrong on all the documents, and on and on.

Then I get another one here which is really surprising. This gentleman received a summons on May 16. It was for $75. He had a search made on it to find out what the ticket was all about, because he had no idea what it was about. They gave his licence number. It was for an incident that happened at 2 p.m., December 3, 1990. That was ten years ago. Are we that desperate that we're still issuing tickets and having them served ten years after they occurred?

On that premise, I'd like to ask: can the minister tell us why this situation is still ongoing after ten years? Surely it's not even worth going to a collection agency on that premise. What are the costs of our collection agencies? What's the cost to the corporation for serving the tickets -- i.e., for photo radar and for all the other services required through motor vehicle? By the way, ten years ago photo radar wasn't around, so it wasn't for a photo radar ticket. That just seems ludicrous to me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I expect this is one of those questions, though, where one is damned if one does and one is damned if one doesn't. I'm sure that the Liberal opposition would be dismayed if the corporation decided to just stop collecting outstanding fines and insurance premiums, etc. What we have done is changed the basis by which one does have to pay outstanding fines and insurance premiums and claims. Under the six-point plan, now, in order to renew one's insurance, one must be debt-free. So this is less and less of an issue. The point that the member makes won't occur now.

D. Jarvis: Do you not think that ten years after a parking ticket or something along that line, it's completely out of order to be serving it now? I mean, when does it come that it's a good business risk to start and stop serving tickets, especially for the amount it costs?

I still haven't had the answer to what the costs have been up to this date with regards to serving tickets -- i.e., for photo radar and for all the other costs of motor vehicle. It's a point of interest that I would be interested to know.

[1530]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether one should be collecting a ten-year-old debt. But I do find it interesting that the Liberal opposition feels that we shouldn't be collecting ten-year-old debts.

The costs of ticket processing and process serving amount to -- this is for photo radar -- $2.1 million and $2.6 million respectively. The ticket-processing component, $2.1 million, is the cost for developing the film, printing and mailing of tickets. I will have to get the information for the member for non-photo radar ticket collection.

D. Jarvis: Just to follow up with a little comment on that. You said you'd be interested to know why we're so interested in it. It's a business of the tickets. It's a business that ICBC is in. That's where they get a lot of the revenue that comes directly to them, some $80 million a year or $80 million for photo

[ Page 16815 ]

radar. Is it worthwhile when you have a ten-year-old ticket? How many times have you tried to serve it? How many times is the cost for it . . . ? And then to have it go all the way to Montreal, to have them serve a resident who moved to Montreal four years ago and now has moved back to Vancouver . . . . It's not logical for maybe a $100 or a $50 ticket. Who knows?

I want to ask the minister if she can give me a

summary of what is occurring with regards to the Surrey mall and the proposal for the technical university out there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm just going to give you some . . . . I'll be getting that for you in a moment. Let me just say that we don't reissue tickets. This ten-year-old ticket would be the collection agency . . . . It's a good, solid private sector model: we contract with collection agencies on a contingency basis. If the collection agency chooses to go back and collect a ten-year-old ticket, so be it. There's no increased costs to the Insurance Corporation for that.

Let me also fill in for you on the public trustee answer. There is no dollar threshold. All claims, including injury, must go to the public trustee -- the full amount. But those involving property damage only do not go to the public trustee. Otherwise, everything else from zero dollar goes.

The Surrey centre project. Let me see. You know exactly what's happening. ICBC has an anchor tenant for the new Surrey centre complex. The contracts have been signed, and we expect to be breaking ground very soon.

D. Jarvis: Can the member tell me, for example, how much has been spent so far on the Surrey mall?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Last year, you may remember, we spent $40 million buying the mall. This year the costs have been minimal -- about $4 million this year to date, just doing architectural redesign.

D. Jarvis: In the construction of it, though, I understand -- I have a copy of a memo of understanding -- that in the development obligations of the Surrey agreement, ICBC is responsible for providing, say, 250 parking spots for an existing recreation facility in the area and paying 75 percent of the replacement costs of any of (

a) North Surrey Recreational Centre, (

b) the existing library, or (

c) the existing seniors centre that are relocated to accommodate the development on the parcel. That sounds like quite a bit. I'm not saying it's unusual, but is it usual? What does that add up to in your construction costs? You paid $40 million for the deal. How much has ICBC invested since then?

[1535]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a plan for a new parkade, yes. There's going to be quite a substantial amount of expansion there. But I've given you the construction costs to date.

D. Jarvis: Just to clarify, then, $40 million is all that ICBC is responsible for in the Surrey mall. That was the original land purchase.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That's the acquisition cost of the mall last year. This year there's been $4 million in construction costs, in architectural redesign of the mall.

I think the member is asking about the provision for parking. There will be a parkade built there, yes. The five main components of the project include the construction of the realignment of 102nd Avenue, a four-storey, 1,200-car parkade on the west parking lot of Surrey Place Mall, a galleria on top of the mall, a quadrangle building beside the northwest corner of the mall and a 20-storey tower above the quadrangle.

D. Jarvis: Would the minister advise us as to what the estimated cost for the construction of that parkade is? From what I interpret, that's over and above the $4 million that has been spent to date. What is ICBC faced with as far as total costs in this whole project?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The whole project cost, beyond what ICBC paid for the mall -- and not having to pay for 12 acres of free land, which was the city contribution by Surrey -- is approximately $208 million for the entire project.

D. Jarvis: With regards to the Surrey agreement, then, there are some items in there. Item 4.19 indicates that there could be some potential costs in here. I wonder if she can make it clear to me as to what the pending costs may be on that one -- that is, to build. "ICBC acknowledges that Tech B.C. has undertaken a process to build a facility, on a stand-alone basis, utilizing a form of design, build, selection process. ICBC agrees to indemnify Tech B.C. from any claims wrought by any of the shortlist of proponents." Has this been calculated into that $200 million, or is this over and above?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is my understanding that, yes, it has. But I'll certainly get further information if I'm wrong on that.

D. Jarvis: Just one more question, and then we can pretty well wind this up. Also in this same agreement there's a no-strike clause. It says that the development company will make all reasonable efforts to obtain a no-strike clause in the contract. Is that a usual thing for a corporation like this to put forward?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Guarantee of a construction timetable is certainly an absolutely desirable goal, and if indeed the successful bidder is a unionized construction company, yes, absolutely.

D. Jarvis: Would there be any costs for that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To my understanding, project agreements with unions are negotiated and include no-strike, no-lockout clauses. But does the corporation pay for such a commitment? No.

D. Jarvis: Why I brought it up was the fact that, say, for example, the Island Highway . . . . The government agreed that for a no-strike clause, they would pay so many cents per hour, per workman, and pay it to the unions in there. I just wondered what that cost was that ICBC would have been faced with, seeing that they guaranteed there would be a no-strike clause, or there would be protection for it.

[1540]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Certainly the member's

interpretation of what happened on the Island Highway is incorrect. But let me just deal with what happened in this.

[ Page 16816 ]

It's a request for proposal. This is a proposal. People bid on it, and the company incorporates in its bid all of the costs for it to deliver on the proposal. That's what it is.

K. Krueger: I had to go to a briefing meeting this morning, and if this matter's been covered, I apologize, and we'll just move on.

There was some discussion a while back about ICBC considering a new rating system, where they charge premiums according to the mileage that was being driven on the vehicles. Is that proposal still being given active consideration?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I did answer the question. What I said was that the proposal is on the table; it's under consideration. There's work being done on it, but there's a heck of a lot more work that needs to be done on it.

K. Krueger: I wish to put it on the record, then, that that's a matter of tremendous concern to people outside the lower mainland, where the accident frequency and the claims experience is actually a lot better than it is in the lower mainland. People in the interior and up and down the Island depend on their vehicles to make their livelihoods; nevertheless, they enjoy, as I said, a much better claims record. So it would penalize the wrong people. It would be a real problem in the local economy; it would be a real imposition on those drivers. I strongly urge the minister not to entertain that notion if it is brought forward.

I wanted to ask the cost of production of ICBC's annual report for the past year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Approximately $50,000.

K. Krueger: And is the minister aware how much extra it costs to have this centrefold of Mr. Williams and Mr. Thompson on the front -- unblushing?

The Chair: The member continues.

K. Krueger: The minister's not responding. Perhaps she thinks that was a facetious question, but it wasn't. I think the public expects respect above all else, and respect is demonstrated in good stewardship of their premium dollar, in good service and in fairness. And the staff expect those same things: good stewardship, respect for themselves and their customers, and fairness.

I have a long familiarity with the Insurance Corporation of B.C. I can tell the minister that morale is not what it used to be in the corporation. People are ashamed and concerned about the high expense ratio, the 22 percent that we discussed earlier. That is a marked departure from the way things used to be at ICBC.

We've raised things on the record before, such as the move of the senior managers across the water, away from the head office. We didn't think that was appropriate. Senior management disregarded that and did it anyway. I understand that people really feel a loss of team spirit in the head office as a result. They feel as though the senior people have made themselves a bit of an elite by making that move.

I'm hearing disturbing claimant complaints. The corporation used to be very conscious of its customer service levels and its image, and I'd like to see that continue.

We have senior managers refusing to disclose their salaries, at least initially. We have them saying, "Well, you have to pay us this much, because that's how you attract good people," when most of the people who are paying the premiums in this province are really scratching to come up with their annual premium. There are many worthy people who could be considered for those jobs.

The public and the staff question whether the respect is there for the staff, for the premium-paying public, for the drivers of British Columbia and for this Legislature. So fair warning to those involved: the public and the opposition certainly expect a demonstration of respect at all times for the people who own this corporation.

That being said, we're prepared now to move on to gaming issues. If the minister wants to have a few comments on the changing of the guard, this would be the time to do it.

[1545]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you to the opposition for the good discussion on the Insurance Corporation of B.C., and thank you to the staff for the excellent service in this debate.

I'd just like to read into the record that the staff have an answer on the tridem-drive tractors. Tridem-drive tractors were first approved for use in the logging industry in October of '97. Field-testing has recently been completed on a new configuration incorporating a tri-axle trailer. A computer simulation, required support of specific field-testing to test for off-tracking and rollover, was done. The test is complete, and the regulatory proposal to be provided to government is in development.

Other industry evaluations of similar configurations include tridem low-beds, which will begin soon. Computer testing has been believed to be conservative in its results in the past, and field validations are required to confirm the accuracy of results and to ensure the safety of other road users. An evaluation of ore-transporting configurations of this technology was designed, built and tested in six months last year.

Anyway, thank you very much, and we move on to gaming.

S. Hawkins: We had quite an interesting discussion last year around gaming. The estimates last year came up . . . . Actually, they started the day after the Deputy Premier -- I have to get all these titles in place -- who is now the Energy and Mines minister, ended the expansion of gaming. So it'll be interesting to see where we've come from last year to this year.

It's interesting that just in the past year and a half we've seen four gaming ministers, and since 1996 we've had eight gaming ministers. Within the nine years that the members have sat on those government benches, I believe we've had 12 gaming ministers. So I think we can start to understand some of the confusion and lack of continuity and leadership around the gaming industry and issues in the province.

But anyway, I think I'll start by asking the minister to perhaps lay out the government's gaming policy as it stands today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There has been a lot of work done in the area of gaming over the course of the last year. Certainly the Meekison report summarized recommendations to gov-

[ Page 16817 ]

ernment about how gaming can be on a stable footing here: recommendations for legislation, recommendations for how to ensure proper revenue flow to the charities, ensuring that there is good enforcement, recommendations on how to distance decisions around operation and management of gaming from cabinet -- that policy decisions regarding gaming should remain with cabinet, but beyond that, the delivery and enforcement of gaming should be at arm's length.

We have reached agreement with municipalities that there will be no gaming if a municipality does not want it. There's a revenue-sharing agreement in place that's proving to be very profitable to communities who choose to have gaming in their community. The policy is that there will be no expansion of gaming.

S. Hawkins: There is an outstanding issue, obviously: the investigation that ensued after the then Premier's house was raided last March, I believe it was. I wonder if the minister can give us an update on the status of that investigation and where we are as far as getting some of those issues resolved.

[1550]

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

S. Hawkins: I wonder if the minister would like to introduce the people who are advising her at this time, and I will follow up with some questions from her very informative answer she just gave me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: To my left is Vic Poleschuk, who is the president and CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Derek Sturko, on my right, is the executive director of the gaming policy secretariat. And Gary Martin is behind me and is the assistant deputy minister from the Ministry of Labour.

S. Hawkins: Is the minister unable to answer the questions because of legal advice, or is she just unwilling to answer questions around the investigation of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no knowledge. I expect that it's inappropriate, and it's not part of this portfolio.

S. Hawkins: We did go through quite a chronology of the so-called Casinogate scandal last year. And because it does fall within how casino applications were reviewed and some outstanding applications or agreements-in-principle that are before this government, it would have been nice to have the minister at least give us an update on what was happening there. But I will move on.

I wonder if the minister will tell us what the status is of the casinos that received agreements-in-principle and when they're expected to be built.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Final approval has been given to the Star of Fortune, and it has opened. Lake City Casinos has opened. Trillium Gaming Inc., which is the Casino of the Rockies, is anticipated to open next year. Charity Bingo in Burnaby is a numbered company. It opened in 1999. There are five that have outstanding facilities that have various dates of changes due to the changes expected to their final plans, ranging from the end of this month through to November 30 of this year.

S. Hawkins: Has the government imposed any deadlines for those outstanding casinos to proceed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry, those were the deadlines that I was reading out.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me who's handling those files? Who is responsible for making sure they proceed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The B.C. Lottery Corporation.

S. Hawkins: I understand that for some of the applications there might have been some changes in the terms. I am wondering if there is a process to change the terms of an agreement-in-principle.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no permit for substantive change, but there is room for minor changes. This is from the original proposal that was submitted that led to an agreement-in-principle. There is room for minor changes. That's what the B.C. Lottery Corporation negotiates to conclude the agreement. If there's some question about whether it's substantive or minor, there's a legal opinion sought. If the legal opinion sought says it's a substantive change, the negotiations stop on that item.

S. Hawkins: I was at a conference at the Pacific Law Institute about a month ago, and one of the minister's advisers was also there. There were a lot of questions around what was a minor change or what was a substantial change. Perhaps we could get into that here.

[1555]

The minister is saying they would seek a legal opinion. But the minister's staff must have some idea of what they would consider a minor or a substantial change. I wonder if the minister can give me an example.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Substantial changes would be defined as, and certainly not limited to . . . . Some examples are if the proponent actually wants to change the location to another piece of property completely or if the proponents themselves change. A minor change would be if the proponents suggest that within the zoned land, the casino should be in a different corner. That would be a minor change.

S. Hawkins: The casinos that received their final approval -- were they all in compliance with the original plans? Or were there minor changes that were accommodated in their application?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There were minor changes incorporated.

S. Hawkins: Did I hear the minister say that they would get a legal opinion every time there was a change that was proposed? No? Okay.

Can the minister tell me what minor changes -- if she can give me some examples -- took place in the applications that got final approval? What kind of minor changes were accepted in those applications?

Hon. J. MacPhail: An example of a minor change that was approved was a change in the financial underwriter.

[ Page 16818 ]

S. Hawkins: Were there any unsuccessful proponents with respect to the agreements-in-principle?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member may be aware that the AIP of the North Burnaby Inn was cancelled, but all the rest are under active negotiation.

S. Hawkins: Were any unsuccessful proponents then -- the one that the minister just named -- refunded any moneys?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

S. Hawkins: The revenues from the gambling expansion at the level that the government envisioned when the expansion was undertaken . . . . The government obviously was hoping to make a great amount of money. Were the revenues that the government was hoping to get actually expected, at the level that the government had wanted? Did they actually come in at the level that the government had wanted?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Speaking on behalf of the Minister of Finance, who would be most interested in this . . . . Given the context that the government has modified its expansion of gaming and that there is now no increase in expanded gaming and also the policy that the memorandum of agreement says that a municipality will not have gaming forced upon it, yes, in the context of those, the Minister of Finance is pleased with the revenue increases from gaming.

S. Hawkins: I just want to address the gaming policy secretariat for just a minute. I'm wondering what the staff complement is in the gaming policy secretariat and if it's up or down from last year.

[1600]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are seven working now. That's an increase of one from last year, and there are five vacancies.

S. Hawkins: That's interesting, because I had seven FTEs from last year. The minister says there are seven this year and there's an increase.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Okay, maybe it's eight. What is the gaming policy secretariat's role in casino relocation analysis? Can the minister lay that out for us please?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The question was relocation, I believe. If that was the question, there's no role of the gaming policy secretariat.

S. Hawkins: Is the secretariat responsible for the minister's advisory council?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister explain why Mark MacKinnon was replaced?

Hon. J. MacPhail: He applied for a different job and got it.

S. Hawkins: There are some concerns, certainly from the charities, that the processing time for access applications is quite long. In some cases it's over three months. I'm interested to know what the causes of such delays are.

Hon. J. MacPhail: That, of course, is the responsibility of the Gaming Commission. I think the Gaming Commission itself would have agreed with the member's point of views. Hence they've just recently announced a new application process, much more streamlined -- one process for all. They hope, and I believe, that that will reduce the onerous aspect of the application process.

S. Hawkins: Is that new process in place now, and is there currently a backlog? Does the minister know what the backlog of applications is?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The process is in place. There is no backlog under the new process, but there is a backlog left over from the previous processes. I just don't have that right here, but I will find out what that is. But it is shrinking.

S. Hawkins: What is the status of the executive director, Harry Elliott?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a personnel matter, so I'm not at liberty to comment on this in detail. I can tell you that the board of commissioners oversees the operations of the B.C. Gaming Commission. The board indicated that it had lost confidence in the ability of the executive director to continue overseeing the operations of the commission. The executive director is currently on leave with pay while the ministry reviews the matter.

[1605]

S. Hawkins: I understand that Mr. Elliott worked as the director for the last four years. He appears to be quite a well-respected person in that position. There was an

article that appeared in the local paper here, the Times Colonist . It was written by columnist Les Leyne. I'm going to quote from it, just to get it on the record. There are some concerns around Mr. Elliott being moved out of that position. I quote from the article:

"The removal" -- and that is referring to Mr. Elliott -- "came not long after Elliott raised questions about how many bingo halls are failing to meet the minimum requirement for dispersal to charities. All of them are slumping in revenue since the introduction of slot machines and the expansion of casinos.

"Elliott flagged the point that only three of the 15 charity-run halls are meeting the requirements for dispersal of funds to charities. That came after he distributed a breakdown of what every hall in B.C. was taking in and putting out. All of them are being artificially propped up by the government, which tops up their revenues every month to make up for the damage wrought by casino expansion."

The

article goes on to say:

"Elliott is described by people who know him as a very straightforward, stubborn man who goes by the book. 'He can be abrasive, and he has ruffled feathers over the four years he did the job. He had questions about some halls, and they took exception to it and went through political connections to have him removed,' said one insider."

That's coming from people who apparently have some knowledge of the incident.

"Another expert in the field said: 'I am exceptionally disheartened by the move. He doesn't b.s.; he says what he thinks

[ Page 16819 ]

is the truth to people who don't want to hear it.' Even people who have clashed with him and complained about him overstepping his bounds with the commission are wondering about the move."

The

article also goes on to say:

"Elliott also crossed swords recently with the B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming, a two-year-old outfit set up by the government to advise on gaming. Their recent newsletters say $100 membership fees are its only source of income. Elliott bluntly made it known that the group has in the past received $588,000 in grants and forgiven loans, much of it from the interest generated by a trust fund created after a court battle.

And association board members confirm that more than $200,000 of that went to their lawyer over the course of an absurd argument between charities and government about disposition of those funds. If the association spent $200,000, the government spent two to three times that on the

case."

I wonder if the minister has any comments about that.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I've already said that it's a personnel matter, and I'm not at liberty to comment in any detail. But what I can say is that the newspaper column that the member just read into the record is not relevant to the decision to put him on paid leave.

S. Hawkins: Well, it appears that there's something amiss here. You have a very well respected executive director of the Gaming Commission who's removed from his post -- and, it seems to me, because he blew the whistle on several things. First of all, it appears that the government's been funding the BCACG. I have a memo here that's written to the BCACG, the British Columbia Association for Charitable Gaming.

Apparently, in their newsletter, they did write that they were in no way funded or obliged to anyone other than members and that their membership dues was their only source of income. This memo very clearly outlines that there was funding that was received from the B.C. Lottery Corporation, from the province of B.C. and from the provincial charity fund in the amount of $588,071 for this association. I'm just wondering: is the minister aware that this money went to that organization? And is she willing to comment on what the money was used for, for this association?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm aware of it, but again, it's not relevant to the decision that's been made in this personnel matter. Two hundred thousand dollars was originally given for start-up costs for the association. After that, approximately $400,000 was court-ordered as a result of the court decision around the charity trust.

S. Hawkins: I wonder why the association would be telling their members that their membership dues were the only source of income, then. It's interesting.

The government's giving them almost $600,000 in funds. The minister might not find that relevant. I mean, I see shoulder-shrugging over there. That's $600,000 in government funds coming from the B.C. Lottery Corporation or the provincial charity trust fund or the province of B.C. I'm just wondering what accountability this minister's office got for the way that money was used.

[1610]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have no idea why the association itself communicates with the information to its members, so I can't answer that question. The court-ordered portion of $400,000 is a court order. The $200,000 startup cost is in the form of a loan, of which $100,000 has to be paid back to the Lottery Corp.

S. Hawkins: When is the decision regarding Mr. Elliott going to be made -- about where he goes? I understand he's on paid leave; that's what the minister said.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't know.

S. Hawkins: Is he going to be on paid leave for a month? Six months? A year? Or is the ministry trying to find him another position within a certain amount . . . ? Is there a deadline for how long he's going to be on paid leave?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The commission is working on that and working on it actively, I'm told, or is looking for a position for as soon as is practical.

S. Hawkins: There are quite a few concerns about electronic bingo in the province, and I'm wondering if the government can outline their position on electronic bingo at this time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It would be helpful if the member could give her understanding of what the concerns are. Electronic bingo is now managed and operated by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The Criminal Code requires that it be a Crown agency that operates electronic bingo. Certainly the Meekison report recommended that that needs to be changed. We're now in consultation with pretty much everybody to talk about how we can achieve the requirements of the Criminal Code. There are several options being considered on how to do that. But it's all part of a broad consultation. I understand that there are different views, but perhaps the member could be clearer in what she knows as concerns.

S. Hawkins: I understand that the charities have been in discussions with the minister and that they are in trouble. Bingo is in trouble because of casinos, the expansion in gaming. We know that charities have depended on gaming revenues over the years, and they've lost that revenue to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Certainly, with electronic bingo and high-tech gaming, they feel like they've lost out. So I know that there are options for the government, and I'm wondering if the government has come to a decision on what they're going to do with electronic bingo, and whether the charities are going to be given control of that or if it's going to remain with the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, indeed, electronic bingo has to be . . . . We have to meet the requirements of the Criminal Code. So whatever is worked on . . . . I mean, right now, the electronic bingo operators cannot be responsible, because that's a violation of the Criminal Code.

But the point is well taken that bingo is not keeping pace with other forms of gaming. So the B.C. Lottery Corporation has got quite an interesting program going on to assist the bingo industry. I actually had the privilege of viewing that a few weeks ago. They're working with the various bingo halls to integrate electronic bingo with paper bingo. There's even new hand-held machines. There's a provincewide nightly bingo contest. All of the money goes to the charities from electronic bingo.

[ Page 16820 ]

Lastly, just let me reassure the member -- but more importantly, the charities -- that there's a guarantee of money that flows from the government to charities, and that guarantee is unaffected by the amount of revenue actually collected in electronic bingo.

[1615]

S. Hawkins: I understand that, and I'm wondering if the top-up to the bingos will continue indefinitely. Is that something the government is proceeding with?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As long as the NDP is in government, yes. I can't assure the charities if there's a change in government.

S. Hawkins: When I was reading from the previous document . . . . I wonder if the minister will comment on the number of bingo halls that are unable to meet their 25 percent commitment to the charities.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I will get that information for you.

S. Hawkins: If the government is going to continue to make up the difference for the revenues -- and I understand, from the bingo halls and the charities, that it is a direct result of the casino expansion -- is the government worried about that? Is the government worried that general revenues or other revenues are going to keep on supplementing that and that the bingo industry will face a dramatic downsizing as a result of casino expansion?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're supporting the charities from many fronts. First of all, we are working with the bingo industry itself. They're coping with a market that's in transition. There's no question the consumer now has many choices of gaming facilities. But the $125 million is guaranteed, and it will be guaranteed to the charities. That's our way of saying to the charities that they play a very important role, and regardless of the shift in gaming, that important role will be funded by our government.

S. Hawkins: The Lottery Corporation, from the documents that we were given -- it doesn't appear that they're going to provide as much money to the government this fiscal year as they did last year. It was $413 million last year and $398 million this year. However, we know that there's more slots than last year. I wonder if the minister can explain the decrease in the expected revenues.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Prudent financial planning around revenues.

S. Hawkins: I'm sorry; I didn't get that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I said: prudent financial planning around revenues in the budget. There are factors that are affecting the revenue that were put in place last year. One is the host local government's share of gaming revenue. The charities will be given their $125 million, and there's development assistance compensation to support developments ancillary to destination casinos, which generate economic activities in the community. That's prudent financial planning. I expect that there will be good news on this front.

S. Hawkins: The Lottery Corporation is very careful to say that the money they raise does go for health and education. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me how much of the breakdown will go to health and how much goes to education, of the moneys that the Lottery Corporation turns in to general revenue.

[1620]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Charitable organizations get $145 million; municipal governments are estimated to get $27 million. The revenue to the provincial government is estimated at $398 million, of which $136.4 million goes into a health special account. The rest goes into general revenue for all government programs.

S. Hawkins: Thanks for that breakdown. I also understand the corporation is planning to change its approach to lotteries, and they're looking at its distribution channels and product line. I'm wondering what the corporation envisions. What's their vision?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The market is mature. The Lottery Corporation is looking at some expansion of its retail outlets, but other than that, no -- no changes.

S. Hawkins: So there's no vision for new product lines or distribution channels. Is that my understanding?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, there's no significant change to product line. There will be an addition of a game, but it's the same kind of product that is already out there in the market now.

S. Hawkins: The corporation has identified casino relocations as a source of new revenues. I'm wondering if the corporation has undertaken any studies to identify how many slot machine-based casinos the market can handle. Have they done any of that?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There was a study on projected total capacity of gaming done around 1997 to inform the government about expanded gaming -- destination casinos. The corporation is now updating that study.

S. Hawkins: Is the original study that was done a public document? I'm wondering if I can get a copy of that. And when will the corporation finish its review of that study and have the update ready?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the original document is available, and we'll get that to you. The next document should be available within a couple of months.

S. Hawkins: Maybe the update of that study will address this as well, but perhaps the corporation's done some studies already on the expected impact on administrative costs of the new casinos and possible casino relocations. Have there been any cost analysis studies that have been done?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are no changes in administrative costs on the basis of relocation, not to the corporation. I gather the proponents that would wish to relocate would take that into account themselves in their business plan.

[ Page 16821 ]

[1625]

I. Chong: I would like to ask the minister at this point about the allocation of gaming revenues. I heard her respond to the member who asked questions about that. I'm just curious. In the area of gaming revenues, there has been some discussion from the amateur sports athletic associations about revenues that have been generated as a result of sports lotteries and those kinds of things. I'd just be curious, if the minister can advise whether there has been any consideration made to these organizations -- amateur athletes' organizations. Would there be any potential for an increase in revenue-sharing or a commitment to revenue-sharing?

I know this has been a topic for some time, and as the critic for Small Business, Tourism and Culture and amateur sports, this question has been posed to myself on a number of occasions.

Hon. J. MacPhail: If the sports organization is designated a charitable organization, they can apply for a direct access grant. I know that funding for sports organizations is always a topic of discussion at Treasury Board during the course of budget planning.

I. Chong: My understanding, then, is that only if an organization applies through this would there be an entitlement to receive any of this revenue in the form of, I guess, a charitable distribution, and that at this time there is no commitment by this government to change that and consider some of the proposals that have come forward from the amateur athletic associations. The reason why it keeps coming forward is that years ago when the Lottery Corporation started . . . .

I know the minister is aware that when the 649 tickets all came about, everybody expected that this was to be used for funding for amateur athletic sports in this province, as opposed to going into general revenue, which is why these sports organizations constantly make their case for the minister.

I know that she's heard this, and I appreciate the fact that she says that this is a topic of discussion each and every year. But again, I would just want confirmation at this time. If there is no commitment, what avenues do those who can't access the funds, these other smaller organizations -- because they can't apply through a licence for whatever reason -- have to access some revenues from the Lottery Corporation? Are there any other alternatives, other than through a charity licensing approach?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a difference between the licence and direct access grants. Licence means you go into the bingo and work. But if you've got a worthy cause and you're a charity, you can apply for a direct access grant. Those are the methods by which charitable organizations have access to lottery funding.

I'm sorry; I imagine you would have this discussion with the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture about other methods by which organizations can receive funding. That would be his responsibility.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for her clarification. I am aware that there is opportunity for direct access grants, although what I'm hearing is that there seem to be fewer and fewer. My questions were to find out whether there was going to be a shift in terms of allocation of commitment to that pot of money.

As I heard the minister indicate earlier, in the breakdown that she provided us, the provincial revenue of $398 million, of which $146 million went to Health and therefore the other $252 million went to general revenues, for which I presume grants are made -- whether there would be a shift in that, whether there would be a dedicated amount to ensure that they would go to amateur sports organizations as part of their request . . . .

If that's not the case and there's no change or no anticipated change, then I will have to accept that and continue to pursue the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. But if the minister has a response, I'll defer to her.

[1630]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it is an interesting point -- the difference that a couple of hours makes. I would suggest that our highest priority for funding of dollars that are available would go to Health. And of course, a couple of hours ago, that was certainly the pitch that the Liberal opposition was making as well.

However, we have seen our way clear to fund amateur sport through making a $2.5 million commitment to the 2010 Olympic bid legacy. That's all about amateur sport -- a substantial commitment from the government.

I. Chong: I just want to also confirm for the record that I was not suggesting that in the two hours that have occurred there was a shift on this side of the House -- that the commitment was not to Health. But the other $252 million that goes to general revenue, which is not committed to Health, whether there were opportunities there for an increase or change in the allocation that goes to amateur sports . . . .

In regards to the $2.5 million going to the Olympic bid, that is a new venture as opposed to the existing amateur sports organizations that are continually asking for assistance from a corporation that was originally set up to deal with this specific funding issue. So I just want to make that clear for the record. As I indicated earlier, I will continue to pursue this with the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, although he doesn't seem to have a very strong voice at the cabinet table in this area.

The other issue I'd like to canvass, which was raised last year, is the area of Internet gaming. We all know the exponential growth there; we know the problems that are associated with it. At that time, two ministers ago, the now Minister of Health provided us with some, I would say, reasonable debate last year, offering that some work was being done in this area. I would like the minister to advise at this time specifically what work is being done by our own Lottery Corporation, or by whatever ad hoc committees or subcommittees that are established, and what other initiatives are being looked at specifically to deal with this problem, because it's not going away.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is actually a growing issue. It's not getting smaller; it's growing. I'm sure the member is aware that under the Criminal Code of Canada, only gaming conducted and managed by the province or by the holder of a licence issued by the province is lawful. Therefore all other gaming, including Internet gaming, is unlawful.

In Canada no province or territory has approved Internet gaming, including B.C. or the federal government. The B.C.

[ Page 16822 ]

Lottery Corporation is working on this issue through the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation; that's the cross-Canada lottery corporation. There's a lot of work being put into a growing issue interprovincially.

I. Chong: I would confirm with the minister that we all acknowledge that Internet gaming is illegal here in B.C. and across the country, yet it continues to grow, as the minister acknowledged. And it is continually a complex problem, because the Internet is very difficult to regulate. We're not just talking about telecommunication lines now; we're looking at fibre optics and the various kinds of wireless communication that are occurring. So it's growing exponentially. It will continue to plague this province and other provinces and indeed the federal government.

I appreciate the minister advising there's an Interprovincial Lottery Corporation or committee looking into this; that was not made clear last year. My question specifically was: what specific initiatives are being looked at? Can the minister provide us with what is happening? All we were hearing last year from the minister was that they were working on it. So a year's gone by. I'd just like to know what advances we've made, if any.

[1635]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there are no easy solutions to this question. Of course, the solution will not come from a small jurisdiction, by any stretch of the imagination. What the Interprovincial Lottery Corp is working on is a protocol, an agreement amongst the provinces, that will level the playing field and hold any jurisdiction free from harm if one province does enter into licensing of Internet gaming.

I. Chong: I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to establish and get clarification as to what work or what initiatives are being done. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear; if that's the case, I apologize to the minister.

Last year when I perused this issue with the minister, he indicated that work was being done with other jurisdictions. Work was being done with the federal government, which we can all appreciate because of the complexities here. He gave an example, such as . . . . One of the initiatives was to identify exactly, you know, what some of these problems were. That was just a very brief statement that he made, because, again, he said it was still in its infancy.

So if identifying where the problems exist was one of the works that was being done, I'm just trying to find out further from this minister what other initiatives . . . . Certainly they can't be spending the entire year just identifying where those problem areas are. Have they not moved beyond that? If so, are there any recommendations coming out of this interprovincial committee?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I did answer the question. It's that the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation is working on a protocol amongst the provinces that levels the playing field if one province decides to enter into licensing Internet gaming. What they're working on is a protocol so that if one plans to do it, the other provinces that are part of the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation are not harmed by that. A protocol is being worked upon, and a code of conduct that protects the jurisdictional base of gaming.

I. Chong: Then can the minister advise as to when that protocol agreement might be expected and whether there would be a white paper or draft that is available for the public to review or whether there would be public hearings available? Last year the minister had indicated that we were not at the stage to have public hearings or information sessions with the public. I'm wondering whether that might be forthcoming and at what point that would be forthcoming.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We can expect some results in the fall of 2000.

I. Chong: Also, when we were speaking, we were advised at the briefing back in April about the government's role in gaming. As a result of the Meekison report, the topic of government's role in terms of broad policy being made on the issue of Internet gambling did come up in that discussion. I'm just wondering, apart from the protocol agreement that is being worked on in the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation, what other broad policy statements are being developed through this ministry, if any.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Mr. Meekison recommended legislation. That's the big, broad policy initiative. It's substantial.

I. Chong: In the area of Internet gaming, we're aware all too often that there are domains that are here in British Columbia, although the bank accounts are in other provinces. This is why the complexity of the problem. Does the gaming office or a staff person through this ministry monitor sites that are opening up each and every day or each and every week? Or is there anybody overseeing that expansion, even though we cannot control that?

[1640]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. The corporation monitors it. But the vast majority of this is offshore.

I. Chong: I do acknowledge and realize that there are a lot of offshore activities. That's the only way in which these operations are allowed to continue. But I didn't know in what form that the corporation or the gaming office was monitoring these. Are they monitoring them in the sense that they can see the links made through other sites? Or are there other means of monitoring this? If there is a process in place, would the minister share that with us?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think probably what the best thing to do is to offer the member a visit to the lottery corporation to see if they can fully demonstrate for you all the information they have on Internet gaming. The member is sort of asking: how do you monitor the Internet? How do you record it? Well, they monitor it by checking, as one would monitor the Internet in any other area. But I'd be happy to have the member attend to the corporation and see the work that is monitored in this area.

I. Chong: I thank the minister. In the interests of time, that probably would be a good idea. I just wasn't aware that this opportunity was available, so I appreciate that.

I also note that in last year's comments from the minister he did indicate that there was a major conference on Internet gaming that was being held in the year. Since the estimates in this area were discussed in June of 1999, then I presume that conference was held in the fall of last year or perhaps in the

[ Page 16823 ]

winter. Can the minister advise on staff's attendance at that or what outcomes were made available apart, from the Meekison report recommendations?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's called the Global Interactive Gaming conference; the most recent one was held in Montreal this year, and the corporation did go. It's the software developers of Internet gaming. So it wasn't about monitoring.

I. Chong: But then again I'm not clear as to which conference it was, because this was the minister last year in June of 1999 who referred to it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Same conference, a year later.

I. Chong: Okay. And perhaps last year's topic was specifically about Internet gaming. That's what I was lead to believe, and as I just checked the Hansard , that's what it said. But if it wasn't about the monitoring issue, then I will accept the minister's confirmation of that being the case.

Also, I did want to just quickly ask the minister, in the area of dealing with this very complex issue, whether there is a commitment of funds that go to this interprovincial committee. Are all provinces sharing in this on an equal basis to have this corporation continue, and if that's the case, what would the share of costs be for British Columbia?

[1645]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Interprovincial Lottery Corporation has existed since 1975. The costs of running the corporation are shared amongst provinces on a pro rata basis of sales within that province.

I. Chong: Then can the minister advise what amount our British Columbia share would be? Or if there is a

schedule for the last two years as to what the amount has been, can she provide that to us?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It depends on how many people buy lottery tickets for countrywide games. Yeah, we'll get that. It varies from year to year.

I. Chong: I acknowledge that it varies from year to year. Given that the '99-2000 fiscal year has just concluded, I just wondered if those figures were at hand, and if the minister doesn't have them, I'll appreciate her conveying them to me.

I just would like to conclude, then, that I appreciate the staff providing assistance here. I will undertake to meet with staff to have a look and see where they're proceeding in this area.

I think it's important to note that all members in this Legislature are opposed to the expansion of Internet gaming; that was said by the minister last year, and I concurred with him. It is an expansive problem; it's growing at an exponential rate. If we are to protect our families and our communities, especially our youngest, most vulnerable members of society who may be subject to or be the victims, fall victim to this kind of gambling, we do have to find out whatever processes we can put in place to avoid that.

Whatever criteria or guidelines that this ministry or the Lottery Corporation is developing in this area, I would hope that the staff can keep members on this side of the House informed on that so that we might be able to participate with solutions, as opposed to being critical once things are brought forward. So I thank the staff; I thank the minister.

K. Krueger: The B.C. Lottery Corporation enjoys a wonderful reputation as a good corporate citizen in Kamloops, our region and, I think, in the province. As the B.C. Lottery Corporation has assumed a great deal more responsibility with the advent of gaming expansion in B.C., I'm interested in having the minister tell the House how the Lottery Corporation has embraced the social responsibilities that have come along with the expanded gaming.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Lottery Corporation makes the contribution of $2 million to the problem gaming programs administered through the Ministry for Children and Families. The 25-year history of the corporation is to provide responsible, controlled gaming products. They've applied that to all casinos. Of course, the corporation lives well within the NDP government policy of no expansion of gaming.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

K. Krueger: This minister was, I believe, Health minister when the NDP launched its dramatic expansion of gambling in British Columbia. To her credit, in the estimates debate that we had that year, it was she -- with considerable input from the opposition -- who came up with the funding allotment of $2 million per year for addiction programs in B.C.

It's always been a bit of a puzzle to us why that responsibility was given to the Ministry for Children and Families, which has had tremendous responsibilities dealing with children, obviously, and with getting organized as a brand new ministry when that responsibility was given to it. Perhaps that's not something the minister would care to comment on. If she would, we'd welcome it. We do intend to talk about the performance of the addiction programs in Children and Families estimates tomorrow.

[1650]

The $2 million number was a somewhat arbitrary number at the time, I think. Some jurisdictions link their contributions to the social costs of gaming -- in particular, addiction programs -- with the actual revenues received, by way of a percentage. I'd like to know this government's thoughts about that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The contribution our government makes of the $2 million is just one aspect of the provincial government's contribution to problem gaming. There are other policies in place to provide socially responsible gaming. For instance, the exclusion policy of the corporation says that anybody can self-identify and say: "I don't want to be permitted into a casino." And that's enforced with sensitivity but rigor. The gaming activities are restricted to highly regulated and controlled facilities.

Trained staff -- I met some of the trained staff, who are world renowned for their training. The casinos, both community and destination facilities, are relatively small in scale. The video lottery terminals are prohibited in British Columbia. There's a minimum gaming age of 19 established. Casino operators are not permitted to offer credit to patrons. The sale and service of alcohol is prohibited at community gaming establishments. The sale and service of alcohol in destination casino facilities is prohibited in gaming areas.

[ Page 16824 ]

All casino operators must comply with operating standards set by the provincial government. Casino owners, managers, employees and casino gaming suppliers are required to register with the gaming audit and investigation office, GAIO, and satisfy high standards of honesty, integrity, financial responsibility and act in accordance with the law and in the public interest. Government is also committed to establishing dedicated police and prosecution resources to combat illegal gaming.

K. Krueger: Would the government consider expanding the funding available for these important responsibilities and perhaps tying it directly to the amount of revenue as a percentage of revenue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Not at this time, certainly. But feel free to ask the Minister of Finance that question.

K. Krueger: It's something that I'd like the government to consider. I think it's only appropriate that as revenue has risen, funding for social responsibilities should also rise. We had presented a proposal to the government several years ago for a centre of excellence in addiction studies, to be housed at the University of British Columbia. This would be beneficial not only for gaming addiction but also for alcohol and drug addictions.

Addictions tend to travel together. There are cross-addiction effects, and I know that's why the government has that restriction against alcohol in casinos, which we certainly approve of.

A centre for excellence for addiction studies would be helpful across the board. We are still a relatively unique jurisdiction in North America in that we were one of the last to go into gambling expansion. I think we have a particularly rich opportunity to make a centre like that successful. Would the minister consider assisting me in championing a centre for excellence in addiction studies in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to hear the member's proposal.

K. Krueger: We'll resurrect the documentation and pursue that. As I say, I've always appreciated that it was this minister that twisted the government's arm to come up with the $2 million-a-year allotment in the first place. We could be doing more, and I think we should. Youth, according to all the studies I have ever read, are particularly vulnerable to gambling addiction. I know we try to keep youth from getting involved, but their parents are involved. I see very young college students coming out of the casino in Kamloops, and I'm concerned for them.

There was a story in the local papers early on, when that casino opened, of a young man who lost all his tuition money for UCC for the year in one night. This is a very addictive behaviour for some people, and we have a responsibility to protect them.

[1655]

I want to move to a question on government policy that I've never understood with regard to the way that proceeds of charitable gaming can be used. We had another inquiry -- I've had a number of them over the years -- from a charity who had received approval for a gaming licence, having applied for it, and then learned to their surprise that they would not be allowed to spend the proceeds on capital projects. That has been a fairly longstanding policy. I wonder if the minister could explain to the House why there's that restriction on the use of those funds on capital projects.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is the Gaming Commission that establishes the criteria for charitable use, which is probably a good thing. It should be at arm's length from the executive council. They currently have a policy in place that doesn't allow