2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th 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)

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Correction to comments made in the House

Hon. R. Coleman

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Fire at Cranbrook heritage buildings

B. Bennett

Sandhill cranes and marshes in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows area

M. Sather

Immunization

M. Stilwell

Baloch community and heritage

S. Hammell

Deep Cove Cultural Centre

J. Thornthwaite

Vancouver Island Military Museum

D. Routley

Oral Questions

Waiting times for children's orthopedic surgery

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

Infection control and cleaning services in Lower Mainland hospitals

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Hammell

Emergency services in Princeton area

H. Lali

Hon. M. de Jong

Government settlement with Boss Power Corp.

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

M. Karagianis

Tabling Documents

Provincial Infection Control Network of British Columbia, Clostridium difficile Infection (CDI) Surveillance Report, Quarter 1 and Quarter 2, 2011-2012

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

B. Ralston

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

G. Gentner

V. Huntington

Hon. B. Lekstrom:

M. Farnworth

K. Conroy

[ Page 11109 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the gallery today we have eight very talented and very patient women. They are Julie D'Argis, who is my administrative assistant, as well as Sheena Marshall, Karen MacMillan, Pam Chandla, Amber Minnings, Marilynn Quigley, Alison Collins and Gail Poulton, all from the ministry's correspondence branch. I rely on these ladies a great deal to help me in answering the volumes of mail into the ministry. I appreciate very much their patience in dealing with all of my edits to all of the letters, and I would like the House to make them welcome.

[1335]

M. Karagianis: Today in the precinct enjoying lunch we have a group led by Lady Gloria, Queen of the Magenta Madams. For anybody who goes near the dining room, the whole room is full of beautiful red hats. I was very fortunate. They asked me down today and presented me with a hat. I've now been made an honorary Red Hat member. Will the House please welcome the Magenta Madams to the House today.

R. Sultan: There are five guests in the House today that I would like to introduce, starting with Sarah O'Connor, my eminent legislative assistant, who is not only very capable in matters legislative. She comes from a forestry and forester-operator family in Lytton. So bring your forestry problems to Sarah.

Secondly, we have Alf Trill. Alf is from Ashcroft and visiting Victoria to attend the British Columbia CUPE convention, which is holding forth. Alf and his wife were like a second family to Sarah when she attended high school. Thirdly, we have Alfreda Wescott, who is Alf's mother — down for the visit and visiting family here.

Finally, two constituents, Ian and Lynda Hignell, who watch things environmental like a hawk and are very kind to point out our errors and omissions to me from time to time.

Would the House please make these five guests welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome and introduce four guests in the Legislature with us today in the gallery. The first person is Francisca Lustina Castro. She's a geometry and algebra teacher hailing from the Philippines in Quezon City, and she is currently the secretary general of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers in the Philippines.

She's here in Canada on a cross-Canada speaking tour. She just came from Halifax and has been through Montreal, Ottawa and Fredericton. She's visiting Victoria and Vancouver, talking about and advocating on behalf of the rights of political detainees and also the human rights situation in the Philippines and the campaign against privatization of education.

Joining her is Priscillia Lefebvre. She's a member of the executive board for the Canadian Union of Public Employees 4600. She's at Carleton University in Ottawa. It's her local that sponsored the cross-country speaking tour so she's been with her on every leg. They've had a great response.

We've got a couple of folks as well from the Victoria area. We've got Laila Pires, who many will know. She's the current president of the Victoria Filipino-Canadian Association and an original founding member of the Bayanihan Community Centre.

Joining her is Sid Emmanuel, who's the president of the Philippine Bayanihan Cultural and Housing Society that operates the Bayanihan Community Centre. I'd like to invite anyone here in the Victoria area on Sunday to join the regular lunches that they provide at the volunteer-driven Bayanihan Centre. The cooking will be courtesy of Laila, so it's sure to be a great lunch.

I'd please ask everybody to make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: I have a number of introductions today of dear friends and supporters from Richmond. In the precincts and in the gallery today are Michael Chiu; his wife, Florence Chiu; their son's girlfriend, Courtney Stroet; Brenda Ngo; and Earl Villarosa. Also in the precincts are Bruce Rozenhart and his wife, Anita Rozenhart.

We had a delightful lunch today — this group of seven, with myself — in the legislative dining room to celebrate a very important event, which is the award that has been bestowed on Michael Chiu to be one of the recipients of the 2012 B.C. Community Achievement Awards.

We are all very proud and thankful for the work, the volunteerism, that Michael Chiu provides to the community of Richmond. He's a tireless volunteer and promoter of great causes in our community and well deserving of this honour as the only citizen of Richmond to be awarded one of the 2012 B.C. Community Achievement Awards.

[1340]

Would the House please join me in offering a warm welcome to Michael Chiu and the rest of our guests who are here today.

M. Mungall: I ask that the House join me in welcoming Dr. John Meredith. I first had the opportunity to meet John when he was giving a lecture at UBC. He's known all across the country for his expertise in apprenticeships

[ Page 11110 ]

and apprenticeship training, and I look forward to meeting with him later today. He certainly has a lot to share, and there's a lot for us to learn in this House from him. Please welcome John Meredith.

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the gallery today are several people that I'd like you to make welcome: Marilyn Berger, Rita Roling, Benjamin Roling and Serge Haber. He's president of the Jewish Seniors Alliance of Greater Vancouver.

These representatives came to us today to present their concerns. They serve thousands of people of many different faiths in Vancouver and are working hard. They put together their concerns in, I must say, a very positive and encouraging and optimistic way as many seniors who work so hard for the community do. Please congratulate them for their hard work and welcome them to the chamber.

C. Trevena: I hope the House will welcome a school party from my constituency. We have in the gallery today eight grade 7 students, a number of parents and their principal, Cliff Wood, from the Avalon Adventist Junior Academy in Port Hardy.

Mr. Wood was very specific when he made the request to come here for question period to show students how not to behave in the classroom. I hope the House will show proper decorum for the grade 7 students, and I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I'm pleased to welcome to his first question period session today a young man from Kamloops, who is an assistant legislative assistant in these buildings, by the name of Justin Giddens, the son of John and Candace Giddens — one of three Giddens boys. I understand from Justin that he is not only the best-looking but also the brightest and the best athlete. Would the House please make him very welcome.

D. Donaldson: I'd like the House to make welcome members of the Northern Development Initiative Trust who are joining us in the precinct today: Janine North, CEO, and Evan Saugstad, chair of the board. Many of the elected board members and mayors I see in the gallery, and non-elected board members.

Welcome. I heard it was a fabulous presentation to members of the official opposition caucus over breakfast, and I'm sorry to say I didn't make it. I was still in Stikine, but I'll see you next week at the North Central Local Government Association meeting in 100 Mile House. Would the members make NDIT members welcome.

D. Barnett: I, too, would like to welcome the members of the Northern Development Trust, a trust that goes from Lytton all the way north to the coast as far as our province goes. I'd like to thank each and every one of them for their hard work and recognize many mayors, regional district chairs and staff. I would ask the House to also congratulate them and thank them for a job well done.

I would also like to recognize and ask the House to welcome today the Canadian Propane Association: the president, Jim Facette, from Ottawa; members Derek Belton, Willie Stephen and Scott McFadyen.

Welcome to you, and thank you for what you do.

K. Conroy: Today I had the pleasure of meeting a group of students from Burton and Edgewood, two lovely little communities on the upper Arrow Lakes, who drove all the way here — it's a ten-hour drive to the Legislature — to tour Victoria. There are 14 students in grades 4 to 7, and they were here with some of their parents and two teachers, Ms. Tupper and Mrs. Lindsay. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature today.

[1345]

Hon. M. de Jong: Like other departments of government, the Ministry of Health is populated by public servants who are dedicated to improving the lives of British Columbians. We're joined today by a number of them. They are Sandra Cameron, Fiona Cheung, Catherine Marrie, Tish Pengelly, Amanda McNeill, Chris Bennett and Marc Woons.

They all work in the clinical care and patient safety branch in the health authorities division within the ministry. They are working on a number of quality improvement initiatives taken across B.C. that include infection control, hand hygiene and stroke services. I know all members of the House will want to thank them for their dedicated efforts and welcome them here today.

S. Fraser: Today Mrs. Weegar's grade 5 class from Wood Elementary School in Port Alberni visited. I was able to spend an hour with them today — actually a little more than an hour. We did the tour together, and then I gave them a little bit of an extended tour. The 22 students and the four adults that joined them and Mrs. Weegar had a great time. Would this House please make them feel very, very welcome.

B. Stewart: I wanted to introduce a few guests that are here today who I had the pleasure of meeting with last week from Fortis power and energy company. They are Cynthia Des Brisay, Tom Loski, Roger Dall'Antonia and Andrew McVie. I just want to congratulate them, as former minister — the innovation and some of the things they are doing around green energy opportunities and introducing that into the gas supply in the province. They are here today to share that information with members of this House, so please welcome them.

[ Page 11111 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome — they're in the precincts here somewhere — my parents, and my father- and mother-in-law, Rohini and Sashi Chandra. My father, Ted Roberts, is also somewhere in or near the precincts.

They are all here to celebrate two folks who are receiving the B.C. Community Achievement Awards today. One of them, who I have some passing knowledge of, my mother, Donna Spencer, will be recognized with an award for her work in theatre and in the arts across British Columbia. As well, another person who I have a passing knowledge of. That would be my husband, Romi Chandra Herbert, who will also be receiving a B.C. Achievement Award. Please welcome them to this House. I'm very proud of them both.

R. Howard: I had the pleasure today of having a wonderful lunch in the Legislative dining room with my wife, Trudy, and my constituency assistant, Chris Chan. Trudy couldn't stick around to be in the gallery, but Chris and his family have. So we have Chris Chan; Annie Chan, his wife; and their 15-month-old son, Anson Chan. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Letnick: We are indeed blessed to have so many wonderful guests with us. Included in that list of guests is Mr. Kirpal Boparai, the president of the B.C. Interior fruit growers industry association. He represents 800 growers generating over $130 million in wholesale revenue, $900 million in economic activity. They directly employ 1,500 person-years at the grower, packer and processor level. He is here this afternoon to have very important discussions with the Minister of Agriculture. Will the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I have four guests from the Comox Valley here today. They are attending the B.C. Teachers Institute, which I think we'll learn more about in a few minutes. Today we have Sylvia Dakin, who teaches at my daughter Gracie's school, Ecole Puntledge Park. We have Sherrylyn Dittrick, who teaches at Aspen Park; a former colleague of mine, Greg Kochanuk, who now teaches at Highland Secondary; and Phebe May from Arden Elementary.

I know the Minister of Education will be visiting not only these individuals but all individuals attending the Teachers Institute today. Would the House make the four of them from the Comox Valley very welcome please.

L. Reid: In the House today, along with the Minister of Education, we are pleased to welcome 17 teachers from across British Columbia who have been selected to participate in the 13th British Columbia Teachers Institute on Parliamentary Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of the week expanding their knowledge of our parliamentary system.

They are joined by three of their peers, who are returning alumni acting in the role of facilitators: Ms. Christine Winger, Mr. Terry Teather and Ms. Susan Noble. I trust you will take this opportunity to welcome them and to meet with them tomorrow at the luncheon hosted by the hon. Minister of Education. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1350]

D. Hayer: I have some special guests here today. One was introduced earlier today. He's talking to us about propane use in automobiles. He's Willie Stephen, vice-president of the western region for Maxquip, located in Port Kells in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Also here is Alnoor Teja, a Fraser Valley Real Estate Board member. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

J. Rustad: It's not often I get a chance to introduce people from my riding, but today I have Gerry Thiessen here, who is the mayor of Vanderhoof. He's down here as part of NDIT, but I just wanted to particularly point him out and say thank you for coming down. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. Barnett: I would also like to introduce a special person in my riding. I have two of them here today: the mayor of the district of 100 Mile House, His Worship Mitch Campsall, and the vice-chair of the Cariboo regional district, Ted Armstrong. Would the House please welcome them.

Statements

CORRECTION TO COMMENTS

MADE IN THE HOUSE

Hon. R. Coleman: On the rare occasion when I passionately answer a question, I might misspeak. I was advised overnight that I actually did yesterday in question period when I referred to the criminal justice branch, when I should have been referring to the legal services branch. My apology to the criminal justice branch. It was the legal services people that dealt with the issue and not the criminal justice branch.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FIRE AT

CRANBROOK HERITAGE BUILDINGS

B. Bennett: On Monday night, the same night as the terrible explosion in Prince George, my home town of Cranbrook suffered a major fire of its own.

At about 1 a.m. an alert RCMP officer on patrol, a 15-year veteran, Const. Ian Ferrier, noticed smoke and

[ Page 11112 ]

flames coming out of a building of our main downtown street, Baker Street. The officer immediately called it in, and the Cranbrook fire and emergency services were on the scene within minutes.

These buildings were old. The one that held OJ's Antiques dates back to 1898. The fire burned out of control for a time and devastated four historic buildings in all. Jim Cameron, local historian, says the fire was "tragic and an irreplaceable loss of Cranbrook heritage."

However, the silver lining here is that no one was injured in the fire. Arriving on the scene to assist Constable Ferrier were Const. Josh Mielkin and Const. Drew Tarala. They risked their own personal safety making diligent efforts to make the folks who were inside one of these buildings aware that there was a fire. Two shocked, suddenly awakened citizens scrambled to the roof of their building before the building was completely engulfed by the flames and then were rescued by the firefighters.

Four businesses were destroyed by the fire. To these business owners, their families and staff, I send condolences from all of us here in the Legislature today.

Firefighters did manage quite miraculously to stop the fire from spreading east to The Choice, a snow- and skateboard shop, and to the west to Cranbrook Photo, which is a beautiful, old brick two-storey heritage building and the pride of downtown Cranbrook.

In both Cranbrook and Prince George on Monday night the men and women of our law enforcement and firefighting services stepped up and did their best to keep us safe, as they always do. From all of us here in the B.C. Legislature, thank you all for what you did on Monday night in Prince George and Cranbrook, and thank you for what you do for our communities every day of the week.

SANDHILL CRANES AND MARSHES

IN MAPLE RIDGE–PITT MEADOWS AREA

M. Sather: "The sadness discernible in some marshes arises, perhaps, from their once having harboured cranes. Now they stand humbled, adrift in history. When we hear their call, we hear no mere bird. We hear the trumpet in the orchestra of evolution." That is from the "Marshland Elegy" of Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac .

There are 15 species of cranes in the world. The oldest of these is the sandhill crane. Every year the greater sandhill cranes return to the marshes of Pitt Meadows. Once numbering in the thousands, less than 20 remain.

A dedicated group in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge has worked very hard to see that our marshes are not bereft of cranes. Every spring the Alouette Field Naturalists are up before six in the morning to conduct a count of our sandhill cranes. The numbers have not increased, but they have held steady since 1999.

[1355]

The Pitt Polder Preservation Society and Alouette Field Naturalists led the way in saving two of our crane marshes: Blaney Bog, 200 acres in size, and Codd wetlands, 230 acres in size, both of which were dedicated as GVRD parks in 2000 and 2004, with financing by the district of Maple Ridge, the GVRD, the province, Ducks Unlimited, the Land Conservancy of B.C. and Aquilini Investment Group.

The drive to create these parks was spearheaded by Annette LeBox, with memorable appearances in our living room by Luigi and Roberto Aquilini. Last weekend Annette celebrated the launch of her latest novel, Circle of Cranes . The extravaganza was attended by 200 people, including the member for Maple Ridge–Mission and the mayors of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge.

We will not forget our heritage. The Fraser Valley was created with magnificent marshes. The vigilance of our citizens will ensure that they remain and that the haunting call of the greater sandhill crane will be heard forever.

IMMUNIZATION

M. Stilwell: This week is National Immunization Awareness Week. Simply put, immunization saves lives. If not for widespread, successful immunization campaigns we would still face deadly diseases such as smallpox and polio.

Our immunization program provides vaccines that are safe, effective and free to the public. Here in B.C. we have a comprehensive publicly funded immunization program for children and adults that protects against 16 diseases — diseases such as polio, hepatitis A and B, and measles. We have recently expanded our immunization program to include a rotavirus vaccine for infants, a chicken pox vaccine in kindergarten and a routine hepatitis A vaccination for aboriginal children and youth.

Our public health experts regularly review our immunization program to ensure that it is effective and protects as many British Columbians as possible. However, for these vaccination programs to continue to be effective, it is crucial that people ensure that their families' vaccines are up to date. When the majority of people get immunized, herd immunity kicks in and helps prevent disease spreading from person to person. But if our immunization rates fall, disease rates can rise again.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to check that their own vaccinations are up to date and ensure that your children's are current. If you have questions, you can visit immunizebc.ca, your family physician or your local public health unit.

Vaccines are safe, and the best way to prevent disease.

BALOCH COMMUNITY AND HERITAGE

S. Hammell: I spent a delightful afternoon with members of the Baloch community and would like to share a few things I learned.

Balochistan, one of the many -istans of Asia, is oc-

[ Page 11113 ]

cupied as a country, a strategically important location straddling the Middle East and central Asia. Through time, and often through a painful history, Balochistan has been divided and now forms part of three different countries: Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. It is a harsh region of mountains and deserts, but the resilient Baloch people have strong bonds through their culture, language and land. They have survived as a distinct community to this day.

The Baloch as indigenous people are semi-nomadic and pastoral. Their existence is based on collective and mutual interests. They have their own unique identity, like any other national group, in terms of language, art, music, morals and customs. Although the Baloch have a history of a nomadic way of life, with time they are also adapting to the modern world, as the Baloch people have immigrated to many parts of the globe. Fifty families have settled in the Lower Mainland.

The Baloch music plays an important role in Baloch culture, from wedding ceremonies to storytelling. Balochi folk songs and dance have helped to successfully preserve their rich history. The colourful and distinct embroidery patterns serve as ethnic markers, which differ Baloch from Pashtuns, Punjabis and Sindhis. Baloch men consider their women as full partners, and the Baloch women have always played a major role in their community.

[1400]

This is a delightful group of people and part of our multicultural tapestry, one that we can be proud of.

DEEP COVE CULTURAL CENTRE

J. Thornthwaite: Twenty years ago I had my first daughter and second child. I was a stay-at-home mom living in Blueridge, one of the most northern neighbourhoods in the east-of-Seymour community. I wasn't paying much attention to politics. How things change. Fast-forward 20 years later.

Last Saturday night I was honoured to be invited to the 20-year anniversary of the Deep Cove Cultural Centre and treated to a night of music, art, heritage and theatre. This is very apropos, given that all British Columbians are celebrating the 13th annual Arts and Culture Week this very week.

Saturday night we were treated to a photo and video presentation from years gone by, which really got us all to thinking about how much life has changed in our little village of Deep Cove and how great the Deep Cove Cultural Centre has been and served this community over the last 20 years. Mike Jarvis, the president of the board of directors, started the mood off, introducing the North Shore Chorus and then a video montage of how it once was.

The Deep Cove Cultural Centre houses the Deep Cove Stage and First Impressions Theatre. We were provided with a little snippet of These Shining Lives , a remarkable true story of friendship, determination and resolve.

It also houses the Seymour Art Gallery, where the Artists for Kids Academy students will be profiled next month, among other collections. In fact, I'll be presenting a $35,000 community gaming grant cheque to Alan Bell next month to assist them with future events and celebrations. The province has provided more than $53 million in arts funding during this fiscal year.

Then there is the Deep Cove Heritage Society, which just received a community gaming grant cheque. Under the direction of Janet Pavlik, they will be launching Echoes Across Seymour . That will depict the last 50 years in my neighbourhood east of Seymour River, including Mount Seymour and Indian Arm communities.

Each of these organizations — the theatre, the art gallery and the heritage society — contributes to the diversity of the cultural centre in different ways. All are equally important to the community and the centre. I'm proud to have this little treasure of culture nestled right in my community and congratulate them for their 20 years.

VANCOUVER ISLAND MILITARY MUSEUM

D. Routley: I'd like to share with the members some information about a Nanaimo gem, the Vancouver Island Military Museum, which celebrated its 25th anniversary by moving to the city-owned Centennial Building in City Park. The building is under renovation, and the museum is set to reopen in July of this summer to its original mandate of collecting, conserving and displaying artifacts and military memorabilia reflecting Canada's proud military history and traditions.

The aim of the museum is not to glorify war — far from it — but to portray one important facet of history and to illustrate an extraordinary range of human endeavour. The museum stands as a reminder to all those who visit that our present freedom was obtained at considerable loss and suffering by thousands of Canadians in times of war and conflict.

The Vancouver Island Military Museum is staffed entirely by a dedicated group of veterans, who give of their time to ensure the residents of our communities have an opportunity to remember and reflect on the courage and dedication of the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP.

Upon reopening, the Vancouver Island Military Museum will partner with the Nanaimo and District Museum in the schools history program, a schools and youth history program which enables students to earn credits towards the community service component that is required for their graduation.

In the past 25 years the Vancouver Island Military Museum has amassed an incredible collection of military memorabilia and artifacts from all three branches of the service and the RCMP. The new facility situated in

[ Page 11114 ]

downtown Nanaimo will allow much better access from the conference centre, hotels and the cruise ships facility.

The aim is to make this museum Vancouver Island's most significant military museum, where people of all ages can come and see, learn and experience their own history. This museum has been a resource centre for veterans since its inception, and during Remembrance Week staff conduct a barrier-free service.

Oral Questions

WAITING TIMES FOR

CHILDREN'S ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will know that children who require specialized orthopedic surgeries are referred to B.C. Children's Hospital, including for the Ilizarov procedure, which lengthens a child's limbs so both legs are the same length.

[1405]

This is obviously a very painful process for parents, and there's a significant delay right now — a two-year delay, in fact — for this surgery. The minister spoke to the issue outside and said that he was prepared to address the problem, perhaps by obtaining more surgery time, which I think people will be very pleased to hear who are waiting for the surgery.

The minister will know that since June of last year, staff at the hospital had been requesting the purchase of new equipment that would assist in sterilization. It costs about $100,000. Is the minister prepared to commit today to purchase that equipment? Can he provide families who are waiting for surgery more details about his plans to reduce wait times at B.C. Children's Hospital?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the opposition leader for the question. I am also obliged to the member's colleague from the Island, from Cowichan, who about three weeks ago brought material to my office outlining the details around a particular case — particularly compelling information, I must say, about, in this case, a brave little girl who has been confronted by some challenges very early in life.

The member has, in part, characterized some of the challenges — very complex, very specialized surgery in British Columbia. I am advised of one or possibly two surgeons who are qualified to perform the surgery — therefore, a limited capacity in that sense.

When the material was brought in by the member from Cowichan, we made some inquiries. Happily, I'm advised that the health authority and B.C. Children's now believe they are in a position to provide additional operating room time to address a backlog that includes the particular patient and also, I'm told, 17 other British Columbians who require similar complex types of surgeries.

I'm also aware, but only peripherally, of issues relating to particular equipment. I'm not as equipped today to address that part of the member's question.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I appreciate very much the minister's answer. He'll know that Emily, the child in question, and her family are listening to question period today. I think they'll be very gratified that the minister is taking action, after the work of the member from Cowichan.

I wanted to follow up to just get the assurance from the minister if he would be able to come back to this House and report on the issue of the equipment. I think the details are obviously very important. Families are hugely invested in this question. Staff at the Children's Hospital have suggested that wait times…. The number of surgeries could be doubled if the appropriate equipment was put into place.

Would the minister be prepared to report back to not just this House but the families in question about progress being made in the coming days so that they can get some assurance, given the length of wait times, that the surgery that their children will need will be performed more quickly?

Hon. M. de Jong: A two-part answer to the opposition leader. Firstly, I will certainly continue to make inquiries relating to any of the obstacles that confront the patients and the medical teams who are treating those patients. The member, I'm sure, knows about the significant investments that have been made at Children's Hospital and continue to be made for the families of the patients and the patients themselves. They will have a more specific concern, and we will continue to look to ways to address those concerns.

Secondly, to make the point, although it is not a preferable option…. For families confronted by these kinds of waits in situations where there are only one or two qualified surgeons, in cases where the medical teams and the clinicians recommend that in the best interests of the patient we seek assistance outside of British Columbia, we are also prepared to do that. Not our preferred option, by any means, but where the best interests of the patients are served in that manner in these unique circumstances, we are certainly prepared to examine that option.

[1410]

INFECTION CONTROL AND CLEANING

SERVICES IN LOWER MAINLAND HOSPITALS

M. Farnworth: Early this year doctors at Burnaby Hospital sounded the alarm about what they saw as the underlying causes of a serious C. difficile outbreak at Burnaby Hospital. The department heads at Burnaby

[ Page 11115 ]

said that gaps in cleaning were a contributing factor in that outbreak.

Now we're hearing of another outbreak of C. difficile , this time at Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster. Two major hospitals in the Lower Mainland with C. difficile outbreaks.

What actions has the minister taken to ensure that more hospitals aren't hit by this serious infection/disease outbreak?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. Well, he will know that…. First of all, to put the issue in its proper context, I want to be clear that this is a bacteria that is common in hospitals. The challenge for hospitals — for the cleaning staff, for the administration, for the clinicians within the hospital — is to do everything possible to minimize the presence and the effect.

Now, when I say it's common, that does not mean it does not have a very negative impact on the patients who contract it. That is clear.

At Royal Columbian, I can assure the member, Fraser Health has commissioned what they term the deep clean, which is designed to add an additional focus to the problem that was detected.

The last thing I'll say — and I suspect the member will get up in a moment with a supplemental — is that we track this far more closely than has ever been the case in the history of British Columbia. We are able to have this discussion about the rates of infection because we have clear data that we report on publicly, so patients will know that their hospitals are safe.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The minister is correct that it is present in most hospitals. The issue is getting a serious outbreak erupting, and that's what we've seen in Burnaby. One of the issues is around levels of cleaning and the staff available to do those cleanings. That was identified by the heads of the department.

Now we're seeing that again, just a few months later, in New Westminster at Royal Columbian — another major hospital. So the question becomes: why is this happening? I think it's incumbent on the minister to recognize that people are concerned about getting sicker in hospital than when they first went into the hospital.

Again, does the minister not agree that with now a second outbreak occurring that's requiring enhanced cleaning, perhaps it's time to look at the procedures and investigate what's happening with procedures around cleaning in the major hospitals of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's important that all members be mindful of certain facts and that we keep this in perspective. C. difficile is present in hospitals. In many cases it arrives in the hospital with the very patient that is seeking treatment there.

Today in British Columbia — and I'm going to table the document; I can table it now or at the end of question period — we track the presence of C. difficile not just by health authority but by hospital. We track the number of patients admitted. We track the number of cases contracted, and we are showing a steady decline.

It is not an issue that is without challenges. The importance of adhering to a strict hygiene regime by patients, clinicians and people visiting the hospital is very, very important. So I'll table the document.

We are continuing with the health authorities, in this case Fraser Health, to do everything possible to ensure that the cases of C. difficile are minimized and that people can continue to access hospitals like Royal Columbian confident that they are going to receive the best treatment in a safe environment.

[1415]

S. Hammell: I think it is important that we are mindful of some facts. After an outbreak at Burnaby the health authority ordered a spring cleaning, calling on staff from other hospitals to accomplish this. Immediately after the spring cleaning Burnaby Hospital again failed its cleaning audit. This confirmed what the department head said in January — that systemic problems with cleaning were a factor in the C. difficile outbreak in Burnaby.

What the minister must find out now is whether these same problems are present at Royal Columbian and other hospitals. Will the minister tell this House what steps he's taken to ensure that our major hospitals are meeting cleaning standards and that they have effective disease controls in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: Part of what the hon. member offered is helpful and even accurate. There was an audit conducted at Burnaby Hospital. We set very high standards — 85 percent, based on the methodology employed through the cleaning audit. The hospital scored 83 percent — not good enough but hardly an indication, as the member has tried to characterize it, of abject failure.

We take the issue very, very seriously. The health authority dedicates the staff and took proactive steps to bring in Dr. Gardam and Dr. Cochrane to develop a strict set of recommendations that are in the process of being implemented.

I realize the facts don't always lend themselves to the kind of political narrative that the member may want to advance. But the facts speak for themselves that the health authority and the people working in those hospitals are doing everything humanly possible to ensure that people can attend and seek treatment in those hospitals in a clean, safe environment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 11116 ]

S. Hammell: The facts are that C. difficile is breaking out in the major hospitals throughout our Lower Mainland. Those are the facts.

We know that the outbreak at Royal Columbian has impacted a whole host of services at that hospital. We know that the emergency room is critically backed up and that doctors are being urged to discharge people as soon as possible. We know that this will have a cascading effect on health care across the region as patients are redirected to other facilities.

What we don't know is, beyond tracking, what the minister is doing to prevent other outbreaks. Will the minister stop pretending that this isn't a serious problem and ensure that B.C.'s hospitals are safe and clean?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am holding a document produced by the Provincial Infection Control Network of British Columbia. I hope the member will accept that it is an arm's-length organization that prepares accurate information and reports that are accurate.

This is the CDI, C. difficile infection, surveillance report. It is for quarters 1 and 2 of 2011-2012. They are produced. They are publicized. They are on line. They are accessible to every member of the public.

The report says this: "Overall, the provincial rate of new CDI cases associated with the reporting facility decreased in the first two quarters, especially for those hospitals with more than 250 beds. The decrease in rate was observed for all health authorities except PHSA, where the rate increased non-significantly and for all sizes of hospitals."

Now, the report is complimentary of some facilities and indicates more work needed in others. We are providing, through the health authorities, those resources and ensuring that there is a focused effort to address the ongoing issue of C. difficile . The one thing we can't do, and that I can't do, is draw a comparative picture between what takes place today and what took place in the 1990s or earlier, because regrettably, there is simply no data.

[1420]

EMERGENCY SERVICES

IN PRINCETON AREA

H. Lali: Lytton, Logan Lake, Ashcroft and Princeton all have one thing in common: repeated ongoing emergency room closures by this government. This Liberal government is closing the ER in Princeton and compromising patient health, because starting on May 1, the Liberals are closing the Princeton ER from midnight to 8 a.m. four days a week.

My question is to the Minister of Health. How can the B.C. Liberals actually justify closing the emergency room in Princeton and compromising public health care?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, let's ensure that the facts are straight. The health authority, in conjunction with the folks in Princeton, has been working diligently to ensure that there is sufficient medical team coverage to continue to operate the emergency room. There are three physicians. Two have agreed to provide emergency room coverage. As a result, the decision was made, until additional doctor coverage has been secured, to close the ER on those four evenings when, on average, a single citizen appears for treatment, and generally in non-urgent circumstances.

The government has provided 10 million additional dollars to assist with the recruitment of physicians to rural ERs. It provides incentives to attract doctors to rural settings. Perhaps if the government the hon. member had been a part of had had the vision to actually increase the number of physicians being treated in British Columbia the way this government has, we wouldn't be facing the shortage in places like Princeton that we face today.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: How typically Liberal to pass on the blame to somebody else and not take any responsibility.

The Interior Health Authority communiqué says that the Liberals' interim plan for Princeton "may need to be in place for approximately one year, while longer-term solutions are sought." In community after community in my area this Liberal government is closing emergency room after emergency room after emergency room, while they wait for a year to bring in longer-term solutions.

Here's the kicker. In the same communiqué it also says that the Liberal government "intends to install a telephone at the hospital entrance so anyone arriving at the Princeton hospital will have the ability to call 911." That's from their communiqué.

Again, to the Minister of Health: how can the B.C. Liberals justify replacing an emergency room in Princeton with a lousy telephone booth?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have, as I mentioned a moment ago, created a whole series of incentives and provided additional resources to health authorities in local communities to attract physicians to places like Princeton, where the thousands of people in the surrounding area want to ensure that they have the kind of coverage that we would all expect.

But let me repeat the fact that, confronted by a temporary shortage, the health authority, in conjunction with the folks at the Princeton Hospital, has said they will close the ER for that period of time, for those four evenings — those nights when on average they receive one patient visit per night.

[1425]

Now, I have searched in vain. If the member has a magical solution today for producing the physicians that we need in rural British Columbia, I'd be interested to

[ Page 11117 ]

hear it. The one thing we know with certainty is that for the ten years that he sat in government, he did….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry — 11 years. I've tried to forget the 11th year.

For the 11 years he sat in government, he did absolutely nothing. I realize it must be, today, remarkably embarrassing for the member to realize that during that 11-year period they did not train one additional doctor in British Columbia. We have doubled, to 256, the number of doctors we have trained in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Members.

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT

WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

J. Horgan: That's a lot of clapping for a phone booth, hon. Speaker.

I'll put my question to the Minister of Energy. At the start of question period the minister retracted his comment about claiming that the criminal justice branch had decided this was fair compensation. I suggest he advise the Premier of that. She made that comment on CBC this morning.

I think perhaps the criminal justice branch might be an appropriate place to go, because there has been some highway robbery here. The taxpayers are out $21 million because of the incompetence of this government.

Now, we tried yesterday to get a straightforward answer about the 21st century, the year 2012, and the responsible administration for taking an $8.7 million fair settlement and ballooning it up to $30 million. So I'm going to give the Minister of Energy one more try to (

a) get the facts straight and (

b) perhaps take a little bit of accountability for the biggest boondoggle on his watch. Why did we pay $21 million more than we should have to expropriate a uranium claim in the Interior?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were three evaluations done, one of them as high as $96 million and one down closer to $5 million. I get that the member doesn't like it.

First of all, he doesn't like the fact that it's normal practice in the Attorney General's department and the Treasury Board to rely on advice of counsel when they're dealing with a settlement — which they did. He doesn't like the fact that the particular claim is very complex. There were three assessments done, and he only ever wants to refer to one. He doesn't want to talk about the rest of them and how they were actually put together and how they were evaluated — whether it was on strength of claim, whether it was on the ore body, whether it was on the share value or whatever the case may be.

The member wants to ignore the fact that when all the facts were considered, legal advice to government was that we settle at $30 million. And just for the member's information, just so the member knows, as we came through this process, we actually booked, on advice from both the Attorney General and Treasury Board, $50 million on the Boss Power thing. We settled at $30 million, but in the fiscal plan we actually booked an amount that we thought might end up if we ended up going to court.

Now, I know you don't like that. I also know you don't like the fact that we actually settled the claim without being chastised by a judge for basic fraud, like you did in the Carrier Lumber case when you were government in the 1990s, when the NDP decided to flush somebody's claim.

So it's too bad. The fact of the matter is that we have a claim. It was done on the advice of counsel, and we settled it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, there were in fact three assessments. There was one that the people of British Columbia paid for, and that assessment said the value was worth about $5.6 million. There was the assessment paid for by the company that didn't really want to mine uranium. They were mining for compensation, and they said $90 million — big surprise. If you've had a government that has admitted to misfeasance and that has directed public servants to not do their job, it is little wonder that they ask for the high end of the bargain.

[1430]

There is a third assessment — the one that I continue to refer to, the one that the court requested and the one that the court put forward — which says that the appropriate level was $8.7 million.

I'm not plumping this up or pushing it down. I'm reading the court documents that say $8.7 million is appropriate. Only when you are bargaining from a position of bad faith, on the courthouse steps, to keep your incompetence out of open court do you settle for more than you have to.

Will the minister stand today and take responsibility for $21 million, gone, that can't go to health care, to provide services for children in British Columbia? Will he do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: He can't even get the number right from the report that he's trying to quote from. It's amazing.

You have a range up to $96 million in the possibility of the claim. You have legal counsel look at it. They negotiate. They come back with a recommendation, through the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance. They make a decision. They settle the claim. I'm sorry, hon.

[ Page 11118 ]

Member. That's how it's done.

That's not how it's done under an NDP government. Under an NDP government, it's: "Let's go flush." Let's go flush $30 million, two parcels of Crown land, 1.5 million cubic metres and have a judge say this about the NDP government in the 1990s: "It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling and cynical example of duplicity and bad faith. The words 'managing perception' may have a gloss which seems to carry with it some high purpose. In reality, it is, at least in this case, little more than a process of altering reality by concealing the truth and presenting a fabricated…story."

You're fabricating a story over there, just like you did in the Carrier Lumber…. There was a range….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

I'll ask the minister to withdraw that last comment.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you. Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. I'll withdraw that comment and state to the member: you are not telling us all of the ranges that were in front of you. You only want to speak about one. That's your choice.

The fact of the matter is…. Don't give us any lecture about settling a claim on the advice of counsel when you went to court and flushed that much money on behalf of British Columbians in the Carrier Lumber case in the 1990s.

M. Karagianis: Well, has there ever been a worse example of bargaining in the history of this province than the actions by this B.C. Liberal government? No.

We have….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, Member.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: Well, let's look — $6 million for the Basi-Virk payoff, $35 million write-off of the TELUS deal that we're never going to get to the bottom of and now a $21 million jacked-up settlement with Boss Power. I wonder how many surgical instruments that could have purchased at B.C. Children's Hospital.

I have yet to hear a justification from this side, from the B.C. Liberal government, on why they are squandering taxpayers' dollars in this way. Stand up and justify why you blew $21 million on the Boss Power deal instead of investing it in the Children's Hospital of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the Attorney General and Treasury Board took the advice of counsel. Maybe you should have taken the advice of counsel in the Windy Craggy case. Talk about bad negotiations. How about this? You shut down a mine. Because you have unreasonable delays, you end up in front of an arbitrator, and you flush $166 million to Royal Oak Mines. That's what you did in the 1990s.

[1435]

Don't talk to us about negotiation. We took the advice of counsel, and we settled. That's what we do when we talk to the Attorney General, Minister of Finance and our counsel. We take their advice, and that's what we did in this case.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: During question period I referred to a document that I would table, the surveillance report on C. difficile . I'd table that document now.

Mr. Speaker: You need leave, Minister, to table that document.

Hon. M. de Jong: I seek leave to table the document.

Mr. Speaker: Minister tables the document.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this chamber this afternoon we will do committee stage on Bill 23, intituled the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012. We will then go to Bill 24, intituled the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2012. Should there be time, we would then go to Bill 26, which is the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Should that complete, we would then move to the Ministry of Education.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

[ Page 11119 ]

section 1.

B. Ralston:

Section 1 adds the definition of "community contribution company" to the Business Corporations Act. It refers to amendments that are in

section 8. Perhaps the minister could confirm that sections 1 through 7 simply bring about changes that involve the definition that's in

section 8.

[1440]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct — with the exception of

section 7, which involves a technical amendment, as I understand, with respect to "Unlimited Liability Company."

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

B. Ralston: This

section is an amendment to the Business Corporations Act requiring a community contribution company — the new definition — to keep a report of what's referred to in

section 8 as a community contribution report at its records office. In the past there have been some issues arise about changes to the Business Corporations Act that have made public access to a restricted number of public records of public companies more difficult.

Can the minister explain who will be entitled to have access to this report that will be held at the records office of the community contribution company?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member, first of all, is correct. This is a requirement that the community contribution company must keep copies of its contribution report at the records office.

Section 6 will then require that those be available for public access.

The rationale behind that is that these companies are going to…. We're going to make sure that there is heightened level of disclosure and availability, given that part of the purpose of these companies is to provide a broader social good. Therefore, in order to ensure that that is taking place, we believe that requiring public access will ensure that there is full transparency in terms of their fulfilling the purposes of their community corporation.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

B. Ralston: This amends the requirement to keep records at a certain location. They can be moved, but it requires the company to be able to produce them on two days' notice. What would be the mechanism for enforcing a failure to produce such a report within the two days?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that it's the same requirement that exists for regular companies and that if an individual wished to make a complaint, they could make that complaint to the registrar, who, as I understand, would then order that action be taken.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

[1445]

B. Ralston: This

section is the substantive one that involves a number of the new

definitions, so perhaps I will have a few more questions on this section.

One of the proposed…. It's a new part entitled "Part 2.2 — Community Contribution Companies." Can the minister explain the choice of the definition of "community purpose" and why it is worded in this fashion?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member may know, the idea of a community contribution company framework is the first of its kind in Canada. It is not the first of its kind in the world. They've done some work in this regard in the U.K.

The definition, I'm advised, is intentionally broad at this point — a purpose that provides a benefit to society at large or a segment of society beyond the members of the company, the idea being that we want to encourage companies and investment and support for companies that are achieving a broader public good.

I don't want to pretend that this may solve all the problems in terms of the definition or whether it's too broad or what have you. There may be more work that has to be done under regulation. The idea was to try and open it up so that areas of endeavour could include, for example, a company that may want to provide an inner-city hot lunch program or some environmental benefits in the community.

We've heard of groups out there already that do some pretty impressive work with private sector corporate support in housing the homeless, etc. These are the kinds of things that, the belief is, these kinds of companies can help encourage. It is a relatively broad definition at this point, but that's not to preclude that there may not be changes in the future to try and bring some more scope to that.

B. Ralston: Given this very broad definition of "community purpose," can the minister explain the legislative intention here as to why someone might be encouraged to choose this form of company organization, as opposed to a cooperative or incorporating under the present Society Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member will know, this is something that has been strongly and passionately pro-

[ Page 11120 ]

moted by the member for Surrey–White Rock, in particular, and others who believe and certainly have heard a desire for an opportunity to create investments in social enterprises. There apparently is an emerging demand for ethical investment, but ethical investors want to be investing in a vehicle, a model, that they are comfortable with.

[1450]

Typically, a corporate model is one which provides some comfort but also has to have additional reassurances to those investors about asset locks and requirements for community purposes to be very clearly spelled out. They don't have that same sense of comfort, I'm advised, in terms of non-profits, as an example, or in the co-op.

I must say that it is a belief. It has not been borne out yet. So in some ways, as the first jurisdiction in the country to move forward with this, we do it with a belief that this may open up an opportunity for new forms of investment into vehicles — community contribution companies, as they're described — that will help us achieve broader social purposes.

It is an untested vehicle. I acknowledge that. But I believe that there is, as I understand it, a greater comfort in having this kind of a model. This is what, I understand, we've heard from the segments of the communities — including credit unions, etc. — that believe that a vehicle like this will make it easier to allow that kind of investment to be generated into companies that are trying to do a broader social good. I can't honestly tell the member that I have any sort of evidence to point out that that will indeed happen, but that is a belief.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for his candid discussion. I'm familiar, as he is, with some of the debate around the intended purpose and, I suppose, the purpose that is aspired to. But I think it's probably useful to note at the outset some caution.

One of the considerations in choosing a form of corporate organization is typically tax considerations. Obviously — and we'll get to this in the extended definition — there are certain restrictions on this form of company organization that would not exist on an ordinary company under the Business Corporations Act.

Is the minister, at this point, in a position to advise what tax regime this will fall under? Will it be classified as a small business — one would assume net business income of less than $500,000 — and qualify for the small business tax rate? Or is it envisaged that it will fall into a separate tax category yet to be devised?

Hon. K. Falcon: There would be no special tax treatment available. These would still be operated and responsible as all other corporations that come under the jurisdiction of the BCA, so there is no special tax benefit.

B. Ralston: The definition of "qualified entity" refers to "(

a) a community service cooperative as defined in the Cooperative Association Act, (

b) a registered charity…." And (

c) says — rather less than clear: "a prescribed entity or class of entities." Can the minister explain where this definition fits into the broader legislative scheme that we're discussing here?

[1455]

Hon. K. Falcon: The (

a) and (

b) there, of course, are defined pretty clearly, so that if you wish to transfer assets, either in dissolution or at some point in the life of a community contribution company, you can do so to entities that have that lock in place to ensure that there's not just another way for shareholders to figure out how to get their money back without meeting the requirements and the objectives laid out in the community contribution company. And (

c) is really about saying, in an abundance of caution, that if there is another form of locked-asset entity in the future that we are unaware of today or may become aware of or what have you, then we would have the ability, by regulation, to add them as a prescribed entity.

B. Ralston: I'm looking over the page at proposed

section 51.911. It's entitled "Notice of articles of community contribution company." This

section prescribes that there'll have to be notice in the company's articles that it is a community contribution company. But beyond that notice requirement, will there be a requirement that the articles state the community purpose that the company is set up to pursue, which will conform with the admittedly broad definition of "community purpose," as a notice to those who might choose to invest in or deal with the company?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer to that is yes. That follows in 51.92, which states: "One or more of the primary purposes of a community contribution company must be community purposes and those community purposes must be set out in its articles." So that would provide that clarity.

B. Ralston: Given that the definition is very broad and given that the notice is required and the suggestion that something will have to be said about the purpose, is there any intention, can the minister advise, to prescribe by regulations the amount of detail? One can very well imagine, given the breadth of the definition — not wanting to be too prescriptive, of course — that a very murky and obscure definition might be possible that wouldn't provide much clarity as to what the company had in mind as its purpose.

One would hope that this form of corporate organization wouldn't be used for purposes that were less than honourable, but there is some track record in British

[ Page 11121 ]

Columbia of some corporate forms being used for that purpose.

So I'm just wondering what the safeguard is to make sure that it's clear at the outset, that there is a relatively transparent definition of the objectives of the company in a way that the public or a prospective investor might have access to that and be able to judge, and that, certainly, the public be on notice as to what its purpose is intended to be and, also, then have the ability to measure the future actions of the company against that definition.

[1500]

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member is right to raise the fact that some people — a very small, thankfully, minority of people — will try to find some ways to rip off people or find some way to get around things. There are three levels where we're trying to ensure that doesn't happen with this new hybrid company that we're proposing, the community contribution company.

The first, of course, is through the public having the community contribution reports, which are available to the public. The second is that shareholders have the ability to seek remedies that already exist and will exist under this hybrid company too. The third is the asset lock, the requirement that they're not allowed to just pretend they're doing something for a nebulous social good, because dollars invested…. There's a restriction on what can be taken out. That is, in part, to protect against the very thing that the member talks about.

However, it is one of the reasons why we are proceeding with some caution and responsibility — to make sure that we get this right. There are going to be, obviously, more consultations that will take place. We want to make sure that we progress carefully and thoughtfully down this road to ensure that we try and get it as right as possible.

B. Ralston: Looking at the

section on directors and officers,

section 120 of the present act, which is referred to, entitles one to incorporate a company, whether it's simply one director. That one director can also hold all the positions — president, secretary and…. There is simply one person who is the person legally responsible for the company. This is a requirement that there be "at least three directors," and in

section 120 only a public company must have at least three directors.

Can the minister explain his thinking as to why the decision was made to require a community contribution company to have at least three directors? I have a sense of what the answer might be, but I think it might be useful to put it on the record.

Hon. K. Falcon: Similar to the requirement on public companies, societies and co-ops, which also have a requirement of three directors at minimum, we felt it was appropriate to do the same thing here with the new community contribution company, to ensure that there are going to be at least three people with a fiduciary obligation and responsibility to meet the purposes set out in the company's articles.

That will, I think, help negate in part the legitimate concern that the member opposite raised about an individual that may wish to run some sort of a nefarious operation. At least he will have to bring others into his scheme and broaden the web, if you will, of people participating.

I think that the higher level of accountability is appropriate in this case, as we move into these rather uncharted territories with respect to these hybrid companies. The belief is that this will put them on the same level as a public company and a society and a non-profit, etc., and I think that's appropriate.

[1505]

B. Ralston: What would be the restriction, if any, upon the three directors being members of the same family — for example, a spouse, a spouse and an adult child? I'm presuming that they would all meet the requirements of

section 124 of the Business Corporations Act, which sets out reasons that someone might be disqualified as a director.

In some companies there is a requirement for what is referred to as an independent director. I take it this requirement that is being proposed here doesn't require what is sometimes called an independent director.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it does not have a requirement for an independent director, just that the three directors will, of course, have their general fiduciary obligations. It will be incumbent upon them, both directors and officers, to act within the best interests of the company shareholders and, of course, to adhere to the articles as set out in the community corporation.

B. Ralston: Sub (2) in the new proposed 51.93 refers to the requirement to match action against the "community purposes of the company set out in its articles." We had discussed earlier the importance of the clarity of the articles as they refer to a description of the community purpose.

Aside from a member of the public who might contrast the actions of the company against the articles of the company and declare themselves satisfied or not, would there be any regulatory oversight of that? Would that be something that would fall to the registrar of companies in considering whether the company could continue as a company of this type or not? Is that the proposed mechanism of enforcement, if I can put it that way, within the legislative scheme?

Hon. K. Falcon: The purpose of this

section is to expand the fiduciary duties to include the community pur-

[ Page 11122 ]

poses, so beyond the normal fiduciary obligations that a director and an officer may have of a normal business corporation, which essentially would likely be around making money. This broadens that to include the community purposes and makes it explicit that there is a heightened sense of fiduciary obligation for directors and officers in this case.

In terms of the oversight that the member is referring to, it is the same that exists for all companies today, which is that there is no special regulator or individual that oversees this. Of course, every director and officer has fiduciary obligations that, if not observed, obviously would potentially expose them to legal action, etc. That would be no different in the case of a community contribution company.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at the next definition, which refers to the transfer of assets prohibited. Can the minister describe the purpose of this description or restriction on the transfer of assets? I do have some further specific questions relating to subsection (3) as well.

[1510]

Hon. K. Falcon:

Section 51.931 is really the lock that we talked about, the asset lock, setting out restrictions on the transfer of payments of the community corporation's dollars or any other assets. It just lays out that transfers can only be made at fair market value — for example, paying bills or providing market rates on interest — to a qualified entity like a charity, or in furtherance of the community purposes that underlie the community contribution company's key community purposes.

It goes on to point out that as a general rule no part of a CCC company's money or other assets may be paid to persons related to the company during the existence of the corporation or upon its dissolution, unless it's specifically provided for in this part or in the regulations to the part and, finally, that financial assistance must not be given to persons who are related to the community contribution company unless the related person is also a qualified entity — i.e., a charity.

These restraints that are set out and those that are set out in the next few sections really comprise the asset lock which distinguishes these community contribution companies from typical or other socially motivated companies. By becoming a community contribution company they essentially agree to tie their own hands and agree that they're not going to be using their income for non-community purposes.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: In the gallery today we have 60 grade 11 students from Thomas Haney Secondary School and their teachers: Chris Connolly, Jenny Godfrey, Mark Biggar, Nelly Meedin. They've come every year. The teachers have and the students, but the students do change every year.

Anyways, we've had a good time seeing the premises, and right now they are riveted in the discussion of the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, in case they're keeping notes.

Interjection.

M. Dalton: Riveted. Yes.

Thomas Haney is a great school. My eldest son graduated from there, and it really pioneered individualized learning in the school district. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for his characterization of this debate as riveting. I'm not sure that that's the first thing that would come to mind in describing it.

I'm looking at subsection (1)(d), and I just want to be clear before I ask these questions.

I support this legislative venture, and I look forward to what may come of it. I'm just interested in probing, though, just how it might work and where there might be weaknesses in the legislation or perhaps areas that might be used for purposes other than the more noble purposes that this legislation sets out to further.

I'm looking at the restriction on transfer, but it says: "…without limitation, dividends…."

[1515]

Would the minister not agree that given the definition of a dividend — it's typical small corporation internal planning to pay people by dividends, given sometimes the tax treatment of dividend income is different from the tax treatment of personal income — that's a fairly wide option to transfer the assets of the company to others if it's described as a dividend?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the next

section is where we'll talk about restrictions on dividends and interest, so maybe for the benefit of both of us we can go right to that

section and talk about it.

B. Ralston: I think the next

section is…. Just for the clarification, I suppose, of the Chair, or at least maybe I can be clear myself, the next definition is also part of

section 8. This is a very extended

section with the number of

definitions.

[ Page 11123 ]

I think what the minister was suggesting is he would just go to the bottom of page 4 in the bill, which is still part of

section 8. So I don't want to dispense with

section 8 just yet. I think we have many happy hours ahead of us on

section 8.

Hon. K. Falcon: So 51.94 makes the provision that dividends can only be declared with prior shareholder approval, in accordance with the regulations. That is obviously different than regular corporations. They're going to have require that approval prior.

The dividend cap, which will restrict how much they can actually pay out to shareholders, will be set out in regulations under this section, as I pointed out in second reading. Although we haven't yet determined what that level is, there will be some additional consultation. But a dividend cap will be set out in regulation.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that the minister's thoughts on this and the advice he's received is not fully formed, but is he thinking of a limitation of dividends as to a certain percentage of the company's assets in any given year, say, I don't know, 5 percent or something like that? I don't want to bind the minister to his answer, but perhaps he could just give some sense of his thinking on this issue without being definitive at this point.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is an area that I can say to the member genuinely is an area that we're going to have to have some public consultation to try and figure out what the right amount is. It may be that by regulation you…. I mean, part of it will involve consultation with the community because you'll want to make sure you have an amount that is enough to encourage people to make the investments but not, you know, too much that you dissuade from the purpose, which is to ensure and encourage the investments and do broader public social good.

In the U.K. I'm led to understand that they started out at a 10 percent return that could be allowed by dividend and have since raised it to 20 percent, so that would be a range that we could look at. But I can honestly say that we just haven't come to a decision there, and that would require a broader consultation.

[1520]

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's candour on that point, and that is helpful. I'm looking back to the "Transfer of assets prohibited" definition. In (3)(

b) it refers to…. It's a prohibition on transfer of assets "by way of financial assistance…to any other persons unless the provision of that financial assistance is in furtherance of the company's community purposes."

I take it the purpose here — and I think I have a sense of what's intended — is that if the company purpose is, for example, to give a financial benefit of some assistance, whether it's housing or clothing or some other service, this

section would provide for a legitimate exception to the requirement not to transfer assets of the company. Is that a fair description of the purpose?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, it is.

B. Ralston: The minister has already referred to this aspect of the community contribution company in his remarks, but this is the formal definition; it's over the page. "Distribution of assets on dissolution of community contribution company."

Can the minister explain what this

section seeks to achieve in relation to the distribution of assets, should dissolution of the company be required or result?

Hon. K. Falcon: The purpose of 51.95 is to ensure that those, you know, perhaps with nefarious means don't use the dissolution of a company to allow them to get access to the money and utilize it for purposes that were not the intention of the corporation.

This just ensures that upon dissolution of a community contribution company, all or a prescribed percentage of its remaining assets must be paid to the qualified entities that were described earlier — so the registered charities, organizations, that have the kind of asset locks that ensure that the dollars are going towards the furtherance of the purposes that were laid out in the original articles.

B. Ralston: The minister referred to this earlier, and we did discuss it: "qualified entities." That was back in the definition section. He has also used that interchangeably with charities. I take it that the qualified entities will be described by regulation so that there's a very clear list. I believe that's what the minister said earlier, but in this context, perhaps the minister could just confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: On the

section in which we discussed this earlier, you'll recall we defined two types of qualified entities. This would be under

section 51.91. There was a subsection (

c) that allowed for "a prescribed entity or class of entities" which will allow us to add, by regulation, additional qualified entities that have the same considerations. In other words, they're registered charities, or they are of a nature that locks and ensures that the transferred assets are not able to be pulled out of a transferred entity.

B. Ralston: I just want to be clear. Is the minister, then, thinking that they would be added by regulation simply one by one? Or would it be a broader definition that would, say, by regulation describe a registered charity in Canada or registered with a Revenue Canada agency, and meeting those qualifications would qualify as an entity? Or is that question premature? There hasn't been a decision as of yet?

[1525]

One can imagine situations where, i.e., one of these

[ Page 11124 ]

companies may wish to dissolve and be rolled into a charity that exists with broadly similar purpose. So I'm just wondering how that might work and if the minister's thinking at this stage is fully formed. Or is that something that will be added by regulation later?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that it is likely the (

a) and (

b) will cover most of what would be entities that will be receiving transferred assets. But we wanted to, out of an abundance of caution, make sure that we had an ability to prescribe additional entities.

For example, I'm advised that under the federal tax act there may be organizations that allow the same kind of lock that charities have. They could potentially qualify. Or it may be, you know, perhaps someone will make the argument that maybe municipalities should be an appropriate place to allow for that kind of transference to take place if they're engaged in similar delivery of services that might meet their needs.

We're just trying to make sure that we have an ability to prescribe future entities that may meet that need.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that answer. That's helpful.

The next definition or reference is to

section 200 of the Business Corporations Act, which entitles directors to relieve themselves of their obligation to produce and publish financial statements. This proposed

section or subsection doesn't permit that. Can the minister explain that decision?

Hon. K. Falcon: So 51.951 makes sure that the ability to waive financial statements, which is available to regular corporations, will not be available to community contribution companies, because the financial statements are going to be needed in order for shareholders and the public to monitor whether the community contribution company is actually complying with the transfer restrictions that have been set out. We think that it is appropriate to deny these hybrid corporations that ability.

B. Ralston: Looking at the definition of "Community contribution report," subsection (2) sets out a number of requirements that must be contained in the report. It says: "…the following in relation to the company's most recently completed financial year."

Now, I take it…. It doesn't appear to require the publication with this report of the audited financial statement, at least as I read it. Maybe I've missed something, and the minister can correct me. But it does appear to be more a plain language requirement — that the content of what would ordinarily be in a financial statement be explained and included in the report. Is that the purpose? To be a bit broader and more publicly accessible than simply the cold print of an audited financial statement, which despite efforts at financial literacy, many people feel uncomfortable with in reading and understanding?

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a new additional requirement that will be the responsibility of those directors and officers that are a part of a community contribution company. Essentially, what it's really saying is that you've got to produce a community contribution report, and you've got to produce financial statements. You've got to show what you spent your money on, what community purposes it went towards, and this must all be publicly available.

If you have a website, it's also got to be available on the website. It can't just be in the corporate records office. If you have any web access whatsoever, which presumably virtually all of these companies probably would have, that information must be publicly available there too.

I think the issue here really is heightened transparency, recognizing that we're holding these companies to a higher standard, given that they are undertaking what is to be a broader social good.

B. Ralston: The minister made reference to publishing on a website. In subsection (4) it refers to a requirement to "post the report on the company's publicly accessible website, if any." I take it that it's a direction, not that there's a requirement that you have such a website. But if you do, you are required to do it. It doesn't create a regulatory requirement that each company have such a website. It's just that they have to use the one that they might have created voluntarily in that way. I wanted to confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: That's correct. It would be my expectation that any legitimate, credible community corporation company that is going to set up and organize would likely want to be advertising itself, at least on the web. I would think so. I'd be shocked, actually, if they did not want to have some public awareness about what they're doing.

Nevertheless, this just says that if in fact they are going to have a publicly available website, this information must be posted on those websites too. So the member is correct.

B. Ralston: The next several parts of

section 8 deal with changes in articles to become a community contribution company, amalgamation that results from the community contribution company and amalgamation into foreign jurisdiction. These provisions seem allied, which create some procedure to follow, should an ordinary company wish to transform itself into a community contribution company. Perhaps the minister could just confirm the purpose there and then explain the prohibition that's referred to in the two amalgamation sections.

[1535]

[ Page 11125 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: So 51.97 provides the means by which a regular corporation or an ordinary corporation can become a community contribution company. What is unique is that it will require the prior consent of all of its shareholders. They must alter their notice of articles and its name to indicate its community contribution company status to the public and also amend the articles to adopt the community purposes. Because a community contribution company is so restrictive in terms of shareholder payouts, it does require the consent of all shareholders to do that conversion.

Now, 51.98 essentially just restricts a community contribution company from amalgamating to become a non-3C company. I'll let you ask on 51.99, if you wish.

B. Ralston: I think the minister was going to go on to talk about 51.99, and that refers to sections 308 to 311 of the Business Corporations Act.

Section 308 is an application for continuation out of British Columbia. Perhaps the minister could just explain what the prohibition is and why it is here in the act.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that two things happen here. The first is that this restricts a triple-C company from changing its home jurisdiction from British Columbia through amalgamation. That would be restricted, not allowed.

The second is that it will also ensure that a triple-C company is not able to amalgamate with a regular corporation outside of British Columbia, to ensure that they're not finding another way to sort of amalgamate the company out of British Columbia and then release those assets that are covered under the asset lock.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

B. Ralston:

Section 9 refers to

section 154(1) of the Business Corporations Act, which is in division 4, "Liability of Directors." This appears to add a legal requirement of personal responsibility for breach of the act by a director in releasing assets from the company, contrary to this proposed part of the Business Corporations Act. Can the minister confirm that that is an accurate description of the purpose?

[1540]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct that this amendment would impose an additional liability on triple-C company directors if they authorize the transfer of assets from a community contribution company in contravention of the restrictions that were laid out in

part 2.2.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

B. Ralston: This is a reference to the dissent proceedings in division 2 of the Business Corporations Act. It authorizes shareholders to challenge, through mechanisms in the act, resolutions of the company, typically that are profound in their implications for the company — the mechanism for challenging those.

Can the minister explain the specific provision that's referred to here that limits the value of shares of a dissenter in a community corporation company?

Hon. K. Falcon: This

section is just ensuring that the payout to a dissenting shareholder does not constitute improper distribution by exceeding the prescribed cap. The amendment is just going to ensure that where in a normal company they may be paid out at fair market value, there is going to be a limit to the payout that will be described by regulation.

B. Ralston: My next question is on

section 11, so perhaps we can deal with

section

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

B. Ralston: This

section — I'm just reading it and referring to

section 238 of the Business Corporations Act — gives a shareholder in a community contribution company the right to dissent and access to those legal mechanisms if there's a resolution that changes the articles in relation to the company's community purposes. I wanted to confirm that that's an accurate description of this proposed amendment.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to

section 248 under the investigations section, which entitles the court — by the court, I take it that it's the B.C. Supreme Court — to appoint an inspector. Can the minister confirm that that's the purpose here — that a dissident shareholder can make an application to the court to appoint an inspector to investigate an alleged action or actions that are contrary to the company's articles or contrary to the act?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. That is an existing provision in the Business Corporations Act. What the significance of this amendment will be is to ensure that the court could order an inspector on the grounds that the affairs of the company being conducted

[ Page 11126 ]

under a community contribution company are being conducted contrary to the community purposes or other specific requirements that are set out under the act.

[1545]

This just expands it to ensure that if they are operating contrary to the purposes set out in the articles, the community purposes, it would be a reason and an allowance to allow the court to bring in an inspector.

B. Ralston: So we're clear, this doesn't revise the requirement in

section 248 to have…. The language is "one or more shareholders who, in the aggregate, hold at least 1/5 of the issued shares of a company." This doesn't alter that threshold requirement to be legally entitled to make such an application.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. It does not.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

B. Ralston: This again refers to

article 260 of the Business Corporations Act that entitles shareholders to dissent, and there is a mechanism to send a notice of dissent. Can the minister describe how this amendment changes

section 260 to accommodate the new community contribution company?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yeah, this mirrors and is very similar to the

section we just discussed. I believe it was two sections ago.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

B. Ralston: The next three sections appear to be, I suppose, very similar forms of amendments that require different types of corporations. This is what is referred to as a special act corporation that converts itself into a community contribution company. Perhaps the minister could briefly describe what a special act corporation is and why or how it might decide to convert itself into a community contribution company.

Hon. K. Falcon: The special act corporation would be a corporation created by statute — like ICBC, as an example; perhaps B.C. Hydro — companies that are set up not in the normal course of the Business Corporations Act. This is just saying that any special act corporation that wishes to become a triple-C company must contain the community purposes as are required.

Whenever I see sections like this, I always think of the drafters that are imagining any kind of possible scenario, and I think this would be one of them.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

B. Ralston: This refers to unlimited liability companies. This was an amendment to the Business Corporations Act that passed, I think, a couple years ago. I remember the debate upon it. I think the idea was to create this option to coincide with what was taking place in other Canadian jurisdictions. Again, this would seem to me to be a provision that would be included out of a sense of an abundance of caution.

It's difficult to imagine that this might actually take place — unlimited liability companies converting themselves into community contribution companies within British Columbia. Is that the purpose here?

[1550]

I notice that there are a number of sections that deal with unlimited liability companies. Perhaps just by way of dealing with these sections, the minister could briefly define what an unlimited liability company is and perhaps confirm that that's the purpose here.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is unrelated, now, to community contribution companies. This, I understand, is a technical amendment to require a court order for the restoration of an unlimited liability company and to allow an unlimited liability to select a numbered company name upon its restoration. This is pretty obscure stuff, but I understand it's a technical amendment.

B. Ralston: Given, I believe, that these amendments dealing with unlimited liability companies were passed a couple of years ago, is this something that has resulted as a result of litigation? Was a gap in the legislation identified by practitioners after this provision came into effect and was worked on for several years? What's the motivation for bringing this forward?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that it was not as the result of any lawsuit. To our knowledge, we're not aware of any ULCs that have applied to make a restoration. This was apparently a gap that was identified by corporate registry staff. It's a technical amendment, and it is being put into place upon their recommendation.

B. Ralston: Perhaps, then, the minister can just confirm that sections 18 and 19 relate to unlimited liability companies, and then perhaps we can dispense with those and move to

section 20.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

[ Page 11127 ]

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to the Business Corporations Act,

section 378. It's described in the notes accompanying the bill as a consequential amendment to subsection 422(7) of the act by this bill. Can the minister explain the purposes for this amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: A new provision added by this bill in

section 32 will prohibit a foreign entity that has had its registration cancelled — for example, if it's not filing its annual reports — from continuing to do business. What this amendment will do, under

section 378, is clarify that a breach of that prohibition will not have the result of making the foreign entity's acts invalid. Again, it's a technical amendment.

[1555]

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

section 22.

B. Ralston: This

section amends a number of provisions of

section 408 of the Business Corporations Act, and there were a number of subsections in it. Can the minister explain the purposes of this amendment to

section 408? It relates to the filing of records, is the description of the section.

Hon. K. Falcon: These are more technical amendments that have been raised by the registrar. In this case, these amendments are going to add some generic language to the Business Corporations Act, specific language so that the

section will also apply to records filed under other enactments. This, I understand, will enable the repeal of piecemeal filing provisions that are found in the other corporate statutes and provide a single uniform repository for all of the corporate registry's filing and records maintenance rules. That's one part of it.

Specifically, it goes on that the amendments to

section 408 will clarify that if a document submitted for filing fails to meet either the requirements of the enactment under which it is filed or

part 12 of the BCA, it may be rejected by the registrar. A new definition of "applicable requirements" has been added for ease of drafting and reading.

This must be fascinating material for lawyers, by the way.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: More, more.

There's a new subsection (1.01) that would expressly allow persons to file with the registrar court orders affecting information on the corporate register pertaining to BCA entities or any other register kept by the registrar, like societies, cooperatives, etc. Allowing for the filing of a court order would provide the registrar with clear authority and direction to accept such documents.

I realize that is pretty arcane sounding, but these are technical amendments. By their nature, they can be pretty arcane.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

B. Ralston:

Section 409 is amended, and it's a similar amendment to the one we just discussed, substituting "under this Act and any other enactment." That

section refers to what is called future dated filing, and there is a definition here in the act. For the purposes of understanding what's going on here, maybe the minister can briefly explain what future dated filing is and how this amendment would affect the ability to do that.

Hon. K. Falcon: Currently future dated filings are only permitted under the BCA, the Business Corporations Act. However, it is quite possible, especially with the increased availability of electronic filings for other corporate entities, that these may be allowed under other corporate statutes in the near future.

These amendments add some generic language to the Business Corporations Act, specific language so that the

section will also apply to records that are filed under other enactments. Specifically, the amendments to

section 409 would ensure a uniform approach to the withdrawal of future dated filings under all corporate filing enactments.

Sections 23 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

[1600]

B. Ralston:

Section 29 refers to the inspection and copies of records. This is sometimes a public issue.

This proposed

section amends

section 416. It says: "Any person may, in the manner and to the extent permitted by the registrar, (

a) conduct a search of the corporate register according to (

i) the name, translated name or incorporation number of a company, (ii) the name or assumed name of an extraprovincial company, or its registration number, or (iii) any other prescribed criteria."

I believe there has been an issue sometimes raised about the access to the names of the directors of the companies and whether or not that's permitted in a search for public purposes or media inquiries. There is a wish to find out the names of directors who might be behind a given company or acting as directors. Saying "behind" is probably not the correct way to say it — who are simply acting as directors.

My understanding is that there sometimes have been issues as to whether that is publicly available. Does this

[ Page 11128 ]

section give the public greater access to the corporate registry to discern the names of directors and their addresses or at least a general description of directors in a way that the public might wish for in terms of greater public disclosure?

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am familiar at a high level with what the member is talking about. This does not refer to that issue of access to the names of directors.

This is a technical amendment that essentially adds some generic language to the Business Corporations Act, which has very specific language, so that the

section will also apply to information filed under other enactments. That's referring to the Society Act or the co-op act, as an example. It is not referring to the issue that the member opposite is discussing.

B. Ralston: The minister has referred to a couple of acts, the Society Act and the Cooperative Association Act. Are there any other acts that this will expand to, or are those the only two?

Hon. K. Falcon: It would be those enactments that come under the auspices of the corporate registry.

B. Ralston: And for those who may not be familiar with the jurisdiction of the corporate registry, could the minister perhaps…? I'm sure one of the staff could give him that advice — what acts beyond the Society Act, the Business Corporations Act and the Cooperative Association Act the registrar administers.

[1605]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that in addition to the Society Act and the co-op act, it would include the Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act.

Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

section 32.

B. Ralston:

Section 422. This is an amendment proposed to it. It deals with dissolutions and cancellations of registration by the registrar. The reference here is to a foreign entity that's registered as an extraprovincial company and provisions that would entitle the registrar to cancel its registration when it fails to perform certain requirements under the act.

Can the minister explain the purpose of this amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: These amendments would allow a company or an extraprovincial company to file an application to suspend a pending dissolution or cancellation for a period of six months or longer if allowed by the registrar.

Expressly allowing this kind of application would validate, as I understand, the current registry practice and would allow…. Well, it would essentially validate the current practice. The amendments would also clarify that an extraprovincial company that has been struck from the corporate registry must cease doing business in the province. Hopefully, that clarifies it for the member.

B. Ralston: It's basically a provision for giving a company that may have fallen into a status that's not in conformity with the act some time to make application to bring themselves back into good order.

What the minister has said is that the practice now is to give them six months to do that. This simply incorporates that into the statute. Then it also provides an option for extending it beyond six months, presumably, if there is a good reason given or there's some legal requirement that further time be taken.

Is that essentially what the provision allows?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, it is.

Section 32 approved.

section 33.

B. Ralston: This is the offence

section under the Business Corporations Act, and it creates an offence that would make it an offence "to fail to comply with approval and signing requirements for community contribution reports." There is a more extended description of proposed defaults.

I suppose my question is…. There are a number of offences that are described in the Business Corporations Act. Can the minister give a sense of how often these offences are actually prosecuted?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that it's very rare. I don't have any information in terms of specifics for the member.

[1610]

B. Ralston: I appreciate the legislative intent of making it an offence, given…. I don't follow these things absolutely closely, but I do keep an eye on developments in business law, depending on what's reported in the media. I'm unable to recall a prosecution under this

section either.

Can the minister explain, then, why the choice has been made to make it an offence, when it's practice and relatively unlikely that there would be a prosecution, rather than giving it some regulatory force through the registrar of companies? Or is this an augmentation to

[ Page 11129 ]

the powers of the registrar to strike a company from the registry for failing to comply with the provisions of the Business Corporations Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised, just to the member's first point, that the corporate registry will strike corporations for failure to file. They, as I understand, do not strike corporations for failure to meet the provisions set out in the offences

section of the act.

What this will do, though, is simply amend the offence provisions to include the failure of community contribution company directors to fulfil their fiduciary obligations. It expands it to include the CCC directors and ensures that they publish or post their community contribution reports as well as the publication of a non-compliant community contribution report.

It goes on that it makes it an offence for a person to use community contribution companies or the letters CCC in its name unless it is, in fact, a community contribution company, a federal company or otherwise authorized to use that name. It just expands the offence provisions to include the new hybrid vehicle that we've introduced earlier in the act.

B. Ralston: Would a director of a community contribution company, similarly to a director under the Business Corporations Act, have personal liability under the Offence Act, as opposed to corporate liability? In other words, one can be prosecuted personally, as opposed to the company being prosecuted, for failure to file the report or sign it or prepare it in the proper way. Is that the intent here?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I understood the member's question correctly, there would be no additional or unique liability exposure for a director of a community contribution company. They would have the same obligations that would exist for any director or officer under the Business Corporations Act.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

section 35.

[1615]

B. Ralston: This amends

section 428. I take it that in the event of a prosecution, which admittedly is very rare, this simply would apply the penalties that currently apply under the act to the offences that are set out and added in

section 33. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

section 37.

B. Ralston: This amendment adds to

section 432 the power to pass regulations relating to many of the matters that we've discussed during our discussions of the creation of the community contribution company. I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to explain the breadth of the regulatory power.

I know he has some misgivings about expanding regulation, but this does appear to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council very broad powers relating to a number of the matters that we've discussed to promulgate regulations that would deal with those issues.

I want to give the minister an opportunity to perhaps describe the breadth of the regulatory power that's conferred by this amendment.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised by staff that out of an abundance of caution there are other regulatory-making powers that are included to provide some flexibility to deal with potential issues that could arise with this new hybrid corporate vehicle. For example, there may be a need to restrict community purposes, to the member's point earlier about ensuring that you don't have situations where you have rather nebulous community purposes.

There may have to be some real clarity around what exactly a community purpose is, to allow other transfers or to require additional disclosure in community contribution reports. This, albeit provides some breadth here, is done, as I understand, out of an abundance of caution.

Now, I'm also advised that the anticipated regulations are unlikely to be extensive — in other words, not more than a couple of pages. This allows for the ability, as we go out and engage in broader consultation, to be able to deal with those kinds of issues through regulatory-making ability.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's response on that.

I think I know the answer to this, but I just wanted to confirm that it's likely that the member for Surrey–White Rock, in his capacity and given his personal interest in this file, would be the lead in terms of the consultation in seeking responses as to what might be effective regulation that would conform with the regulatory power that's conferred upon the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by this amendment. Is that correct?

[1620]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that this would give us the ability to go back to talk to the Advisory Council on Social Entrepreneurship, which has been very active and helpful in this manner, to talk about which regulations may be required to ensure that we try and get this model right.

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

[ Page 11130 ]

section 39.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can indicate that my interest and intention is to ask questions that begin at

section 45, where this involves the issue, particularly — and one can imagine that this can be contentious within a cooperative housing association — where there's a decision, acting on a breach or alleged breach by a member of the association, to terminate their membership in a housing cooperative, which may result in them being evicted from a premises in cooperative housing.

That's where I want to ask some questions. I don't really have any questions up till

section 45.

Sections 39 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

B. Ralston: This is a new

section that's being added, and there are some further consequential amendments and more substantive amendments in 46 and 47. I've been advised that the B.C. Co-operative Association has reviewed this legislation and has no objections to it.

Can the minister explain how

section 45 — it's adding a new

section 35.1 — would work in terms of the mechanism for depriving a member of their membership status, which might lead to their eviction from cooperative housing? Given that this can be very divisive and traumatic for the individual concerned, and given the nature of the relations between people in a housing cooperative — very personal relationships sometimes; it can be fairly intense — can the minister explain how this will assist housing cooperatives in dealing with that very difficult issue?

Hon. K. Falcon: With respect to this section, Member,

section 45, with the Cooperative Act there was an issue that has arisen where the new

section is needed to ensure that some of the procedural safeguards provisions, which are established in sections 36 to 39, were not being circumvented by provisions whereby an association's rules would deem a membership withdrawn in order to circumvent the membership termination procedure.

In other words, if a member is not paying rent, for example, they would deem the member to have had a deemed withdrawal of membership from the co-op, and therefore, the member could be effectively expelled without having the proper procedures go through.

[1625]

There was a court decision that validated the practice of doing so, but this amendment is necessary to close that loophole — which we really view as a loophole — and restore the legislative intent by ensuring that proper procedural safeguards are going to be in place whenever a person's membership in any type of cooperative is to be terminated. This amendment, as I understand, is particularly important in the context of housing cooperatives, as they are not subject to the Residential Tenancy Act.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then — and I thank him for that description — describe what would be the amended procedure? He has referred to withdrawing membership. There is a reference here to serving documents and notice of the meeting upon the member. Can the minister just take us through the procedural steps that would be required for a housing cooperative to properly come to the conclusion that a member's membership and their right to reside in the housing cooperative is at an end?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to emphasize, this only applies to cooperative housing with respect to the issue of non-payment of rent. As I understand, Member, what happens today…. I'll go through what's going to happen today, as a result of this change, and how that is different from what happened before.

There is non-payment of rent. The directors meet and make a determination that there is non-payment of rent. The directors must give formal notice to the individual that would be considered termination of membership. The member will have the ability to make submissions or to have counsel attend with them to a directors meeting to talk and make their case with respect to not paying rent.

What has changed is we've taken out…. There used to be an appeal to call the general meeting of the entire membership. This was the area that caused an enormous amount of problems for the co-ops, because of course, you can imagine that calling the entire membership together to deal with an issue of non-payment was rather cumbersome and problematic. That is why the approach that they would take was the deemed-withdrawal-of-membership approach, which was legal and was backed up by a court decision but eliminated any of the other traditional safeguards that one would want to have in place.

What is happening now is that they have the ability to come forward to make submissions to the directors. They can bring counsel, if they wish, to make those submissions. They will have an ability, of course, to appeal to the Supreme Court. They will not have the ability to call the general membership together to deal with an issue of non-payment of rent. We believe, with the support of the cooperative associations, that that is a streamlined, more effective approach of dealing with non-payment of rent.

[1630]

B. Ralston: I know the minister has referred to rent, but there are, I think, what are probably subsidiary charges to rent.

It refers here to "occupancy charges or other money due by the member to the housing cooperative." I take it

[ Page 11131 ]

those are all ancillary to the payment of rent — maybe portions of utility fees or common area. I'm not sure the analogy to a strata corporation is exactly perfect, so perhaps the minister could just clarify that.

Then I just wanted to clarify that the directors meet, resolve to give notice pursuant to a non-payment of rent, and then the opportunity is to come before a separate meeting of the directors to make representations about that. If that decision is to proceed, then the affected member of the co-op has the opportunity — I think it's under

section 47 — to give a notice of appeal to the association within seven days after delivery of a written notice that is required and then, beyond that, can go through the Supreme Court.

I just wanted to make those clarifications. Perhaps the minister can confirm that I've either stated it accurately or correct me if I haven't.

Hon. K. Falcon: I've confirmed that the member is correct.

Sections 45 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

B. Ralston: I can just indicate that I have no questions until we begin the new division at

section 55. So up to

section 54, I have no further questions. They're all amendments to the Cooperative Association Act, and they're technical amendments.

Sections 49 to 54 inclusive approved.

section 55.

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to the Cooperative Association Act that refers to corporate mistakes. This appears to be a more substantive amendment, if its length is any indication. Can the minister explain what the purpose of that proposed amendment is?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a technical amendment which I understand will bring the Cooperative Act in line with the court remedies available to societies and companies under the Society Act and the Business Corporations Act, respectively.

Sections 55 and 56 approved.

section 57.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can just make it clear that I have no questions on the proposed amendments to the Cooperative Association Act, and they conclude at

section 72.

Sections 57 to 72 inclusive approved.

section 73.

[1635]

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to the Credit Union Incorporation Act. This appears to be a consequential amendment as a result of changes to the Business Corporations Act. Similarly, sections 74 and 75, I believe, are consequential amendments. Perhaps the minister could simply confirm that, and we could then deal with those three together.

Hon. K. Falcon: I can confirm that.

Sections 73 and 74 approved.

section 75.

B. Ralston: I believe that it's the next

section where there's an amendment to the powers of the superintendent of financial institutions. Perhaps I'm one

section premature. Perhaps we can deal with

section 75, and I'll ask my question in

section

Section 75 approved.

section 76.

B. Ralston: This is, as it's explained to me, a change to the Financial Institutions Act that gives the superintendent of financial institutions, which is the senior position there, the power to determine the duties of employees of the Financial Institutions Commission.

I'm wondering what the purpose of that is and what the consequences might be to any individual employees currently employed at the Financial Institutions Commission.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is to align the practice of the Financial Institutions Commission with other like sorts of organizations. So they should be responsible for regulatory decisions, and the ADM or the superintendent of financial institutions would be responsible for their staff, just like in every other organization in government.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, then. The language — the explanatory note, at least — says that it "may determine the duties of the employees." This is not meant to change the description of the actual job. It's not a classification question. It's simply a question of confirming who directs the employees and who is responsible in the, I suppose, chain of authority to supervise and direct those employees. I just want to make sure that is clear. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is exactly right.

[ Page 11132 ]

Section 76 approved.

section 77.

B. Ralston: This gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet, the power to appoint the superintendent of financial institutions. Can the minister explain why this change was thought necessary?

[1640]

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, this was a bit of a patchwork situation, where you've got a superintendent who has responsibilities, two of which were done by order-in-council. Those would be the registrar of mortgage brokers and the superintendent of real estate. So two of the duties were done by order-in-council.

One was done by ministerial order, which was the superintendent of pensions, and then the last was superintendent of financial institutions, which was an appointment by the commission.

What we're doing here is having all of them done by OICs so that we have consistency and it is much more analogous to what we have right across government.

B. Ralston: As I understand, the present situation of the superintendent would be that it would be the Financial Institutions Commission. I believe the members of that are appointed by order-in-council. They would be determining the…. They would be the hiring committee, I suppose, and making a recommendation to the chair of the Financial Institutions Commission.

I believe there was a recent change of the superintendent of financial institutions. Is this change in any way related to that new hiring? The minister says it's simply an effort to have consistency across a number of the senior regulatory employees in the commission. Is that the reason? Or was there some specific difficulty that arose in dealing with what I believe was a change of the person who occupied the position?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that the approach has been taken to ensure consistency, whereby an assistant deputy minister will have direct accountability to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as opposed to the somewhat diffuse nature of accountabilities that was under the old model.

[1645]

This will align the ADM responsibilities of the superintendent, who, as you know, carries multiple responsibilities. All will be under the purview of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and that is a best practice which we will be following henceforth.

B. Ralston: I suppose the apparatus of the hiring process…. Will that be administered by the public service commission in the ordinary way that senior employees might be hired, or will there be a separate procedure to engage a person for this position?

Hon. K. Falcon: There's no change contemplated in relation to the individual that is currently acting as superintendent. For future appointments, the Ministry of Finance will be utilizing the board resourcing and development office to ensure that the highest-calibre candidates are identified and selected. That will be done in consultation with the chair of the FICOM, the Financial Institutions Commission, who would be consulted on the prospective candidates. Then the final decision would be a cabinet order-in-council.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister can explain, then, why this wouldn't be proceeded with through the public service commission and would go to the board resourcing agency that he's referred to. I think that more typically, that's something that is used to select directors of, say, universities or colleges, rather than front-line public servants, who usually go through the public service commission.

I know that, through the Merit Commissioner, there has been some scrutiny and, I think, consistency brought to this process. So I'm wondering…. That wouldn't appear to be entirely in tune with that direction. Perhaps the minister could explain why that choice is being made, rather than going through the public service commission.

Hon. K. Falcon: The rationale behind this approach was to mirror a similar approach that's utilized at the Agricultural Land Commission in the selection of the CEO. That is where we utilize the board resourcing office to make the sele