2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 24, Number 2

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Today is Animal Abuse Prevention Day. That’s Thursday, April 23 from noon till one o’clock on the back steps of the Legislature. I invite everyone who can hear this to join the government and the BCSPCA in recognizing today — just a few short speeches and some food, which I’m sure everyone will take advantage of.

In particular, we have members of the SPCA in the gallery today. We have Craig Daniell, chief executive officer; Marcie Moriarty, chief prevention and enforcement officer; Sarah Dubois, chief scientific officer; Geoff Urton, senior manager, stakeholder relations; Lorie Chortyk, general manager, community relations; Marylee Davis, president of the BCSPCA board of directors; Wade Shaw, a private citizen who is supporting them; Tricia Leslie, marketing communications; and Melinda Mennie, officer of stakeholder relations.

I would ask the House to please join me in making them feel welcome.

[1005]

Statements

ANNIVERSARY OF
LAKELAND MILLS EXPLOSION

J. Horgan: Today marks the third anniversary of a tragic explosion at the Lakeland mill in Prince George, where 22 individuals were injured and lives were lost — Glenn Roche and Alan Little. On this day, the third anniversary of that tragic event, as we await the resumption of the inquest that began two years after the fact, we want to give our thoughts to Rhonda Roche and Joanna Burrows for the loss of their partners.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning is the Ambassador of Hungary, His Excellency Bálint Ódor. His Excellency is meeting with me today and other members of the House to discuss bilateral as well as Canada-EU issues of mutual concern, including international trade, tourism and agriculture. We are so pleased that the ambassador has chosen to meet us at this time. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to the ambassador.

M. Hunt: In the precincts today will be some students from my riding from Boundary Park Elementary School. I’d like the House to please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WOLFGANG ZIMMERMANN AND DISABILITY
MANAGEMENT FOR WORKPLACE INJURIES

S. Fraser: I would like to begin by acknowledging a British Columbian who is making a difference in the world. Decades ago Wolfgang Zimmermann began working in the forest industry in Port Alberni. With little training, as was common in the day, he was taking down a tree when it all went wrong. The accident broke his back.

Wolfgang soon realized just how few supports there were to help him and others seriously injured in the workplace to get back into the workplace. He did not accept that. The result of his perseverance was the creation of the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, or NIDMAR, and, more recently, the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences in Port Alberni.

NIDMAR’s aims are to reduce the human, social and economic costs of disability, and those strategies are being adopted all over the world. In 2007 this House unanimously passed the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act, creating the first university of its kind in the world.

To date 18 nations, the UN and the world have adopted these disability management strategies. Indeed, as of January of this year the Chinese government has begun delivering the continuous educational curriculum for the Pacific Coast University.

The sad reality is that many of those injured and disabled in the workplace are relegated to the fringes of society, to poverty and worse, with little or no understanding of their true potential. This is unfair and extremely costly to society. Disability management and back-to-work strategies are the answer, and they are developed right here in British Columbia.

Wouldn’t it be great if we here in British Columbia would join the rest of the world — countries like Germany, China, Australia, Malaysia — and start applying those strategies that were developed right here in British Columbia? Let’s fixt that glaring oversight. There is really no excuse not to.

ANIMAL ABUSE PREVENTION DAY

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Animal Abuse Prevention Day in British Columbia, and today we call on commun-
[ Page 7566 ]
ities across the province to stand up for the health, safety and well-being of animals everywhere.

Animal Abuse Prevention Day started four years ago as a grassroots campaign to honour the 100 sled dogs slaughtered by their owner in 2010. Today it has grown into a multiplatform movement using print, web and social media to raise awareness, prevent cruelty and protect animals from abuse and neglect.

Animal abuse happens every day and in numbers that are often staggering. The BCSPCA investigates more than 8,000 cases each year, rescues more than 20,000 animals and rehabilitates 2,500 more. It’s vital that we get British Columbians talking about this issue and recognizing the signs of abuse, because if abuse is taking place, more often than not, pets are not the only members of the family who are suffering.

Research conducted across North America has shown a clear link between animal abuse and other forms of family violence. Animal abuse is often present in relationships where an abuser is trying to prevent a partner from leaving a violent situation or is trying to exert dominance and eliminate a victim’s source of comfort and support. Sometimes animals are used or abused in domestic violence situations. Because of this, our efforts to stop animal abuse and domestic violence go hand in hand.

Our province has some of the toughest animal cruelty laws in the country, but we believe that prevention isn’t just a matter for legislation. It’s a matter of humanity as well.

[1010]

Today I urge everyone to learn more about the issue, to spread the word, #millionacts, and to inspire a million acts of kindness for companion, farm and wild animals.

BURNABY BOARD OF TRADE PLEDGE
PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY

K. Corrigan: Congratulations are in order for the Burnaby Board of Trade. Its pledge for a sustainable community program has been selected as a finalist in the category of best corporate social responsibility project at the 2015 World Chambers Competition.

As one of four finalists selected from a record number of submissions, it will now have the opportunity to present the pledge in front of a panel of judges at the ninth World Chamber Congress in June. About 120 Burnaby Board of Trade members so far have taken the pledge to be more sustainable and have shared their new success stories and ideas.

The pledge program is a comprehensive on-line resource and planning tool, with the goal of helping businesses, large and small, reduce their carbon footprint.

Pledge members False Creek Collision ECO, Reid’s Automotive Recycling, Sorin Group and the board itself took the plunge in learning how to measure, manage and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Pacific Blue Cross removed all garbage bins from workstations, resulting in a two-thirds waste-to-landfill reduction. Concord Security installed multi-material recycling and compost bins in their kitchen areas and a small recycling garbage and compost bin at each desk, reducing waste almost 90 percent.

Ricoh Canada is the 2015 national sponsor of the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. Hemlock Printers, Down Syndrome Research Society, Grand Villa Casino, Richie Bros. Auctioneers and Telus all had significant improvements in the energy category, with retrofits, purchase of renewable energy, installation of solar panels and LED lighting.

Congratulations to all businesses and organizations who have participated in the pledge and to the board of trade for this unique and innovative program. Good luck in the world finals.

ARTS AND CULTURE WEEK

D. Bing: This week, April 19 to 25, is the 16th annual B.C. Arts and Culture Week. We designate a special week every year to honour the arts and culture community. We encourage all British Columbians to celebrate the creativity and accomplishments of our province’s outstanding artists.

Arts and culture activities enhance the quality of lives and bring personal enjoyment. They promote enriched perspectives, intellectual stimulation and opportunities for public involvement.

The government of British Columbia proudly supports the arts, artists and cultural organizations and communities throughout our province. Since 2001 the government has funded the arts and culture sector in excess of $533 million, more than any other government in the history of B.C.

Again this year the government of British Columbia is investing more than $60 million in arts and culture across the province, to ensure the continued growth and excellence of our arts and culture community. This year investment includes a record high $24 million for the B.C. Arts Council, the government of British Columbia’s key development and funding agency for the arts.

The arts educate and inspire. The arts and culture sector creates jobs and supports the economy. A flourishing cultural life helps B.C. communities shine as great places to live, work, play, invest and raise a family. I encourage all British Columbians to celebrate B.C. Arts and Culture Week.

Unfolding Consciousness EXHIBIT
AT BEAUMONT STUDIOS

G. Heyman: Locating artist space in Vancouver can be a difficult and expensive exercise, particularly for artists who are inspired by collaborative creation. So in 2004 art-
[ Page 7567 ]
ist Jude Kusnierz founded the Beaumont Studios Artists Society, now home to 45 local artists sharing 16 studios, an art gallery and event space in Vancouver-Fairview.

Each month the gallery hosts exhibitions by local and visiting artists. Last week I had the honour of welcoming Dr. Juss Kaur at the opening of her exhibit, Unfolding Consciousness. Juss Kaur is a Quebec-based artist and teacher whose work is created by writing the Sikh mantra Waheguru up to 20,000 times, to create images that draw us in with vibrant colour and minute letter work.

She hopes to inspire her audience to pause and reflect. For me, her paintings invite us to consider the ways we interact, how our existence as individuals is given form and meaning by something greater, whether, as she puts it, the universal spirit that surrounds us or how we relate to the community and world in which we live. As if to illustrate this point, all profits from her exhibit will go to the charity Doctors Without Borders.

[1015]

Unfolding Consciousness opened in the week between the Vancouver and the Surrey Vaisakhi celebrations — appropriate, as Ms. Kaur’s reflective art explores the identity and experience of South Asian people.

Beaumont Studios’ mission is to inspire artists, designers and creative small business owners with events and opportunities to work together, learn and create art and projects that engage with the community. It is a place for the public to learn and appreciate how art and creativity improve our lives.

I thank Juss Kaur for visiting Vancouver and sharing her remarkable work and thank creative director Jude Kusnierz and all the Beaumont artists for enriching the cultural and social life of our community.

BURNABY FESTIVAL OF VOLUNTEERS

R. Lee: Last weekend I had the opportunity to celebrate the 12th consecutive year of the Burnaby volunteer festival in my community. I strongly believe that volunteerism is an essential act of citizenship and philanthropy in our society. Being a volunteer not only contributes to the community but also helps oneself develop socially and emotionally, enhance self-confidence and increase access to a healthy support network. Therefore, in 2004, 11 years ago, Volunteer Burnaby and I initiated a volunteer festival in Burnaby, with the help of Brad Alden from Burnaby Now and other Burnaby MLAs.

The first Burnaby volunteer festival was held in Brentwood Mall. Our goal has always been clear. We aim at raising awareness of all meaningful volunteer opportunities available in Burnaby. We also celebrate and recognize the contributions made by volunteers. Every year we invite hard-working non-profit organizations to share their inspirational stories in order to encourage collective volunteerism.

Year after year the event continually has great spirit, with great organizations in attendance such as the Burnaby Neighbourhood House, Kidney Foundation of Canada, Canadian Blood Services, Ride to Conquer Cancer, KidStart, Blanket B.C., European Festival, Volunteer Grandparents, Burnaby Seniors Outreach Services Society, SOS Children’s Village, Burnaby Optimists and the Burnaby North Community Association, etc.

I would like to thank all the participating organizations and volunteers for their support to this festival. May we see the positive impact volunteers brought about to make our community more vibrant and healthy.

Oral Questions

FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT FOR
COMMUNITIES IN NORTHERN B.C.

J. Horgan: On Tuesday I rose here and asked the Minister of Community Development why it was that her government, the government of the B.C. Liberals, were ripping up the Fair Share agreement with communities in the north.

Just to recap, the Fair Share process started in 1994. It was an effort by government to recognize that with wealth being generated in the north, a portion of that wealth should stay in the north so that communities could plan and make sure that they were prepared for any waves that came forward after that. In fact, in 2005 the B.C. Liberals signed a 15-year agreement with those communities.

Now, before the election — people might remember this — there were promises of a prosperity fund — a fictitious fund, to be sure, but a prosperity fund. The people in the north were told they would be tripping over the piles of money that were going to flow into this prosperity fund. Now, after the election, we have a real fund, a real program, that had been helping communities and people in the north, and that’s not sustainable. At the same time, we continue to hear about the fictitious prosperity fund.

My question is to the Premier. At what point did fiction hit reality, and at what point did it become unsustainable to support communities in the north?

[1020]

Hon. C. Clark: We very much continue to support the principles of the Fair Share agreement. It’s worked for the north. It’s worked for British Columbia. Communities that produce the preponderance of wealth in our province often also have the preponderance of impact from the production of that wealth. We want to continue to support that. We want to extend it to make sure that we carry it through to 2030 at the least. We want to make sure that we live up to the principles of the agreement, which are fair and share. We are in negotiations with the
[ Page 7568 ]
communities now. I’m absolutely confident that we are going to get there.

I think the difference between the NDP and the B.C. Liberals is that we believe that there should be wealth produced in the north, wealth that we can share.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, jolly to be sure. Jolly to be sure.

But we had an agreement in place, a 15-year agreement. The Premier now says: “We want to extend it to 2030.” Well, the communities are quite content to have practical solutions in front of them today so that they can plan for the next five years, as they expected to do in 2005 when they sat down with the government of British Columbia and entered into a binding agreement.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the question and the answer.

J. Horgan: I can’t wait for the questions that are going to be coming to the Minister of Energy. I can’t wait for that.

But let’s focus instead on the Premier and her solemn commitment to give a tax break to the richest people in British Columbia. That’s sustainable. But when you have an agreement signed by the province of British Columbia — that is not sustainable.

The people in the north did not ask to renegotiate a 15-year deal. They’re only two-thirds of the way through it. And I would argue…. Two years out from an election, I don’t think the Premier and her government should be making commitments to 2030 when they couldn’t even keep commitments in 2015.

So again to the Premier: will she admit, today, that ripping up agreements is a growth industry for B.C. Liberals?

Hon. C. Clark: The member says he can’t wait until we get on to the interesting and the good questions in question period. And I have so say, neither can I.

The fact is that we are currently in negotiations. The communities want very much some of the same things that we do, which is long-term stability. They want to know that these agreements are going to be sustainable over the long term, given where gas prices have gone. We are working on that with them now.

Negotiations are sometimes bumpy. We’ve seen that in other negotiations that we’ve done. There have been lots of bumps, but guess what. We’ve gotten to agreements. We will get to an agreement here as well because we very much, unlike the opposition, believe in the future of the north. Unlike the opposition, we very much believe in the future of natural gas. Unlike the opposition, we very much believe in the opportunities presented by liquefied natural gas. And, unlike the opposition, we recognize that resource development, when it’s done in an environmentally sound way, is the past, the present and the future of this province. We remain committed to that.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, the questions were fairly simple. It was about a Fair Share agreement. It was about a real, tangible commitment to the people of the northeast. A real and tangible commitment to the people of the northeast that transcended different types of governments — New Democrats and Liberals. In fact, the Liberals signed a 15-year…. Now, the Premier said earlier today that this was likening it to the teachers negotiations, and I believe it is. I believe it is, because in 2002 the Premier ripped up a collective agreement with teachers, and now she’s ripping up an agreement with the northeast.

I appreciate that the Minister of Community Development will be passing notes forward to the Premier to help her out here, but we had a 15-year agreement, and the only people that wanted to renegotiate it were the B.C. Liberals.

It’s sustainable to give tax breaks….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

[1025]

J. Horgan: Well, walk into this room and you’ll find that there’s not a lot of support there, that’s for sure.

Now, again, to the Premier: if it’s okay to give tax breaks to the top 2 percent — that’s sustainable — why isn’t it, again a simple question, sustainable to keep an agreement with the people in the northeast?

Hon. C. Clark: We are currently in negotiations, as I said, and I’m absolutely confident that we are going to get to an agreement with the folks of the northeast. We have long supported the work that they do up there. The fact is that one of the things that they’re talking about at the table is that, since 2005 when the agreement was signed, when there were $2 billion in gas revenues flowing into the province, things have changed. There is now about a quarter of that — $500 million — flowing into the province. We’re negotiating that with the communities, making sure that we continue to support them, but the fact is that there is no….

Let’s make no secret of the fact of where the opposition stands. He talks about the fact that he wants to share revenues from an industry they don’t support. They want to
[ Page 7569 ]
share revenues when they don’t want to expand it. They want a moratorium on it. They don’t believe in the method by which it’s extracted. They don’t want to export it. They don’t want to grow it.

On this side of the House, here’s what we are certain of. We are going to grow the natural gas business in British Columbia. We are going to create prosperity for people all across the province, not least in the northeast. And when we do that, and as we do that, we will have revenues to share with the people of British Columbia and, in particular, the people of the northeast.

The world would sure be different under those guys. On this side of the House we are going to make sure that the northeast remains prosperous, thriving and a great place to raise your kids.

RURAL DIVIDEND PLAN FOR
COMMUNITIES IN NORTHWEST B.C.

R. Austin: The Premier suggests that there are negotiations happening. That’s not what the mayor of Fort St. John came down here and told us this week. She said that they just simply came to them, ripped up the agreement and said: “Here’s what you’re going to get, and by the way, it’s going to be a heck of a lot less than what you were getting.”

It’s not just northeast communities who are learning that you can’t take the Liberals at their word anymore. In 2013 the Premier promised that she would negotiate a rural dividend plan that would directly benefit northwest communities. Now I have a letter that shows the Liberals are breaking this promise, just like they broke their agreement with northeast communities.

My question for the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development is this: when you consistently break promises, why should communities believe anything that you say?

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We’ve been working closely with the communities in the northwest for northwest readiness to prepare these communities for the economic growth that’s moving forward.

That’s why we invested over a million dollars in those communities last year to ensure that asset management plans were ready, to ensure that we had interns up in those communities, to ensure that we could support them with the type of community support with local governments. And we’re going to continue to work with those communities to ensure the economic benefits that they can benefit from.

Madame Speaker: The member for Skeena on a supplemental.

R. Austin: I would suggest that the minister look at the latest letters that came from her assistant deputy minister.

Anyway, apparently the B.C. Liberals think that a fair deal is the one where they can spend money on their friends, and the communities that do all the heavy lifting can beg for crumbs later.

Again, I have a letter from the ministry staff. It’s a rejecting of a request from northwest communities to begin negotiations on the resource benefit sharing agreement promised by this Premier. But this flies in the face of what the Minister for Energy and Mines promised. He said: “Let’s figure out ahead of time where the pressure points are going to be, what the priorities of the communities are, and we’ll do our best.”

[1030]

Again, to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development: you were tasked with developing this dividend program in both of your mandate letters. Is breaking promises the best that you can do?

Hon. C. Oakes: We are preparing for economic growth, and we believe that’s a great challenge. To the member opposite: you are in the epicentre of one of the greatest opportunities British Columbia has experienced in decades.

We have been working with communities, like Port Edward, that are going to benefit from the tremendous economic growth by working with the province to ensure that this economic growth benefits everyone in the region. Is it NDP math again — to look at the fact that you want to put money out of the door before we have money coming in? We are working with these communities to ensure growth happens, and we will make sure that those communities are first in line.

MEETING BETWEEN HEALTH MINISTER
AND DELTA PHYSICIANS

V. Huntington: I obviously need the same drama teacher.

By the time construction starts on the diagnostic services building at Delta Hospital, the Delta Hospital Foundation will have raised over $8 million from the people of my community. We are all thrilled, I must add, with the minister’s announcement of a very welcome provincial contribution of $5 million toward the building. We’re all very grateful.

We’re still waiting for the four short-stay surgical beds so badly needed to ensure patient safety following emergency surgery. I’m not asking the minister to tell us about day surgery and his model of regional care. We know his thoughts on that subject. Nor am I asking him to reiterate his generous contribution to the building. But I am asking him to tell us when he will meet with Delta’s doctors to listen to their concerns about patient safety at Delta Hospital.
[ Page 7570 ]

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for her remarks and for attending the event where we announced the new diagnostic lab and imaging centre at Delta Hospital.

At that event I had an opportunity to speak with some of the doctors there, and we did discuss with them their desires. We are working with the doctors at Delta Hospital. Fraser Health is working with them to look if there are some supports we can do to assist the day surgery and to provide beds for monitoring.

We must be clear that health services are regional in scope and that we must put the resources in regional centres where they are appropriate. Delta is an amazing community hospital. There’s no question about that. We support Delta Hospital, but we must take a regional approach and make sure that we are serving patients all across Fraser Health in a way that is among the best in the world. We’ll continue to do that.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: You know, inch by inch, we’re getting there. I’d really like the Speaker to tell the minister that these are MDs, not ninjas. They want to make love, not war. You have 60 employees who are trying to tell their boss that there’s a problem on the factory floor, and he won’t listen, let alone try and fix it.

Sixty doctors have been waiting to meet the minister since last fall. I’ve asked him to meet. The Delta mayor is asking him to meet. The Friends of Delta Hospital are asking him to meet. A petition of 8,000 is being readied for this chamber.

The Tsawwassen First Nation is supporting the doctors. To quote TFN:

“Emergency medical care is a critical element of a support system for a growing community. The TFN community has relied on Delta Hospital for years. We have been active participants in the hospital community, attending fundraisers and participating on the Delta Hospital Foundation. We wholeheartedly support your efforts to restore critical surgical care beds to the Delta Hospital.”

[1035]

On February 14 before a crowd of 300 the member for Delta North said: “Terry has agreed to a meeting with Friends of Delta Hospital, and he will try and schedule it in the next two weeks.”

They are still waiting. Will the minister please just meet with Delta’s doctors to hear their concerns personally?

Hon. T. Lake: The member for Delta North has been working very closely and has, as the member for Delta South acknowledges, been working with the doctors. He has spoken to me about a meeting.

When we’re in session, hon. Speaker, as you can imagine, it’s very difficult to do all of the things that we would like to do. I’m happy to sit down with people at Delta Hospital, but it is not the role of the Health Minister to tell health authorities where to do a particular surgery. To do proper health planning, we need to rely on experts. We need to rely on data. That’s what we do throughout the province of British Columbia to give us a world-class health system. We will always use data to drive decisions, because that’s what we believe in on this side of the House.

INTERIOR TO LOWER MAINLAND
TRANSMISSION PROJECT AND
B.C. HYDRO TENDERING PROCESS

A. Dix: Yesterday we asked the Minister of Energy about the failures — his failures, his government’s failures — on the Interior–Lower Mainland transmission line. To refresh his memory, what we have is a project that is more than a year late. What we have is a project which is running over budget. What we have is a project where the contractors slowed down work to extract more money from the government. What we have, as a project, is that the material sourced by the contractor failed. In short, it’s a mess on top of other messes.

Three major transmission projects five years overdue and hundreds and hundreds of millions over budget, and the minister’s response is that that’s a good job. He’s doing a good job. Last night he said that we’re too busy not to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on transmission projects.

My question to the minister is this: will he not admit that it’s his tendering policies and Hydro’s contracting policies that caused this mess?

Hon. B. Bennett: Like I said yesterday, the project in question is behind time. The member is correct to point out that it’s late. My advice from B.C. Hydro, and I have no reason to dispute this, is that the contractor has failed to perform. It was the contractor who delivered five different kinds of towers that were not up to the specifications that they agreed to provide in the contract.

What I said yesterday still stands true today. Over the past five years B.C. Hydro has delivered 661 transmission distribution and generation projects, and over those 661 projects they are about 5 percent under budget. If you look at B.C. Hydro’s capital program over the past three years…. It’s a large capital program, yes. The northwest transmission line went over budget. But overall, their capital budget is actually under budget.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: It is incredible that the Liberal government that chose this contractor, a Liberal contributor, who set up this contracting process, who is abandoning project labour agreements…. This same Liberal government denies responsibility for the obvious failures on the line. The problem is that it’s ratepayers, ordinary British
[ Page 7571 ]
Columbians, who are paying the price — a 28 percent rate increase to pay for Liberal Party incompetence at B.C. Hydro.

[1040]

The minister defended himself yesterday against this by suggesting that another B.C. Liberal boondoggle, the B.C. Transmission Corporation, was wrapped up in 2006. You know, he was only four years wrong. Perhaps that was the period when he wasn’t receiving e-mail.

The fact of the matter is that he has to answer to ratepayers, who are paying a huge price for his failures. Don’t they expect more of an explanation and changes to B.C. Hydro’s tendering policy? Will the minister change those policies today and avoid further Liberal boondoggles?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it’s amazing. The NDP built absolutely nothing in the 1990s, when they….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: It is true. They did invest. They did, and I want to be fair.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m reminded by the Finance Minister, who was here in those days and remembers the investment in the power plant in Pakistan. So they did invest in the 1990s.

Really, to hear the opposition complain about the investment that is taking place in this province today, $2.4 billion a year…. It’ll go into transmission. It will go into distribution. It will go into some new generation.

It will go into reviving some of our old assets in the province. That is necessary, first of all, because there was no investment in the 1990s, but secondly, because our economy continues to grow in this province. We’re going to lead Canada this year in economic growth.

It is necessary for the Crown corporation to make that level of investment in infrastructure that provides some of the most reliable electricity on the continent — the third-lowest residential rates, the fourth-lowest industrial rates in North America.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND
B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT

C. James: The minister neglected to mention that there’s money coming out of the pockets of hard-working British Columbians to pay for this mismanagement. A 28 percent increase over the next five years in hydro, and that’s after the increases that are already there — $524 more that taxpayers are paying today.

And who are the ones who are hurting? Seniors, hard-working families, British Columbians — those are the people who are being hurt by this government’s mismanagement, by this minister’s mismanagement, of an important asset that belongs to British Columbia.

When will the minister admit that he’s made a mess of managing this asset, and when will he get to work fixing it?

Hon. B. Bennett: Faced with the need to make the level of investment in infrastructure that is necessary…. It is required. You can’t hide from this. You can’t avoid this, as the NDP did in the 1990s.

It is necessary to invest $2.4 billion a year for at least the next ten years. That has to come from someplace. So it’s true. It does have to come from ratepayers.

On the other side of this, though, government and B.C. Hydro have done their part to take pressure off rates. Government has agreed to take literally tens of millions of dollars less in dividends. Government is going to take over $100 million less. B.C. Hydro has reduced their operating costs by $391 million over three years — $391 million that they’re not going to be spending. They have also agreed to keep their operating costs down to less than one-half of the inflation rate in terms of annual increases.

They are doing their part. Government is doing its part. And yes, rates are going up, but they are still the third-lowest residential rates in North America.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

[1045]

C. James: Well, now I’ve heard everything. Only the B.C. Liberals would call a 28 percent increase taking the pressure off taxpayers. A 28 percent increase in hydro rates, and that’s on top of an increase in medical service premiums, in ferry fares, in tuition hikes. You name it. The list goes on.

When families need a break, this government turns away. And yet when the top 2 percent income earners in our province, without even asking for it, are looking for a break, the government decides to give them more than $230 million. They’ll help them out.

My question is to the minister. When will this government get their priorities straight, and when will they address skyrocketing rates and fees and services for hard-working British Columbians?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, it’s pretty rich hearing this from the NDP, who invested less than a fifth of what we are investing in infrastructure today through B.C. Hydro.

We believe, on this side of the House, that you have to pay as you go. There is $2.4 billion a year being invested in infrastructure, and there has to be a way to pay for that.
[ Page 7572 ]
You can’t freeze rates forever, as the NDP did. You have to pay as you go, and that’s what B.C. Hydro is doing. We still land in the position of having the third-lowest residential rates in North America and the fourth-lowest industrial rates in North America.

It is a competitive advantage for British Columbia. There’s no question about that. If you talk to the mining industry, talk to the oil and gas industry and talk to manufacturing, they will tell you that the relatively low electricity rates in this province is a competitive advantage, and we have it.

MEDICATION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
OF SENIORS IN CARE FACILITIES

M. Karagianis: Most British Columbians are horrified at the thought that a senior relative or a parent may be sitting in residential care someplace, overmedicated and immobile. Yet recently we have seen from the B.C. seniors advocate that that is happening in far too many residential care facilities across this province.

Now, this government has been warned about this before. Three years ago the Ombudsperson also highlighted the fact that seniors in residential care have been overmedicated, often without any kind of diagnosis basis for that, and that they are not receiving any kind of physiotherapy or physical activity.

The government has had several years since the Ombudsman’s report came out to do something about it. Now the B.C. seniors advocate has highlighted this again. I’d like the minister to explain to us exactly what steps he’s taking to make sure that this kind of activity is curtailed.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question. This is a subject that all of us in this room, I know, are concerned about as we think about our aging parents and our aging relatives and the care they will receive when they need that care the most.

This government was the first in Canada to create an office of the seniors advocate, and I really want to thank her for the work that she’s doing. I’ve read every word of her report, and there were some really important findings in that report that we need to address. The fact is that there are, perhaps, some seniors ending up in residential care who could be better supported either in assisted living or in community. That’s part of our priorities document that we’ve had for a year now.

The use of antipsychotics is a concern. We recognized this in 2011. We’ve done some really good work with the CLeAR initiative to reduce the use of antipsychotics and with the PIECES training program that is out around the province.

What that report did show is that compared to Ontario and Alberta, in fact, British Columbia has less use of antipsychotics than those two provinces. We’re not where we need to be yet. I recognize that, and the member knows that, but we’re working hard. We’ve made some good progress, and we’ll continue to do that.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation, continued — and in this chamber, second reading on Bill 22.

[1050]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SPECIAL WINE STORE
LICENCE AUCTION ACT

(continued)

[D. Horne in the chair.]

S. Simpson: I’m glad to continue. I just have a couple more minutes, and then I’ll be concluding my remarks.

I wanted to reiterate a little bit the comments yesterday. We’re talking in regard to the Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act, Bill 22. As I noted yesterday, it is my belief that what really underlies this piece of legislation was the government’s failure to be able to deliver on their grocery store commitment to a store within a store in large grocery stores — largely, the commitment there. The failure of that commitment, I believe, comes because of the one-kilometre rule and the reality that those large corporate operators aren’t able to get those stores that many of them may desire.

By creating this vehicle here, we in fact have usurped or did an end run around the one-kilometre rule for these particular stores. Not only that, but as I pointed out, also the pricing regime under Bill 22 for these special wine store licences is one that arguably is much more beneficial than that faced by the independent wine stores that are currently in place, who have lost the discount that they have previously enjoyed.

A situation has been created here, I believe, that puts at risk a number of the current businesses, private liquor operation businesses, in the province — particularly with these wine stores in the Lower Mainland and south Island probably, but arguably, certainly across the province. This situation has been created.

This is further troubling because, of course, the minister has not revealed — I’m sure that our spokesperson, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, will be discussing this with the minister in committee stage — the number of these new wine store licences that will be auctioned, that she anticipates, in fact, being in play in this province. That’s an important number.

You know, as the minister resisted providing appropri-
[ Page 7573 ]
ate pricing information on the wholesale price, particularly in the food and beverage sector, up until almost the last minute before that information was provided in its fullness so that those businesses could determine how to price product and what they were looking at, we now have this uncertainty that’s been created by this process. The minister is not being forthright with people about what that circumstance will be, how many of these contracts will be there, what dormant licences mean and how many of those licences are in play.

We really have a situation where there’s a whole lot more uncertainty. Uncertainty has probably been the watchword of this whole process, from start to finish to where we are today. It has been uncertainty and chaos in many cases, where things were unclear from the start and have continued to be unclear. That’s created a lot of anxiety in the sector for people.

This is a piece of legislation that nobody who is concerned about this industry should be supporting. There’s no foundation to support this particular piece of legislation and support this action. It’s time for the government, if they want to think about how to promote — we’d all like to promote B.C. product — to go back and start a discussion about how best to do that.

This isn’t the vehicle to do that. I would argue that this, in fact, is simply a vehicle to fix a problem that the government created because of lack of thinking and lack of due diligence and thought around the promises that they made to the large corporate grocery store chains that they now are having a problem, in fact, fulfilling.

[1055]

With that, I do hope that the minister will refer to the comments of a number of members on this side who’ve raised concerns about the impacts on businesses in their community, impacts on their constituents and impacts on the industry generally.

It’s not a good piece of legislation. It’s not a piece of legislation that’s helpful, and it’s not a piece of legislation that deserves support from any thoughtful member of this House. Those who aren’t so thoughtful, maybe they’ll support it.

G. Holman: I just want to make a few brief comments on behalf of my constituents. I’ve been listening to the debate. It is puzzling to me. I don’t hear any of the MLAs on the government side defending this legislation. It seems very curious to me. All of the comments have been coming from this side, including from the independents.

It does strike me that government has managed to kind of create the worst of both worlds here. On the one hand, smaller outlets, retail outlets, are precluded from even bidding on these so-called dormant licences. On the other hand, there’s a real concern by existing retailers — the small private stores, hundreds and hundreds of them that employ thousands of people — that these outlets are going to be damaged by this legislation.

There is a pattern emerging here on a couple of fronts. One is government promises versus what actually happens in reality. This is actually worse than, say, Bill 24, the ALR, where government promised explicitly not to make specific changes and then did exactly that. The HST debacle — this is even worse.

These promises, these commitments, as pointed out by our spokesperson on the file…. The commitments made by the minister were only a matter of a few weeks, a few months ago, so it’s even more egregious than some of the other Liberal turnarounds pre- and post-election.

In terms of the broader issue, what is surprising to me…. There’s another pattern here, and it does kind of remind me of B.C. Ferries in a way. Did government not look at the implications of this legislation on this industry? Did they not do an assessment? Did they not understand that there are hundreds of private stores, thousands of employees, which this legislation puts at risk? Did they do no analysis here?

It’s the same with B.C. Ferries, where, facing the lowest ridership in 25 years, again, government sticks its head in the sand and did no work at all on the implications of its ferry policies for the tourism industry for coastal communities — again, another pattern emerging.

For a government that’s supposedly so business-friendly we see, time and time again, how they actually manage to damage important sectors in the economy. B.C. Ferries with tourism. The B.C. forest industry, which has been shattered, and this government has sort of stood by and watched tens of thousands of jobs lost in sawmilling and manufacturing, half of our value-added manufacturers lost.

It’s a similar pattern here, and it really does surprise me that for a government that’s supposed to be business-friendly how often they seem to clumsily introduce legislation that has the opposite effect.

You know, one could imagine a different way of distributing these so-called dormant licences than auctioning to the highest bidder and precluding small bidders. These licences could have been allocated, distributed, in a way that would have been much fairer.

It would have considered the challenges that rural communities face — small businesses there are looking for opportunities — instead of selling to the highest bidder, precluding smaller bidders.

Really, ultimately, all of these licences are going to very large chain stores in British Columbia, many of whom are friends of government.

[1100]

I did want to just mention that there are in my constituency, of course, a number of smaller outlets that would have really appreciated the opportunity to bid for these licences.

There’s one in particular on Mayne Island. Farm Gate: “Food for thought,” a small store, significantly below the metreage threshold set by government, would have loved
[ Page 7574 ]
to have bid on the opportunity to sell beer, wine and liquor in their store on Mayne Island. They were precluded from doing this. There are other examples throughout the constituency of opportunities lost here. There could have been a much different approach taken by government.

I will be voting against this bill, and I would join with other colleagues on this side of the House urging government to reconsider this legislation and to come back in the fall, after due consideration, after proper consultation with the industry. Let’s look at this legislation — how it’s negatively affecting the industry, how it’s precluding small operators from even participating.

Government should take the opportunity to set the legislation aside and come back in a fall session, after having properly consulted with the industry. This, surely, is a time for the minister to take a sober second thought.

B. Ralston: Often we hear in debate about government policy the need for predictability for business. In other words, if you’re going to make investments over the long term, one of the things that you require, and I think it’s reasonable to expect from government, is some sense of what government policy will be into the future. If you’re making a major investment, that’s what you generally want to know.

For example, I can think of the bill which stabilizes over the long term the tax on port facilities in the province. There’s a specific piece of legislation that sets the taxation rate on port facilities and terminals — and a grant-in-lieu was given to municipalities that have ports within their boundaries — in a predictable way. The rationale made and advanced by the government was that that was in order to make sure that people who wanted to invest in terminals knew in their pro formas and in their investment calculations what the municipal taxation would be in the long run.

That’s generally a principle that is applied in many areas of government policy and legislation-making. Yet we hear from the member from Point Grey, who I must say made a very compelling case, of the litany of contradictions advanced by the minister in advancing this particular piece of legislation, as recently as several weeks ago making bold statements that would appear — and I’m sure that she will address this when she wraps this debate up momentarily — to contradict very directly what she said, not only here in the Legislature but outside among the public.

Understandably, there are business people who, based on government policy towards their outlet, their version of the licence, have expectations about what the value of their investment is and what their own business future has been. Again, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has brought forward some of the individual cases.

This is not fanciful. This is not invented. This is not hypothetical. These are real business operators who are faced by an abrupt, unannounced — even by the minister as recently as several weeks ago — complete change in direction that will drastically change the business environment for their business going forward.

[1105]

It is really rather shocking for a government that usually claims that they’re business-friendly. There’s a whole series of efforts that they make to pat themselves on the back for the policies that they think they stand for. But clearly, this piece of legislation and the way in which these businesses — these real businesses, employing people in our communities, providing a service for which they have customers…. It’s really dramatically being altered.

Maybe this will be something that will wind up being litigated. One never knows. There is a doctrine called the doctrine of legitimate expectations, which is a principle of administrative law. Those who come to rely on legitimate assurances from the government about what they can expect in an area of policy….

When those legitimate expectations…. In my view, these are legitimate expectations. You’re entitled to know with some measure of certainty the business environment within which you’re going to operate. When they’re abruptly changed in this way, as the minister navigates her way through a thicket of contradictions, those people may very well have some legal recourse.

A number of members on this side have talked about the necessity — the practical imperative, really — of stepping back from this piece of legislation and, in light of all that’s has taken place publicly, sending it either to a committee or simply withdrawing it and reconsidering. There’s no pressing reason to advance this piece of legislation at this point. Indeed, it would seem much fairer to do the opposite.

I rise to join with my colleagues. As I say, I do look forward to the minister’s direct response to the eloquent speech of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and other members on this side, who, I think, have fairly and vigorously put forward the case for postponing this piece of legislation and going back to the drawing board.

Really, there’s no particular shame in this. The minister, I think, will be more consistent with the so-called principles on which the government claims to operate by withdrawing the legislation than by advancing it.

Those are my comments on the bill. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose it.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to thank my colleague from Surrey-Whalley. I’d also like to thank my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey for pointing out the flaws in this legislation.

When you think about it, legislation this minister has brought in, which completely contradicts her words from just days before, completely breaks her promises to the industry…. It’s pretty astounding that somebody would stand and deliver a piece of legislation that goes
[ Page 7575 ]
completely against what she claimed to stand for just days before.

That’s what this legislation does. The minister claims she was in support of a level playing field when she was jacking prices 30 percent for independent wine stores like Marquis winery in my constituency. John Clerides works very hard to bring good wines to my constituents in Vancouver–West End. He’s done that since the 1980s.

It’s a good business. They’ve just expanded because they were doing so well. People have come to rely on them to learn about the great wines from around the world. They employ a lot of local people. They support many local charities. But this government, through this minister, has decided to force them to basically jack their prices up by 30 percent. For them, they worry that that’s going to put them out of business.

Now, when we raised that in the House, the minister said: “Oh no, no, no. It’s all a level playing field. That 30 percent price hike is just about creating a level playing field. Nobody gets to go better than somebody else.” Well, what does she introduce with this bill? A bill that would cut the prices for large corporations, while she has, on the other hand, jacked prices for small independent wine stores.

What does that look like? That looks like pushing small business out of business while supporting a few mega-corporations to do very well. That’s not a level playing field. That’s a tilted playing field. It’s very similar to how they decided to work the tax system recently, giving millionaires a major tax break while increasing fees for the average person through MSP, hydro. The list goes on.

[1110]

This government is by the rich, for the rich and about the rich and not about anybody else. This bill is about the same thing. They’re consistent, I suppose, about supporting tilted playing fields, where those on the very top with the most get to keep everything and those on the bottom get nothing and, in fact, lose their businesses in a number of cases.

What’s so special about this bill for helping the mega rich? It decides to break the rules in terms of where you could put a liquor store. Let’s say you have a small independent wine store. This bill will give somebody the right to set up a large wine sale out of a grocery store right across the street, breaking what’s called the one-kilometre rule.

Not just that. It gives that wine store across the street, which wasn’t there before but can be there now, a major discount. You’ve got, again, another inequity, where you’ve got the one who’s been there since the ’80s, working hard to provide good wine, following the rules, assured by the minister just weeks before that they’re not going to be setting up wine stores across the street, but now this bill comes forward which says yes, they can do that.

Yes, they can cut the prices for the biggies, the mega-corporations, while jacking the prices for the small ones. They can set up across the street from the small ones. They can run them out of business. That’s what this bill does. That’s why I oppose it.

I believe in consistency. I believe in following what you say. Unfortunately, what this government says is not worth the paper it’s written on. It’s not worth the air that is breathed to deliver it the moments after it is delivered, because this bill completely contradicts just about everything the minister has claimed to be working for.

There’s no reason. There’s no justification, no reason at all aside from, I suppose, a couple of big donors, or something like that, who’ve decided to work the back rooms to curry favour with this government while they completely harm the small independent wine merchants who have been there since the 1980s, serving our communities very well.

It doesn’t make sense. It’s bad for business, bad for small business, bad for our communities. It doesn’t make sense at all to act in this way. I will be opposing this legislation.

I support small businesses in my community. I support certainty in my community so we can get good businesses, so investors — when they decide to put millions into expanding their storefronts, as Marquis winery has done on Davie Street — actually can see a return from that investment, not have their business obliterated because this government has decided to tear up its agreements and not follow through on its words.

I would like to thank the speakers on this side of the House on the NDP side for standing up for small business, because we do believe in supporting our communities and our small businesses — not snowing them, not pushing them under, not deciding to jack their prices by 30 percent and put a mega-competitor right across the street who can reduce their prices by 23 percent.

It doesn’t make sense. This government should withdraw this legislation now.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. S. Anton: In their continuing disdain for changes made to our B.C. liquor laws, the members opposite have shown how utterly out of touch they are with British Columbians, utterly out of step with the opinions of British Columbians. We went through one of the most extensive public consultations in British Columbia history, with the help of the Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Anton: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, there’s a noise from the other side of the room that makes it a little hard to speak, but I’ll carry on. There’s sort of a buzzing over there.
[ Page 7576 ]

What did British Columbians want? They wanted increased convenience. They wanted support for British Columbia products, and they were very concerned about ongoing health and safety and making sure that everything we did was within the parameters of good practice in health and safety. That is what we are doing. We are modernizing British Columbia’s liquor laws.

[1115]

One of the things that the public wanted and that, no matter what we tried to make the topic, the public kept coming back to was the question of selling some liquor in grocery stores. We needed to figure out what the best model for that was, so we settled on two things. One is allowing existing private liquor stores, or indeed, possibly government stores, to move into a grocery store, and the second part of that model was B.C. wine on shelves.

Every single person opposite says: “How could we have known? How could we have possibly known that that’s what government was going to do?” I don’t know, but here’s a clue. March 6, 2014, a news release, a government of British Columbia news release…. Now, I appreciate the members opposite may not be hanging on every word in our news releases, but here’s a government news release.

It talks about “B.C. Outlines Balanced Plan for Grocery Store Liquor Sales.” “First, the store-within-the-store model,” — the one I described a moment ago. “A second model” — this is March of a year ago — “will be flexible to accommodate VQA licences, as well as a limited number of new licences that sell VQA wine in grocery stores.” Imagine. There it is, right there.

Now, in fact the VQA wine…. We’ve actually broadened that to be 100 percent B.C. wine. These, of course, are the dormant licences which have been with the government for some years now.

The question was: did we hide it after that, a year ago? Well, January 31 — a Vancouver Sun article talks about it all over again. February 17 — an interview with the Vancouver Sun talks about it all over again. Business in Vancouver talks about it again, wine in grocery stores. Interview with On the Island here. Another discussion about wine in grocery. This conversation has been going on for a long time. I’m sorry that the members opposite have been deaf to it.

But there has been extensive discussion over the past year about wine in grocery, about the limited number of new licences. And by the way, I will confirm, because I’ve been asked several times how many licences: it is a limited number. It’ll be under two dozen. We have not settled on the final number yet, but it’ll be a rather modest number, as I have said on numerous occasions.

It is very clear that at the very outset of the question of liquor in grocery, there was a two-piece discussion. One was moving full-service liquor stores into grocery and the second was wine on shelves. I know that none of the members opposite would like to see wine on shelves. I can tell them that they might like to go down to South Surrey and see the opening of the first wine on shelves the other day and all of the customers in that store who were so thrilled to see the change in their store, as will be British Columbians around British Columbia as this unfolds.

Let me just try and correct some of the misstatements that were made on the other side of the House. The question of pricing. The pricing of these products is identical for all participants, all retailers. If you are selling 100 percent B.C. wine, you will make an arrangement. You will buy it. If you’re are a private liquor store, if you’re an independent wine store or if you’re a grocery store, you will be making a business arrangement with the producer of that wine and you will be buying it at whatever price you agree on.

That is a level playing field. These are B.C. wines, so there is direct delivery of those wines. That is called a level playing field.

The member opposite mentioned the word “consignment.” The VQA does have a consignment, but that’s because of a technical reason that they actually hold those licences. I think the member opposite has no desire whatsoever to learn this file. He would rather just make stuff up. The VQA actually holds those licences and designates someone to use those licences, and there may be an element of consignment in there. That is between the B.C. Wine Institute and the store.

There was a comment on pricing and people not knowing their pricing. The prices went out on the sixth of March for the first of April for the private stores. For the hospitality, they went out ten days before the end of the month, just like they do every other month. I did want to….

The member from Vancouver-Hastings wasn’t here a couple days ago when I thanked him for his comments about “what was all the fuss about?” There was a tremendous amount of work that went on in the Liquor Distribution Branch, B.C. government stores, to get ready for the changes between March 31 and the first of April.

[1120]

Those people, staff in the B.C. liquor stores — good unionized staff, as the member for Nanaimo mentioned — spent all night long working. The staff in my store in Champlain were up till three in the morning getting ready. I would like to publicly, here and now, thank them for the hard work that they did, making the changes for all British Columbians to make liquor service in British Columbia and our government stores better for all of British Columbia.

There is a very limited amount of these licences, and they are highly desirable. The other day the members opposite were making quite a bit of noise about how we do land sales. Well, would they like me to give these licences away, or do you think we should give them to the people who are prepared to step up to the plate and pay the highest bid on an auction? They might like to give them away to their friends. We believe that they should
[ Page 7577 ]
be sold to the highest bidder to maximize the value for British Columbia taxpayers. Sorry, but as we had NDP math earlier, once again we’ve got NDP math at play.

One more issue that was raised was the one-kilometre rule. Again, I’m sorry that the members opposite have not paid careful attention to the liquor file. It is the case, and it has always been the case, that the one-kilometre rule does not apply to wine stores. I’m sorry to break that to you, but it is true. It has always been true, and it continues to be true. There is no change in that.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey pretty much said, as did the member from Nanaimo: no more liquor outlets in British Columbia. Well, I guess that means no more restaurants, no more bars, no more anything, because health and safety will be compromised. We are paying close attention to the health and safety issues. Indeed, those were the whole focus of the first part of the liquor policy review. Everything that we do does have health and safety in mind. That is not going to stop us from modernizing liquor laws in British Columbia and modernizing the whole regime of liquor in British Columbia, because that’s what British Columbians want.

I know it must be hard for the members opposite when they walk by those businesses that say “happy hour.” I hope they don’t go in. I hope they don’t go in, because that would be hypocritical. When they go down to the dragon festival or their local festivals this summer, I hope they don’t walk across that whole site with a beer in their hand. I hope they don’t take their kids anywhere near that site, because there may be people on that site with a beer in their hand.

We have site-wide licensing for special events now. I hope that if they need a special occasion licence, they don’t go on line, that they’ll schlep around the town like they had to in the past.

There are so many changes in liquor policy in British Columbia. British Columbians have spoken. They wanted to have liquor in their grocery stores. They wanted to have wine in their grocery stores. They wanted to support British Columbia wine, so we are, with this bill, allowing for a limited number — as I said, under two dozen B.C. wine dormant licences to be auctioned off to the people of British Columbia. I think the only complaint we will receive is: why are there not more of them?

People in British Columbia will be very happy with this, as I said. In South Surrey the other day we had, for the first time in my political life, members of the public crowding into the store for the announcement because they were so thrilled that their store in South Surrey was going to be the first one to have this B.C. wine on shelves.

This is something that British Columbians want. I’m sorry that the members opposite think that it’s a terrible idea. Members opposite think that everything we have done in this liquor expansion is a terrible idea. As I started off by saying, they have shown how totally out of step they are with British Columbians. British Columbians want these changes. We are making these changes, and we on this side of the House welcome them.

Deputy Speaker: The minister has moved and the question is second reading on Bill 22.

[1125]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

[1130]

Second reading of Bill 22 approved on the following division:

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

Bill 22, Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee on Bill 27.
[ Page 7578 ]

[1135]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — LIQUOR CONTROL
AND LICENSING ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 11:37 a.m.

On section 1.

The Chair: I’ll perhaps start with the minister and the introductions of those staff who are with her.

Hon. S. Anton: I am joined by Doug Scott, my ADM and the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, and Elaine Vale, manager of policy at the liquor control and licensing branch.

D. Eby: Welcome to Mr. Scott and Ms. Vale. Thank you for assisting today.

A couple of preliminary questions in relation to this act. The first is that there are a number of people in the province that have wine collections worth a considerable amount of money. They have suggested to me that there are processes in place in other jurisdictions whereby wine can be auctioned off and that the host state, in the United States, or a province can participate in a wine auction. By this means, private collections can be auctioned.

Is there anything in this bill that would enable the manager to authorize a private or public wine auction?

[1140]

Hon. S. Anton: The goal of the new act is to, essentially, tidy up an act that was very outdated and convoluted, to modernize our liquor regime in British Columbia and also to make it more flexible for the future.

The question was: could a private wine auction be authorized? The answer is yes. It’s not in the act, but section 30 does permit a permit or a class of permits, and one of those classes of permits could be for private wine auctions.

As the member will likely know, we did allow charitable auctions a couple of years ago, allowing some auctions which, by the way, I think may have been underway for a few years and may not have been entirely in compliance. It allowed them to come into compliance.

D. Eby: Along the same lines as the first question, I had an e-mail from a rugby enthusiast:

“Since moving to Vancouver as a British immigrant, it’s been a constant struggle with the liquor board for them to allow us to enjoy the same cultural experiences we do back home.

“The province asked for my taxes and charged a premium for housing and services. When I asked to be able to drink a beer at 7 a.m. to watch my national sport, as a 34-year-old man with no criminal convictions, I’m told I can’t be trusted.

“This February and March the Six Nations rugby tournament took place, as it did every year. The AGLC in Alberta allowed a 7:30 a.m. service time. All other provinces have good time zone situations. Once again, early drinking requests were denied to B.C.

“This year the Canadian team takes on Ireland in their first game. That kickoff time is before 9 a.m., so no drinking. Several of the games are before 9 a.m. So once again, our culture, which is the same as yours — our national sport, a pint, some cheering and some good sportsmanship — is once again restricted.

“I’m sick of hearing the laws are changing. They don’t seem to be. I’ve asked for logical reasons why drinking cannot be allowed at 7 a.m. with the correct process in place for these special events. I’ve not been given one decent answer as to why, logically and ethically, this cannot take place.”

My question to the minister is quite straightforward. Under this act would it be possible for the liquor board to authorize, for special cultural events, licences that would permit serving on the time zone of the place where the event is taking place? In particular, the upcoming rugby sevens tournament is a great example, but also football — or as we know it, soccer — is a great example of that as well.

[1145]

Hon. S. Anton: The authority is in the regulations to set the hours of operation for liquor establishments. Currently the regulation is 9 a.m. till 4 a.m. The general manager also has the authority to make restrictions on that. During some special events we have allowed the premises to open earlier but not to sell liquor earlier. It is the case that the regulation-making authority is broad enough that those regulations could change, possibly to contemplate the kind of situation that the member is raising.

D. Eby: Just to be clear, then, this is currently contained in the current regulations that’ll be imported into this act, and there wouldn’t be an amendment to this act to permit this kind of cultural activity to take place outside of those hours? I guess what I’m asking is: would the minister be amenable to an amendment to this act to permit that kind of activity to take place?

The e-mail writer notes — and I think it’s a great point — that B.C. is spending a lot of tax money on the rugby sevens tournament to take place at B.C. Place next March. Clearly, we’re supporting the idea of rugby in British Columbia. He asks: does the province support rugby or not? I’d say the same thing would go for soccer or football. Is there something we can do here to include it in the act? Clearly, we’re both in favour of modernization and reasonable accommodation. This seems eminently reasonable to me.

Hon. S. Anton: There is no need to amend the act because the regulation-making authority does provide the authority that the member is seeking.

D. Eby: Then rugby fans should direct their corres-
[ Page 7579 ]
pondence, I take it, to the minister to amend that regulation to allow them to enjoy their national sport at seven in the morning, perhaps with a pint.

In section 1 there seems to be a definition missing, given how often it’s referenced in the act. That is the definition of “intoxication.” This is not an academic question. Bar owners and restaurant owners are expected to be able to identify someone who is intoxicated. Peace officers are expected to be able to identify, for the purposes of arresting somebody, someone who is intoxicated in a public place. Clarity on this definition is needed.

Why did the minister not include a definition of intoxication in this act?

[1150]

Hon. S. Anton: The word “intoxication” is not a word that has been defined in our liquor legislation. It has a meaning which was commonly understood, and that has sufficed over the many years of this kind of legislation.

D. Eby: I’m not sure that I enthusiastically share the minister’s understanding of the common understanding of the word “intoxication,” and it’s a shifting word, with social understanding. We saw that with drunk driving, where it shifted from .08 to .05. Intoxication can mean falling down drunk, or it can mean just having a couple drinks. We’ll canvass this a little bit later in the arrest for public intoxication, but for now I take it the minister says that she’s simply incorporating existing case law.

The other definition that seems to be notably missing from this section is the definition for “fit and proper.” The general manager is to asked to determine whether someone is fit and proper for any number of privileges under this act and yet appears to be given no guidance about what “fit and proper” means.

It seems like an incredibly wide and ill-defined description of somebody. Not having a criminal record — I understand that. But “fit and proper” — I wonder if the minister could clarify why she didn’t define that?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a phrase which has been judicially considered and is well understood. It is used in at least one other context, namely the Passenger Transportation Act. There may be others as well.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

D. Eby: I was contacted by a manufacturer of beer and distilling equipment in British Columbia. The minister surely knows that craft beer has had an explosion. There are a number of manufacturers of equipment in the province that have benefited from the growth of the craft beer industry and the growth of the craft distilling industry.

Their concern is that they received correspondence from the liquor board saying that if you want to do R and D, you want to test your equipment, you want make alcohol on your premises, you need a licence to do so. On my reading here of the new act, in section 2, sub (a) particularly, it seems to me that the minister has solved this problem.

It says: “Nothing in this Act prevents (a) a person who is not a minor from manufacturing wine or beer…” so long as it “…occurs (i) in a place other than a public place….” And that seems to describe exactly the manufacturers. Now, an important note here is that it says wine or beer. It doesn’t say distilled products. That’s a difference from…. You know, they manufacture stills — right? — for sale across the world actually.

Two questions here. The minister can take them both at once or one at a time. Does 2(a) have the effect of exempting a manufacturer of beer or wine distilling equipment from the need for licences, as long as they are testing their equipment in a place that is not accessible to the public?

[1155]

Hon. S. Anton: The 2(a) is for home brew of beer or wine. A couple of things to mention on top of that in relation to the question. You cannot own a still without a federal licence. It’s federal jurisdiction.

I would note, as well, section 11, where regulations may be made allowing “the consumption, use, sale, service, purchase or manufacture of liquor without a licence or permit, by prescribed persons or entities for prescribed purposes, in prescribed circumstances,” which would allow an exemption of the kind noted under regulation.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. Rustad moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: The House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
[ Page 7580 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Plecas in the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $813,473,000 (continued).

G. Heyman: I have two questions: one to do with handyDART and one to do with Bill 2. I’d be happy to receive, in the interest of time, a written response to the questions, but I’d like to read them into the record.

Before I read them, I just want to have a very brief response to the minister’s statements yesterday on the regulation of party buses by the Passenger Transportation Board under special authorization permit. He said he did not believe in overregulation. It was important to take things one step at a time based on evidence.

I would say to the minister…. And I think people in Maple Ridge, around B.C. and particularly the Raymonds would know, and the minister knows, that many of these companies regularly advertise illegal activity by showing pictures in their ads of people on the party buses with open alcohol and drinks in their hands.

One thing that the Passenger Transportation Board could do — and I urge the minister to suggest this to them — is make, as a term and condition of the licence, a prohibition against the advertisement of their services including illegal activity as part of the pictorial nature of the advertisement. I commend that to his attention.

Now, with respect to handyDART, over the next 20 years the number of seniors is going to double to an estimated 1.3 million. In 2012, B.C. had seven out of ten municipalities in Canada with the highest proportion of persons aged 65 or over. StatsCan is projecting that B.C.’s senior population will exceed the national average over the next 25 years.

We have seen almost a 70 percent increase in service denials from handyDART from the year 2008 to today. The 2014 stats are these. A total of 37,804 denials breaking down into…. The categories of denials are 16,869 flat-out denials; 6,750 refusals, which is what happens when somebody phones for a ride and they’re offered something that does not meet their needs — for instance, a ride that won’t get them to their medical appointment on time or that will involve them waiting around for a ride home for a couple of hours after it’s over; and 14,185 unaccommodated standby trips. Standbys are calls that TransLink could not service.

My question is fairly straightforward. First of all, do these numbers match what the minister’s understanding is of handyDART denials in the year 2014?

We all know that part of the mayors service plan is a 30 percent increase in handyDART services. But we talked yesterday about: what’s the plan B? It’s important for seniors and people with mobility issues to know what the plan B is. Whether it’s through the plebiscite and approval of funding or whether it’s through some other measure, they deserve to be able to get out and to get to medical appointments, and they deserve to be assured of that.

My question to the minister is: what will he do to ensure that regardless of the outcome of the plebiscite, seniors and people with mobility issues can count on handyDART services?

My second question has to do with Bill 2. There are more than 500 pieces of property, including fee simple statutory rights-of-way and leases, included under the transfer of assets resulting from Bill 2. Has the minister included in these estimates the costs of completing all of the legal documents and agreements that will be necessary for the legal transfer of assets included in Bill 2? If so, how much money will the government spend, and will it be more or less than the $50,000 that the minister indicated would be the administrative savings by this consolidation?

I’d be happy to take a written response, and I’ll now yield my place in speaking.

Hon. T. Stone: I’d be very happy, in the interest of time, to provide written responses to the questions that have been raised by the member for Vancouver-Fairview.

[1105]

M. Elmore: Thank you very much, Chair, for the opportunity to pose some questions to the minister and staff with regards to ICBC. I’d like to start with questions regarding staffing levels.

Can the minister please provide me with the number on current staffing levels? If possible, I’d like the number of full-time-equivalents overall as well as in the claims division. Also, the number of FTEs at each ICBC location, both overall and in the claims division, if possible.

Hon. T. Stone: The data that we have here at our fingertips today I can provide to the member for Vancouver-Kensington. They are as follows. The overall number of full-time-equivalent employees — obviously, not including contractors — across the entire corporation is 4,811 FTEs. Obviously, the claims division is the largest component of that, representing 2,543 FTEs.

I would be happy to provide, in writing, subsequent to estimates, a breakdown by location, as requested by the member.
[ Page 7581 ]

M. Elmore: Thank you. I appreciate that.

In terms of the current staffing levels in the claims division, how does it compare to past staffing levels, just to get an idea of the comparison? If you could let me know how many FTEs there were in each ICBC location’s claims division in the past and also the numbers for each location. And if I could have a breakdown for as many number of years as you’ve got that on record, just to give me an idea in terms of that comparison — the ratio over the last number of years.

[1110]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, we will endeavour to provide the member with a more detailed breakdown of actual FTE numbers within the claims division, broken down by office. We can provide a historical overlay to that as well.

I am able to provide the member with the following information. The total FTEs, globally, in the corporation has come down quite considerably, from almost 5,200 positions in 2011 to just over 4,800 positions in 2014. The vast majority of those reductions, about 95 percent, have been management positions. There are about 300 less managers in ICBC today than there were three years ago.

M. Elmore: Thank you for the response and for the information coming forward in terms of the historical perspective.

My next question is: is there anticipation in terms of the numbers changing in the coming years with regards to FTEs? Is ICBC planning on adding or reducing claims staff? Any plans in the works for specific locations in terms of additions or reductions in FTEs across the province?

Hon. T. Stone: In response to the member’s question about staffing levels on a go-forward basis, as I’m certain the member is well aware, the transformation program that ICBC is in the later stages of implementing — a $400 million upgrade of the systems and the technologies used by the corporation…. I’m not sure if the member will have some questions on that a little bit later. The corporation is anticipating overall savings from the transformation program in the neighbourhood of $85 million per year. Some of those savings relate to ICBC being a smaller corporation, fewer people required.

[1115]

As I said in my last response, 95 percent of the reductions in staff to this point have been in management positions. We would anticipate that any subsequent reduction in staff would also be mostly focused on management positions.

It would be premature at this point to speculate exactly what the breakdown of any fewer positions would look like in terms of departments at ICBC. Claims is the largest component, but claims has also gone through a tremendous amount of adjustment and change to this point, with a new claims engine that was implemented earlier last year.

The corporation also advises me that they’re quite confident that the vast majority of any future reductions in staff will be accommodated as a result of attrition, which I think is an important part of this discussion.

The last thing I’ll say in terms of the claim centres in particular…. The member knows well that I’ve been on the record many times saying that it’s very important that, as much as the overriding objective at ICBC is to keep rates as low as possible for the ratepayer, there’s also a second obligation that ICBC has, and that is to maintain the important community presence that they have in communities around the province, particularly in the smaller centres outside of the Lower Mainland.

While some claim centres have seen a reduction in the compliment of FTEs that work in a particular claim centre, that has more often been the case because of shifting consumer demands. More British Columbians are opting to register their claim over the telephone as opposed to going into a traditional claim centre. That has meant ICBC has had to adjust to that reality, to a certain extent, and shift some positions from the traditional claim centre to the call centres.

We’re continuing to work closely with ICBC, again, to ensure that the corporation is as efficient as it possibly can be to keep rates down but also to remind the corporation at every opportunity we have of just how important it is to maintain as strong a presence, which includes employment, in communities across British Columbia as possible.

M. Elmore: In terms of going into the workload in the claims division, for employees in the claims division, what’s the current average workload per full-time-equivalent?

[1120]

Hon. T. Stone: Again we’ll get back to the member with some details relating to her previous question. I will say that I’m sure the member knows well there are a number of different types of claims that are managed within the corporation, each requiring a very different skill set, frankly.

There are, obviously, adjusters who focus exclusively on material damage claims. There are other adjusters that focus exclusively on bodily injury claims. And there’s a highly specialized group that is assigned the most complex claims, which often involve catastrophic claims. The workloads vary dramatically from one type of claim to another. As I said, we’ll endeavour to try and provide some reference points for the member, in writing.

The other piece to this is…. The corporation and the union have agreed, in their last collective agreement, to work together, collaborate, on a workload study, which has not yet started but is set to start soon. It’s expected
[ Page 7582 ]
that that workload study would likely be done towards the end of this year.

I think the objective there is really to truly understand, really definitively, where the heavy workloads are, where the lighter workloads are and what strategies could be employed to more evenly balance the workloads across the claims division of the corporation.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response.

Maybe I can just add a couple more points and questions with respect to the information to come back. If you could also add…. Again, I’m interested in looking at a historical perspective of how the average workload has evolved over time, understanding that there are different categories and there has been adjustment within the claims division.

Looking at the average workload per FTE, maybe a comparison of 2010 to currently, if those categories reconcile…. That would make sense in terms of being able to have an idea with respect to workload. Yeah, just generally around if there are efforts underway to lower the current workload or not. You can add that.

You don’t need to respond to that. I can go to the next question. We’ll just come forward. I appreciate that.

I’m interested in the representation rate. We discussed that in last year’s estimates — ICBC’s representation rate, the percentage of people seeking legal representation during the claims process, continuing to increase, particularly within the first 14 days of their claim. In fact, since 2011 the increase in the representation rate has accelerated. As of 2013 just shy of half of claimants were seeking legal representation.

If the minister can provide me with the representation rate in 2014…. And are there ICBC targets for 2015, ’16 and ’17?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:24 a.m. to 11:37 a.m.

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Just before the recess there, the member for Vancouver-Kensington asked me some questions about the representation rate. She is correct. Last year she and I had a pretty healthy exchange on this particular subject. I won’t go too deep into why the rate has increased over the years, particularly at the rapid clip that we had seen in previous years. I think the member knows well that the rate has increased.

The good news on the rep rate is that the rate of increases has really slowed. The rep rate grew from 40.9 percent in 2011 to 43.7 percent in 2012 to 45.9 percent in 2013. Last year we saw the rate of growth slow. It only increased from 45.9 percent to 46.6 percent — so less than a percentage increase overall. We are making great strides at really putting effort into reducing the rep rate.

The member knows well that as the rep rate has increased, the cost of claims has increased. There’s no secrecy as to why that is. When lawyers are involved, the overall costs of the settlements tend to be higher, with a significant portion of that going to cover legal fees as opposed to actually going to help the individuals who are involved in the incident.

It’s in everyone’s interests to see that rep rate actually decline, not the least of which is ratepayers and the pressure that the increasing rep rate puts on rates. As I said, we’re making huge strides. This has largely been about kind of two key strategies to apply downward pressure on the rep rate.

[1140]

One is through advertising and marketing, really reaching out to customers to let customers know that ICBC is there for them and making the experience much, much more customer-friendly, much less intimidating. So very good feedback on a number of marketing and advertising campaigns relating to that and really focusing on dispelling the myths about what it’s like to deal with ICBC.

The second key strategy is recognizing that there are particular multicultural or ethnic communities, in the Lower Mainland especially, that have really increased in size and, therefore, represent an increasing percentage of claims. One of the fastest-growing multicultural groups that ICBC deals with is South Asian — Indo-Canadian in particular.

One of the success stories in really reaching out to these multicultural communities has been the establishment of the Punjabi language line. Since that line was put in place, we’ve actually seen a 95 percent uptake in its use in a very short period of time. We’ve got plans to implement a similar line for Mandarin and Cantonese. I believe those will be in place by the end of this year.

Obviously, when people are able to deal with ICBC in their native tongue, in their own language, there is a much higher level of comfort right out of the gate. That will, I think, go a long way to establishing the trust that, ideally, if it’s there at the very beginning of the relationship, will serve, first and foremost, the clients well but will also help us keep rates down at ICBC.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the response. Certainly, more initiatives need to be put in place to see that trend of the representation rate come down.

I’d like to ask a question with regards to the new claims initiation rate. These are calls answered in 100 seconds or less. That has decreased from a high of 82 percent in 2010 to a low of 53 percent in 2013. In the past the new claims initiation rate target was 80 percent. The current rate is well below that target.
[ Page 7583 ]

If the minister can tell me what steps are being taken to remedy the situation. This speaks towards customers, ratepayers, having the opportunity, once they contact ICBC, to have a speedy resolution to their claim and facilitating the ability to ensure that they meet that service.

[1145]

Hon. T. Stone: ICBC does set targets for the speed at which it takes to answer claims and to initiate a claim in the system. It’s referred to as the first notice of loss. Those metrics are tracked on a daily and weekly basis.

When the new claim system was actually put in about 14 months ago, due to the fact that it was a new system, there was a bit of an increase in the amount of time it was taking for claims to be registered over the phone in the system. Since that time, over the last number of months, that speed of answer has actually come back down to the baselines before the new claim system was put in and is tracking better than the targets that ICBC has.

There are a number of other improvements that have also taken place with the new claim system. While they’ve got the overall speed of the answer back down to their baseline, the actual duration of the call is less. So the amount of time that an individual has to spend on the phone with an ICBC individual to actually get the claim into the system is less, which is a good thing. ICBC staff are actually dealing with more issues. They’re registering more information during that call.

The speed of answer is back down to where it was pre–claim system. More information is being dealt with in the call, and the actual duration of the call, on average, is less today than it was months ago.

M. Elmore: Thanks for the answer. If I can maybe come back another time in terms of what those specific numbers are with respect to the speed of answer, I’d appreciate that. That would be great.

I also have a question now with regards to the release of the 2014 annual report. The opposition caucus addressed a letter to the minister recently about ICBC’s 2014 annual report. We requested that the annual report be released in advance of the estimates process. Unlike most other government organizations, ICBC operates on a January to December fiscal year.

The Insurance Corporation Act requires, in section 23, that ICBC release the report within 60 days of the year-end when the Legislature is sitting. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act contradicts this and allows for a later release date. The current practice of releasing the report some 22 to 24 weeks after year-end is unreasonable and contrary to the spirit of the BTAA and to the B.C reporting principles, which lists timelines as one of its key principles.

The annual report is the only place where financial data for the basic and optional sides of ICBC’s business are separated, and that information is not in the service plan. The release of the annual report would be helpful for deliberations at the B.C. Utilities Commission over ICBC’s 2014 revenue requirements application, which is going on right now. It would also be helpful for the estimates process. Furthermore, the Insurance Corporation Act requires that the annual report be released within 60 days of the year-end.

[1150]

My question is: why does ICBC delay the release of its annual report until the public accounts are released at the end of August, when it should be reasonably released in February or March?

Hon. T. Stone: In response to the member’s question on the timing of the filing of ICBC’s annual report, in the Insurance Corporation Act — the member is correct — it does indicate 60 days after the end of the corporation’s year-end. That provision is subservient to the provision of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which provides for all Crown corporations — obviously, of which ICBC is one — to make annual reports public, tabled by the minister in the House and posted on the websites by August 31.

The most accurate and simple answer here is that the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act provisions for tabling the annual reports for Crown corporations supersede the provisions that are in the Insurance Corporation Act.

With that, Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada