1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1237 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Social assistance rates. Mr. Cashore –– 1237

Prince George mortality rate. Mrs. Boone –– 1237

Delta 1987 summer games. Mr. Barnes 1237

Privatization of ambulance services. Mr. Lovick –– 1238

Mr. Sihota

Mrs. Boone

Ombudsman's powers. Mr. Cashore –– 1238

Royal Inland Hospital board elections. Mrs. Boone –– 1239

Ombudsman's powers. Mr. Cashore –– 1239

Access to transportation for special needs children. Hon. Mrs. Johnston replies –– 1239

Tabling Documents –– 1239

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. B.R. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 1239

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Cashore

Dentists Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 2). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dueck) ––

Third reading

Engineers Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 23). Second reading

Hon. S. Hagen –– 1260

Ms. Marzari –– 1260

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the

House today Mr. and Mrs. Shaw from Portland, Oregon, who are here on

the sloop Adios. They're here for the Swiftsure yacht classic this

weekend. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome two visitors from Campbell River: Lissy Christiansen and Elizabeth Johnson.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself, from Burnaby we have Mrs. Helen Colly. Would the House please bid her welcome.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I take a fair bit of pride in introducing to the House

today somebody who's come here for the first time to watch me in the

House since I was elected. I would ask that the House join me in

welcoming a very special person in my life, my wife Jessie, who is here

with us today.

Joining my wife are a number of

representatives from the B.C. Nurses' Union. I would ask the House to

join me in welcoming Fiona Butkus, Brenda Jernmeson, Richard Mellows

and Bill Pfeifer.

MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a friend of mine for the last 24 years — from Langley, Wendy Wallace. Would the House please welcome her.

MR. PETERSON :

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Maple Ridge the Kinsmen Club had its

provincial convention, and the Kinsmen Club of Aldergrove was awarded

the Club of the Year award. Would this House join me in congratulating

them.

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to

join with me in remembering a former member of this Legislature, Harry

McKay, who served as the hon. member for Fernie for six years. I guess

I'm the only one who was here when he was. Harry certainly worked hard

on behalf of his constituency, and was elected and re-elected by that

constituency until it was done away with by redistribution in 1966. He

served well in the House and was well liked and highly regarded by

members on both sides of the House as well as by his own rump group of

five Liberals.

HON. B.R. SMITH : On behalf of this

side of the House, I want to add my sentiments to the remarks of the

member for Nanaimo. After Harry McKay left a career in the Legislature,

he became a county court judge on Vancouver Island and served there for

a number of years, and then he became a Supreme Court judge. He was a

Supreme Court judge, I think, for a decade, and he was an exemplary

judge in every way, one of the finest Supreme Court judges we've ever

had.

He is not replaceable. You cannot find other Harry McKays; they don't make

them like Harry McKay. He was fearless, honest, straightforward, passionate

and compassionate.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATES

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Minister of Social Services and

Housing. A coalition of 13 national human rights organizations has

targeted this province as being in violation of the Charter of Rights

for maintaining discriminatory social assistance rates for people under

the age of 26. What action has the minister decided to take to end this

discrimination and to comply with the Charter?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We're well aware of the challenge in the courts to our policies, and we're going to await the court's decision.

MR. CASHORE :

A supplementary to the Attorney-General. I'm sure that all the members

of the cabinet are well aware that putting low-income people in the

position of having to wait many months for a court challenge is really

unfair. The Attorney-General knows the province is in violation of the

Charter. Has he made any recommendation to deal with this which will

save the Crown and community groups the time and expense of a Charter

challenge?

HON. B.R. SMITH : The member can take

liberties in his comments on matters that are before the court that I

cannot take, and I must await the decision of the court. A number of

challenges take place each year under the Charter. It has become a

frequent source of litigation, and until the courts have pronounced and

given some directions in these matters, it's very hard to know whether

that challenge is correct. I can't comment upon it as Attorney-General.

PRINCE GEORGE MORTALITY RATE

MRS. BOONE :

My question is to the Minister of Health. The medical health officer in

the northern interior health unit has determined that the annual

mortality rate in Prince George is 34 percent above the provincial

average. This includes such things as cancer, heart disease, strokes,

lung disease, pneumonia. Has the minister decided to order a

comprehensive study on the mortality rate in the Prince George region

to determine what is causing this and what can be done to prevent such

things?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice and get back to you at a later date.

[2:15]

DELTA 1987 SUMMER GAMES

MR. BARNES :

A question to the Minister of Tourism. In just nine weeks, the Delta

summer games begin. Has the government decided to reduce the capital

operating budget guaranteed to the Delta 1987 Summer Games Society, and

if so, by what amount?

HON. MR. REID : The answer is no.

MR. BARNES : Another question. Has the government changed the conditions of a $70,000 legacy fund grant to the

[ Page 1238 ]

municipality of Delta, intended for general community recreational purposes, to one specific application — the construction of a racing track?

HON. MR. REID : The answer is yes.

PRIVATIZATION OF AMBULANCE SERVICES

MR. LOVICK :

Never have we heard such laconic replies to questions. I wonder if this

is a trend. Certainly we know that the other side is capable of

monosyllabic responses.

My question is to the Minister of

Health. Ambulance paramedics in British Columbia now perceive that a

privatization of the province's ambulance services is likely, so likely

indeed that they have launched a full-scale anti-privatization

campaign. Will the minister inform us if it is the policy of the Health

ministry and himself that the ambulance service should remain in public

hands?

HON. MR. DUECK : To begin with, I must admit

that we run the best health ambulance medicare service in all of

Canada. I think we have very excellent people. We have good equipment

that's updated on a regular basis.

When it comes to

privatization, you well know that the minister in charge, Hon. Stephen

Rogers, is looking at all of the ministries for areas of privatization.

I would be preempting his job if I made any statement in that regard.

MR. LOVICK :

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it seems to me that to

suggest the Minister of Health would preempt another minister's job by

protecting health care is somewhat out of line and incongruous. The

question, however, is this: has the minister indicated to the

privatization review, and to the minister charged with that review, his

opinion that privatization would be bad for the health care of British

Columbians? And if not, why not?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Speaker, I will not comment on what has transpired between ministries

at this time, because the mandate is to look at areas in every

ministry. I just finished telling you that I think we've got the

best-run ambulance service in all Canada, if not in all of North

America, and that's as far as I'll go; the rest will come out in due

time.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, if indeed it is the

case that we now have what you describe as the best system, then surely

it makes obvious and logical sense for you to suggest to the minister

of privatization that this is an area that ought not to be touched.

Would you not agree with that?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Speaker, with the minister having a mandate to look at all areas, if we

all took the attitude: "Yes, you may look at all areas, but not mine,

because this is what we're doing, and it's good. Stay away from it....

That's why we're looking at it: to see if there are better ways. I'm

not in any way indicating that the ambulance service will be one of

them. But I'm saying the mandate of that minister is to look at every

area — whether in fact it's more viable, more economic, or whatever. We're waiting for that report — and so will you.

MR. SIHOTA : A supplementary, then, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health is the advocate for health care in this province, and

he should advise this House — if he agrees that that service is indeed the best

in this country — whether or not, in his opinion, it ought to remain in public

hands. The question is this: what is the minister's own view? Ought it to

remain in public hands or ought it not?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it very clear that I

am not voicing my own personal view at this time, because the minister

had a mandate to review. I'm not going to interfere until that report

comes forward, and I will in due course give my opinions, suggestions

and recommendations at that time. That's also future policy, so we

would not comment on that at this time in any event.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Minister, I think you'll agree, and we all agree, that it's a fine

service that we have. There are many small communities that depend on

that service, and they're depending on you to stand up on their behalf

and speak out to say that you've decided that you need that service

here. Will the minister assure the small communities in this province

that they will have their ambulance services maintained?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that everyone is speculating, and so are

the paramedics; they're speculating on what may happen –– I just

finished telling you we have the best ambulance service anywhere, but

they're speculating that we're going to do all sorts of things. I'm

telling you that we are doing a review of many areas in many

ministries. At this point in time I will not give any indication,

because it's up to the minister in charge to see if there is any part

of anyone's ministry that can be improved. How much more can I tell you?

MR. LOVICK :

The point is precisely what the minister just alluded to: that people

are speculating and people are concerned and confused because of the

stance you're taking. Please give us some assurances that the

privatization inquiry will be guided by some common-sense economics

rather than ideological platitudes.

This is my question,

Mr. Speaker. Will the minister please assure us that the mandate to

provide good health care to the people of this province will obtain and

will not be sacrificed in the name of privatization?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give you the assurance that this

minister, as long as he is in this particular portfolio, will do

everything in his power to give the best health care that this province

has ever seen.

OMBUDSMAN'S POWERS

MR. CASHORE :

This question is to the government House Leader, because I understand

that the ombudsman reports to the House through the cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER : To the Speaker.

MR. CASHORE :

To the Speaker. I still put my question to the government House Leader.

The ombudsman's report of last week indicates that he receives hundreds

of inquiries regarding public agencies that are not currently within

his purview. Can the minister assure the assembly that the sections of

the act extending the ombudsman's jurisdiction will be proclaimed this

spring; and if not, why not?

[ Page

1239 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The government is well aware of the unproclaimed sections of the

schedule to the Ombudsman Act. Any decision on that would be future

policy. Further, the bill itself is in the care of the

Attorney-General, so you might ask him that question.

ROYAL INLAND HOSPITAL BOARD ELECTIONS

MRS. BOONE :

A question to the Minister of Health. The minister has said that Royal

Inland Hospital in Kamloops will be asked to change its bylaws to stop

minors from voting in the hospital board. In view of the fact that the

hospital board elections are taking place on June 18, can the minister

outline what steps he has taken to ensure that minors will not be

voting at the June 18 hospital board meeting?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, I have asked the board to in fact

change their bylaws so that they're not silent on the age limit, and

they have assured me they will do so.

MRS. BOONE :

From what I understand, the bylaws must be passed by that meeting,

which would not be in time to guarantee that they wouldn't be allowed

to vote at that meeting. Has the minister decided...? For example, can

he use his power under

section 36 of the Hospital Act to ensure that an

order-in-council is approved which deals with this?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I have asked them to look after their bylaws so that this does not

happen, and it is up to them which route they are going to take.

MRS. BOONE :

The bylaws must be voted on at a general meeting, and they must be

approved by your minister after that in order for them to be enacted.

It appears to me, then, that it is impossible for them to have these

bylaws in place in time for June 18. Would you consider an

order-in-council to ensure that minors are not able to vote at this

election?

HON. MR. DUECK : No, I'm not.

OMBUDSMAN'S POWERS

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question concerning the ombudsman, I

would like to put that question to the Attorney-General and ask him if,

recognizing the tremendous need for the ombudsman's service in these

unproclaimed areas, he will take steps to raise this in cabinet and

assure the House that these sections will be proclaimed.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I would think that it would be a matter of future policy,

but it would be something that we would want to hear from the constituencies

in those other areas as to whether they thought that was a good idea or not.

By constituencies I mean local governments and other areas that could be added.

There is no point in giving the ombudsman too much to put on his plate when

he has a lot on his plate now. He has major investigations going on in the provincial

sphere, which he does well. As ombudsman he's bound to point out that there

are unproclaimed parts of his act. I would like to think that in time those

will be proclaimed, but the time has probably not yet come.

ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION

FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question that was put to me

yesterday by the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen). In her

absence I would like to assure the House that I will, in addition to

responding verbally, send a written response to her to ensure that she

receives it.

It had to do with transportation of special

needs children. B.C. Transit is currently meeting with representatives

of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to review the situation

regarding the transportation requirements of handicapped children

attending preschools. The handyDART service in greater Vancouver last

year transported almost half a million people, a 20 percent increase

over 1985. The system, using 96 vehicles, was basically designed to:

(1) transport handicapped people to and from work and post-secondary

education; (2) transport handicapped adults and children to medical

appointments; and (3) transport adults to key social events. In some

areas operators have included a few –– 15 — handicapped children for

preschool trips as a daily commitment. B.C. Transit is currently

reviewing the policy concerning the busing of handicapped preschoolers.

Hon.

Mr. Parker tabled an answer to a May 11 question from the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) about Downie Street Sawmills.

Hon. B.R. Smith tabled the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia for 1986-87.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 12: minister's office, $219,629.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On vote 12, the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

Shall vote 12 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye.

MR. SIHOTA : It's wishful thinking from the members opposite to think we're going to approve this so quickly.

When

we concluded yesterday at 6 o'clock, I pointed out some of the areas

that are on our agenda as being issues of importance to us which fall

within the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. Today I want to

concentrate on a number of those areas, and I'll deal first of all

with — I'm sure this is no surprise to the Attorney-General —

the matter of gaming. The reason I want to deal with gaming is in part

due to the stance this provincial government has taken on that issue

and in part because of the voluminous literature on the matter, and I

want to review some of the studies before I ask questions of the

Attorney-General.

[ Page 1240 ]

[2:30]

Several

studies have been done in this country and in the United States with

respect to gaming. As the Attorney-General will point out, studies have

also been done in Australia. Of particular note is a study done in

Canada in 1984 under the auspices of the Solicitor-General's

department. At that time the Solicitor-General reviewed every study

that had been undertaken in the United States, Britain, Australia, and

came to the following conclusion:

"Virtually every study undertaken in the United States,

Britain, Australia and elsewhere points out that casino gaming, whether illegal

or legal, encourages organized criminal activity. A former prosecutor in the

New Jersey Attorney-General's Department has noted that organized crime

must always be recognized as an interest group with respect to legal gaming.

If a jurisdiction is not willing to accept this involvement, then it should

not get involved in legalized gaming."

There has also been a number of arguments as to whether or not gaming will increase the revenue which flows to the state — or to the province in this case —

that wants to introduce gaming. Perhaps the most comprehensive study on

this matter was done in 1976 by the United States government, wherein

their Senate, I believe, set up a commission to review national policy

towards gaming. That study took three years. It held hearings across

the United States. It conducted all sorts of research, reviewed all

sorts of reports on the matter. Among their findings, which were

submitted to the president at the time, was that states could not

expect revenues from legalized casino gambling to ease their financial

difficulty significantly. There was a finding that although casinos

would generate enough revenue to meet the needs of states with

populations the size of Nevada's, these revenues were not sufficient to

provide the resources necessary to support the cost of public services

in heavily urbanized areas. Of course, if I understand the government's

policy correctly, it has no intention to move towards what is known as

destination gambling, but wants to locate this type of activity in

urbanized areas.

As to the potential increase in tourism,

the commission also warned against the promotion of casino gambling as

a tourist stimulant where there is no pre-existing demand for this type

of gaming. There were also some concerns about the type of people who

are attracted to gaming operations. The commission concluded that

participation in Nevada-style casinos in heavily urban areas was

predominantly by lowincome people; that could indeed result in

increased social services and a need for expanded government services.

We know from studies that have been done that the rate of crime in

Atlantic City increased by 171 percent during the first four years of

casino gambling there. We know that the amount of revenue gained by the

state of Nevada from gambling in 1981 was approximately $120 million,

which I understand is equivalent to about a half-percent increase in

the sales tax; that may put it in perspective. So it's not a lot of

money there.

When Atlantic City looked at it, they concluded that the costs of building

the infrastructure — roadways, sewers, lighting, all that kind of stuff — to

service these casino operations were not a winner for them, in economic terms.

We also know from studies done in the United States, particularly in Atlantic

City, that individuals who were directly employed as a result of casino operations

came from outside the Atlantic City area, largely because the population within

Atlantic City did not possess the necessary skills to result in employment.

I know that the Attorney-General has taken some steps to introduce slot machines at least on the Princess Marguerite .

I'm wondering if he can advise this House as to what indeed the lease

arrangements are. Is the lease arrangement on that ship in excess of

one year? That's my first question for the Attorney-General.

HON. B. R. SMITH :

I don't have it here in front of me, but my recollection is that it's a

lease that we can get out of after a year. It's for a longer term, but

the reason for that is that it's cheaper to do it that way. It costs

about the same for a year as it does for a year and a half. So we have

it for a longer term, but we can get out of it for a year. So our hands

are not tied to go again. It would cost us about the same amount of

money for the one-year term as the longer term that we have. But I

think the term is longer than a year and we can get out of it.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to thank the Attorney-General for that answer. He talks about

the cost. I wonder if he could advise this House as to what those costs

are? What is the leasing arrangement? What is the cost on an annual

basis for those slot machines?

HON. B. R. SMITH : I

certainly will. Maybe a little later in the afternoon, I'll be happy to

do that. There's nothing secret about those costs whatsoever. I'll

provide them.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, the

Attorney-General, when he was announcing the government's position in

his press release of April 1, 1987, a copy of which I have, indicated a

number of concerns that he had and made a number of points with respect

to government policy as it then stood on gambling. He then assigned a

number of tasks to this commission. I'm not trying to pre-guess what

the commission will be reporting, but one of those tasks requested that

there be:

"...a comprehensive report no later than November

30 on the desirability of continuing or modifying casino activity in

support of charitable organizations. This comprehensive report will

also involve the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture in a joint

assessment of the desirability of policy for destination resort and

tourism-oriented gaming activities. The report will also assess the

impact on tourism of the introduction of casino rooms aboard B. C.

Steamship's service between Seattle and Victoria."

Earlier

on, during the supply bill that we had to pass shortly after the

introduction of the budget, it was revealed that $400,000 had been

spent to make improvements on the Marguerite and the Vancouver Island Princess

to accommodate gambling. Given the fact that the Attorney-General has

requested that this commission present a report on the viability of

gambling on the B. C. Steamship service between Seattle and Victoria,

and given that in effect $400,000 has already been spent before the

commissioned report is in, I of course question whether or not it is

reasonable to expect that there will now be a turning back on the

government's position. Like I say, I don't want to pre-guess things,

but I want to ask the Attorney-General whether or not he thinks it is a

little bit like putting the cart before the horse when deciding to

[ Page

1241 ]

spend this $400,000 first and then asking for a report to determine whether or not it's viable to run the service.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I'm trying to get exact figures so I can be a little more exact on

that, but my recollection is that all of that money didn't go to

outfitting the two vessels for slot machines. Some of it went for other

purposes. Certainly it was an expenditure, but it was only a portion of

that $400,000. So that I'm not guessing on it, I'll just get another

document in here which will give me the answer to that. It may look the

way the member says — as though when you make any capital

expenditures to outfit vessels for this purpose, you are therefore

committed in going down the long haul — but I don't think so,

because, looking at the projected revenues that we're going to get from

those slot machines this season, we will be more than justified from a

business standpoint in making that capital investment. Even if it was a

capital investment that only lasted for one season, we will still do

very, very well on a net basis from the slot machines.

But

we see the slot machines really not as an end, but as a means to

attract visitors and tourists who want to come on that run and would

like to spend two to two and a half hours playing those machines.

think the destination-resort gaming philosophy is a valid one. That's

the one that Australia has embraced in Tasmania. If you have a

destination resort casino as opposed to all kinds of urban casinos or

one large urban casino, you are going to attract to your country a

particular kind of tourist and visitor with money who wishes to come

and do that. You are not going to take money out of the pockets of

locals. You are not going to add social service costs, as the member

referred to with some of the experience in Atlantic City; but you are

going to attract people — British Columbians and visitors — who come to that destination resort to, among other things, do some gaming.

I guess that where we come from philosophically and where we differ from you — and it isn't because we happen to have some kind of love for gambling; I don't think any of us really do —

is that there is a lot of money in this province that is wagered now,

that gaming is already big business in this province. There is a $700

million gaming industry — $400 million is spent by the public on

lotteries, $200 million on horse-racing, and the rest on bingo,

charitable casinos and other forms of gaming.

In addition to that, there is the money that traditionally goes out of this province — British Columbia disposable income —

to Reno, Tahoe and Las Vegas. All you have to do is look at the

advertisements in the daily newspapers, where you have special flights

to Vegas and Reno. Each of those British Columbia visitors who goes

down there spends, I guess — they probably have it all statistically tabulated — maybe

an average of $500 or $1,000 for a four-day stint there. Our feeling is

that we should keep that money in British Columbia, and that we should

be attracting that kind of tourism here.

We say that

British Columbians are now wagering and betting those amounts of money.

It used to be that this money went on the Irish Sweeps. The Irish

Sweeps have been laid to rest now. They couldn't compete any longer

with Loto Canada and the various tear-off lotteries.

So our

attitude is that it's here; it already is big business. People do it in

this country and in this province. Therefore there is no point in

putting your head in the sand and saying it shouldn't exist, that we're

going to outlaw it. If you do, people are going to do it under the

table, under the counter. Ten or twenty years ago, there were bookies

all over town here and in Vancouver. You couldn't find a bookie now to

save your life. Nobody needs to go to a bookie because everybody can

have a legal off-track number. My learned friend may know of a

bookmaker or he may have acted for one or somebody may have told him of

a bookmaker in this town, but you're hard pressed to find a bookmaker

in this day and age in British Columbia, because it's so easy to place

a bet lawfully. You can place a bet at Exhibition Park with an

off-track number. You can have an account in Las Vegas and bet on

sporting events through that account down there.

[2:45]

I'm saying that people want to do a certain amount of betting and

gaming, and they're going to do it whether or not the member opposite

likes it or his party caucus denounces it. Since it's going to be done,

let's have some rules that are tested, let's have some rules that are

clear, let's have a good policy of enforcement, let's control gaming

and let's keep it very closely under government control.

They have managed to do this in Australia. They have not had failures in this in every jurisdiction.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I know that you can read these studies, and it's very depressing to

read them. But we have read them as well, and we have absolutely no

intention of replicating those mistakes. We're going to try to avoid

those mistakes. We may decide, hon. member, that the slot machine

experiment is not a good one and shouldn't continue, or we may decide

that we're going to have some casinos in destination resorts.

have an independent commission, with citizens on it from all walks of

life, with a former vice-chairman of the Police Commission heading it

up and a former deputy commissioner of the RCMP as vice-chairman, and

these people don't have any axe to grind. They don't represent

charities or gaming operators. They don't represent any of the

interests or the people who have vested interests in this. They are

citizens like you and I. So please, let's let them do their job and see

what they come up with, because the government is not committed as to

its future course.

As to the amount of money spent under

those warrants, we did spend money on casino lounges in the amount of

$400,000. Some of that, some $145,000, was for renewal of ship's

galleys, $250,000 was in the bar and lounge areas, and $5,000 was for

rewiring in the casino lounge. In relation to the installation of slot

machines, it would be a minor portion of that $400,000, because we did

a total upgrade of both vessels and particularly the Vancouver Island Princess , which was completely redone.

Just

to give some of the fixed costs involved in the slot machines, we spent

$27,000 on the security apparatus, the counters. The purchase of tokens

was $63,000, and there is a considerable saving in maintenance and

labour and everything else and a much better control system from the

standpoint of honesty by having these tokens.

The 150

machines that were leased at a monthly rate cost $8,758 a month, or

$105,000 Canadian. We will recover that capital cost from the machines

and the outfitting of this, certainly part-way through the operation in

the first year.

[ Page 1242 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has raised a number of issues which

I want to explore now. He talks about reducing the flow of individuals

from British Columbia to Tahoe and to Reno. Does the Attorney-General

realistically expect that a ferry trip of 90 minutes is going to do

that? Or does he have other grandiose plans with respect to casino

operations in this province that he hasn't told us about yet?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I made it clear that if you are going to attract people to do gaming in

British Columbia, you would do so by the destination resort route, if

you are going to compete for that class of tourist. You certainly

wouldn't do that on the Marguerite or the Vancouver Island Princess . What they are likely to do — as we believe, anyway —

is to attract far more American visitors into the province; and they

are going to attract the tour bus circuit, and also tap into some of

the cruise ships that land in Seattle. People have made bookings now to

come on buses through to Vancouver Island, and we will get a different

market with that.

If we are going to attract the people

away from Reno and Las Vegas, we will probably have to have longer

gaming activities than two hours on the ship. We would have to have

some longer activity, and that would be something that the commission

would recommend to us.

MR. SIHOTA : Is it then government policy that there be destination casino gambling in this province?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

If it was, we would be off and running with them, I guess, instead of

setting up a commission and giving them terms of reference to tell us.

No, it is not government policy. That policy will be determined after

the commission has made its report.

MR. SIHOTA : As I

read the terms of reference of that commission, there is no reference

at all to the matter of destination resort gambling. It talks about

development of a report with respect to charitable organizations. It

talks about a report with the Tourism ministry.... I'm sorry; a report

for the policy of development of destination-resort and

tourism-oriented gaming. I apologize for making that statement to the

Attorney-General.

Has the government then conducted any

studies, other than asking for this report on the matter of

destination-resort gambling in this province?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I don't think you would call anything that we have done a study on

destination-resort gaming. But the gaming branch and now the Gaming

Commission are accumulating information and data on that, and will be

looking at the experience of destination-resort gaming in other

jurisdictions, most certainly. We have had some representations made to

us. There have been individuals and organizations that have contacted

the commission and are interested in making proposals or providing

information on destination resort gaming. But it is absolutely wide

open. We have not made any determination on that.

A number

of communities have asked us for destination resort gaming. The city of

Rossland is one. The mayor is a very strong advocate of having in

Rossland a replica of the Klondike Days from the Yukon, having the same

sort of atmosphere recreated there. The town of Wells also wishes to

have destination-resort gaming there and in Barkerville. We have a

number of communities in British Columbia where the mayors and the

civic leaders are urging us to establish these, but none of them has

been given any encouragement and none of them has been given any

assurance. Some time ago I talked to some of these people and said that

we have not decided to go that route, and that remains the case today.

MR. SIHOTA :

Is it government policy, then, that the revenues from these types of

gaining facilities will be for profit? Or will they be for charity only?

HON. B. R. SMITH :

Well, I don't think there has been a final government policy as to what

would happen to all the revenues, if indeed there was an expansion of

gaming beyond what we have now. There have been various comments made

as to what we might do, but I think you would want to see, first of

all, what your policy was going to be. If you were going to expand

gaming into destination resorts, who would operate those resorts? It's

my understanding that the operation of that would have to be in the

hands of government, under the Criminal Code as it now stands. So the

government would be the ultimate controlled operator, and therefore the

revenues, less costs, would flow to government.

What would

we do with those moneys? We would use them for some desirable social

purpose, I presume. But to prove that we haven't made the decision that

we're going that route, we haven't made a decision as to what we're

going to do with the proceeds we might get if we did go that route.

MR. SIHOTA : Is the Attorney-General saying that that matter — the determination of where the revenue from these operations goes —

is something that falls within the purview of his department? Or is it

something that he expects to be hearing about when the commission

reports on November 30?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No, I do

not expect to be hearing from the commission on that. I expect that

would be a government decision as to what would happen to that revenue.

I wasn't trying to suggest that.

MR. SIHOTA : The Attorney-General talked about social

purposes. If I heard the comment correctly, I think the word "social"

was used, and I believe it was in the context of "social purposes." Can

the Attorney-General define what he means in terms of social purposes

that would stand to benefit from this type of revenue?

HON. B. R. SMITH :

Well, I don't know that that would be a fruitful exercise. Look at the

purposes that lottery proceeds are used for; I can see gaming profits

being used for those kinds of purposes. Lottery funds are used to help

communities, for startup activities, for grants towards senior

citizens' centres, for sports teams, for cultural and athletic events.

I consider those to be the kinds of purposes that we would use gaming

proceeds for if we were to run operations as a government.

One social purpose that we are using those revenues for this year is the Princess Marguerite .

That is a vessel that has always been a charge on the public purse. Now

there has been a considerable investment in outfitting the Vancouver Island Princess . Those vessels have traditionally not run at a profit. It is true that the Marguerite has done better in the past three or four years, and is coming closer to balancing her books.

[ Page 1243 ]

That has been by good marketing, an aggressive duty-free business and some other changes that have been made.

But that vessel and its new counterpart, the Vancouver Island Princess ,

bring thousands of tourists from the United States to southern

Vancouver Island, and it's always been considered, since it was

reintroduced and started up by the government that was then formed by

the members opposite.... In fact, I remember very well the maiden

voyage of the Marguerite , when the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was in charge of that, and the excitement when the Marguerite was refurbished and on this run.

Well,

it's rather a sacred operation in Victoria, the B.C. Steamships

operation. I consider that the support of that, which comes right out

of the public purse and which involves moneys that could be used for

other social service payments, for education or for a variety of good

objectives.... That money goes from general revenue to support that

deficit. Well, it won't happen this year, because the slot machines

will cover that deficit, we believe. That's a desirable social purpose.

The social purpose that it supports is the tourist industry of

Vancouver Island; it attracts American visitors here who come and stay

and spend money, .

MR. SIHOTA : Hospitals and schools

don't make money. I facetiously wonder whether or not the government

intends to put slot machines in hospitals and schools.

Let

me ask the Attorney-General this question, then: will he confirm that

it is not government policy to take revenues from casino operations and

utilize it to subsidize government operations, such as Crown

corporations, health, education, and so on?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Yes, it certainly is presently the case that we're not planning to do

that. The only thing that we're running is the B. C. Steamship

operation, and I've just explained that those revenues are being used

to defray the costs of those voyages. We don't have any plans, nor

indeed would we seriously consider taking the profits from gambling to

keep hospitals or schools going, or other essential social services

which are financed from general revenue and from general taxation.

[3:00]

MR. SIHOTA : Maybe we'll deal now with the matter of the Marguerite ,

and a question that flows from the original question I asked. The

Attorney-General indicated that the leasing costs of the machines on

the Marguerite are $8,758 per month. Could he tell us who that contract is with?

HON. B.R. SMITH : It's with IGT.

Interjections.

HON. II.R. SMITH : No, you're one of those.

They're an American company, as I recall, based in Nevada, and they are....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I hear this rather puerile whimpering from the member for Victoria,

who, if he were to go out and look for machines like this, would never

think of going to the place that manufactures, uses and maintains the

largest number.

MR. BLENCOE : Canadians don't want this stuff.

HON. B.R. SMITH : You don't want this stuff.

my understanding it's a Nevada company. I know I have a note on it

somewhere here. International Game Technology is the name of the

company. It is one of the major suppliers of Bally slot machines. It

produced the lowest tender. It is a company that was also, hon. member,

checked out in advance of any business transaction being entered into;

checked out by CLEU as well as our own office.

MR. SIHOTA : That may exhaust, at least for the time being, the questions I have on the Marguerite and the Vancouver Island Princess .

want to return now to the Attorney-General's press release of April 1,

1987, when he announced the appointment of the Gaming Commission. He

indicated that Mr. Macintosh and Mr. Venner were appointed as chairman

and vice-chairman. My question does not pertain to them. Could the

Attorney-General please tell this House what specific experience or

background the other members of the commission have, namely Marianne

Crockett, Mr. Framst, Mr. Humphreys, Ms. Kuhl and Mr. Smith? What

particular background and experience in matters of gaming do they have?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I think the question suggests its own answer —

nil. That was one of the reasons why they were chosen: that they did

not come to this job speaking for a particular vested interest in the

gaming field; they came with some general savvy and general skills.

Several

of them, as you know, served for years in local government, and still

do. Mr. Framst was vice-chairman of the Land Commission; he also was

one of the members of the compensation commission that dealt with

judicial salaries. Vicki Kuhl is an alderman in Saanich, and has served

also on the transit commission. Derrick Humphreys was the mayor of West

Vancouver for some years, and has served on the GVRD transit commission.

The

others were selected from different geographic regions and from

different walks of life. But it's quite correct that none of them had

experience in gaming; none of them were part of that industry.

MR. SIHOTA ; Mr. Chairman, I find that absolutely astonishing. This government

is, first of all, looking at and moving into the area of gaming in this province;

it is fully aware, as I'm sure the Attorney-General is, that that whole

area is fraught with all types of difficulties; that there is the potential

for an overwhelming amount of criminal activity. I quoted earlier from the Solicitor-General's

report and what it had to say about the problems that come with gaming. I quoted

earlier from studies in the United States which indicated the problems that

come with gaming. I think the least the people of this province could have expected

is to appoint a commission of a number of people who have some background into,

some knowledge and understanding of, matters of gaming; who have some sensitivity

to the problems that can arise, some knowledge of the things that one ought

to took for. You don't send someone who has no experience in the matter

at all to conduct an investigation and come back with a report.

find it amazing that this government would appoint someone whose

experience is as an alderman in one small municipality and who has no

background in gaming; that it

[ Page 1244 ]

would appoint someone who sat on a transit commission — and I don't see the relevancy to gaming —

when there are people in this province who have a lot of expertise:

people from the universities, from the police sector and so on, who

have a tremendous background in gaming. I think we're aware of them. It

makes no sense that the government would appoint people who have no

experience at all. I would go so far as to say that I think we're all

aware that the one attribute, if you want to call it that, or the one

characteristic that some of these people have is that they hold

membership in a particular political party in this province. That's

about as far as it goes.

MR. BLENCOE : Socred amateur hour.

MR. SIBOTA : It is.

are moving into a field that's infested with crooks, criminals, pimps,

people involved in the prostitute trade, in the drug trade, and they're

very professional. The Mafia clearly is a very professional

organization, and we're appointing a bunch of rank amateurs to make an

investigation into advising this government as to its directions on

gaming. I find that despicable. No experience at all. I was surprised

to hear that, particularly in light of the fact that the chair and the

vice-chair tend to have some experience in criminal matters. I don't

have to cite the statistics on criminal activity.

From a

social point of view, I think it's evident that all sorts of social

problems flow from gambling. There are problems in the area of alcohol.

There are problems in terms of the poverty that we talked about earlier

on in the socio-economic groups that participate in gaming. There are

the social consequences that have been documented in study after study.

some of which I've cited, and yet we don't have anybody on this

commission who appears to have any experience in dealing with the type

of social problems that flow from gaming and gambling operations. For

example, it appears that in this province we're now moving towards a

tourism strategy that's designed to deal with the introduction of

gaming as a component of that strategy. We don't have anybody on this

commission, from what the Attorney-General has had to say, with any

type of background in tourism. That's a shame. We're appointing

amateurs to give this government some advice and counsel on a highly

sophisticated area.

It seems to me that when the report comes down on November 30 — or before —

it's going to be difficult to attach any credence to it in light of the

fact that those involved in the report lack expertise in these types of

matters. In this province we usually appoint people who have expertise

and experience. When we have commissions of inquiry, in most cases they

are people with some background in the area who can bring some

sensitivity and understanding to the issues. We're not asking for

biased individuals; we're just asking for people who have some concrete

knowledge of gaming matters. I find it absolutely reprehensible that

this government has appointed people who have no experience whatsoever

to report to the province on November 30.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I completely disagree. These people are not the officials; they're not

the inspectors; they're not the people who are supposed to be equipped

with that expertise. They are people who are supposed to evaluate the

expertise and bring a citizen's point of view to bear on the subject of

gaming, which is a controversial subject in this province. They have

some 12 members of the gaming control branch now. They are in the

process of recruiting an executive director of gaming control. They

will have the full use of the gaming control branch for enforcement of

their regulations. We have some qualified inspectors in the field, and

we also have people with expertise working on contract.

The very thing that you're talking about — the very questions that you pose, hon. member —

are the things that the members of this commission are being advised

and briefed on and are seeking input on. They're calling before them

some of the very people you have described and mentioned: people who

have studied gaming, people who have done investigations in this in

other jurisdictions. All of your comments would, I'm sure, be very,

very useful to the gaming commission, and you should make sure that you

make representations to them. They were selected not as a group of

already-mind-made-up experts in the field of gaming, but so that they

would be citizens.

I would point out to you that both the

chairman and the vice-chairman of this commission have some good

background and credibility in the field of police work and enforcement.

It is a balanced commission. They don't all hold party cards; some do,

some don't. So be it. It's impossible to get active people to take

part

in things who don't hold some kind of party card.

MR. SIHOTA :

The point is this: the government has chosen to appoint Ed Peck to be

in charge of labour matters in this province because of his particular

experience, good or bad, on labour matters. We decide to appoint in

this province someone to be the superintendent of brokers, or to be in

charge of the Securities Commission, because of their particular

experience in areas of securities law. We choose to appoint someone

like Peter Pearse to a forestry commission in this country because of

his particular experience in those types of matters. It stands to

reason that when we're dealing with matters such as gaming, we would do

the same.

MR. IDENEN : Mr. Chairman, I would just

like to address one item related to the Ministry of Attorney-General

that is of concern to me and to some of the people in my constituency.

It has to do with legal aid.

It seems to me, from the

experience that I've gained, that often the criteria used for the

availability of legal aid leave a lot to be desired. I would just like

to draw attention to one instance that has come before me. It involves

a couple and two children. The father was convicted and sentenced

because of sexually abusing one of the daughters. The marriage

collapsed in divorce as a result. The mother went to work to look after

the two kids. The father, although he's a tradesman and had always

worked, after coming back from prison refused to work, has lived off

unemployment insurance and welfare, and has continuously dragged the

mother into court on legal aid.

He has contested the

divorce, the custody of the children, the access to the children and

the maintenance. He's never paid a penny of maintenance, even though

he's been ordered to. He has lost challenge after challenge and, as a

result of that, has harassed the mother, who's tried to make a go of

things. I suggest to you that the only way he could do that is because

the legal aid people supplied him with the funds necessary to do it.

I think

perhaps this is a bit of a dramatic case, but in my discussions with

other people I see it certainly is not an isolated case. Mr. Chairman,

I'd like to bring this to the

[ Page 1245 ]

attention

of the House, because after lengthy discussions, as well as

letter-writing to the legal aid people and people from the ministry,

I'm convinced that we need to build into our system of legal aid a

greater degree of accountability. It seems to me that too often we're

helping the wrong kind of people.

I'm not against legal

aid. I'm arguing that too often we're making it available in such a way

that people actually abuse the system. I'm not one bit surprised, Mr.

Chairman, that there was a $5 million overrun in the legal aid bill

last year. Even though we have increased it in our current budget to

$19 million, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if next year they'll spend

$25 million.

[3:15]

I just wonder

whether the ministry would be prepared to look at this more closely,

and to look particularly at the criteria that are being used, because

in the instance that I cited, I'm certain that the individual involved,

if he had had to use his own money, would in no way have gone through

the process that he did. In effect, even though the courts have never

found in his favour, he has harassed this person continuously; this

person has had to put up her own financial resources in order to battle

this time and again. I just wonder whether we're doing the right thing

and serving the right cause. In fact, I have my doubts about it.

I'd

just like to read into the record a few sentences from the

communication that I received. This person writes: "Initially we are

victimized by the criminal, then we become victims of our court system.

From the information that I've been able to gather, this is a common

problem causing great hardship for many innocent people. The person

sponsored by legal aid wins court cases by default simply because the

other party runs out of financial resources." If that is indeed the

case, I believe that we owe it to our constituents and to the taxpayers

of this community to make sure that there is some sense of

accountability built into our system. I would just like to plead for

that, because I believe that we see an increasing bill to the taxpayer,

and I'm not at all sure that it's always going to the people who are

most deserving.

I'd like to leave that with you, Mr.

Chairman, but before I take my seat, I'd just like to say that when it

comes to gambling, I personally feel that we ought not to branch out in

that area. I don't want to hold a long speech about that at this time,

but I do want to register my disapproval of it. I do not believe we are

increasing the sum total of human happiness by increased gambling.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Chairman, just a few brief remarks. The member who just took his

seat reflected on one of the questions I was intending to ask the

Attorney-General to comment on, and that is the position of caucus on

this new policy direction that the government has embarked upon. Would

the Attorney-General indicate to what extent he has surveyed his caucus

to see if he has the support of the back bench in this decision? As

well, what surveys took place prior to, say, the last election? In

fact, was this an election platform as part of the government's feeling

about its mandate to govern?

The question of gaming is one

that I think we haven't really begun to reflect upon in terms of the

impact it is going to have on the province. It is pretty awesome when

you consider the implications that it has, particularly for this

government, which has taken some pretty moral stands in the past. Of

course, the most noteworthy is its position on the access to abortions,

a position taken by the Premier, indicating his disdain and

disagreement with easy access to abortion, which one can appreciate

from a religious point of view or from any number of value points of

view. But there are some contradictions respecting the government's

approach to generating revenue.

The question of destination-resort gambling is really not that far-fetched, when you consider how long — the last decade or so —

we've been addressing the potential for gambling in this province. I

was a member of the House when we began the lotteries programs. At that

time, we were innocently under the impression that we could save the

dollars fleeing to a number of other outlets people were investing in.

The Irish Sweepstakes, for instance, was one of the ones that was

talked about a lot in those days. But in doing so, we never envisioned

this particular scenario that is happening in the province today. In

those days we were thinking of perhaps assisting the arts and culture

and recreational facilities and these kinds of events and programs that

were needed. Now, some time later, we are embarking upon a major

transformation of the province's image in North America. This is really

a pretty profound direction that we are taking.

I am

sure the Attorney-General will recall the former Provincial Secretary,

Jim Chabot, who was asked specifically about the direction of the

government in the future with respect to gambling.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES :

Oh yes, we got a specific denial. In fact, I asked him: "Do you intend

to have full-fledged gambling in the province of B. C.?" He said: "No

way; we are just going to have the odd activity here and there."

HON. MR. VEITCH : He said definitely maybe.

MR. BARNES :

That's right. But I think we are being caught asleep. I think the

public has not really come to appreciate the full implication of what

is happening. That is my point. This is one that causes us to realize

that we don't have sufficient information. We don't know what the

impact of gambling will be in British Columbia, but I think the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has pointed out, from studies

in other jurisdictions, that the potential for serious negative social

consequences is pretty predictable. What I think the Attorney-General

should be providing for us here today is documented evidence that he

has done his homework and that he in fact has the support of the public.

I am

not sure if it's sufficient to suggest that people are anxious to

invest in gambling, and that that is a direction in which we should be

going in this province. It is true that we have a need for more revenue

and that we have to be more innovative and creative in finding ways of

generating revenue and attracting capital.

The

Attorney-General has a mixed-bag portfolio. He's the minister

responsible for controlling the misuse of intoxicants such as alcohol,

people driving drunk and all those kinds of things. He's in a bit of a

contradictory situation. On the one hand, he has to try to maintain

good law and order, support a healthy community with good lifestyles

and be an example himself. But he was accusing the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) of talking out of the side of his mouth and

being one of the first ones to come groveling for lottery funds.

[ Page 1246 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES :

What was the term? Sniveling? Whatever he said about that member, it's

just not fair to say that when at the same time the Attorney-General

himself is an absolute hypocrite of the grossest.... Not that he

himself is a bad person. It’s just that the job he has been asked to do

is contradictory in nature. You see, he can't help himself. He's in a

bit of a squeeze play. On the one hand, he's trying to justify the Vancouver Island Princess and the Princess Marguerite

floating around with these one-armed bandits and bringing in this

revenue, saying: "Well, we've got to do it. Otherwise it's going to

flee the province. Look, it's here. We may as well get in on it,

because the action is there." On the other hand, he says we must

control abuse of alcohol, the destruction of the family and people who

are.... He's responsible for keeping people together and supporting all

of the good things that we all want. But he's in favour of things that

destroy the good things.

What kind of money will come out

of the gambling revenue, for instance, to support the gambling addicts?

What kind of treatment programs will be available for the people who

become addicted to gambling? It's not just going to be on the ships;

that's just a beginning. I think the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

has pointed out that the thing for the future is a series of gambling

communities. The Attorney-General has already suggested Rossland,

Trail, Wells and a few other places that he thinks are thinking about

it. No doubt what we're looking at is the beginning of a major

transformation of the way we operate in this province. It's very

serious. It's one I don't think the public fully understands. I believe

that the social consequences are so potentially disastrous that the

government should realize that it has a very real duty, if we're not

going to make a mockery of the things we say in terms of our

responsibility to the public....

That's the thing. The

young person hearing the debate today and reading the

Attorney-General's own words.... Many of these students come in and

listen, and they want to see if we're ideologically consistent, for

instance, in what we're saying — if we are rational, if we are not contradictory, in terms of our expressions and our policies.

Clearly

the Attorney-General epitomizes all the things that should not happen

in terms of the hypocritical and diametrically opposed roles which he

is playing. He is for the people. He wants to see good health. He wants

to see an environment in which people can believe that we can live in

peace and tranquility. At the same time, he is inviting all of those

things which are basically against the Ten Commandments; all of those

"thou shalt nots" are involved in part of the government's policies. I

think that this is not a good situation. It's a desperate situation.

It's a situation in which I think the government is groping and hoping

to find something that will work, because after all, since the late

seventies we've been dealing with a Social Credit system of

revenueproducing that just hasn't worked. In other words, we have been

in a perpetually depressed economic state. I don't blame the government

for being concerned, but I don't think this is the way to go.

would like the Attorney-General to explain to us why he's so confident

that he's on the right trail and what kind of support he's getting from

his caucus. Does he have 100 percent support from his caucus? Does he

have 100 percent support from the electorate? Is he assured that he is

not going to create a whole bunch of social problems that there will be

no revenue for, notwithstanding the fact that he thinks this is all

going to be American money and very few Canadians will he affected in

terms of our lifestyles here in this province?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Those are really tall prescriptions that my friend the member for

Vancouver Centre places upon me: 100 percent support of the electorate;

100 percent support of my caucus — that would be even more

difficult that the electorate, I'm sure, on almost any issue that any

of us came before the House on. Nobody's united on these issues,

particularly on questions that have a moral flavour to them. There are

people on both sides of this House who cross over on this issue — maybe that's healthy.

I also acknowledge that my portfolio is one of these very mixed-bag ones. The

reason why gaming and the vessel gaming is under me is that the Criminal Code

is the only statutory regulation of this whole thing in the country. It still

comes under the Criminal Code. In fact, even horse-racing comes under the Criminal

Code. I mean, that's how outmoded we are in the criminal law in this country,

that some federal commission under Agriculture sends inspectors out to test

saliva on horses in British Columbia. Who needs them?

[3:30]

It's all done under the Criminal

Code. Illogical as it is, I have to enforce the law and also run ships

that promote slot machines. The inconsistency may be a consistency, in

the sense that as law enforcement officer I still have a high duty and

desire to make sure that there is strict enforcement of gaming, such

little bit as we have.

I want to say one other thing,

and that is the suggestion that the member made that perhaps there

wasn't warning of this policy; that it wasn't announced to the

electorate before the election. I know that isn't so. Sometimes one's

memory plays tricks as to dates and you begin to forget when things

happened in this business, but I certainly recall that on election day,

when I was going around to polling stations, I had two people stop me

quite specifically. One person said to me: "I'm not voting for you

because you're putting gambling on those ships. I've always voted for

you. You understand, I couldn't vote for you today." I said: "That's

fine." Then I had one who said just the opposite to me: "I'm voting for

you because I think this is a good thing for tourism and for Victoria."

So I know it was an issue among my electorate, and I probably lost and

won some votes on it. I know that the Premier announced that we would

be embarking on this experiment well before the election; I think it

was in September. So I don't think anyone was under any illusions that

we were going to do some things in this area. But the issue is open as

to what we do in the future.

One thing on legal aid to the

member for Richmond. There is a policy of providing counsel in family

relations matters and in matters involving maintenance where a person's

livelihood and freedom would be at stake. I would be quite pleased to

investigate legal aid in that specific case. The member is not here

now. You know, you can't have a legal aid system where you or I approve

of every case and where we only finance those cases that we think are

the right ones. I would hate to have to make those evaluations. There

was a policy in legal aid for a while that we didn't give legal aid in

any drinking driving cases, and the court in the Mountain decision said

that we couldn't do that under the law. So we had to start giving legal

aid again in cases of drinking driving where a person was eligible to

go to jail, and they do. Yet many British Columbians don't feel that

legal aid money

[ Page 1247 ]

should

he used to support defences in drinking and driving. In fact, a

minority report in our task force came to that conclusion.

course, many British Columbians also don't think that we should be

investing legal aid money in support of people who have previous

criminal records who are charged with serious crimes, but those are the

very people under the justice system who need to have some defence

available.

We do it on the basis of means and eligibility,

and we don't do it on the basis of picking the, defences we like or the

crimes we like. We try and run a system, and I freely acknowledge that

we never have enough money in this system. There is never enough money

for legal aid. We made some major improvements in legal aid this year,

and actually we did pump into the system a $3 million additional amount

to make up the shortfall from last year, which we put in this year

again and put it in, in addition to base, and then an addition of $2.6

million of new money which went to the Legal Services Society. That

includes a $600,000 amount allowing the society to keep a surplus from

the previous year. So there was that $600,000 and an additional $2

million of new funds and an additional $3 million over the base of the

preceding year put into legal aid. But I would agree with the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) that the system still isn't

funded at the level that we would like; we would like it funded at a

higher level.

The legal aid criteria and the administration

are impartial and fair, and it's not done on the basis of whether you

like the crime the person committed or whether you like the criminal.

You can't run a system on that basis.

MR. BLENCOE : I

want to continue the discussion on gaming and gambling casinos, because

I happen to think it's probably one of the most important debates we've

had in this chamber for many, many years. I think the citizens of

British Columbia.... I know the citizens of my community feel that it's

one that has to be debated long and hard. The implications of going

down this road.... The evidence is there from other jurisdictions that

have pursued this course: nothing but grief comes to those communities

when they pursue organized gambling casinos and gaming. So let me say,

Mr. Chairman, that I happen to think this debate is one of the most

important we have had in this chamber for a long, long time. The

potential impact of gaming on this province is astronomical, and I

really think we have to cover all the bases. I am amazed that the chief

law enforcement officer of this province is the one who is promoting

gambling casinos and their expansion and all the seedier sides of life

that come automatically with that profession, if you can call it that.

When he talks about the commission he's appointed, that bunch of

amateurs.... The evidence from every jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman,

particularly south of the border, is that when you've gone this

course.... Atlantic City, when established, told the world they had the

strongest rules in the world to protect against organized crime; yet in

those first four years, 1978-82, crime went up 171 percent. They

thought they had the toughest rules and regulations in the world. Every

study, every piece of evidence put forth, shows that when you pursue

this course, organized crime gets involved. And today in those

jurisdictions in the United States.... Take a look at the studies — and I have a very important

one here, that of the Task Force on Legalized Gambling, which came out in 1984.

Look at the percentage of gambling controlled by organized crime in the United

States: in the far west it's 29 percent, in the Midwest it's 47 percent,

in the northeast it's 53 percent and in the southeast it's 35 percent.

Mr.

Chairman, when you pursue this casino kind of operation, despite what

the minister says about it being under the guise of charity or the

non-profit sector, these elements get involved; they are there; they

start and they work. That's why I say that this debate is probably one

of the most important debates in terms of the future of this province

that we have had in a long, long time. And I can't believe that the

chief crime-fighter in the province is glibly dismissing this kind of

organized crime. His amateur-hour commission have no experience in

dealing with these kinds of things. It's insidious, it's dramatic, it's

organized, it's big, it's clever, and it gets in. Every jurisdiction

started just like British Columbia today, just like this — amateur

hour in British Columbia; a little bit here, a little casino in the

hotel here on the corner. Then it gets bigger and bigger. Before we

know it, because we haven't established the mechanisms to control....

No mechanisms can control this kind of thing — organized crime. In every jurisdiction in the United States there's no control. It can't be done.

The

Attorney-General knows it, Mr. Chairman, but he's prepared to very

quietly slip this into this province under the guise of the non-profit

sector. But these operating companies are there, and I believe that he

and this government want to expand this kind of activity in British

Columbia. Well, we believe in super, natural British Columbia. We don't

believe in this kind of industry that has the potential to radically

alter this province. The whole social environment has the potential to

be affected for a long, long time. And when we take a look — and I

implore the Attorney-General.... I know he's seen the studies. He knows

what he's embarked on. I don't think the people of British Columbia are

being properly consulted. We supposedly have a test on the Princess Marguerite ,

which we know the Attorney-General has admitted a few days ago is not

an adequate test. I just cannot believe that the chief law enforcement

officer in the province of British Columbia would allow himself, with

all the evidence from every jurisdiction that started this way and has

gone into gaming and organized gambling casinos, to be the promoter of

this kind of activity. The rules and regulations in place today are

just asking for trouble, and I'm going to get to some of those

questions in a minute.

We just haven't prepared.... Even if

we could support this kind of thing, we would at least insist that

top-notch organizations in terms of surveillance and policing and

security be in place; that there be a full-time crime commission, or

whatever you want to call it, that's ready to deal with the onslaught

of the kind of criminal activity that police chiefs know is going to

happen, know will come to this province, if we pursue this.

I can't

overemphasize that we on this side of the House are deeply worried

about the direction of this government, and obviously some members of

the government back bench are deeply worried about the direction of the

government. We would hope that the government will reconsider, will

finish the Marguerite

experiment, will accept, I suppose, the gaming casinos we have now in

the non-profit sector, but for heaven's sake will not expand the system.

I have

some questions for the minister specifically related to the current

operations that I think need to be answered, if I can get some answers.

But first I would like to ask the minister if he has at his disposal

figures of how much money

[ Page 1248 ]

the private operators made in 1986 — or any figures for the first quarter of 1987 —

from gambling operations. It is my understanding that he has those

figures available. I think it's very important, Mr. Chairman, that we

start to see the kind of money that's already being made by the private

operators in so-called non-profit gambling in the province of British

Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA : How much is it?

MR. BLENCOE : What is being made by the non-profit sector —

by the operators currently operating in the province of British

Columbia? Perhaps the Attorney-General could give us some information

on that first.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I'd be delighted to

give those figures, because they're not as promising as the member

would perhaps suspect; they're not as high as the member would suspect.

If I look at figures from bingo, first of all.... Wait a minute. I'll

have to give you these a little later. I think the bingo amounts were

up a little bit, but certainly the casino operators held their own. The

money that went to charities last year went down, but the operators

kept roughly the same level as the year before. It seems to me it was

somewhere between $5 million or $6 million from the casino operations

that went to the operators. Those are gross; they're not net. I'll have

to get those exact figures.

[3:45]

I know those figures indicated that the new regulations that we brought in

last year dampened the activity of operators but didn't diminish their incomes.

Their incomes stayed about the same, but it did cause a reduction in the amount

of take to charities. So it was for that reason that we changed the regulations

just recently, when I announced the commission, to make it a true 50 percent

return to the charities, so we could try to restore some of that revenue to

the charities. But it wasn't a whole lot of money that they made — I'm

talking about in the non-profit areas. I'll be glad to give you a table

with the exact figures.

just want to deal with your main thrust. I do think, hon. member, that

you tend to exaggerate a little bit. You would think that in the

introduction of these two ships — 160 slot machines — we had

attracted Albert Anastasia and Machine Gun Kelly, that all these people

had come in here. You know, hon. member, they've been running similar

ships from Nova Scotia to Maine for over 20 years with slot machines,

and Machine Gun Kelly doesn't own that operation. The mob aren't into

the CNR vessels that ply between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour. Those slot

machines have been providing revenue for some years. Undesirable

elements don't hang around the handles and wait for three lemons;

ordinary people play those slot machines.

So I do think

that you prattle a little too much and that you do tend to exaggerate.

Do not think that nobody in this government is aware of what can happen

in the field of gambling, and has happened in other jurisdictions. It's

for that reason that you have to have a control — a commission —

and good law enforcement. We have a good enforcement branch in public

gaming control, and we're going to build it up with a strong director.

We have an excellent police force in this province, and they're well

aware of undesirable elements that can be attracted into gaming. We

will ensure that that doesn't happen.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General is trying very hard to put a good

face on a situation when he knows very well that there are those who

are strong lobbyists, who have a lot of clout with this government and

who want to bring in this major kind of gambling casino in British

Columbia. We know the Premier of the province of British Columbia has

already very quietly at various stages in the last year or so said:

"Well, we are going to do this here. We are going to have resort

destinations."

If you take a look at the evidence from

other jurisdictions when they started on this course, the same kind of

comments were made by the politicians who were promoting this: "Hey,

there is no problem. We won't have these kinds of things here. We are

going to have the best rules in the world, the strongest system in the

world." That's what Atlantic City said, Mr. Chairman, in 1978. Where

are they today? We know where they are today. Where is Las Vegas today?

We know where it's at. We are starting small, perhaps, but in my

estimation and in the estimation of our caucus and of the people of

British Columbia, if we don't speak out now and warn and express our

deep concern about the direction of this government and the Premier and

the chief crime-fighter — supposedly — in the province, we

will have a casino operation in all major cities and towns in this

province, very similar to other jurisdictions. That is why we are

speaking out now.

When I take a look at the so-called

system that is in place to check.... I understand for this region that

I happen to stand in here, Victoria, we have got only one person who

even tries to keep up with what is going on in this region. One person.

I will ask the Attorney-General right now: what checks, if any, are

made on people before they start operating for charities? What police

checks are made? What criminal activities are looked at by the people

operating them? Can the Attorney-General assure this House today that

no one with criminal background is involved in operating casinos in the

province of British Columbia? What checks are made? What kind of system

is in place to ensure that those who have been involved with criminal

activity are not involved in casino operations today?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

They are checked by the gaming control branch before there is

licensing, and operators are going to be included under the licensing

system. If there are people involved in the operation of casinos or

bingos who do have criminal records, presumably they will be out of

business. We didn't, under the old system, as I recall, have control

over operators. Control over licensees — but it is intended to

expand that to include operators as well as licensees. But the public

gaming control branch is aware of these things and does make checks on

people.

MR. BLENCOE : Can the Attorney-General

outline for this House the details of the screening system and checking

system and in what detail the local police departments are involved?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I will do that for the member at a later time, yes, sure. I can't do it

off the top of my head, but I will certainly do it and outline the

process to him.

MR. BLENCOE : My understanding is

that the checking system is minimal and the screening system is

minimal, and that if there are complaints afterwards, then action is

taken. But at the moment, the system in place for ensuring that

[ Page 1249 ]

criminal activity doesn't get involved in gambling casinos is very poor.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General: is it accurate that you don't have to be a bona fide charity — therefore with a charitable Revenue Canada tax number —

but that you have to be a non-profit organization to get involved,

which is very much different? Is it possible that, very quietly and

efficiently — therefore avoiding the very weak screening system you have in place now — the criminals could set up nonprofit societies — not the charities, which have to be legit and get around your rules vis--vis charities?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No, that's not true. You don't have charities being organized by operators who have criminal records.

MR. BLENCOE : You don't have to be a charity — nonprofit.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

You do have to be a charity. You have to be an organization that has a

charitable or religious purpose in order to obtain a licence.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH : Well, you do.

MR. BLENCOE : Do you have to have a charity number?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

You have to have.... To get a licence, you have to be a bona fide

charitable or religious organization. Sure, under the old system an

operator might have gone around and tried to organize a loose

collection of organizations, some of which were bona fide and others of

which the bona fides was suspect; but the branch is examining that kind

of situation. Those sorts of licensing situations will be scrutinized

and turned down. There are going to be very stringent rules for this

kind of thing. During the period of some expansion of both bingo and

casino gambling in the past couple of years, there may well have been

organization campaigns that took place; but we have had no evidence,

hon. member, of any criminal element being part of that organization.

There is certainly organization of charities, because charities mean

more hours for use of the casino or the bingo hall, but I know of

absolutely no evidence of any criminal element getting into that.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE :

This is the thing that worries me: that there are going to be rules.

Again, when I do the research and look at other jurisdictions, I hear

that as well: "Oh, we'll introduce the rules to cover that." Unless we

explore these things.... We can't possibly explore every activity of

this government in this House, because we can't find out everything,

Madam Chairman. Every time we bring up a question, it's like a needle

in haystack; there are probably another hundred questions that should

be covered. We don't get the answer.. "We'll take care of that," or

"There will be new rules for that." That's what worries me, that we

don't have the rules in place for this stuff at all.

I believe

that right now criminals could establish a so-called non-profit society

and operate. I don't think there's anything to stop them in the

province. I certainly don't think.... The Attorney-General obviously

didn't have the system in place to check on this. If he were on top of

this very important issue, he would be able to lay out for this House

right away the detailed supervision and the monitoring and the policing

and everything else that's going in to ensure that this kind of

activity is properly dealt with. But he doesn't have it at his

fingertips; we'll have rules in the future — that's the problem.

don't know how many other things are going on, because we just don't

get the time to do the checking. But boy, somebody had better start

doing the checking into these kinds of activities, because the answers

I've gotten so far this afternoon: "Well, we'll establish some rules,"

or "We may be able to find the kind of screening process that's

done...." It's my understanding that police departments and police

chiefs are deeply concerned about the lack of screening and the lack of

supervision, and about what's going on with this kind of activity.

They're very concerned that so much of their activity down the road, if

this government continues the way Ws going, is going to have to cover

this kind of activity. In the House the other day I asked who is going

to cover the extra policing costs. You can guarantee, if this

government continues the way it's going, that we're going to have

horrendous policing costs to deal with this sort of thing.

There

are millions of dollars to be made out of this kind of operation.

Unless this government has some insight or decides to change its

direction, we know that we're going to have an expansion of gaming and

gambling casinos. I'm accused of exaggerating. Well, I might have said

that six months ago; I might have agreed with the Attorney-General

before I started taking a look at the evidence from other

jurisdictions, where the people who drew attention to what the

government was doing in those states were accused of exaggerating. They

were accused of trying to warn the people of British Columbia and the

government of the time that they were on a very dangerous course. And

look at the evidence today. Even the chairman of the Nevada Gaming

Commission, whose livelihood, future and career, along with those of

the thousands of people he employs, are based on gaming, says: "Any

state" — and let's put in "province" — "trying to follow

Nevada's lead will find that social costs far outweigh any economic

benefits." This is the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. I

don’t know if he's still got his job. He was warning, finally, the

people of Nevada and others, no matter how small you start.... We've

started not necessarily in a small way, and I think we're moving to big

time. He's warning: be careful; it's dangerous, and the social costs

far outweigh the economic benefit to the people, and certainly to the

people of the province of British Columbia.

[4:00]

Madam

Chairman, I'll tell you why this government is going on this course.

They think they have tapped into a whole new source of revenue. They

think this is easy street to get money for whatever projects they've

got in place. Basically it's because the Social Credit government of

the last ten years has driven this province near to bankruptcy, and now

they're going to bring gambling casinos into British Columbia, and

they're going to challenge and threaten organized crime in the province.

That's

what it's all about. They're desperate to fill the coffers that they

have emptied with their projects and their incompetence and their

blundering over the last ten years. We

[ Page 1250 ]

know where that money has gone; they've squandered it. And now this government, not knowing where it's going — and I implore this government to take a look at the evidence — is prepared to risk changing this province dramatically.

I've

certainly got no answers, and my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

has had no answers at all in terms of the rules and the regulations and

the screening system or anything else. It's my understanding at the

moment that it's very easy for those involved in crime of some sort or

another to get involved in gambling casinos in the province of British

Columbia.

Now maybe I can ask the Attorney-General about

the security that exists in these gambling casinos today. It's my

understanding, and maybe the Attorney-General can correct me, that

there is virtually no security in any of these casinos, no security at

all: no alarm system, no tie-in to police systems, no surveillance.

Even Mac's Milk has a panic button to get hold of the police department

when they're in trouble. Yet there are no rules in place to ensure that

these casinos have a tight security system and surveillance system or

alarm system.

Now is the Attorney-General going to say

today that that's going to be changed too? We've already got them in

operation now today, and God knows what's going on. We've got a

commission that is amateur hour; we've got casinos that are amateur

hour in terms of security and surveillance. Yet the Attorney-General,

the chief crime-fighter and law enforcement officer in the province of

British Columbia, sits back and says: "Well, we've got a handle on it,

and we're going to change the rules." Maybe the Attorney-General can

give us some insight into the security that exists in these casinos

today.

HON. B.R. SMITH : Purely and simply, hon.

member, you are a scaremonger. You like to quote heads of the Nevada

Gaming Commission. I am sure you could get some quotations from Monte

Carlo and from Cicero of old and all kinds of other places, but you're

not talking about British Columbia. You are apparently uninformed of

the fact that we have a $775 million gaming industry in this province

now. Like it or not, hon. member, it is there. Over $400 million a year

is going into various kinds of lotteries, of which the government

takes, I think, roughly $140 million and uses it for the purposes that

were outlined earlier. We have ticket lotteries, too, which account for

some $20 million in gross revenue, of which the charities received some

$7 million this year and some $6 million the year before. In bingo:

gross revenues from bingo in 1986 were $91 million; in 1987 they were

$110 million. After prizes, the charities received up from $13.6

million in 1986 to $19.1 million in 1987, those moneys being used by

those charities for varying purposes.

In casinos, though,

because of problems in changing regulations and because of difficulties

in operation, the story is a different one. The casinos in 1986 grossed

$36 million; in 1987 it was down to $32 million. In 1986 the total

expenses — most of the take would be to the operators; it's not all net in their pockets —

which included the operators' take were $5,589,000, and in 1987

$5,500,000; so almost flat. The charities received in 1986 $3,334,000,

but in 1987 it was down to $2.5 million. So it was the charities of

this province that came to us and said: "Please, do some interim

reorganization of the rules so that we can operate better." And we have

done that. We changed the ceilings, we changed the hours, we raised the

bets and we froze the operation of additional outlets so that there

would be a chance for the commission to get a handle on the number of

operators and bring in some better controls, training and preparation.

You

know, hon. member, that those things have been done, but you constantly

like to conjure up in your prosaic way in this chamber the experience

of Nevada and other jurisdictions. Well, why don't you look at British

Columbia? In British Columbia there is an industry of charities that

benefits from gaming. As a matter of fact, in every community in this

province revenues go for charitable purposes from bingo and casinos and

also from lottery funds. If you want to make these high and mighty

speeches, then you should be advocating the elimination and

dismemberment of that whole system, and then we can debate the thing on

the honest, straightforward basis that you don't think there should be

any gaming, that there should be no revenues from any form of gaming

and that we should get out of that business. So we'll shut down

casinos, we'll shut down bingos, we won't have any more lotteries and

we'll close the horse races as well. You'd probably be in favour of

that. Except I seem to remember that you'll always have a kind of

interest in lottery grants in your own riding. So let's stop making

moralistic speeches and let's get on to something constructive.

MADAM CHAIRMAN :

The Chair recognizes the second member for Victoria. And hon. members,

could we refrain from using language that we all know is not

parliamentary.

MR. BLENCOE : Who was doing that, Madam Chairman?

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, would you like to continue? There were a couple of comments made.

MR. BLENCOE : Madam Chairman, the minister is trying — and often he does a fairly good job —

to defend a policy that he knows really is a very dangerous one. He's

throwing out that lotteries are the same as gambling casinos. Well, let

me dismiss that right now. We're talking about a whole different

system, a whole different kind of gambling than currently is

represented by lotteries in British Columbia or in Canada. There's no

question about that, and let's get that straight.

Our

policy is quite clear, as enunciated by our Attorney-General critic

from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and supported unanimously by our caucus;

it's that the system that's in place — that's the lotteries —

is controlled by government. As far as we know, it's not controlled by

organized crime at this.... But our policy is: enough is enough. We

draw the line with what we've got now.

Don't try to kid

this chamber or the people of British Columbia that lotteries are the

same as gaming casinos or gambling casinos. It's a whole different

system. That point has to be made.

I didn't get any answers

about the security in casinos. I'd like to know what the

Attorney-General is doing about casinos and what system is in place

today for those operators. I am told there's money all over the place,

inviting all sorts of temptation. There are all sorts of things

happening in those places. The security is virtually non-existent in

those casinos. So we've got no screening, it would appear, no police

checks and no monitoring — virtually no security in the

[ Page 1251 ]

casinos today —

and we have an amateur-hour commission appointed to deal with this very

important issue. I wish the Attorney-General, supposedly the number one

crime-fighter in the province of British Columbia, would show me this

evidence to prove I'm wrong, that we're not in serious trouble with the

existing casinos, never mind the ones we're going to get tomorrow —

and there's no question that unless this government changes direction,

we'll be getting them. He says we're using examples from other

jurisdictions that are nothing like British Columbia. Once again I

remind that Attorney-General and this government that that's how they

started, and look where they are today.

Madam Chairman, I

have some more questions, but my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

(Mr. Sihota) wants to say a few more words. In this

section of the

debate, I just want to ask the government to turn aside from the

temptation to make easy money and build up its coffers after it

incompetently got this province into serious financial trouble, and to

seriously consider the dramatic social costs to the taxpayer if it

moves in this direction. Government revenue generated by Nevada casinos

equals about 3 percent of B.C. government revenue. An extensive

three-year study in the United States concluded that income from

casinos does not offset their inherent social costs. If this government

is in any way thinking, through its amateur-hour commission, of

expanding and allowing more profits to gambling under the guise of

charities.... That's what we've got. This government is finding ways to

bring in profit gambling under the guise of charities because it's got

to find a way around the current Criminal Code. We implore this

government to seriously study and think about the implications from

other jurisdictions.

[4:15]

MR. PETERSON :

Madam Chairman, I would like to just take a couple of minutes to ask

the Attorney-General a few questions about our small debt court system

in British Columbia. It's my understanding that the current ceiling for

applications to the small debt court is $2,000. It has been some time

since the ceiling was raised. In fact, I'm not sure it has even kept up

with inflation. My concern is really for small businesses in British

Columbia, particularly the new ones which may be having some

difficulties with delinquent receivables in excess of $2,000. My

question is: would it be possible for the ceiling to be raised? I'm not

sure of any restrictions or any legalities concerning that, but in

reference to the smaller businesses, particularly, as I say, the new

small businesses in British Columbia, for whom cash flow is so

important to thrive and the costs of entering the large civil courts

for litigation are prohibitive, could the Attorney-General perhaps look

at the possibility of raising those ceilings?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Yes, and I think they should be raised and raised gradually. The only

reason we don't raise them completely to, say, $5,000 is that we are

always in danger of being struck down by the line of decisions that

prevents us from establishing a

section 96 court; we have to be careful

to make those increases in jurisdiction gradual. But it would be our

intention to raise them, and we will probably have a provision in

Miscellaneous Statutes to do so again. It's a good court because it's a

people's court. It's a court that you don't need a lawyer in. You can

go in and collect your money reasonably efficiently and inexpensively,

and it should be as accessible as we can make it under the

constitution. I agree with that.

I want to say one other

thing in relation to the remarks of the member from Victoria. He knows,

and I have said in this chamber, that there wasn't licensing for casino

operators, and that was one of the weaknesses of the old system, and

that we intend that there will be, and we also intend that operators

will be trained and bonded, and that we will have a direct inspection

over them. But don't think that the gaming branch and the police have

been idle in this field. Where there is any doubt as to the record or

background of an operator, it is open to the gaming branch to lift the

licence of the charity and to bring pressure on the charities to get a

different operator. That's done time and time again in this province.

One

of the reasons we set up a commission and charged them with doing

things, and are going to improve our rules, our bonding and our

trading, is to have a system that is better enforced. It was a very

small branch of government up until recently — very few people involved in the enforcement of it —

and we think it should be strengthened. But the RCMP, CLEU and other

organizations have watched this industry and watched it carefully, I

can assure you, and we have not lain down on the job.

MR. SIHOTA :

Madam Chairman, first of all I want to thank the second member for

Langley (Mr. Peterson) for asking that question. It certainly was a

question that I intended to ask later on, because it was also on my

agenda. I'm pleased that he did ask that question, and I guess in some

ways I'm pleased with the answer.

Quite frankly, I do

understand the

section 96 argument, but we're talking about $5,000. I

leave it to somebody to challenge it and to say that there is a

section

96 argument there, and then incur the costs of bringing forward that

constitutional challenge. I don't think that there is very much risk,

if any, in raising that sum to $5,000, and I would look forward to an

amendment in one of the miscellaneous statutes amendments to raise the

amount to at least $5,000, because all of us, I trust, would agree that

the $2,000 figure is way too low. It's unfortunate that businesses and

people who are owed money have to write off some money to fall into the

$2,000 figure. Clearly, that legislation should be amended. It's long

overdue. I won't worry too much about the

section 96 argument. I don't

intend to raise it. I don't know how many people understand it. So

let's get on with raising the limit.

I want to thank the second member for Langley for raising the matter, because it's one that I feel equally strongly about.

Let's

get back to gaming. It seems to me, Madam Chairman, that as we engage

in this debate we have to step back for a moment and begin to consider

the motivations of the government to get involved in gaming operations.

If indeed the government is to believed, that the motivation is simply

to allow for funding for charitable purposes, then clearly there's not

much to be achieved.... The argument that says that the revenue from

these operations will be used to reduce the deficit is an argument that

falls by the way. If it's going to go to charities, then it can't be

used to reduce the deficit or for government operations. Alternatively,

if the intent or the motivation of it is to offset the debt and deal

with the financial crisis that the government has on its hands, then I

think the government should come up front and say that that indeed is

its policy — to engage in for-profit public sector gambling.

[ Page 1252 ]

I want

to ask the Attorney-General to clarify that point first of all. Is it

the intention of the government to move into for-profit public sector

gambling?

HON. B.R. SMITH : I've got no further

statements to make on our purpose. I've outlined it many times. We will

have a statement to make on future gambling policy when we have studied

the report of the commission and when we've had some experience with

the gaining on the ships. But our future policy has not been

determined, and we have not had those final debates, and we have not

examined the results of the commission studies being undertaken.

MR. SIHOTA :

Would the Attorney-General then advise the House as to what his view on

the matter is, as the chief law enforcement officer in this province?

HON. B. R. SMITH :

He most certainly will not, because he has not sworn or taken an oath

to go around imposing his own personal views. I'm probably far more

conservative on that subject personally than some of the hon. members

over there who are making the speeches, but I wasn't elected to

legislate those views or carry them out.

MR. SIHOTA :

Madam Chairman, in today's newspaper the Attorney-General felt quite at

liberty to make comments about the Belmas case and his own views about

that. He felt quite at liberty a week ago to make a comment about strip

searching. He felt at liberty to make a comment earlier about a famous

decision that allowed someone to achieve parole due to a provision in

the Charter. He felt quite free to comment on those types of matters. I

wonder why the Attorney-General is reluctant to state his view on the

matter of public sector for-profit gambling in this province.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I have absolutely no reluctance in stating the government's position,

when we're in a position to state that position. But I have no

intention of going around stating my own personal and moral views on

gambling. I most certainly did speak out on the Belmas parole, because

it is my duty, as the person in this province in charge of the

corrections process, to speak out on a parole decision which I felt,

not from a personal moral standpoint but as Attorney-General, was not

an appropriate decision. And I have done so, but I don't speak out

generally on parole decisions. I also certainly speak out on questions

involving law enforcement, fingerprinting, strip searches and so on,

but those aren't personal moral issues; those are public matters that I

am charged with.

I will speak out — and the government will speak out — on

whether we're going to have further public sector gaming of any kind in

this province. We will speak out on that. There's no hesitation on

that. You want us to speak out before we've let the commission do their

work. I don't think you want the commission....

MR. BLENCOE : Amateur hour.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

You know, if I look back, hon. member, on some of the Crown corporation

appointments that were made during the years 1972 to 1975, this is a

very professional commission alongside some of those.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Yes, some of the people that were put at the head of Crown

corporations. I find it very offensive, too, that you keep calling this

commission "amateur hour." I find that offensive to the chairman and

the vice-chairman, who are both very experienced, distinguished,

objective British Columbians in the field of law enforcement. I find it

objectionable as well from the standpoint of other experienced citizens

on that commission who have served their communities and served on

boards of various kinds. You could say the same thing, hon. member,

about the appointment of every university board and college board in

this province. You could get up and make one of your silly speeches

about "amateur hour"

MR. SIHOTA : The

Attorney-General has raised two questions in my mind. The first one is

this: if the Attorney-General thinks that it is not his position to

talk on matters of broad public policy, why is it that he has chosen,

as a matter of public policy, to introduce gaming on the ships? And

why, therefore, is he not, as a matter of policy, willing to talk about

private sector for-profit gambling in this province? That's a first

question.

The second question is: if the Attorney-General

wants to talk about his duties, does he not think that it is his duty

as the chief law enforcement officer of this province to indicate his

views on the matter of for-profit gambling, particularly in the public

sector? If you want to speak out on policy, you've already done it,

with respect to the ships. Why not go a little bit further and tell us

what your policy is on this matter?

Is the Attorney-General not prepared to answer those two questions?

MADAM CHAIRMAN : The Attorney-General is not obliged to answer the questions. Would you like to continue?

MR. SIHOTA :

I will continue. I think that drives home the point that there are

representatives on this side of the floor who have argued over and over

and over again that the government's intentions are to move into

for-profit public sector gaming. We've been criticized. We've been told

that we're exaggerating — I think that was a word used to describe the comments made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) —

that somehow we're putting a scare into the people of this province. I

think that was the adjective used to describe the comments made by the

second member for Victoria. Yet on the other hand, when we ask the

government for clarification and ask them to explain what indeed its

policies are on matters of gaming and public sector for-profit gaming,

the government refuses to make any statements publicly. So it seems to

me inconsistent to chastise members on this side of the House with

respect to statements they're making about what they perceive the

government's intent to be when the government itself is not prepared to

clarify those intentions and state outright what its positions are.

I say

that not simply in defence of the second member for Victoria, but to

highlight the inconsistency. The government will talk when it wants to

talk, and it won't talk when it doesn't want to talk. The people of

this province therefore are left in the dark on serious matters of

public policy and a shift in this government towards gambling in a

very, very significant way. I think the public has a right to know what

the Attorney-General thinks.

I tried to say that in a controlled way, because I think the Attorney-General knows as well as I do that I could have said

[ Page 1253 ]

in other ways. But I want to move on to another aspect of this gaming

issue. I should preface my comments by saying that there have been a

number of comments made by my good friend the second member for

Victoria about the questions of security and regulation in gaming, and

the current level .... We're not looking down the road, because I guess

we're asked to believe that the government really has no plans down the

road. We're just asking: what's happening now with the rules and

regulations?

On April 4 an individual within the Ministry

of Provincial Secretary was commenting upon the regulations that are in

place. He said that the regulations were impractical and inspectors

were faced with the problem of allowing blatant violations or

suspending hundreds of casino licences, a move that would ultimately

embarrass the then Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy, who ushered in

the rules. So there's a concern on the part of those enforcing the

regulations that if they enforce them pursuant to the regulations that

have come down, the casino operations in their entirety would be shut

down in this province.

There was further recognition in

that report that there are only 11 inspectors overseeing casino

operations in this province — and those 11 are responsible for bingo and ticket raffles across British Columbia —

one of whom is in the greater Victoria area. I want to ask the

Attorney-General this: what immediate plans does he have to increase

the number of inspectors for casinos, bingo parlours and raffles in the

greater Victoria area?

[4:30]

HON. B.R. SMITH : Yes, we do

intend to expand the branch, and, as I say, we're trying to recruit and

interview candidates right now for the position of executive director,

and we will be taking on more inspectors. We do have new terms and

conditions respecting the licensing of lottery events that have just

been published as of May 1, which represent a codification of what we

had before and the changes that were made. They're perhaps a little

more understandable now, and they're printed and circulated.

Sure,

whenever you change your rules you have some uncertainty and you have

uncertainty, as to enforcement. We have felt for some time that we

needed to strengthen the enforcement end and also to clarify and

improve the rules. The rules were certainly improved this time, from

the standpoint of charities. The charities that have reported to me and

to the commission have been generally pleased with the changes that we

made. Some of them may have wished some further changes to be made or

thought we could have done more, but at least we did make some changes,

and the rest will be in the purview of the commission.

I'd

of licensing for lotteries that have just been published. I use the

word "lotteries" in the legal sense, because that includes the casinos

and bingos.

MR. SIHOTA : Look, we know that it has

been well documented and reported that despite a regulation that said

that 50 percent of the gross revenue must go to charity, in 1986 they

got about 17 percent, and in the first half of 1987 they got

approximately 31 percent. Those are figures that flow from this

ministry. We know that the Attorney-General himself admitted that

despite the rule that says 50 percent, the take was averaging about 34

percent. We know that the Attorney-General has tried to change the

regulations, which he has now tabled. But the point is that we still

don't know whether or not that level of rip-off — which is what it was — is continuing or not.

It's

all nice and pleasant to pass all sorts of tough regulations. The

question is: to what extent are there inspectors out there to ensure

that those regulations are being enforced? We have 11 in the province.

Could the Attorney-General advise when he intends to hire more

inspectors and how many he anticipates hiring between now and November

30?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Yes, we do have a game plan for

that. There have been inspections made since the regulations were

changed. We are finding now that 50 percent of the revenues are in fact

flowing to the charities. Under the old system, it wasn't a true 50

percent at all. I think the net average was somewhere around 34

percent, as the member said, and we were very dissatisfied with that.

But at the same time as we change regulations — as we just did —

to get a true 50 percent to the charities, we are already hearing the

pleas of some charities, obviously inspired by operators in some cases

as well, saying that the system just cannot work with a true 50 percent

going to the charities and the rest all to be borne by the operators;

they cannot make it. That seems to be a complaint that we hear perhaps

most acutely from some of the smaller communities. There doesn't seem

to be the same difficulty in the urban areas, where you have a net of

charities and an established operator with a fairly good plant. That

operator may well be able to make it with volume, but the smaller

operators in the smaller communities are having trouble. So the

commission has to address that.

The enforcement has been

stepped up. There are three inspectors in the Victoria area: one in the

field and two who go out and do field inspections as well. We will

probably be adding an additional eight to ten inspectors in a shorter

time than the time-frame that you indicated. I mean, that's our plan:

to have a significant increase in inspection.

MR. SIHOTA :

Eight to ten inspectors across the province. That means a doubling of

the inspectors. So instead of one inspector, we'll have two inspectors

in Victoria. Has the Attorney-General consulted with the city of

Victoria police force and sought their opinion as to whether or not

they think two inspectors are inadequate?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

We could argue, I suppose, on a number of staff decisions and whether

they're adequate, and maybe some police force doesn't think they're

adequate. We will do our best to increase enforcement and inspection.

We're going to do that. As I say, we're going to professionalize this

industry considerably over the next year with certifications and

training.

Interjection.

HON. B. R. SMITH : I see. You know, a closed mind and a big mouth are a great attribute in some circles.

will be doing a better job of certification, training and inspection,

and I think you will find that the results will be better. It will

certainly be better for the charitable industries.

MR. SIHOTA : The question was this: has the Attorney-General sought the opinion of the Victoria city police with

[ Page 1254 ]

respect to whether or not the number of inspectors — whether it's one or two — is adequate? A simple question: yes or no.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I haven't personally phoned them or sent them a questionnaire, but the

director of our branch is in touch with all law enforcement agencies in

the province, and there is a considerable amount of communication

between the branch, the Gaming Commission and all police forces, not

just in Victoria but in Esquimalt, Saanich, Oak Bay, Central Saanich,

North Saanich and the town of Sidney.

MR. SIHOTA : I

don't want to get into a difficult debate here, but my information is

that the police forces in this area, southern Vancouver Island, are

feeling a little left out. They don't feel that they're being

consulted, they don't feel that their opinions are being taken into

account when they are being consulted, and the level of communication

is nominal at best. I don't say that in a way to criticize staff within

the Ministry of Attorney-General. I'm just saying that because I want

to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General that they don't think

that they are being consulted, and they have some very serious concerns.

You're

expecting them to sit back until November 30 or thereabouts to make

some representations to a commission, while we continue to have ongoing

gaming activity in this province, where the charities aren't checked

out to see whether or not they are indeed bona fide charities, when

there is no security in place at the area within which the gambling

activity is taking place and when there is — at least in my view — no assurance that the charities are receiving 50 percent of the take. I have some major considerations along those lines.

Now

let's go back to this matter of destination gambling operations. Will

the Attorney-General clarify whether or not the government intends to

move into a Las Vegas type of gambling haven in this province? Does it

or does it not?

HON. B.R. SMITH : No, it does not.

Not

in response to you, hon. member, because you seem to have a more

balanced view of the value that some parts of gaming do have to

charities, but I will be notifying the charities in greater Victoria,

numbering some 520, and telling them that, regrettably, the member for

Victoria does not support gaming in respect to their proceeds. These

are charities that he has probably heard of: the Art Gallery of Greater

Victoria, Associated Canadian Travelers, B.C. Friends of

Schizophrenics, B.C. Heart Foundation, B.C. Lions Society. Those are

just a few — the first ones on a list of 520, all of whom are

anxious to see good regulation of casino and bingo gambling in this

city. So I am sure he will be hearing from them; maybe they will be

writing to him.

MR. BLENCOE : Madam Chairman, all

those organizations would get enough money from the lotteries if this

government wouldn't squirrel away that lottery money into some of its

bad debts that it has created over the last few years — $6 million

for Expo. We know where the lottery money is going, and it's certainly

not going to those charities. I can tell you, Mr. Attorney-General,

that many of those so-called organizations are worried about the

current direction of this government in this area.

Madam Chairman, I want to go back, because I would really like to get some

answers from the Attorney-General. Maybe now that he has called and bolstered

the staff with him, he can tell us what checks and screening are done on people

operating the charities. Perhaps he can tell us how that works. He couldn't

tell us an hour ago.

MADAM CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 12 pass?

MR. BLENCOE : Has the Attorney-General got an answer? Or are we not going to get an answer?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

In addition to being loud, you are repetitive. You asked me that

question some time ago, and I gave you the answer that in relation to

the charities where we had licensing control, where we didn't have

owner-operators, they were checked to make sure they were bona fide,

and some criminal record searches were made where there was some basis

to do them — they were not made as a matter of course. We did not

have a system of licensing operators; we expect that we will have a

system of licensing operators. But we have made checks on operators. We

have persuaded charities not to use operators in some cases. We have

found information, in cooperation with the police, that has been useful

in getting changes in operation. So we do scrutinize operators as much

as we can, without any licensing control to do so. But we are going to

get licensing control, we expect, and run a system of bonding and

improve the standard of our operation. The good operators in this

industry want that done. The overwhelming number of operators welcome

that.

MR. BLENCOE : It is just absolutely amazing

that the Attorney-General of this province now says that he is going to

introduce some rules. He has been the Attorney-General for a number of

years, and he has never said anything up until this point about the

problem. What he is admitting, Madam Chairman, is that the screening

system to ensure criminals are not involved in this activity has not

been in place. Now he is going to deal with it. That I find quite

surprising, to say the least.

I would like to know from the Attorney-General today — he talks about the rules he is going to introduce in the future —

whether he is aware of the very stringent rules in place in Atlantic

City, and whether he is aware of the problems they have had in Atlantic

City, given that they think they introdu