2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th 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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Theresa Kennedy

Hon. L. Reid

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005 (Bill

M202)

C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

North Vancouver Outdoor School

K. Whittred

Disaster relief for victims of

earthquake in South Asia

S. Hammell

Remembrance Day

J. Nuraney

Tri-City Women's Centre

D. Thorne

Burnaby business awards

R. Lee

Veterans of Asian ancestry

J. Kwan

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and cost of

rail crossing upgrades

D. Chudnovsky

Hon. K. Falcon

C. James

C. Wyse

Federal transportation standards for

rail crossing upgrades

B. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement and cost of

rail crossing upgrades

M. Farnworth

Hon. K. Falcon

Derailment investigation and CN Rail

safety practices

S. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

H. Lali

R. Fleming

J. Kwan

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety

and Solicitor General (continued)

J. Brar

Hon. J. Les

A. Dix

Point of Privilege

C. Wyse

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and

Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities

Hon. B. Penner

S. Simpson

M. Sather

[ Page 1651 ]

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have a number of guests to introduce today. The first is a surprise guest to me in the Legislature. I'd like to introduce my support network, my husband Al Gerow.

Both sides of the Legislature have been visited by members from the building trades union, the people who build British Columbia. I have the pleasure to introduce four people who are with that group: Perley Holmes, who is the business manager for Iron Workers Local 97; Rick Dowling, business manager, IBEW Local 213; Rick Seder, business manager, Refrigerator Workers Local 516; and Bill Pearson, business manager, Culinary Workers Local 40. Would the House please make those guests welcome.

[1405]

Tributes

THERESA KENNEDY

Hon. L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to Theresa Kennedy, who is a huge supporter of genetic research. Today, November 3, is Jeans for Genes Day. The Canadian Gene Cure Foundation is a registered Canadian charitable organization which was formed in '99 to raise much-needed funds for medical genetic research in Canada.

The members may not be aware, but three out of five Canadians will develop a genetic disease in their lifetime. This is about giving hope to children who live with genetic disease.

The Jeans for Genes Day pin is in the shape of a double helix, which represents DNA — the basic building block of genes. Hon. Speaker, note especially that Canadian scientists have discovered genes relating to epilepsy, dyslexia, Tay-Sachs disease, juvenile diabetes, Williams syndrome, cystic fibrosis and many more. The members may not be aware that 50 percent of admissions to pediatric hospitals are for genetic disease.

I wish that we would extend our great thanks to Theresa Kennedy for her work and certainly to this organization.

Introductions by Members

B. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce to the House a constituent and a supporter of mine from Williams Lake, Joan McGee. Joan is a charter member of the Health Sciences Association, which is a union that represents more than 10,000 health science professions, trained in more than 100 different specialized health disciplines to provide diagnostic, clinical and rehabilitation services in British Columbia.

These HSA members work in acute-care hospitals and long-term care facilities as well as in community-based child development, mental health, home support and public health agencies. HSA's 2,000 other members include registered psychiatric nurses, health services and support staff working in community health, and members who deliver community social services.

Joan is a medical laboratory technologist at Cariboo Memorial Hospital, and thanks to her employer, she is here in Victoria today to attend the infectious disease update conference. Would the House please welcome Joan.

Hon. J. Les: As members will be aware, we are doing the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General in the House today. As a result, I have a few staff members here who are not normally in the precincts.

With us in the gallery this afternoon are two individuals, Bob Bugslag, who is the executive director of the provincial emergency program, and Terry Smith, who is the chief coroner for the province. I would ask all members to please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: There are two very dear friends in the gallery today, Michelle Boudreau and Shelly Ervin. Both of them are my constituency executive members. Please join me to extend a warm welcome to them.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today my friends and supporters, a couple known to many in this House, Michael and Sonja Sanguinetti. May I ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, would like to introduce members of the building trades. Not only do they build our province, but they also educate our young people that take those jobs after.

In the House we have Chris Feller, business manager to Cement Masons Local 919; Bruce Ferguson, president of the Laborers Union Local 1611; and Bob Hart, representative of the Laborers International. Please make them very welcome.

G. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, you graciously hosted some members of the opposition and members of the government for lunch today. There was one special person at that lunch, and we are honoured to have with us a very personable, outgoing former resident of Woodlands. He is an avid spokesperson for the community living movement. He's a self-advocate. He holds down three jobs — two of them at A&W, I might add — and he is his own boss as CEO of Phil's Flowers and Novelties. Would the House please give a warm welcome to Mr. Phil Traynor.

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, visiting members from both sides of the House, are members of the building trades. I would like to take a moment to introduce a few of them. Shawn Boivin, who is with the Sheetmetal workers Local 280; Jeff Higginson with the Bricklayers and Allied Crafts Local 2; Jim Roth of the Sheetmetal and Roofers Workers Local 280; Michael

[ Page 1652 ]

Jefferson, the Boilermakers Local 359; and Guy Zakini with the Table Masons Local 2. Would the House please make them all welcome.

[1410]

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery are 40 grade five students from Glenlyon Norfolk School here in Victoria. They're accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Tanner and Ms. De Hoog. These students are here as part of their study of government. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

M. Sather: I would also like to introduce two individuals here in the gallery today. Craig McIntosh is a business agent with the International Union of Operating Engineers. Brad Randall is also with the Operating Engineers and operates the fine training centre in Maple Ridge that makes sure that all those folks who are up on those cranes know what they're doing. Would all members please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: I introduced Phil, and I see he's doing some very positive work, because sitting next to him are two former members of the Manitoba mafia.

I appreciate you, Phil, providing some positive influence on them.

We have a former MLA and member of the executive council from Manitoba, Mr. George McLeod, as well as the well-known man from these hallowed halls, the very special one, Mr. Ed Masters. Would the House please make both of them welcome.

R. Fleming: Today in the members' gallery, I would like to acknowledge some special visitors we have with us from Russia who are here to learn about aspects of our Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Please join me in welcoming, from the Russian Federal Assembly and the Accounting Chamber, Mr. Boris Preobrazhenskiy, Mr. Anatoly Nykolaevich, Mr. Sergey Paraskevich and Ms. Svetlana Lolua. Along with other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I will be meeting with this group later this afternoon.

Our guests are travelling across Canada and throughout B.C. to learn aspects of our federal and provincial financial auditing systems. Would the House please make our guests feel welcome.

D. Hayer: Earlier today I had a meeting with the Building and Construction Trade Council — three of them — in my office: Rick Seder, Wayne Laxton and Lawrence Baker. Two of them live in my constituency. Could the House please make them very welcome.

G. Robertson: I would like to welcome to the House a couple more members of the building trades unions: Alex MacDonald, the United Association of Plumbers Local 170, and Frank Carr of the Operating Engineers Local 115. Will the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT, 2005

C. James presented a bill intituled Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005.

C. James: I move this bill be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. James: I'm pleased to introduce the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005,

an act that will take big money out of B.C. politics, improve our democracy and contribute to public confidence in British Columbia's democratic institutions.

Individual British Columbians who believe passionately in our democracy expect more accountability from their elected representatives. They expect that decisions made here in the chamber result from no consideration other than the broad public interest. Under the bill that I have introduced today, individual British Columbians will contribute to political parties; institutions will not.

The principle is simple. Every British Columbian should have equal access to legislators and input on the decisions that affect their lives — a principle that is diminished by the perception that political parties are beholden to campaign contributors.

[1415]

By taking action now, legislators can ensure a level playing field for political parties but, most importantly, a fair and level playing field for individual British Columbians.

In addition to these important and far-reaching reforms, this bill also calls for a comprehensive review of the way that the political process is financed in British Columbia. This bill calls for a public review led by the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a detailed examination of the entire campaign finance system and to make further recommendations on models that have been implemented in other jurisdictions.

If passed by this House, this bill I'm introducing today represents a fundamental shift in B.C. politics — a shift that will put individual citizens at the centre of our democracy. We often talk about how we can increase confidence in our political system, how we can increase voter participation and involvement in our political system. This bill is a way to do this.

I move that the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill M202, Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 1653 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) NORTH VANCOUVER OUTDOOR SCHOOL

K. Whittred: North Vancouver Outdoor School is an institution to the students in North Vancouver. It is truly learning that lasts a lifetime, because learners experience and participate in the majesty of the outdoor classroom in Paradise Valley near Squamish.

I'd like to recognize a primary source who helped me to prepare this statement. Darren Whittred is a grade five student in French immersion at École Sherwood Park. Darren attended Outdoor School in grade three.

I slept in cabin number five. My friend Aidan and I shared a bunk. We had the same counsellor the whole time. Her nickname was Sea. At Outdoor School I learned to survive on my own in the wild. Sea showed us how to keep our body heat and how to make a distress signal.

I enjoyed seeing all the wildlife. I had never

seen so many eagles. Some of them even had their nest right next to our cabin. It was neat to see all the salmon bones left behind from their meals. At first, I thought the salmon could fly.

My favourite part was barn work. We took

hay to feed the goats.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, that at Outdoor School, children learn not only with their heads but with their hearts. At Outdoor School they get to learn with all their senses, whether it be at the salmon hatchery or the farm. They look forward to attending again and again. Like Sea, they look forward to developing their leadership skills as counsellors when they're in high school.

When students gather for their 25th grad reunion, long after they've forgotten about quadratic equations and dangling modifiers, they will remember Outdoor School. What a tribute to the dedicated and creative teachers who have planned, developed and implemented this program for more than 35 years.

DISASTER RELIEF FOR VICTIMS

OF EARTHQUAKE IN SOUTH ASIA

S. Hammell: As we all know, on October 8 a 7.6-magnitude earthquake struck Pakistan and India. The official death toll in the region has now surpassed 73,000. International rescue officials estimate that another 3.3 million people are homeless, and winter in the mountainous Kashmir region is quickly approaching.

There are widespread fears that a new and even worse humanitarian disaster is looming. There are serious concerns about contaminated water, starvation and frigid temperatures. Officials with the United Nations say that money for the distribution of supplies and relief efforts is dangerously low.

[1420]

Since the disaster, the United Nations has sought $500 million in aid, but only $131 million has arrived. The UN has issued an urgent plea for more aid from the international community. To date the government of British Columbia has contributed $500,000. Many people in communities across B.C. have worked hard to raise funds, and they have been inspirational in their efforts. The government of B.C. and everyone here in the Legislature needs to show that same dedication. We need to do more, and we can do more.

When the tsunami struck Asia last year, the government of British Columbia gave $8 million of relief. It's time to show that same compassion and conviction now. The situation in India and Pakistan is getting worse. Some 73,000 have already lost their lives, and many more are at risk. The people of Pakistan and India need our help, and we must act now.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

J. Nuraney: Next Friday is a very important day. It is the day we honour our veterans who fought for the freedom that we hold so dear. Each year Remembrance Day is marked by the reading of In Flanders Fields , composed by a Canadian lieutenant-colonel, John McCrae. McCrae wrote a poem after his friend, Alexis Helmer of Ottawa, was killed during the Second Battle of Ypres. Helmer is one of the 54,000 soldiers who have no known grave in the battlefields of Ypres-Salient. It is a moving tribute to those who lost their lives fighting for their country. This simple yet poignant poem reads:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

I know that all of us will attend Remembrance Day events next week in our ridings. Freedom and democracy should never be taken for granted. Let us all pledge, on behalf of those who have fallen and lie in Flanders field, that we shall hold the torch high.

TRI-CITY WOMEN'S CENTRE

D. Thorne: Today I want to share with the House the story of a remarkable resource in the tri-cities. The Tri-City Women's Resource Centre is the umbrella group for several programs including the Coquitlam Transition House, Stopping the Violence, specialized victim services, Children Who Witness Abuse, Empowering Mothers, the transition house outreach program and the oldest and best known of its services, the women's centre, which is celebrating its 30th birthday party tomorrow with a big celebration in Coquitlam.

This is an extraordinary accomplishment and means that this centre is one of the oldest in Canada. I am so very proud of its accomplishments. It has not been an easy path for the strong dedicated women who

[ Page 1654 ]

started this centre and got it through the first three decades. They have managed to survive one funding crisis after another, but all with the help of a caring community which has jumped in when needed on behalf of their valued women's centre when the need for services continues to grow and grow.

[1425]

Obviously, there is no way to celebrate the fact that after 30 years of aid to vulnerable women, the need is growing more quickly than the services that we can provide. What we are celebrating in the Tri-Cities is the spirit of the community and the strong women who remain invincible and dedicated to providing these services.

I ask the House to join me today in saying: "Happy 30th and many more."

BURNABY BUSINESS AWARDS

R. Lee: It is no secret that private business is the engine that drives British Columbia's economy. B.C.'s businesses are also the source of innovation and pride. Tonight at the Hilton Vancouver Metrotown hotel, innovation and excellence will be honoured at the Burnaby Business Excellence Awards organized by the Burnaby Board of Trade. Since we all know how Burnaby is booming, it is not a surprise that the event is completely sold out.

The awards represent an opportunity for businesses to pay tribute to their peers for positively contributing to the quality of life in Burnaby. There are eight categories: Burnaby spirit, community service, business innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, business person of the year, small business of the year, business of the year and newsmaker of the year.

Also at every business excellence award, one company is inducted into the hall of fame honouring decades of community service and business acumen. This year's recipient is Morrey Auto Group, which has been a part of Burnaby for three generations.

Many businesses and non-profit organizations in Burnaby North are finalists, including Brentwood Town Centre, Burnaby Family Life Institute, Chevron Burnaby refinery, VanCity, TB Vets, Dyrand Systems, Executive Inn Group Corp., Origami by Yu and Mi, Cliff Jones of the Art Institute of Vancouver in Burnaby, Peter Legge of Canada Wide Magazines and Communications, and Bridge Studios.

I would like to congratulate all the nominees for tonight's awards. They all have made a positive contribution in Burnaby, and they are all winners for providing jobs and investment right here in British Columbia.

VETERANS OF ASIAN ANCESTRY

J. Kwan: It is my honour to rise in this House to salute the contribution made to this country by veterans of Asian ancestry. As members of this House are aware, this is the Year of the Veteran. It is also the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.

This weekend Canadian veterans of Asian heritage will be honoured with a special concert by the Naden band of Maritime Forces Pacific at the Gateway Theatre in Richmond. Proceeds from the concert will be donated to the Chinese Canadian Military Museum Society.

This concert is a special tribute to the role that Chinese Canadians and Japanese Canadians played in the defence of our country, Canada. When they enlisted to serve in World War II, they were fighting a war on two fronts — a war against racism and a war to preserve democracy. In the military, many of these brave men found an esprit de corps and a sense of equality that they may have been denied in their adopted homes. Asians were second-class citizens, denied simple basic rights by racist attitudes institutionalized in legislation.

Through their courage and selfless service, Asian veterans helped to establish fundamental civil and political rights for Chinese and Japanese Canadians, including the right to vote in this country. This is the 58th anniversary of the enfranchisement of Chinese and Japanese Canadians. I would like to honour their devotion to Canada and their struggle to defend and uplift our country.

I also note that they found allies in their struggle for equality among the early champions of human rights in Canada, in particular in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation which is today called the NDP. At the time it was not a popular cause, but advocates for social justice know that we must look forward and beyond short-term politics. That was just as true then as it is now today.

Please join me in saluting the tremendous contributions of the veterans of Asian descent to Canada's distinguished military history and to the advancement of civil and democratic rights for all Canadians.

[1430]

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT AND

COST OF RAIL CROSSING UPGRADES

D. Chudnovsky: Does the Minister of Transportation stand by his assertion that nothing has changed since the sale of B.C. Rail to CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not sure in relation to what he is talking about.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite says it refers to an answer I gave earlier on, but maybe the member could actually contextualize the question. I have no idea what he is referring to.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps we can help the Minister of Transportation a little bit. He has said on a number of occasions that nothing has changed. I'd like to ask the minister to tell Loreen Tegart of Clinton that things

[ Page 1655 ]

haven't changed. CN has told Ms. Tegart, a widow on limited income, that the sale of B.C. Rail to CN will cost her $10,000 to $15,000 to upgrade her level crossing. CN told her the liability insurance will cost in excess of $7,000 per year.

So something has changed dramatically for Loreen Tegart and the hundreds of other people in her situation. What is this minister and what is this government prepared to do to protect Loreen Tegart and hundreds of other B.C. landowners from CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have the information on the individual he is talking about, but what I can tell the member is that the member should know that under

section 103 — I believe it is — of the Canada Transportation Act, it's very clear. If there are improvements undertaken to existing rail crossings, those improvements anywhere in Canada — including British Columbia — are the obligation of the landowner, whether it's local government or an individual landowner.

What I can tell the member is that I do know CN has indicated that they listened to the criticisms I made regarding the tone of the letter and the letters they had sent out regarding the rail crossings and that they indicated they were doing a review of that information. I think the individual in question should know that the review is underway by CN, and hopefully some good news will be coming out of that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: I would remind this House that it is this minister who has repeated on numerous occasions that nothing has changed with respect to these private level crossings. I would ask this minister whether he believes it is reasonable that British Columbians in this situation be expected to pay up to $15,000 for upgrades and up to $7,000 a year on insurance. And what are he and this government prepared to do to speak out on behalf of those British Columbians?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member opposite contextualizing the question a little bit for me. Actually, the one thing that has changed, as I indicated in previous answers to this question, is that there is no longer political interference in the railway system.

In fact, under that government in 1996, when they undertook a complete improvement to the rail crossings under B.C. Rail, they actually sent out invoices to all of the individuals that had railway crossings, including, presumably, the individual this member opposite talks about.

The difference is that what would happen is that some people paid the bills; others would not pay the bills. That government would interfere to make sure B.C. Rail was unable to collect the bills for amounts owing. That's the kind of interference that won't take place under this government when it was B.C. Rail–operated or under private CN operation.

[1435]

C. James: I don't think we're talking about interference here. We're talking about whether the minister and government are going to stand up for citizens.

We heard the minister say clearly that nothing has changed with the sale of B.C. Rail. I would like the minister to explain to Ms. Tegart how she is now paying $15,000 to upgrade CN rail crossings and paying liability insurance, when she's never paid these bills before.

To the Minister of Transportation: has he even contacted landowners to offer them assistance or to explain why his broken promise around selling B.C. Rail is costing them thousands of dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: As is so often the case when members across the House throw out figures, I question the accuracy of those figures. I have never heard that number. I'm not sure if that individual has been in contact with my office, but I can tell you that anyone who has been in contact with my office…. I personally or we will get back to those individuals.

I get that there's been a change. There's been a change in the fact that government no longer…. This is of great interest to the members opposite, because the change is that government no longer interferes the way this government repeatedly did under B.C. Rail. Of course, they forget the fact that their repeated interference resulted in B.C. Rail running up a debt of over a billion taxpayer dollars that they had to write off because of the kind of political interference that happened on a regular basis when they were in power.

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

C. James: We heard the Minister of Transportation say that he had concerns over the letter, so he was obviously aware of the information. If he had taken the time to talk to landowners, he would have known about the concern.

This government took extraordinary steps to protect itself from CN. It made sure that government didn't take on maintenance costs. It made sure that government didn't take on liability costs. It made sure that government didn't have insurance costs. The government made sure that they were kept out of harm's way, but not the citizens.

We heard the Premier personally promise that he would campaign on this deal, that it would benefit all British Columbians. My question then goes to the Finance Minister, who controls the purse strings: how is Ms. Tegart benefiting from this deal when it will personally cost her $20,000?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member opposite continues to fearmonger, continues to throw out figures which have no basis in fact, and completely ignores the fact that CN has been very clear that they are actually undertaking a review of all the letters they sent out —

[ Page 1656 ]

ensuring that they treat all the individuals with fairness, as one would expect.

I was very clear that the tone of the letter they sent out, I thought, was totally unacceptable. I acknowledged that in this House. I've been very clear about that fact. But this member keeps talking about the fact that government has tried to do what's best to ensure that it obviously protects itself against liability. That's something I think government has a responsibility to do.

Nothing has changed with respect to the individual land owners.

Section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act is very clear about the responsibility for maintaining rail crossings. It's always been with individuals; it's always been with landowners. This government hasn't interfered the way that government did in the past.

C. Wyse: CN quoted the cost to Ms. Tegart. Ms. Tegart is a constituent of mine, and she needs help. The government has saddled her with huge expenses she cannot afford. Is the Minister of Transportation saying he does not care?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I say to the member opposite, CN has committed publicly that they're doing a review of all of the information, all of the letters they've sent out. They are going to work with all of those landowners — who have, by the way, appeal provisions and mechanisms available under the federal transportation act.

Any individual that has contacted my office…. And I must confess I'm not sure whether this individual has or not, but if this individual has, we've gotten back to them immediately with information to assist those individuals.

[1440]

I want to say again, as I've said before, under B.C. Rail, under that government…. While they were in government, they sent out exactly the same invoices. In fact, at the UBCM I spoke to a councillor who was a landowner, who was actually one of those that paid the bills, and the person sitting next to him didn't pay his. That's because the opposition, while in government, made a standard practice of constantly interfering with the railway to a point where it found itself writing off over a billion dollars' worth of expenses.

This provision is the same right across Canada, whether it's in Newfoundland or British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: Ms. Tegart did what anybody would do. They come to their MLA when they have constantly heard that there has not been any change. In her case, there definitely is a change — $20,000. More than $7,000 of that is an annual ongoing expense.

The minister simply does not get it. It was his political decision, his broken promise, that changed the relationship between rail lines and landowners. Those landowners now need government's help. Will the minister tell Ms. Tegart and the other British Columbians faced with these staggering bills how he intends to mitigate the financial impact of this government's sale of B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite keep talking about this apparent grave injustice that has taken place. I have a letter from B.C. Rail dated February 28, 2000. My goodness, this is going out to a landowner. It says: "Please forward a cheque in the amount of $25,000 representing your share of the upgrade costs so that we may immediately order required material in time to make installation and changes."

It is exactly the same thing that happened while that opposition was in government. Nothing has changed, except the fact that government doesn't interfere about the payment of those bills, and that's as it should be.

FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS

FOR RAIL CROSSING UPGRADES

B. Simpson: Let's try and cut through the minister's words that nothing has changed and political interference…. Quick question — simple yes or no answer. Was B.C. Rail subject to federal transportation standards before it was sold to CN? Yes or no.

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the regulations governing B.C. Rail were the same as the regulations that govern the national rail system. They were standardized, in fact, so the same regulations that govern the railway across the rest of Canada govern the railway in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: If that's the case, then I wonder why the Railway Act was changed and why CN is now asking all of these private rail crossing holders to upgrade to federal standards. That's the issue here.

It's not the old obligations under the Railway Act for private crossings. It's the fact that all of the private crossing holders are now being asked to come up to federal standards. That's new. All of the private crossing holders have been asked to pick up liability insurance. That's new. All of the private crossing holders have been asked to pay an annual administration fee. That's new. All of those things are a result of the sale of B.C. Rail to CN and the fact that it now has federal standards. That's new. That's different.

This minister owes an explanation to B.C. Rail private crossing holders. He should write a letter to them, and I ask the minister now if he will commit to do that and tell them of their rights.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm a little surprised to hear the member opposite suggest that, because what actually guides the federal regulations is public safety. The whole issue of rail crossing actually comes down to sightline clearances and issues around public safety. The reason is that as you can imagine, when these railways are moving along that line, they haven't got

[ Page 1657 ]

the ability to stop in the same way in which an automobile does.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1445]

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite groan. I find that rather extraordinary.

These are regulations that are in place right across this country to ensure that the public is actually protected. Those agreements are standardized right across the country, whether in Newfoundland or British Columbia, and it's about public safety. There is no difference, whether in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario or Newfoundland. It's about public safety, and this member ought not to be trying to suggest we minimize those standards here in British Columbia.

B.C. RAIL–CN RAIL AGREEMENT AND

COST OF RAIL CROSSING UPGRADES

M. Farnworth: If these changes were required, why weren't they mentioned in the deal that was done between this government and CN Rail? Why was the public not told about the increased costs? Could it be because the minister thinks that a $20,000 cost really is no change — or just small change? But to Ms. Tegart $20,000 is a big change. Will the minister commit to phoning Ms. Tegart and telling her why he feels a $20,000 cost is no change or just small change? And if it is a big change, tell her why she should have to pay it.

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite, in fact, appear to have selective memory. This same kind of upgrade was undertaken by their government while in power in 1996 and 2000. The same series of letters were sent out to all the landowners requesting that they pay their portion of the costs of upgrading those railway crossings. The reason why they upgraded those railway crossings under NDP government in 1996 and in the year 2000, and the reason why they do it in 2005, is because of public safety.

They sent out invoices to those individuals. So has CN. The tone of CN's letter was totally unacceptable. I have been very clear about that. They said they're reviewing that letter; they're reviewing the letters that they sent out. They're going to work with the landowners and ensure they move forward in a fair and impartial manner, and that's as they should.

DERAILMENT INVESTIGATION AND

CN RAIL SAFETY PRACTICES

S. Simpson: The minister says that he wants to talk safety, so let's talk safety. Overnight another CN train went off the tracks on that old B.C. Rail corridor. That's the safety we're talking about. The minister says he wants to talk about numbers. That train had over 130 cars, many more than B.C. Rail ever allowed to be carried in that area.

People in the region are worried. They're worried about their communities; they're worried about their environment. We know that the minister met with CN on Tuesday, and while he promised the company would examine its safety procedures, he got no commitments on shortening of trains.

Will this minister stand up for British Columbians today and demand that CN shorten its trains as a precaution, at least until the Transportation Safety Board completes its investigation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad the member opposite referred to the fact that the Canada Transportation Board is responsible for regulating and undertaking the inspection of the derailments that took place. It may be of interest to the member to note that the Canada Transportation Safety Board is reporting now that it is likely that the problem with the nine empty cars that derailed this morning is a result of a mechanical failure with regard to a braking hose. That would not suggest anything to do with length of cars, but actually a mechanical failure.

I think the issue, from my part as Minister of Transportation, is that one of the things we're trying not to do is prejudge what the cause is. Apparently, those members have already determined what the cause is. They're probably wondering why the Transportation Safety Board is even doing a review, when they apparently have all the answers.

We actually want to find out the answers. Public confidence is driven by a thorough and complete safety investigation which is being undertaken. The results of that safety investigation will actually determine whether it was human failure, mechanical failure or indeed even length of cars. We'll wait for the results of that information.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1450]

S. Simpson: I'm glad the minister said he thinks it might be true, because if I recollect, on Almanac earlier today the minister did say: "Rail length would seem to me to be a reasonable suggestion that could be part of the problem."

Also, we know that for the whole fishery that was wiped out in the Cheakamus, the reality is that rail length probably was a problem there too. The NDP Transportation critic on August 11 wrote to the minister. He specifically asked the minister to consider the shortening of trains. The minister chose to do nothing for two and a half months — two and a half months of negligence on the question of safety.

For two and a half months he ignored train safety in this province. Even then, after a desperate meeting with CN to try to find some results, we get nothing that's working. Whether it is private crossings or derailments, Mr. Minister, the minister has walked away…

[ Page 1658 ]

Mr. Speaker: Direct your questions through the Speaker.

S. Simpson: …from these communities, Mr. Speaker.

When will the minister put British Columbia interests before CN interests on these matters of private crossings and derailments?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I did receive a letter from the member opposite's Transportation critic. As I responded in his letter, I indicated to him that I forwarded it to the federal Minister of Transport.

You know, for this member opposite to suggest that nothing is being done is nonsense. Monday I met with the senior vice-president and an additional vice-president of CN. We met, and I made it very clear in that meeting that I felt it was very important for public confidence that they take whatever interim steps are necessary to satisfy the public, in terms of public confidence.

They indicated to me at that meeting that they would undertake to have distributed power on every long-rail string of railcars running along that line. In fact, the railway this morning did have the distributed power on the rail line, meaning that they had a locomotive in the midsection of that string of railcars. They indicated that they are undertaking immediate safety upgrades and educational upgrades with all of their employees. They indicated that they would be inspecting the track more frequently. So a number of steps are underway.

H. Lali: In the letter the opposition critic sent to the minister in August, he was asked about the privatization process and what steps the government took to protect the interests of British Columbians. The minister has never answered those questions, so let's try it again.

To the minister: when the government was negotiating this secret deal behind closed doors, did anyone in the Liberal government even discuss train lengths and operational procedures along B.C. Rail's difficult terrain? Did anyone on that side of the House even think of the safety of my constituents in Lillooet and Seton Portage?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, the member opposite should know that safety and maintenance standards are standardized right across North America, so whether the cars are operating in British Columbia or operating in the Rockies or operating in eastern Canada, they operate under the same regulatory regime. One of the reasons why the Transportation Safety Board investigates each and every derailment is because…. What they're looking for is: is there any new information that can inform them about any changes that need to be made in the regulatory regime to govern the operation of railways?

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the federal regulatory process is very thorough. It's very scientific. It's based on facts; it's not based on speculation. They will come out with those facts, and CN will be guided and will have to change any operational decisions, if necessary, to conform to those facts.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: I take that as a no. Ever since the B.C. Liberals sold B.C. Rail to CN, they have refused repeatedly to admit that they've actually sold it. They say things like: "Who — us? We didn't sell B.C. Rail. We've only leased it, like, for about a thousand years." They say: "We still own the railbed." Then they'll turn around and say: "We still own the tracks and the right-of-way. We're still the landlord."

To the minister again: if B.C. Rail is still the landlord, for the benefit of the people of this province who live along the right-of-way and the tracks, why is this minister still letting CN, the tenant, run amok on our property? Does this minister even care about the safety of British Columbians?

[1455]

Hon. K. Falcon: I would encourage the member to do some investigation on landlord-tenant relationships. It might actually inform the member. Landlords typically aren't operating the tenants' operations, for good reason. The fact of the matter is, as I've said before many, many times, this is a federally regulated railway. It is regulated by the Transportation Safety Board. The Transportation Safety Board investigates each and every derailment.

Rather than speculating on cause, rather than believing that they know the solution…. I'm not clear what the breadth of their railway experience is, but I candidly say that I don't profess to be a railway expert. I'm fascinated about their apparent interest in this issue, but the fact is that we don't know whether it's human error. We don't know whether it's failure, as it appears to be in the incident this morning.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: We don't know whether it has to do with the length of the railcars. What we do know is that people that understand these issues a lot better than we do are investigating this and will come forward with recommendations that will inform how CN operates in the future.

R. Fleming: One thing we do know for certain is that it took ten derailments before this minister made a phone call. The minister only met with CN this week on this issue, and once again this government admits, through its actions, that it only moves on issues when they're raised in this House by the opposition.

Whether it's level crossings or train derailments that threaten the safety of British Columbians, why

[ Page 1659 ]

does this minister only act under political pressure? Why doesn't he act in the best interests of British Columbians as his first course of action?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll remind the member opposite once again in his great enthusiasm for action. It is federally regulated, meaning that the Transportation Safety Board is responsible for investigations and regulatory oversight of our railways. Now this member apparently wants to run around pretending he's got solutions to problems he doesn't even begin to understand.

I can tell you that we're going to make sure the recommendations that come forward from the federal Transportation Safety Board will be implemented and followed by CN. I can tell you that I spoke to the federal Minister of Transport this morning, as I've spoken to him on other occasions, and the federal minister is very much aware of this issue. He has already undertaken, as those members know, an operational and safety audit of CN's practices to ensure that every possible review mechanism is in place. That's exactly as it should be.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: When serious issues are happening on the transportation corridors of this province, you can't hide behind its being a federal issue. Safety is a provincial concern. Why did the minister not act? Why does he hide behind that excuse?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, let's review this for the members opposite. Clearly, there's some confusion in their minds about what's actually happened. On Monday I met with the senior vice-president and another vice-president of CN. I made it abundantly clear to both of them that the public confidence is at stake here and that I expected them to do everything operationally they need to do to ensure that the public can have confidence in their operation of the railway.

This morning I phoned the president of CN, Hunter Harrison, and spoke directly to him to let Mr. Harrison know that this minister and this government view the operational aspects of that railway to be something of very high importance and that we expect them to operate that railway in the safest possible manner. I spoke with the federal Minister of Transport this morning and again echoed to the federal Minister of Transport the same discussions I've been having with the other individuals involved.

[1500]

I wrote a letter to the Transportation Safety Board. I asked them to accelerate the work in the investigation, without obviously jeopardizing that investigation, to ensure that they come forward with the recommendations as soon as they responsibly can so that we can ensure that the public can have complete confidence in the operation of that railway.

J. Kwan: It just goes to show you that this government will not act except for if the political pressure is on. The government will hide behind anything to shirk responsibility and say it is someone else's responsibility. They have done that on the Children and Family Development file. They're doing that on level crossings. They're doing that on derailment. They're doing that on oil and gas. It is time for this government to stand up for British Columbians, and British Columbians expect this government to represent them. Derailments are a serious safety issue….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, member.

J. Kwan: Derailments are a safety issue, a serious safety issue, and British Columbians expect this government to act now.

I will give this minister one more chance — no more rhetoric, no more blaming someone else…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: …and give him the opportunity to get up in this House and say that he will act and make sure that CN is a responsible corporate citizen, and will ensure that safety measures are actually in place to protect British Columbians.

Hon. K. Falcon: As aware as I am that I now have only one more chance, I want to try and ensure that my answer fulfils this last-chance opportunity I now have.

I would remind the member opposite that actually what we are hearing out of this morning is that it's a result of a mechanical failure, in regards to a braking hose — the likely reason for this derailment.

Now, you know, those members opposite will want to run around as Chicken Little and try and pretend they know the answer. Of course they have the answer. We're actually waiting for the facts.

I can tell you this. In speaking to the president of CN, speaking to the federal Minister of Transport, speaking to their senior vice-presidents and speaking to people who understand railways, including our former B.C. Rail executives, we have spoken to people who can actually give us answers, and we are moving on this file.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. B. Penner: In this House I call continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. For the information of members, in the small House we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[ Page 1660 ]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:05 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $500,222,000 (continued).

J. Brar: Before we left for the lunch break, we were talking about the B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force, so I will come back to the same topic. I had asked one question, so I will move on to the next question. My question was that we have lost about 70 people during the last ten years through the gang war in the Indo-Canadian community. My assessment is that we can look at it from three different perspectives. One is that there are people who are into the gang life, and they hopefully…. They're quite deep into it. There are people who somehow got involved in it, but they don't want to be there. Then there are young people we need to educate, who are not a part of gang life.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple. There are a number of people who want to come out of gang life, but at this point in time they don't have any avenue, in my opinion, available to them which could assist them to come back to the mainstream. My question is: can the Solicitor General name any program the ministry will offer to a young man who mistakenly got involved in a youth gang but wishes to get out of it, if the young man calls his office next Monday?

Hon. J. Les: In fact, I think I provided almost all of the answer to that question prior to the break for lunch. I understand, however, how it could be difficult for someone who had been involved in a criminal lifestyle, particularly in a gang setting, to leave that lifestyle behind, and the challenges that poses.

I would suggest, however, that if someone was seriously wanting to leave that life of crime behind and got in touch with the authorities — that is the police in the relevant jurisdiction — care would be taken so that a person could, in fact, make that transition without any compromising of their personal safety, and in particular, of course, if they had information to provide that would lead to the arrest of other individuals involved in that lifestyle. I would assume that somebody who wants to leave that lifestyle behind would, in fact, take the point of view that it is inappropriate for others to carry on with that behaviour at the same time.

[1510]

J. Brar: Let me, maybe, explain it further. The situation is like this: there are people in gang life who are there somehow by mistake. They mistakenly got in, but they don't want to be there anymore. Now, if they come back, they know that they can be hit very hard by the gang members, so they continue working with them in that situation.

I would like to suggest something here and to ask if the government is willing to think about something like that. Would the government consider a program to protect those young people who willingly come forward and are prepared to give evidence against their fellow criminals — something like the witness protection program?

Hon. J. Les: As I attempted to point out in my previous answer, that program, in fact, already exists. I think it is fairly well known amongst the public that the program is there, and it even goes further. It even allows people to assume different identities, if that is required.

Certainly, I don't want to minimize, either, the question that the member raises. I know that people, for a variety of reasons, make poor choices in their lives and often are at their wits' end at some point as to how to turn the corner. These are not frivolous questions that we have to concern ourselves with. I would certainly be interested in working with the member and his community in developing, perhaps, other solutions that we may well need.

The Attorney General is very much engaged in this, as well, in trying to find different programs and mechanisms, first of all — and I think this is equally important — to prevent people from getting into a criminal lifestyle, and second, to be there to assist people who want to turn the corner, as it were, and leave that criminal lifestyle behind.

J. Brar: So I'll take it that there is a program. Can the minister give us assurance that there is enough funding to actually implement that program if that's the need?

Hon. J. Les: The witness protection program has never had any funding impediments applied to it. It is, in fact, jointly contributed to by both provincial and federal governments.

J. Brar: I will move on to the next aspect of this particular B.C. integrated task force.

One arm of this one is, of course, awareness, and I totally agree that we need to provide effective education and awareness to young people who are going to school, coming out of school and going to college, about the danger and challenge of being in or getting into gang life.

There has been a lot of effort made by the community, and I know the minister is involved in some of those activities, but I want to give a picture of this whole thing. There is a committee of temples that has been working very hard over the last year, probably, to provide the community input on that one. Then there are a couple of young people as well — they're very, very bright young people — who are working inde-

[ Page 1661 ]

pendently to create something — brochures or posters, probably, to educate young people.

Then there are different organizations like PICS, which is Progressive Intercultural Community Services. We also have VIRSA and a few other organizations, as well, who are working on this same issue, which is educating the young people.

[1515]

About a month ago the federal government came out and announced that they want ten people on a committee to work on the same thing. They are somewhere in the middle of the process of developing it, and that group is probably there, but the group is working on finding and making some recommendations, so it looks all over the place.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple: is there anyone to provide leadership or to coordinate the commitment, the skills and the knowledge that different people have, so that we can all work together on that one?

Hon. J. Les: The member is quite right. There is quite a variety of programs at both the provincial and federal government levels and, I'm sure, at the municipal government level, as well, which attempt to address this serious question. Although the range of programs and their disparate locations might perhaps lead one to make the assumption that, as the member has indicated, they're all over the place, I do not want to denigrate any of those programs. They all stem from a healthy concern, I think, and wish to contribute to the solution.

I'm not sure I would share the member's outlook that we need to look for that one individual who is going to provide all of the leadership to deal with this particular issue. We will all play our parts. I will play mine, and I'm sure that the member opposite will play his. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the leadership on an issue like this has to come from the relevant community where the concern arises.

I know that there are a great many people in the Indo-Canadian community who are very serious about addressing this issue, and I am grateful that that's the case. I know that going forward, they are going to continue to work hard to try and engage the younger community. Again, leaders in those communities need to be very much involved as we go forward and deal with this very real problem.

J. Brar: I understand that, and I'm not suggesting that there must be a coordinator or somebody who will stand up in the middle of the door and start coordinating these people. That, certainly, is not my suggestion, but there's a lot of talent out there in the community and a lot of people very committed to deal with this issue. My question was simply: is there anything the ministry could provide to assist so that there is better coordination, to have effective efforts by different groups? That was my question, but I'll take the answer the minister has given.

I'm going back to the funds again. We just passed a bill, the Civil Forfeiture Act, a few days ago, and we support that bill. One of the benefits of that bill is that we collect the proceeds of crime and use that money to assist victims of crime. Now, we do have a situation that is a very, very serious situation not only for the Indo-Canadian community but, I think, for the whole province, because 70 people murdered is not a small thing.

My question to the Solicitor General is very simple: will the minister consider using the money collected from the proceeds of crime under the Bill 13 system?

[1520]

Hon. J. Les: The member is correct. Since having passed the civil forfeiture legislation, when that legislation is proclaimed, in the not too distant future…. It includes provisions for making the funds that will accrue as a result of the exercise of that legislation. Those funds will accrue into a civil forfeiture account and will be available in part for such things as the victims of crime programs, for example, and other crime prevention activities.

Now, I want to caution the member opposite in two regards. Firstly, we don't have any money in that account yet, and it may well be some time before significant funds do accrue. First of all, we need to set up the procedures under that legislation. We need to appoint the appropriate staff to administer the act. We then need to initiate proceedings, and as the member knows, those proceedings will be initiated through the courts. Customarily, those procedures take a bit of time, and so I would not see any funding accrue to the civil forfeiture account for a considerable number of months.

Secondly, it would be foolhardy of me to make any commitments this afternoon as to precisely the kind of crime prevention programs that would be funded by the proceeds of the civil forfeiture account, but the ideas that the member has raised this afternoon certainly would be interesting to consider in that context.

J. Brar: I understand. You know, part of my background is administration, so I've been a student of administration. I have managed different organizations, so I understand that we need to put in place different systems. We have to hire a person, have a job description and a system to collect the money, and then, of course, prepare some cases for the court. I understand all that.

My only question was: when we have the money…. So my understanding from the statement of the minister is that he will consider, as soon as the money is available, if there's a need to support these young people. So that's my understanding. If I'm not correct, of course, the minister has the right to correct me.

I want to move on. The task force. I know that the task force has been in place for probably a year at this point in time. I know probably all the hiring in the task force has been completed. I met with the chief. He's a

[ Page 1662 ]

very nice man and a very capable individual to do the work he is responsible for.

My question is about the task force. We do have a task force. The funding is available; all the FTEs are in place. Does the ministry have any performance measures in place to gauge the success of the B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force?

[1525]

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I would like to say that the gang task force that we have in operation now…. This is not a short-term commitment. This is a long-term commitment because I think it's pretty clear, and we all understand, that this is not going to be a short-term assignment. We're going to need to keep on this and focus on it for the longer term to provide the kind of results that we need.

The member asked about what kind of goals, what kind of targets. Obviously, it is hard to quantify those in some ways. Clearly, we're already starting to see some charges. We're already starting to see some good results. We have seen, I think, some good intervention by the members of the task force in certain situations. Obviously, the results that we want to see are charges, convictions and an overall reduction in gang-related criminal activity.

That is somewhat of a subjective answer — I would grant you that — but as I said, I think it is difficult to be much more objective than that, especially in the short term. In the longer term we want to achieve the things that I've outlined: lots of charges and an overall reduction in criminal activity.

J. Brar: I have lots of other questions on this, but I will move on, keeping in mind the time. I'll move on to crystal meth. I have a number of questions, but I will ask very selected questions on that.

At the UBCM the Premier made the announcement with regard to crystal meth and announced $7 million, and $2 million out of that $7 million is for addiction services. My question is: how many beds could we put in place by using the full $2 million for youth?

[1530]

Hon. J. Les: This is a very good question and one I want to spend just a minute on. We tend to measure the amount of services available to addicts in terms of the number of beds available. Particularly when it comes to dealing with services to crystal meth addicts, that is perhaps not always the appropriate way to view the solution. It is clear from experts that I've talked to that quite often people who want to detoxify from crystal meth can do so at home, provided there is a supportive environment there.

Detoxification from crystal meth is far different from detoxification from heroin or cocaine. We find in our correctional facilities, for example, where we often take in drug addicts, that we need to be as sure as we can what kind of drug they are detoxifying from, because obviously they are unable to access drugs in the institution. If we have a cocaine or heroin addict, that is a far more dangerous situation than if we have a crystal meth addict in custody. Things like dehydration are far more readily a problem amongst the former.

It is important for us to look for additional models of treatment for crystal meth addicts, both in the public sector and in the private sector, and in the family or home environment, where that is possible. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution here. The other thing that's important to remember, and I'm sure the member opposite knows this, is that the process of leaving the crystal meth addiction behind is a long process. It's six, eight, ten months in many cases, and so that ongoing supportive environment must be maintained for that period of time as well — at least that long.

So the $2 million that the member refers to is an important contribution to that end in looking for different models that can be put in place in addition to the addiction services that are already available in government. It's important to remember that there are over $1 billion worth of resources available within the Ministry of Health for mental health and addiction services, and those two often overlap, quite evidently so. There are, for example, over 1,000 beds available in British Columbia today for addiction services.

I think, as I said earlier, when it comes to crystal meth we need to look for additional models that will work, and in part, the $2 million will help us explore some of those avenues.

J. Brar: Well, I didn't get the answer to the numbers; they're still not there. I understand there could be different models. I respect that. I understand that as well. But at the same time, let me say this. I also met with various people. We have, at this point in time, probably 12 or 13 task forces in the province. I got the opportunity to attend the meeting in the constituency of the Solicitor General, which was very well attended by the community. I saw a lot of hope. The community came together; I think they deserve a lot of praise for that.

The Victoria people alone — I'm talking about the Victoria task force on crystal meth — mentioned to me that there are only five beds for youth addiction services, which is nowhere close to the need. I also spoke to some of the experts who, you know, are leading experts on the crystal meth issue. They mentioned to me that there are close to a hundred people in Surrey alone. The Surrey school board did a survey: according to it, one out of ten children — I don't remember the grade — have used crystal meth.

My question is, basically…. When funding is announced for any purpose, there must be some sort of assessment behind it as to what the need is out in the community and what are we offering. So is there any assessment about how many beds are needed or assistance in addictions services is needed, or at this point in time is it just the beginning?

[1535]

Hon. J. Les: Let me first of all point out to the member that the role of my ministry with respect to this issue of crystal meth addictions is to coordinate

[ Page 1663 ]

our approach to dealing with these issues across government in a coordinated way. Perhaps if the member opposite has more questions specifically related to mental health and addictions issues and the treatment thereof, he may want to refer to that in the next week of sittings when the Minister of Health will be doing his estimates.

I should say this: as far as the $2 million is concerned, clearly that has not followed from any kind of assessment of the extent of the problem. It is simply money being made available to help develop different methods of treatment that perhaps can be useful around the province.

J. Brar: I have two more questions, and I will throw both the questions at the same time, if the minister will allow me to do that. The Victoria task force people, when I met with them, they had a couple of…. First of all, they're very, very motivated people to deal with and assist the community when it comes to the crystal meth issue. They're working very hard on that issue, but they're struggling with a few things. They mentioned to me that they don't have any space to work from. They don't have any telephone line to work on this issue.

So my question on that one is: is there any or will there be any kind of assistance, a little assistance, to those people which could, in fact, make them effective in the community?

The second question on this one is: does the minister think harm reduction is an issue in the treatment of crystal meth users?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, with respect to assistance being provided to the task force in the Victoria area, we are on the verge of signing an agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities for the distribution of the $2 million that the Premier announced at the UBCM convention in Vancouver just a few weeks ago. So the task force in Victoria will certainly and obviously be eligible to apply for an allocation of that fund. I would certainly encourage them to apply as quickly as possible, because I know they have been hard at work, and I know that they are more than eligible.

I have met with the various people from the Victoria task force. As a matter of fact, I spent three or four hours on the street with them one night visiting with crystal meth addicts on the street, which, for me, was a very educational evening. I think it really pays for all of us in this House to familiarize ourselves with some of these problems at a very grass-roots level.

In terms of the question of harm reduction, that is a question that I find very intriguing because we often talk about harm reduction with respect to a range of these drugs, whether it's cocaine or heroin or something else. But when it comes to crystal meth, the question of harm reduction really focuses for me. As we have seen, for example right here in the Victoria area, one dose of crystal meth can be fatal, and it has been. So that has really crystallized the question for me.

I'm not particularly interested, when we're talking about crystal meth, in harm reduction. I'm rather more interested in harm elimination. First of all, as I've already indicated, the first dose can be fatal. But we also know from people that we have seen and interviewed that crystal meth use for any length of time can leave lifelong consequences such as psychosis, teeth being totally rotted away, physical damage to the brain. So it seems to me that the only position we can take has got to be that the only safe dosage of crystal meth and the only safe way to take crystal meth is never to take it at all.

[1540]

J. Brar: I have one more question, actually, which I think is a very, very important question. At this point in time Manitoba is working on pushing the federal government, both on the youth gangs as well as on the meth users, to have mandatory minimum penalties for gang members or others involved in large-scale meth. What is the position of the Ministry of Solicitor General on that one?

Hon. J. Les: The question of whether or not to support the concept of minimum sentencing is, of course, an interesting one. Instinctively, one is drawn to supporting that position. However, as I've spoken to the federal Minister of Justice about it and talked to a number of people who are engaged in the legal profession as well, it clearly is a position that is not in keeping with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It certainly is not supported by any federal legislation that currently exists, and I am not sure that it would be terribly productive to launch a campaign in favour of mandatory minimum sentences.

However, I certainly have been clear that I think it is unacceptable that people are being released from our jails when they have not yet undergone any appropriate treatment for whatever condition it might have been that gave rise to their criminal conduct in the first place. I think that is a problem. If we are putting people back out on the street, often in a condition that gives the police cause to almost predict instant criminal activity once that person is back out on the street, I think that is extremely frustrating. That is something we need to address much more directly.

I have said in the past that we need to perhaps allow mechanisms to be made available to judges whereby they can order that treatment be mandatory, and if it's not pursued by the convicted individual while they are incarcerated, perhaps that ought to give rise to a further extension of the sentence until that person has taken advantage of the appropriate treatment.

The bottom line for me has always been that we need to protect other members of society from people who wish to perpetrate criminal acts. It simply seems to me that we are failing to do that if we can almost predict further criminal activity when certain people are set free.

J. Brar: Just for the information of staff in the ministry, I want to inform that I will ask one question on

[ Page 1664 ]

motor vehicles and then move on to the coroner's office — one question on motor vehicles, so you can probably arrange your staff accordingly.

On motor vehicles, we have one office in Surrey-Newton. Surrey is a city which is, I think, the fastest-growing municipality in the country. We receive almost 1,000 people every month and over 12,000 people every year.

The majority of these people are new immigrants. Of course, the first thing they need is their driving licence so that they can settle and be independent and productive and find jobs. A majority of these people during the last four or five years have settled in the area of Newton and Panorama, because that's where the majority of development has been happening.

I recognize that there have been two new offices in Surrey, one in Cloverdale and the other one is in Guildford. The lineup at the Newton office is huge, and I have heard complaint after complaint after complaint that you have to stand in that queue for hours if you have to renew your licence and all that kind of stuff.

[1545]

My question is pretty simple: would the minister consider the lineups at all the different locations and probably do some analysis on that and at the end of the day, if there are big lineups in one particular location because there's a concentration of population in that area, then subsequently either move one of the locations to where we have fewer people, to a location that could be more accessible for part of the population being served by the Newton office or to a new office — whatever is affordable and workable? I would like to see the response from the minister.

Hon. J. Les: We certainly are well aware that the city of Surrey is growing very quickly. I think I saw recently in the newspaper that it's something like 4,000 people a month that are moving into the city of Surrey. It has been for some time the fastest-growing city in Canada. Of course, with the economic revival that we've seen in British Columbia, things are really booming in Surrey now, as they are in so many other places.

Of course, we're delighted that that is the case, but it does bring with it some of those growing pains the member has referred to. Although I don't have a specific answer for him today related to that specific office in the Newton area, I will certainly take that under advisement. We will be researching that and making sure we have the appropriate facilities and services in place to provide better service to the people in his area.

[1550]

J. Brar: That's a good answer. We have some hope.

I would move on to the coroner's office, keeping in mind the time. Can the minister tell or inform why gambling as a motivator was removed from the B.C. coroner's psychosocial

summary form? Do you want me to repeat the question? Can the Solicitor General explain why gambling as a motivator was removed from the B.C. coroner's psychosocial

summary form which was being used?

Hon. J. Les: A highly technical question, I would suggest, by the member. I'll do my best on it. We are revamping the data gathering and analysis within the coroner's service as we develop a far better system for management of data and eventually producing reports that result from that.

As you do that, of course, you modernize your approaches, you look at the various causative factors for certain behaviours, and you link them as appropriate. In this particular case, that is very much part of what we're trying to do here — linking it to other similar behaviours that I think will give us far better results coming out of the various coroner's processes.

J. Brar: I welcome Mr. Smith as well. He's been very kind to the city of Surrey and the province. Let me just give you some information on that one and leave it there. Later on, probably, because it's technical, you can respond to it.

My understanding is that the ministry has removed the psychosocial

summary form totally, indicating that it is no longer a useful research tool. This was in place for almost ten years. We don't know whether there was any research done to remove this particular item from the form, but B.C. is the only jurisdiction in Canada which does not utilize a psychosocial

summary form. That's kind of the background of that information, so I would probably request the minister to look into that.

I want to move on to this one. When this government eliminated the child-death commissioner, it rolled over its responsibilities for investigating to the B.C. coroners. Can the minister inform me as to the funding increase to the B.C. coroner's office as a result of that change?

Hon. J. Les: The budget increase that accompanied that was $200,000 at the time that occurred. As I think I've previously said in this House, in the majority of the past fiscal years what we have found is that not all of the money in the coroner's budget was, in fact, expended. We certainly are aware of the fact that more funding may be required and would be prepared to do so.

A. Dix: Of course, the Solicitor General knows that the children's commissioner had a $4 million budget and that when that office was shut down — contrary to the express promises of the government — and all of those responsibilities were shifted over to the coroner, they shifted only 200,000 of those dollars. I would say, with great respect to the minister, that you'd call a $3.8 million cut on a $4 million budget a pretty big cut. What has happened is that we had 800 case reviews — every case reviewed under the children's commission — and we've had one public report under this process.

[1555]

I wanted to ask the Solicitor General, first of all…. We had a discussion yesterday in question period about a particular case, Savannah Hall, and the Solicitor General at that time made some comments about Kathleen Stephany, who is a former employee of the

[ Page 1665 ]

Coroners Service. He called her disgruntled. He discredited her point of view.

Is the Solicitor General aware that in fact the chief coroner of the province describes her work as excellent, that the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the government are using her work, which they have vigorously defended, in court cases? And does he not think it's inappropriate to take shots at people who care about the public interest and are participating in the public debate?

Hon. J. Les: With respect to Ms. Stephany, I am personally not particularly aware of her work. Nor should I be, I would suggest. But I am aware that she is currently undertaking proceedings for wrongful dismissal, and I draw from that that she is, in fact, disgruntled.

A. Dix: This is a significant case, I think. The minister may not be aware of her work or he might not have been aware of her work two weeks ago, but this case has drawn enormous attention. Surely the minister who claimed yesterday he has the responsibility to order coroner's inquests…. He has that responsibility. There have been broad public calls for coroner's inquests. Has he not yet informed himself as to the details of that case, as to the support the government's given to the views of Ms. Stephany, of the fact that the coroner, as well, who he hasn't yet disparaged, also argued for a coroner's inquest?

Is he not aware of these things? When will he become aware of these things? And does he not think that the child death review, which was used as an excuse not to order an inquest yesterday, which is actually a review of aggregate deaths, not a review of this specific death…?

The process that's been set up…. I'll be happy to read into the record for the hon. minister the process that his own coroner has said…. He says: "Our process is still developing" — which is an interesting fact, "still developing"; after three years that may indicate that the minister's $200,000 or his 90-odd-percent cut in the budget was too much — "but our review process utilizes review bodies convened for specific purposes rather than a standing committee. We have sorted our files into groups of deaths occurring under similar circumstances. This is referred to as evidence-based aggregate review."

In other words, they're not going back over the case. There was a final decision made in 2003, and the minister and the government decided not to go ahead with an inquest at this time. This is not a process that can be used as an excuse not to make a further decision. So I say to the minister that I hope he will learn about the work of Ms. Stephany, which his staff has declared to be excellent, and that he bring himself up to speed on this case.

[1600]

Hon. J. Les: I lost sight of the member opposite there for a minute, but he's moved to a different place, from which I gather he will be asking no more questions.

Madam Chair, clearly these are serious matters, and I do not take them lightly. These involve the deaths of children, which we always take seriously, and I would underline again that every child death that occurs in British Columbia is reviewed and, in my estimation, reviewed properly.

Now, some of the cases that have come forward recently — and we've had extensive discussion in the House in a variety of forms — obviously concern us all and have consumed considerable resources. Through all of that, however, I am convinced that we are in the end going to end up at a place where we get the answers we need through whatever process is embarked upon.

I would point out that the processes vary in terms of their objective. A criminal process, for example, is a fault-finding process. A coroner's process is more typically a fact-finding process, so that is what we do through the coroner's office. There are, in fact, child-death review processes that look at aggregate factors in a variety of files. I think that is an appropriate process, because it looks for a trend line in causative factors, which I think is important to establish.

For example, within the last year the coroner's office has produced a report on infant deaths around sleeping practices, and it has turned out that that has been a very helpful report in terms of preventing the deaths of other children. We often hear about sudden infant death syndrome, for example, and there are reasons to believe that many of these are because of inappropriate sleeping practices. I think the coroner's report produced here in British Columbia in that regard has proven to be of national assistance in establishing some of the better sleeping practices.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In the case of Savannah Hall, the child-death review process that is still underway is a specific investigation into the circumstances surrounding her unfortunate demise. We will get the facts around that case, and whether or not I eventually request that an inquest be held is going to be determined at a time when all of those processes, such as the child-death review, are complete. It is simply not appropriate for me to call for an inquest at this point in time.

I need to allow those processes to be completed, but I will certainly say again to the member and to all members of this House that that's a question I will determine at some point in the future.

J. Brar: I have one more question on this file, and that is about when the responsibility for the Children's Commission was moved to the coroner's office. At that time the budget for the Children's Commission was almost $4 million, and we have just learned from the minister that the additional budget the coroner's office got was only $200,000. My understanding is that that's

[ Page 1666 ]

nowhere close to the actual budget the Children's Commission had.

My question to the Solicitor General is: do you believe it's reasonable to give the coroner's office enough resources so that they can do their work as per some established standards?

Hon. J. Les: Yes.

J. Brar: I want to ask one more question. It's on the fire chief. I don't know whether you have the staff available or…. I'm done with the coroner's office, so thank you very much on that one.

[1605]

This request has already…. I think the member has spoken to the minister. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke gave the minister a letter from the Golden fire chief, and the name is Muir Furzer. It deals with changes to move the fire commissioner service from Cranbrook. Will the minister please address the concerns raised in that letter?

Hon. J. Les: I am aware of the letter that was provided to me earlier today by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I haven't had a chance to digest all of the letter. I gather it raises some concerns with respect to the location of fire commissioners around the province.

I can indicate, generally speaking, that what we are trying to do is ensure that we have a well-supported and very professional fire commissioner service around the province. That will often mean bringing those resources together in certain regions of the province. That might not mean that they are available exactly in every community, but that does not come at the expense of the professionalism that we need to have available to us through the fire commissioner service.

I'm happy to provide a fuller answer to both the member opposite and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. We'll certainly be getting back to the member who brought the matter forward this morning in writing.

J. Brar: I want to move on to gaming. If we've got time, I'll come back to the liquor branch.

Interjection.

J. Brar: You need some time? That's fine.

Interjection.

J. Brar: Well, I want to come back to that. I want to deal with the first….

Can the minister explain why the problem gamblers fund annual report shows up in the B.C. Lottery Corporation annual report rather than in his ministry report?

Hon. J. Les: We are not sure exactly which report, historically, the member is referring to. In fact, there may not have been a report previously. What I can tell the member today is that we are on the verge of releasing the most recent report. It will, in fact, come out through the auspices of my ministry, as opposed to being a report by the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

J. Brar: I'll get back to you with more specific information on that particular question.

In the last year the problem gambling program, in the budget year of 2001-2002…. There was $4 million in funding targeted for that program. The report on the performance indicates that only $2.5 million was actually spent. Can the minister explain why there was a big variation?

[1610]

Hon. J. Les: Just a little historical perspective here. Several years ago the budget for the problem gaming fund was at $2 million per year. That was increased to $4 million per year. There was perhaps some anticipation, because of the increased gaming activity in British Columbia since the mid-'90s, that there might be more of a draw on that funding, so it was increased to $4 million per year.

It is demand-driven. We certainly encourage people who might have any issues at all with problem gaming to avail themselves of the appropriate services and counselling services, and it is the case that the draw on that fund was $2.5 million. I guess that is, in a way, good news. This isn't something where we want to see a lot of demand.

I think the way that gaming has been managed of late, in British Columbia in particular, has been accompanied with a lot of responsibility. We certainly make it very clear that we want British Columbians to undertake gaming activities in a way that is responsible. For the most part, gratefully, that has happened.

I know in other jurisdictions there are more difficulties: in provinces like Nova Scotia, for example, where video lottery terminals that are made available in a variety of venues have proven to be very addictive to the population. In British Columbia we have explicitly said that slot machines, for example, will be available in casino venues only, and I think that has proven to be a wise strategy.

The bottom line is we have $4 million of resources available for problem gaming. It is demand-driven. To date, we seem to be consuming only about $2.5 million of those funds for problem gaming activities. Should further resources be required, obviously, they are available, and we encourage people to take advantage of them if they need them.

J. Brar: I'm a bit confused with the numbers here. Let me just go with this information first. The revenue from gaming has been going up significantly during the last few years. I think probably — correct me if I am wrong — it has doubled during the last three or four years. But the funding allocation for troubled gamblers, since 2001 to 2005, remains $4 million. My understanding is that if the revenue is going up significantly, there

[ Page 1667 ]

should be investment made to make sure that people in the community are safe. We should be proactive, to make sure that people take

part in those programs and that people benefit from those programs.

It's hard for me to understand why the funding, the actual cost for the troubled gambling program, for the year 2004-2005 is $2.5 million or less. Can you explain as to why it's happening like that?

Hon. J. Les: I'm pleased to provide a little bit more of an explanation around preventive programs that we have in the ministry so that people don't get involved in problems around gaming.

[1615]

As I've said, we believe a $4 million budget allocation is ample to deal with those programs, based on our previous experience. I should point out to the member that these counselling services, if required, are made available at no charge to British Columbians who wish to avail themselves of them. We advertise that quite explicitly — that there are no charges associated with participating in any of these programs.

We also have a very preventive aspect to these programs. Not all of that $4 million is going to be used for counselling, not by any means, but we have a variety of programs available — even in schools, for example — to educate British Columbians so that they will know that gaming addiction issues can be a problem — providing them with the information that we think they should have to make intelligent choices in their lives.

I think what we are seeing is a very good result coming out of all of this. The member indicates that there have been significantly increased revenues from gaming, but I'm happy to advise that we think we certainly have any gaming addictions issues under control, and we will be monitoring it very, very carefully to ensure that it remains that way.

J. Brar: I'm pleased to see the response made by the minister, but I'll come back to addiction. I have lots of questions on it.

Before I go to that, I want to ask a very simple question about how much money is going to be spent this year on marketing the gambling program, on gambling, both the radio and TV, and how much money has been allocated for the troubled gamblers this year? How much is expected to be the actual expense? So it's the budget versus the actual expense in both situations — the marketing and the troubled gamblers.

[1620]

Hon. J. Les: A little bit of context here. The B.C. Lottery Corporation is a $2.2 billion enterprise. It utilizes about $22 million a year for marketing activities — radio, TV, etc. As I have already pointed out, the budget for problem gaming is $4 million. That amount has not been fully utilized in years past. We do make it widely available to anybody who feels that they have gaming addictions issues. Those programs are available to those individuals at no charge.

I have said in the past that if we require more than $4 million worth of resources, we will make more than $4 million worth of resources available. I think it is only responsible to provide the resources that are necessary. Happily, we do not seem to have, to date, a profusion of problems that would give rise to further funds being required out of this fund.

J. Brar: I'm again pleased to see that the minister is basically stating that if needed, more funding can be made available. I'm happy to hear that, but I would like to make a suggestion here that when we have funding…. I think there must be some reasons, when funding went up from $2.5 million to $4 million…. I believe there must be some background work done.

There may be programs which are not working very effectively. It may not be a bad idea to review, to look into those programs and try to make them more effective, rather than that we keep waiting for whether or not the people are going to use those programs.

I will move on to the next one. This is about minors playing lotto or other kinds of gambling. Recently there was a Lotto 6/49 prize of $14 million claimed by 13 persons working at an A&W. I think everybody knows about it. It got a lot of publicity in the newspapers. One of the claimants of that prize is 16 years old. As the minister knows, those persons under the age of 19 are prohibited from playing lottos or from any other gambling.

Can the minister explain whether this individual will be able to receive that money or not? Maybe I'll come back to a second question after you respond to this question.

Hon. J. Les: The law in British Columbia is very straightforward. No one under 19 years of age can legally buy lottery tickets. It would be illegal for a vendor to make those products available to minors. When, however, somebody buys a 6/49 lottery ticket or any other product like that and goes either to their home or to their workplace and decides to split that amongst a number of people, at that point, of course, it is beyond the ability of the Lottery Corporation to dictate exactly how that money is distributed.

However, if it turns out that there is actually a legal interest in those proceeds on behalf of a minor…. In that case, the lottery corporation would be bound to pay that money out to all of the people of majority. The proceeds that would accrue to the minor would have to be paid to the public trustee, and the minor would have to wait until their 19th birthday before they could claim the money.

[1625]

J. Brar: There are a couple of very interesting questions out of this and the response the minister gave. One of them is that we just passed Bill 13, which is the Civil Forfeiture Act, according to which all proceeds of all illegal activities can be seized under the act. Now, this one is certainly an illegal activity at this point in time. What is the definition of Bill 13, the Civil Forfei-

[ Page 1668 ]

ture Act, as it relates to this particular situation of a minor buying the 6/49 ticket and then winning?

Hon. J. Les: Our core interest here, of course, is always to ensure that lottery-products retailers are not making those available to minors. If we become aware of any cases where that is occurring, obviously, we are going to take action which could very easily include the cancellation of their licence to retail those products.

The law around whether or not a minor can win and actually have proceeds paid out to them is, I would suggest, somewhat case-specific. If, for example, someone's father went out and bought a lottery ticket and won $10 million and said to the Lottery Corporation, "Would you split that amongst my kids?" that might be a problem. However, there is no problem with the Lottery Corporation paying those proceeds out to the father and he then distributes the money.

I'm not sure that it would be that fruitful this afternoon for us to get into all the various nuances of how that might happen. I'm quite aware of the case in Mission, and I'm sure it's entertained a lot of people around British Columbia over these last number of months, whether nine people have won or whether 13 people have won, but it would seem that if one of them is a 16-year-old, they might have to wait three years anyway before they can collect their prize.

J. Brar: I'm a bit confused about the description given, when it applies to Bill 13. If somebody is doing an illegal activity and if that individual is part of a group and that means that, in working with the group, that person can go and probably survive, you know, through the Bill 13 — is that what my understanding is? Or because this person is 16 and this ticket was bought by 13 people…? What would have been different if this person alone would have bought the ticket and won the ticket? What would have happened with Bill 13 as well as the illegal activity of this individual and the sale of a ticket?

[1630]

The Chair: Member, you have to be very careful that you don't discuss legislation during estimates. Bill 13 is a piece of legislation that's been in front of the House. The other thing I think we have to be careful of is that we don't ask a minister for a legal opinion because he or she is not entitled to give it. I'm not suggesting you don't ask the questions, but I think you have to be very careful how you enter this.

J. Brar: Madam Chair, I'm not clear what you're suggesting. If you can just clarify it once again.

The Chair: Sure. Member, in estimates, you cannot…. The task is to question the minister on the estimates. Legislation is not the topic of estimates. Bill 13 is actually legislation. That's the rule of the House. The second piece is that we must be careful when we ask ministers for legal opinions because they're not actually supposed to answer, because maybe they don't know or…. Anyway, regardless of the reason, we do not ask a minister for a legal opinion.

J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll certainly keep that in mind. I'll move away from the bill, but that is very interesting debate.

I'll go back to the same question. So this minor person somehow became part of this particular — what you call — 6/49 ticket which actually won. But my question is simple. In other situations, particularly when we talk about the enforcement of tobacco or liquor, we have some pretty clear policies as to how we deal with it. As a matter of fact, I do have one question in front of me where a person went into the shop to buy liquor which, as per the rules, if the person is between 19 and 25, they have to ask for ID, which this person failed to ask for. Subsequently, they have to…. I think there have been some penalties to that liquor shop. Their licence has probably been suspended.

[A. Horning in the chair.]

Now, my question is: when it comes to lottery tickets, what system do we have to make sure the age limit is fully enforced? Do we have any system? If we do, what is that system, and how do we use it?

Hon. J. Les: The restrictions around the sale of lottery products are actually very much the same as they would be for alcohol and tobacco. These are simply not available to those who are under 19 years of age. If a retailer of lottery products is actually making them available to people who are less than 19 years of age, they risk losing their licence to sell these products. I think we have generally been very successful in ensuring that these products do not end up being sold to minors, and, to be fair, to be honest, I'm not particularly aware that we've had a lot of problems in that regard.

[1635]

J. Brar: Can the minister provide information as to how many penalties were actually given this year to the shops or lottery retail shops for selling tickets to minors?

Hon. J. Les: There are about 3,000 retailers of lottery products in British Columbia. During the past year, two warnings have been issued.

J. Brar: My understanding is two. Okay.

I want to move on to another topic which is related to this, and that is what we call voluntary self-exclusion orders. I hope you understand. The government produced a brochure entitled Time Out to inform the public about the voluntary self-exclusion program. Can the minister inform this House as to the requirement of gaming locations to make these publications available to patrons? What are the requirements to make sure this brochure is being applied or used or

[ Page 1669 ]

implemented by the different shops or casinos? How do they apply it?

Hon. J. Les: The self-exclusion provisions, I think, are very, very important. They have been taken up by quite a number of people. The brochures and other materials are provided to all of the retailers and all of the casino locations. We make it very clear that these are to be provided to patrons of these establishments in high-profile locations, and we actually monitor that to make sure that that occurs. A failure to provide those materials in the way that we want them provided actually can lead to penalties, including the cancellation of a licence.

J. Brar: I have a couple of questions on the same, and then we'll move on to the next one. First, do we have the translation of those brochures into different languages? We have seen that that is very, very effective. Second, how in fact do you enforce that people use it? What process, what system do you have to make sure that those are being used in an effective way or to make sure that the public is safe?

Hon. J. Les: In response to the member's first question around whether or not translated versions are available, the answer is yes. These products are made available in somewhere between six and eight different languages, appropriate to the communities in which these facilities are located.

[1640]

In terms of the system that's used to make these products available, as I have already stated, these are to be made available in a high-profile location. We monitor that. In fact, we audit that to make sure anyone who might need to have those services provided to them has the information readily available when they need it.

J. Brar: In many countries, casinos require that staff be on the lookout for gamblers that appear distressed. Signs they look for are crying, statements of distress and those kinds of things. Here in B.C. the casino staff have no authority to pull somebody aside. In fact, if they try to do it, they could be fired.

My question to the minister is: do we have any special training programs whatsoever that are either mandatory, a requirement, or an expected program for staff members and that will assist them to look and identify the troubled gamblers in casinos?

Hon. J. Les: We have a program in place in our casinos in British Columbia. It's a program called appropriate response training — or ART, for short — and it's being implemented by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The program was created to assist all gaming personnel to, first of all, recognize and, secondly, respond appropriately to customers who are exhibiting the signs of problem gaming.

J. Brar: Is that program available at this point in time, or is it in the process of being made? Can you also explain if that program is mandatory or if it's just a choice kind of thing?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, the program is available now, and, yes, it is mandatory.

J. Brar: Let me go into this one. In November of 2004, Gail White, who was the director of social responsibility for B.C. Lottery Corporation, said to the Vancouver Province that casinos are improving their surveillance for people who have signed voluntary self-exclusionary agreements. Will the minister report what steps casinos have been ordered to take to improve surveillance for those who have signed voluntary self-exclusions?

[1645]

Hon. J. Les: We employ a number of strategies, of course, as I'm sure the member would expect. We are, in fact, leading in North America in terms of introducing new technology into this area.

We have introduced facial recognition technology that is now available in our casinos. It is, obviously, an additional tool that can help to identify people who have voluntarily entered the self-exclusion program and to bar other prohibited people who would possibly be trying to attempt to enter a casino.

One might wonder whether this raises any privacy issues, but you need to remember that people in the self-exclusion program have already allowed their picture to be taken, and signs are posted throughout casinos indicating that surveillance cameras are being utilized. So I think this is further evidence of the fact that we are serious about having a successful self-exclusion program available in our casinos in British Columbia, and as I indicated, we are the only jurisdiction in North America that is currently using that technology.

J. Brar: Ms. White went on in her interview to say that within the year, all 18 B.C. casinos will use image-recognition technology — which I think the minister is saying — to keep the 2,000 people who have sworn off gambling out of casinos.

My question is: at this point in time, have we implemented what she said so that all the 18 casinos have, in fact, the image-recognition technology?

Hon. J. Les: Yes.

J. Brar: Let me go into this one. I understand the minister's reference that the casinos in British Columbia, when it comes to using the technology we just mentioned, may be unique in a way in North America, but some other countries are using techniques that may probably be more effective, more useful than what we're using here.

I'll give you one example. Several countries, including Holland, have a system that requires gamblers to show government ID, using a passport, prior to gam-

[ Page 1670 ]

bling. Such a system would most certainly have identified Ms. Dilling as a person who had signed a voluntary self-exclusion order.

My question to the minister is: do you think this particular system being used in Holland is a good idea to think about or consider, or is it in any way under consideration at this point in time?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the member bringing forward a perhaps interesting idea. We are always on the lookout for better technologies, better ways to control these kinds of issues. If they have something better in Holland, we will certainly take a closer look at that. My wife and I are hoping to travel there next spring, so maybe I can check it out.

J. Brar: Well, I think the critic should go with the minister to find that out as well.

The other thing I wanted to mention about Holland are the staff in casinos. They, of course, have special training, which the minister mentioned is available here as well, but they also have incentives to identify troubled gamblers, and their salary is reflective of how effective they are to pull those people out.

My question is: do we have those incentives for staff members, or if we don't, would the minister like to consider this idea as well? Probably if the minister plans a tour to Holland, he can look into both things at the same time. That could save some money for British Columbia.

[1650]

Hon. J. Les: To the member's question as to whether there are any incentives for staff to spot problem gamers: no, not specifically. It is simply a condition of their employment that, in addition to being able to carry out their usual activities around gaming, they also keep an eye out for people who might be in a variety of difficulties. It is, in essence, a condition of their employment.

I think we have a well-trained staff running the various establishments in British Columbia. I'm not aware of any issues around that. There was an auditor's report recently that showed that our gaming establishments in British Columbia are exceptionally well run, and to a great degree, I think that is a reflection of the professional staff we have available in those establishments.

J. Brar: My next question is about the ATM machines. Before I do that, I would like to read the vision of the ministry — as the minister also made comments on during the opening remarks — which says the vision of the ministry is that our communities are safe places. Also, the mission of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General is: "to ensure the security and the economic vitality of communities through effective policing, corrections, liquor and gaming control and other protective and regulatory programs."

Until recently, there were no ATM machines in B.C. casinos, but this government dropped that regulation in 2002. In only one month, the River Rock Casino in Richmond made $100,000 in ATM commissions alone. A government gambling survey conducted by the Australian government in 1999 found that problem gamblers were virtually the only gamblers who regularly use ATMs.

The survey found that 78 percent of recreational gamblers had never used an ATM in a casino, with only 5 percent saying they used an ATM often or always. In contrast, 59 percent of severe, problem gamblers said they used the ATMs often or always, with another 16 percent saying they used them sometimes. A similar survey conducted by Garry Smith on VLT players in Alberta came to a similar conclusion, finding that while only 18 percent of recreational gamblers use ATMs on a regular basis, 56 percent of problem gamblers did so.

Some might say that makes perfect sense, because most responsible gamblers make a point of going to the casino with only the amount of money they want to spend. You should go to a gambling place with an idea in your mind of how much you want to lose or win, and when that's up, you have to go. You know, you have to discipline yourself, but it becomes hard if the ATM machine is widely available next to the slot machine.

Given these figures, I would ask the Solicitor General: will he consider taking the ATM machines away from the casinos? In my opinion, that does not fit very well, first of all, with the mission and the vision of the ministry, and that certainly is not a safety feature. It is only an economic feature as per my understanding.

[1655]

Hon. J. Les: Just in response to the member, I would point out, first of all, that ATM machines are not allowed on casino floors. They must be located physically away from the casino operations so that there is a break in activity and a physical removal from the casino floor site for a person to obtain more funding from an ATM. The ATM machines also carry the same responsible gaming messaging as slot machines and other items in the casino carry.

It's also important to remember that, increasingly, what we are seeing in British Columbia is that these casinos are located in full-service entertainment venues where people, frankly, expect to find ATMs. They can be part of hotel complexes and other entertainment facilities. I think it would be difficult to remove ATMs from a complex like that. It brings into question what kind of radius we are going to start working with.

The ATMs, of course, are very, very pervasive. You find them at gas stations and in a variety of locations. I would suggest that we have little, if any, evidence to support that a removal of ATMs from the general location of casinos would in any significant way reduce the incidence of problem gaming.

J. Brar: Well, I can provide the survey done by the Australian firm or the Alberta firm that indicates all this, and I would suggest that this is a serious safety

[ Page 1671 ]

issue. If there's a different understanding at this point in time, the ministry should look into doing some of their own so that the public of British Columbia is safe.

Having said that, I will move on to the next question, because time is running out. This is about an individual. We were talking about the staff members just a few minutes ago, about the training program, the efficiency and the effectiveness, and we were also talking about the incentives. Now, this is one serious example as to how the staff…. I'm not blaming all the staff members there, but this is a huge gap. This example tells us how the casinos are run.

On December 5, 2003, Dorothy Dilling was gambling in the local casino. Mrs. Dilling was a problem gambler who had previously signed a voluntary self-exclusion order, yet on the fateful day of her death, she was allowed to gamble in her local casino. After losing $2,000 at a slot machine, she checked herself into the casino hotel and allegedly hanged herself in the hotel-room bathroom. This tragic death case continues. Mrs. Dilling's husband, Stan, has a bumper sticker on his truck that reads: "Casinos destroy lives."

Mr. Dilling certainly knows about lives destroyed by gambling and casinos better than most. In fact, he was so upset that he made a bomb out of a propane canister and considered driving into a Kamloops casino to avenge his wife's needless death — an irrational act by a man distraught over his wife's death due to gambling. Mr. Dilling's daughter turned him over to the RCMP, thank God. Now he is on a one-year restraining order prohibiting him from going close to the casino in Kamloops.

[1700]

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Having said that, my question is, firstly, can the Solicitor General explain how this individual who had herself signed the self-exclusion orders — a process to stay away from it — was allowed in the casino? And secondly, what steps have been taken to ensure it does not happen again?

Hon. J. Les: All I can say to the member is that our exclusion systems continue to evolve. They continue to improve. They continue to get better. As I said earlier, we have the best available technology in North America in our casinos to ensure that people who shouldn't be gambling, in fact don't. I have great confidence that as we carry on, we will continue to improve and help to ensure that tragic events such as the member describes do not happen again.

J. Brar: Public safety here is, of course, extremely important, so my simple question is: is the ministry or the British Columbia Lottery Corp. tracking gambling-related suicides? And if the answer is yes, do we have any numbers on that?

Hon. J. Les: We do not quantify those kinds of events through my ministry or through the Lottery Corp. I believe it's accurate to say that is followed up through the appropriate division of the Ministry of Health.

[1705]

J. Brar: I want to move on to something different. I probably will come back to the…. There was a cap on how many slot machines one can have in one casino. At one point in time, it was 300, then that was removed and brought up to 500. My understanding is that at this point in time, there's no limit how many slot machines one casino can have. In one casino, we have about a thousand machines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At the same time, the minister has introduced what we call electronic racetracks in pubs and bars. My understanding is that the total number of pubs and bars is about 500. I'm not sure whether all the machines have been installed or not at this point in time.

My question is simple. Since the limit on slot machines has been removed and since the introduction of new electronic horse tracks, how many slot machines do we have today, as compared to when the limit was removed, and how many electronic horse tracks have been installed? Just the simple numbers.

Hon. J. Les: Since the limit on slot machines per location was removed, at that point in time, there were roughly 3,300 slot machines. Today — specifically as of September 2, 2005 — there were 7,147 slot machines in the various casinos. In terms of racetracks, they have been installed in about 500 locations to date. The member should be aware, though, that that is not a casino-type game. It is a lottery product, a lottery game, and I don't have any information particularly as to how popular it is. It was installed for the first time, I believe, only about three months ago.

J. Brar: The racetrack. I just need a clarification on that. Is that a new tool introduced, or is that a replacement of something old? Can you explain that?

Hon. J. Les: Well, it is, and it isn't. It is sold through the same lottery terminal that was already in place in these establishments. What is new is a plasma TV screen that actually shows the race in action, so in that respect, I really think it's not a particularly new product. It's just being presented in a different way.

J. Brar: The slot machines have gone up from 3,300 to 7,141, and then we have introduced new screens. In particular, if you go back to 3,300 slot machines to 7,141, is that an expansion of the slot machines?

Hon. J. Les: It's very clear that there are more slot machines available in these various casino locations today than there were in 2003 — no question of that. It's slightly more than double. This question of, you know, "has there been expanded gaming?" comes up from time to time, so if you wanted to define that in terms of slot machines, certainly it has. If you want to define that in terms of casino locations, you'd have to

[ Page 1672 ]

argue that there has been a reduction, because there's actually one fewer casino location in British Columbia today than five years ago.

[1710]

What we have done is sized the availability of casinos to the marketplace in British Columbia, with certain restrictions. Slot machines are only made available in casino locations, not widely available as has been done in places like Alberta, for example, where slot machines are in every motel lobby and bar. We do not do that in British Columbia. So while there are more slot machines available today than there were three, four years ago, I think we have done this very, very responsibly to enable British Columbians to enjoy this form of entertainment without making it too available, so that we won't encounter some of the social problems that other jurisdictions have seen.

J. Brar: This is a different topic. This is a recent report of July 2005. The Office of the Auditor General issued a report into the management of gaming integrity risk in casinos. In this report, the Auditor General recommends that the gaming policy and enforcement branch report annually to the Legislative Assembly on the state of gaming integrity in the province's casinos. So my question to the Solicitor General is very simple: will the minister tell us when we should expect the first report to this House by the gaming policy and enforcement branch?

Hon. J. Les: Before the end of the fiscal year.

J. Brar: Just a few minutes ago we were talking about suicides related to gambling. In July 2002 the chief coroner of B.C., Mr. Terry Smith, who was just here today, wrote: "I would agree that it is desirable for the coroner to track suicide deaths related to pathological gambling. Unfortunately, budget and staffing levels demand that we make choices among a variety of available options."

Eight of the ten provinces ask questions about gambling when investigating suicides. Can the minister explain why British Columbia is one of only two provinces which are not using this question in investigations?

Hon. J. Les: As I indicated earlier this afternoon to a similar question, we are modernizing the collection of that kind of data to make it more relevant in terms of the results that we get and that we expect. We are obviously very interested in collecting that data in a way that gives us important information that we require. I look forward to early in the new year when the new system of collecting that information is available because I think we, again, will be leading in Canada in terms of doing that in a very professional way.

J. Brar: According to a recent freedom-of-information request, over 4,000 community groups, including such groups as the Tsawwassen Order of Old Bastards, received funds from gambling revenue.

[1715]

An audit of 1,600 of these organizations that are receiving gambling money found that 232 were non-compliant. This is about a 30-percent failure rate. So my question to the Solicitor General: will the minister table the full results of these audits which were conducted?

Hon. J. Les: Our aim and objective around those kinds of issues is always to be as transparent as it's possible to be. We are moving to a system where all of these audits will be moved to the website so that they will automatically be available. Subject, however, to privacy regulations, the appropriate information that relates to information that is not deemed releasable by the privacy commissioner will be severed.

J. Brar: I think there are two aspects. I understand the privacy part of it, but the other

part is, of course, the management part of it — how we manage the funds and how we also make people and those groups and organizations accoun