2009
Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HOUSING AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.
The committee met at 2:31 p.m.
On Vote 36: ministry operations, $2,714,603,000.
Hon. R. Coleman: This ministry was created in 2008 and brought together 2,500 staff from five ministries to better address our social priorities and integrate services. Our $2.7 billion budget provides housing policy programs and homeless initiatives, income assistance and employment programs, gaming policy, grants, enforcement and liquor control and licensing. Some of these programs are also delivered through Crown agencies like B.C. Housing, Community Living B.C. and the Homeowner Protection Office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The ministry also contains two commercial Crown corporations, the Liquor Distribution Branch and the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which generate about $2 billion in net income annually for government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I look forward to the questions from the member opposite and our discussions this afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to engage in the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development with the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that I passed along a note to the minister's office, but just to give a sense of where I'm going over this next couple of days, we're going to start today with a few questions around the overall budget numbers out of estimates. The broad, top-line numbers deal with gaming and gambling-related issues for much of the rest of this afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Tomorrow morning we'll start with Community Living and then move to income assistance and poverty-related issues. Then sometime tomorrow afternoon there are a number of members who have questions specific to their constituencies — I expect mostly related to grants or housing matters. We'll finish off the last couple of hours tomorrow afternoon with individual members having the opportunity to present questions to the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then when we get to Wednesday, there's a little bit around some of the employment programs, but primarily housing-related matters on Wednesday. So for the minister and staff to kind of know what the thinking is. I think that's consistent with the note that we had passed along to the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister says, this is a large and a comprehensive ministry, and it involves an awful lot of different pieces. So what I'd like to do to start is to understand a little bit about the budget matters as they relate, and what I've been doing for this is looking at the first set of estimates that were put out back in February and then the subsequent set of estimates that were put out on September 1. We'd like to talk to the minister a little bit about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we see when we look at the amounts of money, overall money in those two, is about $80 million of difference in the net amounts for the 2010 estimates in the two sets of books, for the March and September. Could the minister confirm that largely that amount of money is comprised of the projected increase of somewhat over $100 million for income assistance payments? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1435]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think I should introduce my staff at the table with me. The Deputy Minister Cairine MacDonald is to my right. The assistant deputy minister who deals with finance and all the numbers is to my left, Sharon Moysey, and Molly Harrington, one of our other assistant deputy ministers who is policy and legislation and a plethora of other things within the ministry, is here with me today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Through to the member opposite, yeah, that really is, for the most part, the changes with regards to caseload. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So when I look at the sets of numbers, I see that there's about an $80 million increase, of which we had a little bit better than…. I think $100 million was the projection, or something a little over $100 million was the projected increase in income assistance payments, largely caused by the large increase in employables because of the economic downturn. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us: is there a cut there of about $20 million, and where does that cut fall? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The budget was increased by $101.97 million, initially to take care of the caseload pressures coming into the…. That was what the budget was in February. During the restated budget operations there were some transfers that took place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The first one was the community programs for the transition houses that were transferred to PSSG, which came off our books and onto theirs. That was one of the drops in dollars, and that was $17.36 million. An HR function from the Public Service Agency of $746,000 was picked up there, and the charge-back consolidation in the Public Service Agency of $2.5 million, which brought it over $20 million, which is the difference the member is referring to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Could the minister…? I look again at the budget items. I notice that the amounts as they relate to…. The housing vote appropriation went from what was the net in '08-09 of $444 million to a number of about $359 million –– $359.5 million — in the net for estimates in the September document. Could the minister tell us what that reduction is? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1440]
Hon. R. Coleman: Some of the detail we'll get into when we get to B.C. Housing being here. But basically what it is…. The budget moves around. The reason it moves around is, for instance, the change related to B.C. Housing funding, which is mainly due to a number of the following. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One was the conclusion of a program that we had out there of $50.9 million, which is an affordable housing trust program. I'll get into the details for the member, but I suspect that was our delivery of a federal program for first nations off-reserve housing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was a decrease in funding, basically, on the fast track, which we did because we fast-tracked some memorandums of understanding to get some predevelopment costs done last year, where the apparent net budget…. By the time it came to September, those dollars no longer needed to be dealt with in that manner, simply because we now have a different capital program in place with regards to some matches with the federal government on different housing — whether it be seniors or some of the stuff we're doing with first nations or some of the stuff we're doing with others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What happens is a put-and-take. The actual operating subsidy of B.C. Housing stays pretty constant, but the dollars for different programs will come in and out. Once they're finished, they'll adjust. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, the other thing is how we're doing, frankly, with our interest on our debt — if our interest is lower than we actually restated throughout the year. So that's the explanation for now. I'm sure that we can get into deeper detail when the president/CEO and the chief financial officer are here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: One more question related to that. I'll place it now, but if the minister would prefer to discuss it on Wednesday, I'm happy to put the question off until then. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I look at the differences, again, between the March 31 book and the September 1 book, there is an item called "community programs and housing" of a little over $49 million. There is no line item for that in the vote descriptions. Could the minister tell us what that is? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that is a transfer of the transition houses to the ministry, to B.C. Housing. In the past we took responsibility for the housing portion, and then that's the piece…. The $17.7 million was then sent for the programs relative to transition houses over to PSSG. That's what that block of money was. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: One of the items that I'd like to talk about a little bit…. Again, this is just differences in the two books. The minister will know that, initially, in the first set of information, there were some fairly explicit numbers about staffing levels — FTEs. Those numbers don't appear in the September update materials. Could the minister tell us what the situation is in terms of numbers of FTEs in the ministry today versus what we had a year ago? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Since February, due to the pressures through the budget, etc., we did look across government with regards to our different programs and staffing requirements and what have you. In this ministry since April 1, 2009, there have been 39 resignations and 43 retirements for a total of 82 voluntarily leaving the ministry. Some resignations and retirements have now been backfilled. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Since April 1, 151 — that would be 65 external placements and 86 internal placement staff — have been placed in positions through the skills database and through internal organization. In other words, they may have moved to a different job within the ministry, whatever the case may be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
Since April 1 there have been ten vacancies that have not been filled. There are 65 vacancies that have been eliminated, 19 auxiliary positions have not been renewed and there are 18 layoffs in the ministry — ten of included staff and eight of excluded staff. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Well, maybe what I'll do to just get the numbers as clear as we can around FTEs…. Again, when I look at the service plan that was issued in February '09 — which has a resource summary on page 24 of the February service plan — the service plan suggested that in the area of income assistance there had been 1,418 FTEs in the '08-09, and the estimate for '09-10 was that the number would reduce to 1,347. Can the minister tell us, is that number still accurate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Just, maybe, to answer the question this way, if it works for you, and that is that those numbers are pretty well close. However, with people coming and going, sometimes retirement or whatever, they wouldn't be exactly accurate on any particular given day. But those stated numbers would have been at the time the numbers were put together and would probably still be pretty close today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Well, maybe we'll save a little bit of time here, because I have a series of numbers. Just generally, we have on page 24…. I'm sure that the minister has this document. We have a series of estimates for FTEs — and I realize that things get tweaked, a couple here, a couple there; I'm not so concerned about that — for the '09-10 numbers on that page. Would those numbers be relatively accurate all the way down still today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: So maybe for the member this might do it — who knows? But we'll hope. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The ministry staffing actions which commenced in January 2009 have resulted in the elimination of 249 positions. So 128 positions were eliminated between January and April 2009. Since April 2009 an additional 121 positions have been eliminated. The ministry projects that the FTE count will be approximately 2,463 upon completion of all staffing action, and this represents about a 9.2 percent reduction from the March 31, 2009, FTE count of 2,712. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So the number then…. Just so I'm clear here, the minister is saying that we're at…. About 2,463 is the new FTE count. In February the projection had been that 2,564 would be the FTE count. So in there we've lost about 100 FTEs during that period. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
We have the categories here that show the numbers staying pretty constant — small changes between what was '08-09 and the '09-10 estimates. Could the minister tell me which of the categories…? They're the ones that are used here by the ministry in terms of core business categories. Are there any of those areas where, say, more than ten jobs have been lost in an area? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: In a number of areas across…. I should emphasize for the member that there have been no cuts to front-line services in any offices for income assistance across B.C., but there has been some consolidation on the management level and some adjustment to the number of people we have employed in management with regards to that. That would probably be our largest number, which would be about 80 people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the employment programs, we've stayed pretty constant. On housing we reduced by about 11 employees; on the gaming policy side, about another nine employees. From liquor control and licensing, which is a $1,000 vote that manages within the fees that it's paid…. It has been left stagnant to meet its goals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other one would be executive support services, where we eliminated about 44 positions with regards to executive and support services. That would be things like our communications side, some of our legislative branch — some of those people. We actually went in and reduced a number of positions within there as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I thank the minister for that. One other question that relates to the FTEs. The almost-300-person increase in FTEs in the employment category that we saw last February…. We saw a big jump there, and I assume that relates to bringing in federal folks. But just so we could confirm: that's in regards to the agreement that was signed and the province taking responsibility and taking a number of federal employees on to administer that. Would that be correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: That would be correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Moving up to the core business area, the operating expenses. Again, I'm just looking at the two documents, and the numbers are relatively close all the way through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The area where there's a little bit of a discrepancy is when I look at the restated estimates for '08-09, we see the housing number goes up. I guess it's actually about $20 million, because I see in the current…. I have to get my plans right here over which one's which. Oh, the September one has it separate. So I'm assuming that in the one document the housing endowment fund is a line item of its own; I'm assuming in the other document it's included in the overall housing number. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us the difference in the restated estimates between what we saw in September, which had the estimates at about $425 million for housing, $435 if you include the endowment fund figure, versus $454 million in the March number? What's the discrepancy there? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
Hon. R. Coleman: I suspect that's the transition houses coming in and the numbers…. I see a nod from my CEO. If we get into the housing side, we could bring him forward. Yeah, that's probably part of it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's how it gets restated because it was transferred partway through the fiscal year and then would be restated in the full year's numbers coming into April 1. Then, of course, the transfer out to PSSG had an effect, coming from the April 1 budget through to the September budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I assume that as the housing number falls off somewhat, that just relates to the comments the minister made earlier about adjustments to programs and such. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition to, obviously, income assistance payments — statutory obligations around income assistance — the other area where there's a significant increase in the budget is in Community Living B.C. Maybe we can talk about this tomorrow morning, but just for the sake of the number, could the minister tell us what we're going to spend that extra $50 million on? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually very good news for the developmentally disabled community. We went into last year's budget cycle, and based on the data and information provided with CLBC and issues around a wait-list, we were able to achieve, through finance and through our discussions, an increase in funding for Community Living B.C. for two things. One was to provide more services for those people who would be on a wait-list and also some additional services to people who had developmentally disabled disabilities in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member is probably aware that there's a new definition being worked on as a result of a court case where IQ 70, which used to be the previous measurement that we would use to define a person who would be eligible for services with the community…. Now we're working on the new definition, and there's funding to be able to transition to that new definition so that we'll be able to handle the additional intake of people that we think would come as a result of the court case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: There are a number of other questions, but some of them get more specific, and they relate to housing and that. I'm going to push those questions off, and we'll deal with those a little more directly when we have some of the officials here later in the week. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think at this point, for the purpose of much of the rest of our discussions this afternoon, I'm going to talk about gambling and gaming-related matters with the minister. We'll start with maybe some discussion around issues related to problem gambling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We saw a B.C. Medical Association report recently — March of this year, I believe, was their report — that suggested about 159,000 people in the province have gambling problems, are problem gamblers; 128,000 have problems and about 31,000 have severe gambling problems. Does the minister agree with those numbers — that those numbers are accurate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I've been joined by two additional people, so I'll introduce them to the members opposite. On my left is Derek Sturko, assistant deputy minister of gaming policy and enforcement branch for British Columbia. On my right is Michael Graydon, president and CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That study, as I understand it in just talking to my assistant deputy minister, is basically one that recognizes that there's a percentage of the population that will exhibit the characteristics that could lead them to becoming problem gamblers. It doesn't mean they necessarily do, but it does mean there's that characteristic and percentage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's based on a percentage that is pretty consistent across Canada with regards to the numbers by population. Some are a little bit lower in each jurisdiction or higher in other jurisdictions, but there's not a dramatic trend-line change between one jurisdiction versus the other. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Is the minister suggesting that…? Well, maybe I'll break that into two questions. First of all, is it the minister's view that when he talks about people who may have a problem but may not be totally engaged, he is talking about the 128,000 people? Or is he talking about the 31,000 who are deemed by that report to have some serious gambling addiction? Does he differentiate between those two groups in terms of his comments? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: It's both. People who show the characteristics…. It doesn't mean they're necessarily having a problem gaming situation today. Some people have higher characteristics and issues than others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The report, from my understanding, is an extrapolation of those numbers based on percentages and doesn't necessarily relate to the number of people we would have coming through our help line or through other people and seeking services in B.C. It's very difficult. It's a bit like trying to define how many people have a drinking problem in the province. You know, people seek help in a variety of different ways and what have you, and not all of them would be known to us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We do know that there's an extrapolation of numbers, a percentage which says that's possibly the number. But that doesn't mean it's definitive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I'm sure we wouldn't base it on the number of people who've come through the programs, because that number is obviously significantly less than the numbers in the medical association report and in the kinds of numbers that we see in other pieces of research being done. We're going to come back to those numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If it is the view of the minister that those numbers are an extrapolation and may not fairly reflect the problem, could the minister tell us what numbers he thinks might reflect the problem? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'm not going to base the debates on a B.C. Medical Association report that may be in a member's hands and that isn't in the hands of this side of the table for issues around the budget and estimates debates this afternoon. That would be inappropriate for both the budget and the estimates debates, and to take a report over the plethora of reports that could be out there would be, frankly, irresponsible on my part. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
I have asked my ADM to get you some numbers that we don't have at the fingertips right at the moment. We've sent basically some electronic communications to see if we can get you those numbers as soon as possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The numbers, then. Let me just make sure I understood the minister properly. I accept that somebody hasn't seen the B.C. Medical Association report that's been out since March that quotes these numbers and lays these numbers out. My question to the minister would be: has the ministry done its own analysis of levels of problem gambling and serious gambling addictions in the province? If so, could the minister tell us what that is? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's clarify the previous comment with regards to the report for the member. I recognize that the report came out in March, but what I stated was that it isn't the foundation for the building of a budget in the provincial government, because it's a report from the B.C. Medical Association in his hands. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These are estimates debates based on our business as government, to do what we have to do. The member should understand that. This isn't going to be a debate about people's opinions in reports. This is actually an estimates debate, and if we could keep it to that, that would be the best way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, yes, we do. We do problem gambling prevalence studies on a regular basis. We do them because we want to measure British Columbia's gambling habits, problem gambling rates, views of gambling and awareness of available services so that we can improve our programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have studies that basically say that about 4.6 percent of our population, like most populations, exhibit the behaviours that could lead to problem gambling. The overall prevalence rate has not increased since 1993 through to 2008. About 0.9 percent of B.C.'s problem gambling would be severe problem gambling issues with regards to folks that exhibit those issues — not always having the problem. But that would be comparable to all other Canadian provinces. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The reason we're going to talk about problem gambling and that…. Of course, it is a budget item. It's the government and this minister who chose to cut the funding for problem gambling by 34 percent. So I'm looking to understand why, in fact, that decision was made, when it's clearly having a negative impact on British Columbians, and why there are questions being raised about whether that was an appropriate thing to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We'll just follow up on some of the minister's comments in the list that he read. The minister talked about the numbers: the 4.6 percent — I believe was the number — and the 0.9 percent. One of the things that we know…. And this comes from an Ispos-Reid public affairs report, British Columbia Problem Gambling Prevalence Study, which was submitted to the gaming policy and enforcement branch in January of last year, doing some work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister talked about the 0.9 percent of severe problem gambling. That's more than double the levels that there were in 2002. These 2007 numbers are more than double the numbers than 2002. Could the minister tell us what the assessment of the ministry is as to why we've had more than a doubling in the increase of severe problem gambling in the province, in terms of that category? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of reasons that could be the reason, and one is the prevalence of on-line gaming that's taking place. An explosion has taken place since 2002. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The study found that more British Columbians are aware of problem gaming today and the services around it than in 2002. And 66 percent of British Columbians were aware of the problem gambling help line in 2007, but only 45 percent were actually aware of it in 2002, and 46 percent of British Columbians were aware of the province's free problem gambling counselling service, compared to 29 percent in 2002 — which would lead to some of those statistical changes over that period of time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The other number that the minister gave us was the 4.6 percent estimate of British Columbians who have a gambling problem — not a serious addiction, necessarily, but a gambling problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, the research that's been done for the branch suggests that with the exception, I believe, of Alberta and Saskatchewan, that number is somewhat — or, in some cases, significantly — higher than most of the other provinces in the country — at least six other provinces. Manitoba and Ontario are both at 3.4 percent; Quebec, 1.7 percent; Newfoundland, 3.4 percent; P.E.I., 1.6 percent; Nova Scotia, 2.1 percent; and British Columbia at 4.6 percent. Then Alberta and Saskatchewan are both higher than British Columbia, in the mid- to high 5 percent range. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us what his view is as to why we seem to have a problem that goes from somewhat higher to more than double the estimates in other provinces? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: first of all, as to the 4.6 percent, I never stated at all that that was the number of people that were problem gamblers in British Columbia. What I stated was that those are the people that showed the characteristics of possibly becoming problem gamblers under the statistical measurements or the characteristics that are measured. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just so the member knows, we have been developing a new and more detailed measurement over the last number of years with regard to how we measure the issues in and around gaming in B.C. The rest of the jurisdictions that the member quoted from are not. They have some catching up to do, and they are trying to come up to our system of measurement and our data. They're not there yet, so their numbers are not accurate, relative to what we have in British Columbia, for the data that we use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
S. Simpson: Well, the data that I have here came from the Canadian problem gambling index. What it says is that an estimated 4.6 percent of British Columbians are problem gamblers, including 3.7 percent who are moderate problem gamblers and 0.9 percent who are severe problem gamblers. Those numbers come from the Canadian problem gambling index, and I'm sure that they draw the same way in other provinces. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would expect that in provinces like Ontario and that, which are spending ten times this amount when you include it all in — ten times as much money on problem gambling — their research is probably not bad in these areas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, my question to the minister is: is it his view that the number that we have — the 4.6 percent problem gambling in British Columbia, significantly higher than a number of provinces and higher than at least six provinces in the country — is a number that's a statistical problem more than a real problem in terms of: "It's a problem about reporting; it's not a problem about people"? Is that what the minister wants us to know? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe for a point of clarification…. We use the Canadian problem gaming index, which we codeveloped with some other provinces in Canada. It used to be measured based on an American model for measurements, which was not as accurate for data and information. Some provinces are still not fully on to the Canadian problem gaming index, and that's why…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I can do is find out for the member which ones are on the actual full index. That might give him a better statistical, basically, comparison across the country. I can tell the member that the study of behaviours in the province…. The 4.6 percent that is really in British Columbia has not changed for about eight or nine years now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: We'll continue to talk about this, but I'd like to approach it in a slightly different way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister, we now know…. We have about 159,000 people identified by at least a couple of reports, including the work that was done by Gemini Research and Ipsos-Reid for the gaming policy and enforcement branch. Their work — and of course the work of the B.C. Medical Association — and their numbers are comparable numbers, the same numbers. I assume they come from probably similar or the same sources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister has in this budget reduced the amount of spending for problem gambling by about 34 percent. It's down from $7 million to $4.6 million, I believe. Could the minister tell us why the decision was made to reduce that at a time when there are plans to in fact expand Internet gambling? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, a number of things have taken place with regards to the pool of money that the member mentioned. First of all, $500,000 that was part of the advertising of the program has moved into the central pot for advertising to run advertising programs versus just being run for the branch. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The program itself was not fully utilized last year, and its budget figure — so basically somewhere around a million.... Actually, more than that. We probably used about $4.9 million…. We used about $5.384 million. Take $500,000 for advertising on…. We anticipated that we could manage the program within the budget envelope. The $7 million wasn't used. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition, the same time as we did that, B.C. Lottery Corporation increased the problem gaming stuff within our establishments — stuff that we run within the casinos for the clients who would come through the legal establishments –– by about $2.6 million in additional funds put into issues in and around gaming issues like voluntary self-exclusion, game sense, facial recognition and better training for our staff to recognize people who may have some problems and divert them off to get the help they need. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, we've had one –– the corporation on one side has raised…. This one here has been put in a place where, if the budget were to go up…. We've always had the philosophy that if the budget needed to go up, we would go back and explain an increase in usage. When the budget isn't being fully utilized, then you adjust it into the next fiscal year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how this budget — the $4.6 million — relates as a percentage of the net revenues, which I believe were $1.1 billion and a bit last year, out of gaming…? How does the amount — the $4.6 million — compare as a percentage of revenue to deal with problem gambling versus, say, our friends in Ontario or other jurisdictions that have gaming programs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We don't believe that it should be, first of all, done by a percentage of revenue. It should be basically on the programs that you're trying to design and use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to caution the member on Ontario, Ontario is not using the money for problem gamblers. In large part they're actually spending a lot of money on addiction research and expensive conferences. They do not have anywhere near the rigour of the programs that we have within our legal establishments. They do not make that investment even close to what we're doing in our establishments. That's what I'm being told. So we have a two-pronged attack, both on one and on the other. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
The member should also know that the whole thing in and around gambling and problem gamblers shouldn't be…. It would be no different than saying that…. We have programs in gaming in B.C. that are basically for everyone. Whether you have a problem or you have an addiction as a result of being on the Internet on pokerstars.net or some other site like that somewhere around the world, you can still come into our program and ask for help. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That piece is a social piece that we try and do. Then we also have the piece within the legal gaming side that we try and help people out with. That's what we do with most of our programs across government when addictions could come into play. We try to have programs available for all those that need it, but where we have our own establishments, we also try and make sure that we have additional services in those because.... We're as responsible to the player as possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The amount of money, the $4.6 million, is less than half of 1 percent of the profits that the province realizes out of the gambling — less than half of 1 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's my understanding that that is the lowest level in Canada. There are seven provinces that have problem gambling programs in Canada. As a percentage of the profits, that is the lowest level of any province in Canada that has a program. They vary up to Nova Scotia, which has about 5 percent of its profits committed to problem gambling issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Would the minister agree that British Columbia spends less as a percentage of profits on problem gambling than any other province that has a program in this country? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We spend programs, trying to base it on efficacy. We don't base it on percentages. I know that the member wants to get into a debate about percentages from one jurisdiction to another. British Columbia doesn't have VLTs in corner stores and restaurants and hotel lobbies across British Columbia. We have a totally different gaming structure in B.C., which changes the outcomes you will get with regards to how people will actually game. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To try and do apples-and-oranges comparisons would be — well, there's a pun I guess I could use — fruitless. With regards to trying to compare one jurisdiction over another, it really is about the fact that we have.... I think if the member does the research, he will find that we more than doubled the investment in problem gaming starting in 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've continued to increase that investment both inside our institutions and within the gaming policy enforcement branch. We have a very strong education program with regards to gaming in B.C., which I think is probably comparable to, if not better than, most jurisdictions in Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We'll continue to try and improve on our outcomes and, frankly, obviously our deliverables. So it is a case of trying to compare one jurisdiction to another where the ownership is different, who owns the machines and casinos is different, where the machines are placed within the jurisdiction is different, where the other issues are…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's pretty difficult to.... I would never go down the road saying just because you give a certain percentage, that means you're being successful. It doesn't mean anything unless you tell me where the machines are and how many there are, what's the percentage of machines to population, what other games are in your jurisdiction and how you're delivering on those. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: We will get to the discussion where we're going to talk about where those machines are. They're going to be in darned near every household in this province as people who have a computer are able to play Internet gaming, which we know is the most serious area for problem gambling in terms of what the experts will tell us. We're going to talk about that in a few minutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister has suggested that the fact that British Columbia, as a percentage of profits, spends less than any other province that has a program shouldn't be portrayed or looked at in terms of numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I will ask the minister, then, is: could the minister tell us what research or analysis the government has done to determine the success of problem gaming programs in this province? Has there been any research done, any empirical evidence provided, to show that the programs that the province has put forward are being successful compared to programs that are available in other jurisdictions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
Hon. R. Coleman: We basically measure our counselling programs. We do regular follow-up with regards to people's change of behaviour and how the programs have worked for them, and we publish those reports on the website. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: My question to the minister was: has the ministry done any research and analysis of the effectiveness of those programs and had any independent research or analysis done of the effectiveness of the programs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Research — no, we don't. Basically, we do try and measure the efficacy of the programs. We don't take on programs that we don't think have had…. Basically, programs have usually got research behind them that indicates they have some measurement of success behind them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we also do is regularly meet with other jurisdictions to see what's working for them versus us and try and share the best practices across the jurisdictions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Were those meetings or those discussions or those reviews done before the decision was made to cut the budget from $7 million to $4.6 million? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: As I stated clearly before, the budget is based on what is the usage of the dollars that were available based on our programs — the 1-800 line, people requiring help. That's why the budget was adjusted this year over last — because we didn't use it all last year. If it goes up, we would go back to Finance and say that we have an increase in usage of these particular counselling programs and what have you, and we feel we have to adjust the budget accordingly going forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: We'll get back to this. Could the minister tell us what programs for problem gambling are in place for this coming year — this budget year — that will comprise the $4.6 million? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
Hon. R. Coleman: Not counting what goes on in the casinos and gaming establishments across B.C. where they're spending the money with regards to the items that I already described to the member, in addition to that, we have immediate response which is the toll-free problem gambling help line that is still available in 14 languages and referrals at no cost for counselling for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All gaming service providers are required to attend the appropriate response training program provided by the GameSense advisers to learn how to respond to patrons who may be experiencing distress. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the treatment side, professional out-patient counselling and intensive treatment day, evening and weekend services are provided free of charge to problem gamblers and those affected by someone else's gambling. The B.C. Lottery Corporation has the voluntary self-exclusion program which enables people to exclude themselves from casinos, community gaming centres, commercial bingo halls or Play Now websites. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Individuals are also provided with a problem gambling help line and the treatment resources. There's public awareness, which is basically to let people know things, "Know your limit and play within it" — those sort of things that are out there for people to understand along with the 1-800 line in a variety of languages. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's also prevention where we work with groups that may be higher at-risk populations, such as youth, post-secondary students —which is a program, Know the Score — some programs for seniors and those type of things. Basically, we're making sure that all products and facilities promoted that are operated under BCLC gaming service providers or gaming event licensees must comply with B.C. responsible gaming standards. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The out-patient counselling program that was mentioned — could the minister tell us how many people have availed themselves of that service? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Not off the top of our heads. We'll try and get that number for the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: One of the things that we know…. The prevalence study that was done has shown that more than half of British Columbians had no idea that the government provided any problem gambling counselling of any sort. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us what the expenditures were? I know there's the half a million dollars he spoke about before, which is going into communications generally. But what efforts were made to let people know that those services were available to people who may not have known they could take advantage of them — the half of British Columbians who didn't know the programs existed at all? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think I quoted the number of higher than 50 percent to the member earlier when I came to the awareness piece of it. I think it was 60-some percent that had the awareness. But just to the member's question, 66 percent of British Columbians were aware of the problem gambling help line in 2007. Of course we've continued to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
In addition to what we do through the gaming policy enforcement branch is $1.3 million in additional spending being spent on advertising by B.C. Lottery Corporation to deal with issues around GameSense and people's issues in understanding what they're doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There isn't a thing you can buy in a legal area of British Columbia with regards to gaming that does not have warning or information on it with regards to the 1-800 line and "Know your limit, play within it." At the point of purchase, there is continually stuff that's running so that people will get…. We try and get to the public in every sense we possibly can with regards to it and continue to do that. All of those things combined are basically the investment we make in making sure the public awareness is higher. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The first budget, the budget that was cut — the $7 million — must have included…. I would presume it included a number of programs or expansion on existing programs to have made up that extra couple of million dollars that was going to be expended, which the minister has told us people didn't avail themselves of — or a portion of it people didn't avail themselves of. It wasn't taken up. The money wasn't spent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us what was anticipated in a $7 million budget that has been now cut to $4.6 million for these purposes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'll say again: $500,000 went out of this budget because it was used in advertising. It has now gone into the central pool for advertising because it's no longer run through the branch. That would take it up to $5-point-some million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It wasn't that there wasn't anything cut. It was: who was availing themselves of service and at what level? "What were you actually spending?" As we came into this budget cycle, ministers each asked every one of their operations: "What are the actual dollars to meet what you spent last year or you anticipate spending this year versus what you think they might be if you didn't have some budget pressures?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you look at a program and say, "Well, it's not all being used," you say: "Then we don't really need it this year unless we have an increase." Then what you do when you do your budget presentation is advise of any risk, whether it be this budget or the housing budget or health budget or whatever the case may be. You say these are things that we think we can adjust based on what we think the usage might be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the usage goes up, we would then have to go back to Finance and Treasury Board to advise them if we thought one part through the fiscal year that we were going to have an increase in usage to the point where we thought we would need more dollars. We would deal with it at that point in time. That's just good budgeting. That's all it is — and actually asking those questions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's actually healthy that we do that sometimes on a more regular basis. I think at times when you have very good revenues and things in government, there are tendencies to say we could add a program or maybe look at a different program. But this measurement was based on, "What are you using? What do you think you're going to use?" — not what you think you have, but what you think you're actually going to use. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That was the direction given to members of my staff through the budget process by myself to do that. We had the discussions around that. We've identified that if there was an increase in need, we would go back if necessary. At this point in time we don't have to go back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister talked about asking his officials: "What are you going to use?" I guess part of the question, when it deals with the matter of problem gamblers, should be: "What do you need?" more than "What are you going to use?" But that's a matter that we'll certainly talk about more, I'm sure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister talked a few minutes ago about, I believe — and correct me if I'm wrong on this — how since 2001 the government had doubled its programs or expenditures for problem gambling since then to today. Is that correct? Is that what the minister said? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, I said that in 2001 we doubled it from $2 million to $4 million. Since then it's been measured based on…. I don't know whether you've ever asked your children: "What do you actually have to spend on something?" versus "What do you need?" I know you get a totally different answer when you ask them for what they need. They all want a lot more. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reality is that the questions are both one and the same — what you need, and what you're going to spend, or what you should be spending based on what you need. That's why I couch that explanation that way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Maybe this is a good way to follow up on that. What I'd like to do now, just to get a better sense of it, is to get a sense of…. In 2001 the minister says that the government doubled the funding for programs for problem gambling to about $4 million. Today it's $4.6 million, so it's increased, and it's gone up and down again, but probably, with inflation in there, it may be even less. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can do the math in my head, but it must be pretty close. Being seven, eight years out, $600,000 may be less in real dollars than what it is today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I'd like to do, just to put that in some context…. What we know is that in British Columbia in 2002 we had two full-service casinos, and in 2009 we had 17 full-service casinos in the province. We had 436 slot machines in 2002. We have in excess of 10,000 in the province today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We saw government revenues — and this may be part of it…. Government revenues from gambling were about 2.2 percent of government revenues back in '92 when gaming started and had grown to over 5 percent in 2006. I'm not sure what the numbers would be today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we do know is that we've had a massive expansion in gambling in the province in terms of the numbers of casinos and in terms of the importance of gambling revenues over the last 17, 18 years as a percentage of revenue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does the minister think that when you put that kind of…? And we're going to have Internet gaming expanded significantly in the near future. Does the minister think, with that being the case, that if $4 million was the right amount in 2001, that something less than that in real dollars should be the right amount in 2009 — should be "what you need," as the minister says? Should that be what you need considering the increased proliferation of gambling and facilities in the province today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: So let's be clear to the member. In 2001 there were no in-casino programs of any kind for people with problem gambling in British Columbia. A huge investment has been made in those over the last number of years, and they exist on every document, every machine, every ticket today. That did not exist in 2001. That's now not necessarily an annual cost to that particular piece of it because it's actually a standard practice that has been put in place with regards to how we manage gaming in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was no Gaming Control Act that actually covered all the rigour in and around this industry in 2001. I won't get into what that led to back in the '90s with regards to some difficulties we had in this sector — both politically and, frankly, legally — in some departments, the courts. But I can tell you that if there wasn't anything in the Lottery Corporation in 2001, there is today $3.9 million alone just going into stuff with regards to problem gambling on top of all the education programs, literature and other things that are there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So to try and compare the two eras is somewhat difficult. There are actually…. The member is right. There were two casinos you would call full-service casinos in British Columbia back in 2001, but there were over 18 casinos in B.C. There are still no more than that many casinos in British Columbia today — just so we're clear on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our bingo sector was in significant duress coming through the early 2000s, and some adjustments had to be made in order to actually make their businesses work differently for the support of them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
Some other decisions were made within gaming, which I'm happy to discuss with the member as we come through our discussions for the rest of the afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The reality of the numbers, as I understand them, is that we have had this massive growth. We've seen per-capita gambling in B.C. increase from about $189 per capita in 2002 to $556 in 2008 — a greater amount than Ontario, than Quebec, greater than the Canadian average. The reason for that — part of the reason — has been the expansion in gambling and gambling availability in the province. That's what we've seen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know that in 2002, 300 slot machines and 30 gaming tables was the maximum size of a facility in this province. We now have at least three — and probably four now, I believe, but at least three — where the numbers are more like a thousand slot machines and 70 tables, so we have seen a significant growth in the amount of gaming. That's what it is, and that's fine. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The point here is whether, in fact, there's been the due diligence done. The minister has not offered one shred of evidence that the ministry has done any work or any due diligence to determine whether they're meeting the needs of problem gamblers. Not one shred of independent evidence has been provided. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the question is: are you spending enough money to meet these needs? My question to the minister, again, would be: what independent evidence, if any, has the ministry done in the last couple of years, and particularly, done to support the cut in budget for problem gambling? Or is this strictly intuitive on the expertise of individuals of the ministry and the political direction of the minister? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going into the judgmental comments with regards to the preambles of this particular question. I do know that we have a 1-800 line, which you avail yourself of 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That did not exist in 2001. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do know that we have programs for you to get counselling and assistance if you have an issue with gaming in British Columbia, whether you gamble in a casino or whether you gamble on line or whether you gamble outside this jurisdiction — in the U.S., like Washington State — or whether you go to an illegal poker house or whether you go where there are other illegal activities in and around gaming. We don't actually say that you can't get services no matter where you happen to have developed the problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do know that when we made the decisions in and around gaming in 2002, they were based on a number of things. First of all, we were going to have a gaming control act. We were going to have a director who would make the decisions on policy and enforcement in British Columbia with regards to gaming, not a minister. We would have nobody in a political position to decide where a project or something to do with gaming could go. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We made the decision that instead of deciding to do what happened in the 1990s, where someone thought it was a good idea to put a casino in Wells, B.C., without a market study of any kind whatsoever — because they wanted to have a destination casino because somebody wanted to make a particular political jurisdiction happy, only to find out a few years later that it just cost everybody a bunch of money, and it just hurt the community and hurt the credibility of the whole structure of gaming in B.C. — that we weren't going to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that we made significant decisions — that we would say to a Crown corporation: "You are now the people that will deliver the business in British Columbia. Here are the parameters that we've established through the Gaming Control Act in policy, which can change from time to time, but the policy change comes through a process, and you will conduct your business on that basis." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do know that if you went to people and asked them what they thought of casinos today versus what they were in the late 1990s and early 2000s, they would tell you today that they think it's more a place you can go for an evening out, in an environment that is a lot cleaner, that is professional, that the entertainment value is there, that the food services and other services in and around it to allow for an adult evening out to take place is there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Was it there when we were…? Whether you be in the charitable sector or not, sitting till two or three o'clock in the morning in a smoky facility above the Langley hotel, with roulette and sic bo and blackjack, as a charity trying to see if you could have a way to do business in B.C. with very little controls from the standpoint of what it should have been under the Gaming Control Act…. Have we improved that? Absolutely. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
Have we allowed this business to modernize? Have we allowed it to meet the needs of its clients in British Columbia? Yes, we have. Do we still have, and did we then have, thousands of people that got on a plane and flew to Vegas or drove down the I-5 into Washington State and gambled in different casinos down in Washington State or other jurisdictions? That's correct. Have more people…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact of the matter is that you had a choice to make in 2001-2002, and that was: we have something that has really got a reputation because of a history of problems within governments and politics that needs to be fixed and done at arm's length from a government and a minister. So do we go write an act and say: "This is the environment, and do your business on behalf of British Columbians"? Or do we allow it to continue in the state that it's in? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We chose the first — that we would allow this market to do its thing. Now, there can be argument from the member opposite whether that was the right move or not, and I'm happy to take that criticism. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But as we've done it, we've continued to try and educate. We've continued to have information available at point-of-purchase and everywhere else so that people could understand things like odds and like the risk, and continued to have the opportunity for them, if they need help, to get it. I think that's the way you should do the system and continue to do it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I think the point here is that we have had a significant expansion. As the minister says, for the majority of people who participate in gaming, who go attend casinos or go to the River Rock or any of those places and enjoy the entertainment…. Most of those people — the vast majority of British Columbians and visitors who do that — in fact have an enjoyable evening out, and that's the end of it. They go home, and they've had a good day, and that's their entertainment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The problem here with this particular sector, industry, as it is, is that there are people who get hurt by this in some way, shape or form. The independent research by the B.C. Medical Association and the research by others — like the folks who do the problem gambling prevalence reports — is that there are 159,000 people or so in British Columbia who fall into that category of people who can be hurt by this activity because of the addictive nature of their personality as it relates to gambling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is a social contract related to this question of gaming, and we know that. We can go back into the '90s when gaming started to expand in this province, and clearly, there was a level of discomfort with the population about whether the government should be engaged directly in the area of gaming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
An understanding, I believe, was reached with people — the social contract I call it, for lack of a better term — that there would be some limitations on how that gaming would be engaged. There would be a significant portion of that money that would go to charities and communities. There would be programs for people who are vulnerable, and we would move forward on that basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The challenge we face today and the challenge of the budget — we'll talk more about this over today, and I'm sure it will be a point of discussion tomorrow afternoon with a number of my colleagues — is whether that social contract continues to be protected — the integrity of that contract. That's part of what this discussion is about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The situation that we have here is that there have been cuts in the amount of money, and it doesn't appear, from what the minister has said, unless I misunderstood him, that…. There has been no evidence provided, no empirical evidence, to support the decisions to reduce the amount of funding and supports for problem gaming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister said that this is an arm's-length matter for him in terms of his activities and how decisions are made. So my question would be…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The decisions to cut the budget from $7 million to $4.6 million, I assume, were decisions that were made as they relate to the enforcement branch. The minister can clarify if it's the enforcement branch or the Lottery Corporation to make those cuts in funding. Were those done at the initiative of the branch with their recommendation to the minister? Or was this done through a direction from the minister to tighten those budgets up? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Hon. R. Coleman: When I was talking about decisions earlier, I was talking about…. You have a director in charge, the policy and the enforcement side, and the branch of government. You have a corporation that is given a shareholder's letter of expectations. The minister doesn't make a decision and say: "You'll put Casino X over there." He does not make a decision: "You'll enforce that but not that." But he certainly is part of the whole discussion across the larger government priorities with regards to budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's be clear to the member opposite. Not one single program has been stopped as a result of the adjustment of this budget on the program side for problem gaming — not one. The services are still there for anybody that needs them today. What we did was we looked at what we were using and said: "Maybe we don't need to use it all this year, because we don't have, for lack of a better description, the customers to actually use up those funds." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the same time as we've done that, we've increased in the casinos an additional $2.6 million that has gone into programs with regards to issues around GameSense and facial recognition and additional training and those things that I spoke about earlier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To the member opposite — just so we don't go down a road that he misunderstands the whole issue around the B.C. Medical Association type of report and that sort of thing — there is, in every jurisdiction in North America, a percentage of the population that shows characteristics of people that could become addicted to something. It could be alcohol, it could be drugs, and it could be gaming. And it could be other things, quite frankly. But those would be the main ones. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What governments do and jurisdictions do is that they set some rules around this. In the case of our province, at 19 years of age, you cannot go into a gaming establishment in B.C., nor can you go into a bar to buy a drink. You cannot purchase alcohol in a liquor store or in an off-sale unless you are of age. You cannot go in and buy a lottery ticket in a place in British Columbia legally if you're under-age. You put rigour around these issues, because they're going to exist in your jurisdiction one way or the other. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can remember, and I don't know how, that my grandfather always seemed to manage to get his Irish sweepstakes ticket. I know that he used to go play cards with buddies in a place where maybe some dollars changed hands. I know of people long before legal gaming came into place that — and, frankly, from law enforcement when I was Solicitor General — were quite significantly involved in organized crime, who ran illegal poker houses in our jurisdictions across this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I do know that when it moved from there to the legal establishment, a casino in B.C. and a number of those poker houses that were funding organized crime shut down. It moved to an environment where people felt safe and felt that they could go there. It took away the opportunity for the criminal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a responsibility under the Criminal Code for the conduct and management of gaming in B.C. That's why the province does this. We have the responsibility under the Criminal Code to be responsible for the conduct and management of legal gaming in our jurisdiction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have built a business plan and some rigour around it. We continue to work on that business plan and rigour on a regular basis to make sure that we're providing something that's safe; something that's, frankly, entertainment value for our customers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the same time, we recognize that there are some social issues with regards to it. So we'll have the problems, for instance, that…. We have the counselling and what have you available, and none of those have been cut. They are there. They are available. It's just that we're only using the dollars that we think we're going to use this year versus what we thought we might use. That's the biggest adjustment to this particular thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I don't suggest for a minute that the 159,000 people identified by the B.C. Medical Association are a result of the Lottery Corporation's activities and its work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
As the minister says — and the minister is correct — there's a portion of people in every jurisdiction who have a tendency or are prone to an addictive personality. It may play itself out in alcohol or in gambling or something else. There's no question about that. In this instance, 159,000 people that the Medical Association and others have identified, where this plays itself out in British Columbia in gambling…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The responsibility of the government, having made the choice — and this is not a criticism of the choice, clearly not, but the government has made the choice — to be involved in gambling through the Lottery Corporation and state-run gambling…. That's a decision that's made. It generates a significant amount of revenue for the province. There's no doubt about that. But there is an obligation that comes with that, and the obligation is around protecting, to the best degree possible, people who have those issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister talks about how we deal with this in other areas, and there's no exact science to this. The minister would also know, of course, that we have rules in bars that say that if you start overserving people, you get in trouble, and that they have obligations to deal with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There may be questions about whether, in fact, we do that in casinos. There will be even bigger challenges about how we do that with the Internet. The question here, really, is about the government's responsibility and obligation to meet the needs of those folks, and part of that is a question of due diligence. It's in saying that in 2002 we put $4-odd million into problem gambling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're now in 2009. We're about to move forward with another expansion in a whole brand-new area around technology and the Internet, which may, over the next number of years, be the biggest area of revenues of any of these areas, depending on how technology plays out there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I would have then is: has there been analysis between 2002, when the government put the $4 million in place in the first place, and today? Has the government had any independent analysis or assessment of its problem gambling programs and whether they were meeting the objectives of helping to support those people who suffer from this problem? Has any of that been done over the last seven, eight years? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the 159,000 people that have the addictive tendencies towards gambling will exist in your jurisdiction whether you have one casino, zero casinos or ten casinos. Those folks exist. They have those tendencies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, you can have them go to a situation where they decide to go into a casino in British Columbia, which is a legal entity. We do, for the member's information, watch people with these tendencies, we do have people talk to them on the floor, and we do try and encourage them to seek out help if we think it's necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just for the member's information, 71 percent of the gamblers in the past year were aware of the problem help line in British Columbia, up from 66 percent two years ago, and 50 percent of non-gamblers were aware of the help line. Those people don't gamble in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But we also do random audits on our programs for their efficacy. We do that on a regular basis to make sure that that's taking place. At the same time as we do that, we have increased the investment on the whole education program that has basically accumulated over a number of years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
If you take an example, in 1997 or '96-'97, I think — or somewhere in there — the former government started to change the rules in casinos. There was no investment in the B.C. Lottery Corporation otherwise on any other problem gambling programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They continued to grow that through the 1990s and did some investment, to their credit, early on, to start in understanding that this could be something that they should be helping with, considering that they wanted to have the social contract with the public that if we're going to have gaming in a legal environment, there would be some programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you set that aside for a second and come through whatever area you want to, you continue to invest. We've actually increased the investment by a number of millions of dollars through the Lottery Corporation in the in-house programs, the education and all of those things. We have a way better relationship with regards to things in and around gaming with the player in British Columbia, and the education. Anyone that needs counselling can get it, and when they get it, we actually do audits on them for their efficacy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, as we do all of that and look at the situation in and around gaming in B.C. and do all of those things, we also need to be reminded — we're going to have, I'm sure, the on-line gaming discussion at some point in time today, but let's deal with it for a second, because the member brought it up — that there are 2,000 websites today, totally not controlled, that a person on the Internet in British Columbia can access. They're in the Caymans; they're in the East Indies. They're in islands across the world where nobody actually has any control. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's no such thing as a tag on the line that says: "Know your limit; play within it" or "Here's a counselling program that you can seek." None of that exists on most of these sites. A lot of them are run by what would be less-than-credible organizations, funding activities around the world that you and I would not be proud to be funding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now you have this taking place in your jurisdiction, so do you allow for a British Columbian, just like you did with a casino, to have the ability to go and do that on line in a controlled environment, where we can watch your patterns and where we can actually ask you if you have a problem if the pattern deviates? We can actually deal with that and help you, instead of your going on line and just giving somebody your credit card — who blows it up to the top and doesn't actually care about you as a person or an individual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Whenever governments enter into the responsibilities that are given to them by whatever level of government, in our case the conduct and management of gaming in B.C. — or, quite frankly, things like liquor — it is our responsibility under the Criminal Code to try and build around it the responsible programs for your citizens. You cannot control what other citizens outside a jurisdiction do. It's just not within your control, and the Internet is a classic example of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I'll go back to the question that I asked the minister before that. Has the ministry done any independent analysis of its problem gambling programs, over the last number of years since 2002 or up to today, to assess whether those programs are working as effectively as they could, based on best practices? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
Hon. R. Coleman: We're actually going through that now with an organization that we've done business with. I'll get the member the correct name for the organization with regards to putting all of our gaming establishments in B.C. through that lens. At the same time, our measurements have been by people and individuals on other things with regards to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So for instance, 95 percent of our clients indicated that after counselling they gambled less. That was 35 percent. So 35 percent of our clients say they gambled less after our counselling — working with them or not at all. That was 60 percent of the people that went through our counselling stopped gambling altogether. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's how we've been measuring it. However, at the same time, we are putting this together in a nationwide relationship to try and get it so that we can have some better data going forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Well, you know, the decisions to cut.... There are certainly entities around the country who look at these matters and at decisions about how you meet the social contract, which investing in problem gambling is part of. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I look at a quote here from Garry Smith, a researcher at the Alberta Gaming Research Institute. When talking about British Columbia and its program, he said: "B.C. didn't necessarily have a leading-edge program in the first place. It wasn't like they were breaking down the doors with a great program, and now they've cut it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister talks about some kind of a national program. Maybe he could just explain this a little bit further. Is this that British Columbia is moving ahead and looking at its own programs with a study or an assessment that it's contracting to have done, or is there a national analysis study being done by somebody to which British Columbia is a participant? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Both, I'm told. I don't have the parameters here today, but I do know that we're expanding research with our partners across the country on everything dealing with problem gambling, or issues along those lines, and that there is some best practices being done. We routinely meet with the Western Canada Lottery Corporation. Basically, we're one of the participants in that with regards to programs that are or aren't working in other jurisdictions. We're also participants on a national level, as well, with regards to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I actually don't buy much criticism out of a jurisdiction like Alberta because, quite frankly, the Alberta model is not a model we accepted in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was the right move when that decision was made prior to 2001, and it's still the right move today. If you're going to have it in establishments like gaming centres and casinos that are run under the jurisdiction of a Crown corporation, which are the only ones that can actually allow those types of machines to be in the public, in a controlled environment with people under the age of 19 not being allowed to access and a Gaming Control Act with a statutory responsibility…. That is not something they really did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
They actually put VLTs in all kinds of places –– bars, hotel lobbies — in those jurisdictions. And let me tell you something. The reason we did that back then — and it was the right move by two successive governments — was because of the impact of those things on problem gambling. They are right there in their face in places where they can't be controlled. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[The bells were rung.]
Having said that, hon. Chair, it sounds like the bells have asked us to come for a break. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: We will recess for the division and start up shortly after the vote. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
S. Simpson: As the minister had referenced earlier, we'll move the discussion a little bit now to the Internet gaming issues and to the issues related to the proposals that the government has announced to expand Internet gaming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister outline the plan a little bit for us? I know that there's been the announcement that weekly accounts will now go from $120 to $9,999 and that there will be some expansion come March, I believe, in terms of the type and number of games that will be available under that new expansion. Could the minister tell us what that expansion is and what it's going to entail? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Hon. R. Coleman: We actually have on-line gaming now in B.C. We have about 100,000-plus customers that buy their lottery tickets on line and play Keno and whatever the case may be with the games that are presently available. That's who we've launched this on-line gaming site with — our customers in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our intention is to add casino-style gaming in March 2010. That would be games that are presently available on other Internet sites across the world. In April and May it's also our intention to launch peer-to-peer poker, which are games that you can play peer-to-peer. That will not only be launched just in British Columbia to our customers, but we have an arrangement where we'll also, at the same time, go on line with the Maritimes and Quebec. Those other provinces have been wanting for some time to have a relationship with regards to that form of gaming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, in each jurisdiction, whoever plays in British Columbia will still have to be a B.C. resident, will have to provide that information to us to prove that they are B.C. residents. We are not going to go into Washington State and ask for customers because we'd be breaking U.S. law. We're not going into Alberta to ask for customers. If a customer base ever came on line with us or went on line themselves, that would be their responsibility. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Each jurisdiction across Canada has, basically, like we have now with Play Now. It's a highly regulated and secure on-line gaming site with stringent residency, age and privacy protection and responsible gaming safeguards, such as self-exclusion programs and education and what have you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're taking what we're doing and adding more games to it to try and attract a customer that today is probably spending money in other jurisdictions around the world and may want to do it at home in a more stringent environment where their privacy is protected, their credit card information is protected, their gambling safeguards are there and where we also have some programs around issues on who can game and how with regards to age and restrictions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I appreciate that you can go on line today and play Keno or buy your lottery tickets or play the poker games that aren't actual skill-set poker. They're kind of predetermined, much like buying lottery tickets or whatever you do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But what we're talking about here, I believe, is quite a shift. It's something very new. I expect that you would never have gotten people to go anywhere near contemplating $9,999 a month to play Keno or buy lottery tickets, largely, whereas some of the new gambling and gaming, in fact, will do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
The minister talked about other jurisdictions buying into this. Are there any other provinces today that have Internet gaming of the type that the government envisions commencing, I guess, in March when they start to bring on the skill games, for lack of a better term? Are there any other jurisdictions that have those kinds of Internet gaming with limits, spending limits or account limits, anywhere near what British Columbia has approved? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: When we first started looking at this, it was us in B.C. Atlantic Canada was doing something else and talking about it. Today it's a collaboration to do the same thing between the four provinces in the Maritimes plus Quebec and us. Basically, the platform would be the same for all of us. We felt that if we could get to that arrangement…. They've all sort of wanted an arrangement so that there was a relationship that made some sense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Some of the other jurisdictions are not as far advanced in their process of approvals or whatever, but we would anticipate that at some point in time we would reach the situation where maybe all the jurisdictions would be on the same platform across Canada. That was really the goal to start out with, I think, for everybody in both the Western Canada Lottery Corporation and the other lottery corporations across the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The game we're launching in March is not a skill game. It's a casino-style game, so it's like a slot machine–type operation. It's just not much different from what you would see in a casino, although I do have some relatives who think they have the skill to figure out how they could go in and play — I don't see that their odds are any better than anybody else's — and friends who think that they can figure out that stuff, but that's not skill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But yeah, the peer-to-peer stuff will be. That'll be taking on competition like —I'll probably get it wrong — one of the live poker sites where you can actually play the game with a live dealer on line, and those are more skilled types of games. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The other jurisdictions, Quebec and the Maritimes — are they buying into the British Columbia model entirely, or will they be setting spending limits for their own jurisdictions that are separate from B.C.? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: They're working on that now. Indications are that they will be raising their limits, but each jurisdiction will not be required to live by the limits of the other jurisdictions. The early indications are that they will follow the B.C. model. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister said that they will be raising their limits. Is the minister aware what their limits are today? It's a long way. As we went from $120 to $9,999, we jumped a long way. Is there any indication about where they're going with the limit increases? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I ask this question because, obviously, a great amount of the concern on the part of people who have been critical of this decision has to do, as much as anything, with the dramatic increase in limits to almost $10,000. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
I'm trying to determine here whether these other jurisdictions that are looking at moving into Internet gaming and working their way into that are looking at limits that are anywhere comparable to the kinds of numbers that British Columbia has approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I should let the member know that the sites on line today that I refer to, which go to both legal and illegal establishments around the world, have no limits. So we would be the only sites with any form of limit, and the limit is only to have a range for people. People actually have to set their own numbers on line by filling out the form and saying, "This is what I want to spend in a particular week or on a weekly basis," or whatever the case may be, so that that gets established. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The people in the Maritimes today have no Internet gaming. Quebec has nothing, so there's zero today. Quebec's indication is that they will probably buy in to a standard with us — the same standard for all of those things. In the Maritimes they have none of this either, but they will have around the time this all comes in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Their weekly limit is actually higher than ours was by about $800 a week, but they will now look at the whole thing. Each jurisdiction will set their envelopes at a provincial level or however they do it at their level. Indications are that it looks like we're all going to be much the same. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: What I take from that is that the minister is waiting to see what they do. Fair enough, but at this point I think, if I do my math correctly, we're saying that the Maritimes are about a thousand-dollar-a-week limit or so — something in that range would be where they were at this point — versus $10,000. Could the minister tell us how the determination, the decision, was made to land on the number of $9,999? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Any large cash transaction of $10,000 or more has to be reported through FINTRAC in Canada. Since this isn't a large cash transaction, because we're not taking cash over the computer, we felt that the $9,999 was probably able to keep it under the ceiling. There may be some discussion in and around that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are in discussions with FINTRAC, who are the people that monitor large cash transactions in Canada. The member should know that anybody requesting a cheque of $500 or more from our discipline-type site…. We go back and look at how the money came into there. If it's not a verifiable win but it has actually come as a result of a transfer from a bank account now asking for the money, we report it to FINTRAC and hold the money until we verify the source of the dollars that came in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
S. Simpson: The minister talks about having this discussion with FINTRAC. My understanding — and I could be corrected on this, then — is that in any transaction that was $10,000 or greater, they would have an interest, and there would need to be some reporting on that. For the purposes of this, if I…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister speaks about cash. So if I put $10,000 on my credit card or transfer $10,000 off my credit card, does that not constitute a cash transaction once I've put that money into an account? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: That's why we're working, frankly, with FINTRAC over the next number of months before we launch the casino games and the other, which will bring the player who wants to spend the higher dollar. That's part of the business and development. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When we looked at this, we picked the number because we wanted to be at least competitive in the market when we tried to build the business — but not have no limit at all. The member's description of a cash…. If you take a zero-balance credit card and you dump 20,000 bucks on it, the financial institution and the credit card company all have a responsibility to FINTRAC in the reporting of that transaction. Those disciplines are in place, and our disciplines at our end are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's say somebody came in and said, "I'm going to put $5,000 into my account this week on my credit card," and next week asks for their $5,000 back, off their account. They wouldn't get a cheque until they confirm that that money that was originally on their account was legal money. We would report that to FINTRAC — anything over $500, actually. I'm just using that as an example. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The complexities of this are being worked out as we come through it into the spring, and we will have those pieces that the member described ready to go when we actually do go on line. We're not locked into the number, quite frankly, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The $9,999 number was just to get ourselves into the marketplace in a relationship that FINTRAC and we felt that we could start out at. We're not seeing a bunch of transactions because we don't have any games that are on there that require that type of betting today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Over time, as we sort of mature into this piece of the business, we will adapt it to make sure it matches up then with the other jurisdictions with those types of regulatory processes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: There is a professor, Prof. Richard Wood at the University of Lethbridge, who's…. I don't think he necessarily likes Alberta's gaming policies either — out of the university. But he's recognized as an expert in the area of gambling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In a study that he produced on Internet gambling in Canada, Prevalence Patterns and Land-Based Comparisons — and policy options — he talks about the prevalence of problem gambling being "three to four times higher in Internet gamblers compared to non-Internet gamblers" So reads the report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having problems with gambling is one of the features that best predict someone is an Internet gambler. The report also notes that a significant portion of on-line gambling revenues come from problem gamblers — a little over 41 percent identified in Canada versus about 27 percent internationally. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
My question to the minister is this: in developing this program and making the decision to move from what was a very modest amount of $120 to what is quite a significant amount — almost $10,000 — did the ministry do any analysis of potential impacts on problem gamblers of having that amount of money available there, based on research that suggests that the Internet is probably the prime site for problem gambling? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think you actually provided the answer and the question at the same time. In September 2008 a report was commissioned by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation gaming expert Dr. Richard Wood, who studied the issue of setting gambling spending limits. He found no evidence that higher spending limits increased problem gambling on line or in gaming facilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But at the same time, what the member describes is one of the challenges we face, and that is this. You have the availability of on-line gaming in an unregulated marketplace in, many times, what would best be described as less than favourable legal climates for people who are citizens of this province or anybody else in the world to go on line and gamble. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is nobody that, frankly, cares whether your credit card is at its max or not. They'll just take your credit card and spend it all if you want to spend it. There is nobody that really cares what the disciplines are on how the money came into the account or how it goes back out, with a check or any discipline. There's nobody that actually cares about whether you have a problem or not, and there are about 2,000 of those sites today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The challenge that faced government as we looked at this and…. We sort of talked about the studies and the information the same as what you've described and said, "Gee, do we have a responsibility to provide a legal option with some rigour and discipline to it?" versus just allowing this to continue at its present pace and where the money goes and all those other sorts of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We worked through a number of issues as we did that over time and looked at this thing. We came to the conclusion that for British Columbians we could offer, because we already have a site with 100,000 customers on it, the opportunity to do this without having them be of the fear that somebody is going to steal their credit card information or their banking information, that somebody is going to steal their identity — because there's no control on that either with regards to this type of activity — or they're going to be put on some other list for some other targeting for some other issues and sorts of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Or do you actually create a platform where the age limit is enforced, the residency is enforced, the information is protected in a very secure site under the direction of a regulatory and Crown corporation relationship — that you actually run this thing for British Columbians that wish to play on line, to play in a legal environment that is a lot safer for them and for their families? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does that mean that we're going to stop the 2,000 sites from existing? Absolutely not. But what it does do is at least allow us to take our responsibility for the conduct and management of gaming in British Columbia, for British Columbians who are residents of British Columbia, to at least a level where they can make the choice to be on a legal site that has those rigours to it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The fact that there are a number of sites out there, as the minister points out — illegal sites or non-governmental sites, U.S. sites, international sites — where lots of people go and lose their money is not unto itself a reason why the government of British Columbia should be engaging in that activity and, certainly, engaging in that activity without having put in place the protections that need to be there for folks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Professor Wood, who talked about those things, also was quoted in September in the National Post when asked about the fact that the government has cut the funding for problem gambling from $7 million to $4.6 million. Professor Wood's comment was that he found this "deplorable." "The province has close to 200,000 'moderate or severe' problem gamblers, according to government statistics. Odds are, he says, it will soon have many more." He relates that specifically to Internet gaming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1700]
What we know when we look at the work here is that the thing we're finding out about Internet gambling, as we learn more about it, is that it's young people who are most inclined to get involved in Internet gaming. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the demographic characteristics that Professor Wood and his colleague Dr. Williams found in Internet gambling in Canada…. They found that something less than 20 percent of non-Internet gamblers are under the age of 29. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]
Remarkably, over 50 percent of Internet gamblers fall into the category of under the age of 29. This is young people that we're talking about, probably young people who have not necessarily been engaged for some long period of time in gaming who are now going to be involved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I have for the minister is: what consideration has the ministry and the corporation given to what looks like a significant shift in the potential target demographic for who's going to engage in these games, based on the research that's been done? What work has been done to ensure that we're not creating an increased problem here with young gamblers being caught up with problem gambling? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Let's try and be clear here. That demographic is gambling on line today — not gambling on line on a site that's owned by the citizens and the government and the taxpayers of British Columbia, but they're gambling on line in the Caymans or they're gambling wherever. Whatever demographic they are, that activity is out there today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is not being run, necessarily, by people who actually care about anything but the dollar, who have no intention of having any discipline among their sites, no protection of identity, no protection of credit card information, no information with regards to issues around problem gambling and all of those things that exist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When we launch our site with on-line casino games and then subsequent to peer-to-peer poker-type games, we're not going to take all of those gamers off those other 2,000 sites, whether they are British Columbians or whatever. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I should be clear about one thing in that there's a huge issue in the U.S. with regards to what they're doing. They have not come to any understanding, whether it be state or federal, as to how you even conduct and manage gaming in that particular country. It's fraught with all kinds of issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But Dr. Wood also said that responsible gambling means empowering players to make informed choices. Restricting players' choices can decrease players' motivations to take responsibility for their own actions, and mandatory limits are unpopular with the majority of players. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He says that in the context that, you know…. These studies talk about the prevalence of on-line gaming, so what's the responsible thing to do? Sit back and watch something that's going to affect a particular group of people or individuals with regards to a choice for adult gaming on line? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know of an individual whose 16-year-old child spent their entire credit card limit on line playing games in a country that we have no jurisdiction or control over. The parents picked up the bill and had a big challenge with it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Would that happen on a discipline site in British Columbia? No. Because the right prompts and questions, the disciplines, the individual's information, spending limits and controls are set by the individual who actually registers as a customer. They don't care about any of that on those other sites. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We can go down the discussion of what Internet gaming is, and you're absolutely right: it's a challenge. That's why we feel that, at the very least, we should try to control it in our jurisdiction for legal customers in British Columbia and, in this case, also the Maritimes and Quebec — judging from the conversations we've had with other people across Canada — at least in a Canadian jurisdiction where we would have the disciplines to protect the identity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
That doesn't mean that this stuff is going away, but it's not unlike when we put poker into the River Rock Casino. When we put poker in the River Rock Casino, at that time the police on the Lower Mainland told me that three or four Hells Angels illegal poker houses shut down. The people made the choice to go to the publicly controlled, safe and secure environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Frankly, when they're there, we can at least watch their spending. We can help them with their issues if they have them, and we can educate them while they're on line and at the same time protect their information — none of which is done on the other 2,000 sites that may exist out there today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: When the minister talks about these 2,000 other sites out there that British Columbians are going to participate in, I'm not comforted by the minister saying: "We're going to be the best of a bad lot here in terms of dealing with Internet gaming." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we know about Internet gaming — again, when we look at the work that Professor Wood has done — is that part of the challenge with this…. I've now been getting stories from people who have had tragic experiences with their families around gaming, who have got caught by problem gaming and have run up exorbitant amounts of money and created all kinds of problems with their families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm sure that nobody wants that to happen, and I'm sure the minister doesn't. But that does appear to be part of what occurs on a more frequent basis with the Internet than with the requirement for somebody to go to a casino and be part of that social interaction that happens in a casino. Whether it's playing a table game or a slot machine, they are there, and there is social interaction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister has talked about, there are staff in those facilities whose job it is to observe and look for people who may be in distress or appear to be having anxieties — and, hopefully, support those folks when that occurs. None of that happens at midnight or at one o'clock in the morning when you're at home by yourself on your computer, and that's what we're talking about here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we know are the advantages of Internet gaming, for folks who answered and dealt with the survey. Between "24-hour availability" and "I don't have to leave the house" — 70 percent of people identified those as the reasons that they happen to like this particular system. We know that a significant growing number of those are going to be young people under the age of 30 who have no interest in going to a casino and don't like that environment, but who are very comfortable on their computer at home doing what they do at home on their computer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the government is doing the due diligence to be able to deal with this issue and allow this massive expansion at a time when it looks to many of us like it's just finding new ways to generate revenue, which is fine…. What work is the government doing, particularly now that it has cut by a third the money it invests in problem gambling? What analysis or assessment is it doing about the unique aspects of problem gambling that we know relate to Internet gambling? How is the government moving forward to develop programs or initiatives that are unique to dealing with the problems of Internet gaming, which clearly is an area of special concern for people who have expertise in this field? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear. You're right. There's a bad lot out there. We're not part of that bad lot, and we're not the best of that bad lot. We'd be the only jurisdiction that would actually have you have a residency requirement, have controls on your spending, have you make the decision on what your spending is, have education for you on line with regard to any difficulty you have with gambling and advertise to you with regard to how you should know your limit and play within it, and those sorts of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're not part of that. We're actually trying to get to where we started to get a number of years ago across Canada. B.C. is participating in a federal-provincial-territorial working group mandated to address the issues related to Internet gaming in Canada. All jurisdictions across Canada have agreed that Canada needs a consistent approach to the regulation of Internet gambling, and the gambling section of the Criminal Code needs to be updated, particularly with regard to the use of the Internet. The working group met last February 12 to 13, 2009, and there's another meeting this fall. It is going to submit a progress report to the deputy ministers this fall. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
The mandate for this group was expanded to include the modernizing of the Criminal Code as it relates to Internet gaming, working with Internet providers to crack down on illegal on-line gaming sites and Canadians gambling on Internet sites located outside Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we have come through that, it's become clear to each of the jurisdictions involved that one of the best things you could do would be to try and put as many people that are going to do this into a regulated environment where their IDs are protected; where they can get help if they need it; where their limits are in a position where they can be managed by them actually making the decisions on their limits and not somebody just running up a credit card because they happen to have the credit card number; and where we can actually monitor the efficacy of the entire system as we've done, quite frankly, in the adult environment of gaming in casinos and community gaming centres. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So if the debate is that the members opposite would prefer that there be all kinds of illegal gaming sites allowed to continue in Canada and that the government would not step up to its responsibility under the Criminal Code for the conduct and management of gaming in this country, that's fine. I can appreciate that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the same time, if we're going to stand up to our responsibility under the Criminal Code for the conduct and management of gaming and there is this environment that exists out of there, I think you have to decide that either (a) you could ignore it, or (b) you could provide for your citizens, in a controlled environment, the protection they deserve if they choose to use your site and if they choose to do this form of gaming which is out there today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've chosen to try and build a platform that will deal with the issues in and around the legal forms of this activity in Canada so that we can do it in such a way that we can allow our citizens to know that they're protected, as I said, for identity theft, credit card information and banking information, and that we tie it into a regulatory and disciplined process legally in such a way that we can monitor transactions and some of those sorts of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If somebody still wants to go on line with cash and try and go outside that system because they don't want to be in the legal environment, they may do that. But at the same time as they do that, we have monitoring systems on credit cards and international transactions and those sorts of things that we will try — which is not the responsibility, by the way, of the B.C. Lottery Corporation or the gaming policy enforcement side of British Columbia, because those are transactions in the financial arena that are monitored by different agencies across the country who we share information with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Well, the view of the opposition is that the $10,000 limit –– to go from $120 to $10,000 in a blink –– is exorbitant and a mistake and that people will be hurt by it. The problem is compounded and exacerbated by cutting the supports to problem gambling by a third at the same time. So you escalate the risk in the highest risk area, and then you chop supports by a third to help people who get captured by that. It simply makes no sense, and that's the position of the opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us what analysis or assessment, if any, was done of other jurisdictions that do engage in government-run Internet gaming at these kinds of levels with games like poker or Internet games, casino games? What analysis was done of those options and how they were working and whether there were challenges created by that before the decision was made to proceed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
Hon. R. Coleman: We were participants in a study in the early days of this with the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation. We'd made our decision to proceed in British Columbia because we feel that the jurisdictions are going to get there sooner or later. There are only a couple jurisdictions in the world — Sweden and Spain, who we have spoken to — that are doing this today. So it really is us making the decision as to whether we should try to have a legal, safe environment for people who are going to Internet game in B.C. Or are we going to allow it to continue that they are going to be exposed to the vagaries of international bad behaviour by people like organized crime and other people like that? So we made that decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to reiterate to the member who keeps going to the $9,999. Dr. Wood made it very clear. He studied the issue of gambling spending limits. He found no evidence that higher spending limits increased problem gambling on line or in gaming facilities. The reality is that the 99.1 percent of gamblers who do play in a legal environment, or whatever environment they play in, are actually not there because of a spending limit but because they enjoy the activity at whatever level they feel they personally can afford. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That takes place in this environment around the world. I think that getting stuck on the number is wrong. I do believe that we are, in some ways…. That's why we're working with the Maritimes and Quebec as we bring this in through to the spring, where we'll start to launch some games. We are breaking some ground. I would expect that if we have our regulatory and, you know, our gaming control and our disciplines in place in Canada that we will, maybe, set an example for other jurisdictions around the world to start getting a handle on this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the same time we're not going into those other jurisdictions looking for customers. We are only allowing this for citizens of British Columbia, because those are the laws that we operate within. We don't intend to go any further than that. Because the reality is that that's what our law says, and so we are responsible for the conduct and management of gaming in the province of British Columbia. We will put on line a suite of activities for people in British Columbia so that they can make a legal choice in a protected environment versus what exists out there today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that in many ways that is the responsible thing to do, versus just allowing it to continue out there with no options for your citizens who are going to do this, who are not being cared about by the other people who are in this business around the world and have no disciplines around it to protect your identity or your information or even have an interest in whether you may need some counselling or help or provide you with information where that may be available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Well, the minister talks about the large number of people who will participate in this and not do themselves any harm, and I suspect that's true. Since we both seem to be quoting Professor Wood a fair amount, as I'd referenced before, Professor Wood notes that over 41 percent of on-line gambling revenues comes from problem gamblers. Those are Professor Wood's numbers as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So what I hear him saying with this is that this is unique in many ways. People who go out to enjoy a casino…. I think what we're seeing…. I think that the minister and probably the ministry could tell us that we're seeing a shift in terms of the dynamic of casinos in this province. The larger casinos, the full services, the River Rock — the places like that that offer entertainment, food and beverage, as well as the gambling option — are the places that are now growing in popularity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
People are coming to those — the vast majority of people who don't have a problem but want to go and have an evening out and maybe want to play a few slot machines or a couple of games of poker, but they want to see a show, and they want to have dinner and a drink. They're going to those facilities that offer a little bit more of the — for lack of a better term — Las Vegas experience of kind of a full entertainment package. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That makes sense. When we talk about this being about entertainment, that makes sense for people to go and do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's not what happens when you're on your computer at midnight playing Internet poker, whether you're doing it on this site or doing it on one of the other sites that the minister has talked about. The problem here is that there are a significant number of people who potentially get into trouble here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I guess that I'm looking for here…. The minister talked about other jurisdictions. I could be corrected on this, but when I was looking at some of the other jurisdictions I looked at the British model — the national institute for lotteries or whatever they call their national body. They have Internet gaming as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I believe that what they say on the site is that they set their limits at the equivalent of about $650 a week Canadian. They're explicit that the reason they set that limit is it allows people to enjoy this as a game, but it's not so high that it potentially gets people into trouble. They saw that as the responsible thing to do as a level of government. Of course, their citizens face all the same challenges that ours do — about the Cayman Islands and sites around the world that you can get to at the push of a button — but they chose to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question goes back, though, to a comment that the minister made about the discussions that were had before British Columbia chose to move forward. I believe he said that there were some meetings or discussions of an interprovincial group. My apologies if I got the terminology wrong. He said that after those discussions, British Columbia decided to move ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us: were there any other jurisdictions during that discussion that were supportive of British Columbia's position and looking to move ahead at that time on this kind of an effort with those kinds of limits? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Gaming in England is an entirely different subject. In England they have been betting on things like the birth weight of a born heir to the throne of England for generations. They'll bet on just about anything. We don't do that in Canada. We don't have what they call a "parlay," which is allowed on a single event and that sort of thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
And I don't think, if you…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. R. Coleman: But that's nothing the provincial government can do. That's federal law, so we are bound by whatever laws. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not sure what the argument is from the member. If the member is saying that today 41 percent of the people that are gambling on line are problem gamblers and they're gambling on an illegal site where there's no opportunity for them to get an education or to understand how they can deal with the problem if they're a problem gambler or how they could actually have their identity protected or how the counselling programs are not offered to them unless they phone the 1-800 line through the provincial government — because that line is out there for everybody. That, versus saying that we as a jurisdiction have the conduct and responsibility and management of gaming in British Columbia under the Criminal Code. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have an on-line system today that allows you to play Keno or the poker game — which, the member is right, isn't a skill game, but then that's about my level of expertise anyways — or to buy the lottery tickets. They're customers, and they register, and we have their information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you look at it and say that the limit isn't the issue, it's just a matter of really…. I mean, the 41 percent of problem gamblers that the member is talking about who are gambling on line are all on sites where there are no limits, no protection — no nothing at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
Maybe in British Columbia for people who do want to do on-line gaming, we could be there for them in a number of ways: (a) we can protect their identity, (b) we can protect their finances, (c) we can actually identify issues in and around them, and (d) we can watch how a cash transaction takes place in such a way that we can put it into the overarching piece of what we would want to do to manage that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition to that, we'd provide an environment that is, frankly, where the person that does this is…. At least the dollars are going back into health care and education and not sitting in the pocket of some organized crime agency or some other group somewhere else in the world. I think that's the struggle. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just for clarification, for the member, to his last question. There are two processes here. One is the federal-provincial-territorial side, which is the regulatory, legal side of government: deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers of gaming who get together to identify issues in and around the legality of Internet gaming — what laws need to be developed in the country and that sort of thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then you have the business side, where the providers, which in this case is the Atlantic Lottery Corporation or the B.C. Lottery Corporation, are in discussion for this side here with regards to what, if there are some legalities allowed, the business would look like for the protection of the citizen, which they have the responsibility for on the business side. That's the interprovincial lottery group. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As that's come through, it's been very clear that maybe some will not be ready by spring. But it's pretty clear to all other jurisdictions in Canada, in the early indications and discussions so far, that they want to move to a model like what we've identified here in B.C. for the entire country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's because they feel that there should be a platform that is compatible, that there are disciplines that are compatible, that the protection of the consumer is compatible and that we do this within this country in such a way that it makes sense. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not that we, as a country, are going into the business outside our country. But the people in Canada who want to do this legally and want to do it on line would at least have a place where they can go to do it legally and be protected and, at the same time, have the programs in place to identify them and help them if we think they need help, whereas they're getting none of that today on line in the other 2,000 sites that exist out there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The gaming policy and enforcement branch has the responsible gambling strategy that it uses, and presumably, that's what supports, among other things, the dollars and resources that go into problem gambling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Has the gaming enforcement branch looked at or done any analysis of the need for additional programs or supports that would be required with the expansion of Internet gambling, as is anticipated? I think that the government is looking to go up to making about $70 million, maybe in 2011 and 2012. I think that was the number. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Has the enforcement branch looked at programs that would be specifically targeted to supporting problem gambling among Internet gamblers as those numbers of people increase? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would note for the minister it's not that I think that 41 percent of…. I don't think that's what the report said. So 41 percent of people who gamble on line aren't necessarily problem gamblers. They spend 41 percent of the money. I don't imagine the percentages are that high, but they spend most of the dough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the concern — that these are people, probably a much smaller number percentage-wise, who put way too much money in, in terms of their own capacity. We want to be careful about telling people what to do with their money, but if you're not telling your wife or husband as you're do this too, you're creating another problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
My question, again, getting back to that, is…. I know that the B.C. responsible gambling strategy is in place. What work is being done to create aspects of that or particular initiatives under that strategy to deal with the Internet? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We're dealing with them today. People are coming to our 1-800 line today. There are people coming to our 1-800 line and getting services and counselling from us whose problem is on line, not in a casino or not in a gaming centre. Our services are open to all of them now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The difference is, if you went to our site today, where we aren't actually into the interactive gaming piece yet…. But if you look on site you'll find: "Know your limit; play within it." The 1-800 line will pop up. There will be little ads that will tell you that if you have a problem, this is where you can go, and this is who you call. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You have a discipline around…. You set the limit, so if you decide that you are going to spend $500 a week, because that's what you're prepared to spend, you have your account. You can put your $500 in there. If it goes up, and you're at $800 because you had a win or whatever, you can access that. You can add money to it at the base of your discipline that you've put in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On line today none of that discipline exists, nor does any of the personal protection exist. Your question is: what are you going to do about the increased number of problem gamblers from on line? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would submit to you that, conceivably, if you had someone that was on the edge of having a problem gambling and went to our discipline site with the education and the counselling in their face, saying, "Here's your opportunity," that those people would be in the group, the 60 percent of people who said they stopped gambling altogether or the 35 percent of people who said they changed their spending habits after they got help — versus where they're at today: there is no help. There is no discipline. There is no system other than when they get into extreme trouble, because somebody could care less about their credit card, care less about their credit rating, care less about where they live from, care less about whether they steal their personal identity. Then when they've done that to these folks over here, they come over to us for counselling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would submit that to say the sky is going to fall because we're going to actually put them into a more controlled environment, meaning that the assistance we're giving is going to go up…. It may actually go down because those customers come to us today. Those folks come to us because they have scammed in an illegal gaming environment and have an addiction problem and a financial problem in an environment where no government took any responsibility to having something in place where they could have some discipline. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's where the tough decision comes. That's why we made the decision that we would build an environment for those folks that choose to game on line, because they're going to game on line. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If they choose at least to come to the site where we will tell them, "Your identity is protected. Your credit card is protected. Your personal information is protected, and there are services for you…." If they choose to do that versus going on some site run by, for the lack of a better description, some organized crime group that wants to fund money into some other drug operation that's going to just destroy more lives…. I'd rather they actually made the choice to come to the legal site if they're going to make the choice to gamble anyway. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know that we won't solve all of everybody's problems as a result of this, but at least we should have the legal discipline and controlled choice for those folks in our jurisdiction, because we have the responsibility for their conduct and management in our jurisdiction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I thought this might have something to do with the fact that the government projects to make an extra $50 million a year out of this, when we know that part of the objective in the service plan for the BCLC is to maximize the return within the mandate that it's given. This would obviously add to that return. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the minister, then, is this, based on his last comments. Is the minister then saying that because this is a government site that's going to encourage people to come and play on line…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
One thing that we know that the BCLC does very well is the promotion of its product. They do that very well. If they're going to do that and encourage people to come on line…. Because this is a government-run system, those people who are inclined to problem gambling will be better off and, as a consequence, we may not have to deal with any additional problem gambling in the province by having these increases from $120 to $10,000? We're not going to create any more problems by doing that, because all of these people are going to move from some other site to the government site to gamble now? We're going to be better off, and we're going to have less problems from that? Is that what the minister is saying? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and answer the question. I'm not saying what the outcome will be one way or the other. What I'm saying is this. Let's go back to gambling — period — in B.C. You could choose to have modern facilities where people will go to a casino in British Columbia like the member described at the opening part of his comments today, where we have people that go to River Rock. There's entertainment. There are meals. There's opportunity. It's an adult activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People are making the entertainment choice to go to that particular facility versus drive down the I-5 to Skagit casino and drop their money in Washington State or go to some illegal gaming establishment and drop it in the hands of organized crime or whatever the case may be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Yes, the B.C. Lottery Corporation's mandate is to make sure they do a good job of that — to promote its facilities and to make sure that the discipline is there within the casino — but if you walk into a casino today in British Columbia, the machine will have something on it that says: "Know your limit, play within it." It will have something that says: "Here's a 1-800 line." It'll have something…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's a kiosk in every casino that is actually staffed by people to assist people who are having problems and floor staff who are trained to identify people that may have a pattern that says, "Maybe this person has a problem with gambling addictions or how they manage it," or whatever the case may be — knowing sometimes that it's a management problem for people to understand, to know, what their limit is and how they should deal with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Or you could say: "Let it be free, and let everybody go out there. No disciplines. Government has no discipline in it, so let's ignore it." Well, we don't do that in Canada, and we don't do that in British Columbia because we have the law, the Criminal Code, that says the conduct and management is with the provinces. We have a law in British Columbia called the Gaming Control Act. It sets down the standards of operation and the laws and regulations in and around gaming and those sorts of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we do that, we come across changes in the business. The biggest change in the business — as the member has already articulated and, I think, articulated well — is that we have this piece of the business that's on a computer, on line and available to anybody, whether they're 19 years of age or 16 years of age or even 10 years of age, if they have a credit card. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
People go on and gamble today with no discipline on some of these sites. Families have woken up and found themselves in debt with a credit card from one of their children because of the fact that some nefarious or irresponsible or illegal operation decides that they're going to ignore that discipline within the gaming environment just to make a buck. Those folks have problems and come to us for counselling, whether it be retreats, group counselling, family advice, family treatment. Those types of treatments are available for anyone, whether they've gone to a casino in B.C. or gone to an Internet gaming site. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess the piece where the rubber hits the road for us — and when I speak of us, I talk about the province; I mean, all of us on both sides of the House — is: do we sit back and say: "We should just allow that to continue and offer no legal alternative to it"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
Or should we present a legal alternative to it — a legal alternative where you have to be registered to play, you have to have proven your residency requirements to be there, you have to have proven through a variety of default questions and information that you are of age to play and that you are now making an adult choice? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Do you also want to have a system that says that if you choose to say, "I'm going to have a $500-a-week limit or $1,000-a-week limit, and here's my MasterCard…."? Do you think they should have the right to think that that particular card's information is protected — protected from someone that wants to duplicate it and do credit card fraud around the world, someone who wants to share the list of information and spending habits? Do you want it protected from theft and want the information protected? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Do you want your own spending habits protected, so they're exclusive to you so that that information is not going out to somebody that can come in and buy a list, or do whatever? Do you want a system that says: "We recognize there will be some people that may come onto our site, and we want them to know that if they have a problem managing their finances with regards to on-line gaming, there is this phone number to call, and when you call this phone number, there is counselling available for you at no charge"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Do you want them to be able to look at something every once in a while on line when they're playing, saying, "Are you overplaying? Know your limit, and play within it" — reminders to people to sort of default away or push their chair back from the table and say: "I'm not doing any more tonight"? Or do you want them to be in a situation where it's all about, "We'll give you another prize if you spend another hundred bucks. You'll go into this raffle. You'll get this. You're going to get game-player points to do this," and not care about the outcome for the individual on line? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know we can't stop all things that aren't working so well for society. We tried that with prohibition on alcohol. We know that we have to have certain disciplines around it for age and adult choice and those sorts of things. For those folks within our society that have a difficulty with it, we should be there to help, and that's why we have the counselling programs available for anyone on the 1-800 line. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So as we do all of that and we come across something that exists like exists today, I believe that you should step up to the plate and come up with a site that protects those things. Now, that doesn't mean that every client is automatically overnight going to decide to go to that site. But maybe we can actually get some management or control underneath this little piece. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's the summary of this. I'm sure we may have to continue this part of our discussion tomorrow. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Go ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, I'm back in the days four years ago when we sat till six at night. That's good. So I am happy to continue this discussion, therefore. I was actually hoping we could finish today, so that's great. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So that's where I'm coming from and where we're coming from. I know it's counterintuitive on one piece to the fact that these sites exist and that there are problems with them. But I don't think that we should ignore that they exist and not do anything to try to have, at least in Canada, some management of this thing at some discipline level. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I'm going to just have one or two more questions on this particular piece, and then I'm going to try to deal with one other piece related to this, and we might be done this tonight. That would be my preference as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister speaks about the protections that are in place, and I fully understand how the government protects against unscrupulous use of credit cards or personal information. I can understand how that all works, that the government is obviously going to do a better job of that. But the minister speaks about protecting from underage users and that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I have is: what kinds of tools are available, or is it simply a matter of you asking me, when I log onto the site, a number of questions about whether I'm 19 years old or whatever those questions are, and if I answer yes to those questions, though I'm really 17, I get to play because I'm prepared to give you false information? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member's information, if you wanted to go on line tonight and register to play Play Now on our website, you wouldn't be playing tonight. You would be asked for a bunch of information, which includes information about yourself that only you would know — your driver's licence, some other credit information and what have you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Before you're actually allowed, then, to be registered on this site, we do a third-party verification. We take Equifax, who go out and confirm this information about you — that you are who you say you are, you are where you live. All of those things are verified. At that point in time you are the only one that sets your limit that you would spend on a weekly basis. Nobody else can set it for you. Only you know that information, and our system knows that. That is password enabled. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So there's a process of password, back to us, who confirms the password and confirms back into the Equifax system. We don't just let you come on tonight and put a credit card on line and say: "I want to play." That will continue. That's the type of discipline going at that, whereas I would suspect that if you wanted to go play on some of the on-line sites, you could probably go on there this afternoon in 15 minutes, and they'd gladly take your credit card and let you play. They won't put the same type of rigour to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We actually have been very successful in our play…. We have not had a problem with people 17 years of age trying to defraud, or being able to defraud, the ability to register here because of the rigour that we put into it with the Equifax system and the third-party validation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: On this, and to close in a minute out of this Internet gaming discussion, because I do want to try to close off this piece of estimates today, what I hear the minister saying…. We've obviously had some disagreement, particularly as it relates to the Internet gaming and to the problem gaming. The minister is saying that he thinks that reducing the budget by 34 percent was okay, because that's in line with what got spent, regardless of the success of the programs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also heard the minister say that they have not done any independent assessment or analysis at this point. There may be internal assessment but no independent assessment of the success of those programs in dealing with these issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also heard the minister say in regard to Internet gaming that while there clearly…. This is about capturing a piece of that business from those who, for lack of a better term, may be obviously much less scrupulous than the B.C. government, who are out there — the private sites that you can access from anywhere in the world on the computers — and that B.C. will have more rigour in terms of protecting people's information and that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I didn't hear the minister say, though, is that there are necessarily any dollars or additional resources for problem gambling and, in fact, that maybe because of the way this will be structured, problems will go down, not up. Time will tell on that. We'll see how that all works. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Where I want to go now, though, for the next few minutes relates to the issue of crime and gambling. Obviously, the minister and I have both made comments about Mr. Pinnock and his comments that were made and were referenced. We've exchanged some comments on this in the media and have some disagreement on this. We don't need to rehash all of that — about whether he was accurate or not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like, for me, to clarify how the decisions were made to reduce or to eliminate the team — the illegal gaming enforcement team, I believe it's called — and how the decisions were made to do that. I've heard the minister say that he made the decision that the team would not be supported, that that was his decision. I've heard that there's a consultative team or committee made up of, I believe, five members — three appointed by the government, two presumably by the RCMP or by law enforcement — who make those decisions or recommendations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
So my question is: how does that decision get made? Is it a minister's decision to end that team and move onto the other programs or services that are available? Or is it a decision of that consultative team — where that decision was made? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Probably I said that I'd take responsibility for the decision. I'm the minister responsible for this, so I take responsibility. There was a board that oversaw IIGET, which is the director of police services, two members from government, a member from the RCMP and a member from the B.C. chiefs of police. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In 2008 they met, and the discussion at that time was that they weren't satisfied with the outcomes or the success of this particular operation because it was having trouble staffing, getting a mandate, identifying where it was going. It had been put in place with a notion that an integrated team might be of value. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The decision was made to fund it for an additional year, which was until the end of March of 2009. The advice from the folks on that board, including the director of police services and others, was that this thing was not effective, that it wasn't working in what it should be and that we should no longer do it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reason is that we weren't getting the outcomes. Now, there may be some issues with personalities and what have you, with individuals who are with this team, but I can tell you that having watched it and observed it over the years, it didn't get to where it needed to get. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I did see happening, though, was an exceptional amount of people being hired and brought into the enforcement branch of government — former RCMP officers who were now making a career choice to, frankly, learn about gaming and investigations and the integration back into organized crime so that they could work with the ISU and the other organizers at the gang task force, who cooperated and integrated and provided information and brought expertise to investigations that law enforcement was doing. They were actually a value-added to the whole package of how we fought organized crime, money laundering and that sort of thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When the recommendation was made to me, I said: "Fine. I agree with you. Let's focus on our guys being fully integrated with law enforcement to do what they're doing already and get better at it." So we have more people in that operation today — actually double the people in that operation today — than there were in the IIGET model. They are people that actually understand gaming and gaming investigations, who are now focusing on that relationship as it interrelates back into law enforcement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Law enforcement…. My discussions with the ones that I discussed this with were that what we really need is to know that there's a resource of people that we can come…. When we come across, let's say, a Hell's Angels investigation, and there appears to have been some money laundering relative to gaming, we can call on that investigator to come in to be part of our investigation, who will understand that aspect of the business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
The average rank-and-file member of a police force understands the basic laws with regards to gaming. They are our front line still, and they will always be. No matter what type of enforcement you are involved in, policing is the front line. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The structure that we talk about…. What I get was that it never got to there. Whether it was anybody's or any individual's or any group's particular fault, it didn't get there. It didn't accomplish it. Many times it was transfer in, transfer out. We were sometimes at only 50 percent staffing. We actually resourced it with two people from government, in addition to the funding by government of the 12 officers that went in there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was one of those things that just, frankly, didn't work. If it doesn't work, you have to say to your law enforcement community, whose advice you take on this — senior people in policing who give you the advice — "Well, we're the board, we've looked at it, and this is our recommendation." You take the recommendation, and you move on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The biggest piece of this for me was: "What do you guys need in law enforcement as a resource on investigations?" they said: "It's right there. You have these guys. They're phenomenally good at what they do. They know how to investigate this. They have their resources, and they understand all the connections in the business. You've got 20-some-odd of them working for you in your enforcement branch of government, and we're integrated with them. So that's where we should drive this model." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We agreed that we would try and drive that model and see if it works better than what we tried before. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: When the minister commented on this…. I'm kind of getting this secondhand, looking at media reports and that of the comments of the minister, so I'm always aware that I should ask about those things. What I also saw was that the police, law enforcement, offered no comment when the minister said that he accepted responsibility — or however the term is for making the decision that this team would end and that they would move to the model that the minister has talked about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When the law enforcement, the RCMP in particular, were asked about this, they offered no comment on this. Could the minister tell me — and it's not uncommon for the RCMP to offer no comment on something — did he have the support of law enforcement and of the RCMP to bring that team to a close? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe not some of the people, the six or eight who were there at the time on the particular team, but certainly in the law enforcement community, I would have to say, yes, I did — from the management side, from the senior management side, and from the people that give us advice on the operation of police services in B.C. I would say yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Then just to be clear on this. The RCMP detachment here, the folks at the senior levels in the RCMP, having responsibility for this team on the law enforcement side of things…. It was also their view that the work of this team could be done better in some other way or fashion and that it should end, it should be terminated, and those officers would all go back to whatever other activities they had. Is that correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I guess that's the best way of describing it. We have a board: a director of police services, responsible for police services for the province of B.C.; senior management of the RCMP; a member of the B.C. Chiefs of Police. That board recommended in 2008 that we give it one more year — they were concerned about its effectiveness — and that they would look at it again in a year and make a recommendation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They felt that it wasn't achieving what they thought it could achieve and also identified that we had some pretty good people that could achieve a number of the goals within government in a relationship with law enforcement, because these guys are all former law enforcement officers. As we came through that, they made their recommendation in 2009, a year later, saying: "You should actually shut this down." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So do I, if I'm…? Assuming that the board is made up of senior management of the police, the RCMP, the B.C. Chiefs, the director of police services…. You're asking me whether law enforcement supports it. That was the makeup of the board. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's how we do a number of boards, by the way, whether it's the board that might oversee an integrated homicide team or organization or whatever the case may be. They are the ones who actually give the advice with regards to these things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
So the advice was there. We agreed, and we decided that the IIGET team wouldn't be funded in 2009-10 because we weren't going to continue it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I think I'm getting there. So maybe this is the question with regard to that. The team, or the board…. I believe that the minister said it's a board of five, including at least a couple of senior police officials, as well as government officials, in addition to the Chiefs of Police and RCMP, and then a number of government officials related to law enforcement, as well, in the ministry. Was there unanimity in that committee? Does the minister know? Were they unanimous in this view, or was there a split view? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's safe to say that it wasn't unanimous, because one of the members of the board is a member of IIGET. So there wasn't unanimity, but there was a decent majority on the board that followed through on the recommendation after they took the year to look at it. I wasn't at the meeting to decide who voted what way and all that sort of thing. I do know that the majority of the board made this recommendation to government, and we acted on the recommendation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Just a little bit around some of the substance of the issues that have been raised. The interesting thing here is that we know that Mr. Pinnock's responsibilities on that team were largely around illegal gaming, yet much of the comments related to what goes on in our established facilities, our legal facilities, our casinos and that, are related to money laundering or to loansharking or those kinds of issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell me: has he done any review, or does he intend to do any review of the activities that are going on? Considering that Mr. Pinnock was a pretty respected 29-year member of the force, the comments that he made were obviously very strong and very direct in terms of concerns that he had. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that the minister doesn't agree with Mr. Pinnock, and I accept that. But do those concerns raise any flags for the minister that he has asked for any further assessment or review of what, in fact, is going on in casinos to see whether some of the issues raised by Mr. Pinnock deserve further attention? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think you have to be careful how you couch the comments in an interview with regards to the question that was phrased: "What do you do about illegal gaming activities in British Columbia?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then you answer it from the standpoint that you have a law enforcement community that does criminal investigations — will come across gaming issues as well as they'll come across illegal drug activity, organized crime and what have you — that are all engaged as part of the overall investigation of crime in British Columbia; over to an enforcement branch that has built the expertise to do certain types of investigations, etc.; to the relationship we have with FINTRAC on large cash transactions and tracking of funds in the casinos and in our operations; to the on-site security that you have, which is in the millions and millions of dollars with regards to watching for people that are cheating and monitoring all the things you do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So if you said, "How much do you spend on enforcement and investigation and protection with regards to the security of the legal gaming enterprise in B.C.," it's a substantial multi-multi-multimillion dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So that the member understands, this particular small operation, which was 12 people — not the thousands of officers that are engaged in investigations in B.C. or the serious crime units — was brought to the board, which is made up of senior people in management of the police force, the director of police services, members of government and a member of IIGET, a year before it was decided to shut this down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They said: "Basically, we're not sure that you actually have a business plan here. We don't get what your goals are. You seem to be not exactly integrated the way an integrated team should work, or you're not providing the service that we think an integrated team should work, so we're going to give you an extension of a year. During that year we want you to come up with a comprehensive business plan on what you think IIGET should be doing, how that should be accomplished and what analysis you would do." They never, ever provided a business plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then you come through that period of time. There's no business plan. They still haven't met the questions on the first one. Then, obviously, the next question is: how can you restructure this so that the integration and enforcement, if you decide to shut this down, works? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You look at what you have. You look at the teams that have had significant millions of dollars additionally invested in them that are now dealing with issues in and around organized crime — which, with organized crime, doesn't ever stop just at the wall of a gaming activity. They will have crime in gaming. They will have crime in prostitution. They will have crime in drugs. They will have crime in illegal liquor. They will have crime in a whole plethora of things that they drive as organized crime into a society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So you say: "What's the best way on the integration side to manage this thing, to do it in such a way that it makes sense?" Whether you want to poke fingers in ten different directions or not, you give them an opportunity to perform. They don't perform. You give them an opportunity for a business plan. They don't provide it. You say: "Well, now we have this money. Should we invest it differently and not have this team because it's not reaching the effective level we want it to?" The answer in this case, which was a recommendation of the majority of the board, was: "Yes, let's shut this down." That's what we did. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We continue to have a very strong organization with regards to people who are trained in enforcement in B.C. We still have a continued good working relationship with the police forces in B.C. with regards to illegal gaming and legal gaming, and we'll continue that, because that practice was going to continue whichever. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I get was that it initially was thought it was going to be that the organization would take something to a different level and never achieved level 1 instead of even level 5. This is the challenge that we faced with this particular decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the decision, based on that situation, was probably…. Well, I mean, you take the best advice you get at the time, you make the decision, and you move on to make sure that the efficacy is there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are constantly, just so the member knows, through intelligence not just in British Columbia but in any jurisdiction that deals with any form of gaming in North America and around the world, keeping our ear to the ground and involved in discussions. Our investigators are talking to people in other jurisdictions, because there's always one more new scheme in this type of an environment that our guys have to know about, advise our casino operators and their security teams, advise the police about, advise everybody. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That integration of information is the key to success. I believe that we have the team in place who are trained and understand that and have the connections to continue that integration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
The Chair: Member, and noting the hour. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Absolutely. I have one more question. Just before I ask the question, just for the purposes of staff for tomorrow, I would say that what we will be discussing, as I'd pointed out…. There are some grants discussions to be talked about tomorrow. I don't know what that requirement is around staffing, but I would want you to know that I fully expect there'll be discussions around grants and money so that whoever is appropriate…. In terms of gambling and problem gambling and all that, we'll be done that portion — for whoever doesn't have to worry about that anymore. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It brings me to the last question for the minister before we finish. My question that I asked…. I appreciated the comments of the minister. I understand that the minister was not satisfied with the work of that team and the work, and he laid out pretty much his issues there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The point is this. Mr. Pinnock, a 29-year officer who clearly had enough confidence and support to be heading this team up and to be engaged in this, raised a series of concerns and issues related to the potential of gang activity and criminal activity within facilities. He raised a number of those issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So what I'm asking the minister is this. Does the minister dismiss the concerns of Mr. Pinnock entirely, or does he believe that there may be enough merit there from this experienced officer that he and his officials are looking into whether the concerns raised by Mr. Pinnock warrant further action? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Look, I'm not going to get into the discussion into the expertise or the reputation of an individual member of policing in British Columbia. The member opposite should know that that's not the only person that would give us information with regards to what goes on in their facilities, and we are always alive to any issues with regards to that, whether they're made by this individual or anybody else, or any complaint or activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The mandate of our guys is to look into it, investigate and deal with it and change policy or direction or whatever, and go after those issues with regards to any activity in gaming. The member knows that whether it's gaming or liquor or any vice, there's always a certain element that's attracted. We're always aware of that, and anytime we can get information that helps us to do better, we will, because that's the only way you improve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So thank you, Member, for this afternoon, and we'll get into the other stuff tomorrow. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:13 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada