2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Quadra Village Day

R. Fleming

Surrey Tour of Industry and forest company issues

D. Hayer

Group of Five fundraising for Royal Columbian Hospital

D. Black

Cardiac arrests and automated external defibrillators

M. Stilwell

ASCD Whole Child Award win by Byrne Creek Secondary School

R. Chouhan

Métis community and organizations

M. Dalton

Oral Questions

Government communications materials during by-election period

J. Horgan

Hon. P. Bell

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Bond

Musqueam First Nation and Marpole midden site

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Thomson

S. Chandra Herbert

Contract at Spring Valley Care Centre in Kelowna

K. Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong

Call for seniors advocate

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Log export policy and timber export advisory committee decisions

B. Routley

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

Government response to changes to federal legislation on fish habitat protection

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N O . 2), 2012 (continued)

R. Fleming

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

S. Simpson

B. Ralston

Hon. S. Bond

Hon. K. Falcon

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

M. Farnworth

K. Conroy

R. Chouhan

[ Page 11805 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Hansen: I would like the House to welcome today a very important delegation that is from the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena. They are here as a delegation from the Musqueam First Nation to draw attention to a very important issue, and that is the issues around the very important heritage site of the Marpole middens.

To the delegation that is here, I would like to say hi sa' ap ca — thank you. Thank you for coming over here today and raising this very important issue.

I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming all of them.

[1335]

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery is the next round of students at the PATHWAY Project in my consistency of Langford. The project coordinators, Jen Harrison and Randy Waldie, are here, along with students Dylan Craven, Tash Desrochers, Brandon Foster, Kenny Hodson, Shaye Paquette, Andrew Pilcher, Cody Rowe, Bradlee Rusk, Kathleen Shire, Aaron Smart and Tanner Woolsey. Would the House please make the PATHWAY Project participants very, very welcome.

It's also a very great privilege of mine to introduce a friend and a volunteer in my constituency office, former RCMP officer Krista Carle. She has been outspoken on a whole host of issues about her former employer, and she's a brave, outstanding woman. I want the House to please make her very, very welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: In the gallery today, visiting for the first time since her last visit when she was in high school, is a young lady who is attending Simon Fraser University in the political science program — a community activist and tireless volunteer and also a constituency assistant in my constituency office. Would the House please welcome Christiana Wu, who is with us today.

S. Fraser: I'd like to join the member opposite from Vancouver-Quilchena in welcoming members from Musqueam: Leona Sparrow, the treaty director; Ken McGregor, band manager; Dianne Sparrow, assistant treaty director; Trudi Cornick; and Amber Cornick.

Along with those members from Musqueam, I see the Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, president of the UBCIC; also Bob Chamberlin, the vice-president; and Don Bain, the executive director. Will this House join me in making them all feel very welcome.

R. Howard: We had the great pleasure of having lunch in the legislative dining room this afternoon, the three Richmond MLAs, to welcome friends and supporters and constituents from Richmond. We have the Yung family with us: Dr. Eric Yung, who was a Richmond board of education trustee and is also with the Terry Fox Institute as a research fellow; his wife, Dr. Grace Cheng, who is a scientist with the Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre; and their two lovely children — Megan, who is nine, and Evan, who is four. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three friends of mine who are in the gallery today: Katy Alkins-Jang, Brian Nasu and Lee Loftus. Please join me to give them a warm welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to join in welcoming friends from the Musqueam band and ask everyone to please welcome Laurence Paul, Wayne Point, Ruth Point, Susan Point and Robert "Bob" Guerin. Everyone, please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Visiting in the gallery this afternoon are several individuals from the office of protocol. They are Melanie Peterson and Jenny Pescod.

Accompanying Melanie and Jenny is Mark Collins, who is the protocol manager with the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. Mark worked as a B.C. legislative news reporter from 1980 to 1988, serving as president of the B.C. legislative press gallery for his last two years. He then worked in communications with the B.C. government Ministries of Government Services, Transportation and Highways, Finance, Corporate Relations, and Intergovernmental Relations.

Accompanying Melanie and Jenny is Mark Collins, who is the protocol manager with the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. Mark worked as a B.C. legislative news reporter from 1980 to 1988, serving as president of the B.C. legislative press gallery for his last two years. He then worked in communications with the B.C. government Ministries of Government Services, Transportation and Highways, Finance, Corporate Relations, and Intergovernmental Relations.

J. Kwan: I'd like to join with the members of the House in welcoming members of the Musqueam band. In particular, I'd like to ask the House to please welcome Abigail Speck, Brooke Peters, Brea Guerin, Kim Guerin and also Kweyacan Guerin. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

K. Conroy: I have two sets of introductions today. We have a delegation from the city of Castlegar, including our mayor, His Worship Lawrence Chernoff; newly elected

[ Page 11806 ]

councillor Dan Rye — it's his first time here in Victoria

and first time at QP — and the city administrator, John Malcolm, who I understand is also a good friend of the Minister of Transportation. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

I also have the pleasure to welcome back to the precinct Pratik Modha. Pratick worked here in the '90s in a number of capacities, including with two Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — Corky Evans and Ed Conroy. I know that was an incredibly tough position for him to do, and he said he was always up to the job.

He has since then worked — he's moved up in the world — for the Premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, as well as a number of other ministers, and is currently working with Manitoba Lotteries Corp. He is back here visiting with his wife, Laurie Bailey — who was a former legislative reporter in Winnipeg but now works for Winnipeg Free Press — and his mom, Sheroo Modha. Sheroo also spent ten years working here in the Legislature. She was here yesterday visiting with friends and colleagues, and it was great to see her too. So would everyone please join me in welcoming them back to Victoria.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hi sa' ap ca, I raise my hands to our guests from Musqueam Nation here today to speak very strongly and with great force for c̍ǝsnaʔǝm and for the Marpole midden site, the national historic site.

I just want to welcome, in specific, Coun. Nora Stogan; Ashley Thorne; Jeri Sparrow; Coun. Howard Grant; and the health program manager, Coreen Paul. Please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to join with my colleagues in welcoming a number of members of the Musqueam band who are here today to speak to members of the Legislature. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge the lands manager, Fran Guerin, along with K. Louise Point, Aaron Wilson, Richard Bud James and Victor Guerin. Please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

QUADRA VILLAGE DAY

R. Fleming: I wanted to rise today to give recognition to a wonderful community event which takes place in my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. I'm referring to the annual Quadra Village Day which takes place this Saturday, May 12.

Quadra Village Day was originally established to bring community members together and raise funds for improvements to the Quadra village area. This is an area that was once a very vibrant commercial centre in Victoria. It's just north of our downtown. But by the 1980s major retailers and grocers had left the area, leaving storefront vacancies and struggling businesses.

It was in the 1990s that the city, the province — mainly through ICBC and community members — began to fund improvements in things like safe walking in intersections and to start a revitalization of a business area that today is attracting all kinds of new entrepreneurs and activity and over the last 15 years has done some wonderful things.

The funds from Quadra Village Day and from the ongoing planning activity continue to fund physical improvements in the area — things like litter bins and benches and bike racks and attractive light poles, including public art and a banner project. These improvements have created an attractive and enhanced pedestrian environment which benefits businesses in the Quadra village area as well as the residents who call this area home on a daily basis.

The community event continues to grow every year. Last year Quadra Village Day brought over 2,000 community members out to support each other, to enjoy and learn from one another. It's for this reason that the planning committee wants to continue the tradition of holding Quadra Village Day — towards making it an even better, free, grassroots multicultural festival that brings people together.

I continue to benefit enormously from having my constituency office situated in the heart of Quadra village. It's a place where the sense of community has grown immeasurably over recent years, where there is a place of pride now. The members of the community and the business owners there have done tremendous things, and I wish all members of the House to send their best regards to Quadra Village Days and the volunteers involved.

SURREY TOUR OF INDUSTRY

AND FOREST COMPANY ISSUES

D. Hayer: Last Friday I joined the Surrey Board of Trade's third tour of the industry. It was organized by Surrey Board of Trade CEO Anita Huberman and president Mary Jane Stenberg. The tour showcased many of Surrey's industries and future development. It was broken into three tour groups, with each group visiting different business operations. On each of the three buses, tour clarification was provided by Randy Heed and Colliers International staff.

[1345]

The group I was with toured the lumber, beverage and agriculture industries within Surrey — the lumber operations of Teal-Jones, the Mill and Timber Products Ltd., Central City Brewing and the Honeybee Centre.

Teal-Jones Group's owners, Tom and Dick Jones, and their workers; Mill and Timber's David Gray; and Surrey Board of Trade members brought forward some of their concerns regarding fairness in the timber allocations

[ Page 11807 ]

given to the local milling industry, while an increased

amount of raw logs are shipped overseas. They said they are well-paying employers, yet their mills are having a difficult time obtaining raw logs, while the export of raw logs is increasing. They are asking for fairness in the raw log allocation policy so that our local mills will not suffer from the shortage of wood to process.

Teal-Jones Group is also looking for fairness in the claims settlement and to have clear and fair government policies that define and limit the time it takes to solve claims against the government.

I mention this because our government prides itself on openness, accountability and fairness, and my constituents believe we need to look very closely at how we deal with what has always been the backbone of British Columbia's local economy, the lumber industry.

I also believe that government, regardless of which political party it represents, and our bureaucrats should listen to the concerns of our constituents and businesses to be fair and treat them fairly.

GROUP OF FIVE FUNDRAISING

FOR ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

D. Black: I often quote anthropologist Margaret Mead, who said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

The truth of this statement is demonstrated by the significant contribution that a small group of committed women have made to Royal Columbian Hospital and to New Westminster. In 2004, after being named New Westminster citizen of the year, Gerda Suess decided that she wanted to give back even more to our community, so she recruited a few friends, and the Group of Five was born.

One of the women, Shirley Piper, identified a need at Royal Columbian Hospital to purchase small items of medical equipment for which there was no budget. Since then they've raised over $100,000 to purchase hospital equipment. One year it was five calf compression devices which prevent the formation of blood clots. The next, they donated a new gurney and a power drill-wire driver for the fracture clinic. Other purchases include a blanket warmer, an operating room surgical hand table, cast removal equipment and a sit-to-stand lift.

A highlight was the acquisition of three body forms to position a patient on the operating table. Until that time, laundry bags had been used for this purpose. Recently they covered the cost of two skeletons used to help patients understand the treatment that they're receiving.

The Group of Five holds two fundraisers each year which receive generous support from many citizens in New Westminster and many businesses. I'm attending their spring luncheon again tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to hearing from these amazing women what their next project will be to assist Royal Columbian Hospital.

CARDIAC ARRESTS AND

AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS

M. Stilwell: Every 26 minutes another Canadian suffers a sudden cardiac arrest. It happens without warning, striking anyone, anywhere, killing more Canadians each year than car accidents, diabetes, breast and prostate cancer combined.

The majority of people killed by sudden cardiac arrest have no previous history of heart disease. Without help, the sudden cardiac arrest victims have just minutes to live. Each minute that passes decreases their chance of survival by nearly 10 percent, and their survival rate out of hospital is just 5 percent.

Those survival rates are due in part to a shortage of automated external defibrillators at public places. AEDs are cost-effective, easy-to-use, life-saving devices that deliver a shock to cardiac arrest victims whose hearts need defibrillation. AEDs can significantly increase a victim's chance of survival and are small enough that they can be installed at locations throughout any community, such as recreation centres, arenas and schools.

Organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation have been instrumental in leading public access defibrillation programs, coordinating the placement of AEDs around the country. To date more than 3,000 AEDs have been installed nationwide.

Manitoba is the only province to pass legislation that makes registering and maintaining AEDs mandatory. This legislation ensures that all devices are properly maintained so that they work when needed and also ensures that 911 dispatchers have access to a registry and can assist those helping a sudden cardiac arrest victim by guiding them to the nearest AED.

[1350]

Our province can do better and save lives. By setting in place protocols for distributing and maintaining these life-saving tools, we can guard against further loss of life.

ASCD WHOLE CHILD AWARD WIN BY

BYRNE CREEK SECONDARY SCHOOL

R. Chouhan: On May 7, I had the opportunity to attend the award ceremony for Burnaby's Byrne Creek Secondary winning the prestigious ASCD Whole Child Award. Byrne Creek is the first Canadian school to win this award, which is given to a school that goes beyond the focus on academic achievement and educates the whole child.

[ Page 11808 ]

With the challenges that Byrne Creek faces and the

huge range of learning needs, it has found unique learning solutions to serve the new immigrant and refugee families that make up our community. Grade 12 student Mahjobeh Badakhsh explained the community at Byrne Creek to me this way. She said:

"Students of Byrne Creek Secondary have stumbled on an amazing opportunity to gain insight about life lessons that simply cannot be covered in a classroom. Students find themselves viewing the world through various different perspectives and understanding life as they listen to stories of struggle and survival from their peers.

"Through this, they not only gain knowledge but gain wisdom that allows them to grow into wise, accepting and independent individuals.

"This is everything the ASCD Whole Child Award stands for, and I am proud to have ever been part of the loving family at Byrne Creek Secondary."

Byrne Creek's success is a collaborative effort, and I would like to thank principal David Rawnsley and the enormous effort of the teachers, staff and school board who work directly with the students each day for everything they have done to make Burnaby-Edmonds a better community.

MÉTIS COMMUNITY AND ORGANIZATIONS

M. Dalton: In the 1700s and 1800s French Canadians, Scots and others of European descent paddled and trekked across what is now western Canada. Many of these fur traders and explorers married native women, and from them, the Métis people were born.

The Métis were noted for their horseback riding, buffalo hunting, and many were coureurs du bois , runners of the woods. Farming became an important occupation for many of them.

The Charter recognizes the Métis as an aboriginal people, and today 600,000 Canadians identify themselves as Métis, including over 66,000 in British Columbia. The Métis are one of the fastest-growing people groups in Canada.

My Métis heritage is very important to me. My grandmother spoke Cree and French. My great-granduncle was the captain of a Métis horseback force called the St. Albert Mounted Rifles. My father, Peter Dalton, is very knowledgable in living off the land and makes great bannock and pemmican.

The Métis have a rich heritage in this province, and the government has been supportive in numerous ways, including the signing of the Métis Nation relationship accord, which develops partnerships in education, health, housing and other opportunities.

In Maple Ridge the Golden Ears Métis Society, or GEMS, was just established. Lisa Shepherd, Kelly Swift, Sherry Thompson and others took the initiative to provide opportunities for the 1,000 local Métis to connect with one another and learn more about their heritage and culture. Thanks to GEMS, other similar societies and the Métis Nation B.C. for engaging British Columbian Métis in helping them to reinstil our roots.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS MATERIALS

DURING BY-ELECTION PERIOD

J. Horgan: The B.C. Food Processors Association produces a monthly newsletter. In the April edition the newsletter contained an insert, "Growing Jobs, Increasing Demands for B.C. Food Products." The B.C. logo was on the top of the document. Canada Starts Here, the B.C. jobs plan logo, was on the bottom of the document.

[1355]

My question is either to the Minister of Jobs or the Minister of Agriculture. Which ministry produced this advertorial?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a new question.

J. Horgan: The B.C. Food Processors Association produces a newsletter. In it, as I said in my first question, was a document inserted by the government of British Columbia. The question is to the Attorney General. In that document there is reference to the NDP three times. In fact, this document characterizes NDP policy incorrectly and is a deliberate partisan attack.

My question to the Attorney General is: during the by-election period of April in Chilliwack-Hope, did the government of British Columbia register as a third-party advertiser?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not familiar with the document. I've not seen it before. I've taken the question on notice. If the member opposite would care to provide me with a copy, we'll follow it up.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, my supplemental question was not to the Minister of Jobs but the minister responsible for the Election Act, because it appears to me, on the surface of this document, that the Election Act has been violated.

The document was produced in April of 2012. It would have been distributed widely in the Fraser Valley. In fact, the head office for this organization is in the Fraser Valley.

In the Chilliwack-Hope by-election, during the election period — at a time, interestingly, that we're debating

[ Page 11809 ]

changes to the Election Act — it would appear that gov-

ernment staff were used for partisan purposes and that literature was distributed by the government of British Columbia during the election period.

Again, my question is to the Attorney General. Does she agree with me that it's inappropriate for government material to be referring to an opposition party during a pre-election period?

Hon. P. Bell: I've already told the member opposite that I'll take the question on notice. If I receive a copy of the document, I'll follow it up.

M. Karagianis: Moments after the by-elections were over, a press release went out, issued to the media, that said: "I'm so proud of the great work of the strong B.C. Liberal candidates." That press release, oddly enough, was not issued by the B.C. Liberal Party. In fact, it was issued from the government Office of the Premier. The government director of communications, her communications director, was put down as a person of contact — a taxpayer-funded position.

Again to the Attorney General, can she inform the public how many government and ministry resources have been used in this kind of Liberal propaganda?

Hon. S. Bond: As to the previous question, we'll take that on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a new question.

M. Karagianis: When the government issues a news release that directly attacks New Democrats and names them in that, that's questionable. A news release that is issued from a legislative office….

Mr. Speaker: Member, I asked you whether you had a new question.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to talk about the policy.

After 11 years I would think the government would know what every taxpayer knows — that you cannot use taxpayer dollars for partisan material and partisan attacks on New Democrats or any other party.

I would like to know who is in charge of making sure that the government is not using taxpayers' resources to send out partisan attack ads or partisan attack material, during by-elections or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: Member, that question was taken on notice.

Attorney, if you wish to answer.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I was simply going to remind the member opposite that I have not seen the piece of paper. I would be happy to look at it. If the member opposite has a concern about election financing, the individual to contact would be the Chief Electoral Officer.

MUSQUEAM FIRST NATION

AND MARPOLE MIDDEN SITE

S. Fraser: There is clear evidence documenting continuous occupation of the Marpole village site known as c̍ǝsnaʔǝm for more than 4,000 years. The Musqueam have been trying to protect that site and asked this government for help almost a year ago.

[1400]

Will the Minister of Aboriginal Relations commit today to finally provide that help and work with all parties to ensure that this national historic site is given the proper respect that it deserves?

Hon. S. Thomson: The province fully understands and respects the significance of this site to the Musqueam. I want to add my thanks today to the members of the Musqueam who've travelled over and taken the journey over here to continue to raise awareness about the significance of this site to their history and their culture.

That's why the province is fully engaged with all parties — with the city of Vancouver, with the Musqueam, with the private property owner — in looking for a long-term, workable solution to this issue. We recognize the significance of it, and we've been engaged with all parties for a number of months now, looking towards a longer-term, workable solution. We'll continue to do that.

What's more important and equally important to recognize is that the intact remains remain on site, have not been removed. Work has stopped where the remains are while we continue to work for a long-term, workable solution.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Now, I'm somewhat skeptical of the response, and over 100 Musqueam are also skeptical of that response. The province has been absent from this process. After being asked for help last year, they issued two permits to alter the site just before Christmas when the band office was closed, without even informing the Musqueam. We have a heritage act that allows the destruction of a heritage site. There's a big problem.

This has been a national historic site since 1933. Despite that, it appears that the archaeological branch doesn't recognize that — the only group that doesn't recognize that. In April two intact infant burial sites were found. This is not only a 4,000-year-old village site; it is a pre-contact burial site.

Again to the minister: will you today in this House commit to the Musqueam people and to all the people of British Columbia that c̍ǝsnaʔǝm , this most significant

[ Page 11810 ]

cultural, spiritual and archaeological site, will receive all

of the respect it deserves?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I said, we're aware of the significance of this issue. We've been working very closely with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. But one thing that needs to be clear is that this is not Crown land. This is private land and a private owner. That's why, because of the complexity of it, we've been engaged with all parties, looking for that long-term solution.

We've appointed a facilitator to work with all parties. That active communication and facilitation continues. Work is being done under the guidance of professionals, and we will continue to work with all parties to look to a long-term, workable solution for this important issue.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Liberals claim to recognize the significance of this site. Well, if they truly recognize the significance of this site, I wonder why they allowed a condo to be built on a national historic site.

Now the Liberals say they're working with the Musqueam First Nations. The Musqueam First Nations have put forward a proposal that would help solve this issue, and to date, the Liberals have not responded.

My question is to the minister. When will he respond so that the Musqueam do not have to stand at the site hoping that development won't desecrate that national historic site?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as I said, we fully understand and respect the importance of the significance of this site to the Musqueam. That's why we're engaged with all parties. That's why we've appointed a facilitator to work with all parties to look for that long-term, workable solution. It's going take the cooperation of all parties to do that. We have been engaged with the Musqueam for some period of time. I've had the opportunity to meet with both the Chief and council on it and am working with my colleagues on this issue.

[1405]

I do find it a little surprising, just a little surprising, to have it finally raised in this process in the House. The members opposite…. We're open at anytime for a visit, to come and look at the whole history and all the implications of this, to be able to deal and discuss directly the steps that we're taking in working with the facilitator in looking at this very, very important issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, the permits were issued, and condos have been sold on the site, a site which is a national historic site. Now the minister is trying to play catch-up when the developer is already moving earth around on that very site.

How is that good government, hon. Speaker? How is that respecting heritage? The opposition had a private member's bill, which has come before this House four times and which would have helped to stop situations like this from happening, yet the Liberals — nothing. They did nothing about this bill.

My question to the minister: how can we believe that he's seriously taking action on this, when it was his government that approved the building of a condo on a national historic site?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the province has engaged with a facilitator, with all parties — with the city of Vancouver, with the Musqueam, with the private property owner — working to look for a long-term, workable solution to this important issue. We recognize the importance and the significance of this to the Musqueam. We will continue to work with all parties to look towards that long-term solution.

I want to reaffirm that the important intact remains that have been found through the investigative process remain on site. Work has stopped on that site, and the remains are there. We will continue to work to look towards that solution, working with all parties. It's going to take the cooperation of all parties to find the long-term, workable solution, and we're committed with that facilitator to do that.

CONTRACT AT SPRING VALLEY

CARE CENTRE IN KELOWNA

K. Conroy: At Kelowna's Spring Valley care home 130 workers have been handed layoff notices because the owner of the home has decided to flip his contract to a subcontractor offering a cheaper price. This will create great upheaval in the lives of the up to 150 seniors who live at the home, as strangers will take the place of the familiar people who have cared for them for years.

Why is the Health Minister allowing seniors to pay the price as these companies cause further chaos at our seniors' expense?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member knows that the facility in question is a privately owned and operated facility, although it does contract for many, many beds with the Interior Health Authority.

Here's what's important: pursuant to the terms of that contract and the applicable legislation, there are standards of care that must be maintained. That is our pre-eminent and paramount concern: that the residents of that community are receiving care at the level they are entitled to and that the operator is required to give, pursuant to the contract with Interior Health and applicable legislation.

Inspectors are available and are prepared now to ensure, during any kind of transition of the sort being de-

[ Page 11811 ]

scribed here, that those standards are maintained to the

benefit of the residents.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: The seniors that lived in that home were just fine with the care being provided. They were meeting the standards. They were meeting the regulations. In fact, the contractor had another three years on their contract.

But the company — because they can, because of policies by this B.C. Liberal government — is allowed to say: "We don't want you anymore. We're going to get rid of you. You're too expensive. We're going to bring in cheaper care." And that's what's happening, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the quality of care, when that happens in facilities, directly impacts the seniors living in the facilities when they lose their caregivers. We know that every time that staff changes, the care is impacted, and seniors suffer. And when 130 people lose their jobs, it's going to significantly hurt the seniors in that facility.

[1410]

Under the B.C. Liberals seniors are paying more for care and getting less care. Will the minister commit today to stop this revolving door of companies so that they can give seniors the continuity of care and the dignity that they deserve?

Hon. M. de Jong: Broadly speaking, residential care is provided in British Columbia by one of three groups: about a third directly by government, about a third by non-profit agencies and about a third by the private sector. We think there is an appropriate place for all three of those agencies.

What I think I hear the member coming perilously close to doing, on behalf of the official opposition, is actually articulating a policy position, which is that she believes the government should dictate and manage and run every single facility, including a privately owned facility. That is not the policy of this government.

The policy of this government, reflected in the contracts that are signed with health authorities and the applicable legislation, is that standards will be defined, inspectors will be in place to enforce and seniors will receive quality, dignified care in an ever-expanding range of residential care facilities.

CALL FOR SENIORS ADVOCATE

M. Farnworth: I hear the Minister of Education say there's a new policy coming. Well, actually, I want to talk about a policy that the government has said they're going to implement.

Seniors around this province have been waiting with bated breath, and there has still been no action on that policy. That is the implementation of one of the recommendations in the Ombudsperson's report on seniors, and that is the creation of a seniors advocate position. That's a policy that would be most welcome in the province of British Columbia. Unfortunately, we have yet to see it.

The case outlined by my colleague from Kootenay West is an example of why we need a seniors advocate. We have different methods of long-term care facilities in this province, but one thing that would make the entire system work is the creation of a seniors advocate who can advocate on behalf of seniors, regardless of where they are, regardless of the type of accommodation they're in, in the province.

The government has made many statements on the issue, but we've yet to see action. Can the Minister of Health give this House and the seniors of this province a firm timeline as to when the position of seniors advocate will finally be implemented in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I can do that and more. I can also invite the hon. member to correct the record when he stands up for the inevitable supplemental. In fact, the recommendation for the creation of a seniors advocate was not in the Ombudsperson's report. It is something this government committed to because we care about seniors.

The Ombudsperson's report contained a series of very, very important recommendations. But we went beyond the Ombudsperson's report and said that seniors in this province deserve to have a seniors advocate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: We are about to begin the consultative process in the next few days, in fact — the next few days or next week — to speak with British Columbians directly and seniors organizations to ensure that the mandate that is identified for the seniors advocate is one that enjoys the broad support of seniors organizations and seniors themselves right across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Health. There's a bill on the order paper in the name of the member for Kootenay West. Will the minister commit to call that bill tomorrow? We can pass it tomorrow and have a seniors advocate in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

[ Page 11812 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: No, I won't, and for two reasons. I'm not in the House Leader business anymore, and the member knows something about that.

Also, I believe that what British Columbia seniors require is an advocate who has a mandate that goes beyond merely regulating the relationship between the senior and the state. I believe that when 90-year-old seniors find themselves in a position where a private sector developer is improperly withholding a deposit that has been paid to them, there is a role for a seniors advocate to play in assisting that senior, from a consumer protection point of view.

That is why we are consulting with British Columbians, with seniors and with seniors organizations to ensure that when we appoint the seniors advocate, they have a mandate that will allow them to provide practical, on-the-ground assistance to seniors at that most important time in their life.

LOG EXPORT POLICY AND TIMBER EXPORT

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DECISIONS

B. Routley: From Port Alberni south to Sooke, logs from lands formerly in tree farm licences contribute to the millions of cubic metres of raw logs that are being exported from B.C. No manufacturing jobs or value-added jobs will be created from these log exports, and no real revenue to B.C. from these logs either.

For every boom of logs that is exported, this B.C. government collects just 14 bucks. You heard it right — 14 bucks.

The tree farm licence deletions continue to cost jobs in B.C. Why has the minister refused to act to protect the public interest, and why has he not acted to ensure logs create jobs right here in B.C.?

Hon. S. Thomson: The members opposite continue to like to throw out numbers. Here's a number that's important. The lumber exports to China…. Who is the number one exporter of lumber to China? That's British Columbia.

Lumber exports of 7.3 million cubic metres. That's the equivalent of 18 mills, 9,000 jobs in British Columbia. Those are numbers. That's what's keeping people working in British Columbia — a balanced approach where log exports, which we've had since 1912, are providing that balance that ensures that we have lumber for domestic mills.

We have a surplus test in place for the domestic mills. The diversified market is what's building capacity in this industry and building investment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: We know that the minister has on his desk at this moment a report from the timber export advisory committee recommending that logs bound for export be redirected to B.C. mills. We know that companies like Teal-Jones in Surrey and Coastland in Nanaimo would add jobs if they could get the logs. All this minister has to do to create those jobs is to do nothing.

The minister has overruled the advisory committee 86 times to export logs. Will the minister please just do nothing in this case? Will he commit to not overrule the committee and keep those logs in B.C. so that B.C. logs can create B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, 7.3 million cubic metres of lumber exported. The number one supplier to the market is British Columbia — number one in the world. That's what's building and creating jobs in British Columbia. All across British Columbia 18 mills are producing lumber for China — 9,000 jobs.

[1420]

That's why we're seeing investment in the industry. That's why we're seeing, to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, a $38½ million investment reopening the Radium mill; $1½ million in Canal Flats, the mill reopening in Vavenby.

The balanced policy, the balanced approach towards diversifying the market, is what's creating jobs and economic activity in British Columbia all across communities. We will continue to focus on that.

We continue to work with the timber export advisory committee in the efficient administration of the surplus test. We've engaged with them, as I've indicated before in this House. We're going to continue to engage with them to make sure that the surplus test, which is the foundation of the export policy, is managed efficiently and effectively.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister can speak to all the fiction that he wants. There's a reality here. The reality is that there is a process that is in place. The reality is that for 30 years a minister did not interfere with the expert advice from the timber advisory committee. But this minister, since December, has interfered 87 times, and in those cases what we have seen are raw log exports spike even more. We have seen Western Forest Products up 40 percent in the first three months of this year in raw log exports.

We know that every log sent offshore means that there is not enough for mills here in British Columbia. That is the fact.

I have a question for the minister. With the recommendations that are on the minister's desk, has he overturned the committee, or does he intend to overturn the expert advice of the timber export advisory committee?

Hon. S. Thomson: The reality is — and the member opposite indicated this — 30 years of an approach from the timber export advisory committee that has been con-

[ Page 11813 ]

sistent in terms of how they applied the fair-market-value and the surplus test.

The timber export advisory committee changed their process. To the member opposite, they changed their process, changed how they administered it. I think it's incumbent upon government, when that happens, to be able to review the policy.

That's what we're doing. We've engaged TEAC. We have independent expert advice being provided. That expert has met with TEAC. They've had input to the process. We're engaging further to make sure that the surplus test and the fair-market test, the two components of the surplus test, are administered fairly, equitably and efficiently.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

CHANGES TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION

ON FISH HABITAT PROTECTION

R. Fleming: During estimates debate I asked the Minister of Environment what he planned to do about the far-reaching impacts of federal changes to the Fisheries Act on British Columbia. He said he would not act on "speculation" and that his ministry had "not been consulted" and had had "no advance notice of changes to the Fisheries Act" but they "expect to be fully engaged by the federal government should any changes occur." On May 3 the minister said in this House: "We'd actually like to see the legislation before we make up a position on it."

Well, the bill was placed on the order paper in the House of Commons on April 26, and today the Conservative federal government is imposing a time limit on debate of the most sweeping changes to federal environmental law in 40 years — a limit that will likely push these changes through to be law within seven days.

I ask the Minister of Environment this: isn't it long past time that he took a position on exactly how this will impact B.C.'s fish and fish habitats and the future of our commercial fishery, our recreational fishery and aboriginal fisheries in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: I would say that British Columbians expect — and we certainly support the fact — that we have to protect fish habitat in this province. But we also recognize that there has to be a commonsense approach.

If the member opposite would like to talk to some of the agriculture producers in the Fraser Valley and learn about how they have to manage drainage ditches because of legislation that is decades and decades old…. Well, perhaps he would like to speak with them about how there is not a lot of common sense to some aspects of the old legislation.

[1425]

We will work with the federal government. We will ensure that critical habitat for fish is sustained and protected in a commonsense way that makes sense for British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will continue committee stage of Bill 41, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. Following that we will move to Bill 36, intituled the School Amendment Act, 2012. Should there be time, we would then move to Bill 37, intituled the Animal Health Act. In estimates this afternoon in

Section A we'll be doing the Ministry of Health.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 2), 2012

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 41; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

R. Fleming: To the minister, I wanted to ask him some questions just about credits and debits. First of all, maybe he could just begin summarizing the major changes in definition under the amendments. The bill description is a bit scant. It's almost…. Well, it's entirely for my benefit, but just to begin discussion of this section, I wonder if he could outline the changes from how credits and debits will be calculated and remitted to government.

Hon. R. Coleman: We covered some of this in the previous sections with the previous critic. Basically, there's nothing remitted to government here. This is basically a report through the annual report that's based on a calculation. The credit they would receive is one tonne of CO 2 emissions for compliance.

That compliance concept of credit is different in this act versus the previous act, because before we were dealing with a weighted average. The weighted average is what made this very complicated, because we had the blended fuels. Now we don't have that, so now the credit can be applied to the fuel class of an individual fuel class.

[1435]

R. Fleming: I know that in the jurisdiction of California there is a market where fuel suppliers trade credits and that B.C., I suppose — as I'm reading this legislation — allows trading of credits, in theory. I'm just

[ Page 11814 ]

wondering how formalized a system does he anticipate will be set up between fuel suppliers, as a basis of these amendments.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's only tradeable between fuel suppliers in British Columbia and no one else. We are in the process of adapting and adopting the software that California has for doing that trading oversight, but only in British Columbia will they be able to trade between suppliers.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister…. He mentioned that British Columbia is sort of in mid-process of adopting a system that they have modelled on California's, where tradeable credits are presumably brokered or sold, and how that will work in B.C. — specifically, the role of government oversight. The director, of course, validates the credits. I'm just wondering, when they're in the realm of exchange, what he thinks the role of government will be in overseeing that.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we're not going to create any kind of a trading exchange. Secondly, the software we're going to use is what we'll adapt for B.C. We're not adopting California rules. It would be traded within British Columbia only, and it'll be reported out as part of their annual report to us.

R. Fleming: Does the minister have any information about the estimated value of credits based on volumes of fuel sold in British Columbia today?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we don't. Until the system actually comes into place and the fuels are separated and the carbon measurements are in place, it would only be me guessing at a value, because it'll be, like I say, not an exchange. It's only between people within British Columbia and nowhere else, so it's not like it's going to have some international pricing point, and it's not going to have some kind of stock exchange type of impact.

R. Fleming: In debating amendments in 2012 about a compliance period that began in 2010 but which is going to be extended to a startup date in 2013, I would appreciate the minister's indulgence to just answer some questions about how credits may have been already accumulated.

There have been companies in the precompliance period meeting the government's regulations. Have they been earning credits, and what has been the value? How have those credits been redeemed, and how have they been used by those fuel suppliers?

Hon. R. Coleman: During the reporting period only, there is zero value, zero credits and zero trading.

[1440]

R. Fleming: I appreciate the exactitude of the answer.

I wanted to ask the minister about subsection (5) of

section 21, which deals with validation. Sorry, there are a number of sections that do here. There is (4) and (5) through subsection (7).

I wonder if the minister could, first of all, describe the difference between the three-month period and the compliance period in terms of its calendar year but also the role of the director here in validating credits. I guess it would probably be helpful, maybe, if he would confirm if this is a function that's going to begin in 2013.

Hon. R. Coleman: The thinking was that in order for companies to exchange credits within any given period, they would need to know that they exist — or what exists.

This creates a voluntary structure to report to the director every three months, by which he can validate possible credits that exist. Some companies may choose not to do that every three months. It's not mandatory. They can play catch-up within the calendar year, near the calendar year, with the reporting.

The real reason for this is just those who want to have information, share information, about credits that may be available — to allow the ability to know that, through the director, by doing this voluntary submission.

R. Fleming: Then, just to put it another way for the minister, the compliance period would be the maximum amount of time you could defer reconciling the credits that have been earned. I wonder if you could answer that.

Hon. R. Coleman: They have to report within any calendar year. That's mandatory.

R. Fleming: In this

section there are a number of clauses that deal with the discussion we were having a minute ago, if I can go back to it, around transfers of credits. The minister, in a couple of answers, said that B.C. does not now and nor will it have a tradeable credit market modelled on the California one.

I'm just wondering, because there's an allowance for transferable credits between different fuel suppliers, if he could just sort of clarify for me the difference between a formal tradeable credits market versus what B.C. is pursuing here, which is a transferable-credits regulated activity by the director.

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is credits between fuel suppliers in British Columbia only. That provides them with certainty to know what's available if they need to trade between companies. There is no need for brokers, no need for banks and no need for an exchange under this model. It is strictly a model of…. If one company wishes to trade a credit that's been verified by the director, they can trade it within B.C. only, so there's no need for the

[ Page 11815 ]

other stuff.

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering if there is a scenario — might be a bizarre scenario — where there was a fuel supplier having a very difficult time complying and sourcing fuel according to these regulations and the company that had accumulated credits — whether there might be activity where there were transferable credits that were above the face value of those credits or whether that's something that would not likely occur.

Hon. R. Coleman: Not likely at all. This is only between suppliers. There's a limited amount of suppliers in British Columbia, so it's a very small area with regards to this. There's not going to be, I guess, a marketplace where you're going to have brokers that doing trading and all that. That's just not going to take place, because it can't. It can only take place between the actual suppliers, in British Columbia only.

R. Fleming: Between fuel suppliers, when they fill out their compliance reports and calculate credits or debits owing to them…. If the value of credits earned is the same as debits or penalties, if you like, for the fuel — is that the reason why there's not likely to be an incremental market value for credits? Really, a fuel supplier that's interested in acquiring credits would just as likely pay the debits in their compliance period.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the first thing that should be clear is this is not likely to occur. First, by separating the fuel sources…. All suppliers I've spoken to say they will be able to comply and meet the issue with regard to fuel supply.

But let's say, for instance, they had less credits calculated versus their carbon content, and they were in noncompliance. There would be two things that could happen. One, they could pay a penalty, which is identified, and they would pay that penalty to the Ministry of Finance, to the consolidated revenue fund.

I'll use an example, and we'll just pick two companies. Let's say there was a Shell and a Chevron. The Chevron was a little less, and the Shell one was a little high. So they had more credits than they needed, and Chevron needed a few more credits to get into compliance.

[1450]

So rather than having to pay a penalty, they chose to buy the credits from the other company. That's a deal between those two companies, and none of the pricing is set by government.

R. Fleming: The question I was asking was whether buying the credits had a higher value than avoidance of the penalty — therefore, that there was an interest in companies to purchase excess credits by another fuel supplier. So is that the case, that the cost of doing business is cheaper by acquiring additional credits than by facing penalties?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's a decision they get to make. We don't make it for them. So if they can get, you know, credits that would bring them up to compliance and save them a penalty, they can do that. They can negotiate with the other company that may have the credits. But as I said earlier, every company that I've talked to says that by separating the fuel supply, they feel that they'll all be in compliance. They won't have any difficulty.

R. Fleming: There's another subsection here that deals with…. "Part 3 agreements" is the header in the bill. It refers to agreements the director may enter into with

part 3 fuel suppliers. It's subsection 8.01(2) that I wanted to ask the minister about.

Let me just read it into the record."The director may not enter into an agreement under this

section unless the director is satisfied that the action a

Part 3 fuel supplier proposes to take under the agreement has a reasonable possibility of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions resulting from the use of

Part 3 fuels."

I wanted to ask the minister about the determination of reasonable possibility by the director and what sorts of things will inform a decision under this clause.

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, the director will look at the proposal on its merits, initially — the reasonableness, other jurisdictions, the business plan and the scientific evidence — to make the decision.

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering if the minister could give a bit more of a description about what scientific evidence might look like in guiding the director to make this determination and this decision.

[1455]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and use an example to maybe clarify it for the member. The

part 3 guys aren't the guys that are doing the gasoline and diesel — right? This is to incent, frankly, things like E85, where somebody will come with something…. They say: "We can do an additional additive fuel to lower the carbon content." The director is going to say, "Well, I need to know the business case. I need to know the scientific information behind it," because this allows for up to a maximum additional 25 percent with regards to it.

So it's an incentive to see if we can find other fuel sources, similar to what the member was talking about earlier with what we referred to as yellow grease, I guess — not quite that one, but some other product coming in. The director has to be satisfied that, added to the fuel, it's going to work, before he gives the equivalency relative to the CO 2

content.

[ Page 11816 ]

R. Fleming: I appreciate the minister's answer and the connection to the 25 percent credit bonus, if it can be called that. I'm just wondering why the number 25 percent was arrived at for determination and for the expansion and incentivizing, as he's described it.

Hon. R. Coleman: Through consultations we went out and came through with industry, this was added. They felt that this would push the envelope past the 10 percent by 2020 and actually push the credit within the marketplace to comply, to get past a higher level simply because it would push to allow other fuels — which may not be known today at the same level or could have the impact that we're looking for — into the system to be added to the fuel source to produce the carbon.

R. Fleming: If I could just go back to some of the director's powers. Under

section 21 here, subsection (5), the director "may agree to issue credits" — there are terms of which he or she may do so — "under a

Part 3 agreement for an action in respect of which the

Part 3 fuel supplier also generates, or is likely to generate" — so there's future-oriented — "credits under

section 6 (4)…for the same or a different compliance period."

I'm just wondering if there are any restrictions on how far into the future the likely-to-generate-credits horizon would have under these regulations.

[1500]

Hon. R. Coleman: This allows the director basically to move into a longer-term relationship with the milestones if somebody is developing a fuel that will actually have a positive impact on the content of carbon in fuel. One tonne is always one tonne in this discussion. One tonne of carbon is one tonne of carbon.

The contract would have milestones, and if the milestones were reached, they would then receive their credit. Those credits would be with them until the future, until they actually demonstrated that the credits were now usable, because they actually were using the fuel that would come into the mix.

J. Horgan: Can the minister clarify if they can earn credits now?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll go back to one note. I gave the other member an answer with regard to this.

Basically, we're in a reporting period. So there's no value, no credits, no nothing. When we come in, in July of 2013, we would then start to measure the credits to make sure the low-carbon fuel standards under

part 2 were being met. I had a conversation with the member opposite with regard to how that would be only within British Columbia.

This second piece, which is

part 3, which allows for different fuel additives — for lack of a better description — to come into the mix in 2013, would be done by regulation. When they enter in an agreement with the director on that fuel, they can start earning credits. But they do not get to use the credits until they can prove and demonstrate that the actual product is being used in creating what would be the reduction in the CO 2 by tonne.

J. Horgan: I appreciate…. My colleagues advised me of the fact that we're debating sections that have not come into force. We're now amending those sections, and they will come into force July 2013. Until that time, credits will not be collected, and trading will not take place. That's the answer the minister gave.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister and his staff could clarify why we're repealing this

section and replacing it with the amended document.

Hon. R. Coleman: The previous

section anticipated the weighted average, which this changes with the separation of the fuel. This is a simpler system — just a system of debits and credits and penalty.

J. Horgan: In the calculation it says the penalty rate will be prescribed by regulation. Will those regulations come into play in 2013 or beyond?

[1505]

Hon. R. Coleman: The regulation is already in place. One credit or debit is from one tonne of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions. The penalty rate was set by regulation at $200 per tonne of carbon dioxide–equivalent emissions. That's in place now.

The change here is the change to the different form of administrative penalty which allows for the debits and the credits, basically, on your carbon that you have, with the intensity of your fuel. The penalty rate is….

If you're zero on that, a zero-sum gain, then you have zero of the $200 you'd have to pay to the consolidated revenue fund, to the Minister of Finance. If you were, let's say, ten tonnes over your allowance, of what you're allowed, then you'd be paying ten times $200. If you were under, well, you'd just not pay anything, but you'd have some credits, so then you could trade the credits with a guy that's ten over within British Columbia, and he could get to even as well.

J. Horgan: The federal guidelines that are currently in place and currently active — how will we mesh? Is this the appropriate

section to be discussing that? If you've touched upon it with my colleague, that's fair enough. We've got two sets of rules — one in effect and one not

[ Page 11817 ]

yet in effect. How will that impact suppliers when the two are harmonized, if I could use that word?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're not one and the same. The federal measurements are renewable volumes, and this is about carbon intensity, so they're completely separate. What they're doing doesn't affect this.

J. Horgan: In previous questions the minister spoke about the consultation process that he undertook when he became minister. During that consultation process, did suppliers raise issues and concerns about having to meet requirements at the federal and provincial levels — admittedly, both on different apples and different oranges but, nonetheless, increasing the burden on providing low-emission fuels to British Columbians?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. Actually, the opposite. Of course, the federal standards are lower on the one fuel and the same as ours on the other. When we went to industry, they said: "If you can separate the fuels, we don't have a problem here." It's the mix; it's the blend and the weighted piece that was causing the problem. Through that consultation, they said: "Yes, we have no difficulty, we think, in meeting these standards if you do it this way versus the other." That's why the separation of the fuels.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

J. Horgan: Could the minister explain this amendment?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's basically the same description. It's consequential, due to the separation of fuels. So it's how we're going to be credits and debits versus the previous, and that's the consequential.

Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

J. Horgan: Could the minister explain this amendment?

Hon. R. Coleman: This adds "general regulation-making power respecting applications and proposals under the act." This bill introduces a number of possible applications and proposals. This provision provides the ability to make regulations governing applications and proposals, should this prove necessary.

J. Horgan: Could the minister provide potential scenarios where this would prove necessary?

[1510]

Hon. R. Coleman: This comes out of our consultations and discussions within the ministry. We have no specific examples as yet. But the consultations that we'll go through as we continue to have different opportunities for fuels that would come in by application to the director…. This would allow them, after the decision, to put it into the reg that something else can be added to a mix and what credit it would get for its carbon intensity and that sort of thing.

New fuels would probably be the classic example of this, which means you don't have to come back to the Legislature to amend the legislation to, basically, complete the work of the director if there's something you need to add.

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

J. Horgan: This

section is also consequential. However, in the explanatory notes for

section 27 is: "repeals a spent regulation-making power." Could the minister identify what that spent power is and why it's spent?

Hon. R. Coleman: The spent power is in the first act under

part 2. A

part 2 fuel supplier could include "renewable fuel supplied by the

Part 2 fuel supplier in the 12 months immediately before the start of that compliance period." That's a spent power because we no longer need it. That would have been 2009, and it's no longer needed.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

J. Horgan: There are a number of, again, consequential amendments in

section 28. I would draw the minister's attention to 28(c): "respecting the calculation under

section 6 (4) [low carbon fuel requirement], including, without limitation, prescribing the following." It goes through the "carbon intensity" and "carbon intensities."

I wonder, while we have an expert on your right, if you could give me an explanation as to why we're making these changes.

Hon. R. Coleman: Originally when the act was done, there wasn't enough information to inform on carbon intensity specifics, as there hadn't been the reporting periods. Now that we've had the reporting periods, we have more information, so we can now be more specific. Our legal advice was to put more specific wording into the legislation.

[1515]

J. Horgan: I know that there's always a debate about being comprehensive or being vague on these matters,

[ Page 11818 ]

and so we move from vague to comprehensive. Is that, in essence, what the drafters are suggesting?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was going to be glib. The answer is yes.

J. Horgan: Of course, I never want to miss an opportunity for glib from the minister. It's a shame he let it pass, but there'll be another day, I'm sure.

I'm sorry. I'm up on

section 28, and I wanted to let it pass.

Section 28 approved.

section 29.

J. Horgan: Now, this is the last

section of the misc bill for which I have any responsibility. I just want to confirm…. I know the minister has had a very full and frank discussion with my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake about when this is coming into force and why the delay. I know the time frame has been shifted, and there are a host of reasons for that.

We are at this point, with this section, repealing the transitional

section of the act that will have no effect after the end of 2013. Can the minister, just for my benefit — and I appreciate he has said to it my colleague — outline for me how it is we got so far behind on what was initially envisioned when we brought this legislation forward in 2008?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the difference was a number of things. First, we had to get the data from the reporting error, and then we had to take a look at the complexities of the information.

The second piece was the time to prepare it, to move forward. Then, as we came through that, when I became the minister last year, I became aware of this other issue. It was that if we had moved on the compliance and the mix being the two fuels mixed together, we could have had up to 2,000 people in British Columbia who work in small chain gas stations in B.C. being affected, because the major suppliers and the wholesalers were saying: "We may not be able to supply you with fuel in order to make this compliance, because the mix goes across the spectrum of the two fuels."

So what I did immediately, when I found out about that issue, is that I had the parliamentary secretary go out and do, basically, a consultation with the industry and everybody and said, you know: "What we should do is take a step back to look at the two fuels. How long it would take to do legislation?"

Obviously, it takes time, as you know. So we started working…. We got the report back in the fall. We worked through the fall to have the legislative changes here, in order to have a different compliance here to match it up, to try and make sure that we didn't have this unintended consequence of the measurement of the carbon intensity of fuel.

That would be the major reason that this piece, after all the complexities, went a little bit longer — just to prepare the legislation and do this.

section 29, this repeals the

section with regards to transitional rules. But later on in this debate…. Of course, it's unfortunate it's not numbered as 30. It's actually

section 41 that comes in after the liquor piece in the transitional rules of the legislation, where it does put in the new transitional rules, effective on the dates that would be prescribed.

J. Horgan: I just would seek the indulgence of the House, with the passage of

section 29, if we could, in the interest of staff, move to

section 41 before taking up the liquor section?

Section 29 approved.

The Chair: With the agreement of the House, we will consider

section 41.

[1520]

section 41.

J. Horgan: With the benefit of direction from the minister and the Government House Leader, I'd just ask one last question, and that is: could he answer the obligatory question of what the purpose of this amendment is?

Hon. R. Coleman: It has to do with the

part 3 agreements. Basically, it allows us to do a regulation to specify, because we won't have the previous year's information to set on the

part 3, which is the new fuels. It's not the gasoline and diesel. That is under

part 2. This is under

part 3. It allows the director to specify the quantity in the first year as we get the final information over the reporting of that year.

J. Horgan: For these different categories, or different parts, the formulas and the amendments that we've already discussed this morning will have the same force and effect? I missed the first couple of words out of your mouth, Minister, and as a result, I missed the intent of your conclusion.

Hon. R. Coleman: The challenge here is that when we go into July 1, 2013, for the 25 percent incentive under

part 3, we won't know the number, as to what it would do. The director will do an estimate, and the estimate will be 25 percent.

As we get forward, it will be 25 percent of the previous year's carbon amount — right? — that would then be allowed to be an additional credit if they come up

[ Page 11819 ]

with something, by agreement with the director, that they can add to fuel that will reduce the amount of carbon in the fuel.

In order to incent that, we have a 25 percent upside for fuels that would actually reduce carbon intensity. But they do that by agreement, with what we discussed earlier, with the director, based on scientific information and all of the things that would come into it. Then they can go into an agreement, and they start putting that in. To give them the credit early, we would do it by an estimate. Once we got through the first year, then it would become based on the previous year.

[1525]

Section 41 approved.

The Chair: By agreement, we return to consideration of

section 30.

section 30.

S. Simpson: Under

section 30, the

definitions, just so I understand this properly — a "catering endorsement." I'm assuming that says: "I'm a caterer. I'm a licensed caterer. When this comes into force, I then can get an addition to my licence that says I am now licensed to deal with liquor under the auspices of my catering business."

As a caterer, that gives me the right to do that, once it's approved and I get this endorsement. That's the sense of what that endorsement's on, and then a catering authorization is about an event that gets approved for liquor as part of the catering activity. Would that be accurate?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'll introduce the people. To my right is Karen Ayers, the ADM, assistant deputy minister, and the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch. To my left is Elaine Vale, who is a senior policy analyst in the branch.

Basically, the endorsement is for somebody that already has a liquor licence, like an existing licensee that has a liquor licence, and that's the endorsement to do the catering off site. The catering licence is new for people that don't have a liquor licence and don't have a liquor establishment under licence. They would get a new licence called a catering licence, and the event is the authorization for a specific event.

S. Simpson: I understand this. I understand the catering licence. There's this new licence that now allows you to be in the business of transporting and serving alcohol as part of a catering contract, if you have the appropriate approvals. You're now allowed to do that with this, and you get a new catering licence to do that, that says: "Okay. That's an allowable purpose under this licence."

The endorsement, then. I've got a liquor licence. What does that do for me in terms of catering? I presume that that will go to people who aren't necessarily caterers. Or is that saying: "You're a caterer now. We're prepared to give you, on top of your existing licence, this ability to add liquor to that"? I'm just trying to figure out kind of…. If I don't have a liquor licence, how does that work?

Hon. R. Coleman: What we do under liquor is if you have an existing licence — so let's say you have a liquor licence as a hotel; you have the liquor licence — all we do is give you an endorsement to do another function. We don't make you go get another licence.

But in this case, what the other piece of it is, is we have caterers, and this is what this change is about. It's to allow caterers who have a premise that don't have a liquor licence and don't have an endorsement to come and get a licence to be able to go and do off-site catering with liquor.

S. Simpson: I think I get it now. There's the discrepancy here, but the bottom line is I have a catering business. I don't have a liquor licence today because I didn't have a use for one, because I wasn't allowed, essentially, to use it.

This legislation passes. I contact the branch and say: "I'm Joe's catering business. I've been around a long time. I'm established. I would now like the licensing to allow me to do off site and to handle liquor, you know, with proper catering authorizations as they come up." Then the branch does a review and gives me an endorsement, and then I have a licence to be able to do that business. That is what I'm assuming.

[1530]

The catering authorization, I think, as the minister said, is for the event itself — that I'm getting a licence for. Could the minister tell me…? I'm just curious here. There are a lot of things in the definition. There's no definition for a catering authorization and what that is.

Hon. R. Coleman: It doesn't need to be there, because they can apply for an event, and the general manager can authorize any event. It's just a separate process, a separate thing. They always have had use for it. They've been asking for it for some time, but they were not allowed to do it.

The difference here is…. What we're doing is creating a licence so that caterers can be licensed to bring liquor to an event and you don't have to, for lack of a better description, send the bride and groom down to the liquor store to get their liquor permit, buy their liquor and bring it to the premises with their liquor permit themselves. The caterers, because they're licensed to do that, can now perform that function — bring the liquor and perform that service at the event as well.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I understand the minister's explanation. I just was curious, because I know in legislation we try to be as thorough as possible. It just

[ Page 11820 ]

seemed curious to me that as you added these new

definitions to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, for some reason the authorization was not added to define what that would mean. But we'll pass that, because it's not here defined in any way.

Could the minister tell us…? I'm curious. I'm not sure that it necessarily relates to — or maybe the minister could tell me how it relates to — this piece of work. On the decision to repeal the definition of a club out of the list of

definitions, why was that choice taken?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under Bill 20 we moved all the club provisions to regulations. And as that was done, this particular one was left behind and is no longer needed. That's why it has been deleted.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

S. Simpson:

Section 31, as I see it, essentially talks about the requirements for any staff or personnel of a caterer who are serving and being bartenders or serving alcohol at an event that they may be contracted in. It talks about their need to have successfully completed a prescribed training program. I'm aware of Serving it Right. Are there any other programs that would meet that need, in addition to Serving it Right?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, there are not. In British Columbia it's Serving it Right. Basically, this requires a caterer and its employees who supervise or provide liquor service to have it. This provision is there to require the licensees, managers and servers of a licensed establishment to have completed a responsible servicing course. That's what's today in law with regard to licensed establishments in B.C. We're now applying it to caterers.

It's necessary to add this

section in order that this requirement be applicable to things like residential events, since a residential event is not considered a licensed establishment. At the same time large, catered events can take place in large ways with liquor. It's to allow the caterer to match it up to Serving it Right, which is how we do it in all other establishments.

[1535]

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

S. Simpson:

Section 32 lays out who, essentially, can obtain a catering licence or a catering endorsement and lays out some of the conditions around that. A number of those conditions "to carry on its business in the licensed establishment" are "is a resident of British Columbia or a Canadian citizen or is lawfully admitted…under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) for permanent residence, and is not a minor."

Could the minister tell us what the thinking is behind those specific citizenship requirements?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I can, to the member. The existing provision talks about business establishments and licenced establishments, which are basically fixed places with a resident citizen — being that that person is not a minor.

The changes here reflect a licence being issued for a specific establishment. That's what the existing

section does. But because a catering business will serve liquor at various locations, the requirement for the corporate agent or manager to be a resident could not refer to a specific establishment.

This amendment clarifies the residency requirement for agents or managers of corporations that hold catering licences or hold a licence other than a catering licence and hold a licence with a catering endorsement. Basically, it's saying you either have a licence and you've got the endorsement and you can do the catering off site, or you have a catering licence and you can do it off site. That establishes it, because we can't do it specifically to the establishment.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I certainly appreciate it not being a minor. Just looking for a little bit of clarity about what the thinking is about the specific citizenship requirements: "…a resident of British Columbia or a Canadian citizen or is lawfully admitted to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) for permanent residence."

I'm just trying to determine what the requirement is for those specific requirements of citizenship, or some combination of them, in order to make this application or to be authorized to perform this function.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the existing provision in the act for all licensed premises in B.C. — that definition of British Columbia, etc. All this is doing is extending it to the catering licence, because they'll be covered under the same rules as the rest of liquor is covered off in B.C.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

section 34.

S. Simpson: It talks here about if "at the site of a catered event," etc. It talks about activities. Some of this is activities that we would all, of course…. Presumably, they may lead to police intervention if it's of "a riotous, violent, drunken or disorderly nature, or the safety of one or more persons at the site is threatened."

In terms of the branch and the general manager, who's identified here as the authority, what's the expectation

[ Page 11821 ]

about how this gets supervised? These catering businesses, and presumably…. I'm assuming that most, if not all, catering businesses in this province are going to take advantage of this opportunity if they can, because it gives them business opportunities they don't have today, and it would make sense for them to do that.

How is the supervision of that going to occur through the branch?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to the member: I'll just sort of walk you down a bit of it. If there's a problem with a liquor establishment, we can suspend the licence of the restaurant, the bar or whatever the case may be. But some caterers could have more than one event taking place on a particular week or night or whatever the case may be.

[1540]

If we have a problem with one event…. Let's say that wedding A turns into a dispute between the Hatfields and McCoys, and it needs to be shut down for violent behaviour or whatever, with police. We can actually suspend the catering licence for that particular event but not affect the wedding down the street with the same caterer where they're not having the same difficulties. That's one of the things.

It also allows for the licensees that have endorsements, like the restaurant that has a catering endorsement…. This allows the catered event to be shut down without risk of requiring that the licensee's restaurant also be shut down. So it can be event-specific this way.

S. Simpson: I can understand how if you have an establishment and that establishment isn't operating in an appropriate manner over some period of time, whether you get police reports or you get inspectors' reports, the branch or the general manager gets to review that and determines that this particular establishment is not playing by the rules and then intervenes and shuts it down, suspends it — whatever is the appropriate action to be taken.

That happens over a bit of time, usually with some inspectors' reports and that. These often are one-off events. This is happening on Saturday night, and then it's over before Sunday or early Sunday morning.

It says that "the general manager may, without a hearing, suspend or cancel the catering authorization and order the immediate removal of patrons." What I'm trying to determine is how does that process…? What's the thinking on how that works? Do the police have to come and then they make a call to somebody, and whoever is acting on behalf of the general manager, with their authority, says, "Shut it down," from the catering point?

I'm just trying to figure out how that works when these events are right now and immediate, and you don't have the time to kind of look at them over maybe a few days.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, if we had a caterer who had a track record of bad events, the general manager could just suspend the licence. They don't get to have a liquor licence anymore. The next piece is for a specific event where you may have a problem. Under the act we have inspectors that could go and look. We get notification of the events. That's what our licensing process does. So we know where the large events, and what have you, are taking place.

Section 22(3) of the act also allows for the delegation of authority to the police, which we do. So if there's a local event, the police have the authority to shut it down as well, and then that can come back to the general manager for an enforcement hearing relative to the specific event, or a fine or whatever the case may be. Basically, the licensee has to assist in vacating the premises. If the general managers close an event, they have to be participants in this as well.

Really what it is, is that if we have a difficulty, the local police usually are the ones that would deal with it. The local police have the delegated authority under the act from the general manager to do so.

S. Simpson: In that case then, if you had an incident like that, and presumably…. I think we'll talk about this a little bit more in a

section a little ways down. The potential there is that sometimes you get a caterer who maybe just isn't very good at what they are doing, and they need to have a hard look at them as to whether you want them doing this kind of business.

Other times, because of the nature of this, the caterer could be quite appropriate and doing everything right, and you might have a host and guests who are a little raunchy and not paying much attention to the caterer at all. They may be the problem, not the caterer, necessarily, in that case. The caterer might be trying to do everything as right as they can, but maybe the people that they've contracted with for their event are not acting appropriately.

How does the minister see that working? How does that review happen in terms of determining the responsibility — the culpability of the caterer in this versus the responsibility of maybe the hosts and the guests?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, the responsibility is the licensee's. If you have a licensed event, and you have the liquor licence, then you have the responsibility.

If you overserve, you're the one overserving, not the host. If you're the one that's allowing people to be intoxicated and come to the bar and get more drinks, you're breaking the law. If you're the person that's allowing somebody that's under-age to come to the bar and get a drink, you're the one who has a responsibility under the licence for that.

The responsibility is with the licensee, so there's no culpability if the host decides to come and push you. You

[ Page 11822 ]

could just say: "Sorry, sir. This is what the licence allows me to do. This is my licence under the law, and I have to meet my rules under Serving It Right and the regulations and statutes which I'm bound by."

The reality is that those are the rules. If there's a problem, the police can come to deal with some of the issues with intoxication and what have you, to shut down an event if necessary. That's no different than what it is today.

The difference here is that caterers are being licensed to be able to do this, to go and do events — right? They're getting a liquor licence, and they will have to take the responsibility for the management of that liquor licence, should they want the licence.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. But if they come and they're managing the licence…. The licence is around, and they're not handing out drinks to minors, and they're being conscious of people who maybe have been drinking — appear to have been drinking — a little bit too much, in terms of restricting their access to more alcohol. There are other activities going on in that event that they might be catering but somebody else is hosting.

Maybe there's the use of other illicit materials going on in an adjacent space. There may be other things going on. Somebody's out back smoking something they shouldn't be smoking. Who's responsible for that? Does that responsibility rest with the host or does it rest with the caterer who holds the licence — if the licensee is doing everything they can be expected to do to control that alcohol side of things?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is no different than a licensed premises. They have the responsibility. If there's somebody, let's say, that's buying rounds of drinks for tables, and they think there are people intoxicated, it's their responsibility to say no. If there's a problem, it's their responsibility to phone the police, who have the authority under the act — the delegated authority — for enforcement of the act.

It's just like in a bar or restaurant where you've probably walked in at different times and seen a loud crowd where somebody is buying rounds for the table, and there's excessive drinking going on, and it looks like a lot of intoxication. It is up to that establishment to say: "We are not going to overserve your table, so we will not be providing any more liquor to your table."

That's their responsibility under this, just like any other licensed establishment.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

section 37.

S. Simpson:

Section 37 talks about the ability of the general manager, as a condition of the catering authorization, to restrict or limit types and forms of entertainment that can happen at an event that's being catered. Could the minister explain a little bit about what the thinking here is, what those restrictions might look like and what the criteria for that are?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, this is saying that, as in any other liquor establishment in the province, there are certain rules. There are actually rules around exotic entertainment, for instance — both around minors being present and contact with the entertainment.

There are rules around gaming and minors being present. So even though you may be having, let's say, an event where you're having a poker night and you have tables or whatever, there cannot be minors present. That's another rule. There's a restriction. Things like drinking games. All these restrictions exist in all our licensed premises, and they're no different here.

[1550]

S. Simpson: I get that. So the thinking here is it might be those kinds of activities where you might engage…. Minors might be there, and there might be activities you don't want minors involved around, the same as you don't want them being able to get a drink.

Is the expectation that those rules become the same in the case of a residence? We have a lot of people who might bring in the caterers and bring that in and have a significant event at their home — bring music and bring a band and those kinds of things. Is that any different when it comes to a residence?

Hon. R. Coleman: The way this works is the same as it works today. In a residence, for instance, a person's residence is their private residence, so the rules that fit them are the same as would fit any residence today, and that is that you can't overserve. You can't serve to minors. You could be held liable in that case. The licensee, the caterer, would have to follow those rules. But the other activities are not within the power to go into a private residence and restrict because it's a private residence.

S. Simpson: Just so I'm clear, in a private residence, because it's that, those entertainment issues in that, other than if you're breaking the law…. Those entertainment questions will not be regulated in the same way as if I rent the hall down the street and have an event and bring a caterer and that in. It's different in the residence — unless, of course, you're breaking the law.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just like it is today. Yeah.

S. Simpson: Just a question that's on this. Actually, I'll save it. I'll do it under

Section 37 approved.

[ Page 11823 ]

section 38.

S. Simpson: It's a follow-up a bit on the comment that the minister made about a residence. If I have a party at my house and I allow my guests to drink too much and then go get in their car, I have a liability for that. I can be held responsible for that. Or as you say, if I allow people who are underage to access alcohol, I can be held responsible for that.

If I bring a caterer in to cater the event at my house, including the liquor, does the liability then move from me to the caterer? Or do I still hold some liability?

Hon. R. Coleman: This doesn't change any of the liability issues. Notionally, the licensee that is doing the catering and the liquor, if they were overserving and what have you, would have some liability, and the courts would obviously decide that. We don't get specific about that in the act.

[1555]

The residence. The residents themselves have to carry their own liability. When something happens in a residence — as the member said, if you allow somebody to get intoxicated in your house, they get in a car, and they drive away — there have been some cases where there has been found liability back to the homeowner.

In this case, this does not give you protection from your own bad behaviour just because you happen to have a licensed person who may actually have some liability if they're managing the bar, but they're also not necessarily in the rest of the house. I would think that that would be subject of a court case. It isn't prescribed in here.

S. Simpson: If I read 38(c)(2) with the addition there, which talks a little bit about what the minister is talking about, it says thatobviously, the responsibility…. If an offence "under this Act is committed by a corporation in relation to a catered event, the officer or agent of the corporation in charge of selling or serving liquor at the event is deemed to be a party to the offence" — so that's presumably the caterer who is selling or serving the liquor — "and is personally liable to the penalties prescribed for the offence as a principal offender, but nothing in this

section relieves the corporation or the person actually committing the offence from liability for it."

Just trying to understand. I understand what the minister said about a residence. So now, if I rent a hall and I hire the caterer, under this, they're going to be responsible for that wedding or that event or whatever it is. They're doing their job serving the food, serving the liquor, making sure they don't overserve. But if there are activities there that lead to some kind of considered offence in the case of a commercial hall and that….

If I'm the person who hired the caterer to come in and do that, does my liability change at all around that, or do we know? Or am I, then, still liable to be considered for an offence under this as if I was doing this myself?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so you're clear, this is with regards to the licensee — right? If they commit an offence related to the catered event, "the officer or agent of the corporation in charge in charge of selling or serving liquor at the event is deemed to be a party to the offence." Basically, you could charge the corporation, you could charge the individual that's done it or you could charge the person in charge of the event if they're all working in the same place.

Basically, they don't get to hide from the liability of their responsibility under the act for any offences that they commit. It doesn't go to other liability. It's only with regards to…. If we charge you, and there's a $7,500 fine or a $500 fine, you cannot get away from your liability just because you're Sam who's at the bar versus the corporation.

Section 38 approved.

section 39.

S. Simpson:

Section 39 talks here about a number of things. I have a couple questions here. Under 39(b.2): "respecting catering authorizations and providing mechanisms for consultation by the caterer with public authorities, including…local governments, first nations and police in relation to catering authorizations."

[1600]

Could the minister tell us what the expectation is here around the caterer's responsibilities for that consultation versus, potentially, the host's responsibilities for that consultation? I want to have an event, and I hire my caterer. Does this say, then, that the caterer has the obligation to do all of that consultation as part of this process, or do I have the obligation to do it as the host who hires the caterer?

Hon. R. Coleman: I want to try and get this clear for you. Today if you get a liquor licence for a large event, the responsibility of the licensee is to go to the police station and notify. If it's over so many people, there are actually some jurisdictions that say that there is so much security you have to have and that sort of thing.

It's not a consultation, as much. This is respecting the authorization and basically putting into place the regulations it would define for the catering licence. None of that is there today.

We know what we do in other cases, but now we have this new licence. So if they want to run a large outdoor event where there's a beer garden or large beerfest type of thing, they're going to need local government approval, which would be included in the regulation. They would probably need licencing…. Actually, oftentimes it's signed off by local police.

[ Page 11824 ]

All of those authorizations and things that would be done have to be done by the licensee in order to have the event. So the regulation is going to state that you have to do these things in the case of specified events, because that's what happens now. The difference is, it's usually done by an individual or by a different group, versus the caterer.

S. Simpson: That's clear. What this now does is define the obligation here. The obligation rests with the caterer to either have done that or to have ensured all of that and the proper documentation is in place. They've got to have all that, and that responsibility is a responsibility of the caterer under this legislation — no longer of the host or the association or whoever they might be working for. That would be correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. It's twofold, actually. They have to do all that, and if they don't do all that, they're not getting their licence to be able to do the event. They won't be able to do the event because they won't get their endorsement to go do that, whatever event it is. But your explanation is correct.

S. Simpson: If I go down and look at 39(b.3), it's interesting. I just want to know what the thinking is: "respecting if and to what extent a caterer may be issued a catering authorization in relation to an event that is promoted by, or to which persons were invited by, the caterer."

[D. Black in the chair.]

Is the thinking here that there's the potential of a business opportunity here, where caterers who now have this liquor capacity that they didn't have before may in fact be promoting events that they are the promoter and the host of and then using their own catering operation to be able to facilitate the food and beverage side of that as they, in fact, become promoters using their catering licence to give them the ability to do that. Is that what that would allow?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's actually the reverse, hon. Member. The intent of this regulation is to restrict that. We're going to restrict the fact that you can't go out and sell tickets and set up your own events and use your catering and your liquor licence there. That's in clear contravention of what we're trying to do here.

Caterers asked, as part of their business, to be able to be in the business of serving liquor to their clients as part of their licence. That's what we're allowing here, both for the hotels with their endorsements and for the caterers with their licences. But the intention is to actually restrict in regulation what we're describing there.

[1605]

S. Simpson: Is the expectation here that at some point after the legislation is passed there'll be some kind of regulations or something prepared in relation to this — the short leash that you're preparing for catering companies so that they can't become promoters, essentially. Is that what the minister expects?

Hon. R. Coleman: This outlines the regulation-making powers and what we're going to try to accomplish. We've already done some consultation with industry and local government, but after the legislation is passed, before the regulations would be done, we will also go out now, once the legislation is passed, to do a comprehensive consultation with the local government and the catering industry, to do the regulations so they fit with the needs of communities. That's what the intent is.

Hon. R. Coleman: It will be things around storage of liquor, transportation of liquor. They haven't been developed yet. They'll be developed in concert with that other consultation process on regulation.

Section 39 approved.

section 40.

S. Simpson: So 40 has a number of pieces under it, and I just want to touch on a couple of them. So 40, under 87, which adds a

section 87 here, talks about: "…the site of a catered event is, for the purposes of this Act and the regulations, both an establishment and a licensed establishment for the period approved for the catered event in the catering authorization issued in relation to that event."

So that would include…. It might be that that might actually be defined a little bit in the previous section. I'll look. That pretty much would cover off any place other than a private residence. Would that be fair?

Hon. R. Coleman: Correct.

S. Simpson: In

section 88, the catering endorsement section: "Subject to and in accordance with the regulations, a licensee may apply to the general manager for the privilege of selling or serving liquor (

a) at one or more events, and (

b) at one or more locations that are not the establishment in relation to which the licence was issued,

[ Page 11825 ]

Is the thinking here that a caterer could come and say: "I have a contract with X organization or association, who are hiring me to do their catering. They're going to have six events over the summer or five events over the summer, in a number of different locations. Can you give me an endorsement or an authorization that will approve all of those under one permit or one authorization, and I get to do the whole thing? Or do I have to come back in some fashion and talk to the branch about each one of those — or in some combination? Or can I do it all as a blanket?"

[1610]

Hon. R. Coleman: This

section isn't about what the member asked me about, but I'll answer that question too. This

section really is about allowing an existing licensee establishment to apply for the endorsement for catering. It allows them to have a catering endorsement, so they can cater off site from their existing premises. That's what it is.

With regards to the other question, basically, not every event is going to have to have an approval. Events like weddings and that would be more like notifications. They will just notify the branch that they're doing an event. They can just do the notification. Large events, like if there was a huge beerfest in Stanley Park or something like that, would require approval.

There will be a regulation outlining the different levels, so that you won't have to…. If you had a client that said, "I want you to do five catered events, and they're just, like, at the house, or we're going to this hall and then that hall and that hall," and they're not major events, then they would just be notifications by the caterer that they're doing an event in that location.

It doesn't require them to go and get an endorsement for all of them. It's just a quick notification. It's not an intent to have this be so complicated that we're licensing every event for the caterer — right? — or the other, because we don't do that with special occasion licences now anyway, in many cases.

So the other one, approvals, would be outlined and defined in regulation with regards to more significant events that would then require the local government, police and those sorts of types of support.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer. The first part of that answer…. Is, then, the thinking here — about those who might get a catering endorsement — about what happens when a place, a restaurant, bar, location, existing establishment says: "We're going to grow our business and open a catering wing to our business now, because we think, with this new regulation that allows us to serve liquor and make that part of the business, it now makes business sense for us to do that for some reason, so I now am going to go out and open that piece of business"?

Is that what we're thinking here? That might be where I have a liquor licence, and I have an establishment, and I'm saying: "I'm going to expand to an off-site catering business from my operation." Would that be something that I'd be allowed to do?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just one clarification of my last answer. What will be notifications and approvals won't be set in regulation. They'll be done by policy and managed by the general manager.

Basically, we have restaurants today that do catering, but what they want to do is to be able to give a full service to their clients. Basically, they get an endorsement.

It's not a case of somebody deciding to set up a mobile bar, for instance. It is about…. You're actually catering food, and you're going to have liquor as one of the services. You're going to get an endorsement to your licence, or you're going to go and get the licence — if you're independent of the licensee already existing — to be able to go and do that business.

Is the expectation that these will all be pretty clear in terms of what the requirements are? I think about things particularly like the requirements for reporting and recordkeeping, paper trails — those kinds of things — records of amounts of alcohol inventory, the ability to say, "Okay, how much was brought in? How much was served?" so you have some sense of that.

[1615]

Is the expectation that there will be a policy, a set of policies — something there that's readily available to a caterer, saying: "Here's the detail of how you have to meet all of these conditions"?

S. Simpson: I think about this mostly…. As the minister said, I think it makes perfect sense that, probably, in the majority of instances where there's catering, there won't be a requirement to actually come and get an approval because you're catering a wedding or you're catering a family event — you know, one of these things

[ Page 11826 ]

that goes on every day, not necessarily a large event, something that's often about a family or a personal or private gathering that's being catered.

In those cases, when you…. The series of some of these conditions — about games, about entertainment, about hours, about whether liquor can be sold indoors, outdoors…. There's a variety of things on this list here.

So I'm the caterer. I'm doing this wedding, which is a hundred people. It's nothing particularly exceptional. Do I get a stock set of conditions, which I will be given by the branch, that says, "Here's how you've got to operate," in the case of an event like that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, there'll be a stock policy guide. Then if they want to do something that's outside that, they would then apply to the branch to add that in. That's when they would get into not just the notification but quite possibly approval, because they're adding something that's outside the guides. The guidelines are pretty easy to follow, and they'll be just simply the same thing for this.

S. Simpson: Has the ministry thought about — has the branch thought about, probably — what we're talking about here in terms of scope? How many events are we going to see that are going to fall under this legislation, and how big is it going to be?

I'm thinking here about resource requirements in the branch as to whether there's any expectation this is going to increase resource requirements around supervision, around other things. You've got inspectors who are primarily out there working with establishments and doing their job around that. Does this change those resource requirements, and if so, how does that get dealt with?

Hon. R. Coleman: Based on the experience of other jurisdictions, this is very low risk. It requires very little additional resources, if any, because actually most of the events are very low-risk events. But just so you understand, there's a licence fee attached to the licence, obviously. This is what we call a thousand-dollar vote in government. So the licensing fees that are charged in any given year have to pay for the operation of the branch.

It's not that we go to general revenue or anything else to ask for more money. If there's a problem — or one develops, which we don't anticipate — then we would look at the cost of the fee relative to the cost of the branch to do the operation. But at this stage of the game our experience is that these are really low risk.

[1620]

You really don't need a whole lot of inspector time or anything else because, as the member described, you're not going to go running around on weddings and stuff like that. It's just really going to be a case of risk management.

S. Simpson: I agree that a fee structure that deals with cost recovery makes sense, so that if there are costs, they're paid for through some fee structure.

Is there a fee structure that's anticipated? What kinds of fees or what kinds of criteria are going to be put in place for the fees that a caterer will need to pay, presumably, to get authorizations and permits? There'll be some fee structure related to that when they get authorizations. How does that work?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through the consultation process after the act, we will be looking at this with the industry to look at what's fair and what we think the processing time is. We think it actually can be kept pretty straightforward and pretty streamlined and won't be onerous.

The fee process is something we would have to work out as we finally work out the details of it. Really, it's not going to be something that's onerous. It'll be something that'll be done through consultation with the industry, though. We've committed to them to do that as we process through to the regulations and the policy.

S. Simpson: The minister has talked before, and I certainly understand this, that in the case where something inappropriate happens, there are currently offences and penalties that are there that would apply here, as they might apply in other situations.

Does the minister envision any different penalties that are more specifically related to the conduct that might happen under this piece of legislation? Or is the minister satisfied that the existing suite of penalties for somebody who doesn't act responsibly is good enough?

Hon. R. Coleman: We do not contemplate any new suite of penalties. We think we have it covered within our penalty section.

Section 40 approved.

The Chair:

Section 41, we've dealt with.

We move to

part 4.

[1625]

section 42.

B. Ralston: Both 42 and 43 simply repeal sections of the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, and what begins in

section 44 is a substitution of other

definitions after these ones are repealed. I take it that's the purpose. And if that's the purpose, that will be my only question on those two sections.

Hon. S. Bond: These sections were passed but not brought into force, because the partners, in fact, wanted to make sure that there were negotiations around the joint trust agreement. Those didn't take place until 2011,

[ Page 11827 ]

so that's why this is being done now.

Sections 42 and 43 approved.

section 44.

B. Ralston: I think we're about to switch ministers.

My question is on

section 44. It adds a definition of a "college joint management agreement." It refers to an agreement made on April 4, 2011. I think that's the agreement that the minister was referring to previously.

Can the minister briefly explain what the agreement is and why it's necessary to amend the act to accommodate it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Right now the provisions for the joint management of the college pension plan are in a

schedule to the existing act. What we're going to be doing is removing it from the

schedule to the act and making it part of the joint trust agreement. I do have a copy of that agreement, too, that I can make available to the member opposite if he wishes.

B. Ralston: There's a definition. It refers in this definition in

section 44(

a) to

section 1 of

schedule A. That is a separate section,

section 53. There's considerable detail there, but can the minister broadly describe what the significant aspects of this agreement are?

It's a joint trustee agreement, which generally means that liability for the pension plan is shared. Can the minister perhaps just set out at a fairly high level what the significant features of the agreement are?

[1630]

Hon. K. Falcon: Just for the benefit of the member, the joint trust agreement, which we've shared with the member opposite, is basically the identical trust arrangement that is currently in the college pension plan.

We're basically just taking it out of there, and it's moving into the separate joint trust agreement. That joint trust agreement is negotiated and signed by the four partners to the college pension plan. So that's the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, the BCGEU, the Post-Secondary Employers Association and the B.C. government.

It takes effect on proclamation, obviously, of the amendments we're now debating. I'm advised that all the parties support the changes. Basically, what the member has in front of him, the joint trust agreement, just lays out the fundamental nature of the relationship between the partners and the trustees. It is, as I say, the same, with minor changes because it's no longer in

an act. But it's virtually identical to what exists under the current

schedule to the act.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain what's the legal advantage of doing it this way? Is it then that it becomes more easy to revise the agreement by mutual agreement rather than having it as an appendix to a statute? Is that the advantage?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. When the partners to the agreement unanimously agree to a change, they will have the ability to make that change without having to wait for a session of the Legislature to invoke a change within the Legislature.

B. Ralston: This also offers a new definition of the "municipal joint management agreement," the "public service joint management agreement" and the "teachers' joint management agreement." Presumably, these

definitions are added for the same purpose that we're talking about in the previous college joint management agreement. There are similar agreements, unanimous agreement, being moved out of the statute for the same purpose. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: What this is doing is making the college agreement the same as the other three agreements which are already out of the act, so it is just mirroring what takes place with the other three.

Section 44 approved.

section 45.

[1635]

B. Ralston: This amends sub-sub-subsection 9(2)(d)(

v) of the Public Sector Pension Plans Act and strikes out "Minister of Finance" and substitutes "minister." Presumably that's because the statute may be administered in the future by someone other than the Minister of Finance. Is that the reason?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct. The responsibility for this act was actually assigned to the Minister of Advanced Education and Labour and Market Development in 2008 and then later to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This just allows more simplicity in the future to reference a minister as opposed to specific.

Section 45 approved.

section 46.

B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to

section 18.1, or adding a new 18.1 to what's described in the act as "Powers, functions and duties of the investment management corporation." That's the B.C. Investment Management Corporation.

The explanatory note says: "continues transitional provisions that were previously in

part 4 of the act." I'm sure

[ Page 11828 ]

there's a straightforward explanation for this, but perhaps the minister can provide it.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is essentially saying that these ones that are laid out in 18.1 are still needed. The rest of them are no longer required and are spent and thus will be repealed.

Sections 46 to 49 inclusive approved.

section 50.

B. Ralston: This substitutes by striking out "College Institute Educators' Association" and inserting the new name "Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC." That just reflects the name change of the organization, I presume.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes.

Section 50 approved.

section 51.

B. Ralston: This

section amends the Public Sector Pension Plans Act,

schedule A,

section 1, and substitutes a number of new

definitions. Presumably these are

definitions that are consistent with the amendments that are made previously in the sections we've just discussed, but I'd like the minister just to confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I can confirm that.

Sections 51 and 52 approved.

section 53.

B. Ralston: This is a lengthy part that's added to

schedule A which is described as

part 1.1, "Joint Trusteeship," and it contains a number of aspects. Can the minister just briefly, for the purposes of the record, describe what is meant by joint trusteeship when it concerns the public sector pension plans in the province?

There are obviously significant legal consequences to that, including, to some extent, sharing of the liabilities in the event the plan comes up short. Fortunately, it hasn't, under the very steady hand of the B.C. Investment Management Corporation. Perhaps he can just confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, it's moving the joint trust agreement out of the

schedule of the act into a separate joint trust agreement to reflect the arrangement that takes place with the other three major public

section pension plans. The joint trust agreement arrangement, as the member would be familiar with it, is a model of pension governance that is increasingly being studied and emulated around the world.

[1640]

British Columbia in particular, as I mentioned in our estimates debates the other day on other things…. One of the things that I've heard regularly in my various trips, whether it's to rating agencies or financial markets, is a real positive acclaim for the approach that we've taken in the province in this joint trusteeship arrangement to managing pension plans.

The member is absolutely correct. Every three years there's the evaluation, the valuation that is undertaken on a triennial basis. Any shortcomings identified obviously have to be dealt with, and both parties have to come to the table and either provide additional contributions or, alternatively, look at the level of benefits, indexing, etc., to adjust those to meet and deal with the issue of any potential shortfalls.

B. Ralston: I want to give the minister a chance to compliment the forward-looking government of the 1990s that instituted the joint trusteeship plan that's so highly praised by the rating agencies. I know he doesn't often take advantage of these opportunities, but I'm going to provide him with one now.

Hon. K. Falcon: I will happily do so. That was an exceptional decision. I won't even use rhetoric by saying it's one of the few, but I will say it was a very good decision.

Sections 53 to 55 inclusive approved.

section 56.

B. Ralston: This "amends a regulation-making power," which is a power that's conferred upon what's called the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet. Can the minister briefly explain how the power is being amended?

Hon. K. Falcon: By the way, Chair, I should correct the record on our last discussion with respect to giving the NDP government of the day credit for this. It turns out that though it was initiated by the NDP, it was actually our government that pulled the trigger and implemented it. So I do want to correct the record, because I kno