Issues & Community Blog - Andrew Weaver: A Climate for Hope - Page 195

The Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act passed second reading yesterday and now moves into committee stage. As noted in a government press release when the Act was first introduced in early-March:

“While a complete re-write of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act is planned for spring 2015, government is adopting a phased-in approach to modernizing the legislation. The first step is to introduce amendments, modernize outdated provisions and reform the current act, which will allow for faster implementation of key recommendations.”

A detailed list of key recommendations can be found in the B.C. Liquor Policy Review Final Report.

Below please find my speech at second reading on this important piece of new legislation.

Today I also popped into the Tuscany Village Metro Liquor store in my riding to pick up some BC craft beer. Coincidentally, Barkerville Brewing Company , located in the City of Quesnel, were on location providing samples of their 18 Karat Ale. I chatted with the proprietor (Russ Ovans) and his daughter (Svea Ovans) about the BC Craft Beer industry. They are pictured in the image above. Barkerville Brewing Company officially opened for business on February 14, 2014, making it one of BC’s newest craft beer brewers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with licences moving freely across our province, there is an argument to be made here for fairness in our rural communities. As liquor store operators in small communities suddenly have these very profitable licences, they may decide, in fact, to sell their licences to a business in a larger city. This could then leave the rural community — in my example it was Burns Lake — with liquor stocks well below what the market demand is, based purely on the profitability of a larger market like Vancouver.

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

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

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

As promised, I have been posting my office expenses (both for the constituency and legislature offices) quarterly on the front page of my website since I was elected. In fact, I have been posting my travel expenses there as well.  Recently there has been some media attention concerning “Accompanying Person” travel expenses.

MLAs are allowed 12 Accompanying Person trips per year. The policy is quite clear as to what constitutes an accompanying person.

To qualify for official party status in the legislature, a party needs to elect four MLAs. As the only elected BC Green Party MLA, I am formally considered an Independent in the Legislature. I am afforded a legislative budget that allows me to employ two full time and one half-time staff person. These staff are critical in terms of assisting an MLA fulfill his or her duties.

As noted by the CBC (see * below), my Accompanying Person travel was $4,053 last year. For those interested, my expenses as already listed on my website were $1092.00 during the first and second quarter and $2961.00 during the third quarter of 2013. All accompanying person travel was for my legislative assistants.

Trips 1 and 2:

Two legislative assistants accompanied me to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities 2013 Convention in Vancouver during September 2013.

Trip 3:

A legislative assistant accompanied me to the 2013 BC Energy Conference in Fort St. John during October 2013. We also toured the Farrell Creek fracking site, the Peace River Valley and the proposed Site C dam location. We also met with a variety of local officials and community leaders.

Trip 4:

A legislative assistant accompanied me to the 2013 Clean Energy BC conference in Vancouver in October 2013. There we had a  number of meetings and I gave the closing plenary.

Trip 5:

A legislative assistant accompanied me on a visit to Prince Rupert and Kitimat in December 2013. The purpose of this trip was to meet with local mayors, LNG proponents, other industry and the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

* The initial version of the CBC story incorrectly indicated spending under the Accompanying Person Travel Expenses category was limited to trips taken by MLAs’ spouses. In fact, MLA spending under that category can be used for staff travel as well

Thank you to everyone who participated in our first polling question using PoliSourceBC. The final results of the poll are listed below. Our next poll touches on an issue that I have written extensively about on this site (type coal into the search bar above for a list of articles).

“Burning thermal coal to produce electricity is the world’s biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions. Washington, Oregon and California States are taking steps to halt the expansion of thermal coal exports through their ports. Do you believe that BC should take similar steps to halt the expansion of thermal coal exports through its ports?”

To participate in this poll please click here.

RESULTS OF PREVIOUS POLL

“Do you support the Green Party of BC policy to add a 6th condition for the approval of resource development applications? Condition #6 would be: No diluted bitumen in tanks on BC coastal waters.”

The poll ran from March 4 to March 24, 2014 and there were 273 responses as follows:

• Yes – 237 (87%)
• No – 27 (10%)
• Other – 9 (3%)

Approximately 20% of the responses were from constituents, according to postal code data.

By 2016, B.C. will have doubled its thermal coal exports. Thermal coal is largely sourced from outside of British Columbia and contributes very little to B.C. jobs. It is also one of the single largest contributors to global carbon emissions. In fact, the increase in B.C.’s thermal coal exports that we will see in the next two years alone will produce more carbon emissions than our entire province will in 2020, assuming we meet our legislated climate targets.

Last fall, the BC government joined the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy. Together with Washington, Oregon, and California, we committed to building a strategic alignment to combat climate change and promote clean energy. Our partners understand the threat of thermal coal and have taken practical steps to reduce their thermal coal exports. It’s time B.C. did the same.

          State Leadership on a National Issue

Recognizing that they have limited power within their jurisdiction the leaders of California, Oregon and Washington are putting pressure on the American federal government to halt the expansion of coal exports. For instance, the Governors of Oregon and Washington have pressured the Obama administration to review the impact that leasing and exporting western coal has on climate change. A letter signed by both governors states: “We cannot seriously take the position in international and national policymaking that we are a leader in controlling greenhouse gas emissions without also examining how we will use and price the world’s largest proven coal reserves.” Furthermore the governors believe that “the decisions to continue and expand coal leasing from federal lands and authorize the export of that coal are likely to lead to long-term investments in coal generation in Asia, with air quality and climate impacts in the United States that dwarf those of almost any other action the federal government could take in the foreseeable future”.

Similarly, in 2012, the Assembly and Senate of the State of California passed a resolution urging the American President and Congress to “enact legislation to restrict the transshipment for waterborne export of coal for electricity generation to any nation that fails to adopt rules and regulations on the emissions of greenhouse gases”. This resolution easily passed in California.

          Practical Steps that Make a Difference

Meanwhile, these states are also taking practical steps within their jurisdiction to halt the expansion of coal exports. For example, a few weeks ago the Port of Oakland board of commissioners in California unanimously rejected two proposals that would have seen the construction of a new coal export facility, citing environmental concerns, public health hazards, economic pitfalls, and public opposition. This is the most recent rejection of proposed coal export facilities on the west coast; three other coal export facilities have been rejected in Oregon and Washington over the last two years.

Another great example of leadership is found in Washington. There the Department of Ecology is now requiring, as part of its environmental impact statement on the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal (a massive coal export facility), “an evaluation of impacts associated with the project from greenhouse gas emissions including those from terminal construction, terminal operation, rail and vessel traffic, and also the end-use coal combustion”. This is a holistic approach to environmental assessments as it recognizes that building the coal-export facility does not only have local environmental impacts but will also facilitate the increased use of burning coal in Asia, and thus increase the emissions going into our global atmosphere.

          It’s Time for B.C. to Step Up

Elected officials in these U.S. states clearly understand the threat thermal coal poses to our climate and they are doing what they can to respond. Our provincial government could do the same. Instead we remain the only administration in this partnership that has not spoken out against the export of thermal coal. In fact, when I proposed a motion in February to limit the expansion of U.S.-sourced thermal coal exports it was voted down 73 to 1. This is shameful.

Exporting increased amounts of thermal coal is a direct threat to the progress we have made on addressing climate change. Local and state leaders in California, Oregon, and Washington recognize that exporting coal to be burned in Asia undermines their attempts to reduce their own emissions. The same is true for B.C. It’s time we follow their leadership and stop the expansion of thermal coal exports.

To understand more about how BC ports are expanding their coal-export operations and why I am opposed, please read my three previous blogs on the issue, found here, here and here.

If you are interested in my motion to reduce the expansion of thermal coal exports, you can read my speech here.

The Laboratory Services Act passed second reading yesterday and now moves into committee stage. As noted in a government press release when the Act was first introduced in mid-February:

“The act enables government to strengthen patient services and ensure that resources are deployed efficiently and where they’re most needed.

This legislation provides authority for the Province to better co-ordinate in-patient and out-patient clinical laboratory systems provincewide and enables British Columbia to enter into agreements with service providers to provide greater certainty regarding costs.”

Below please find my speech at second reading on this important piece of new legislation.

First, I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s overall efforts to better streamline our health care system. As health care creeps up towards 42% of the provincial budget by 2016-17, there’s no question that fiscal prudence requires us to find more cost-effective ways of delivering quality care. Developing our community and home-based care systems, enhancing the role of nurse practitioners in the delivery of primary care, and educating British Columbians on practical steps they can take to stay healthy are all examples of important initiatives we can take to make our health care system more affordable for British Columbians.

I therefore appreciate the steps the Minister takes with this bill to move further in building a more cost-effective care system. Standardizing and streamlining British Columbia’s clinical laboratory system could create opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication and over-supply of laboratory services while also ensuring better coordination of services and flow of information between lab technologists and other care providers. Such changes could help make our system more cost effective while also improving the quality of care patients receive.

However, it is important that as we find new ways of streamlining our health care system—of finding more cost-effective ways of delivering health care—that we also take the steps necessary to protect patient safety and to ensure that we maintain—if not enhance—the excellent quality of care we have come to know in British Columbia.

Laboratory technologists play a critical role in our health care system, offering analysis that informs how our health care providers respond to patients’ needs. This role extends from prevention to diagnosis to treatment. As the Minister has noted, “laboratory medicine is advancing rapidly”—the system, the technology and the expertise that informs laboratory medicine is constantly changing. Yet unlike physicians, nurses and so many other health care providers, lab technologists are not a regulated profession with clear and enforced standards of practice and education that ensure all laboratory technologists have up-to-date knowledge of the rapidly advancing system.

I am concerned that there is a trend beginning to emerge that we are moving towards streamlining services without doing the due diligence to ensure we are adequately protecting patients. We have seen this in the debate around Island Health’s new Patient Care Model, Care Delivery Model Redesign where Registered Nurses are being replaced by Health Care Aids, contrary to existing evidence, without first ensuring that health care aids are regulated to a standard necessary to fulfill their new, critical role. I wonder: Will we see the same here with the laboratory services act?

Streamlining health care services needs to go hand-in-hand with maintaining, if not enhancing, quality of care and patient safety. With other health care professions—such as with physicians and nurses—we have found that regulating care providers is an effective and efficient way of achieving this goal. As we look to streamline laboratory services we should also take similar steps here to regulate the related professions, to protect patients, and to ensure a consistent, high quality of care.

I do, of course, recognize that the Minister may have plans to this effect in place already and so I simply offer this concern to the debate and would appreciate any comments the Minister may have in response as we move forward.

As this is a rather multifaceted bill with potentially significant implications for our health care system, I will reserve my overall judgment of the act for committee stage, when we have the opportunity to discuss the specific details and changes it would make.