British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, April 22, 2015

20150422pm-Hansard-v24n1

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 24, Number 1

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

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

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

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

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

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

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

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

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

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ............................................................................................................................................. Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 7495 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 7496 Capilano River salmon R. Sultan Indian Residential School Survivors Society S. Simpson Organ donation and transplantation G. Kyllo General Gordon Parent Advisory Council D.

Eby Great Bear Paleo Bites L. Larson Culture and Heritage Awards in Nanaimo L. Krog Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7498 Government action on gun violence in Surrey J. Horgan Hon. C. Clark Programs for prevention of gang involvement among youth J. Horgan Hon. C. Clark Wait times for surgeries J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake B.C. Ambulance Service response times K. Corrigan Hon. T. Lake Interior to Lower Mainland transmission project A. Dix Hon. B.

Bennett Proposed national park in South Okanagan area S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak Child death case and access to information D. Donaldson Hon. S. Cadieux Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 7503 Bill 24 — Societies Act Hon. M. de Jong C. James L. Krog V . Huntington K.

Corrigan Reporting of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7523 Bill 24 — Societies Act Th ird Reading of Bills ......................................................................................................... .................................................... 7524 Bill 24 — Societies Act

Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 7524 Bill 22 — Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act (continued) D. Eby N. Simons L. Krog A. Weaver S. Simpson Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 7536 Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) C. Trevena Hon. T. Stone G. Heyman M. Karagianis

WEDNESDAY , APRIL 22, 2015 Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to intro- duce some hard-working public servants for the province of British Columbia in the gallery. We have our Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Derek Sturko, and Dr. Jane Pritchard. Dr. Jane Pritchard is the chief veterinary offi cer for the province of B.C. and the director of the Animal Health Centre veterinary diagnostic lab in Abbotsford.

She’s currently the chair of the Canadian Council of Chief Veterinar y Offi cers and a member of the National Farmed Animal Health and Welfare Council as well. We also have Dr. Gary Marty who is here with us today. Dr. Marty is one of Canada’s foremost fi sh pathologists, diagnosing disease and certifying the health of wild fi sh and fi sh farms, aquaria and scientifi c laboratories. Th is one you’ll like to hear. During his career Dr. Marty has analyzed tissues from 328 diff erent fi sh species. Would the House please make all of them feel very welcome. N.

Simons: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the chamber the Association of Book Publishers. It’s won- derful that they’re here — Ruth Linka, the president, and Margaret Reynolds, executive director. What a wonderful event it was this morning in the rotunda on B.C. Book Day. I know that many MLAs and Madame Speaker were able to attend. I think it was a wonderful event for the second year in a row, and I’m pleased to hear that it is go- ing to continue for years to come. May the House please make them welcome. [1335] L. Larson: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two amaz- ing young women from my riding.

Th e B.C. ambassador program is an annual event that takes place in August each year. It recognizes young men and women between the ages of 17 and 24 who have previously held ambassador or royal titles in their communities. Th ey earn scholarships and travel throughout the province promoting their man- date of education, motivation and self-esteem. Today 2013 ambassador Lauren Sherwood from Osoyoos and current 2014-2015 ambassador Juliana Martine from Oliver are here in the House. Would the House please make these exceptional young women wel- come. J.

Darcy: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Tiana Major to the Legislature today. She’s a student in political sci- ence at Simon Fraser University and is planning to move on to do her masters at UBC in the fall. According to her partner, who is a legislative intern in this House, Kevin Sage, she is the smartest person that he knows. Will the House please join me in making her very welcome. J. Th ornthwaite: In honour of Earth Day today and on behalf of our Minister of Environment, I’ d like to welcome some very special guests in the House from the B.C. Bioenergy Network. B.C.

Bioenergy Network is an initiative focused on promoting bioenergy development. Bioenergy is created by taking biowaste and transforming it into electricity, heat, biofuels and specialty chemicals. Today I would like to introduce several bioener- gy leaders of B.C. ’s climate action work. Dr. Shahab Sokhansanj, adjunct professor of chemical and biologic- al engineering, UBC; James Repenning, senior vice- president, western Canada, Harvest Power; Darcy Quinn, director of business development, Nexterra Systems Corp.; Michael Weedon, executive director of the B.C. Bioenergy Network; and Marnie Plant, B.C.

Bioenergy Network. I would ask the House to please make these guests welcome. R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a woman on a mission, Dr. Harshinder Kaur. By profession she is a medical doctor, but she is better known as a med- ical social worker whose work is focused on the plight of women. She has written 22 books and was awarded by the United Nations for her work to protect young girls in India. She is joined by her husband, Dr. Gurpal Singh, and their son Nanak. Also with them is my dear friend Ajmer Rode. He has also written over 20 books of poetry, drama and prose.

His latest book is called A Journey with the Endless Eye , the story of the Komagata Maru. Please join me to give them a very warm welcome. Hon. S. Bond: I’m delighted to introduce a group of individuals in the Legislature from the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. We have Jeff Quinard, James Chase, Jon Garson, Muneesh Sharma, Neil Moody, Mark von Schellwitz, Gord Stewart, David Lynn, Kate Dodd and George Higgins. We have an excellent working relationship, and we look forward to a meeting later this aft ernoon. I’ d ask all of my colleagues in the House to make them most welcome. Hon. T.

Wat: Joining us in the gallery today are Ray Schmalz from Creston and Wendy Stander from Port Alberni. Th ey are the relatives of my chief of staff , and they are visiting the Legislature for the fi rst time today. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome. 7495

British Columbia Debates7496 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 M. Dalton: I have a special guest in the gallery today, Lynne Gendron, from Alberta. She was my grade 4 teach- er. She’s been here before, visiting and keeping tabs on me. She was my teacher when I was in Holberg, and we also knew her as a family friend in Valcartier, Quebec. I found out today during lunch that she has lived in 4 Wing, Germany, where I lived and where I was born. Would the House please make her feel welcome. J. Tegart: I’ d like to share with the House today that April 22, 2015, has been proclaimed as B.C. Book Day.

Welcome to the publishers, authors and special guests who participated in the B.C. Book Day event in this precinct. [1340] G. Kyllo: Th is week is National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. Joining us in the gallery today are two very special guests. We have Shannon McCloskey, the B.C. Transplant in-hospital donation coordinator for Vancouver Island, and Kim Jordison, B.C. Transplant volunteer and B.C. government employee. B.C. Transplant supports the needs of patients and families of donors and transplant recipients and reminds us of the need for organ donation.

Would the House join me in welcoming Shannon and Kim to the House, and please make them feel very welcome. Hon. B. Bennett: I’ d like to introduce two people to the House today from the Canadian Home Builders Association, B.C. branch. First of all, Neil Moody is up there somewhere. He’s the CEO. Secondly, the president, Simon Howse, whom I had lunch with today. Simon is from Fernie, so this is, I think, two weeks in a row that I’ve actually had the opportunity to introduce people from Kootenay East. Please help me to make them welcome. D.

Horne: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce a group from SFU who is visiting today, led by André Gerolymatos, who is the head of the Stavros Niarchos Centre for Hellenic Studies at SFU. He’s accompanied by Rob Gordon with the criminology department and Garth Davies, as well as Colleen Prescott. I’ d hope that the House would make them truly welcome. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, please join me in welcoming a wonderful group of grade fi ve students from Kathleen McNeely Elementary School in my riding and their teacher Gillian Ewart. Please welcome them all.

Statements (Standing Order 25B) CAPILANO RIVER SALMON R. Sultan: Only a river pebble’s throw from my con- stituency offi ce fl ows an aquatic jewel, the Capilano River. Fed by snows on the peaks of Howe Sound, it trickles south, turns left at the paws of the lions and heads for the sea. It’s trapped for a time behind Cleveland dam, where it’s asked to contribute to Vancouver’s drinking water. When it does rush over the spillway, it performs a 100-metre dive, which stuns the migrating juvenile fi sh.

It then races through a deep, dark canyon, million-dol- lar homes on one side and the remnants of forests which never felt the logger’s axe on the other. As it exits to the sea, it salutes today’s version of the Squamish Nation vil- lage on the beach, which was and still is a prime location for catching salmon. Returning salmon must navigate a cluster of anglers guarding Capilano on the left and the insult of poorly treated sewage outfl ows on the right. But return they do, enhanced by over one million fi ngerlings released annu- ally at the Capilano fi sh hatchery.

Far fewer than 5 per- cent will survive ocean dangers and return. Most steelhead smolts, hatched with care, don’t even survive the few kilometres to Point Atkinson. Hatchery- raised juveniles are kind of dumb and are easy prey. Swimming in the sewage does not help, but giving them a larger share of Capilano water surely would. INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL SURVIVORS SOCIETY S. Simpson: I’m pleased to recognize the 20th anniver- sary of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. Established two decades ago, the society responds to the needs of those who suff ered the impacts of residential schools.

Residential schools are a sad fact of our history, a notorious strategy to rip aboriginal children away from their families and institutionalize them, to extinguish their language and culture — a scheme aimed at, essen- tially, ending First Nations as a people by assimilating their children. We know that too oft en physical and sexual abuse was a reality for the children in these schools. Y et today B.C. ’s identity is inherently linked to First Nations. When we celebrate British Columbia, it is almost always defi ned by our natural beauty and First Peoples culture.

First Nations refuse to be extinguished by residential schools, refuse to be assimilated, refuse to lose their iden- tity. In fact, First Nations have strengthened their place in B.C. Sadly, that doesn’t diminish the damage done to school survivors — mental health challenges, addictions and the struggle for identity that many still suff er today. [1345] Th e Indian Residential School Survivors Society was established to address these complex issues.

Its mandate is to assist First Peoples in B.C. “to recognize and be hol- istically empowered from the primary and generational eff ects of residential schools by support, research, educa- tion, awareness, establishing partnerships and advocating for justice and healing. Th e society assists survivors with

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7497 crisis counselling, court support, information, referrals, workshops and more. ” For 20 years the society has played a critical role. However, their work, which remains important today, is clouded with uncertainty, as funding is only committed till March 2016. Let us join today to celebrate the valuable work of this society. Let us tell them that we know their work is not fi nished, that there is still a road to travel and that we will be with them to ensure that they get to fi nish this important journey. ORGAN DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION G.

Kyllo: This week is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week, and there is no greater gift than the gift of life. Did you know that one organ donor can save up to eight lives? I wanted to share with this House a very touching and inspirational story of one such donor: Carol Moulton, the mother of B.C. Transplant vol- unteer and government employee Kim Jordison. Carol was a vibrant and caring mother and active vol- unteer in Langford who encouraged her family to regis- ter as organ donors.

Carol, sadly, passed away on April 11, 2011, yet through her registration as an organ donor, she was able to give the ultimate gift to seven eternally grateful organ donor recipients. I know that Carol would be so very proud of her daughter, Kim, for the volunteer work that she continues to do with B.C. Transplant. Just this week Kim initiated an eff ort to help raise organ donation awareness, with over 25,000 government employees across the province, through inclusion of key messaging posted on the B.C. government @Work Internet site. Currently 465 people are waiting for life-saving organ transplants in B.C.

Sadly, many of those waiting for a trans- plant will die before a suitable organ is available. Despite 95 percent of British Columbians supporting organ donation, less than less than 20 percent have registered on B.C. ’s or- gan donor registry, resulting in a chronic shortage of organs. B.C. Transplant supports the needs of patients and families of donors and transplant recipients and reminds us of the need for organ donation. By registering to give the gift of life, we can contribute to healthier, longer lives for those in need. It takes less than two minutes to register your decision on line.

Th ese two minutes could save a life. I’ d like to thank B.C. Transplant for joining us here to- day, and I encourage members on both sides of the House to register as an organ donor. Organ donors save lives. GENERAL GORDON PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL D. Eby: Friday morning last week I headed down to a construction site in my community. Th e construction site is the historic and the future site of General Gordon grade school. It’s also the school bus stop for kids headed to Queen Elizabeth school, which is the swing site while the school is under construction.

Instead of a low-energy, boring wait for the bus, there was a tent. Th ere was coff ee. Th ere was a fundraising drive underway. Th ere was lots of energy. Th e bus stop had been turned into an early morning parent and student meet-and-greet festival by the General Gordon Parent Advisory Council and, of course, they invited their MLA. Th at there was an early morning street party at the school bus stop would be no surprise to anybody familiar with the General Gordon PAC and their commitment to the school community.

Co-chaired by Karen Wood and Jane Pike, the General Gordon PAC members are as di- verse as they are active. PAC members at General Gordon work in all various careers in Vancouver. Some are busi- ness owners. Some are gardeners, volunteers, organizers. But they all share a commitment to our public education system and to General Gordon School. When not holding bus stop street parties, they’re fund- raising hard for playground equipment at the new school, using the sale of bricks they thoughtfully had set aside during the demolition of the old building.

Th ey work closely with Principal Margaret Davidson and her staff to maintain a sense of connection for parents to the school community during this time of transition. Co-chair Karen Wood says that the strength of the PAC comes from their diversity. She says: “What surprised me was not only the depth and the breadth of the commun- ity but also the myriad of perspectives and ideas.

It’s like being in the epicentre of society, where every nationality, learning and physical ability and disability, wealth polar- ity and any other refl ection of society is present. ” Th ough General Gordon’s concrete foundation has been carried off in dump trucks, it’s clear that the General Gordon’s school community is as strong as ever, thanks to the General Gordon PAC. To all of the parents, teachers, staff and administrators at General Gordon: thank you so much for making our community better. [1350] GREAT BEAR PALEO BITES L. Larson: I rise in the House today to tell you about a local business in my riding.

Great Bear Paleo Bites is a small business. It started in Oliver back in 2008 as a home-based business company serving groups at the lo- cal owner’s crossfi t gym. Inspired by crossfi t and the paleo diet, Tracy Lydiatt embraced her love of baking to create a snack that all could enjoy. With a background in sustainability, the two-time TED talk speaker created these paleo bites which are vegan and organic, as well as gluten-, soy-, dairy-, nut- and egg-free. In 2012 Tracy decided to widen her base and started selling them commercially. In the past couple of years her

British Columbia Debates7498 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 company has blossomed, selling not only to paleo dieters but also the allergy-friendly community. In 2014 the B.C. food producers awarded this business two awards — best product of the year award and Rising Star Award. Th e company focuses on healthy, sustainable living and contributes to the local community. I am happy to say that, in January of this year, Th rift y’s started stock- ing their shelves with these delicious cookies. Further to this, just last week they were featured in B.C. Job Makers, a website that highlights business success stories in B.C.

Congratulations to another successful young B.C. entrepreneur. CULTURE AND HERITAGE AW ARDS IN NANAIMO L. Krog: April 9 in Nanaimo — 2015 Culture and Heritage Awards, celebrating all the great culture that exists in my fair city. The venue — the premier per- forming arts centre in our city, the Port Th eatre, built in the 1990s with federal, provincial and local contributions.

The evening kicked off with Bruce Williams, well known to all of us here in this chamber, the most ener- getic host on Vancouver Island, following a welcome from the Footprints of the Wolf, a local aboriginal dance group, followed by a poetry reading from Ms. Naomi Beth Wakan, Nanaimo’s poet laureate, and fi nally, a wel- come by newly elected mayor Bill McKay. It was a great evening to celebrate Nanaimo’s arts and culture. Kicking off , the Honour in Culture Award went to Arlene Blundell, one of the most active members of the theatre group in town for many, many years and a real leader in arts in our community.

Following that the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Award residential was given to Andrea Saam-Lawry and Mr. Tim Lawry, owners of the famous and an- cient McCourt Residence. Following that we had the Excellence in Culture Award presented to Grant Leier and Nixie Barton, two very well-known — indeed inter- nationally known — an d successful artists. Th en the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Award insti- tutional was presented to the Anglican diocese of British Columbia for their work at St. Paul’s Anglican Church — I might add, where my grandparents were married.

Finally, the Emerging Cultural Leader Award went to a young woman who is operating Th e Vault restaurant in Nanaimo, a facility where she opens it up every even- ing, virtually, to local performing artists, all of whom do a great job celebrating arts and culture in Nanaimo. I would be remiss if I didn’t close mentioning that some years ago our fl amboyant and famous mayor, Frank Ney, said that when it came to a choice between culture and corn, Nanaimo would chose corn every time.

I am to happy to announce that with this signifi cant celebration that has gone on for several years, culture in Nanaimo has conquered corn. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain seeks leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members D. Horne: Visiting the chamber today is a delegation from the Nisga’a Lisims Government. Th ey are spending the day to learn more about the work of this assembly and this House. We are honoured to have the opportun- ity to host Stephanie Lysyk, Debra Febril, Myrle Morven and Kristy White.

I hope they’ve enjoyed their time here at the assembly and in Victoria. May the House make them truly welcome. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT ACTION ON GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY J. Horgan: Last night I joined 700 people in an audi- torium in Surrey to talk about the escalating gun violence in that community. I heard anger, I heard frustration, and most of all, I heard concern. [1355] I heard concern about how it could be that 23 shootings could take place in their community, in their hometown, over a 30-day period.

What they were trying to under- stand — with representatives from the RCMP , with rep- resentatives from the school board and representatives from the Surrey council — is: what was the plan? What was the coordinated eff ort of multilayers of government to address the outbreak of gun violence in their community? My question to the Premier is: just what is the Premier’s plan to address the concerns and the fears of the people of Surrey? Hon. C.

Clark: I want to just add to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments in this respect, and say to the people of Surrey how deeply concerned everyone in British Columbia is about what’s happening in their community. Surrey is a community that I know to be a thriving, friendly, open place to live, a great place to raise your kids and start a business and live out your life. Th at’s the Surrey that I know. But the events that have been unfold- ing recently have been very disturbing to people in Surrey and to all of us across British Columbia. We are working with the city of Surrey and with the RCMP , as we always do.

But I want to say this. Th e chief of police in Surrey has been very clear. He said that this is not a problem of a lack of resources on the policing front in that city. Th is is a problem of people failing to come forward.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7499 What I would do today is to join him and the mayor of Surrey in calling on anyone — any relative, any friend, any neighbour — who knows anything about these shootings in Surrey, and I would call on them to come forward, because by coming forward and speaking out, they could very well be saving lives. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. PROGRAMS FOR PREVENTION OF GANG INVOLVEMENT AMONG YOUTH J.

Horgan: What I heard again last night from the com- munity and through the head of the RCMP in attendance, and also from the Attorney General some days ago, was that the public does have a role to play. Th ere’s no ques- tion of that. But what I heard from the public last night is they’re prepared to play that role. Th ey want more than law en- forcement, although that’s critically important. Th ey want to ensure that there are programs in place to make sure that kids don’t go down that path. One of the speakers last night was a gentleman named Jesse Sahota. Jesse Sahota, in 2005, was heading to the gang life.

Jesse Sahota was concerned that his future rest- ed with the allure of big cars and fl ashy clothing. But it was programs within the school system that took him in another direction, took him on another path. He’s now a two-time Canadian wrestling champion, a graduate from Simon Fraser University and is employed by the Surrey school district to provide the same services that he got when he was going to choose the path of right or wrong. It was that response from the public that I heard last night. It wasn’t about snitch lines, as important as they are.

It wasn’t about families coming forward, as import- ant as that is. It was a concern from the public that the programs for kids are not available. Th ey start in schools. Th ey start with community ef- forts. Th ey start with mentoring. Jesse Sahota is a sym- bol of the right path. My question to the Premier is: can we make more Jesse Sahotas? I believe we can, and we do that by fund- ing programs in schools. Will the Premier commit to do that today? Hon. C. Clark: Both are necessary. Both are abso- lutely necessary. On the one hand, we need to deal with what’s going on today. We need to put those folks in jail.

We need to get them off the streets and end the threat that they pose to the people of Surrey and the citizens of British Columbia. Th at’s the fi rst part of it. Th e second

part is making sure that we’re doing every- thing that we can to prevent young people from joining gangs in the fi rst place, helping them fi nd a way to a life that is diff erent from the path that they might be going on or one that they see in their school — one that they think might be cool, one that might be the only place where they feel comfortable.

Part of that, an important part of that, is making sure that our schools, our school districts, police, cities, the province and the federal gov- ernment are all working together to make sure we sup- port young people in fi nding the right path. [1400] About $60 million a year goes into the RCMP to sup- port the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. Th ey work with anti-gang initiatives. Th ey are doing that work now. Th ey are going to continue to do that work. We are going to continue to evolve the work that we do and our approaches to anti-gang work in schools all across the province. It’s important work.

Prevention is worth a pound of cure. And in answer to the member’s question, we need both, and we are there to support the people of Surrey in making sure that we deliver on both. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a further supplemental. J. Horgan: I’ve been a member of this Legislature for ten years now, coming on next month. During that ten-year period I have been witness to debates in this Legislature. I’ve been witness to events in communities that have seen an escalation in violence, an escalation in concern and fear in communities and an absence of public safety.

Do we need to put these people behind bars? Absolutely. Do we need more law enforcement? Absolutely. Do we need to stop the pipeline of kids to these gangs, most importantly? Y es, we do. How do we do that? By giving those kids options, and most importantly, giving those families options. What I heard last night in Surrey was mothers and fath- ers standing up and saying: “If I need help, I’ve got no- where to turn. If I see my children going down the wrong path, I don’t know what to do, where to go, how to help them. ” Th at was the appeal from the community last night.

Were they concerned about an absence of police pres- ence at certain times of the evening? Were they requir- ing more police so we can get these people behind bars? Most assuredly. But the concern from the families was there was an absence of services for them. Th at starts with decisions that we make right here at budget time — the priorities we make as a society to help to lift kids up so they don’t turn to the dark side.

My ques- tion again to the Premier: will she commit today to pro- vide the resources to the Surrey school board, and other school boards in the Lower Mainland that are aff ected by this violence, and stop it where it starts? Hon. C. Clark: I should say, just to start with this, in terms of policing in Surrey, we have joined with the city

British Columbia Debates7500 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 of Surrey in calling on the federal government to address the request for 100 more offi cers as a priority for Surrey — so on the one side, making sure that there are more police available. In this case, though, however, the police have been very clear. It is not a shortage of resources. It’s a shortage of information, and I understand that family members, neighbours and friends are oft en reluctant to come for- ward and speak. I want to urge them to do so.

It is time that we ended this terrible carnage that we have seen in Surrey and allow that community to reclaim what it knows about itself so well, which is its title as one of the greatest places to live anywhere in Canada. When it comes to stopping kids going into gangs, there are a whole range of initiatives that we’ve been working on over the last decade and more to try to support that in schools, including the anti-bullying work that we do, including the work that we do in creating safe schools, in schools that have a safe and respectful culture.

Much of that is also focused at giving kids a safe place to go as an alternative to fi nding their way into gangs. Th e $60 million that I referenced — that is also being deployed on the ground. We need to continue to evolve this, absolutely. What I heard from their MLA who was there yesterday — the member from Surrey-Tynehead, a former police of- fi cer in Surrey himself — is that the community is vitally engaged in trying to fi nd solutions. So are we. We want this to end, and I will repeat this one last time.

Th e way to ensure that this ends is for people in Surrey who know something about this to come forward so that we can make sure that the people who are responsible fi nd their way to jail. W AIT TIMES FOR SURGERIES J. Darcy: Last week a national report was released that shows that wait-lists for some surgeries in British Columbia are amongst the worst in the country.

Th e min- ister tried to explain this away by throwing out numbers about how many surgeries have been performed. [1405] But according to this report, the CIHI report, prov- inces right across the country are providing “more pro- cedures now than they did fi ve years ago, yet wait times are remaining stable. ” Th ey’re remaining stable in other provinces, but not in British Columbia. In B.C. wait times are getting longer. When will the minister stop downplaying this serious problem and commit to taking action to shorten wait- lists in this province? Hon. T.

Lake: When I rose in the House last week on this question, I used the large increase in the hip re- placements and knee replacements in the province of British Columbia…. At a time when the population has increased 13.5 percent, those procedures have gone up 90 percent and 138 percent respectively — so a lot more procedures being done. Th ere are some inequities around the province. We see that on the Island, for instance, they’ve had some chal- lenges. As they did more resources into colonoscopy screening programs, that came at a cost perhaps to some elective surgeries.

Th ey are addressing that with an RFP to make sure that the surgical services are performed. We are working hard to make sure that British Columbians get timely access for elective surgeries in the province of British Columbia. Madame Speaker: Th e member for New Westminster on a supplemental. J. Darcy: Th e minister loves to throw out numbers. But Trevor Norsworthy is not a number. Trevor Norsworthy is a 72-year-old man who’s already waited 21 months for a hip replacement at Royal Inland Hospital, in the min- ister’s own community, and he still doesn’t have a date for his surgery.

Th at’s 21 months on heavy-duty painkillers, with his condition getting worse all the time. Y ou know, the minister’s tired old excuses are cold comfort. They’re cold comfort to people like Trevor and thousands of other people like him across British Columbia. Trevor Norsworthy deserves better. Madame Speaker: Question. J. Darcy: Fourteen years in government, the problem is getting worse, and the minister just keeps throwing out numbers and platitudes. Th at’s not good enough.

When is this minister going to take action so that Trevor and thousands of others like him don’t have to wait years and years in pain to get their surgeries? Hon. T. Lake: In my tradition of throwing out num- bers, how’s this? Between 1996 and 2001, when the NDP were in power — hip replacements, a 74 percent increase in wait times; knee replacements increased by 69 percent in terms of wait times. Th is is a challenge as the popu- lation ages. We all recognize that. And there are certain areas of the province where there are inequities.

For in- stance, there are some wait-lists that are longer than others — individual surgeons. We want to make sure that the best available technol- ogy is available for booking surgeries. We want to make sure there are models looked at, like we have here in Victoria with the fi rst available surgeon, so that that will speed up access to surgeries. We’re working extremely hard to make sure people do get timely access. If we want to talk about personal stories, we can talk about a 75-year-old skier who has had two hip replace- ments and three knee replacements and is still active.

Th at’s the system we have in British Columbia, and we’ll continue to make things better for all British Columbians.

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7501 B.C. AMBULANCE SERVICE RESPONSE TIMES K. Corrigan: In February we asked about the B.C. Ambulance Service’s refusal to release data on ambulance wait times. In fact, for a year and a half mayors across the Lower Mainland have been raising concerns about the risks associated with the downgrading of calls and longer wait times.

The minister insists this new ambulance regime is “good health care, ” but the minister’s former colleague who is now the mayor of Mission, Randy Hawes, says at least two residents have died waiting for ambulances in his community. [1410] My question to the minister: what does the minister have to say to the mayor of Mission, and does he still in- sist that, despite the growing body of evidence to the con- trary, this is good health care? Hon. T. Lake: B.C. Ambulance is a provincial ser- vice that has served the province of British Columbia for 41 years. It is a unique model in Canada.

It serves all of British Columbia, and it is the emergency room on wheels. It uses a dynamic deployment model to make sure that there are no borders. Th ey don’t recognize mu- nicipal boundaries. Th ey go where they’re needed to go. If you look at the data, it will show that the average response times in Mission and in Maple Ridge are un- changed over the last three years. Now, if there are situa- tions where fi rst responders or local government offi cials know of cases where there is a concern about response times, we want to know about that.

Th ere is a critical inci- dent review done every time there is a concern over that. We are using information from Mission to follow up on the information provided by the mayor. We are com- mitted to making sure that B.C. Ambulance provides a high-quality service, which they have done in British Columbia for 41 years. Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supple- mental. K. Corrigan: Well, I’m glad the minister is inviting communities to contact him when there are incidents.

In fact, the city of Burnaby has sent four letters to the VP of health at B.C. emergency health services about dozens of serious incidents, including one death. Th ere has been no response to any of the concerns. Communities across the Lower Mainland are raising similar serious incidences when ambulances simply are not responding adequately. My question to the minister: why is the government refusing to respond to the serious concerns about failures of the Ambulance Service? Is it trying to hide something?

And when is it going to fi x these potentially deadly prob- lems with ambulance wait times in the Lower Mainland? Hon. T. Lake: B.C. Ambulance does, in fact, look into every incident that’s reported to them. I have spoken with the chief medical offi cer for B.C. Ambulance, and they assure me that there have been no incidents as a result of the resource allocation plan changes that were made. In fact, what has happened is that the wait times — the response times for emergent calls — have actually decreased, which was the objective of the resource allo- cation plan. Having said that, B.C.

Ambulance Service is doing a Lower Mainland study to look at deployment and look at demand, because that’s something that they always want to do to ensure they are providing the very best care for British Columbians. INTERIOR TO LOWER MAINLAND TRANSMISSION PROJECT A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Energy about the $725 million Interior to Lower Mainland transmis- sion project. Th e main project, worth $384 million, was given to Liberal contributor Flatiron-Graham in 2011. Th e ILM project is more than a year late, costing tax- payers and ratepayers a bucket of money.

Th e minister doesn’t know what the fi nal costs will be. B.C. Hydro had to take back 20 kilometres, the most diffi cult 20 kilometres of the work, because of “failures by the contractor. ” Th ere was major non-compliance with provincial laws. Th e steels in towers, according to the minister, brought in from India by the contractor were below standard and repeatedly failed. Th e contractor, according to the minister, slowed down the work in order to extract more money from the Liberal government and B.C. Hydro. Th e whole issue is before an arbitrator. Doesn’t this mess demonstrate the failures of B.C.

Liberal and B.C. Hydro contracting policies? Hon. B. Bennett: Th e NDP wouldn’t know anything about the challenges of building things, because they didn’t build anything during the 1990s. [1415] We’re in the midst of the largest buildout of transmis- sion here in B.C. in 30 years. Th e ILM, Interior–Lower Mainland transmission line, is intended to ensure that power from the Peace and the Columbia is reliably de- livered to the Lower Mainland. In fact, when it is com- pleted, it’ll reduce transmission losses, saving about $23 million a year.

We’re expecting demand to increase by about 40 per- cent over the next 20 years. Th at has made it necessary to invest $2.4 billion a year. Th at’s a lot of money. Th at in- cludes Site C, of course, but it also includes several trans- mission lines — a lot of generation. Now, B.C. Hydro has 661 transmission and distribution projects that they have delivered over a fi ve-year period. Th e total budget was about $3⅓ billion. Th at’s between

British Columbia Debates7502 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 fi scal ’10 and fi scal ’14. On those 661 projects, they have been about 4 percent, almost 5 percent, under budget. I think that the record is clear that B.C. Hydro is doing a good job with its capital budget. Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental. A. Dix: It’s unbelievable. Th e minister is bragging — three major transmission projects under his leadership, fi ve years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Th at’s the record. B.C.

Hydro chose the contractor, a contributor to the Liberal Party, with limited experience in transmission pro- jects. According to the minister, the contractor’s source steel in towers that were below standard repeatedly failed. Th e project is delayed and a mess, and the ratepayers will have to pay for it. Th e minister is less managing the project than participating in an episode of Fawlty Towers. How can the minister say, with this record of failure on this project, that his tendering process is anything other than a disaster? Hon. B.

Bennett: I think what would be a disaster would be to be in government for ten years and not invest any appreciable amount of money in the system. Th at’s, in fact, what this group over here, many of them…. Th e Leader of the Opposition was actually the special ad- viser to the Energy minister. I can show the Leader of the Opposition the records, the annual reports from B.C. Hydro for the last 20 years. And I can show the hon. member or the critic that, in fact, when they had their opportunity — both of them — they failed to invest, in any meaningful way, in either transmission or genera- tion or distribution.

It is true that it is necessary today to spend $2.4 bil- lion a year on building out transmission and building out generation and building out distribution so that we can meet the demands of a growing population and a bur- geoning economy. PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK IN SOUTH OKANAGAN AREA S. Chandra Herbert: Happy Earth Day, hon. Speaker. Th e South Okanagan–Similkameen hosts some of the most endangered landscapes and species in Canada. It also is the home of a proposed project that could gener- ate millions of dollars, many jobs, while protecting those species. I speak, of course, of the proposed national park.

A recent survey shows, yet again, that the public sup- ports discussions to get to that national park. Th at sup- port is widespread. Local tourism associations, chambers of commerce, local leaders, the wine industry and, most importantly, residents support this — good for jobs, good for the environment. My question to the Minister of Environment: why does her government refuse to act? [1420] Hon. M. Polak: May I also extend a Happy Earth Day to our colleagues across the way, and yourself, Madame Speaker.

Th ere’s no question that in the South Okanagan, the community, the First Nations, place huge value on their natural landscape and for many years have talked about the potential for a national park. However, a national park is one tool that, in fact, is fairly restrictive when it comes to some of the other many activities that people hold important in that region. So the member is wrong. It’s not that we have not taken any action. In fact, we’re taking what can be even more valuable action. Together with the local MLA for the region I have al- ready been to the area twice where we have met with community groups.

We now have an ongoing discus- sion with the Okanagan Nation Alliance. In fact, we had a half-day meeting with the Okanagan Nation Alliance where we identifi ed the kind of provincial tools that allow us to provide the types of protections that people want, while at the same time being able to allow the activities to take place that they also value. Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver–West End on a supplemental. S.

Chandra Herbert: Local leaders, the chambers of commerce, the tourism industry will tell you that you need a national park designation if you want to make the millions of dollars, if you want to create all the jobs. Th at’s why they propose that we start discussions again. Indeed, the public supports them. In the Boundary- Similkameen constituency 65 percent of residents support the idea of a national park. In the Penticton constituency support is even higher at 75 percent. Th e Liberal MLA for Penticton has spoken support. Th e NDP has as well.

Indeed, our all-party Finance Committee united to call for discussions to begin again. Good for jobs, good for the environment. Why does this government refuse to act? Hon. M. Polak: Th e fact is, if there’s a jurisdiction in North America that leads with respect to protections on the environment and environmental values while still growing the economy and growing jobs, it’s British Columbia. I’m not sure. Perhaps the member has misplaced his memories around our extensive British Columbia park system. Th ose parks have millions of visitors each and every year. Wells Gray Park is not a national park.

It’s an extremely popular park. Th e need here is to balance the interests in protecting the values on the land base while at the same time en-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7503 suring that activities of communities, businesses and also First Nations can continue. Th at is extremely diffi cult to achieve just with a national park. We have the range of tools to accomplish it. We’re going to do that together with the community and the First Nations. CHILD DEATH CASE AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION D. Donaldson: Isabella Wiens, 21 months old, died while in the care of the ministry, on March 16, 2013.

A postmortem conducted three days aft er her death listed multiple bruises found on her chin, forehead and face, arms and legs; fractures in her upper and lower arm; swelling of the brain. A year later the coroner’s offi ce completed their report and found the cause of death un- determined. We now know a decision was made by the designat- ed director on the minister’s staff to not conduct a case review into this tragic death. It’s unbelievable that the minister refuses to answer basic process questions, citing privacy around this case, when the lack of transparency could put other children at risk.

Th ere are also too many unanswered questions in this case for her not to comment. When and how did the injuries that were identifi ed in the postmortem exam occur? What medical treatment was sought for her frac- tured bones? Why was the foster home she lived in shut down? I have written a letter to the minister with these very questions and others and will release it directly aft er question period today. So to the minister: you’ve repeatedly refused to answer questions in this House. So will you commit today to an- swering the questions in my letter that Isabella’s mother deserves answers for? [1425] Hon. S.

Cadieux: Once again, the circumstances the member references are, for the family, certainly tragic. Due to the privacy laws in the province and the CFCSA provisions, I’m not going to speak about the specifi cs of this case in the House. I have outlined in this House and in the media, and for the member, multiple times the thorough processes and oversight that exist in cases like this and how that procedure unfolds. I will be happy to respond to the member’s letter. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation — and, in this cham- ber, committee stage debate on Bill 24, the Societies Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 24; R. Chouhan in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:29 p.m. On

section 1. Hon. M. de Jong: Just by way of introduction to the topic, fi rst of all, very pleased that we are joined today by Jill Sinkwich, Tona Hetherington and Marcus Gill. [1430] Th e hon. member opposite generously, in her second reading remarks, referred to the tireless eff orts of many people within government and outside of government. Today we will have the benefi ts of those who have toiled on this project many years from within government.

In acknowledging their presence and contribution, I also want to highlight the contribution of those who are perhaps watching but have certainly made a contribution to the statutory product before us. I also want to alert the committee and the hon. mem- ber that when we get to

section 289, there is a one-digit fl oor amendment relating to an error that appeared in the fi nal bill. I will certainly highlight it when we get there.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. C. James: Th ank you to the minister, and thank you to staff . As the minister has said in the opening of this bill when we went through second reading, it was important to acknowledge the years of consultation that have oc- curred on this bill. I think the fact is that most not-for- profi ts, most societies, have been very pleased with the changes that were made and the work that was done. I want to pass along my appreciation, as well, to the min- ister and staff for that good work.

Under the purposes section, subsection 2(3), there is a mention that: “Th e registrar may, in writing and giving reasons, order a society to alter its purposes if the registrar considers one or more of those purposes to be contrary to this Act or otherwise unlawful. ” Does the registrar have the power to issue penalties for contravention of this section? Hon. M. de Jong: No specifi c power per se to issue a fi ne for disregarding an order of this sort. Th ere is an ul- timate power relating to the registrar’s ability to dissolve a society but no specifi c fi ne attached to enforcement of this provision. C.

James: So no stepped-up — or stepped-down pro-

British Columbia Debates7504 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 cess, depending on how you take a look at it — for a so- ciety if there is a contravention? Th ere is no distinction between which issues will withdraw and which won’t. Basically, you have the right to withdraw the society from the Societies Act if there is contravention? Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. One, to serve as a practical matter.

Whereas there may be areas in the 300-plus sections of the act that occasionally cre- ate friction between the registrar and a society, generally, at the formation stage, the incorporation stage, societies want to ensure that they are in compliance. As a prac- tical matter, they are inclined to want to ensure that their formative documentation is in good order. Secondly, with respect to the penalty that is available, the sin in this case has less to do with the actual circum- stance than with the failure to abide by the order of the registrar. It is to that issue that the penalty applies. Sections 2 and 3 approved. On

section 4. [1435] C. James: Speaking to

section 4, “Restrictions on dis- tributions, ” subsection (a). It says: “ A society must not distribute any of its money or other property other than (

a) for full and valuable consideration. ” I wonder if the minister could just speak to the use of that language — “a full and valuable consideration. ” What does that entail, and what type of consideration would be considered full and valuable? Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. It is essentially language designed to ensure and encourage the receipt of market value for the distribution of assets or property. It is also that phrase drawn from the existing act. It is a phrase that already exists in the existing statute. C.

James: It was just an odd use of language, which was why I was curious whether there was something more than just market value in that. Th e second piece in this same section, subsection 4(c), speaks to a qualifi ed recipient. I wonder if the minister could give a description around what or who would be a qualifi ed recipient when they’re talking about how a so- ciety must not distribute any of its money other than to a qualifi ed recipient. Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, it’s an appropriate question. Assistance can be derived from the defi nition section,

section 1. It’s a defi ned term. I won’t read the defi nition into the record, but it is on the second page of defi nitions, under “qualifi ed recipient. ” Th ere are fi ve subsections, and if there is a particular one that engages the member’s interests, I’ll expand on the answer. Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved. On

section 7. C. James:

Section 7 talks about restricted activities and powers. It says: “ A society must not…. ” And then goes through to talk about various activities. Subsection 7(2) then says: “

An act of society…is not invalid merely because the act is contrary to subsection (1). ” It appears to contradict itself. I’m sure there’s an ex- planation from the minister. Subsection (1) and subsec- tion (2) appear to contradict themselves, with one saying the society does something and the other saying they won’t be in contravention if don’t do it. I wonder if the minister could go through that. Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll begin here, if this is helpful. The hon. member has referred to the specific subsec- tion which within its provisions includes reference to a specifi c type of transaction.

It extends beyond that, but I think it’s instructive to focus on the type of transaction as contemplated specifi cally in the section, a transfer of property. I’m advised that two things have occurred here with respect to the amendment. One is an attempt to incor- porate what is standard corporate law language, and the objective there is to create legal certainty, particularly with respect to and on behalf of a third party. In a circumstance where, for example, a society had eff ected a disposition of real property….

We, for this ex- ample, presume that I represent the society and that I have purported to transfer real property to the member and, for a reason I won’t try to enunciate here, am acting contrary to the provisions of my society but the member, as the purchaser of that property, is acting in good faith and receives, in exchange for fair consideration, title in that property.

Th e rationale is that the member — in this case, the third party — should be able to rely on that transaction and not have to worry about whether or not the society has conducted itself in accordance with its own internal processes — which, in this case, the purchaser may have no access to. [1440] C. James: Th e minister mentioned land, and I think that’s the easiest and clearest way of looking at it. But are there any other circumstances that the minister would see, then, where the act of a society isn’t merely invalid? Are there other examples other than land sales? Hon.

M. de Jong: I don’t believe it is meant to be re- strictive. It may be a contract for services. It could be an employment contract, for that matter, I suppose, where the third party who is relying on the fact that they have entered into an agreement in good faith need not con-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7505 cern themselves with whether or not the society has car- ried on an activity or exercised a power inconsistent with what is authorized by its bylaws. It could be just about any kind of contractual relationship that a third party would have with the society. Sections 7 and 8 approved. On

section 9. C. James: Th is

section speaks to reserving a name for the purposes of the act and talks about requirements to reserve a name for the society. It also says under subsec- tion 9(5) that the registrar “may, in writing and giving reasons, order a society to change its name” if it’s contrary to the requirements or if “the registrar, for good and valid reasons, disapproves of the name. ” I wonder if the min- ister could just give an explanation around what might be good reasons to disapprove of a name by a registrar. Hon.

M. de Jong: Th ere is a whole, I’m advised, broad range of policies that govern the exercise of this admit- tedly discretionary authority on the part of the registrar. Trademark infringement, profanity, use of or reference or allusion to the monarchy, the royal family…. Th ere is, apparently, a broad range of policy. Th is may not be at the top of the member’s hit parade today or even tomor- row, but if she would like to have that information, it is readily available. C. James: Very much summer reading, perhaps, Minister. Is it appealable?

Are there appeals to the registrar if a society feels that there’s a valid reason for the name to be there? Is there a process for that? Hon. M. de Jong: Th e short answer is that there is. It’s a rather drastic step insofar as, under the Business Corporations Act, which is incorporated here, it is an ap- peal to the court. I don’t want to leave the impression that there is some administrative mechanism short of that. It’s a rather drastic step that would need to be taken to appeal the exercise of the discretionary authority.

Section 9 approved. On

section 10. C. James: In

section 10 — just a curiosity question, perhaps. It says in the section: “ A society must not have a constitution that contains provisions in addition to the name and purposes of the society. ” Again, I’m just curi- ous why it would limit a constitution to not include more information than those provisions — than the name and purpose of the society. [1445] Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded that there is a fairly practical imperative operating here. But it also relates to a change around this notion of unalterable provisions.

What we have now, I’m advised, is a circumstance where a society would have these formative provisions, many times contained within their constitution and others con- tained within their bylaws. Th e purpose is, candidly, I think, to strip down the constitution and have all of the provisions that would be relevant to determining the purpose for which a society exists, the rules by which it must operate…. And whilst there are no longer unalterable provisions, there may be provisions that require 100 percent of membership sup- port, unanimity amongst the members, to change.

Th e objective here is to have those all in one place in the bylaws. It becomes particularly important with respect to electronic fi ling and the notion that a third party or mem- ber, for that matter — let’s start with a member — could go to a single site, a single place, and know that the description of how this society has determined to operate is contained fully within those provisions. I think that lies at the heart of the rather curious language that the member has identifi ed. Sections 10 and 11 approved. On

section 12. C. James: Again, I appreciate the minister’s responses. I think it’s important to remember — and I think that sec- tion identifi ed it — that a large portion of the work that was done with this act is around modernization, around making sure that it fi ts what happens now with societies. I appreciate that. I wonder if this is similar when we’re talking about sec- tion 12, where it talks about the full names and addresses of the directors of a society. I think that’s pretty straight- forward. I think most people would see that. But in sub-

section 2(

a) it mentions the director’s residential address. I just wondered, around protection of privacy issues, whether there are any concerns that were raised there, and why the director’s residential address would be listed. Hon. M. de Jong: Th anks to the member for the ques- tion. I think it would be troubling if the requirement was for the residential address, but what the draft ers have en- deavoured to do here is provide an option. Th e key objective here is to create a mechanism by which a director is obliged to disclose where they can be found. It might be…. Well, (

b) of course provides an option, but if a director is not in a position to or wishes not to provide a daytime, if I can use that term, address, then they are obliged…. Meaning a precondition, if we take to this to its logical extension, to serving as a direc- tor is disclosing where you can be located as a director on a reasonably regular basis for the purpose of receiv- ing documentation or requests.

British Columbia Debates7506 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 C. James: I appreciate that. I just wonder about the number of directors of not-for-profi t societies who are retired, who don’t have a workplace. Th at’s a large por- tion, I think. A lot of our not-for-profi ts continue to go because of retirees. [1450] Are these documents — just to remember from other clauses in the bill — accessible by members of the soci- ety? Are they accessible by members of the public? I’m just curious where that director’s residential address will be. Would that be accessible by members of the public or members of the society? Hon.

M. de Jong: I think the key part of the member’s question was where that information would be available. I think it would be available in terms of a search of the registry that would…. Th e person would need to list. It’s an improvement to this extent: apparently the existing provision only has sub (a). So there’s been an option. I’ll be careful how I say this, because I don’t want to in any way belittle or diminish, but the member said some- thing that’s very practical about societies in which there are many seniors, and this might apply to societies that do not include seniors. But I suppose sub (

b) would allow, if someone were a regular attendee on a daily basis at a seniors centre, that that, too, could qualify as an address. Although I think, as a practical matter, most people will opt for something other.

Section 12 approved. On

section 13. C. James: Just a quick question on

section 13. Th is talks about the incorporation of a society by fi ling with the registrar, and it talks about the information that’s re- quired — so the name, the constitution, the bylaws and a statement of directors. I wondered whether, when information is varied or changed in the future, that would impact the incorpora- tion of the society. As directors change, etc., are there re- quirements? Perhaps it comes up later as we go through the bill — requirements around how soon that change has to happen. Would that impact the incorporation of a society? Hon.

M. de Jong: I may not have properly understood the question, and the member will correct me. Where there are changes along the way, as there inevitably are, with the directors and bylaws and addresses and regis- tered offi ces and so on and so forth, there is an obliga- tion to fi le. Now, we’re hoping, through the advent and the statutory accommodation of the use of technology, that that will be a task more easily performed.

I suspect that the member and I, in having the conver- sation we are having and will continue to have about the provisions, are tending to think a lot not necessarily about the societies that exist with vast staffi ng levels and layers of expertise and complexities but the myriad of societies that operate on the strength of volunteers exclusively. Th e big change in this section, I think, relates to the fact that now one or more persons can incorporate. I believe under the previous provision it required a min- imum of fi ve.

Th at’s the signifi cant change here, but there are, to be sure, obligations to keep the records up to date through the passage of time. [1455] L. Krog: Th e minister raises a point I wish to ask a couple of questions around, and that is with respect to the number of persons required to incorporate a soci- ety. Th is is a signifi cant shift in law, and I’ d appreciate some explanation from the minister why this particular change has been brought forward, particularly given the number of scandals and issues that have arisen around certain societies in the province, how they’ve been man- aged and handled.

As I’ve mentioned in this chamber myself, there was a local society in Nanaimo that was responsible for ensur- ing that immigrant families got settled. Th ey received all sorts of funding and had one employee and one family to look aft er. I think the word on the street was that that person was paid about $50,000 a year to handle the settle- ment of one immigrant family. What happens in societies is somewhat important, so I’m curious to know: why the reduction to one, and is there any further requirement beyond having one mem- ber?

Th e section, I do know, talks about a statement of directors, so I presume the presumption is that there will be more than one director. I’ d appreciate hearing from the Finance Minister why we are doing this this way now. Hon. M. de Jong: A few relevant bits of information to convey to the member. Th e fi rst part does not necessar- ily qualify as an ultimate rationale for the change except to point out factually that the Business Corporations Act has made this shift in favour of allowing incorporation by as few as one person, as well as the federal, Ontario and Saskatchewan not-for-profi t acts.

So this is not un- precedented nationally in terms of either corporate or societal provisions. I take it the problem that arose with the existing provi- sions was that whilst they required fi ve members for the purpose of incorporating, there was no prohibition on a reduction in those members over time. A society could begin with fi ve and in short order end up with one. Th ere is a requirement, which we will get to later in these ample provisions, that three directors be maintained. Th e mem- ber referred to that in his question — the fact that there will be a requirement for more than one director.

Th e fi nal thing I might say in response to the question — two things, actually — is that this will assist with re-

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7507 spect to the provision of the on-line registration appli- cation process. But none of the other provisions — call them safeguard accountability provisions — that govern a society that incorporates with one person…. Th ey all apply. Now, there’s that distinction between self-funded and otherwise. But all of the provisions that apply will continue to apply to societies, notwithstanding the fact they may have been incorporated on the strength of one member, including the need to maintain three directors. [1500] L.

Krog: I don’t purport to be an expert on the new bill or an expert on societies. But from a historical perspec- tive, we’re now shift ing from a society to the two types of society — I understand that — self-funded and those which receive funding from government sources. I sup- pose the issue becomes one of the public interest and public scrutiny, really, if you have a society that has one member and its three directors — and yes, there are re- porting qualifi cations, etc.

But it seems to me that one of the benefi ts of having at least a minimum number of members — the old Society Act was defi cient in that; I get that — is that there is a greater opportunity for scrutiny of the behaviour of those members of the society or the society in general, because surely there are special privileges attached, from tax and other perspectives, and presumptions about value and all sorts of things relating to someone being able to say, “Well, I’m the president of the Good Earth Fellowship Society” or whatever the case may be.

My concern is that even though there may be provisions respecting scrutiny, as the minister has outlined, which we’ll come to later during the course of committee stage…. Nevertheless, one person being able to incorporate a soci- ety — is there a societal interest in allowing any one of us to incorporate a society? Is there some benefi t to the com- munity? Is there something to be presumed of some value? It’s not like a corporation. If you incorporate a corpora- tion, your intent is to make money, presumably. No one incorporates a company just because they want to have a corp.

Well, some people might, I suppose, but most people are doing it because there are advantages from a tax perspective, from a liability perspective, from a num- ber of perspectives. Again, I want to ask this question. What interest is there in society in general that is being promoted by al- lowing one person to incorporate a society? Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think it’s a legitimate question to pose.

My philosophical response to it relates to the fact that in dealing with the desire that people have on a not-for-profi t basis to engage in certain activities and to engage the attention of fellow citizens, by defi n- ition, it seems to me, there is generally an interest in at- tracting colleagues and like-minded people, whatever the area of interest may be. At the same time, though, I suppose it is conceivable that an individual may decide that they have a particular focus for an activity in mind and wish to create a mech- anism by which they can present those ideas, or engage in that activity, to others.

I say this not to be glib. Is it appropriate to require that person, before they are able to avail themselves of this vehicle — as a prerequisite to that — to have to convince even one other person that it is a good idea? I don’t have a good example. People that engage in this work are gen- erally surrounded by like-minded people and have a pas- sion and share that passion with others. Conceptually, at least, should we be saying to some- one: “ As a prerequisite to utilizing this instrument, you have to be able to convince at least X number of other people that your cause is a worthy one”?

Y ou can make it a question. We tell people who want to run for public offi ces that they have to convince X number of people before they can engage in that activity. [1505] Th e choice that is made here is to say: “No, although you must have directors. So I guess you’ll have to con- vince at least three other people that your idea is worth pursuing. ” L. Krog: I appreciate I may be carrying this point fur- ther than there may be interest in it, but it just strikes me that it’s a privilege given by law. It’s not a right.

Th e con- stitution doesn’t recognize to incorporate yourself as a society, but essentially, this act provides that privilege to you. One person can incorporate themselves as a society, receive the benefi ts of that, as long as, as the minister has pointed out, you can persuade three directors. Then, arguably, as a self-funded society, it might help…. Perhaps the minister can answer this a little ear- lier than he might have had to in the course of committee stage. A self-funded society — does that mean you put the money in yourself, or does that mean you’re entitled to go out and collect money from others? Mr.

Smith incorporates his Happy Society and says, “I’m going to go out and look aft er” — I don’t know — “stray deer in Oak Bay, ” as a local example. “I’m going to take my tin cup around, and I’m going to collect a whole pile of money. Th ere’s me and there are the three direc- tors who watch me. I’m a self-funded society. I’ve man- aged to collect $50,000. I decide that I work really hard at this, and as the directors approve my salary at $49,900…. ” Is that rather silly scenario that I’ve just created pos- sible with this statute?

Apart from the three directors, who’ d be there to criticize it if I’m wandering around Oak Bay collecting the money for this worthy cause of look- ing aft er the stray deer? Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t think it’s a ridiculous ques- tion. Later in the provisions, though, to answer the specif- ic question or concern that’s been raised, the collection

British Columbia Debates7508 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 of public donations, and we haven’t…. Th e amount will be specifi ed in regulation. Th e collection of public do- nations beyond that amount would preclude the kind of scenario from developing that the member has alluded to. We have not stipulated the amount in regulation thus far, and I actually don’t have an answer if the member’s next question is: what do I think the appropriate amount is? I don’t have a ready response for him yet, but hopefully, that in part provides some comfort to the member that the kind of scenario he has described would not occur. Sections 13 to 20 inclusive approved. On

section 21. C. James: If we get big sections without questions, we’ll make sure we pass them along.

Section 21 speaks to the issue of records and the keep- ing of records and the disposal of records. I wonder if the minister could tell us: have there been changes from the previous act? Th is talks about ten years since the re- cord was created. Is that consistent? And why ten years? Is that consistent with the previous act? Just to add, as well: who decides which records are relevant? Where is the description of “relevant”? Is that in defi nitions some- where, or is that something that the society determines or the registrar? [1510] Hon. M. de Jong: If I can endeavour to answer the question in this way, in terms of the question of relevance, I think we derive some guidance from

section 20 in terms of the types of records that would be covered. It’s worth pointing out and reminding ourselves that through the electronic fi ling mechanism, some of the key documents will now be available for those who are entitled to see them on line. Th ere will be — from my experience with volunteer-driven societies, at least — a great benefi t there. Th e ultimate relief, I think, the

section provides re- lates to the fact that there was no limitation period pre- viously. My guess is that the hon. member, in her days of volunteerism, has been confronted by the shoebox or the archive box full of stuff that makes its way from one secretary-treasurer to the other over the years. At least this will limit that shoebox or archive box to ten years. Hopefully,

section 20 will provide some guidance — and the fact that documents are available for viewing on line and kept current on line. C. James: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I had the largest house in the neighbourhood, so oft en those boxes were kept at my house for many societies. I complete- ly understand. I think it’s important to have a timeline, which is why I asked around the ten years. I think, similar to other sections that we’ll talk about as we move on through committee stage….

I think the minister alluded to it earlier when he mentioned the dif- ference in societies — the diff erence in size, in capacity, in staff abilities, any staff or simply volunteers. I think there will be sections of this act that are going to need a strong education component to go with them, particularly, as I said, for those very small societies. I could see societies wondering: “What is no longer rel- evant? What don’t we need to keep?” Or: “What do we need to keep?” I think the fact that they can be guided by the previous section….

But perhaps some education will be necessary as we go through this, just to provide that support and end up with some consistency for societies. I think, cer- tainly, diff erent boards of directors in diff erent years are going have a very diff erent view around what’s relevant to the activities of the society as it changes over the years. Hon. M. de Jong: I agree entirely with the hon. mem- ber. We’re in the midst of working through a transition plan: educational, documentation programming; website availability to assist with the transition. But I agree en- tirely with the hon. member.

Sections 21 and 22 approved. On

section 23. C. James:

Section 23 deals with the diff erent methods in which records can be kept, precautions around keep- ing records, keeping those records in a complete state. It talks about avoiding loss or destruction to those docu- ments, falsifi cation, etc. I wondered with this

section and a couple of other sections, but this

section in particular: are there penal- ties that are in place anywhere around contraventions of this section? And who inspects, or who checks? How will there ever be any checks to know whether societies are starting to follow this or even contravening the act? [1515] Hon. M. de Jong: Th e act — this

section of the act, to be specifi c — is largely instructive, as opposed to includ- ing sanction. It would allow — again, in a case where the extraordinary step or the extraordinary proceedings in- volving a court were undertaken — for a court to inter- vene and, I suppose, render an order consistent with the section. I don’t want to, again, leave the impression that were a society to fi nd itself wanting, there is a fi ne in the range of X to Y that is available for the registrar to impose. Th at is not the case.

But in a situation where things had escal- ated to judicial involvement, it does provide a mechan- ism for the court to provide an order. C. James: I appreciate the minister’s response. I don’t think at this stage — particularly with the new act and

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7509 with the major changes that are occurring here, supported by most societies — that looking at fi nes or looking at that kind of penalty is going to be helpful for societies, which are going to have some major changes, for very small so- cieties, to have to start following and paying attention to. Th at’s a plus, from my perspective, to hear.

Section 23 approved. On

section 24. C. James:

Section 24 and

section 25. One talks about access to records; one talks about restriction of access to records. So the two clauses kind of go together.

Section 24 speaks about a member of a society inspecting records of the society that they are required to keep. I just wondered whether the minister, in his consul- tations or the ministry consultations or the round table, foresaw any challenges or any issues around access to rec- ords in this section. I think, again, when you create legis- lation that covers all societies…. Oft en we talk about the exceptions, where there may be challenges or there may be a member who wants to access documents over and over and over again for, perhaps, not positive purposes for the society or the act.

Th is certainly isn’t something that I think would hap- pen with all societies. I think it’s those rare cases, but I wondered whether there had been any discussion in the consultations that the minister had gone through about any kinds of challenges that societies saw around the in- spection of records section. Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, because she zeroed in on an area, I wouldn’t say there was a raging contro- versy around this, but there was interest. I’m trying to re- call if it came up in the large session that we had. It may have, peripherally. In eff ect, here is the change.

I was asking to be reminded about a circumstance under the Business Corporations Act. It’s really a question of the presumptions. In the Business Corporations Act model, there is a presump- tion that shareholders do not have access to certain things. [1520] Th e model here is to enshrine, statutorily, a presump- tion in favour of members and directors having access to basic societal records and documentation but also cre- ating, within these provisions, a mechanism by which, through the bylaws, there can be certain restrictions placed.

For example, restrictions that restrict a mem- ber’s access to minutes of directors meetings and soci- ety accounts. Th e presumption, the default, is in favour of access, and then in certain circumstances, creates a mechanism by which societies can provide for some restrictions. Th e provision, the alteration engaged…. It did engage atten- tion from certain quarters within the family of societies. I would describe that as interest — in a couple of instances, perhaps, disagreement. But I wouldn’t say that it regis- tered as a raging controversy. C.

James: I’ve heard some of that concern, but I would agree with the minister. It certainly isn’t people saying: “Don’t pass the act because there are huge concerns. ” I think this one may be one where staff may be wanting to take a look at the bylaws that are passed around access to information, because that may give an idea of whether there’s potential to come up later on if societies are pass- ing lots of bylaws around access to information. It may raise a red fl ag or it may raise some issues to be looked at as the act is implemented over the years.

Th at may be an interesting piece just from a research perspective, to be able to gather and take a look at how that’s implemented.

Section 24 approved. On

section 25. C. James: Again, I think a similar kind of question, and it may be the same kind of answer around restric- tions of information. Th is section,

section 25, talks about that the inspection of register of members may be restricted. Th is is access to the society’s register of members. But it appears that, by default, members are allowed to see that registry of mem- bers unless they pass a bylaw. Have I got that correct? Th e access is open unless the society determines through a by- law that there has to be a change there around members. Hon. M. de Jong: What the member says, I think, is a correct analysis. Th ere is a presumption in favour of ac- cess to the register of members. Th at can be altered by a director’s resolution that would restrict that.

I am advised that the federal, Ontario and Saskatchewan not-for-profi t statutes do not provide a mechanism by which access to the register of members could be restrict- ed. Th e act here is diff erent to that extent. Th ere is a presumption in favour of access but a mech- anism by which the directors of the society could choose to limit that access. C. James: Around restrictions of the use of the infor- mation. Th ere’s a mention there in the restriction of the use of the information. I just wondered if…. Again, back to the penalties issue.

Would it be a matter of the per- son whose information was used incorrectly bringing forward a concern to the society? Is that how, I guess, a concern or a charge or a worry to the society would be brought forward if that information was misused? [1525] Hon. M. de Jong: No specifi c remedy…. Well, the pos- sibility of injunctive relief to prevent an ongoing trans-

British Columbia Debates7510 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 gression of the act is one remedy. I was going to say, “No remedy, ” but I suppose that is a remedy. No specifi c mon- etary sanction or remedy enunciated within the provi- sions. I suppose, in a worst-case scenario where damages had been suff ered by an individual as a result of a failure to abide by these provisions, the possibility of a civil ac- tion that included pleadings to the extent that these pro- visions hadn’t been followed would be a possibility. V . Huntington: I note that

section 25 in the draft of the bill contained a clause that allowed the members to inspect the register for other matters related to the inter- nal aff airs of the society. Th at has been deleted from the fi nal bill. I’m wondering if the minister could explain why they felt that was unnecessary or why they felt it should be a restriction to the members. So “matters related to…the internal aff airs of the so- ciety” — I notice that that phrase pops up in

section 26. Whether that’s considered a redundancy or a mistake, I’m not sure. Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded that in the submis- sions we received from agencies within the family of so- cieties was a concern that that language was simply too broad in terms of what it specifi cally was intended to con- vey or what that meant members were to have access to. I think this member’s specific question was: what gave rise to the decision to delete it from the fi nal draft ?

At the end of the day, we were convinced that the ob- jectives around providing reasonable access to societal documentation and records could be achieved without this sort of broad, ill-defi ned notion that was included in the white paper. V . Huntington: I can understand that that’s the purpose behind the deletion.

I guess where I’m concerned is that if you look at sub 25(1), the directors can restrict access if they feel that “the inspection would be harmful to the soci- ety or to the interests of one or more of its members. ” If the need to inspect the register had to do with a concern about activities within the society that might be considered im- proper, then, can the directors forestall any inspection of the register that might be necessary in an attempt to fi nd out improper activities or something of that nature? [1530] Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize.

I was trying to follow very closely the member’s question, and I can probably prattle on, but it won’t help the member get an answer. Maybe she could take another crack at helping me to understand the question. V . Huntington: I oft en have to repeat my questions. I think you intimidate me, Minister. I’m worried that when you delete the clause or the phrase “other matters related to the internal aff airs, ” then if a member was genuinely concerned and wanted to in- spect the register because he thought there was some- thing happening within the society and yet….

What my concern is, is that with the deletion of that ability, 25(1) enables the directors to restrict an inspec- tion if they think that it might be harmful to a member of the society or to the society. If that restriction was self- motivated or self-interested, there would be no ability to access the register if you were concerned about improper motives and that restriction was put in place. Is that a concern or am I…? I’m looking only at a narrow issue here, but I’m worried that the restrictions might prevent somebody from an inspection that would be worthwhile. Hon.

M. de Jong: I’ll take this crack at it and, hope- fully, lurch towards an appropriate and comprehensible answer. Th e fi rst thing I would say is this. And I think the member knows this. It’s as much for my benefi t as hers. We are dealing with inspection of a specifi c docu- ment here within the societal fi le of documents, and that is the register of members. The second thing is that for reasons contemplated within 25(1), the directors quite clearly have the ability to restrict a member’s access or ability to review that docu- ment, that register of members.

What they do not have the right to do, notwithstanding their determination of what is harmful or in the interests of the society or one of the members, is contained in sub (7) of this section, where a member for those purposes is, in all instances, entitled to review the register of members. Th e balance, I believe, that is being sought here relates to circumstances where, for example, someone might seek membership in a society for no other reason than to garner information for marketing purposes.

So with respect to the legitimate and important functions con- templated within subsection (7), a member does have access to the register of members. [1535] But quite clearly, the act would preserve or create a mechanism by which directors, for other reasons, could restrict a member’s right of access to that one document, to that register, that one fi le, the register of members. It represents an attempt to fi nd a balance between the de- sire to preserve access and enhance access but also pro- tect the interests of the society and the members who are within that society.

Section 25 approved. On

section 26. V . Huntington: Just quickly, then,

section 26 says that a member must not use the information he obtains from the inspection of the register of directors “except in con- nection with matters related to the activities or internal

British Columbia DebatesWednesday, April 22, 2015 7511 aff airs of the society. ” Has that been left in deliberately? Or is it an oversight, seeing as how it was removed from the draft in 25? I just wanted to add that I’m not totally familiar with

section 20, and I recognize that 26 refers to the register of directors, but I’m presuming that the internal aff air clause is not in

section 20 also. Hon. M. de Jong: I think what the draft ers and the government are endeavouring to acknowledge here is that there is diff erent information contained in two dif- ferent places. Th e registry will contain the name of direc- tors, and there are to my knowledge no restrictions that apply to the use of the information — that basic infor- mation that one receives from a perusal of the registry.

Conversely, the register of directors will contain other information and contact information, and therefore, there is a test that is applied in an attempt to ensure that that information, that additional information, is only used for specifi c purposes as enunciated. Th e discrep- ancy, if you will, or the diff erence — maybe that’s a bet- ter word — relates to the fact that between the registry and the register there is diff erent information available. Sections 26 to 33 inclusive approved. On

section 34. C. James:

Section 34 talks about borrowing and issu- ance of securities. I just wondered if the minister could talk about whether there are any limits on the amount or the amounts that societies could borrow or loan, in this section. Any limitations or anything coming in regula- tions? [1540] Hon. M. de Jong: One of the issues that arose during the various stages of consultation was the concern that at the moment, absent specifi c authority, there were lim- its on a society.

Th is kind of turns that on its head and says that the presumption is in favour of an authority to, an ability to, issue debt obligations unless there are by- law restrictions. It may be my nature, but I see some…. Notwithstanding the desire to create some freedom of choice, I could say that as a member of a society, I would probably want to create some bylaw-level restrictions on the borrowing power of the organization. Th e member is quite correct. Th is represents a change insofar as it will be for the members, via the bylaws, to determine what those restrictions are. C. James: I can understand the change.

I think it does put the onus on the society and the members of the so- ciety to be sure that they’re doing those checks and bal- ances and are paying attention. Again, as we talked about earlier, with the variety of kinds of societies, I think this is probably a piece that will be important around the edu- cation piece, not simply for the directors in the society but for members of the society to pay attention to as well. Hon. M. de Jong: I agree.

Section 34 approved. On

section 35. C. James: On

section 35. Th is talks about fi nancial statements. It talks about end of a fi scal year and getting fi nancial statements in. It just has a piece in subsection (2)(

b) that talks about ending not more than six months before the annual general meeting, which, if I read it correctly, could actually leave people with a six-month fi nancial statement. If you’re talking about the fi nancial statements beginning at a fi scal year-end and, at most, being provided six months before the annual general meeting, you could in fact end up with a six-month fi - nancial statement. Does the minister foresee the six months being any kind of challenge? Hon. M. de Jong: Th e timing around this is carried forward, I’m advised, from the existing legislation, so no change there.

What is contemplated, though, is the pos- sibility, by a regulation, to create an option for simplifi ed fi nancial statements for smaller societies, and there will need to be a test for what qualifi es as a smaller society. Th e idea is to try and create a mechanism by which…. It’s for some of the organizations with less capacity and less sophistication — when I say that, I don’t mean that in a pejorative way — to be able to present easily under- stood material that reveals the state of their fi scal situa- tion but is somewhat short of what we might expect of a large, complex organization. Timeframes unchanged.

Th e possibility of a mechan- ism by which the burden smaller societies face…. Having some options is probably the biggest change in this sec- tion.

Section 35 approved. On

section 36. [1545] V . Huntington:

Section 36, I fi nd quite interesting. If I’m reading it correctly, the government will determine a threshold above which employees and directors and even contractors have to publish their remuneration. Th e so- ciety has to publish the remuneration. I fi nd it somewhat peculiar that it can say that some employees, up to a number of ten employees, should have their remuneration published,

whereas if there are more

British Columbia Debates7512 Wednesday, April 22, 2015 than ten, we don’t have to publish that. So, fi rstly, I’ d like to ask: if there are more than ten, does the society that is receiving, say…? Th e white paper, I think, noted $75,000 a year. If there are more than ten employees receiving $75,000 a year, yet only ten have to be made public, does the society have to at least say how many others receive more than $75,000 a year? Hon. M. de Jong: Here’s the scenario that I put to staff . If the scenario I put is not consistent with the member’s question, then she’ll alert me to it.

I think what the member is asking for is a…. And by the way, we have not fi nalized what the threshold would be, but for the purpose of the conversation here in the committee, let us assume that it is $75,000. It may or may not be, but for this purpose, let us assume it is. With a society that had 15 people making in excess of $75,000, the act requires that the top ten be disclosed. I think the member’s question is: what about the other fi ve? What would the obligations be there? Th e fi rst thing is that the number ten is an arbitrary number.

Th e regulation could do — and it hasn’t been fi nalized — what the member has suggested, which says to disclose with specifi city the top ten and the number of employees beyond that that are making in excess of the threshold amount. I think that kind of a regulation would be consistent with the act. It would not run afoul of the act. I haven’t thought about it, so the member has raised something that we’ll have to think about when it comes time to fi nalizing the regulations.

But I’m not aware of a statutory impediment in the wording that would pre- clude dealing with that kind of a situation in the way that the member has suggested. V . Huntington: At a minimum, I would suggest that that would be the way to go. Surely, if a threshold re- quires disclosure, then everyone at that threshold should require the remuneration to be disclosed. Picking an arbitrary number of disclosures is rather meaningless if somebody is concerned about what the remuneration and the numbers receiving a certain level of remunera- tion are in a society. So either use a number over, or use them all.

I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be all or none or at least the total number. [1550] One of my other concerns is the rationale for setting thresholds for transparency. For instance, why would a society — it’s similar to the earlier question — with 20 employees earning $74,000 each not have to disclose, when a company or a society with one employee earning $75,000 would have to disclose? Th e arbitrariness of the numbers and whatever regulatory threshold is set — it’s a strange beast.

If it’s going to be done properly, to alert individuals about remuneration and levels of that, then, it should it be very carefully considered in an all-or-noth- ing approach, I would think. Hon. M. de Jong: I may not have a convincing response for the member. I note that the Business Corporations Act, with respect to community contribution companies, uses the threshold that we have been discussing: $75,000.

I think the reality is that at any point, whether $40,000, $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000, there are going to be agen- cies and individuals we are talking to — directors’ and executive pay — that are captured by that and others that aren’t. So I don’t think I have a convincing answer. We clearly stopped short of requiring societies to dis- close all of the remuneration they pay to everyone and created a regulatory power to set a threshold.

When you do that, as the member correctly identifi es, there will be a society that falls just above it and a society that inevit- ably falls just below it, and I’m not sure how we would prevent that arbitrariness from revealing itself.

Section 36 approved. On

section 37. C. James: Th is

section talks about reporting on fi nan- cial assistance. Th at’s fi nancial assistance “by means of a loan, a guarantee, an indemnity, the provision of secur- ity or another transaction” for the society. I think, speak- ing about fi nancial assistance for the society, this

section seems to make sense. It also appears fairly open-ended. Th e

section I’m looking at is subsection (2), where it talks about the need to put that information into a state- ment. It says that “the note need not identify the recipi- ent by name. ” Th at leads me to believe that it isn’t just a loan or a guarantee to the society — that it could be to a director, that it could be to a staff member. I just wonder why it talks about identifying the recipi- ent by name. Is this fairly open-ended? Does this leave the opportunity for someone to provide a loan or guar- antee to a director of a society, for example? Hon.

M. de Jong: I believe, in this case, and would sug- gest to the member and the committee, that the balance we are endeavouring to establish is between ensuring that members or directors — those who might be paying atten- tion to the aff airs of the society — have a clear indication of when a loan or a benefi t or a guarantee has been ex- tended to someone or some agency, but at the same time respecting the fact that there are privacy considerations. [1555] I’m trying to think of a practical example. Some of the societies — and the member may have personal ex- perience in this….

A philanthropic society dealing with families who are in diffi cult circumstances might extend a loan or a guarantee. It might be part of the….Well, they may do that, and there’s a defi nition for what is outside of the ordinary course of the society’s activities, but the members may come together and decide they want to provide that special assistance.

Bri

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150422pm-Hansard-v24n1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150422pm Hansard v24n1
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a6a026ac8cbb25b52b36ed2895dd6b02e86352a5

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