Debate in BC Legislative Assemby about Alcohol at VANOC in 2010

British Columbia 2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

COMMITTEE A BLUES

This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(HANSARD)

COMMITTEE A BLUES

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2009

Afternoon Sitting


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HOUSING AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT


The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

S. Simpson: Regarding liquor, could the minister tell us what the status is…? The minister will recall that there was some concern about what was happening around Olympic wines and the whole issue about which wines would be forward and how that would all be dealt with in terms of labelling what was cellared here versus actual B.C. wines and their use in the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Could the minister give us an update as to what the status of that is, as to how wines will be used for official functions and such? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no Olympic wine. There's no wine that's for the Olympics or that's been made for the Olympics. Basically, the issue was that for a long time, in generations going back, frankly, over two decades, wineries in B.C. have been allowed to import what is fermented juice, to cellar it and make it in British Columbia into the final product of wine. That was done 20 years ago plus, back in I think it was the 1980s and through the 1990s, to be able to create a cash flow basis for wines in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At that time we didn't have the amount of grapes that were necessary to supply domestic demands, and we don't today, quite frankly. These were allowed to be brought in, put in and labelled as a product of Canada — basically, cellared in the particular jurisdiction they were in. That labelling issue is not a provincial issue; it's actually a federal issue. They're the ones to decide what will take place on the labelling of wine. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This became an issue on the placement of some wines from Vincor within some of our liquor stores, because Vincor is the wine sponsor that has bought the rights to the Olympics. Vincor is part of a company called, I think, Constellation. Constellation is one of the three largest wine companies in the world. They are allowed to put that logo on any wine, anywhere in the world, whether it be British Columbian, Canadian or whatever the case may be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As we went through that issue, we met with the industry — with Peller Estates and other companies, including Vincor — across the country with regards to their labelling and how these would be placed. We are changing the placement of how the wine will be placed in the B.C. Liquor Stores. They are not labelling it with the logo that would bring in the questions with regards to it anymore for the stuff that will come in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

All wines that will be used at all venues at the Olympics will be VQA wines produced by Vincor in British Columbia or in Canada. There will be 100 percent VQA wines, of 100 percent B.C. grapes, made in B.C. That's the wine that will be served at all the venues that they will host at the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: The minister has said there would be changes made in terms of how the wine is displayed in liquor stores and the prominence of those wines. Could the minister tell us when that's expected to occur? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yesterday I asked the member whether it would be liquor distribution or licensing. I understood licensing would be the discussion on liquor. Jay Chambers, who is the general manager of the liquor distribution branch…. We let him go home yesterday for that reason. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My understanding is that once the inventory is used up, they're already doing the new signage. They've already come to an agreement of what the statement will be. I think that it's going to say something…. I should be careful. I know that it's not going to say that it's a B.C. wine. It will be moved out of the B.C. wine section. It will be a product that will have a name like "cellared in Canada" or something that's acceptable to the jurisdictions across Canada, and we will change their location in the liquor stores. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: I agree with the minister that we had agreed that one of his officials would be going home. I think the minister, at that time, had said that if there were questions, I'd put them on the record, and if he wasn't able to answer them at this time because he didn't have officials, answers would be provided in writing. That's fine by me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1440]

The minister said that all the wines would be VQA. The wines used at the Olympics and served at the Olympics as part of official functions would be B.C. VQA wines. Could the minister tell us, or could he get the information to us, as to how the selection of those wines will be made, since we have…. Obviously, Vincor is the sponsor for this, but there are a large number of wineries and the smaller estate wineries and that in British Columbia. Are others going to have the opportunity to have their wines available as well? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear. The sponsored wines, which are Vincor, have bought the sponsorship to the Olympics, so official Olympic events during the Olympics will only be serving Vincor wine that is VQA. They bought those rights. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, if there's another bar, hotel, venue that's having a bit of a celebration around the Olympics that's not an officially sponsored venue, they can buy their wines from whomever they want. They're not tied to the Olympic sponsorship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In the case of, let's say, an event at GM Place, where there's an official function of the Olympics, it will be Vincor wine, because Vincor and Constellation have bought their rights. It's the same as we will have with regards to Molson's products at those same things because they bought the Olympic rights, and they've paid millions of dollars for those rights. We don't have a problem with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Any other wine that wants to…. If there's a B.C. night of celebration, we won't be restricting, because that's not an official site, that sort of thing. Those will all be worked out. But when it comes to official Olympic events with the International Olympic Committee and VANOC, those people have bought the sponsorship. It's no different than Coca-Cola. They've bought their sponsorship, and McDonalds have a sponsorship. They have their rights to those events because they paid for the right to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: Having said that, I appreciate there are formal events that are held where there are limits on the suppliers to those events based on who paid at that time. The minister spoke of other opportunities or celebrations or events that will evolve around the Olympics that the government may play a role in but that won't be "official" events of the Olympics, where there would be opportunities for other B.C. producers of wines or maybe some of the craft producers of beer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Some of the specialty beers and things that are produced in British Columbia would have an opportunity to have their products there as B.C. products, as part of that celebration. I would think, for example, maybe some of those events at the Terminal City Club would be a good place for some of that to occur. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Could the minister tell us: what is the expectation about how invitations will go to those other participants — not at the formal events, the "official" events, but those other events — so that there is opportunity for other producers or vintners and that who aren't part of Vincor or other craft beer makers to be part of this celebration? How will that occur? How will they get invited to participate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: The B.C. Wine Institute is already working with the B.C. games secretariat and with Robson Square to profile B.C. wines at a number of events that they will be sponsoring through the period of time of the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Other than that, we don't actually tell restaurants what to buy, or whatever. That's the competitive environment of wines, and the restaurants will be able to buy from the liquor distribution whatever product they wish. Those people who are out there promoting and selling or whatever would continue their normal vein of business. We don't do that now with regards to the commercial activities in and around liquor, and we wouldn't be stepping in today and doing that either. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: Maybe this is about clarification to some degree. Now, I understand the official events are hosted by VANOC. They are the host party, not the government of British Columbia directly. VANOC is the host party. At all the VANOC events it will be their sponsor groups. It will be, then, Vincor. It will be Molson's. It will be those people who VANOC has agreements with, and I understand that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The government of British Columbia will be hosting events itself that are complementary to that but are not necessarily under the VANOC umbrella, I'm assuming. Will this broader range of B.C. products be available at those events that are hosted by British Columbia outside the VANOC umbrella? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have all the events for the member. I'll see if I can get you the information, but the B.C. Wine Institute, which is the organization that basically represents VQA wines in B.C., is planning on a number of receptions that they would feature B.C. wines at during the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I said, at any official function with regards to the Olympics Vincor has the sponsorship, just like Molson has the beer and Coke has the rest of it. That's pretty much an international standard for Olympics. Then there are other opportunities for countries that will come in and have other relationships with regards to liquor, like Heineken House, for instance, for the Dutch and that sort of thing, because those things will take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What I will do for the member is endeavour to get you an outline of what the BCWI is planning and who they're working with from the secretariat. I don't have it at my fingertips. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for offering to provide that list. Just one more question in relation to this, because I'm not sure that I fully understand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Is the minister saying that government of British Columbia events that are outside the VANOC umbrella and the VANOC sponsorship but events hosted by the government…. We've heard a lot of talk in the House and elsewhere about the government taking advantage of this opportunity for economic development and other opportunities here to be able to host events that will further those things, and I appreciate that. That's outside of VANOC running the Olympics. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For those events, is the minister saying the Wine Institute is taking responsibility for deciding how wines are provided at those events? Or does the government have somebody through this ministry or some other body, maybe the secretariat, who will take responsibility for deciding which vintners or brewers are invited to bring product there — or other food and beverage products that are British Columbia that might not have sponsorship? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm just trying to determine that here. I understand that the Wine Institute is going to do their job, and I think that's great. I just want to know how that relates to what British Columbia does in terms of making sure it maximizes exposure for British Columbia companies and businesses. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the B.C. Wine Institute is working on special events in different venues around Vancouver with regards to promoting B.C. wines and what have you. I don't know. I know that this ministry has nothing to do with that piece. I mean, we just did the licensing piece and what have you. Who's running what and doing what where is not our responsibility, and it's not in my purview to give an answer to that question otherwise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We as a government, when we're hosting an official Olympic event, will have to live by the same arrangements as VANOC has with regards to the sponsorships, which would be…. But if it's something that is broader, like if it's something we do with the B.C. Wine Institute, then we will be able to do more with B.C. wines or whatever product. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'll get some information from the secretariat for the member with regards to that. I don't know if you've done that ministry in estimates yet. If you haven't, you might ask them. I'll find out what ministry it is too. I would think that it would be the Olympic secretariat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: It probably is, and I don't know if we've done her estimates. Is she done? Okay, so I'll get some information for the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1450]

S. Simpson: Thanks to the minister for that offer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Really, I fully understand and respect the role of sponsorship and the need to protect the interests of sponsors when they purchase those interests. I agree with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But it would be great, where there are opportunities, whether government-hosted events or other events, to take advantage of those opportunities for British Columbia companies, especially with some of the wonderful vintners and craft beer people and other folks. We have to take advantage of that, if we can, without breaching those agreements, obviously, through other events. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

A couple of other questions related to liquor matters. Again, I respect that these may be questions that other officials would answer. I'd be happy to get those answers in writing, if that is the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Currently in British Columbia how many public liquor stores are there, and how many private liquor stores are there? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: While we're getting that data for you, cellared wines will be displayed in a new way within our liquor stores within the next month. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are presently 197 government liquor stores. There are 679 licensed retail stores, which would be the private liquor stores. There are 223 rural agency stores. There are 220 on-site industry stores, which would be, I would suspect…. That would be the breweries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: Like the Granville Island brew pub. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that sort of thing. There would be 12 independent wine stores, 34 off-site industry stores and 11 duty-free stores. The on-site industry stores I would suspect include wineries, breweries, distilleries and retail shops. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: I'm getting to a question here about my own constituency at some point, but I'm just trying to understand some things as I get there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My understanding, and I'd be happy to be corrected if I haven't gotten this right, is that there is currently no general expansion of private liquor stores in the province, but if there are government stores…. Let me get this correct. If a government store closes, a private operator could buy out the lease and essentially take that store over and run it. Those are the places where you do closures and takeovers. That's what occurs. Is that what happens? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: Right now there's a moratorium on additional private liquor stores. I think I know what the member's question is, so I'm going to try and deal with it this way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Any private store can move within a community to a different location within it today. One city has a different rule, and that's the city of Vancouver. In the city of Vancouver if a government liquor store closes, in that location that it closed from — in spite of the fact that we may be opening another liquor store a few blocks away — the city allows somebody to move another, like a beer-and-wine-store type of operation, in there to have a liquor store. They're the only city that does that, because they do not allow spirits in their beer and wine stores in the city of Vancouver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1455]

When the private liquor store model came along, all the other communities, basically, in B.C. embraced that and allowed them to separate and move to better locations within their communities. Vancouver said no, and then…. They've had a morphing of liquor rules in Vancouver which allows for what I've just described. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The one that would be the best example in Vancouver is a government liquor store on Hastings. Somebody bought the property and the lease. They did not renew the lease with the Liquor Distribution Branch –– had another licence to move in there and were allowed by Vancouver to move a liquor store into there. The Liquor Distribution Branch found another location and opened another store, because that was allowed under Vancouver's rules. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. That is the issue that I'm talking about –– the East Hastings store. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The only correction I think I'd make at this point is that all of that has occurred, except there hasn't been a government liquor store opened. What we have is…. We've had the store closed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've spoken to people in the branch at the time that it was closing. I was informed by them that it was not their choice to close the store but, as the minister says, the lease had expired. The owner of the lease chose not to renew it, owns a few other facilities, stores and private operations, and was putting a private operation in, and that's how that occurred. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I was told at that time that there would be efforts to…. They would be opening a new store. I think it was that they were going to be opening it…. It was some number of months ago that the expectation was it would be open. I understand that there may be some issues, challenges, around how that gets opened. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question, then, to the minister, since he certainly seems to have knowledge of this specific issue: is it the intention of the LDB to open another store in that proximity? I was told that it was a pretty good location for revenue. To open in that location –– is that the intention? If so, does the minister have any idea when that might occur? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: The last time I had the discussion, they thought they had a location, and I didn't know whether they had got to the point of opening or not. They were negotiating leases and that sort of thing to see if there was something…. There was some new construction, I believe, taking place somewhere on Hastings Street that they thought they had the opportunity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The store was an average performer. It wasn't a high performer, but certainly they felt they still wanted to stay within that market and wanted to achieve bringing a store back to that neighbourhood. But it's all a matter of when they build, what lease you can get. Also, they're not going to be held to ransom for rent, so they'll be as competitive as possible. So however long it takes for them to do that in a way that meets their business case, that's what I would expect from them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: There's a fair amount of new construction along Hastings there because of zoning changes that have opened up a lot of new retail storefront. There's a lot more vacant than has people in it at this point, so I think prices wouldn't be too bad for lease agreements at the moment in some of that new housing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would note that there was a great amount of concern. I heard from an awful lot of people in the community when that store switched over to a private store, because it was done fairly quietly. Nobody was really aware of it until it was almost upon them. One day it was a government store. Then the weekend passed, and all of a sudden it was a private store, and people didn't even notice. The signs didn't change, other than it said "Hastings Liquor Store" instead of "Government of B.C. Liquor Store." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

People were concerned about that because it was their preference to do business with the government store. I know they're all anxious to see whether this government store actually opens and they're able to go back and patronize there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One of the issues that were raised around that…. It was the local business improvement association that raised this issue with me around the private store. They were concerned about the private store and supported a government store staying there. Part of that revolved around the practices of the store. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These operators, to the best of my knowledge, are fine operators, and they do everything by the book. But for example, there's a big question in that community because of the challenges some of the people meet around things like the sale of singles –– single beers, things like that. A big issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You get the folks…. They're out in front. They're panhandling. They're doing this and that. They're going in. They buy a couple of singles. They come out, sit there, drink the beers and panhandle the next few singles or whatever comes with that. Or they wander up and down the street with their beer in their hand, and that raises a concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that when the business improvement association, based on its members, brought that to the government store, they recognized that, and they ended the practice of selling singles in that store. They realized that it was a community concern, a legitimate one, and to the best of my knowledge, they said, "We will not sell singles," and that ended. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1500]

They went to the private store after it opened, and the private store said: "Singles are one of our biggest sellers. We do well out of selling singles. We appreciate your problem, but no, we're not going to do that. We're not going to change our practice." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Is the government looking at those kinds of issues in communities like mine in Hastings, where there are some challenges and some people that have difficult issues around alcohol and other things, and starting to try to manage some of that — even if it's in some of the private stores — around how they sell? Is there any work being done around that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: The regulatory environment allows for the sale of singles, whether it be a government liquor store or not, and it's up to the operator. You're right that in some liquor stores that were government-operated, sometimes we have actually stopped doing that practice because of a concern of the community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is not something that I would anticipate we would go change a bunch of regulations around, but I will undertake on behalf of the member to have a conversation with the owners of that particular store and ask them what it is, rather than have what they said and whether they say it's a big piece of their business or whatever. I think I'll go find out and then have a conversation with them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: I'd appreciate that. I have had the conversation with the owners of the store, but the concern was raised to me by the business improvement association and their leadership who went and made that request of the store. Then they spoke to me later when we were talking about that — when I was asking their advice about the possibility of a second store in the community, a government store and a private store, and what occurs there. That's when that came out in that conversation from the business improvement association. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Certainly, the manager of the private store acknowledged to me that that conversation had been had and that their business practice was to sell singles. So I'm happy that the minister will inquire about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At this point in time I just have one more question, a two-part question in regard to liquor matters, and then we'll move on to another matter. Are there any plans around either further closures or openings of government stores in the province at this time? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: The branch has basically been asked to run their business, and they do that as a commercial Crown. There are a couple constraints in and around how they do their business today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One is that we have a collective agreement with the B.C. Government Employees Union, and we can only close five stores over the period of the collective agreement. I think it is five stores in total; I don't think it's five a year. That is good on one side and positive and negative on the other. We actually have great success by creating what we call signature stores where we bundle a number of stores together into a larger store, and we end up with more employees than in the other three stores that were operating. Our returns are better, but that piece restricts those stores. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Yet today those are our most popular brand out there in the public. They really like those stores because they have the selection, the different types of premium wines and selections, the educated staff and all that stuff in those larger stores. We can't do any more of those by bundling unless we have an agreement with the union. There's a lot of work that has to get done there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

At this time, other than upgrading some stores when leases come up, which has happened in a couple places.... We had one closure on Main Street in Vancouver because they're doing construction, so we've had to move the store while the property is redeveloped. We would probably negotiate to go back into it — that sort of thing. That was a short-term closure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We will go through the next number of months. We have negotiations probably coming up, but it really is about.... The number of stores on the government side is restricted by that agreement. We have to keep them at a certain number, and that's what we do because of the collective agreement. We leave it like that. There's no anticipation of closing a bunch of stores or anything like that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[1505]

S. Simpson: Yeah, my understanding of that was pretty much the same. If the government opens a signature store, then it could close two smaller stores as part of the deal. I thought that that was the agreement, but the minister can correct that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The question I have is…. I know this discussion has been had before. It's the question of government stores offering chilled products — beer, white wines — putting coolers on site, maybe, in some of the newer signature stores or whatever. It's the ability to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know that the government has chosen not to do that. I know that the private operators wouldn't be very happy about that because that is part of their piece of the market that's good for them — where they have 100 percent of the market there, essentially. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Has the government given any consideration to putting coolers on site in some of the signature stores at this time? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: I think that in a few select stores we do have some cooled product. It's actually not our marketplace. Our marketplace is a larger store in a market, more like a larger grocery store versus a 7-Eleven convenience where you come in and buy a cold product. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The cold product…. Installation of that in the stores is pretty expensive. We do look at it from time to time in select locations to see if we think that would drive additional business outcomes. But there's no movement to go in and revamp all our stores today with regards to adding cold product, because if there are renovations, there's the cost of refrigeration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Then the discussion is: what's your return on making that investment? There hasn't been a strong enough business case made to me as the minister to show that that would be worthwhile. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The member is also right. When we did the whole change in liquor and when private liquor stores were allowed to have spirits and then move so that they would have decent locations and stuff, they were going to be more the convenience store of the business, and we were going to be more the upper-scale superstore, for lack of a better description, of the business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's why I think the signature stores are successful. Our customers come there to those stores — and they're high-volume stores — because they're coming for the selection and the service and what have you. It's not about convenience for them as much as it is about what the experience of the shopping is and that they know they can get the product, whereas the other side of the business is more of a convenience-store model. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In some cases there's probably a piece in between there we could deal with. But as we go through into the next level of discussions with the stores, as we do every year going into every budget cycle, that always comes up, and we have a discussion around it. We'll look at the numbers again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: One last question on that, and then we'll move over to other matters and off of liquor. The minister spoke earlier about how the LDB and the liquor are kind of an independent entity. It does its business and, you know, follows the rules that are set. But it's up to the LDB as a business to do what's best for its business, have the best return on investment while having a responsible operation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Those decisions, like…. If the decision, for example, is to go to chilled products in some or all stores, but the decision generally…. Is that a decision that's the LDB's decision? Is that a decision that would have to come back and get the approval of the minister, or is that kind of for the LDB as an independent entity to do on its own? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: The minister sets the policy under the Liquor Distribution Act. They are governed by the policy that's established by government with regards to their operation. So those types of things would come through the ministry, probably to Finance and Treasury Board, for a proper decision before they would be allowed to make those types of major changes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada