2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th 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, March 27, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

D. Donaldson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014

Hon. S. Anton

S. Simpson

J. Yap

L. Krog

J. Martin

A. Weaver

C. James

S. Hammell

Hon. S. Anton

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of International Trade

Hon. T. Wat

B. Ralston

A. Weaver

[ Page 2503 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: Earlier today in the gallery for question period — and I apologized to them afterwards — were a couple of my constituents. They came in during question period. Mary Catherine Williams and her husband, Joedy Williams, had come down from Campbell River. They're in Victoria for a few days and decided to come and see what happens in the Legislature. They had not been here before and were delighted to see what we do in question period, listen to that and get quite concerned about a number of the issues that were raised. They then were able to have a bit of a tour of this House.

Mary Catherine works with the John Howard Society in Campbell River, and her husband, Joedy, is a youth worker at Timberline high school. They were very engaged in the debate and would have loved to stay a bit longer but did want to continue with their holiday. I hope that the House would retroactively make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Lake: In this House this afternoon we will call committee stage of Bill 5, followed by second reading of Bill 15. In the Douglas Fir Committee Room this afternoon we will have the estimates for the Ministry of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism.

[1335]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL

RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

section 73 (continued).

N. Macdonald: I mean, obviously these guiding areas are worth a tremendous amount of money. If you look on websites, you can see that there are businesses that are willing to spend sometimes tens of thousands but other times hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some cases millions of dollars.

Is the government at all worried about the fact that with corporations now being up front and able to hold these, that it will push the cost higher if an individual, as in the past, that has been able…. Sometimes they're people that are simply enthusiastic hunters. They put a bit of money together and are able to buy a hunting area.

Is the minister at all concerned that with these changes that possibility will cease to exist? Has there been any, I guess, work done to see if prices are going to jump dramatically with this change? Or is the minister suggesting that this isn't a significant enough change to cause that?

Hon. S. Thomson: Actually, this will allow smaller operations, for example, to form partnerships through a corporate structure, able to get financing to allow them to enter the industry. So we actually think this provides opportunity, and then they're able to do it now in a way that provides for conventional financing and reduces risks. We think this provides opportunity. It's one of the reasons that the Guide Outfitters Association brought the request forward.

Sections 73 to 76 inclusive approved.

section 77.

[1340]

N. Macdonald: This sets out the fines and penalties. I guess the question is: what fines and penalties are available for offences under this act? If they're not in this act, can the minister lay out what other acts would pertain to making sure that the guiding areas are properly managed?

Hon. S. Thomson: These amendments here provide a number of new offences under the legislation. New offences: a guide-outfitter, if he employs an unqualified person as an assistant guide; a person who guides as an assistant guide without authorization; an assistant guide while prohibited; guide-outfitter fails to retain and provide records; assistant guide fails to carry written authorization; guide-outfitter fails to issue a written authorization to an employee — a number of new offences.

There are two levels of fines. Middle level: on first conviction, a fine of up to $100,000 or up to one year imprisonment, and for each subsequent conviction, a fine of between $2,000 and $200,000 or up to two years' imprisonment. Lower level: a fine of up to $50,000 or up to six months' imprisonment, and on each subsequent conviction, a fine of between $1,000 and $100,000 or up to one year of imprisonment.

[ Page 2504 ]

N. Macdonald: Is there the possibility of revoking the rights to the guiding area?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, under

section 61 we can revoke the guide area certificate or the licence.

Sections 77 to 81 inclusive approved.

section 82.

B. Routley: Under

section 82, could the minister give us some explanation as to the problems that the changes in this

section are trying to resolve?

Hon. S. Thomson: It updates the Wildlife Act's regulatory powers. It removes the reference to assistant guide licences, but then what it does is allow regulations to be made for the assistant guide scheme that will be put in place and sets out — allows us to make, under regulation — the qualifications that a person must have to guide, the requirements the person must meet to guide as an assistant guide, retention of records….

[1345]

This is the section, as we talked about earlier in the debate, around the standards and the process that will be put in place, the regulations worked out with the Guide Outfitters Association to ensure that there is a scheme for the qualifications around assistant guides that ensures that they understand, that they're knowledgable and that this regulation would be approved and set up. It will be part of the regulations, but it will also be worked out by the director of the fish and wildlife branch.

D. Donaldson: I had a question about this

section and a particular issue. I'm curious as to the ability now to award these tenures to a corporation and whether the implications of this have been explored with First Nations and whether First Nations were consulted and their concerns canvassed around the implications this might have on future rights and title issues and future negotiations and what impact this might have and the kind of discussions you had with First Nations regarding that.

Hon. S. Thomson: The

section we're dealing with deals with regulations around assistant guides. But I think, in terms of a response to the member's question, first of all, MARR asked us to create this amendment to allow First Nations corporations to hold certificates. We think this provides opportunity for First Nations corporations in the industry. You're also aware that on any transfer, renewal of a certificate, a consultation process is undertaken with First Nations.

D. Donaldson: I appreciate that answer and the minister referring to that answer even though it's not necessarily covered in this particular section. He addressed First Nations who might be interested in forming a corporation in order to be awarded or take over a guide-outfitting-licensed area.

My question is on the implications for First Nations on whose territory the corporation might be awarded the guide-outfitting licence — and if any discussions were conducted with First Nations regarding future economic actions by First Nations on their territory.

Hon. S. Thomson: With the changes that are being brought forward with this legislation, what we are simply doing is changing the definition of the person to provide the opportunity for the certificate to be held either by a person or a corporation. All the other requirements, qualifications and processes around First Nation consultation in applications, renewal and transfers remain.

[1350]

This change has no impact on the First Nations considerations within the change. Nothing else changes there, so there was not direct consultation on this specific change.

Where there was a specific request was the request that we, in doing this, ensure that there was the opportunity for First Nations corporations to be part of that definition. They are, by the nature of the definition of a corporation, so that was viewed as an additional opportunity for First Nations.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer and that clarification. What I'm taking from the minister is that there's no concern around First Nations…. There's no further alienation by moving from a sole proprietorship, an individual owning these licences, to a corporation. He's convinced there's no difference, and it won't cause any issue with alienation of the land base that would result in conflict, which is what I am trying to get at.

I think both of us would agree that we don't want to see an issue of conflict and legal problems that will inhibit or have negative consequences on the guide-outfitters.

Hon. S. Thomson: We do not see any conflict with the changes that are being brought forward here.

N. Macdonald: For the information of the Chair, there are no further questions on any of the other sections coming forward.

On behalf of my colleague and me, I want to again thank the minister and his staff for the briefings. As I have said before in other things, I also appreciate the way the minister approaches not only estimates but these sorts of exercises on bills — very forthright and clearly doing his best to provide answers. As we've said in the past, as MLAs on the opposition side, we don't take that for granted and certainly appreciate it very much.

[ Page 2505 ]

With that, if the Chair wants to move us through to the end of the various sections, that would be fine.

Sections 82 to 85 inclusive approved.

section 86.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move the amendment to

section 86 that is standing in my name in the orders of the day.

SECTION 86, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Wildfire Act Transition

(1) For certainty,

section 66.1 (3) of the Wildfire Act , as enacted by this Act, must be applied and given effect in every legal proceeding commenced after the date

section 64 of this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly February 13, 2014 .

(2) Section 66.1 (3) of the Wildfire Act , as enacted by this Act, must not be construed as lacking effect, whether retroactive or otherwise, in relation to any matter because it makes no specific reference to that matter.

(3) The repeal by this Act of

section 66.1 (4) of the Wildfire Act does not affect a legal proceeding against the government commenced on or before the date

section 64 of this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly February 13, 2014 .]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Thomson: This is transitional. This is the amendment that provides clarity regarding the effective date of this section. It's an amendment we dealt with earlier in the session. It's the same effect and same requirement to change the wording to the bill "received first reading February 23, 2014," for clarity.

Section 86 as amended approved.

Section 87 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I thank the members opposite for the discussion and for the points that were raised and the clarification. As we do in our office, if there are further questions…. I know there were a couple of things earlier that we committed to provide some follow-up information on during the debate, and we will undertake to do that.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:54 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1355]

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL

RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. S. Thomson: With leave now, Madame Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL

RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call second reading on Bill 15, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND

LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 15, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014, now be read a second time.

The liquor policy review followed the B.C. government's most successful public engagement and made 73 recommendations that will enhance convenience, spark the economy, cut red tape and create new opportunities for businesses while continuing to protect health and public safety. Of these, 29 recommendations require changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. This bill provides authority to implement 15 of them.

I'll explain each of them briefly.

This legislation will enable government to move forward on developing and implementing a retail model for liquor sales in grocery stores.

Permit time-limited drink specials such as happy hours, and permit government to establish minimum drink prices.

Allow the sale of B.C. wine, craft beer and spirits at

[ Page 2506 ]

farmers markets.

Allow patrons to buy bottles of liquor to take home that are showcased at tasting festivals or competitions.

Enable facilities such as ski hills and golf courses to temporarily extend their liquor-licensed area to another part of the property, such as a patio or a barbecue area.

Create more streamlined requirements for manufacturers so that they can more easily expand their on-site tasting venues to include, for example, picnic tasting areas in a vineyard.

Allow manufacturers the ability to offer patrons liquor that is not produced on site, such as a winery selling a bottle of beer to a visitor.

Permit licensees to store some of their liquor in secure off-site locations.

Extend the Serving It Right program to all hospitality industry workers who serve alcohol, and require those who have completed the program to recertify.

Allow special occasion licence holders to serve U-brew and U-vin at family special occasion licensed events such as weddings. You can tell it's not one of my hobbies, Mr. Speaker, but I think a lot of people do enjoy that one.

Allow hobby brewer and vintner competitions.

Allow individual establishments that are part of a larger company to transfer small amounts of liquor between locations.

Allow U-brew and U-vin owners to own other types of licensed establishments.

[1400]

Require licensed establishments and liquor stores to post educational information on the responsible use of liquor that has been developed in consultation with industry.

Finally, review the current penalty

schedule for licensees who contravene the terms of their licence.

As we committed, we're moving quickly to make these changes. The remaining recommendations that require legislative changes need additional consultation and will require significant changes to the present Liquor Control and Licensing Act. They will be addressed during a full repeal and rewrite of the act in 2015.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to get up and respond to Bill 15, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act. As the minister has said, this bill was somewhat motivated by a piece of work that was done by the government, by the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform, when they proceeded to do their review.

The secretary produced the report around the liquor policy review that, of course, brought some 73 recommendations forward. Of those, as the minister has said, a handful — maybe about 15 or so — get dealt with in some fashion by this legislation. The rest will presumably be addressed at some time in the future, as the government has indicated its support for all 73 of the recommendations in this report, though it's not entirely clear how some of them are going to play out.

The situation we have here is that we have a piece of legislation that's pretty much enabling legislation. It's quite interesting. The key pieces that have generated most public discussion around this bill actually aren't covered by the bill in many ways. They'll be covered at some future time. Those pieces include liquor in grocery stores, issues around pricing and issues around the sale of licences and the potential sale of licences. We'll talk about those a little bit as we proceed here.

The one piece that is covered here a little bit, I think, is happy hour, and I'm sure that there will be lots of people who are interested in that particular aspect.

The interesting thing is that if we look at the report that motivated this initiative, the report that was authored by the parliamentary secretary and provided to the minister, it does lay out these 73 recommendations. Many of them are common sense. I think most people just say that it's about time that those things change. They're small items, and we'll talk a little bit about some of those, but they're important items for people in the industry.

Those changes have been made. But some of the bigger items, the ones that have got a lot more attention…. Probably the most telling thing about the report that was done was that there really was no analysis for these changes. The changes largely…. The parliamentary secretary and the minister have both spoken about this.

There were a number of people, significant numbers of people, who went to the website or who responded to the parliamentary secretary's blog. At one point I recall the secretary saying to the media that about 800 people had responded, saying they wanted to be able to buy liquor in grocery stores, and that had motivated a recommendation around liquor in grocery stores, which is fair enough.

However, the problem, of course, is that there are significant economic and financial questions about doing this. There are significant questions about the impact on the private liquor industry and how they will be affected. I suspect that's somewhat reflected in the fact that most of the people in the private liquor industry have been less than enthusiastic about this particular change and about whether it makes sense to take what is largely a small- to medium-sized business sector, the liquor store business, and look at potentially turning that over to the corporate food retailers.

[1405]

While we're not exactly sure what constitutes a grocery store for the purposes of these future changes, these projected changes, it's a pretty safe bet that it will involve the larger players, whether it be the Overwaitea group, the Thriftys, the Safeways. Those people of that scale is where we are going to find these. They're going to be the people, if anybody, who are going to advance and want to put liquor in these stores — and, potentially, at the risk of some of the smaller operators.

It hasn't been totally sorted out how this is going to

[ Page 2507 ]

work, so I think that there are some questions. I think the minister would know this. One of the things that the people in the private sector have said to me is that it's created problems for them doing business today. The problem it's created, in some cases, is that in the case of some of these operators who are looking either at improvements to their stores or some form of expansion or changes in their stores, they have had challenges when they go to talk to their lenders, their financial institutions, about getting the money to make those changes.

The challenges they've faced is that the bankers — the banks, the financiers, the lenders — have said: "Look, we are simply uncertain about what these changes might mean for your industry. Consequently, we're uncertain about how to value your asset, because we don't know whether these changes will affect the valuation of your asset. If that happens, we may look at how we lend you money in a different way."

I've been approached by some of those people, saying: "Look, this is a problem, because the uncertainty that it's creating creates challenges for me as a business person in terms of how I proceed with this business model." That's the challenge with the report that was written. It did no analysis of this. There was no economic analysis in the review that said: "Here's what potentially happens in this sector." That's a problem.

We also saw, of course, and we have heard from organizations and groups — like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, like some of the addiction experts — who have said that they have significant questions and that they haven't felt that those questions have been answered in the review, nor are they seeing any answers in the legislation. Maybe we'll get an opportunity from the minister in committee stage to flesh some of those issues out and get some answers to that, but they've raised those concerns.

Part of the challenge, I think, around Bill 15, around this particular piece of legislation, is that for many people in the sector, it probably raises more questions than it answers, this piece of legislation. When you look at the

schedule that the government has talked about, heading out into 2015, late into 2015, in order to implement a number of the changes that are envisioned here and have been talked about on the broader liquor review….

As the minister says, and officials in the ministry have told me, there will be, a year from now, another piece of legislation — I think the minister said a major rewrite of the act in its entirety — so we're going to see what that looks like at that time.

Presumably, at that time we're going to get a sense of what those changes might look like. This particular piece of legislation is pretty minimal in some ways in terms of what it accomplishes and what it does. The problem, though, is that the issues it engages are very real and very substantive issues for people in the sector and for people who are concerned about this. I want to talk a little bit about those issues that jump most to mind.

There's the discussion about putting VQA products in Safeways with a licence or a permit that is unique to them, and that's not a bad idea. I think that most people would say: "Well, if we can get VQA wines and some craft beers in and promote the B.C. product, that would be a good thing to do." I know, at least at this point…. We'll see whether the minister is able to provide us some advice on this when we get to committee stage.

[1410]

I can imagine that with the trade agreements that are in place, it will take about a minute for the Washington State or the California industries to say: "Wait a minute. We want this product on these shelves too."

It's one thing to go and put local B.C. products in a farmers market on a Sunday afternoon. It's quite another matter to have shelf space in a Thrifty Foods or a Save-On-Foods where you're selling product. I think it's a pretty safe bet that those people in other jurisdictions where we have trade agreements are going to look at this and say: "How is it okay that those products are there, yet my products can't be on the shelf as well?" How do we deal with that?

We haven't received any answers or any response from the government on this and, as I understand, neither have others who have inquired of the government as to how to deal with that matter.

We also know that we've now heard that we have the cap on the 670 licences for private stores. Yet we're now hearing that agency stores, which are under the LDB act, are going to be issued licences under, in fact, that liquor control and licensing rather than under the LDB act — so that's 220-odd agency stores.

Then the question becomes, since we now know that you're going to be able to sell these licences and move them around the province, that the five-kilometre rule will no longer exist. For people who might be paying attention, the current rules say that if you buy a liquor licence, a licence for a liquor store, you can't move it more than five kilometres from its current location.

What happened in that instance, of course, is that people actually bought liquor stores. They bought the store. They bought the facility, and in most cases, with a few exceptions, they stayed where they were, and they operated their new business where it was located. The value was the asset — included the bricks and mortar in the store.

Now, of course, the asset is the piece of paper — much more. I can go to Quesnel and buy a licence and bring it to the Lower Mainland and open a liquor store in the Lower Mainland, as long as I'm a kilometre away from any other store in the area. That creates a problem, and we'll talk a bit about that.

You have this situation now where these licences are incredibly valuable. The potential for people to pick those licences up and want to relocate them out of communities and into other areas that are higher population and,

[ Page 2508 ]

potentially, better revenue-generating communities for a liquor store is significant.

While the government talks about the importance of convenience — that being part of the argument for the grocery store model — the reality we have is that you may create a situation where people who currently have liquor outlets may lose them. There may be less outlets in any given town or jurisdiction if there was a reason to relocate those because of the value of the licence. We may see that happen. That's a problem, and I think that's a significant problem. It could make some people who get to sell those pretty wealthy, but it's a significant problem.

Then the question becomes: if they have those licences, are they going to be able to sell those licences in the same way that a liquor store can sell its licence? Are they going to be able to sell those agency store licences and move them? Are they going to be under the same rules as this new set of rules for the 670 licensed liquor stores today which will be able to sell their licences and have them relocated?

Well, we don't know that, and maybe the minister will be able to enlighten us about that when the time comes on that issue.

[1415]

Liquor in grocery stores. This is interesting. It's not entirely clear, other than for the 800 people or so who are on the blog, what exactly gets accomplished by putting liquor in grocery stores. Convenience, maybe. In most cases, though…. We certainly saw this in the research that was done by the Vancouver Sun . They looked at major food stores in the Vancouver area and found that out of 53, I think only two of them today could open a liquor store or a store within a store under the current rules because everybody else has a liquor store within a kilometre or less from their spot.

The reality is, and it should be no surprise to anybody, what the people who've opened private liquor stores, primarily — and some government liquor stores — have done is they locate near food stores because it's good for business. It makes sense in terms of them wanting to capture the market, because they know full well, as we've heard before, that somebody goes and buys their groceries, and they walk across the mall or the parking lot and go to the liquor store and buy their bottle of wine or their case of beer or their other beverage of choice. That's what they do. The convenience is real, and it's there.

We also know that in most cases those stores are significant. One of the things that's happened, and I think it's a positive in this industry, is you've seen some significant investment in private stores. What you have are stores that are physically quite nice. They're well-lit. They're well-stocked. They have specialty products. They have more commercial products. All of that's there.

These are significant stores in terms of what they carry, how they're supplied and how they're operated — very similar, many times, to a government store, when you look at them. I've gone into private stores and would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between some private stores and some government stores in terms of what they offer.

Part of the reason for doing this, of course, is they are significant. They're 3,000- or 4,000- or 5,000-square-foot facilities, and the significance, the size of them, allows for all of that variety, allows for all of that selection. What we know about the notion of the store within a store is that's not going to happen.

You go into…. Anybody, and I'm sure that the members of the House who have all gone shopping and been in Safeways…. We all know the major food chains and the major food stores have got a lot of product there, too, and they don't have a whole lot of space. If they're existing stores, they're going to have to remove something in order to create the space necessary to be able to put in the store within a store. Maybe they can carve out 1,000 square feet — maybe less than 1,000 square feet.

The question becomes: are you better off, in terms of that convenience, having 800 or 1,000 square feet of liquor store inside your Save-On-Foods, or are you better off walking 150 metres through the mall to get at the 5,000-square-foot store with all of the selection that it would provide? I think that's an important question.

Also, when you talk about convenience, and we'll have to see when the regulations get written…. The notion of a store within a store, with separate cashiering and teller services versus the tellers where you would check out food — is there a convenience there, when you have to line up at one teller in order to pay for your bottle of wine and then you go over and line up at the next teller to pay for your groceries? I'm not sure about the convenience there.

The other thing with this is that I think that there are a lot of people who looked at this and said: "I've been to California, and I've gone to this local store in California and been able to buy my product at Costco" — or wherever — "and they had a great selection. They also a very good price. They had a better price than the other liquor stores. They were able to better price because of volume." Well, I have heard no suggestion from anybody, including the minister or the parliamentary secretary or anybody else, that prices will necessarily be any lower in these food stores.

[ Page 2509 ]

[1420]

Obviously, at the end of the day, they will make their own decisions, but the reality is that the markups are pretty firm. I just don't see how the prices get a whole lot better in a Save-On-Foods, where you pick up your bottle of wine or your case of beer, than in your private liquor store. There is nothing to indicate that the prices will be any better. I suspect that's one of the things that people who, in fact, were looking at the possibilities around these private liquor store options were hoping for.

The other piece that we're seeing here, of course, is the question also around the single price. This is interesting. I recall the parliamentary secretary, back when he was in the middle of his work and doing this, being asked about pricing issues and saying at that time that it was not part of his mandate to deal with questions of pricing. That would be dealt with at some other place or time. It wasn't part of his mandate in the work that he did in producing his report.

Yet, interestingly, the piece that jumps out is the decision around the single wholesale price. So that people know — some suggest it's quite complicated — we have a current pricing system where private stores are priced…. They receive a discount, and that discount is there to allow them to cover overhead and to create some profit for themselves. They are discounted off the price that's in government stores.

The suggestion now is that we will go to some form of single price. When I talk to folks in the private stores, they are mixed about this. Some like that idea; some are less keen about it. They don't have a sense of where that price is going to land. Is it going to land around where their pricing is today? Will the price in government stores be adjusted? Or are the prices going to move up? And how is that going to work?

What we know, of course, is that government revenue is a significant issue here. We know the government gets significant revenue. I mean, it probably puts about $1 billion a year, in that range, into revenues to help pay for other services. So it's a significant amount of money.

We've seen no analysis here — first of all, how this change in wholesale pricing might or might not work, and what it might do to revenue streams. We don't know that, and that's got to be a significant question. Where do you move the pricing? Do you move it in the private stores or in the government stores to create this level price? And how does that make sense? You have these issues where there just seems to be a whole lot more questions than there are answers in terms of how those matters will be dealt with.

You have a situation today where we have a system, in terms of liquor distribution, that works pretty effectively, and the opportunity for retail. We have about 1,400 outlets in the province where you can purchase liquor — 200 government and about 1,200 on the private side.

The system works pretty well. The revenue steam to government is pretty successful. The distribution system is very cost-effective in distribution, mostly because the money gets made in the markup. So you're not taking it out of distribution, trying to make your money out of distribution; you're making it out of markup on product. It allows distribution to be done very efficiently and very cost-effectively.

If you talk to people in the private sector…. Members will recall back a year or two ago that the government was envisioning the notion of privatizing liquor distribution. The discussion that was ongoing then was around privatization of distribution. Of course, at that time many of the private operators — brewers, those folks — were saying, "This is crazy to do this," because they looked at the Alberta model, where private distribution is in place and the industry's privatized, pretty much in its entirety.

[1425]

They looked at what it cost them to move product in Alberta versus moving product in B.C., and it was much more cost-effective in British Columbia for brewers, for people who are in the industry. They didn't want the changes because it was going to increase their costs, which they would, of course, at some point have to pass on to consumers.

We have a very effective distribution system today, and it's not at all clear whether that will change. I think maybe this will come in next year's legislation when we see what's there. We know the government has mused about creating a Crown corporation to run the liquor industry or the liquor business for the province. That might make sense, I guess. As with most Crown corporations, the devil is in the details, and it will depend on what those details tell us.

We know that they're looking at selling current warehouse space around liquor distribution. I know that it's in my constituency, the current facility. It is an old facility, and it might make perfect sense to go and have a purpose-built facility somewhere else that's more effective and more efficient. But we don't know where this is going.

Consultants have been hired who have previously worked pretty closely for people who have been the strongest advocates of privatization, and those consultants are now advising government around distribution options. The door is clearly still open for them to provide advice that would suggest a different model, not just a different location. We'll have to see what happens with that when that discussion comes forward.

You have a situation currently where we have a report, produced by the parliamentary secretary, which is a shopping list of recommendations. You have a piece of legislation that's been brought forward that doesn't deal with most of them. It deals with things — and the minister talked a little bit earlier — but it essentially provides some ability for agency store licences and duty-free store licences now to be established with these different licences.

[ Page 2510 ]

We're not exactly sure what that's going to mean in terms of what you can do with those licences. It allows breweries and wineries and distilleries to sell and serve different types of liquor in different fashions and will allow private liquor stores to keep liquor off site. It makes sense.

It allows for liquor licences transferred, the transferee being able to use the licence while the LDB is completing its due diligence — a good thing to do. If somebody takes over a business, they should be able to run it while the agency does its due diligence to make sure that in fact they're somebody who we want to have a licence. It makes perfect sense.

It provides some additional training programs; allows for that. It allows for some changes structurally around the LDB, promotion of educational materials and, potentially, happy hour — which may be the thing that will be on most people's minds when it comes to this.

What it doesn't do is answer the questions on these big issues about what we're going to do with liquor moving forward. It doesn't answer questions about what the government's intentions are around current government stores and whether there's any view on that.

Now, we know that there are collective agreement issues. I believe the current collective agreement with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union in fact identifies the number of government stores that need to remain in place for the next number of years. I believe that's a collective bargaining issue.

I'll note for the hon. Speaker that I am the designated speaker here.

You have some ability to…. You have some limits on what can be done in the short term. That doesn't mean that plans can't be made going forward to make some further changes around those issues.

You have questions that get raised again around impacts on revenue. And what we know — just to note for people who may be following the debate — is that in fact the returns from the government stores are significantly better in terms of return to the public purse than in the private stores. The private stores do great business, and they work hard, and I have no complaints. But we get the better part of our return out of the government stores.

[1430]

It's important to know that that is the case. So any suggestion that starts to change that model between government and private stores or changes the model in any significant way by adding another player in — in this case maybe the corporate food retailers, the big chains — is going to change the funding model or going to change the revenue stream model, potentially, that comes to government. That is a serious issue for folks involved in the delivery of services.

When we look at some of these issues, you have to ask yourself whether the government is going to have to make changes to this legislation. The one-kilometre rule…. What that rule says, for those who might not know, is that you can't have a liquor store within a kilometre of an existing store. As I have noted before, the Vancouver Sun did some assessment — I think it was the Vancouver Sun — of what happens in the city of Vancouver and how almost no food store could take advantage of a licence currently unless they were able to buy out and advance an existing licence at some point.

The challenge there, of course, is: how is this going to work? Are they going to look to buy those licences out? Are they simply just not going to engage in this? We haven't heard, really, from the food industry, the retailers, very much about how they feel about this. What we do know, my understanding, is that they didn't ask for this, that they weren't making the requests for this opportunity. Clearly, if it comes, they'll take advantage of it, particularly if their competitors are taking advantage of it.

As we get to the committee stage here of this legislation, we're going to be looking for the minister to be able to answer some pretty specific questions about how these models are going to work moving forward and about the rationale around single pricing, wholesale pricing. How will the permitting and licence sales be operated so that it works? What are the projections for takeup in terms of potentially shifting a significant amount of this business into the food retail operations?

What might a store within a store look like, and what is the thinking around how that will function? Who will be eligible, and who won't be eligible? How, with the new licensing model, will there be assurances that smaller communities and outlying communities won't, in fact, lose their current stores to people who want to purchase those licences up and relocate them to places that create better revenue opportunities? And when that occurs, what happens to that community where the licence exited the community, and how do they still continue to get the services that they will want?

We'll be looking…. There have been questions, as I said, that have been raised by people in the private sector who are concerned about this, who are owners of private stores and others who are quite concerned about the model. We'll be asking some of their questions to see if we can determine answers that will help them to better understand what is and isn't occurring here. Folks around Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others have raised concerns about broadening out these sales, have raised concerns about how happy hour will be managed. We'll be looking for answers there.

We'll be looking to get a better sense of how the government is consulting with local governments. Obviously, any time you're dealing with liquor and the sale of liquor, it sometimes creates, at a very minimum, responsibilities for local governments around policing, around other issues of potential noise and disturbance that can sometimes come with liquor. What consultation has been done there about what the expectations are about how local

[ Page 2511 ]

governments will be able to manage or control the decisions that are made around where outlets will and can be located, including authority they have now, and will any of that change as we move forward?

[1435]

I suspect a lot of what we'll talk about will be things that will be almost foreshadowing maybe next year's legislation as much as what is in this legislation.

Part of the reason for needing to get at these questions is because this is a piece of legislation that's very similar to many things that the current government puts in place. It's what is called enabling legislation. It tends to create frameworks that answer few questions but allow for change to be done through regulation.

Change through regulation is change that can be done behind closed doors. It can be done without any discussion in this chamber at all. It can be done in ways that at some point you read about it in the B.C. Gazette down the road somewhere, that the changes have been made and that this is what the regulatory regime will be.

That's a bit problematic with areas like this, because there does need to be a public discussion. The public discussion has to be one that's more engaged, with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, than the parliamentary secretary in fact engaged in. It needs to be a place where there can be more back-and-forth and more discussion. What we certainly know from talking to people in the private sector is they continue to not have answers to many of their questions and concerns about how this will unfold. We're going to try to get a few of those answers anyways when we get to committee stage of this.

As I said, this particular piece of legislation is pretty modest in many ways in terms of what it looks to accomplish. Some of it's pretty benign, and some of it's just common sense. There may be some pieces that we'll have to look at more closely as we move forward, but this is only the beginning of a much bigger debate about liquor policy in this province.

This legislation is only the beginning of that much bigger debate about liquor policy, and I'm sure that debate will continue well into next year. Since many of these changes are anticipated well into next year, in 2015, we'll be talking about it for some time to come.

I look forward to the comments of others who, I'm sure, will be getting to their feet here in moments to add their contribution to the debate, and I look forward to getting to committee stage in the coming days or weeks, where we can try to get to some of the more substantive pieces of this legislation. Where, as many have said, it's raised more questions than it's answered, we'll see if we can get some answers to those questions as we move forward.

J. Yap: It's an honour to rise and participate in second reading debate on this bill, Bill 15, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014, one that I've had the privilege of having a role in leading to this stage and why we're here today to have this debate.

I, first of all, want to express that this was a truly interesting and educational opportunity, to have this role as Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Reform and to engage in this consultation, this review, which actually truly captured the imagination and the participation of so many British Columbians. As has been said in the past but bears repeating, this was the most — how should I say? — successful public engagement of this kind by government.

[1440]

I had the opportunity to post ten blogs, and they all, without exception, generated a lot of interest from British Columbians. Over 4,000 blog comments, some very thoughtful. There was back and forth. On a couple of occasions I had a chance to actually provide some live feedback on the blogs.

We also had 3,600 private e-mails and letters — the traditional handwritten letter — as well as, importantly, 75 stakeholder presentations, which took place all around the province, every region of the province. We received about 188 stakeholder submissions.

So quite comprehensive, as you can see. This truly was, for me, one of the most interesting files that I've had a chance to work on as an MLA, and the work continues.

As we went through this consultation, this engagement, it was clear that British Columbians were truly interested in this issue, and it's easy to see why. Liquor is part of life for many British Columbians. It's part of a cultural experience. It's part of a balanced, healthy lifestyle. But we also know that it's a product that has social and health impacts.

One of the things that we wanted to do from the outset was to ensure that we addressed all aspects of this issue. So the engagement and the report that resulted from it contained a lot of…. We did a lot of work, a lot of engagement, and have recommendations that reflect what I believe is a balanced approach, recognizing that, yes, we do want to support the hospitality and the tourism sector in terms of investment, job growth, tourism and communities that rely on these sectors and that we also want to provide opportunities for our producers, whether it's the excellent B.C. wine industry, as well as the emerging craft beer and spirits industries.

[ Page 2512 ]

All of that we heard loud and clear, but we also wanted to ensure that we addressed the health and social aspects of liquor. The recommendations reflect that, and the legislation that is being introduced, the amendments in this act, reflect that as well.

We heard during the review loud and clear that it was time for some commonsense changes, and I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who acknowledged that there were a number of changes that, really, all of us can agree on, no matter on which side of this House you sit.

This amending act will allow some of these changes to happen. For example, I think all of us would have some experience attending either festivals or events where there's historically been what's called a beer garden. The whole idea of corralling people who would like to have a beverage within a very small

section — it came through loud and clear that that's really not very practical, and in some respects had a contrarian impact in terms of people potentially overconsuming, because they had to consume right inside the pen, as it were, or the restricted location.

One change, for example, with respect to beer gardens…. A great consensus that, yes…. We even heard from law enforcement officials who said to get rid of the "penning people in a beer garden" approach. That's just one example.

We heard loud and clear, though, from British Columbians, as we went through this review, on one issue which had really captured the interest of British Columbians. That was the aspect of convenience. Whether it was through the blogs, through e-mails or through discussions directly with British Columbians, with stakeholders — and I'm sure others have heard this — the question is often put this way, "Why can't I, as the consumer, when I go into a grocery store have the opportunity to pick up a bottle of wine or a six-pack of beer while I'm buying my groceries?"

[1445]

That's something that British Columbians overwhelmingly provided that feedback on — to the tune of 75 percent feedback through this engagement. That's clearly something British Columbians wanted.

Now, having said that, as the member for Vancouver-Hastings noted, British Columbia has a blended system, a hybrid system of government liquor stores, which had been the tradition in our country, and privately owned liquor stores. The opportunity to look at how we could respond to this overwhelming desire of British Columbians to have what others in other jurisdictions….

People travel. British Columbians travel across the line to the United States, other parts of the world. People have come from other parts of the world to live here and become British Columbians and share their experiences. They ask why we can't have what others in other parts of the world have in terms of this product, which is part of a balanced lifestyle and a cultural aspect as well.

The changes that will be introduced will allow the development of a new model, a store-within-a-store model, to provide that convenience that British Columbians expressed that they are looking for. This government will respond to that desire. There are some jurisdictions that already have this store-within-a-store concept. It's not something totally new, but we will have a made-in-B.C. approach to ensuring that we have a system that will provide that convenience.

As has been referred to, we want to do this in a respectful way, respecting the fact that many entrepreneurs and families around the province have made significant investments in private liquor stores. A recommendation is to phase in this transition, and the work is underway to look at how we can do this. There are a few things that have been done to ensure that the investment by those families, British Columbians who have invested in private liquor stores — that we respect their investment.

As the member for Vancouver-Hastings previously mentioned, one is the one-kilometre rule to ensure that there is some spatial separation between liquor stores. We also will be allowing mobility of these private liquor store licences so that there would be an opportunity for those operators who perhaps may choose to relocate their licence or potentially sell their licence. They could make that business decision.

The approach with these amendments is to address an issue, liquor, that is important to many British Columbians, to bring more convenience, to modernize our regulations in a balanced way, to recognize that there are social and health impacts, to support communities, to support the manufacturing sector — the wine industry, the craft beer industry. All of these, I believe, are being addressed with these reforms, with this legislation and the changes that will come in the new year with respect to the complete rewrite of the act.

I heard from many people who had either participated in the review or heard about it or followed it. They asked: "Well, okay, so what's next?" To the member's comments, we're making changes to move along. This exercise, although it was very educational and interesting for me, was not just to do an interesting review but to make some changes.

[1450]

This act will allow us to introduce many of the changes. Roughly three-quarters of the recommendations, can be addressed in the short term with this legislative change and through regulation, as well, to implement the recommendations that were in my report.

Of course, I'm very enthusiastic about this bill, and I'm speaking in strong support of it. I know that there will be good dialogue and discussion about this important issue. The member for Vancouver-Hastings raised a number of questions, and I'm confident that during committee stage most of those questions should be addressed.

To conclude, I want to say to British Columbians

[ Page 2513 ]

and my constituents that we've heard from them. We understand that British Columbians want to see some commonsense changes. People want to see our liquor laws modernized. That's what this act will do, as well as the work that will continue to be done over the next number of months to implement the recommendations in my report.

The key here is an approach that is balanced. We've heard reference to…. One of the aspects is to ensure that social responsibility, more education, information and enforcement of the rules continue as part of a balanced approach to reforming the liquor laws of our province.

With that, I'll take my place. This is an important step after a most comprehensive public engagement on this important topic. To the minister, I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to work with her staff and to continue to be a part of implementing the recommendations that came out of this very significant public engagement.

To British Columbians who participated in the review, I would say this — I'll say this on the record here in Hansard : thank you for participating. The input was valued and considered. This step today, moving forward with this legislation, is part of what you have participated in, in reforming the liquor laws of our province.

L. Krog: I don't think there's a substance in our society that is the source of more sadness, more depression, more health issues — with the exception, perhaps, of tobacco on the health side, in the strict health sense — than alcohol. My views on this are somewhat tempered by my brief attendance as a young man at a Salvation Army Sunday school when I was very little. So I have that sort of temperance view of things, even though I will freely admit here in the presence of my colleagues in the House that I'm no teetotaller, that's for sure.

I did spent a number of years working in the liquor store. It started back in the glorious days when Dave Barrett was Premier, actually, and it paid for much of my university. I'm terribly grateful to the province of British Columbia and to Dave Barrett for enabling me to do that and to leave school, unlike so many nowadays, without the burden of any significant student debt.

Having said that, I'm conscious of the fact that alcohol and its abuse and use are just part of history. It's biblical, if you can argue that that was God's gift to Noah. We have been consuming alcoholic beverages throughout history. If you ever take time to read any portions of Samuel Pepys's diaries, you'll see that he was a prodigious consumer of alcoholic beverages yet managed to achieve no small place in the history of the United Kingdom.

[1455]

I do recall those days when it was, I think, still expected that women wouldn't enter what we referred to as beer parlours without being accompanied by a man. We had separate entrances. And I certainly recall the days before the advent of private liquor stores.

I don't know that I've heard anything, either in the remarks of the minister or her parliamentary secretary or anyone in society, that's convinced me in the last 40-plus years since I was legally enabled to consume alcohol that easier access to the purchase of alcoholic beverages is necessarily a good thing.

Now, I appreciate this will certainly cause some consternation amongst perhaps some of my colleagues on this side of the House and others as well, but I've never been convinced that having liquor stores within easy and convenient driving distance of where you live was necessarily a good thing.

I never thought the plethora of private liquor stores that has occurred as a result of government policy over these last many decades has necessarily improved community life, made our society any healthier or, indeed, promoted the general welfare of the public or increased employment significantly in a positive way.

The reality is that for many years in this province buying a case of beer at the beer parlour and purchasing all alcoholic beverages through a government-run liquor distribution system, in fact, I suspect, served the people of British Columbia quite adequately, as did all of those wonderful agency stores in small communities around the province that were relatively isolated and enabled some of those often family-run, mom-and-pop operations to survive because they had a product that all of us — well, I shouldn't say all of us — or many of us like to consume and that many of us enjoy.

At the same time, I'm not averse to realizing that we have and have had some of the more antiquated and silly rules when it comes to the delivery of alcohol in our society. I believe one of the

definitions of "sophisticated" is "unnecessarily complex," and I think if there was ever a term to describe how alcohol was sold in the province of British Columbia, sophisticated would be a kind word. Most people tend to attach a more positive aspect to that word, but in fact I'm going to use it in the negative sense.

The concept, for instance, as the minister mentioned earlier in her remarks today, that a family celebrating a wedding couldn't consume a beverage produced by that very family seems — how shall I say? — a bit retrograde and silly. The prospect that you could only get certain things at certain places — likewise, a bit silly. The concept that we, successive governments, have promoted a very successful wine industry in the province of British Columbia yet so restricted in terms of samples and not able to sell other types of liquor just seems, again, a bit silly.

I am of two minds on this. I realize we're not going back to what I will refer to as the good old days when the government was raking in all of the profits off the sale of alcohol in British Columbia, save and except for bars and restaurants. But at the same time, I am concerned that in moving to the new system that the minister and

[ Page 2514 ]

her parliamentary secretary have talked about, we may end up creating a system that might not serve the public interest over the longer haul.

The devil will be in the details, essentially, as my friend from Vancouver-Hastings pointed out. It will be in terms of the policy that results from this legislation and the promised full repeal and rewrite of this act in 2015 and how those regulations actually define what it's going to look like.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I am concerned, also, because there are a number of family private liquor stores in my community, for example. I know the families. I know the people. These are responsible business people. They run good operations. They treat their employees well.

[1500]

I am concerned that there could be some detriment to those operations and, in particular, anyone who's looking at expansion or change right now, as was pointed out by my colleague. Banks have been extremely difficult to deal with in the last little while as the state of liquor policy in this province has definitely been in flux.

I'm also concerned that we may arrive at a stage where, like the supply management system for milk…. The quota cost of milk now essentially prohibits anyone from getting into the business. Now, I'm not suggesting we abandon the supply management system — that is a discussion not for this place, in any event, and a discussion for another day — but I am concerned about the concentration, if you will, of private licences in corporate hands with the potential increase in value of those licences.

We've seen the same problem arise in the fishing sector where we have seen so-called slipper fishermen, I think they're referred to, who sit at home and live off the proceeds of the licence that they let someone else use and operate to fish with. In a sense, government has created an asset of incredible value by legislation and — how shall I say? — created winners and losers.

I've never suggested we should ban the sale of alcohol. I'm not calling for an amendment to the constitution like they did in the United States and lead to prohibition. But at the same time, if I can pick up the licence for the liquor store in, say, Tofino, and retail it in Victoria, for instance, for substantially more, does that mean we have to wait until another licence becomes available and some entrepreneurial type who's willing to take the risk and convince a bank to loan the money will, in fact, then secure a licence and bring it back into Tofino?

If there isn't reasonable access to the purchase of alcoholic beverages, does this mean that the government liquor stores will be in a position to set up operation, then? Does this mean that someone will be able to apply easily for a so-called licensed store, the kinds of stores that have provided service in remote communities? What are we going to do when it comes to defining what those remote communities or problematic locations are going to be?

It seems to me that we are going at this somewhat piecemeal. I appreciate the pressure from, certainly, a portion of the public around reforming or changing the laws relating to this. But when we're talking about doing, in 2015, a full repeal and rewrite, is this such a pressing social issue that these changes were required now, as opposed to doing a full-blown change in one fell swoop that would set the playing field up, if you will?

Everyone would know what the rules are, as opposed to this almost twilight zone kind of approach where there is uncertainty, which is causing some economic hardship I know, particularly in my community, to one operator who's in the process of expanding and relocating. And at the same time, it potentially creates an opportunity for someone with deep pockets to take advantage of the driving down of the price.

[1505]

I mean, I think it's quite apparent. I know this from talking to private operators in my community. With the changes that have been talked about and proposed, with the changes relating to what I will call essentially the decriminalization of drunk-driving laws in this province and reduction to merely an administrative or fine-based penalty system, they have seen the value of their stores and operations and pubs diminished significantly, not dissimilarly, I would suggest, in the same way that we have seen a tremendous drop in the value of real estate assets on the Gulf Islands because of government policy around ferries.

Whatever we may be saving in terms of millions of dollars arguably by reducing routes and sailings, those people in particular who own property there, who live there, whether it's a vacation home or their permanent residence, have seen that money simply evaporate. No different than when the price of a stock collapses, the value is literally gone.

[ Page 2515 ]

chase these beverages a benefit?

I think that liquor policy is always a difficult one for society. Lord knows that every government is now absolutely addicted to dealing with people's addictions in terms of revenue. Whether it's gambling and gaming or the sale of alcohol, governments are addicted to it. It's a cliché. It's not — how shall I say it? — in my view a cliché that's overused. It's absolutely true, and we see it everywhere.

My concerns around this legislation are based on the uncertainty it brings about in terms of the liquor industry generally and its distribution and sale. I certainly am supportive of the changing of regulation and laws that are, frankly, seen as a bit silly and that the average members of the public see as silly. But at the same time, I'm not sure that we send the appropriate message, regardless of the fact that it's going to be potentially set apart as a separate entity in a large food store. I'm not sure it sets the correct — how shall I say? — image for the young when alcohol is grabbed off the shelf with the same ease as a box of cornflakes.

I'm not entirely convinced we are sophisticated or an old society in the way that many of the European countries that many of us visit and admire and respect in terms of their social licence, if you will, and their attitudes towards alcohol and its consumption are. I'm not sure we're there yet, but I will vote in support of this legislation. I think there will be an awful lot to do, though, with respect to the minister explaining the full effect and impact of the changes that are proposed.

I am concerned most certainly about the discounts that are being offered. The rural agency stores are getting 12 percent now. Regular private liquor stores get 16 percent, and independent wine stores are getting 30 percent. If we are going to continue to regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol, and I would suggest we should, most certainly, then I think it's important that we decide what exactly we are trying to achieve by that.

If the concept that the government has is to eventually create an entirely private system, then they should say so. I suppose we'll see that in 2015, one way or the other. If their intention is to allow this mixed system of private and public liquor stores to continue, so be it. If there's to be a system that takes into account changing attitudes, so be it.

[1510]

But I think at the end of the day what we really have here are a lot of questions, not that many answers, not the kind of certainty that is good.

Government has to understand — and I hope and trust that the minister does — that uncertainty in the marketplace is bad for the economy. When things are uncertain, investment dries up, lenders won't lend and employment is not created. We will see, I suspect, some very negative aspects of this unless the government makes it absolutely clear where we are going.

I think the concept, quite appropriately, that the BCGEU has expressed in the move towards equal wholesale pricing is a reasoned and sensible position. If all we're really trying to do is provide alcohol more readily and one of the aspects of that is to drive down wages in a sector where people can earn a decent living and pay taxes and support all of the other programs that we value, then I don't think it's good public policy. It's not going to achieve any social good.

Moreover, we have the issue, as I say, of the fear of competition for the small, private family liquor store owners, as I will call them, from the sale in massive grocery stores. With great respect, the most successful private capitalist in British Columbia, Jimmy Pattison, is in a position — controlling as much of the grocery market as he does — to buy up licences in a way that possibly very few corporate entities are able to. These are all concerns.

I look forward to what other members have to say on this, and I certainly look forward to the Attorney General's response in committee stage of this bill. The devil truly is in the details in this one.

J. Martin: It's a privilege to be here today to speak to Bill 15, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, introduced this year. I was very fortunate to have the opportunity throughout the thorough, exhaustive process of consultation to engage in dialogue with the parliamentary secretary on this particular file.

I'm also fortunate to have living in my riding a constituent and good friend who is the president of ABLE, which is a representative body for the private retailers. I think I've become fairly thoroughly versed in the range and the breadth of this piece of legislation. As I say, it's great to be able to speak to it.

If I may, I'd like to talk a little bit first about process. One thing, I think, that is becoming very, very obvious, becoming very, very clear, is that this government is demonstrating more openness, more public engagement and more consultation than any previous administration.

If we think about the speed limit review that went on, it was a touring forum that went from community to community to community. People from Highways and from the ministry were there. They had charts. They had information. Citizens were filling out questionnaires. We're getting a huge range of opinions and concerns and viewpoints on speed limits and other issues around traffic. It's unprecedented.

Similarly, the Ministry of Environment with the water sustainability legislation — one of the most open, exhaustive processes of public engagement and consultation that has ever happened in this province. That piece of legislation hadn't been updated in 100 years, and the minister and her staff made every effort to get as much public input into that process as possible.

We also saw that with the disability white paper. Again, a touring forum went from community to community and heard from citizens, heard from people on challenges,

[ Page 2516 ]

obstacles, different ideas and proposals to address issues of mobility for those with disabilities.

In conjunction with this review on the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, I think this government has shown that it is willing to engage the public in a consultative two-way manner that is literally unprecedented. It's an honour to be able to see the results coming in and to be able to speak to what is soon going to be voted on in this particular House.

[1515]

If I can digress for a moment. It was either 1984 or 1985 that I had the privilege of being at the Kerrville Folk Festival in Kerrville, Texas, about 80 miles outside of Austin. Kerrville is one of the most famous folk festivals in the world. Sadly, most Canadians know of it because it was the last venue that our own Stan Rogers ever played before that fateful day when his plane went down.

I was there for a couple of days at the festival. Jerry Jeff Walker was the headliner. It was probably the best show I ever saw in my life. And one thing that struck me as absolutely bizarre and out of this world was that I could buy a beverage and walk around the folk grounds. I could go where the bands were. I could go to where the merchandising was. I could go from the little stage to the big stage area. I could actually have a beer in my hand, and I wasn't being tackled by security. And I thought: "Wow, this is Texas, and they're letting me get away with this."

I was thinking: "What is going on back home that our beer gardens are literally corrals?" They're cages. I wouldn't want to see chickens cooped up like that for very long on a summer day. We can talk about regulation. We can talk about policy and all the other issues associated with this piece of legislation. But more than anything else, it's about modernization. It's about a piece of legislation that is overdue for reform and modernization.

This is exactly what this process has done, and my hat is off to the parliamentary secretary and the Attorney General for having the fortitude to move this forward and modernize, basically, an antiquated Victorian-era liquor act that was well overdue for reform.

Victoria. This is the birthplace of craft brew. This is the best place for craft brewing in the country. Just across the harbour is Spinnakers Brew Pub, the very first brew pub to ever open in Canada. That is a magnificent facility. If you haven't been there, I highly recommend it. Swans Brew Pub — again, stellar. You've got some of the best craft beer producers, craft ale producers, right here in Victoria. You've got Phillips, Driftwood. I mean, it's just a spectacular array. And we have not been able to support the craft brewers the way we should be able to.

Eventually we got around to being able to support our absolutely world-class wine industry. We've done that. This piece of legislation, among many other things, is going to be very, very helpful in supporting our craft brewers, making their product more available, accessible. It's basically, again, bringing us into the modern era in how we celebrate and how we market a world-class product.

In my own riding in Chilliwack I've got one of the gold-medal winners in craft brewing, Old Yale Brewing with their Sergeant's IPA. They have just been able to expand into a newer facility. They are ecstatic about being able to sell growlers, the prospect of a tasting room, being able to market their product in a way that craft brewers have not been able to do in the past.

This legislation — still in the early stages, obviously — is one of the things that's going to help entrepreneurs like that. We've got such a vibrant craft industry. Among other things, this legislation is going to be very valued. More than anything else, I think what Bill 15, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, does is that it strikes that balance.

That's probably the toughest thing for government to do, particularly with a product like alcohol, with the health concerns, the social issues. Many of the peripheral concerns around alcohol make it a very, very tough file to move forward on. In getting that balance, we don't want to be completely, obviously, the Wild West, where you can go into any gas station or pop shop and pick up a dozen beer. But we've also seen what happens with overregulation, and that's not necessarily a good thing either. I think this strikes the proper balance.

[1520]

Obviously, alcohol is not like a meat shop. It's not like a tire shop. It requires regulation. Government is not going to say anything if two butchers set up in the same plaza, but obviously there are some concerns around a heavy concentration of venues selling alcohol. So we're maintaining that one-kilometre rule, and that is going to, in almost all circumstances, prohibit having more than one venue selling beer, wine, spirits within a kilometre of another. That's good for business, it's good for consumers, and I think it's good common sense on behalf of the ministry to maintain that one kilometre.

On the other hand, we also recognize that this is a legal product and we need to be responsible in how this is made available. Consumers and the public made it very, very clear that they were not satisfied in all areas of availability, and this legislation responds to that without opening up the floodgates. It's a tempered, moderate response to what the public wants. This government, being a free enterprise government, one that recognizes the forces of the free market and appreciates the input that the public has as consumers, responded to that, and with this piece of legislation I think they've done so in an admirable manner.

I'll spend a few moments, if I may, and speak to some of the specifics. I know other members are going to address different points here.

One of the things that makes this unique is the two-part model that British Columbians have called for, in convenience. This notion of a store within a store, being able to…. It's not all that different than in some grocery

[ Page 2517 ]

stores where the electronics area is kind of corralled off from the rest of the store and there's a separate till there. It's a responsible way to do it. It keeps it out of the hands of minors. It's not aisle after aisle of a particular product that some consumers may want no part of. It's going to be done in a very responsible manner.

The store-within-a-store model is not entirely unique. Other jurisdictions have done it. It seems to be, again, a good balance between opening up the availability of beer, wine and spirits while still maintaining responsible controls that promote safety, restrict access to minors and do so in a very friendly consumer environment.

The second model that this legislation does — and this, in particular, is going to be extremely well received by the public — will be the flexibility to accommodate VQA licences as well as a number of new licences that sell VQA wine in grocery stores. Under this particular model, wine will be allowed to be sold off at designated tills.

Yes, we want responsible control. We don't want a wide-open situation that we see in some other jurisdictions. But if somebody goes and picks up the supplies for a Caesar salad and may be going to pick up some pork tenderloin to grill up, it's kind of nice to have the option, if one so wished, to be able to pick up a nice bottle of Okanagan Merlot to go along with that. That's modern. It's not excessive. It's not doing anything radical here. It's respecting consumers as responsible adults, and we're delivering it to them in a very responsible manner.

These changes are going to be part of a phased-in approach that will try to lay the foundation for a responsible grocery model that's unique to B.C. We don't have to do it like Alberta. We're not going to do it like Washington State. We'll do it the way British Columbians do it, and it'll be better than all of the rest put together.

Now, liquor and grocery: what are the priorities here? To respond to consumer demand for convenience. This government heard from consumers, tens of thousands of them, and we're responding to them. We're protecting government revenue. We're not pretending that somehow government isn't involved in the collection of revenue from this particular product, and we're not going to see that diminish in any way, shape or form.

The implementation is going to be phased in. As my colleagues on the opposition side have already raised, there may be some issues around sudden change to existing merchants, entrepreneurs. Some people may have concerns about the viability of their licence when change comes. But the reality is that we're always evolving. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be done responsibly.

[1525]

This is going to be phased in incrementally. Nothing is changing overnight. We're not going to see any earth-shattering differences on Monday morning. It's going to be incremental, it's going to be responsible, and it's going to serve the consumers.

Most important — and this cannot be emphasized enough — the grocery model that this government will be implementing will address the health and safety concerns. It will enhance the processes that keep alcohol out of the hands of minors. This will be done in the most socially responsible manner that is available.

As I already mentioned, we're going to be promoting the B.C. industry. I want the opportunity to be able to go local and support a B.C. winery. I don't order a bottle of wine if it's not from B.C. I want to be able to consume craft beer made in British Columbia. I don't drink imports. Well, once in a while. But I want to be able to get behind the craft brewers. I want us to be able to support them, and I want them to know that this government appreciates the jobs that they create, appreciates their contribution to the economy, to tourism and to creating a vibrant social scene throughout British Columbia.

Among other things, to enhance the social responsibility aspect of this particular legislation, this government will be legislating broader application for Serving It Right programs. We'll be legislating authority to mandate educational materials regarding responsible consumption and establish the ability to offer happy hours with minimum drink prices. So it's not going to be a fire sale. We're going to do this right. We're not going to do it in a manner where we have to backtrack and unring that bell. We're going to get it right the first time.

As I say, we're going to be selling beer, wine and spirits in grocery stores in a very socially responsible manner that is approachable, convenient and appreciated by consumers. They're the ones that asked for it, and our job as government is to respond to consumer demand.

In terms of public education, the government will be expanding this regarding health and safety risks related to alcohol use, with a particular emphasis on the effects of binge drinking by youth and post-secondary students. It's something that we can never emphasize enough and never be too cautious about. We will be anteing up our contribution to that public relation front.

We'll be identifying all of the government's alcohol-related education initiatives to ensure they're focused and as effective as possible; making information about Canada's low-risk drinking guidelines available to consumers in licenced establishments; collaborating between government, public health officials, industry and other groups to develop effective, meaningful social responsibility; education campaigns to display in licensed establishments, liquor stores, advertising and public service campaigns. Above all else, we'll be working with other provinces and territories to encourage the federal government to put warning labels on all liquor products.

Enforcement and compliance is absolutely paramount as we introduce this change, as we introduce a new era in how beer, wine and spirits are made available in this particular province. Among other things, we'll be encouraging police to use the enforcement rules of ticket-

[ Page 2518 ]

ing and fines more frequently for people under 19 years of age who are caught possessing liquor or using false identification, being in restricted premises and selling liquor. Up until now we basically focused solely on the proprietor, as we well should, but people under 19 years old have a role in being responsible as well. With this legislation, we'll be attending to that.

We'll also be reviewing the enforcement penalties of the liquor control and licensing branch and other jurisdictions to see that B.C.'s penalty levels are appropriate. Everything needs review from time to time. It's our responsibility to make sure that we're doing it right, and if we have to address some of those levels, then that's exactly what we'll do.

We'll be considering how different types of penalties…. For instance, a suspension or a monetary penalty. How does that impact a licensee? How does that impact staff?

[1530]

I mean, these are some of the things that are of concern to entrepreneurs as we move forward with these changes. We want stability in the marketplace, but we also want a marketplace that has the capacity to grow and to respond to changing times and respond to consumers.

I could talk about this for quite a while, but I think what I'd rather do for a moment or two is just reiterate what some other people are saying about this.

From Debbie Woodward of Privato Vineyard: "Even having a presence at a farmers market would be fun. What a novel concept: being able to have a glass of wine or to buy a bottle of wine at a farmers market."

I mean, this is not something that is unfathomable. It's basically catching up with what other jurisdictions are doing, in a responsible manner. Particularly, in an area where I come from — agricultural based — farmers markets are a big part of the social landscape, recreational leisure landscape. This might be a way to enhance them.

From Bobbe Lyall of Harper's Trail Estate Winery: "To be able to do a sampling and show people what we've made locally…. I think it would really fit in nicely. Why shouldn't we be able to show off? We make wine and craft beer as good or better than any other jurisdiction on the planet, and we should be bragging about it. We should be using that to enhance tourism and to promote local economies."

From the Prince George Farmers Market Association, this is Yvonna Breed. She says: "I think selling local wine at farmers markets is a great idea. I personally know people who are interested in developing specialized products like that up here. If you think about it, we can make all kinds of fruit wine. We can grow raspberries, strawberries, huckleberries, all sorts of things, so there could be farms that actually grow the products and maybe even supply a processor."

This is so innovative. It's so evolutionary. It's moving the industry to an area, to a place, where it naturally should be going.

As a 35-year member of the Royal Canadian Legion, I'll sign off here with what their response was to the liquor review. This comes from Angus Stanfield, president of the Royal Canadian Legion B.C.-Yukon Command. "We're thrilled to hear government is making positive changes in liquor regulations impacting the Royal Canadian Legion and other membership clubs. We are looking forward to it. These changes will help us strengthen our charitable giving for veterans, youth, seniors and communities we serve."

This legislation covers so many areas. It's addressing so many current shortfalls in the existing legislation. It is moderate. It is responsible. It strikes a balance. It's good for business, it's good for consumers, and it's great for British Columbia. I'm very happy to be part of a government that is introducing this legislation. Absolutely, I'll be cheering the night that we vote to pass this into legislation.

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today Elizabeth Zarpa, who is with the law program at the University of Victoria, as well as Troy Sebastian, member of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. They're here participating in an international day of action, a march, calling for a federal inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada.

I heard a very moving testimony from Elizabeth Zarpa, who was friends with the woman who was brutally killed, Loretta Saunders, an honour student studying missing and murdered indigenous women at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

They are joining the call into a national inquiry for more than 800 indigenous women who have gone missing or have been murdered throughout the past 30 years. It was a very powerful gathering, very moving. It touched my heart and, I think, the hearts of British Columbians and Canadians.

I join them in supporting their call for a federal inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada. I ask everybody to extend their welcome and welcome them here to the grounds of the Legislature.

[1535]

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: To begin, I'd like to thank the member from Chilliwack for highlighting so many of the outstanding microbreweries that have spawned in the capital regional district. In fact, there's a craft beer revolution that started in greater Victoria that's spread throughout

[ Page 2519 ]

British Columbia.

I have the pleasure to actually have a very good friend who wrote the book on the craft beer revolution, called precisely that. His name is Joe Wiebe, and he's a constituent in the Victoria region here locally.

The Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act is the initial piece of legislation that will bring some needed changes to the distribution of alcohol in our region, in our province. Building on the legislative changes that have occurred over the past decade, the government has recognized that a detailed examination on how liquor is managed in this province is overdue and has stated a number of reforms they intend to bring forward. The legislation before us today takes a first step in instituting some of these changes.

Guiding these proposed reforms was a substantial public consultation that allowed British Columbians to contribute to the report that outlined how B.C. should reform its laws around the sale and distribution of alcohol. This sort of public outreach to determine the direction of public policy helps ensure that a social licence is earned and that trust is created between a government and its citizens. I want to applaud the government's efforts and, in particular, the member for Richmond-Steveston, who went forward with this consultation process to establish the social licence before instituting or proceeding to bring this legislation forward to us today.

The legislation before us will allow for certain reforms that I believe warrant recognition. I'm pleased to see that by this summer small vendors will be able to sell alcohol at farmers markets. As I understand, these vendors will also be able to provide samples to interested customers. This is a great initiative that promotes small business in the microbrewery and wine industries of our province.

The B.C. Craft Brewers Guild reports that the sale of craft beer in B.C. has doubled in just the past four years, going from 9 percent of all B.C. sales of beer in 2009 to 19 percent in 2013, while the Liquor Distribution Branch reports sales by microbrewers shooting up by 38 percent. This is not without substantial economic impact. The Conference Board of Canada reported late last year that for every dollar Canadians spend on beer, $1.12 is generated for the Canadian economy.

More generally, according to the organization called Conversations for Responsible Economic Development, CRED — this is my favourite statistic — within Canada, more people work in the beer economy than in the oil sands economy. I reiterate that for the record. More people work in the beer economy than in the oil sands economy in Canada — 163,200 jobs in the beer economy; 112,000 direct jobs in the oil sands economy. These are numbers that we should be proud of. B.C., in particular the capital regional district, has led the way in the craft beer revolution — and the fine wine revolution in the Okanagan — in Canada.

As these changes are rolled out over this year and the next, it's very important that they are implemented in a responsible manner that makes public safety a priority. My comments to this regard will echo those of the previous speakers. The government has implemented significant changes in the last few years that sought to decrease the prevalence of drinking and driving. I hope to see this continue, to take the societal effects of alcohol consumption seriously, even as we introduce some of these necessary changes.

We must also ensure that as these reforms are implemented, we continue to engage the small business communities of this industry. For example, there may be small businesses established under previous legislation that might be affected down the road. Some may be committed to long-term leases in their existing sites. Others may find it difficult to compete if, as is being discussed, grocery stores are allowed to sell beer and wine. As we all know, small business is the engine of the B.C. economy, and steps must be taken to ensure the continued success of this sector.

[1540]

For the most part, my concerns with the legislation before us and with some of the other proposed reforms are that they may negatively impact small businesses.

Change happens. We all recognize that. Updating liquor laws may require that we alter the established order of things. However, by ensuring we have an open and ongoing conversation with those who will be impacted, we can at least try to mitigate the amount of disruption that these changes cause.

Reforms to liquor store licensing may have a large impact on small businesses. The bill before us starts to lay the groundwork for substantial changes in this area, so we must be particularly vigilant in our approach to dealing with these small businesses.

One of the most substantial reforms around liquor licensing that this government intends to introduce is to allow liquor store licences to be bought and sold freely across our province. This will directly impact on how the industry operates, particularly in light of the cap on the number of liquor licences available.

Based on what has been made public so far, this proposed change is likely to considerably increase the value of these licences. Indeed, with the implementation of this reform, it's conceivable that the buying and selling of liquor licences becomes a market in and of itself, divorced from the local market demand for liquor. This could then result in a situation where, for example, a small retail outlet in, say, Burns Lake sells its licence to a retail outlet in Vancouver.

While there's nothing inherently wrong with licences moving freely across our province, there is an argument to be made here for fairness in our rural communities. As liquor store operators in small communities suddenly have these very profitable licences, they may decide, in fact, to sell their licences to a business in a larger city. This

[ Page 2520 ]

could then leave the rural community — in my example it was Burns Lake — with liquor stocks well below what the market demand is, based purely on the profitability of a larger market like Vancouver.

I'm also interested in the potential effects of continuing to cap the number of liquor store licences in the province while simultaneously creating a new market for these licences. This approach may impact the government's flexibility to make necessary corrections in the future. Again, another example — the city of Vancouver is having enormous difficulty issuing new taxi licences because of the lobbying efforts of existing taxi licence holders who want to maintain the status quo and the value of their licences. Conceivably, a similar situation could arise with B.C. liquor stores. This is something that we need to be careful of.

In conclusion, my view is that this legislation contains a number of practical changes to our liquor laws. It's worth noting that the government intends to have an incremental approach to roll out these proposed changes and that the bill in front of us today introduces reforms that are far from the most controversial. Nevertheless, I think the introduction of this bill allows this House to discuss some of the key principles that should baseline any reform, while the bill itself will help to provide new business opportunities for small business owners across the province.

I look forward to more detailed discussion of the specific elements contained within the bill at the next stage of discussions.

C. James: I rise to speak to Bill 15. I think, as many of my colleagues have said and others in this House, that this bill does not represent all of the work that the government has been talking about around liquor control and licensing changes.

I want to take my time to speak a little bit to the planning work — and the work that I worry is missing — that comes forward with Bill 15. There are some, as I said, reasonable approaches when it comes to changes in liquor control. I think all British Columbians, and the minister of state mentioned it earlier, could give you ideas and approaches that they believe don't make sense or have contradictions when it comes to liquor licensing and liquor laws in our province. I certainly am in support of making some commonsense changes.

A specific that has come to me in my constituency is the issue of cooking schools. Some cooking schools are able to allow the patrons who come for a cooking class to bring a bottle of wine with them, to enjoy wine with their meal after they're done cooking. Other establishments have been told that they would require a special occasion licence for wine to be able to be brought in.

[1545]

I think there are a number of those kinds of contradictions that most British Columbians would look at and say are important to be changed and are important to have consistency on across the province. It certainly shouldn't matter which liquor licensing person you have as to what kind of situation you face in your community.

As I said, I think there are some very sensible approaches that will come forward. But I think the important piece in all of this is that whenever you're looking at changes — and it's not simply to liquor control — in any kind of government law or government regulations, it's critical that you take a look at the consequences, both intended and unintended. I am here to speak to this bill to express my concern that I am not certain that this government has truly looked at the consequences of making changes to liquor control and to liquor licensing.

That raises all kinds of red flags and all kinds of worries, because how can you prepare…? The minister stated when the bill was introduced, and the minister of state spoke today, about the fact that this is simply one piece of a whole series of changes to liquor licensing that will come forward. The minister of state mentioned everything from happy hour to families in pubs and bars, to changes in licensing, to sports and games and access to alcohol in public events.

There's a whole range of changes the government is contemplating. I recognize that not all of those are included in Bill 15, but, as the minister of state said, they are all part of an ongoing package, Bill 15 being the beginning of that discussion. My question would be, then: how do you make changes like Bill 15, which brings forward a couple of changes, without knowing the big picture, without knowing all of the changes you're going to make and without taking a look at the impact of the many different kinds of changes you may bring forward around liquor licensing?

If you take a look at research across the country, the research is very clear that when you make changes to access to alcohol, there are impacts on alcohol consumption. I think that wouldn't be a surprise to most of us. I think that would be a pretty straightforward belief for most people, that if you increase access, if you increase the opportunity, you're also going to increase the challenges that are there.

Now, as I said, that doesn't mean you shouldn't move on changes. It doesn't mean you should move on access. It just means you should make sure, if you're a good government, that you've done the planning to look at what those changes are, that you've made sure you've looked at the proper approach to plan and prepare for those changes.

There was a very interesting study done for addiction services for the Department of Health Promotion and Protection in Nova Scotia. I want to read a couple of quotes from that study because I think it speaks to the kind of importance of planning that I think is there. This study, again, as I said, was commissioned by the government of Nova Scotia for their health department.

[ Page 2521 ]

The study says: "Overall alcohol consumption and high-risk drinking has been increasing in Canada in recent years. It's expected that initiatives to increase access to alcohol and stimulate higher levels of overall consumption will contribute to increasing the risks from alcohol, the damage from alcohol and the attendant health, social and law enforcement costs."

Again, I don't think this would be a surprise to most people that you're going to see an increase in challenges as you change the kind of access and ability for access that people have. I think that really, to me, points out the critical need that you make your decisions on the kind of context that is there, that you don't make them in a vacuum, that you don't bring forward one change without looking at the impact and that you make sure you include those impacts.

Another quote from the study that I think, again, is important. It says that decision-making protocols related to alcohol and related to liquor control "do not routinely include health and safety experts at the decision-making table.

[1550]

"Furthermore, an increase in overall sales is conceptually and erroneously separated from the increase in the rate of alcohol-related problems. In other words, it's falsely assumed in business and retail circles" — and in decision-makers — "that more alcohol can be sold without creating the potential for more alcohol-related problems in a society." That, to me, really says how critical it is that we address the issue and the challenges that will come with making changes to liquor control, such as the changes that are identified in Bill 15.

As I said earlier, there have been a large number of suggestions from government to make changes in legislation, but I haven't heard any discussion from this government, in this bill or in any of the conversations that I've heard from members across the way, that has talked about planning, talked about impact studies, talked about research that might have been done, talked about some of the challenges that are created.

I think all of us know — and we've heard studies from chiefs of police, for example, that have come forward over the last couple of years that have identified the real issues when it comes to addictions in British Columbia — the real costs that are there for government. I mean, this isn't an issue that simply becomes a cost to the person who is struggling with addictions, although that in itself, I would suggest, is reason enough to take on these challenges. In fact, it is a huge cost to government. It's a huge cost to our health care system.

If we don't as a government and as a society address the issues of addictions, then we will see those increased costs in the justice system and in the health care system. If we're taking a look at making changes and if we're taking a look at addressing the issues of alcohol consumption and addressing the issues of more access to alcohol, then I think it's critical that we take a look at what kinds of supports we have in place now in British Columbia.

Let's take a look at the addiction services that the changes in Bill 15 will not address and, in fact, could cause more pressure on. Right now in British Columbia the addiction services supports that are in place are mainly a user-pay system, although it has been recognized for a very long period of time that addiction is a health care issue.

It's not something to do with one's own will. It's not something to do with a good person or a bad person. Addictions impact everybody in all parts of society and all parts of our world and all parts of our families. It is right now seen still as a user-pay, not the approach of: "You have an illness, therefore we will provide, as we do with other illnesses, the support that you need." Because of that, you see many people who have addictions who are struggling to be able to get supports.

We see a huge shortage across this province, a huge shortage of treatment facilities, a huge shortage of supportive recovery houses. We know that there are people who are on waiting lists, and anyone who has worked in the area of the field of addictions knows that if someone comes forward and asks for help, that's the time to be able to put the help and the support in place. That's when you want to make sure that you're providing that support. Yet we don't see that.

Here we are looking at changes in Bill 15 without having done that kind of research, without having looked at those kinds of supports, without having put those in place.

I went back to look at the health care budget. Perhaps if government is bringing forward a piece of legislation that is going to look at increased access to alcohol, increased access…. Perhaps there was an increase in the health care budget when it came to addiction services. Perhaps I just missed it. Perhaps there were dollars in there.

Well, there weren't dollars in that health care budget. In fact, there was no mention in the health care budget for addiction services and addiction supports or an increase in addiction beds. It's a concern that at a time you're looking at making changes, at a time when the government…. I heard the minister of state say this was one of the most important initiatives that the government took on.

[1555]

Well, if this was an important initiative for the government to take on, I would have expected that that kind of research and those kinds of documents would have been pulled together before the government came forward with Bill 15 or any other future changes when it came to changes in liquor control and liquor licensing.

As well, I haven't heard — and it's, again, a concern — any representation made by other ministries. I certainly would have expected…. The minister of state mentioned consultation, that this was a huge consultation, one of the largest consultations that they've done. They've had

[ Page 2522 ]

a number of people go on line and bring forward their recommendations and their ideas.

I certainly approached the Minister of Children and Families to ask whether they had given any input into the issue of changes to liquor licence. I would have expected the Ministry of Health to bring forward their ideas and approaches across government around changes to liquor licensing and health. None of those were listed either. That raises a huge red flag to me that there aren't those kinds of studies being done.

I mentioned the research project brought forward by the Nova Scotia government. To me, that's the kind of approach that should have been taken. I would have expected this government to bring forward research to show the kinds of issues that they might need to look at. A quote from that report says that the body of research has shown that "an increase in alcohol sales is strongly linked with an increase in drinking-related damage," shown by three international projects affiliated with the World Health Organization. Again it's pointing out the need for the studies.

I'm not suggesting that some of these changes may not make sense, not suggesting that there aren't some sensible approaches. But again, as we see often with this government, I see little advanced planning done and a lot of piecemeal approach, a lot of: "Let's bring forward this one idea, because we think it looks terrific. We think it looks great. So we'll bring it forward, and then we'll deal with the outcome afterwards."

Well, when it comes to liquor control and licensing, when it comes to addictions, dealing with the outcomes afterwards can be a huge problem and can cause huge damages to individuals, to families and to society — and certainly to the bottom line for government.

That same study says that it's clear that "alcohol management has real consequences" and "many problems can be reduced or partially avoided through careful planning and a precautionary approach." I think that says it all — that if, in fact, proper work was done and proper planning was done, we could actually address many of these challenges.

I think about a province that actually would recognize addictions as a health care issue and would put in place the supports needed, in both rural and urban communities; would put in place affordable recovery centres; would put in place licensed recovery centres that had qualified staff and the kind of support and programs that need to be there, short term and long term, for people who are struggling with addictions. That, in fact, would be a savings for us, as a society, and for government, in making these changes.

A comprehensive approach is what I was looking for. I'm disappointed, in taking a look at Bill 15 as the start of many changes that are going to occur around liquor licensing, that there isn't a comprehensive approach here, that there aren't suggestions around changes that could be made when it comes to support for addictions services, that there aren't changes that could be recommended when it comes to support for children and families.

I mean, it will be a huge change if we see, in the next bill that comes forward around liquor control and liquor licensing changes, that children and families are able to go into pubs and into bars. That's going to have an impact. There are many people who talk about the European model and the strength of the European model. I would agree. I've spent time in Europe. I think there's a much more healthy approach to the issue of liquor. But we're not Europe.

We are a very different society, and it's not some change that can be made and expect that you're going to see the same kinds of impacts that you see there. You need to plan ahead. You need to make sure that the studies are being put in place. Most importantly, you need to make sure those services and supports are put in place. So lots of work to do.

[1600]

As we get into the specifics and into third reading on this bill, I know that there'll be more opportunity to talk about whether any impact studies were issued from the Ministry of Children and Families or the Ministry of Health, for example; whether the government has truly looked at any changes that were suggested from not-for-profits or municipalities around concerns that come forward; whether any additional resources are going to be put in place for addiction supports that would be critical.

I am an eternal optimist. I will always hope the government will do the right thing. As we see these changes and further changes come forward, perhaps they'll recognize the importance of dealing with addictions. You can't address liquor licensing and access to liquor without looking at the kinds of supports that need to be in place for people struggling with addictions.

I'll turn over the floor to the next speaker.

S. Hammell: I am also pleased to rise to speak on Bill 15, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act. As many speakers before me have said, I agree with the notion that many of our liquor control and licensing options in this province harken back to another age. We certainly do need reform in many, many ways in this province, and it is good to know that some of these changes are being addressed.

Some of the changes are very, very important to a civilized and reasonable society when it comes to alcohol. The notion that we are now allowed to have breweries and wineries and distilleries sell and serve all types of liquor just makes sense. I mean, there was an age when men and women had to go into different parts of a beer parlour, you couldn't pick up a drink and move it from one table to another, and all kinds of just unreasonable restrictions were placed on the normal, reasonable and rational consumption of alcohol.

[ Page 2523 ]

There's lots in this bill that does set the stage, I think, for reforms that come in the future. But being able to sell at a farmers market, allowing local craft breweries and local wineries to go to a farmers market and sell their ware, as it might be said, just seems reasonable and civilized. There's lots in this bill that, I think, appears to be setting the stage for something that is yet to come. I think that has been foreshadowed in much of the information that the members opposite have been putting in front of us.

There is the discussion around this bill being largely regulatory and setting the stage for other things that are yet to come. Obviously, it provides for the conversion of agency store licences and duty-free store licences now established to change to licences under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. As I've said, it allows breweries and wineries to sell all types of liquor.

It allows private liquor stores to keep liquor off site. It seems to me absurd that they could not do that at this time. It allows that if a liquor licence is transferred, the transferee may use the licence while they are being checked in terms of criminal record and conflict of interest and any other thing that might be due diligence in terms of the government's actions.

[1605]

There is part of this that I do want to flag and that I find worrisome. I want to put this in the context of my community. There's a family business in my community that has come to me and raised significant concerns around the issue of moving to sales in grocery stores. I think their voice needs to be heard in this chamber, and I'm very pleased to raise it.

In my community this small business has been in business for decades. They are one of the many original neighbourhood pubs that were created in the '70s. That pub has been passed from father to the two sons, and they have built a very strong little business in one little corner of the community. They have served that local community and are an example of the original concept of the neighbourhood pub.

During their development as a neighbourhood pub, they then added the private liquor store that was attached to the pub, and they have catered to the local community. They are in a neighbourhood, a community, that walks to the pub, that uses that pub as a place for people to meet and greet, and their business has been deeply, deeply rooted in that neighbourhood for a number of years.

This family is very, very worried about the move to selling liquor in the grocery stores. They absolutely do not see where that cannot have an impact on their business. They are concerned that their local business, rooted in the neighbourhood, will take a very heavy blow. I think their concern needs to be recognized and needs to be addressed.

I have to say that I'm equally as concerned as they are. I see, as the story is being presented to us and the future being foreshadowed, that we are going to be moving from small community businesses to where liquor is sold in big corporate food chains. I'm not sure if that is in the best interest of community or if it is, certainly, in the best interest of this small business in my community.

A store within a store in a major grocery chain will, I think, make winners out of a big corporate chain versus a local community. In many ways, we've heard the comments from the members around us that this is only the free market moving through our system. But what we are going to see is winners and losers as a direct consequence of rules and regulations made by mere mortals — the government — and not the invisible hand of some moving system that is going to guide the market in strange and mysterious ways.

What is happening here is government is making change, and change will impact on some of the members of our community. I just don't think it's a win for the local small community when they're put up against a major grocery chain.

When government makes changes, as other members have said before me, whether in a ferry system or a liquor system, there are consequences to people and to small business. Eighty percent of employment in this provinces is created by small business, and when the mountain moves, it shakes hardest those who are small. Like my constituents, this family: the father and two sons are the ones that will feel the consequence of this change.

I'm delighted and share the enthusiasm of modernizing in many ways our liquor system, that we can be more at ease with the fact that we have alcohol as part of our world and that we need to learn to use it judiciously and with wisdom. But I also do think that when we are building, we are making winners and losers. We need to be very, very careful that, at all costs, our community and our small businesses are first in line to be considered.

[1610]

With that, I will take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member, and seeing no further speakers, I'll call on the Attorney General to close debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite, from the members on this side of the House. It is indeed an interesting time in the history of liquor legislation in British Columbia. It's a very comprehensive review, and this is the first part of the implementation of that review.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 15 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 2524 ]

Bill 15, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I would like to now call committee stage for Bill 14, intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

[1615]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 4:19 p.m.

section 1.

The Chair: If you could just introduce your staff, and then we can start on

section 1.

[1620]

Hon. S. Anton: Staff supporting me today are Nancy Carter, Andrea Buzbuzbian and outside, coming in and out, Darrell Hrenyk, Tyler Nyvall, Janet Donald, Jeremy Wood, Kathy Kirby and Katherine Dann.

I'd like to suggest if we might change the order, and I think I have agreement from the other side of the House that we will do these…. Some of the different pieces of the act relate to each other, but they're not necessarily in the same order that the act is written in.

So sections 1 to 9, then 29, then 30 to 36, 43 and 49 should go in that order.

The Chair: All right — with agreement.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 1, initially if the Attorney General could explain where we are at in terms of the relationship between the Adult Guardianship Act, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act and this proposal in

section 1.

Hon. S. Anton: The Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act is being brought in, in a three-phased approach. The first phase was the incapacity planning stage, which came in September 2011. This current stage, the one that we're dealing with in the statutes here, deals with statutory guardianship. The full implementation of the act will come in sometime in the future when it can be properly resourced.

In the meantime, to bring in the statutory guardianship provisions of this act, it needs to continue to work with the old Patients Property Act. It's a rather technical set of amendments, and it goes back and forth a little bit, which I will be explaining along the way. But it is because of that phased approach that it has the references back to the Patients Property Act while the statutory guardianship provisions are being brought in.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 1 before us now, as I understand it, this is a reform in the sense that health authority designates now have to consult with the Public Guardian and Trustee — that's sort of basic — but then notify the adult, if contact information is known, and the adult's spouse or a near relative of the adult of the intention to issue the certificate and the reason