British Columbia Hansard — 20140410pm Hansard v10n9

20140410pm-Hansard-v10n9

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, April 10, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 10, Number 9

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Second Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Pat Pimm Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation......................................................................................................Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) .............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal) ........................................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ...............................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North .......................................................................Hon. Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Th ursday, April 10, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Reports from Committees ...................................................................................................................................................... 3091 Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, fi rst report B. Ralston Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3091 E.

Foster Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 3091 Bill 15 — Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014 (continued) S. Simpson Hon. S.

Anton Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................................................... 3100 Bill 15 — Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014 Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 3100 Bill 23 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act Hon. T. Stone G. Heyman K. Corrigan C.

Trevena Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 3118 Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture (continued) N. Simons Hon. S. Th omson V . Huntington

THURSDAY , APRIL 10, 2014 Th e House met at 1:34 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Reports from Committees B. Ralston: Madame Speaker, I would like to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the 40th par- liament with respect to authorities for the retention and disposal of public documents. I move that the report be taken as read and received. Motion approved. [1335] B. Ralston: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report and its recommended resolutions pursuant to

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act. Leave granted. B. Ralston: Madame Speaker, I move that the report and its recommended resolutions be adopted. In so doing, I would like to make some brief comments. Th is report concerns the handling of certain government records. It summarizes the committee's review of reso- lutions for records retention and disposal authorities presented by the Public Documents Committee. Under

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, the approval of the Legislative Assembly is required for the destruction of documents which no longer have a public purpose, on the recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Motion approved. E. Foster: I seek leave to present a petition. Madame Speaker: Proceed. Petitions E. Foster: I have a petition, signed by 700 people from the Okanagan, to stop the GM apples. Orders of the Day Hon. T. Stone: In the main chamber of the assembly here, I call continued committee stage of Bill 15, and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room,

Section A, the con- tinued estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. Committee of the Whole House BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 1:38 p.m. On

section 14 (continued). S. Simpson: Th e bill, if we get down to subsection 20(10): "A monetary penalty imposed under this

section must be paid as follows: (

a) within 30 days aft er the date on which the general manager gives written notice of the amount of monetary penalty or…within any longer per- iod specifi ed by the general manager in that notice; (

b) within 30 days aft er the date on which a licensee signs a waiver under subsection (8)." Is there any opportunity there for the licensee — if it's a signifi cant penalty, like $50,000 or something — to have some discussion about extending that period of time? Is that what's meant by the "longer period" by the general manager in that notice? Would that be a matter for them, if they came and said: "I'm happy, and I'm going to pay the penalty, but I need 60 days and not 30 days, if we can do that"? Is that what that's there to allow to occur, or why the ability to change the time? [1340] Hon. S.

Anton: Y es, the member is correct. S. Simpson: If we look down in the case…. When we go down and look at

section 20.03: "For the purposes of any hearing, the general manager may, by summons, re- quire a person (

a) to attend as a witness, at a place and time mentioned in the summons…" etc. — a time rea- sonable due to the date of the summons — "(

b) to bring and produce for the general manager all records or other things in the person's possession or control that are rel- evant to the subject…of the hearing." Th e general manager, then, has the authority to sub- poena documents and people to a hearing? Hon. S. Anton: Th is is a housekeeping change, and it really is essentially the same as the previous section. Th e only diff erence is that it used to say "documents, writ- ings, books, deeds and papers" and it now just says "re- cords." And it used to say "answer on oath." It now says "oath or affi rmation." S. Simpson: To enforce this — and I'm just wanting to clarify what (3)…. I think I know what it means, but to clarify. 3091

British Columbia Debates3092 Thursday, April 10, 2014 Should somebody decline to respond to such a sum- mons by the general manager, then the remedy for the general manager is to take the matter to the Supreme Court and ask for a contempt ruling? Th at would con- stitute a contempt of the court if they didn't comply. Or they'd go to the court, and the court would direct the in- dividual to adhere to the summons, and then, of course, be in contempt of the Supreme Court if they didn't ad- here to the court ruling. Is that how that would all work? Hon. S. Anton: Th is

section is the same as it was in the previous iteration of the act. It provides that a person who fails to answer a summons may be liable for con- tempt as if in breach of an order of the Supreme Court. S. Simpson: Th is is the fi rst section, I think, here, sec- tion 20.04, that talks about: "Without limiting

section 20, if a municipally, regionally, provin- cially or federally granted licence, permit, registration or certifi cate, or a licence, permit, registration or certifi cate granted by a treaty fi rst nation or the Nisga'a Nation, that a licensee is required to hold in order to operate the licensed establishment is suspended or can- celled or expires without being renewed, the general manager may, on written notice to the licensee, (

a) suspend the…licence under this Act until the other licence, permit, registration or certifi cate is reinstated…or (

b) cancel the licensee's licence." Could the minister explain a little bit — I think I understand it, but maybe the minister can bring some clarity — just how that suspension works, on loss of other authority? Does this say, then, if there's some kind of ruling or decision by a municipal or regional or other level of government or by a treaty First Nation — that they have some kind of ruling — then the general manager can kind of acknowledge that decision by another authority and grant a suspension based on what the other author- ity has done? Is that what that says? [1345] Hon. S.

Anton: Again, this is not a substantive change. It improved clarity and readability and refl ects Nisga'a and treaty First Nation treaties. Th e purpose of the sec- tion is that if, for example, you have lost your business licence — the business licence is a requirement to have a liquor licence — you can then have your liquor licence suspended. I'm not limiting it to business licences but using that by way of an example. S. Simpson: One last question under

section 20. Again, just to confi rm that the only form of appeal here, as we've talked about before, is judicial review. Th ere are no other forms of appeal for a licensee other than judicial review? Hon. S. Anton: Aft er the general manager has made a decision, the appeal is by way of judicial review. Sections 14 and 15 approved. On

section 16. S. Simpson:

Section 16 talks about relocation related to licences, 21.1. We know that the discussion is ongoing about the removal of the fi ve-kilometre rule, which I think is a regulation, but the minister can confi rm that. Would this, essentially, be a piece of what it is to end the fi ve-kilometre rule, and then say that the general man- ager just has to assent to this and that there aren't other limits on the relocation, other than the assent of the gen- eral manager? But there aren't restrictions like the cur- rent 5K rule? Hon. S. Anton:

Section 15, which we just passed, had a subsection (3) that was repealed, and that is what has actually been moved to

section 16. Th e transfer language before used to be used somewhat interchangeably be- tween transferring a licence from one owner to another or, alternatively, transferring a licence from one location to the other. So they've been split out into two separ- ate sections. Th is 21.1 deals with the actual geographic relocation of a licence. It's now being called relocation rather than transfer. S. Simpson: Is this the

section that would, and pre- suming again…? It says "in accordance with the regula- tions." I'm assuming for specifi cs like the fi ve-kilometre rule, that those are probably regulatory changes, al- though the minister could confi rm that. Is this the

section that would enable what's been re- ported as the plan to allow licences to be sold and re- located past the fi ve-kilometre current rule? Is this what will allow that to occur? [1350] Hon. S. Anton: Th is is the relocation rule which was always there. Y ou could relocate a licence. The other fi ve-kilometre rule and things that the member is refer- ring to is a slightly separate but related topic. Th is was always here, and it was always the intent. Licences have always been able to be relocated with the consent of the general manager. S. Simpson: I appreciate that the general manager could do that.

Just so I understand — because the general manager, obviously, can look at other factors — the cur- rent limit is, I believe: can't go farther than fi ve kilometres from where the licence is currently located. Apparently that is to change, but that is the law today. And you can't locate within one kilometre of an existing store.

Other than those two regulations, and I'm assuming they're regulations, are there any other limits that are in force, other than those things that the general manager, in the previous sections around the licensee or transferee, will make judgments about — whether these are people you want to have a licence, based on who they are and

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3093 on meeting certain standards? On the physical location issue, are there any other issues that aff ect that, other than the current fi ve-kilometre rule, which we know is proposed to change, and the one kilo- metre from an existing store? Hon. S. Anton: Th e purpose of this

section is simply to say that you cannot physically move the location of your licence unless you have the approval, the consent of the general manager. Th ere are regulations relating to diff er- ent forms of licensed establishments as to where they can locate. Th ere are city regulations. Th ere are a number of considerations. Th is one is the general proposition that you can't move without permission.

Section 16 approved. On

section 17. S. Simpson: So 17 talks about: "If, at an event site, the conduct of persons attending the event or of the authoriz- ation holder's employees is of a riotous, violent, drunken or disorderly nature, or the safety of one or more persons at the event site is threatened, the general manager may, without a hearing, suspend or cancel the authorization and order the immediate removal of patrons." Would this be a case where, for example, the police would have the authority of the general manager? Would they have dele- gated authority to make that kind of decision, to do those things as they relate…?

I mean, the police can always shut things down for other reasons. But would they have the authority, or how would that authority be delegated? Th is would be probably a pretty immediate event, and nobody's going to call the general manager up at mid- night and say: "Hey, do you want to deal with this?" How does that happen? Hon. S. Anton: In

section 17 —

section 22 of the act — it's not a substantive change. So (1.1) is a rewording to take out the language which used to say "caterer's em- ployees." It is now a more general "authorization hold- er's employees." [1355] Th ere was a delegation authority in subsection (3), and that is now gone. As we discussed the other day, there is a more general delegation authority contained in one

section of the act. S. Simpson: In this case, though…. I'm just trying to understand here. Even though it may not be a change, there are minor changes, and as we all know, people re- visit these things when that happens. Is that a circum- stance, though, then, where there is already delegated authority that has been given? Just so I'm understanding this. I know we talked about delegated authority earlier in this committee hearing, but I'm just trying to under- stand, and this is a case, an instance, where it would, pre- sumably, apply.

So that delegated authority already exists with people like law enforcement under the rules of the general man- ager. Th ey kind of give that authority, and then they get to exercise that as they see necessary? Hon. S. Anton: Th e police are delegated by the general manager to manage events, particularly if they are of a "riotous, violent, drunken or disorderly nature." Sections 17 to 20 inclusive approved. On

section 21. S. Simpson:

Section 21 brings in a component around public education material. Could the minister talk a little bit about the intent of this

section and the thinking about public education? Hon. S. Anton: During the course of the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Reform's review we were great- ly helped by people who came to off er their advice re- garding public education and the unhealthy use of liquor. And so the purpose of this section,

section 21, is to al- low educational material and related material to be re- quired in certain circumstances, which will be identifi ed in a regulation. S. Simpson: Could the minister talk about what kind of educational materials are contemplated in this section? [1400] Hon. S. Anton: Th ese regulations have not been de- veloped yet. Th ey will be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Health, in consultation with industry, in consultation with advocacy groups. Th e goal of them is generally to educate the public and to be sure…. People do enjoy liquor, but liquor can, of course, be misused.

It's always achieving a balance between those two which is important. Th e goal of this is to make sure that when needed, we can require the proper educational materials to be out in the public. S. Simpson: Th e minister spoke earlier about part of the motivation for this

section was the work and the re- view that was done by the parliamentary secretary and the feedback that he received about the need for a public education component in that. I'm assuming that as the minister moves forward and as the ministry moves for- ward to develop this and talks to other people, they start from a place of what was learned by the parliamentary secretary and his work in the creation of the review. Could the minister talk a little bit about the kinds of things that the parliamentary secretary heard in the re- view that motivated and created what I think is a good

British Columbia Debates3094 Thursday, April 10, 2014 section? I support this section. What kind of created the motivation? What were the kinds of ideas or things that were talked about with the parliamentary secretary that encouraged the minister to incorporate this into the legislation, to get a sense of what people were telling the parliamentary secretary about the best way to approach education and the importance of it? Hon. S. Anton: Sorry. I made a mistake a moment ago. I said that this would be by regulation. Th is will not be by regulation.

Th e development of the educational materi- als will be by consultation with the groups I mentioned a moment ago, and then the general manager may require that that material be used. But any development of the material would be in consultation with Health, with in- dustry, with advocacy groups, and so on. To speak broadly, the kinds of things that the parlia- mentary secretary heard about in his consultations were the need for education, the need for minimum pricing, the need to control access to liquor.

Th e full set of all the submissions that were made to the parliamentary secre- tary are available on the website. S. Simpson: We know that currently in licensed fa- cilities there's a fair amount of information and aware- ness provided, particularly around drinking and driving. Th at's obviously a very large one for licensed establish- ments, to do everything they can do to ensure that people aren't drinking and driving. We've been, I think, reason- ably successful in the province at delivering that message and at having people receive it. [1405] It's not perfect. It never will be.

But I think there's been a reasonable amount of success in that area around that piece and around the public safety related to that. I'm trying to get a sense now…. I think everybody ac- cepts that and understands that that's valuable and im- portant, and we can even do more of that. I don't think anybody would argue with that. Could the minister give me an idea…? She talked about some of the other pieces around overconsumption and that. Just generally, maybe, give me a bit of a sense of what other areas she would be looking at for that public education over and above, obviously, drinking-driving. Hon. S.

Anton: Without limiting it, the kinds of things that could be included are health issues relating, perhaps, to binge drinking; issues around pregnancy and drink- ing — in other words, don't drink when you are preg- nant, again, another message which I think has been out there fairly loud and clear; drinking and driving. Th ose kinds of things could be included. But again, I don't want to limit it. Th ese educational materials will be developed in con- sultation with, as I said, the Ministry of Health, industry, advocacy groups and others. S.

Simpson: One of the reasons that I'm interested in pursuing this a little bit is because we do know…. I have been approached by groups, and I'm sure the minister has too, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, some of the addiction organizations and academics and that, who have raised some concern about the overall direction of the review in terms of opening up more access to liquor and what the implications of that might be. I'm not opposed to those recommendations. But a key counterbalance for that, obviously, is the public educa- tion piece.

Th is piece will counterbalance what will be some increased access — how you weigh that to make sure that people are, hopefully, getting an opportunity to increase their awareness about the downsides of alco- hol and about needing to be careful about that, whether it's for themselves or for their loved ones. Th ey may see people who are maybe overindulging and the potential negative impacts of that. Has the minister had discussions in the preparation of this legislation with groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and some of the addiction experts around this piece?

Have they given her advice on how to approach this? Could the minister maybe illuminate us a little bit about the kinds of advice that she was getting from those organizations — because they've talked to me; I'm sure they've talked to her — and how she thinks she can re- spond to those concerns they raise in a way so that they at least will be comfortable that eff orts are being made on the awareness side to address some of their concerns? Hon. S. Anton: I did indeed meet with some of the groups, but a bigger portion of the meetings were held with the parliamentary secretary.

Th ese materials remain to be developed. Th ey are in the workplan, and there will be further consultation by the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Reform, who is continuing. He will be meet- ing with organizations again and working with them and with partners to develop these materials. [1410] S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us what the timeline is for the completion of that work? Hon. S. Anton: Th e consultation process will begin in the next few months. I don't have an end point for that, but it's defi nitely on the radar and in the workplan.

Section 21 approved. On

section 22. S. Simpson: Could the minister elaborate on this sec- tion a little bit — what it means and what its purpose is? Hon. S. Anton: As the member knows, the permis-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3095 sions are being broadened to allow other types of tempor- ary liquor service — as we mentioned last time: farmers markets, festival sales, ski hill extensions and so on. What this is — in

section 22, so 50(3) — is really a repeat of what was there before but with more general language. Th e language used to say "catered event" and "catering authorization." Th at's taken out now, so it's talking about "the event" and "the authorization." S.

Simpson: With this, it says the general manager can "impose as a condition of the authorization the re- strictions and limitations that the general manager con- siders necessary on any type or form of entertainment performed at the event site." What's the thinking here about limiting entertainment, and what's the advice that the minister has on how the type of entertainment aff ects the issues around liquor and potential abuse of liquor that might cause a concern for the general manager? Hon. S. Anton: I just remind the member that this sec- tion is not changing.

What it is, really, is a general provi- sion that the general manager can take into account all kinds of diff erent factors when he or she is assessing the licensing of the event. S. Simpson: I asked the question about entertainment, because it's very specifi c here. It doesn't necessarily talk about other conditions so much, but it talks very specifi c- ally about any type or form of entertainment performed at the event site.

I'm presuming, since the language is that specifi c about entertainment, that there was some consideration about that, whether it was in the previous write or in this writing of it. [1415] Obviously, if it was there before, it was deemed to be the right thing to do, and the minister has presumably deemed it to continue to be the right thing to do to leave it in place.

I'm trying to determine, on the question of entertainment, why that's specifi cally identifi ed in the clause — there are a whole lot of other things that could be identifi ed — and what the implication of entertain- ment is to the abuse of alcohol and what the thinking is around that. Hon. S. Anton: Th e form of entertainment is one of the considerations that the general manager can take into account when determining what kinds of restrictions or limitations should be placed on an event. I think, just speaking in a general way, the general manager does look at all kinds of factors.

Th ey look at who may be coming to the event, how many people may be at the event, what people may be doing at the event. Th e general manager considers all of these things in considering the licensing of the event.

Section 22 approved. On

section 23. S. Simpson: Essentially, what I see…. In

section 23 it talks about how the manufacturer — could be, I guess, a craft brewery or one of the wineries or the new craft distilleries — has the ability to "(

a) sell, serve and off er samples of its products, and (

b) sell and serve other li- quor, subject to and in accordance with the regulations." Could the minister tell us what's diff erent about 53 ver- sus what the current law is? Hon. S. Anton: Th is

section is changed from the pre- vious iteration in the following ways. Th e brewery, win- ery or distillery may sell and serve other liquor. Th is was something that was raised by wineries — that instead of people coming in for a wine-tasting, they might like to buy a beer. Th is now gives the permission to do that. [1420] Th e second thing it does…. Again, if you're a winery, you might like to be able to have people go outside and have a glass of your wine in a picnic site.

Th at's in subsec- tion (1), where it says "subject to and in accordance with the regulations." What the regulations will do is defi ne what kinds of sites a brewery or a winery might use in or- der to serve outside the strict confi nes of its tasting room. Subsection (2) is essentially unchanged, as it was be- fore. Subsection (3) is the permissive section, which is in relation to

section 86. It will allow these breweries, win- eries or distilleries to sell at farmers markets, should they fi t within the farmers market category. In other words, this

section is permissive to them to go even further than their own doors, out to another venue, should the other venue be permitted to them. S. Simpson: I think this falls under this section, but I'm sure the minister will let me know. For example, I have a number of new craft breweries in my constitu- ency, some very successful ones. I now have a new…. I think one, maybe two craft distilleries have opened that have tasting rooms. Th e Odd Society makes a vodka and a couple of other things. Th ey've just won some awards, and I'm really pleased about that.

Of course, Parallel 49 and Storm and Coal Harbour are some very successful new craft breweries that have been in play for the last couple of years. Th ey have tast- ing rooms attached to their operations, generally. I know they've been looking and they've been getting some in- creased latitude about what they can do in those tast- ing rooms. Can the minister tell us: is the expectation, then, that they'll have the increased opportunity here to have people come in, sit down at a craft brewery and have a couple of beers there, of the product?

It may be the pro- duct that's being produced there — or now with this legislation to have a product that's not produced there. So do they get to function almost like a licensed estab-

British Columbia Debates3096 Thursday, April 10, 2014 lishment? Is that what happens here? Hon. S. Anton: Th is is where the regulation-making becomes key. Th e intention is that these establishments are running tasting rooms here to taste their own prod- ucts. Th e intention is not that they morph into some kind of lounge or another kind of licensed establishment that doesn't look any diff erent from another bar. It is a specifi c form of tasting room. As I said, it will be developed in accordance with the regulations. Th ose have not been developed yet. S. Simpson: I think I'm going to let this

section go.

Section 23 approved. On

section 24. S. Simpson:

Section 24, again, deals with the question of regulation. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what the intention here is around the change to

section 58(3), which is repealed and substituted? Could the min- ister tell us what that change essentially does? [1425] Hon. S. Anton: Th is

section is similar to the previous

section that we discussed, but dealing specifi cally with wineries. It allows a winery to sell or serve liquor subject to the regulations. Th is implements the liquor policy re- view recommendation No. 28. Th e recommendation was to "allow manufacturers to off er patrons liquor that was not produced on site — e.g., a winery could sell beer to a visitor." Sections 24 and 25 approved. On

section 26. S. Simpson:

Section 26 deals with retention of docu- ments and reports and books and things — inspection of books and that. It's a fairly signifi cant section. Could the minister tell us what changes are made here, as com- pared to what the current legislation says? Hon. S. Anton: Th is

section is almost entirely a re- fl ection of the changes in the description of the delega- tion powers in the act. Th ere is one new section, which is 73(1)(c), which requires "an employee or patron of a licensee to produce identifi cation." But the rest of the changes are simply language changes to refl ect the change, as I said, in the description of dele- gation. In other words, now we're just using the language "general manager" as opposed to general manager and all the other persons that used to follow that description.

Section 26 approved. On

section 27. S. Simpson: So 27 allows for time limits for judicial review. Th at essentially says that any application for re- view needs to be commenced within 30 days of the date the general manager gives written notice of the decision. I'm not certain. Maybe the Attorney General may know this. She's the Attorney General. Interjection. S. Simpson: Well, that's what Attorneys General are supposed to know. Is the 30 days a pretty typical period of time, or is it oft en a longer period of time? [1430] Hon. S. Anton: Th is

section is new. Th e 30 days was chosen because a person has 30 days to pay a penalty. For instance, you're fi ned $10,000; you have 30 days to pay it. So the review period is consistent with that time period. Introductions by Members S. Simpson: I'm thinking that these kids up here…. Th ey may be other kids. I just want to welcome them. I'm going to take a second here to welcome 21 grade 5s from St. Francis of Assisi School who are here and from my constituency. I met them outside, and they're very excited and inquisitive about what's going on here.

I just want to make sure that everybody makes these kids from Francis of Assisi very welcome here. Debate Continued S. Simpson: Th ank you for that break, hon. Chair. I'm going to…. Now I've distracted myself. One ques- tion, then, in regard to that. Th e 30 days assumes, then, that…. Essentially, a ruling is made by the general man- ager. Typically, we know what the monetary penalties are. Th ose are all 30 days to pay that. So the decision here is that's the time frame on dealing with a ruling, so that's the time frame for a judicial review. Essentially, that's what we're doing here? Hon. S.

Anton: Th at's correct.

Section 27 approved. On

section 28. S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us what the eff ect of repealing that

section is? I believe it's 76(1) Hon. S. Anton:

Section 76(1) is replaced by the previ- ous

section under

section 27, which added

section 75.2.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3097 Sections 28 to 30 inclusive approved. On

section 31. S. Simpson:

Section 31 deals with

section 84 of the current act, which essentially is the power to make regu- lations, which seems to be probably the most important

section of this bill when you get right down to it. I'm going to ask the minister to walk us through a lit- tle bit of this section, because it's fairly specifi c in terms of talking about what kinds of regulatory changes can and can't be made under this. Could the minister walk us through what this changes in terms of the regulation- making powers that are provided by Bill 15? [1435] Hon. S. Anton: I'm just going to tackle the fi rst part of this because it is quite long. In

section 84, (b.2) and (b.4) are simply taking out the words "catering authorization" and changing it to "authorization," a change which has been made a number of times throughout the act. For (j), which is in part (c), this is authority around training programs. Th is is around the Serving It Right program, and as was set out in the liquor policy review, it was an important function of that review — that ap- propriate training be maintained by people serving liquor. And (l.1) is really a housekeeping…. Th e general manager does have authority, and this is simply clarifying that au- thority that he or she has. Th e

section that is repealed there,

section 84(2)(m), is a delegation authority which was replaced by the general delegation authority. Sections (

s) and (

t) are both correc- tions of sections. Sections (r.1), (t.1), (t.2) and (t.3) are all clarifying a delegation.

Section (

x) and (x.1) are around tasting rooms, and

section (

z) is around clarifying an authority. I don't know if we get to

section (z.3) very oft en in our sections, but there's a (z.3). Th at is to allow for liquor to be sold in grocery. S. Simpson: Maybe we'll walk through this a little bit, because this is a pretty substantive piece. I'm going to try not to bounce around too much, but we'll see how I do. Under

section (c), "respecting training programs re- ferred to in

section 13, with power," it talks about circum- stances to exempt persons or classes of persons from the requirement to complete training programs. What's the thinking of this legislation around being able to exempt, and who are we talking about? [1440] Hon. S. Anton: Th e ability to exempt people was pre- viously there. It's carrying it over as to who might con- tinue to be exempt or who might be exempted by a new, redraft ed regulation. S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could tell us: who's exempted now? Hon. S.

Anton: Th ere are a number of exemptions at the moment in the regulation, and I could list them off , but these could possibly change. I'll give an example: an unpaid manager or unpaid server in a club that's operated under a liquor-primary club licence. Th at could change, but that's one exemption right now. A server in a food-primary establishment — again, that could easily change — or a person in whose name a private special occasion licence is issued — those are the kinds of exemptions which are there now. But I'm stating those very carefully because they may all be changed in the new regulation. S.

Simpson: As you look at the regulatory changes — a pretty signifi cant piece of work that the government has to do, to look at the regulatory changes — could the minister tell us: what's the expectation around how that would change? For example, with this

section around this — and I'm anticipating that this is mostly Serving It Right and relat- ed matters like that in what's seen in this

section in terms of the training — how does the minister anticipate going about consulting or talking to the industry about chan- ges that will happen in this

section that will have a direct impact on licensees? Hon. S. Anton: Th e intent, generally, in the liquor policy review was that the requirements for training by people serving alcohol would be broadened. Th at again will be a consultation that the parliamentary secretary for liquor undertakes. Th e classes to whom it is broadened and in what form are not yet determined. Again, that will be working with the partners and stakeholders, such as I described earlier. [1445] S. Simpson: I'm going to move to (d). I guess it's changed. It's (l.1), (r.1), (t.1). Th ese are situations….

Th is talks about enforcement and cancellation; (t.1) says "set- ting out circumstances in which the general manager must cancel a licence." Is that currently the practice? If so, under what circumstances must a licence be cancelled? Are there any changes that the minister is contemplating that she's aware of at this point? Hon. S. Anton: Th is is

section 69 of the regulation, just to give an example: must cancel "if the licensee allows the sale, service or consumption of liquor while the license is under suspension." Th at's one example. Th ere are others in the regulation. Th ere is not a plan to change that at the moment. Th ese things could always change, but at the moment it's not in the plans to change that regulation.

British Columbia Debates3098 Thursday, April 10, 2014 S. Simpson:

Section (

e) talks about publishing infor- mation respecting licensees in relation to actions taken against them, convictions, etc. Looking at the practice…. I know that if you shut down an operation now, you go and post on the door and say that the place has been suspended, for a week or 20 days or whatever the suspension might be when they lock the doors on something — the same as, I know, that if a grocery store gets caught selling cigarettes to kids, that piece, they lose their right to sell cigarettes.

Th ey've got to put up a notice saying, "Th is is what we did, and we don't get to sell cigarettes for the next month," or whatever it is. What's the thinking here about this in terms of how…? Are there any changes contemplated about how this in- formation will be conferred to the public, that there has been a penalty at a place, the nature of the penalty and why an action has been taken? In most cases, I mean, a fi ne…. I think the fi ne gets paid, and the business con- tinues to operate. Probably nobody other than the bank- er, the accountant, knows what's happened, when the cheque's been written.

If you close the doors for a couple of weeks, it's an entirely diff erent piece of business. How is that going to be dealt with? Is there a change? How does information get out? How does the public be- come aware that you have a licensee who clearly has not been playing by the rules and has faced a consequence? Hon. S. Anton: Th ere is no change here. Th e current practice is that decisions are posted on the website, and if a business is given a fi ne or other kind of penalty, that is generally posted by the inspector, at the establishment. S. Simpson: Going to

section (i), respecting sales and service and sampling of products of a brewery, winery, distillery, etc., if those changes are going to happen, could the minister tell us a little bit about how that's aff ected by municipal laws? I'll give an example. [1450] For example, some of the breweries are down in a light- industrial area adjacent to a residential area in my con- stituency. Th ey want to expand their tasting room, and they've been looking to do that in a way that I think is probably pretty manageable. I don't have a problem with their interest in doing that.

But I do know that if you start doing those things…. As the minister said, we're not looking to create more li- censed operations, in some covert way or some way by stealth, through tasting rooms. But what's the expecta- tion of the minister about the requirements if these chan- ges…?

Do these changes have to be also signed off by a muni- cipality, which might say: "Y ou're essentially creating an opportunity for further consumption or additional con- sumption of alcohol in our jurisdiction, and we're not entirely certain we want it there, because that's not what we plan to have happen in this particular area or neigh- bourhood or whatever"? How does that work with the regulation? How does that all concern itself? Hon. S. Anton: Local governments have authority over zoning, so these establishments would have to com- ply with that. S.

Simpson: Just to be clear, then, it would be a re- quirement, presumably, of the general manager to say: "Before you come and talk to me about an approval here, you have to be able to demonstrate that you've met the requirements of your local government. When you've done that, then come and have a conversation with me about changing the terms of your licence or your ability to sell alcohol in some fashion." Hon. S. Anton: Th e establishments do have to comply with zoning, and the licence will not be issued without the compliance with local government bylaws. S. Simpson:

Section (j) — this respects liquor pricing and liquor serving sizes in licensed establishments. Th is is probably an area that I've heard as much or more from people about as any other, and it's people who say: "I go into this lounge, and I'm ordering a glass of wine. It says that I have a glass of wine, and it gives me a price. Th at glass of wine is going to run somewhere between 4½ and six ounces or so. Nothing in here, nothing on this menu, is telling me what I'm buying." It's the same with beer as to the size of the sleeve or the pint glass or whatever.

We know that many establishments, I think, choose to do that. Right on their menus or whatever they identify that it's a 20-ounce beer or that it's a six-ounce glass of wine so that you know what it is. Is it contemplated here that, in fact, there's going to be any requirement for bars and licensed establishments, in their menus, to tell people what they're getting? So when they pay $8 for a glass of wine, they're getting fi ve ounces of wine or six ounces or whatever it is — to tell people what they're getting. M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members M.

Elmore: I would like to welcome…. We have with us here in the gallery 30 students from Corpus Christi Elementary School in Vancouver. [1455] They're accompanied by their grade 5 teacher, Katherine Tan, as well as parents Nigel Pena, Laura Martin, Mrs. Cabato, Mrs. Garcia Wong, Mr. Baclawski and Mr. Jaques. All the students are very excited to be here enjoying their tour. I'd like to wish that they have

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3099 a great visit here. I want to thank the parents for taking the time to accompany them, and I appreciate the teacher. Please, if everybody could give them a very warm wel- come here. Debate Continued Hon. S. Anton: Th e member may be relieved to know that the regulation,

section 41.3, currently says: "A licen- see must make available to patrons a list that shows, for all types of liquor sold in the licensed establishment, the quantities in which and prices at which the liquor is sold." S. Simpson: I believe that was the case. But I don't think that it says that at some point you have to make that available, if you're asked. I'm not sure. Does it say that you actually have to make that available on the menu or at the table so that when I'm looking at what I want to purchase, that information is evident to me at the time?

I know that many do — increasingly, numbers of es- tablishments are doing it — but I wasn't certain that it actually is the requirement that in the menu you have to identify the amount. Hon. S. Anton: We're talking here about a regulation- making authority, and that's the way the regulation is written right now. S. Simpson: I understand that. I'm just trying to make the minister's life easier, because it is a concern for people. Th ank you for that. Just looking, I think that we're going to be good to go with that section. Sections 31 and 32 approved. On

section 33. S. Simpson: Could the minister explain the changes? Sections 86 to 88 are repealed, and they're replaced with a new 86 around the authorization to sell or serve liquor. Could the minister explain the changes? Hon. S. Anton: Perhaps we could take them one by one.

Section 86 is the section…. Th e sections permitting licensees to serve at catered events are being broadened to allow other types of tem- porary liquor service, and these are ones we've discussed before — farmers markets, festival sales, ski hill exten- sions.

Manufacturers with an on-site endorsement will need to obtain a farmers market authorization to sell liquor periodically at farmers markets, licensee retail stores with a festival endorsement will need to obtain a festival retail authorization to sell liquor at festivals, and ski hills with an on-site event endorsement will need to obtain tem- porary event authorization to sell liquor periodically in unlicensed areas of their establishment. Sections 33 and 34 approved. On

section 35. S. Simpson:

Section 35 repeals 91 and 92 and sets a new 91 with "Terms and conditions on authorization." [D. Horne in the chair.] Could the minister explain those changes, and what's diff erent? [1500] Hon. S. Anton:

Section 35, which refers to the new

section 91…. Again, this is a change in language to take out the "catering" language and turn it into "event" lan- guage. A lot of the terms and conditions remain the same. Th ere's a new

section in subsection (5): "Th e general manager may (

a) determine the circumstances…to issue authorizations" and "how frequently the authorizations should be issued for them." Th at "frequent" piece at the end of subsection (5)(

a) is new. S. Simpson: Would this

section in 91…? I know there's been the public discussion around things like beer gardens, the enclosed or restricted beer gardens versus the option at events that are licensed events to be able to allow people to maybe walk around with a beer rather than be restricted to a beer garden area. Is that something that would be covered by this area? Hon. S. Anton: Th is, again, relates to retail but ex- panding the opportunities for retail. It's to establish conditions around the retail.

For example, liquor manu- facturers selling at a farmers market with appropriate conditions allowing, if there's a festival — a wine festival — patrons to take the liquor home and, again, allowing a more streamlined and time-sensitive application process to allow ski hills and golf courses to have temporarily ex- tended licensed areas. S. Simpson: When I read through this, though…. For example, (2)(

b) says: "establish the event site, both in- door and outdoor, where liquor may be sold and served." I go down further, and it talks about: "limit the ability to sell or serve liquor at the event if the number of persons in attendance at the event exceeds a specifi ed number." Another one talks about: "specify requirements for ser- vice of food and non-alcoholic beverages." It certainly sounds like it's not a matter of selling. It's a matter of actual service and being able to sell individ- ual drinks to people and have them have food and what- ever. So it does seem like it's not just about retail — i.e.,

British Columbia Debates3100 Thursday, April 10, 2014 a farmers market. [1505] Could the minister tell us what the circumstances are, then, around those? I'll give the minister an example of one of the questions I would have. It says the ability to limit the size or the number of people, I believe, at an event. Today, for example, you may have a festival or an event that has a beer garden. Th e festival has 5,000 people at it, and the beer garden holds 200 people.

Th e limit on the ability is the 200 seats, and when you get to 200 people in the beer garden, it's full, and there's no more room for anybody to come in. How do you determine…? When you take away the fence and say that people can now drink, you're now probably saying it's not limited to 200 people anymore, because you can hold 5,000 people at the site. How do you make those decisions, when you change the rule, about how many people can buy a drink? Hon. S. Anton: I think the important thing to know about this

section is that it is in relation to licensees. It's not in relation to special occasion licences. So when the member is talking about beer gardens, we're not really talking about that here. Here we are talking about licen- sees and their ability to expand their operations to, for instance, farmers markets — and the ski hill example, for instance. Th at's an existing licensee. Th e piece that the member opposite was talking about, for the beer garden, is actually under a special occasion licence, and that actually falls more under policy. It's not under this section. S.

Simpson: Just picking up on the minister's com- ments there. We currently have a situation, then, with a licensee. Are these conditions that are placed…? Maybe it's in the existing law. I'd be happy to…. I think there are one or two additions to this list over what existed under the current 91 and 92. Does the existing licensee, then, have to meet all of these conditions? Is all of this laid out, and they have to identify all of these matters in order to satisfy the general manager, whether you're on a ski hill or whatever? Hon. S. Anton: Th e

section reads "may be imposed," so it's within the discretion of the general manager as to which are in fact imposed. [1510] S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us if this kind of…? I just want to clarify. So this is not at all a special event. Th is deals specifi cally and exclusively with people who have existing and ongoing licences that are in place. It's not about any special occasion licence. It's not about: "I'm doing a particular event, and I'm going to have a li- cence approved for that." Th is is ongoing events, for example, a farmers market.

Let's take an example of a farmers market in Vancouver — or any place, for that matter — that kind of is on Saturdays and Sundays. So they would have a stand- ing licence for Saturdays and Sundays, but it's not for other kinds of special events. I'm just trying to deter- mine the diff erence between this and what a special oc- casion event is. Hon. S. Anton: To use the farmers market example, the manufacturer is the licensee, and the manufacturer wishes to sell his or her products at the farmers market. Th e goal in all of this is to make that process more sim- plifi ed, more straightforward for licensees.

And yes, it's for existing licensees, as opposed to a special occasion licence, which is for a diff erent class of people altogether. Sections 35 to 48 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. S. Anton: Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 3:12 p.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Report and Th ird Reading of Bills BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Bill 15, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2014, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. T.

Stone: It's my pleasure to now call commit- tee stage for Bill 23, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 23 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FUNDING REFERENDA ACT Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 3:15 p.m.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3101 Th e Chair: Perhaps I'll start by having the minister introduce the staff he has here with him. Hon. T. Stone: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two very important people here who have done a tre- mendous job overseeing the preparation of Bill 23. On my right I have Jacquie Dawes, assistant deputy minister, and Kevin Volk. On

section 1. G. Heyman: I look forward to this process of com- mittee, as do my colleagues, to delve a little deeper into some of the thinking behind sections of the bill and some of the meaning and some of the examples. I would like to start with subsection 1(1), which provides the defi n- ition for "added area," which says: "an area, other than a municipality, that is added to the transportation service region under

section 1 (2) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act before the date prescribed by a regulation under

section 2 of this Act for the purposes of the referenda ordered by the regulation to be conducted."

Section 1(2) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act says: "Subject to subsec- tion (3), the authority may enter into an agreement with a municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area, to add that area to the trans- portation service region." I'm wondering if the minister can give us some ex- amples of areas that have been added in this manner in the past and any areas specifi cally that the minister or the ministry are aware of that could be added in the period to come that's covered by the contemplated application of this bill up to, say, the year 2022.

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I was remiss in not intro- ducing one of the three individuals who's with me and sitting right behind me. Maria D'Archangelo from the ministry also has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation, so I certainly want to acknowledge her. [1520] Again, to the member for Vancouver-Fairview, I look forward to the exchange in this committee stage on this bill. With respect to his question about the defi nition in

section 1(1), in terms of an added area, I believe the member asked for a couple examples where this has been the case to date. A couple good examples would be elec- toral area A, which was added to the Mayors Council as well as the Tsawwassen First Nation, another example of recent additions. In terms of contemplating in the future where this could potentially apply, perhaps an unincorporated area outside of the boundaries of Metro Vancouver. So per- haps some unincorporated area outside of where Mission is at the present time could be an example of an area that would be captured by this particular defi nition.

It's here to provide maximum fl exibility in the future to ensure that any such areas that are added are captured within the intent of this referenda legislation. G. Heyman: For the benefi t of people who may be reading Hansard in the future or watching the debate who aren't familiar with the boundaries of electoral area A, could the minister be more specifi c? Hon. T. Stone: Electoral area A includes any area that's outside of a municipality or a treaty First Nation in the Lower Mainland.

Specifi cally, we're talking about the University Endowment Lands out in the UBC area, as well as Barnston Island, which, as the member I'm sure knows, is located in the Fraser River, in and around the Langley area. G. Heyman: Just to give people a sense of the scope of the changes that may come here, seeing as the act looks forward prospectively eight years from today, at least potentially prospectively, can the minister tell us exactly how many areas have been added retrospectively over the past eight years? [1525] Hon. T.

Stone: Th e fi rst three questions — my fi rst three responses are virtually exactly the same. I'll say it again to the member. Th is

section is here to add max- imum fl exibility for the future to ensure that any areas that are substantially added to what currently encom- passes Metro Vancouver are captured under the auspices of this legislation. Th ere have been no additions to this area over the past eight years. I think the member knows that well. I think the member also knows that over the course of the last eight years the only signifi cant change was the Tsawwassen First Nation actually signing a treaty and be- coming a treaty nation. As part of that reality, they were provided a vote as part of the Mayors Council. G.

Heyman: I just seek some clarity over sub (2)(b). It states: "the municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area referred to in paragraph (a), to the extent that the municipality, regional district or other entity has jurisdiction over the area." And this follows the opening statement in (2): "A regulation under

section 2 of this Act does not apply to the following." Am I understanding that correctly to mean that the act does not apply to the municipality, regional district or other entity with respect to an area referred to in para- graph (a) — meaning that the requirements for a refer- endum would not apply in that circumstance to that area only, as opposed to the rest of the municipality, regional district or other entity? [1530]

British Columbia Debates3102 Thursday, April 10, 2014 Hon. T. Stone: Th e intent of section (2) here is as follows. Once a date for a referendum has been estab- lished…. I'll just throw an example out there. Assuming the Mayors Council hasn't held a referendum concurrent with the upcoming municipal election and they decide they don't want to hold it prior to June 30, 2015, there- fore the next available date is concurrent with the muni- cipal elections in 2018. Once it is known that it is the intent of the Mayors Council to hold a referendum on that date, 2018, then this

section provides for the ability through regulation for a cut-off date to be established before which time areas that…. Before the cut-off date, any areas that are formally part of the Metro Vancouver region, which therefore this act would apply to, would be included in the referendum. Any areas that are added aft er that cut-off date would not have this referendum legislation apply to them. G. Heyman: Bear with me a moment, Chair. I appear to have completely misread the section, so I want to take another look at the whole

section and ensure that I think it's as clear as the explanation given by the minister. I'm going to cede to my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake while I take another look at this. K. Corrigan: While my colleague tries to fi gure out what I absolutely agree is a fairly complicated subsec- tion, maybe I'll go back and ask a couple of questions within this defi nitional

section of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Funding Referenda Act. I would point out for the vast viewing audience — in case they didn't understand what it is, because we're talk- ing about defi nitions — that what this act that we are con- sidering the defi nitions of right now…. Th e overall intent of the act is essentially to require communities that fall within the Lower Mainland, essentially — the area that's covered by a regional transportation system in the Lower Mainland…. It requires them to have referenda with re- spect to raising any funds to pay for that system. Th at re- quirement comes up in the next

section of the act. I do have a couple of questions with regard to the def- initions, some of which have been covered and some which haven't. But in order to get a better understand- ing of the coverage, I'm wondering if the minister or staff could please tell me what it's going to cover — the various municipalities and electoral area A and then, as well, any treaty First Nations. I'm wondering what those treaty First Nations would include now. Is that simply the Tsawwassen? Th ere must be other treaty First Nations that would be included in this as well. Hon. T.

Stone: At the present time it's just the Tsawwassen First Nation, which is a treaty nation that's included within the auspices of this legislation. K. Corrigan: Just for clarifi cation, then, it doesn't in- clude First Nations like the Musqueam? Is that not a treaty First Nation within the area? [1535] Hon. T. Stone: Th e only treaty First Nation that this legislation applies to is the Tsawwassen First Nation. In terms of the other First Nations in the Lower Mainland, I guess the best way to describe this would be as follows. Every First Nations member will have a right to vote.

It will really depend on the unique circum- stances of each band and reserve land in question. For ex- ample, if the reserve lands fall outside of a municipality, then they would vote as part of electoral A. If their lands fall within the boundaries of a municipality, then they would vote as part of the referendum being held within that municipality. K. Corrigan: I'm just trying to get a better sense of this. So the Tsawwassen First Nation would be the only First Nation that would have a separate vote, but the other First Nations that have a treaty would vote within the munici- pality as regular citizens?

Or would they have a separate vote? I'm just trying to get a sense of how it would work. Hon. T. Stone: Th e Tsawwassen First Nation is the only treaty nation in the Lower Mainland that I'm aware of. So the Tsawwassen First Nation would vote, as the member correctly suggested in her question, within the boundaries of their nation. Th ey would have a separate vote from all the municipalities. If members of other First Nations decide to vote, and we certainly hope that they will, they would vote in the exact same manner that they currently have the right to vote in municipal elections.

Th ey either vote as part of the municipality that their lands fall within, or they vote as part of the electoral A district. K. Corrigan: Th eir defi nition of "transportation ser- vice region" says that it's "subject to subsection (2)," which we've already talked about a bit, and "has the same meaning as in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act." I'm wondering if the minister could just explain what that defi nition says and what is included. Hon. T. Stone: I'll read the defi nition directly from the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.

It is as follows: "'transportation service region' means all municipalities and rural areas located in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and includes any area added to the region under subsection (2)." K. Corrigan: So the defi nition of "regional transporta- tion system" has the same meaning as in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. It means

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3103 a system in the transportation service region — just go- ing to it — that includes "(

i) ferries, (ii) cycling path networks, (iii) custom transit services, (iv) bus transpor- tation systems, (

v) rail transportation systems, (vi) desig- nated projects, and (vii) the major road network, and (

b) is operated or intended to be operated by the authority or its subsidiaries or contractors." Does this mean that any future spending or increased spending on any of these types of transportation would be subject to referenda if the ministry decided that there needed to be referenda? [1540] Hon. T. Stone: Th e short answer is no.

I think, again, if we go back up to the highest level here, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that should the Mayors Council decide, in their infinite wisdom, as they are working on a vision and a plan, that new funding sources, additional funding sources, are required to fund all or part of that plan, then it's the request for new additional funding sources that triggers the referendum. Now, that vision that the mayors come up with may very well include cycling paths, rail transportation, in- vestments in other forms of transit, investments in the major road network.

But again, it's the mayors, as they are presently, that will come up with a plan. Th ey will priori- tize their projects in that plan. Projects will have costs, a total cost on the overall plan, and then they will ask the voters to support either a single or a package of funding sources to fund that plan. I would point out that one of the consequential amend- ments of this act, which is dealt with at the end of the bill, would be the addition of a new

section to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act — a new

section 34.1, which actually specifi cally spells out what "additional funding source" means. Again, it's that request for an additional funding source as defi ned in this new

section 34.1 which would then trigger the requirement for a referendum. K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate what the minister is saying, and I appreciate that the basic thing is to be ask- ing for the money — that the mayors are going to be re- quired to go to their municipalities and First Nations, in the case of the Tsawwassen, to ask for that money. But the things that are going to be covered, could be covered are all of those diff erent things. I know that the referendum question has not been set yet, and we will speak more about the referenda in sec- tion 2.

What level of detail does the minister anticipate would have to be in the plan that is going to therefore be subject to the referenda? Hon. T. Stone: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. Again, I spoke in a fair bit of detail on this exact question yesterday in my closing comments on second reading.

Th is legislation is predicated on the basis of a commitment that we've made to the people of the Lower Mainland to provide them with a say, to provide them with a vote, should the Mayors Council decide that new funding sources are required to fund an expansion of transit or transportation — end of story. [1545] Th e province is not going to be providing the mayors with a template for a business plan. We're not going to be providing them with a suggested outline of what their vi- sion should look like or what should be included in their plan. What I will say….

I certainly have had these conversations in a great deal of detail with Richard Walton, the chair of the Mayors Council, and Wayne Wright, the vice-chair, Greg Moore and others. We certainly encourage the mayors to pro- vide — obviously, underneath the vision for an expanded transit and transportation network — as much detail as they feel is required on that plan. At the end of the day, it's the mayors' plan that will be put in front of the people of the Lower Mainland, who will be asked to support some new funding sources.

I talked a fair bit yesterday about research that I've done, that government has done, on winning referen- dums — 79 percent of the time, in the last couple of years in the United States, these votes are won. Th ey're won, in part, because there's a clear vision. Th ey're won, in part, because there's a detailed breakdown of projects and initiatives with timelines and phasing, specifi c costs. Th ey're won when there's a total cost that is then paid for by specifi c funding sources.

Th at would be my suggestion to the mayors, as they work on their plan: be as detailed as they think they need to be on the specifi cs of the plan, including costs, and include in that how they believe that the plan should be paid for. What combination of property tax and other sources of revenue do the mayors feel are appropriate? Th at, ultimately, is what will be put to the people of the Lower Mainland in the referendum that will then be held. K. Corrigan: I believe that the minister just said that the minister is not going to prescribe — in other words, force — to have certain parts of that plan and vision….

He's not going to prescribe what that vision is. Is the minister, then, saying that the vision, the plan with the dollars that are allocated to it, is going to be under the sole discretion of the Mayors Council? Th at the Mayors Council gets to decide, if there is a referendum, how much money is in it and exactly what is in it for the future plans for the Lower Mainland? Hon. T. Stone: Well, fi rst off , I haven't been in this House as long as the member has, but I'm not sure how directly relevant this line of questioning is to a defi nitions

section of this act that we are going through in committee stage. I'll leave that to the Chair to determine.

British Columbia Debates3104 Thursday, April 10, 2014 Certainly, I'll answer her question. As I said a moment ago, we are, through this legislation, only requiring a ref- erendum to be held should the mayors come forward and say new funding sources are required to fund in part or in whole an expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland. If the mayors determine that new funding sources aren't required, there doesn't need to be a referendum.

If they choose to put a plan together that's funded with existing sources, there doesn't need to be a referendum. [1550] If the mayors were also to choose not to expand the system, again, there doesn't need to be a referendum. But we made a commitment to the people of the Lower Mainland in the last election, based on the fact the may- ors were signalling the desire for new funding sources to fund expansion of transit and transportation, that in light of that we were going to make sure that the taxpayer has a say, that they have a vote on that through a referendum.

Th at's what this enabling legislation provides for. It will be up to the mayors, as they are doing now, to work on their plan, to detail the projects, to cost every- thing out, to suggest what new funding source it is that they would like to proceed with. Th e onus is 100 percent on the Mayors Council to develop that plan and bring it forward. If they don't suggest new funding sources, there wouldn't be a referendum. K. Corrigan: Certainly, it doesn't matter to us wheth- er we ask the questions under the defi nitions

section or whether we go to

section 2, which actually deals with the referendum. But if the minister has indicated that he's happy to answer the questions under this section, then I'll proceed. I'm trying to understand exactly what the minister said. Th e minister, I believe, said that if the mayors decide they want to have a diff erent type of funding source — the only funding source they have essentially right now is prop- erty taxes — if they wanted to have new funding sources, there wouldn't have to be a referendum.

Could the may- ors then put together a plan that says they want to have a vehicle levy — that would be a new funding source — and would that be acceptable to the minister? Hon. T. Stone: Th e short answer to the member's ques- tion is no. If the mayors were to suggest a vehicle levy as a desired funding source, that would be captured by the

section 34.1 amendment, which would be a consequen- tial amendment to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. Th e Chair: As both the minister and the member have pointed out, we seem to be questioning

section 2. Are there any further questions on

section 1, or shall we al- low

section 1 to pass? G. Heyman: I take your point and the minister's point. But before I get to the conundrum of sub (2)(b), which continues to be less than clear to me, especially given the minister's explanation, I do want to point out — and I'm happy to pursue this in

section 9, which deals with consequential amendments — that the minister an- swered the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake's question about whether this would apply to all of the elements of a regional transportation system that are detailed in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority by saying no, a referendum wouldn't apply. At least, fi rst he said it wouldn't apply to cycling routes or a number of other items that are the responsibility of the South Coast B.C. Transportation Authority. But then he went on to say that additional funding is, in fact, cov- ered by

section 9.

Frankly — maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — it would appear to me that given the great de- mand of the authority for funding to keep up with popu- lation growth, whether it's for buses, rapid transit, failing bridges or customized transit for people with mobility issues, if they put forward a referendum or spend the money currently available to them on the most pressing needs in those areas and then want to spend, say, $1 mil- lion to upgrade cycling paths, they would have to go to a new referendum for that. [1555] Contrast that with $3 billion plus for a crossing to re- place the Massey Tunnel.

If that is in fact the case, then I would say that the minister's answer of no to the initial question is…. Perhaps he'd like to reconsider that. Hon. T. Stone: Again, the trigger for holding a refer- endum will be the mayors coming forward and saying, "We would like to fund an expansion of transit or trans- portation" — whether it's both or either, the transit or a major road network within TransLink's jurisdiction — if the mayors said: "We would like to fund that expansion with a new funding lever." We've defi ned that through

section 34.1, the proposed additional funding sources. If the mayors come forward and they say just that — "We would like to fund an ex- pansion of transit and transportation with a new fund- ing source" — as defi ned in

section 34.1, then that would trigger the requirement for a referendum. Presumably, the mayors would only do that to seek the public's consent on a broad-ranging vision and detailed plan that covers a fairly lengthy period of time. Th at plan could include investments, signifi cant or not, in tran- sit, both bus and LRT. It could include investments in the road network. It could include investments in cyc- ling. Th at will completely be up to the Mayors Council to defi ne. If they defi ne that within a plan, they put a total cost on it, and then they say, "We would like to fund this plan with the following new funding lever or levers," then as

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3105 defi ned by

section 34.1, that would be the trigger for a referendum to be required. G. Heyman: I take it from the minister's answer that his answer to my question is that the answer to the mem- ber for Burnaby–Deer Lake probably should have been yes. I think the minister is aware that there's a limit to how much money any local politician who wanted to get re-elected would put forward in a single referendum.

Because of the requirement for ongoing referenda, which we will see and discuss in a few minutes, it will be virtu- ally impossible, I believe, for the mayors to recommend a question or a funding plan that covers the broad spec- trum of needs going very far into the future. What usually suff ers in a circumstance like that are some of the items that most people in the public aren't even aware are the responsibility of TransLink but which are, of course, very vital to the communities.

In any event, now that we've clarifi ed, sort of, that question about the application of referenda to the region- al transportation system, let me return to (2)(b). Th e reason I'm having trouble with the minister's an- swer to my question is that I read (2)(b)…. It says a regu- lation under

section 2 of this Act does not apply to "(

b) the municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area referred to in paragraph (a), to the extent that the municipality, regional district or other entity has jurisdiction over the area." I read that to mean that the act, or the regulation under section (2) of this act, would not apply solely to the add- ed area, not to the entire municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over that added area.

While I may wish that clause to defeat the purpose of the act — to hold referenda or require referenda — it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, given the whole dir- ection of the act. Th e minister, however, responded — if I understood him correctly — to say that what (2)(

b) really means is that if a "municipality, regional district or other entity that has jurisdiction over an area referred to in paragraph (a)" decides to delay a referendum to a further date, then that wouldn't apply to the added entity. But that doesn't make any sense to me. [1600] Maybe my head is a bit clouded from the bug that's been affl icting every member of this Legislature over the last month, or maybe the language simply isn't clear, which is an eventuality that I would prefer to think is the case. But if that is, in fact, what it means, it appears to me to be redundant and unnecessary.

If a referendum isn't taking place, why would you need to further exclude an added area that's already excluded in a situation where no referendum is taking place in the fi rst place? Hon. T. Stone: I will do my best to clarify. I think we're almost saying the same thing here. To the member from Fairview, this

section is entirely about ensuring that if an entity is added to the transportation service region within a specifi ed window prior to the date of the refer- enda, they would not, therefore, be required to imple- ment a vote. Th at would apply to areas added to existing municipal- ities. For example, say the district of Maple Ridge was to annex some unincorporated area, and that annexation was to become eff ective aft er a cut-off date prior to a ref- erendum. Th en that area that has been added or annexed to the municipality of Maple Ridge would not vote in the referendum.

However, Maple Ridge as it existed up to that cut-off date — therefore, not including the annexed area — would still vote in the referendum. Th e munici- pality would participate in the referendum. G. Heyman: Th at is, in fact, what I thought (

b) meant. But in that case, isn't (

b) redundant? Hon. T. Stone: Again, the simple answer to the mem- ber's question is no. Th ese two subsections are not redun- dant. Subsection (

b) deals with the entire municipality, and subsection (

a) is talking about an area that poten- tially could be added to an existing municipality, as an example. Y ou need both because what we don't want to have happen here is to allow for a situation whereby a mu- nicipality ends up having to include, in a referendum within their municipality, an area that has been added to their municipality aft er a cut-off date leading up to the referendum. For example, if the referendum was held in November of 2018, and there was an annexation that took place ef- fective 30 days before that, the cut-off date might have been 90 days before that.

Practically speaking, that might not give the municipality enough time. Th ey may not even be through all of the practical matters that come into play when you're adding an area to your munici- pality. These two sections are absolutely not redundant. Th ey're both critically necessary to accomplish the in- tent of this section. G. Heyman: I take the minister's point, in that the act and regulations actually apply to municipalities, region- al districts or other entities, and they reply in respect of areas that are added, which I think is the source of my confusion. Perhaps it's (

a) that's redundant, and (

a) should be actually somehow incorporated into (b). [1605] But I will accept that the minister's purpose appears to be accomplished by the way it's laid out. It is, however, I would say, a bit confusing.

British Columbia Debates3106 Thursday, April 10, 2014 K. Corrigan: I just wanted to go back to the date pre- scribed by regulation. Is the minister contemplating that, for example, there would be a suggestion of a 90-day cut- off if there was a new area incorporated within a munici- pality? I would presume that would be for the purposes of getting a voters list in order and things like that. Maybe a little explanation of why it would be a diff erent date than the date of the actual referendum. Hon. T. Stone: Th e 90 days that I mentioned in my previous answer is just an example.

Th e determination of how many days prior to the referendum date would represent the "cut-off date" would be established in regu- lation. It would be established in regulation aft er the en- gagement with the Mayors Council, obviously. As the member, frankly, briefl y noted in her question, the practical matters here are ensuring that all of the work that goes into preparing voters lists and worrying about polling stations — all the logistics of all of the above…. Y ou absolutely want to ensure….

Th e intent here would be to want to ensure that the maximum amount of time possible is provided so that, practically speaking, every- body is able to vote. K. Corrigan: Again, kind of bleeding into

section 2, but it is to do with the defi nition, I guess, under subsec- tions (2)(a), (

b) and (c). Is it expected that if it ends up being a June 30 date as opposed to one attached to an election, would there be a diff erence in terms of what that prescribed time period is? In one case the provisions of the Election Act might apply, and in the other it wouldn't? Or is it expected that the provisions of the Election Act are going to apply — many of the provisions — with re- spect to a referendum if it took place on June 30, 2015? Is that making sense to the minister, sort of? Hon. T. Stone: I understood the question perfectly well. Th e simple answer is this.

We will work with the Mayors Council to determine what the most appropriate time frame would be to ensure that all the practical con- siderations that go in preparing voters lists and worrying about all of the other logistics — polling stations and so forth — are able to be taken care of in a timely fashion. It really all depends on…. Th e regulation and the de- tails that will be contained within that regulation really would be highly speculative at this point. It really will be determined in large part by what the mayors come forward with in terms of their desired date for the ref- erendum.

Th e circumstances may be a little bit diff erent if they were to come forward and say, "We want to hold a referendum three months from today," versus concur- rent with the municipal election this November, versus, say, before June 30 of 2015. K. Corrigan: Just to clarify in terms of the rules and process, the procedures that would take place in a refer- endum, were it to be held.

I haven't taken a look at the Election Act for B.C., but I would presume that the same kinds of rules would apply. [1610] Th e minister isn't contemplating that there would be an override or anything diff erent with regard to the rules that would apply to a referendum than would apply to a regular municipal election — for example, when the voters list has to be ready, how it's done, what the voting process is. I would assume that the Election Act would take precedence, would it not? Hon. T.

Stone: What we've tried to accomplish here in this piece of legislation is to provide the maximum fl exibility from a variety of diff erent pieces of legislation that, from an effi ciency and best practices perspective, we could draw upon to hold this particular referendum. Later on when we get to it, we can perhaps talk about it in a bit more detail, but it is largely dealt with through

section 7, in regulation 7(a), where we provide for the opportunity to draw from provisions that are currently contained within the community charter or the Election Act, the Local Government Act, the School Act and the Vancouver Charter.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. G. Heyman: Moving on to

section 2, I note that the title is "Referenda must be conducted," and (1) says: "Th e Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by regulation, or- der that referenda respecting funding for the regional transportation system be conducted." Could the minister explain in what circumstances a referendum would not be ordered by the Lieutenant- Governor-in-Council, given that the language says "may"? G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members G. Hogg: We're joined in the Legislature today by 24 excited and exciting students from White Rock Christian Academy, their teacher, Mrs.

Whitmarsh, and a number of parents. Th ey all know exactly how many members sit in this House, although they're wondering why it's not that number right now. We'll have to explain that to them. Th ey know the motto of the province, and they know all of the symbols that go with it. Would the House please make them most welcome to the Legislature. [1615]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3107 Debate Continued Hon. T. Stone: I hope I understand the member's question correctly here. He can re-ask it if I'm not hit- ting the mark.

Section 2(1) provides for the Lieutenant-Governor, through regulation, ordering that a "referenda respect- ing funding for the regional transportation system be conducted." Th e simple answer here is if the Lieutenant- Governor does through order-in-council provide that order, then as per the heading, a "Referenda must be conducted." G. Heyman: I take that explanation to mean that there's…. Subsection (1) defi nes the situation in which the referenda must be conducted as opposed to being in confl ict with it. Hon. T. Stone: Th at is correct. G.

Heyman: Perhaps the minister could answer the second part of my question, which was: in what circum- stances would cabinet, by regulation, order that a refer- enda must take place? In what circumstances would they choose not to exercise that authority? Hon. T. Stone: Again, I'll come back to the new sec- tion 34.1, which we'll, I'm sure, talk about in great detail later on through this committee process. If the mayors, as part of putting a vision and a plan together…. Say they would like to fund that plan, in part or in whole, with new funding sources. Again, as defi ned by

section 34.1, that is the triggering event for a referen- dum to be held. G. Heyman: Th ere are, however, some exclusions con- tained in the amendment to

section 34.1, in which — if I understand it correctly — theoretically the mayors could decide to proceed with the funding plan, but a referen- dum would not be required. Perhaps the minister could detail those for the benefi ts of those watching or ultim- ately reading Hansard. Hon. T. Stone: Again, the referendum is only trig- gered if the mayors request new funding sources to fund an expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland. To the member's specifi c question: should the mayors come forward with a plan that they would like to fund through existing sources, then they are welcome to do that.

Th at would not require a referendum. Now, examples of existing sources — again, as the member, I think, knows well — includes property tax, adjustments at the fare box, the hydro levy, parking sales tax. Th ose would be the existing levers which the Mayors Council could use, if they chose to, beyond the levels that they are currently using them, to fund an expansion of transit and transportation. G.

Heyman: It's generally the view of people at TransLink — and, I think, certainly the view of mem- bers on this side of the House; at least myself and those I've talked to, as well as many in the public — that rais- ing fares actually dampens ridership, which is directly contradictory to the province's own transportation plan, which proposed to double ridership — the plan that was introduced in 2008. [1620] Could the minister explain why, if one of the levers available to the mayors actually potentially has an out- come that's contradictory to the province's policy, in that instance the minister has no interest in requiring a ref- erendum?

Hon. T. Stone: Frankly, I'm agnostic on the funding sources. I simply was responding to the member's ques- tion, which was: what are examples of existing fund- ing sources that would not trigger a referendum? Th ose existing funding sources include property tax, the fare- box, a hydro levy, parking sales tax. Th ose are existing funding sources. Th e mayors are fully within their rights to adjust those four sources as they see fi t to expand tran- sit and transportation, and in doing so, they don't trig- ger a referendum. Now, I don't place any one of those sources any higher or lower on a list in my mind.

I'm agnostic about that, as I am about the potential for new funding sources — new sources like road pricing, a vehicle levy and a whole wide range of others. What I have said consistently is that it's up to the mayors. The Mayors Council has asked for greater author- ity, which we are providing them through Bill 22, the improvements to governance. Along with that author- ity comes the accountability over the decisions that are made.

Th e mayors are being provided, through these two companion pieces of legislation, the ability to make the decisions, set the priorities, come up with the plan, de- termine the costs, propose funding sources. It is up to the mayors to put that package of funding sources together. If that package of funding sources includes new fund- ing sources, then, as per this piece of legislation, they will be required to put that to a referendum so that the vot- ers of the Lower Mainland have a vote on how their tax dollars are spent. G.

Heyman: I might, in some instances, claim to be agnostic on funding sources as well, but I do have an in- clination to logical consistency in application of rules and criteria. The minister's government has, from time to time, imposed conditions on municipalities with respect to a taxation base on commercial businesses and industries

British Columbia Debates3108 Thursday, April 10, 2014 in order to, as the government explained, ensure that the economy isn't adversely aff ected by what it considered an excessively high tax rate. Th ere are many commercial businesses that believe that a parking tax is a negative impact on their business. Similarly, the government has oft en claimed that there is only one taxpayer, and they only have one pocket.

So why, in that instance, would the minister claim that it's okay for property taxes to go up — either increase the burden on homeowners or prevent other needed muni- cipal infrastructure or improvements or services or facili- ties from being implemented through whatever property tax room may exist — yet still take the positions that his government has taken previously with respect to one taxpayer, one pocket, or impacts on business by taxes on commercial taxation?

I'm not taking a position on this, but I think the people of B.C., both residents and businesses, deserve to know the minister and the government's rationale on this, be- cause frankly, it escapes me. [1625] Hon. T. Stone: Again, I come back to the genesis for this piece of legislation. We made a commitment in the last campaign, as a government, that if re-elected….

In light of the fact that the Mayors Council was coming forward and was saying, "We need new funding sources to fund an expansion of transit and transportation," we made the commitment to the people of the Lower Mainland that if there were to be new funding sources in the mix to fund an expansion of transit and transpor- tation, the voters of the Lower Mainland would have a vote. Th ey would have a say over that. We put ourselves squarely on the side of the taxpayer. I hear the member opposite talk about one taxpayer and one pocket. I couldn't agree more. Th at's why we brought forward this legislation.

We've said consistently that when it comes to new funding sources, we would work with the Mayors Council — that if any new funding sources actually require provin- cial enablement, we would work with the Mayors Council and talk to them about those funding sources. Ultimately, funding sources, if they're new, will be put to the people of the Lower Mainland. In defi ning some principles underpinning new fund- ing sources, principles that we think are very important, fi rst and foremost we've said aff ordability. Th e ability of the taxpayer to aff ord the new funding source is principle No. 1.

Principle No. 2, we said the new funding sources need to be regionally sourced; No. 3, we said they cannot negatively impact the economy; and No. 4, we said that we would be open to the whole discussion of land value capture. We put those principles out there. Again, I come back one more time, for the member opposite: there doesn't have to be a referendum, if the mayors decide to fund the transit and transportation ex- pansion with existing funding sources. Our commitment relates to new funding sources. We stood up, and we said: "We are with the taxpayer.

We are with ensuring that the taxpayer can aff ord any new funding sources that the mayors might be asking for." I look forward to receiving from the mayors, as I think all residents of the Lower Mainland do, over the coming months — certainly, well before the June 30 deadline, I'm told — the product of their hard work, which is the vision and the detailed plan with priorities and phasing and costs and a total price tag and their suggested fund- ing sources. Again, if any of those suggested funding sources rep- resent new sources, as defi ned through this new

section 34.1, that will be a trigger for a referendum. G. Heyman: For greater clarity, is the minister agree- ing with me, having said that there is only one taxpayer and one pocket, that there is, in fact, no logical con- sistency between this policy and direction of the govern- ment and other policies and directions the government has taken with respect to taxation — imposition of re- quirements on municipal governments with respect to taxation of commercial business and industry as well as other measures to ensure that tax burdens aren't a disin- centive to commercial enterprise? [1630] Hon. T.

Stone: I'll just repeat, again, substantially what I've said. Th e mayors are engaged. At the moment they are working hard on a plan. My expectation is that they will bring forward a plan for the people of the Lower Mainland to consider. Th at plan will contain a wide range of detailed priorities. Th ere will be costs and phasing as- sociated with those priorities as well as suggested fund- ing sources. As I've said many times here, I'm agnostic on the fund- ing sources, both existing and new. So I look forward to seeing what the mayors come forward with in their plan. G.

Heyman: With respect, Chair, the minister hasn't answered the question with regard to how this policy of the government is consistent with other policies of the government that respect the impact of municipal taxa- tion policies on industry and business. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. T. Stone: I'm failing to see the relevance of the member's question in the context of the piece of legisla- tion that we're here discussing today. It's a very simple concept. We made a commitment in the last election to provide the people of the Lower Mainland with a vote. Should the Mayors Council….

As part of putting a plan for expanded transit and transportation forward that in- cludes new funding sources, there will be a referendum.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, April 10, 2014 3109 End stop. Th at's the purpose of this legislation. Again, I do not see any relevance between the legisla- tion that we are going through in committee here today and the member's question. G.

Heyman: Th e relevance of my questioning is that we have a bill, as the minister correctly points out, that requires a referendum for new sources of funding for the expansion of transportation and other services under the aegis of TransLink in Metro Vancouver — a referen- dum unanimously rejected by the mayors that's caused massive delays in funding for needed improvements and that nobody really seems to want other than the govern- ment.

So in my view, any questions with respect to how the government arrived at this legislation — whether it's consistent with policies of the government, whether it's consistent in general with good practice in how it will work — are relevant. Let me go back to another statement of the minister, who said: "We promised in the election to hold a refer- endum, so we're going to do it." His government also promised before…. I say this at the risk of reviving a dead horse that the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services not so long ago urged us not to fl og.

In a previous election the government promised not to introduce an HST, then did an about-face and did that. So it's not impossible for the government to change its mind. In that case, it changed its mind for what I would argue was — if not bad policy — certainly badly implemented policy that exploded in the government's face.

So it is possible to reconsider any number of ideas that are con- tained in lengthy platform documents, which most vot- ers don't read beyond the fi rst page or two and, in the case of the last election, didn't appear to read beyond jobs, jobs, jobs. [1635] Again, the minister says he doesn't care whether fares are increased, which is a taxation form of measure avail- able to the mayors under their current powers, and yet to do so would completely blow up the province's own transportation policy created in 2008. Why is that acceptable to the minister?

Would the min- ister not have concern if that was the end result of the mayors deciding that to avoid a referendum, they would raise fares and if that resulted in a complete failure — which is likely, anyway, but a more complete failure — of transit ridership to be doubled? Hon. T. Stone: Well, with all due respect, if the mem- ber wants to sit here and pontifi cate at a policy level about this legislation, he's more than welcome to. It's your time. If you have a specifi c question about

section 2, which I believe we're in, I'd be more than happy to answer the specifi c question that you have. Y ou can try to put words in my mouth. I have not said anything of the like about fares, as you have just suggested. Y ou know that. I have said that it's up to the mayors. It's up to the may- ors to develop a plan and to put that plan, along with cost- ing, in front of the people of the Lower Mainland. If that plan involves new funding sources, then this legislation kicks in. If you have a specifi c question about this

section 2 that we're in, I'd be happy to answer it. G. Heyman: Th e minister can be testy with me if he wants. If he doesn't like the…. Interjection. G. Heyman: I'm happy to ask relevant questions. Th ere are a number of relevant questions to be asked about a piece of legislation which we as opposition and I as a critic have a responsibility to question in detail, to speak to in detail, especially when it has caused signifi - cant controversy among the mayors. Let me go back and simply say that I'm not putting words in the minister's mouth.

He said that the mayors are able to raise fares if they wish, and that will not re- quire a referendum. It is commonly understood that a raising of fares will dampen ridership. And my point was: is that not an undesirable outcome in light of the minis- ter's own — because he is the Minister of Transportation — transportation plan that was created by his government in 2008 and which still, to my knowledge, exists? Let me move on to another specifi c question, because I certainly don't want to put words in the m

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140410pm-Hansard-v10n9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140410pm Hansard v10n9
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5718102d0fb2051365a92fa8a1f341ddf7c0c9d1

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).