2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Societies Act (continued)

L. Krog

M. Hunt

B. Ralston

J. Martin

R. Lee

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

D. Donaldson

N. Simons

C. James

A. Weaver

C. Trevena

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act

G. Heyman

Hon. T. Stone

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — BC Transportation Financing Authority Transit Assets and Liabilities Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. S. Anton

M. Farnworth

C. Trevena

Hon. T. Stone

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

R. Fleming

Hon. P. Fassbender

G. Heyman

K. Conroy

C. Trevena

M. Farnworth

S. Fraser

V. Huntington

K. Corrigan

J. Darcy

H. Bains

B. Ralston

D. Routley

S. Robinson

D. Donaldson

S. Chandra Herbert

[ Page 7159 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continued second reading of Bill 24.

Madame Speaker: And in the committee House?

Hon. T. Stone: In

Section A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Education.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT

(continued)

L. Krog: I’m delighted to rise again to say a few more words to Bill 24, the new Societies Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

As I was closing this morning’s debate, I paid my thanks and respects to Jim Emmerton, who’s leaving the B.C. Law Institute and retiring, and the amazing team over there who have done so much in terms of law reform for the province in the last many years, including a distinguished board of British Columbians who’ve served and worked hard with that society, which is now happily housed in the wonderful new Allard Hall law school building at UBC.

Having said that, of course, they were somewhat surprised by the inclusion of

section 99 as it was then proposed when this legislation was put out last fall for public comment. The government has wisely listened to the incredible public outcry that followed that.

No small tribute should be forgotten in terms of the work of the official opposition in this and of all of the various societies in this province who took the time to actually look at the bill and realize its profound implications for their ability to carry on and function.

There is no question that

section 99 would have allowed very powerful organizations to oppose to the work of various societies. Most particularly, the ones fearing the worst were, of course, those related to environmental causes.

So the withdrawal of that particular

section can only be seen as a triumph for the work of the societies in this province, the opposition and the many concerned British Columbians who took their time to voice their concerns in no uncertain language to the Minister of Finance and the B.C. Liberals in general.

[1335]

As I indicated, there were criticisms provided as well by the B.C. Law Institute and comments of concern with respect to the legislation, because this is a dramatic change and, I would argue, in fairness to the government, in many respects a significant improvement.

The new Societies Act distinguishes between publicly funded societies and member-funded societies. I think most of us, regardless of how long we’ve had the pleasure of sitting in this chamber, have been involved in the community in various ways throughout our careers and are obviously familiar with the rather significant differences that exist between the small organization that receives no public funding and those organizations which are often, in fairness, almost reliant on grants from foundations or government funds, direct and indirect, in order to sustain their work.

I don’t mean that in a critical sense — that somehow if you’re receiving government funding, you should be regarded in the hierarchy of societies as below those who are funded by their own membership or fundraising — but simply to recognize the difference between them.

In my own community the Haven Society generates a lot of revenue from members, from fundraising activities, but they also provide services that are funded by government, in running their shelters and providing a very important service in our community to women and children fleeing violence. There’s one example.

On the other end of the scale, you may have a very small organization that is providing stewardship or support to a preserved piece of land, where their concept of remuneration for a director is the odd free lunch once in a while, where there are no benefits, where they have no paid staff or a part-time paid staffer and are operating in a very different scheme.

The new Societies Act recognizes that there should be different levels of accountability. I recall with some distaste a society that operated in our community a number of years ago, whose work revolved around the settlement of immigrants. Their executive director was receiving a very significant annual salary at the same time that they received government funding in order to provide settlement-related services.

My understanding was that they were down to servicing one family. Now, when the public saw that, inasmuch as it was public knowledge to some people, it made them look askance at how societies are operated and, indeed, how government operates in terms of funding an organization that would be providing so little service and paying so much to staff for so little work.

The new act provides for significant new accountability measures, which I think is extremely important where those societies are receiving government funding — not in the sense, as I say, that the smaller societies won’t be subject or shouldn’t be subject to public scrutiny, but not in the same way that we expect when revenue from government and/or foundations is being provided.

[ Page 7160 ]

I can only imagine what can happen if there isn’t appropriate public scrutiny. The situation I described was one fairly simple example. That society met the same rather weak standards that applied to those societies that were entirely self-funded, received no government money, filed their annual reports and carried on their business with entirely volunteer labour. So this is, I would suggest, a significant improvement to what exists now.

I think, also, with respect…. As I said earlier around the issue of criticism of the first draft, which included

section 99, where there was so much public commentary — certainly in my office and I think the offices of most of us in the opposition who are acquainted or paying attention to this bill in a serious way because of our critic roles — there has been very little public commentary back, which, generally speaking, tells you that there isn’t as much controversy.

But as I indicated, there are some vulnerabilities and problems with the bill that have been raised, particularly by the B.C. Law Institute. One of the concerns that is being raised is that the remuneration of top employees will be disclosed.

[1340]

On one hand, there is a natural desire for full and open transparency. Certainly, with major corporations, the salaries of some of their most significant employees are publicly disclosed, but they are disclosed candidly to the shareholders, who ultimately own the enterprise.

I’m not entirely sure that this might not be subject to some kind of abuse with respect to the disclosure of remuneration for employees. After all, if you think of a society that has perhaps two employees versus a society that may have 50 or 60, I think the average person would probably take the view that perhaps the standard should be somewhat different.

There’s also a concern around directors in employment conflict of interest. In this particular case the bill does provide in

section 41 that: “A majority of the directors of a society must not receive or be entitled to receive remuneration from the society under contracts of employment or contracts for services, other than remuneration for being a director.”

What that

section contemplates is that, in fact, you can have a director who is an employee of the society and a director of the society. That, I would suggest, creates a significant inherent conflict, and if not a real conflict, certainly under the legislation that governs the members of this chamber, an apparent conflict.

I’m not entirely convinced that…. Allowing directors to be leaders in a society that then pays them a salary for doing their job — presumably as the manager or perhaps the financial agent, whatever the case may be, or just even the lowliest employee — is probably not the best approach to dealing with those kinds of issues.

All this bill does is say the “majority…must not receive….” In other words, you wouldn’t have a situation where a majority of the employees of a small society, potentially, because presumably with a larger society there would be enough scrutiny through its membership in the AGM to solve this issue….

All this does is prevent a society from paying the majority of its directors as paid employees. In such situations that would be particularly dismal, I think, from a public perspective, if they were receiving significant government funds. Again, I think that’s an inherent weakness, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say with respect to that.

A couple of other issues. There are restrictions on amalgamation and continuance. For instance, a British Columbia society cannot amalgamate with a corporation outside the province, nor can a British Columbia society transfer to another jurisdiction.

In the modern world, where communication is instantaneous and borders have less and less meaning, I’m not sure that this is the most modern approach when societies often operate in several jurisdictions, potentially, and indeed similar societies might well wish to amalgamate their operations because it is in their interest in order to allow for efficiencies and cost savings.

We have just spent a great deal of time in this chamber in the last couple of sitting days discussing the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, which allows for clustering, which the government regards and sees as an important part of its agenda, and the whole concept is to try and enable efficiencies. That’s the government’s stated intent. Yet here in this bill we appear to be thwarting, on the other hand, the ability of a society or societies to do almost the same thing in order to achieve some efficiencies.

Finally, there is still a concern raised by the B.C. Law Institute and others around the possibility of how members would be able to make complaints and pursue actions against the society itself.

[1345]

It’s pretty rare that you see societies acting in an oppressive manner to their members in the same way that perhaps a corporation might act in an oppressive manner with respect to its shareholders. They are different animals for different purposes. One is a profit-making enterprise; the other is, obviously, by definition a not-for profit enterprise.

I think that will require some explanation on the part of the Minister of Finance as to why this path has been chosen as opposed to another path with respect to how we bring the societies of British Columbia into the 21st century after lo these many years of operating under a Society Act which was clearly not up to serving the purposes of modern societies and their continued operation.

All in all, I think it’s fair to say that the opposition is going to support the passage of the Societies Act. There are questions. It is a pretty detailed and massive piece of legislation. For the interest of anyone who is listening, we are running this one to 144 pages in 366 sections.

[ Page 7161 ]

I know the Minister of Finance is looking forward with great delight to the committee stage of this bill, in which he will have a full opportunity to answer in detail all the many questions that the opposition will have when undertaking its due diligence.

I’m particularly interested to determine, finally, why the government chose to drop the proposed

section 99. It raised alarm bells in the public. It was not part of the proposal from the B.C. Law Institute and had the awful ring about it of a government that was going to enable its powerful friends and supporters an opportunity to bash, particularly, presumably, environmental organizations who are doing their best to defend the planet at every place in British Columbia, whether it’s the issue of pipelines or fracking or destruction of habitat.

Whether it revolves around the preservation of species and old-growth forest, there was a significant concern in that community, which I think was entirely legitimate, and it behooves this government to explain why it pulled out of the air

section 99, which, frankly, had no basis, to my knowledge, in any requests from the public generally, nor was it created as the result of any public protests that demanded that kind of proposal.

Subject to those criticisms, I look forward to continued debate on this bill at committee stage.

M. Hunt: I, too, want to rise to speak to the new Societies Act. I think it’s an important piece of legislation, and certainly, it’s a piece of legislation that covers a tremendous amount of territory.

When we deal with the whole concept of non-profits and the tremendously diverse nature of non-profits it’s extremely critical that it be a good act and that it covers a lot of the territory that’s involved because, ultimately, these societies perform tremendous work on behalf of our communities, both on the social side and on the cultural side.

On so many different sides they need to operate efficiently and effectively. Sometimes the legalities of all these things can become…. I don’t know quite the right word, but they can certainly become a hindrance to the easy working of the mom-and-pop-type societies.

That’s sort of one of my concerns in this. I recognize there needs to be a set of checks and balances when we’re dealing with charities, when we’re dealing with societies and these sorts of things. To just start where my friend from Nanaimo has ended off, I’ll say the words slightly differently. We are going from

an act that has 12 parts and 142 sections to

an act that has 17 parts and 366 sections.

Obviously, as the member from Nanaimo has stated, this was created by a group of lawyers. A group of lawyers created this, thinking of all the wonderful legal ramifications of stuff, which is, of course, what lawyers do.

Interjection.

M. Hunt: Yeah, I know. But the reality is that so many societies are the little groups of people trying to do things.

I have one example that’s happening right now in my constituency where you have a group of parents who have children who have mobility challenges, as well as mental challenges there.

[1350]

They’re trying to set up…. They’re doing a dance work with these, primarily, young ladies and trying to get them physically active, keep their motor skills working and developing and all those sorts of things.

Of course, they need to get a facility for this, so they go down to the local community centre. The local community says: “Well, here’s the commercial rate, but if you are a society, you can get this rate over here.” So they go: “Oh, we can save money by doing this — wonderful.” Then they start looking at

an act that has 366 sections. They get lost in the first three, just in

definitions, and it becomes a massive challenge. As a result, the money they save…. Is it going to end up at the lawyers? I don’t know. It’s one of those massive challenges. We have these problems.

Yes, we have the difference between a publicly funded charity and a member-funded charity, but the challenge is even in those

definitions. In the

definitions it’s not publicly funded as in government — which could be implied by some of the speeches that I’ve heard here earlier in this debate. In fact, if you are not a voting member of or a director of and you wish to donate, then it has to be publicly funded.

The definition of “publicly funded” is a very specific definition that says that anything that’s going to be a charitable society is publicly funded and, therefore, is subject to all these balances and everything else, even though it’s a group of mothers getting together to try and help their daughters and to try to work with those challenges.

That is the complexity of societies. That’s the complexity of what we are dealing with in our society today. I recognize and acknowledge that. But there are some great things.

As has already been said, there are some really key pieces that needed to be changed in the Society Act. Recognizing that the Society Act really goes back to 1977, there are an awful lot of changes that have happened since then.

For example, the majority of directors cannot be on the payroll or contractors of the society. That is a significant change. There are many societies that have basically been: the board of directors are the members and are the voting members. So that’s a significant change. The requirement for societies to disclose the remuneration paid to directors and the most highly paid remunerated employee — again, significant changes.

For the transparency of the organization and the society, these are good things that need to happen so that our communities can know and understand what is happening and what is going on. Then, just in the operation of the societies, we’ve had tremendous discussions over

[ Page 7162 ]

the years on what constitutes a special resolution and how many votes you needed — whether it was supposed to be 60 percent, whether it was two-thirds, whether it was three-quarters. Fortunately, in this act it is now being clarified so that we make things much more streamlined, much more easy to understand.

Then, of course, for those societies that happen to get into that place where they are being dissolved for various reasons, we don’t actually have to have a private member’s bill in this House in order to see them restored. There are other ways to be able to do that, as well as not even having to go to court over it all.

Those are good things. Simple things like electronically filing your reports — all good things that are being added to this.

I think one of the things that really stands out for me, in speaking on this, is the whole issue of being able to deal with unalterable provisions. Many of the societies that we have, have been societies for a very, very long time — for decades. They were created under a very different atmosphere, in a different society you could almost say. So we have many of these societies that have unalterable provisions within their constitutions.

A simple example of that is the windup clause. As you make up the windup clause of the society, unalterably the assets must go to this society over here — the ABC Society. Well, the interesting thing is that if the ABC Society is no longer in existence and that is unalterable, we now have a problem, and all of the society’s assets now go to government. To be able to have a provision that says, “Yes, unalterable clauses can now be altered….”

[1355]

Times change. Things like societies change — the running of how businesses run and how we work in the midst of our communities. These are things that need to be worked on. Those provisions need to be there for the sake of older charities and societies. I am very pleased to see this come about and to see this working and the tremendous consultation that has gone on for this.

I am pleased to see it — very involved in societies in the past. This isn’t necessarily going to make it easier, but by the same token, hopefully in the regulations we will have lots of model bylaws to make it simple for the very small organizations within community to be able to incorporate themselves, to be able to make the society, hopefully, through model bylaws — to be able to do that — so that, again, it can be clean and simple, yet transparent — all the good things we want in a modern society.

I look forward to the clause-by-clause debate, although I won’t be involved in the 366 of them. But I do look forward to that, because this is a positive direction, and we are going to modernize the Society Act.

B. Ralston: One of the measures of the strength of a democracy is the length and breadth of civil society. One of the major contributing factors to a rich and vibrant civil society is the wide variety of organizations that exist in that space and perform many different roles and many different functions within a democracy.

One only has to look to other societies and political arrangements where civil society is shrivelled and impoverished and very much the subject of suspicion and real difficulty in operating at all, where governments oversee civil society organizations or non-governmental organizations in a very harsh and draconian way and sometimes forbid their very existence.

Here in British Columbia we have 27,000 societies under the present act. They employ over 140,000 people. In some cases they are focused on individual activities, whether it’s the Rockhounds in my part of Surrey, or stamp collecting — hobby activities where people have got together to pursue a common interest — or whether they are service organizations that deliver social and other services to the population at large.

There is a wide variety of these organizations. Certainly their capacity to govern themselves and to comply with regulation is varied. This particular act, in the sense that it’s a view of the act, in a review, undertaken over a lengthy period of time, is welcome. Certainly, updating the act from its last substantial review in the 1970s is important.

That lengthy period of consultation. We are sometimes derided here on this side of the House for talking about or asking about the degree to which people were consulted in the process of drafting legislation. But this legislation proves clearly the value of a consultation process and several opportunities for the government to reflect on what comments it has received. It also has been guided by the British Columbia Law Institute, which has provided some expert insight, some legal insight into some of the more tricky and legally complex provisions in the old act and considered how they might be changed in a positive way.

The process of consultation here, I think, has been of a benefit to all concerned. It will produce better legislation. I think it’s a model for the process of consulting on legislative change generally. My colleagues and, indeed, the minister…. I think he’s read some letters from people congratulating him on dropping the proposed

section 99, which proposed an unusual remedy.

[1400]

A complaint against a society — not from the society’s board of directors, not from its members, but from a member of the general public — would be given, effectively, a right of action against the society. In the context of federal Bill C-51, certainly, non-profit, non-governmental organizations are under increasing scrutiny from a government in Ottawa that seems to, judging from the statement of some of their ministers, have some serious concern about the right of citizens to dissent from some of the decisions that are being undertaken by the government.

Certainly, that right of action would have posed serious problems and would have had a very dampening effect on democratic discussion and debate

[ Page 7163 ]

here in British Columbia and, indeed, across the country, if it were followed to that extent.

One sometimes speaks of what are called SLAPP lawsuits. It’s an acronym that stands for strategic litigation against public participation. Really, what that kind of a lawsuit does is for an external body — typically, a company that might feel itself aggrieved by public discussion of a development proposal, for example — to sue the society and its individual directors and claim damages to their reputation and costs.

One can well imagine for a small, not terribly financially strong organization that could really be a major factor in deciding whether or not to speak out. In a democracy that would be a major concern. The government, I think, has wisely listened in the consultation process and decided to eliminate that proposed section. It was in the draft that was sent out for public discussion. In the bill that’s now before us, that

section has been removed.

I think it is fair to offer congratulations to the minister on a wise choice. Perhaps it’s a reflection of his tenure and length of service in this place that he’s able to take a decision where perhaps a more junior minister might have dug their heels in and, for reasons other than good legislation, might have refused to make that change. I’m happy to see that, and I know that, certainly, the official opposition did participate in the public discussion and animation of that particular debate. We’re pleased that on this occasion the public was listened to and better legislation is going to result.

Now, there are some other provisions in the bill which I propose to briefly comment on. My very capable colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill will be dealing with this legislation at the next legislative stage. But some significant changes here, I think, are worth at least noting in a general discussion of the bill.

The new Societies Act makes a distinction between those societies which primarily rely only on member funding and those which obtain public and government funding, including registered charities. Understandably, if public funds become part of the society’s revenue stream, a greater obligation of disclosure is certainly merited. This is similar to recently enacted federal legislation governing non-profits, although different tests and terminology are used to determine when a society falls into a particular category.

Now, apparently, in the view of one commentator:

“The legislation is drafted so that a society must deliberately elect and declare itself to be only member-funded, assuming it qualifies with the rules set out in the new legislation. If those circumstances ever change and a certain amount of public funding does exist, in amounts to be prescribed by regulation, then the society automatically transforms into a publicly funded society and can only revert back to member-funded status by court order. The presumption, rightly or wrongly, is that most societies will be publicly funded and subject to the additional governance requirements set out below.”

The distinction is certainly one that I appreciate.

[1405]

The mechanism by which one automatically becomes a public society, I think, is something that, at the next stage of the legislative process, will require some scrutiny. The difficulty — requiring a society to apply for a court order to revert back to member-funded status only — would seem to be, arguably, slightly onerous, but I’m sure there is a legislative justification for that. I think that’s something that will be pursued, as I’ve said, elsewhere.

Some of the other changes that are anticipated in the legislation. A clear definition of senior staff and director compensation and conflict-of-interest rules all seem to bring the legislation forward. Certainly, there is an inherent tension in smaller societies where members of the board of directors may also be employed by the society.

Indeed, sometimes the genesis of a society is that a certain need or niche or member interest is identified. There’s a leader, a person who gets the process and the society underway and yet continues to provide some services to the society, both as a director and sometimes as an employee. That is not surprising but can lead to difficulties down the road as the society grows, so defining those roles more carefully, I think, is an important step forward in terms of the governance of societies generally.

The other comments — I think the previous member and other members have commented on the new electronic filing requirements. That would seem to be axiomatic, given that the previous legislation dates from the ’70s, when many of the technologies now available to us did not exist. That seems straightforward and will make some administrative convenience possible for those governing societies.

One of the other comments from a third party reviewing the legislation is that greater flexibility is now available for amalgamations within B.C. and for foreign legal entities migrating into this new governance regime.

Apparently, there’s no comparable ability for a B.C. society to migrate into any other jurisdictions of governance — not even the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, which really mimics in some ways the purposes and the objectives of the Societies Act, specifically designed, as the name would suggest, for activity and endeavours which are not-for-profit and which parallel or are very similar to activities undertaken by societies here in the province.

The general take and the general view of those of us on this side, I think, is that we welcome these changes that are brought about. The scrutiny that’s required will be undertaken by members of the Legislature on our side, other than myself, and certainly it will be a major piece of work to guide this particular bill through the committee stage. I leave that to the capable efforts of the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. With that, I conclude my remarks.

J. Martin: I would preface my remarks with apologies. I picked up a little bit of indigestion over lunch, so

[ Page 7164 ]

I’m going to try to coordinate my hiccups with dramatic pauses and thoughtful nuances of silence here. We’ll see how we do here.

[1410]

The current Society Act, which this bill, Bill 24, replaces, was enacted in 1977. It has basically remained relative unchanged. And 1977 was quite a year. We lost Elvis, and then, to make matters worse, we got disco, so I don’t have too many good memories of 1977.

Our government carried out two rounds of consultation with stakeholders and the public. Responses to a discussion paper circulated in 2011 informed the drafting of a white paper in 2014. That public consultation began with the circulation of a discussion paper, and 200 unique written submissions were received during the process. There was a follow-up stakeholder meeting held January 26, 2015, and about 40 stakeholders attended a discussion with the Minister of Finance. A great deal of time and effort and resources have gotten us to where we are today.

This is something that is overdue and welcomed. I hear, for the most part, supportive commentary on both sides of the House regarding the legislation that we’re speaking to. No doubt some of the details will be elaborated upon once this gets to committee.

Stakeholders express concerns in three major policy areas, those being court remedies, unalterable provisions and the age of directors, which I understand was discussed at length earlier.

As with the existing Society Act, complaints could be made to the registrar, who must, if circumstances warrant it, report the problem to the Minister of Finance, who in turn may appoint an investigator. For publicly funded societies, accountability has been enhanced through provisions requiring public disclosure of compensation for directors and highest-paid staff and that a majority of board members be unaffiliated with the society.

The member-funded societies, those that do not receive any significant level of public support, will be subject to fewer accountability measures and, given that they tend to have fewer resources, this is a wise area to arrive at. They will not be subject to the new public disclosure provisions. Additionally, member-funded societies need only have one director, need not provide public access to their financial statements and will not have the same restrictions on distributions when they wind up.

The new Societies Act selectively adopts new corporate procedures based on the Business Corporations Act. That allows for these to be adopted through the society’s bylaws.

What we’re at is the repealing, essentially, and replacing of today’s Society Act. This new act, Bill 24, brings B.C.’s legislation more into alignment with other Canadian jurisdictions that over the past while have revised and revisited their non-profit corporate frameworks by removing features such as the unalterable provisions and occupational title protection provisions. These were unique to British Columbia. The changes are being well received thus far.

Now, like every other member in this House, I have the pleasure of working with the non-profit societies in my particular constituency. We all know how much great work they can do and how much we see of giving and volunteerism and people using their own personal time for the betterment of the society. In most cases that trickles down to the community at large.

The idea is to be as supportive to these societies as we can while still recognizing that there needs to be a level of accountability. We don’t want to make the process overly onerous while we’re arriving at that accountability. This legislation seems to strike a nice balance in that particular area.

In terms of the accountability of publicly funded societies, the fundamental accountability measures have been carried through to the new legislation. These include requirements to have three directors, one of whom is ordinarily a resident in the province; to provide public access to financial statements; and, upon winding up, to distribute these assets only to other asset lock entities. The legislation also requires that the majority of the board of directors be unaffiliated with the society.

[1415]

The changes to the Society Act basically streamline operatives of the operations for B.C. societies, allowing them to provide the services, do the good work that they do, in a more efficient and effective manner. At the same time, we have an ability here to stress enhanced accountability measures. I’ll leave it at that.

It’s a welcome piece of legislation. I was visited by the delegation of stakeholders when we were working through the early versions of this new legislation. Some of the concerns….

As someone who has been involved with societies in my community, I had no idea that those particular challenges before the existing societies were as significant. I’m hopeful that we’ve addressed those particular concerns and that the societies, the non-profits that do such great work in communities throughout this wonderful province, will continue to provide those services and will be able to do so in an efficient and accountable manner. I look forward to the rest of the discussion on this particular subject matter.

R. Lee: It’s my pleasure to stand up to say a few words about our new Societies Act.

As I mentioned in the House many times, before I got elected, actually, I got involved in quite a number of societies in Burnaby and the Lower Mainland. I think this is very welcome legislation so that we can modernize the old act. As someone mentioned already, it is over 40 years old, and this new act will actually define the society in different categories, especially with the difference between publicly funded and the member-funded society. I think that’s a distinction that I am sure will be welcomed by a lot of smaller organizations.

[ Page 7165 ]

This consultation has been going on for a while — for a few months at least, for a few years, in fact — so that the stakeholders have a say on how this legislation would be formed and be done.

As you can see, there are so many societies in British Columbia, as mentioned — 27,000 societies. In Burnaby we share quite a bit of…. There are a number of societies in Burnaby. For example, we have the Burnaby Neighbourhood House doing a good job. In fact, it used to be south Burnaby, and now it’s all across Burnaby as well.

Burnaby Community Connections has been an organization connecting a lot of non-profit groups in Burnaby, including Meals on Wheels. We have the very well-regarded Burnaby Family Life Institute doing a good job regarding family services. Of course, the Burnaby Multicultural Society, the society I was director of before I got elected, are doing a fine job of serving the community as well.

In terms of seniors, there is the Seniors Outreach Services Society in Burnaby, the Hospice Society, and the Down Syndrome Research Foundation. Those kinds of organizations are serving the community as well.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Neil Squire Society, doing a lot of service for people with disabilities and possibilities, and the Dixon Transition Society. Also, on the arts side, is the Burnaby Arts Council. One organization, Volunteer Burnaby, is coordinating a lot of volunteers in Burnaby as well. In fact, they are instrumental in setting up the Burnaby volunteer festival, which has been going on for 12 years. I think these are very good services.

In terms of getting this act into operation and also modernized, I believe the increase of accountability and transparency is very important. This act has been quite clear on that.

[1420]

To continue on the requirement — for example, the financial statements…. That should be available for the public to see, and for assets. And if there is some disagreement on what is said in the AGMs on record, the members actually can have the means to correct those.

There are also means for moving from one category to another. You can have a member-funded society first and then later move into a publicly funded society and vice versa. I think those provisions are very good.

I have been involved in some societies, not many. But sometimes the complaints by members are not being treated fairly. I think this is an improvement in this new act, that there are provisions for them to address their complaints. Also, as I have mentioned before, the society’s record can be altered if it doesn’t reflect the truth.

The ability to bring and pursue litigation on behalf of the society in order to enforce the society’s rights against others — I think this is, so-called, another side of the coin. That will also bring some certainty to the directors of the society.

I’m very pleased to see this going ahead, and I would like to see second reading going forward.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Only to say this. I am obliged to all members who have participated and made their thoughts on this, and to the opposition critic, of course, for her detailed assessment and description of the contents of the bill.

Candidly, I am heartened by the expression of support that seems to exist within the House, recognizing that there will, as yet, be an opportunity to explore some of the individual features of the bill and how it operates. But I am alive to and, as I say, gratified that there seems to be recognition in all quarters in this House for the need for this legislation. Although one never achieves perfection, there is, thanks to the involvement of a great many people and input from a great many people, a product here that, my sense is, the House has a measure of comfort with.

For that, I am gratified and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 24, Societies Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage of Bill 14.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — TOBACCO CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:25 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Darcy: I would like to move an amendment. This amendment speaks to the issue of flavoured tobacco and flavoured cigarillos and proposes to amend this

section to include flavoured tobacco and flavoured cigarillos.

[ To amend

section 2 of the Act as follows:

Section 1 is amended by adding the following

definitions:

“activated e-cigarette” means an e-cigarette in which an e-substance is being vapourized;

[ Page 7166 ]

“cigarillo” includes any of the following products:

(1) a tobacco product that

(

a) weighs less than 1.4 grams, excluding the weight of any mouthpiece or tip,

(

b) is in the form of a roll or a tube, and

(

c) has a wrapper that contains natural or reconstituted leaf tobacco.

(2) A tobacco product that,

(

a) has a cellulose acetate or other type of filter,

(

b) is in the form of a roll or a tube, and

(

c) has a wrapper that contains natural or reconstituted leaf tobacco.

“e-cigarette” means the following:

(

a) a product or device, whether or not it resembles a cigarette, containing an electronic or battery-powered heating element capable of vapourizing an e-substance for inhalation or release into the air;

(

b) a prescribed product or device similar in nature or use to a product or device described in paragraph (a);

“e-substance” means a solid, liquid or gas

(

a) that, on being heated, produces a vapour for use in an e-cigarette, regardless of whether the solid, liquid or gas contains nicotine, and

(

b) that is not a controlled substance within the meaning of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada);

“flavoured cigarillo” includes a cigarillo that is represented as being flavoured, that contains a flavouring agent or that is presented by its packaging, by advertisement or otherwise as being flavoured;

“flavoured tobacco product” includes a tobacco product that is represented as being flavoured, that contains a flavouring agent or that is presented by its packaging, by advertisement or otherwise as being flavoured, including a product that is inhaled or chewed, but does not include a favoured cigarillo;

“vapour product” means the following:

(

a) an e-cigarette;

(

b) an e-substance;

(

c) a cartridge for or a component of an e-cigarette.]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: This is an issue that we have discussed on many occasions in this House. I have introduced, on two occasions, private members’ bills proposing that the Tobacco Control Act be amended to include flavoured tobacco, including flavoured cigarillos.

The minister’s response has been, first, that he was waiting for the federal government to act on this matter. Then, when the federal government did, in fact, move on some regulations regarding flavoured tobacco, there was an enormous gap in that legislation, a gap that the Canadian Cancer Society has spoken out on, that anti-smoking advocates and various people in the medical profession, the health profession, have spoken out about — that the exemption of menthol in those federal regulations is a glaring omission.

I think it’s critical, now that we have the opportunity, now that we are debating a bill that amends the Tobacco Control Act…. What better opportunity than to seize the time now to say that we also want to close that enormous loophole that exists in what the federal government is doing so that we can continue to be leaders in British Columbia on all aspects of waging war on tobacco and discouraging young people from beginning to smoke at all.

We know from polling that’s been done, from surveys, from the Canadian Cancer Society, that 30,000 young people begin smoking every year in British Columbia. We know that young people, when they begin smoking…. Half of them begin with flavoured tobacco products — 53 percent. In fact, we know that the tobacco companies’ advertising strategy is targeted at young people, trying to make these products more appealing to them.

[1430]

We also know that tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in British Columbia, killing 6,000 British Columbians every single year. We know that it costs our economy $2.3 billion a year, and we also know that the majority of new smokers are under the age of 18. We can’t continue waiting to get all of these products off the shelves.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It is true that the federal government has acted on some aspects of this, but they have not acted on all aspects of it. In fact, according evidence and surveys that we’ve seen, menthol is often referred to as being an older person’s cigarette, because it’s been around for decades, or one for a veteran smoker. I don’t know what word to use that isn’t derogatory of people in different age groups. My mother smoked menthol cigarettes. Lots of people who’ve smoked for some time either began with them or continued with them.

The fact of the matter is — and I say this because when we spoke about this earlier in question period, the minister referred to menthol as being something that’s been around for a long time and, therefore, as being something that affects all ages and not specifically targeted at youth — the statistics show that young people smoke menthol cigarettes far more than any other type of flavoured tobacco. And we know that flavoured tobacco is a gateway to lifelong smoking in many, many cases.

I’ve spoken on this issue in the past — I’ve also explained in this House — and produced materials, which I wish that I could stand up and display in the House but can’t because you’re not allowed to use props, about how menthol cigarettes themselves, yes, have been around for a long time but that there are new and very aggressive and inventive ways of trying to market these products in particular.

New brands, new cigarette designs, new packaging. One of the new menthol brands is Camel — you know, “Squeeze, click, change,” with bursts of menthol flavour. The tobacco companies are aggressively marketing these products, and we have the opportunity to do something about it. Let’s take the opportunity of this bill that amends the Tobacco Control Act that’s already before the Legislature, and let’s get the whole job done.

[ Page 7167 ]

The federal government did not get the whole job done. The Canadian Cancer Society has been crystal-clear about that. There are loopholes so big in the amendments to the regulations that the federal government has introduced that you could drive tens of thousands of young British Columbians through them who still use flavoured tobacco — and, in particular, use menthol-flavoured tobacco.

This is not a partisan issue. Surely, if our goal here is to eliminate the harmful effects of smoking tobacco in any way, shape or form, then we should take the opportunity to reduce having the possibility of these products getting into the hands of young people in particular, because they are using them. They are considered cool and trendy, and menthol is the top of the list of the flavoured-tobacco products that they consume.

I hope that the minister can join with me in supporting this amendment, and then we can put this issue to rest, and we can get on with the job of finding other ways to reduce the use of tobacco in this province and save more people from the illnesses and deaths that are caused every year by use of tobacco products in British Columbia and the enormous cost to the health care system as well.

The Chair: Member for Stikine, are you seeking leave to make an introduction, Member?

D. Donaldson: I was speaking in favour of the amendment.

The Chair: Just wait.

Minister of Health.

Hon. T. Lake: Before I begin, I would like to introduce the professional public servants that are supporting me here today. On my left is Arlene Paton, who’s the assistant deputy minister, and to my right, Shelley Canitz and Ann Marr. I want to thank them for all their work that has gone into this bill.

I know the member opposite is extremely passionate about this subject, and I share her passion.

[1435]

I, like many people, have seen family members suffer from the effects of smoking and always thought that if I got in a position where I could enact policy to reduce the negative effects of smoking, that would be something that would serve as an accomplishment for me. So I hope that the member does not discount my sincerity when I say that everything we can do to reduce smoking in British Columbia is important to me.

However, this act is about the use and sale of e-cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, with a small portion that applies to smoking of any type on health authority grounds. The reason that we have taken this approach, on the use and sale of e-cigarettes in particular, in this bill is because the federal government has, in fact, taken action.

The Premier made it clear in my mandate letter that we were to urge the federal government to take action to close loopholes in the production and sale of flavoured tobaccos and the marketing of such products to young people. I’ve met with the federal minister on more than one occasion to have this discussion. We have talked about it at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of Health ministers, where all provinces had the same view. We were happy to see the federal Health Minister agree to take action.

In fact, they have created regulations which have been gazetted in Ottawa. Our understanding is that these regulations will come into force in the spring. Now, the spring in Ottawa occurs later than the spring in Victoria, so we’re still waiting for those regulations to be enacted, but we are confident that the changes the federal government will be making when the regulations are enacted will attack the vast majority of the problem of flavoured tobacco and the marketing of such products to children.

When you look at the regulation of products, it simply makes more sense to do that at a national or international level rather than province by province. That is what is happening in Europe, where they’re taking a pan-European approach to this problem, and in the United States, taking a national approach rather than a state-by-state approach. When we’re looking at the expertise, resources and enforcement that is necessary on the manufacture and sale of product, it is a lot more efficient and effective to do that at the national level.

I speak against this amendment, even though I know the member’s motives are very pure in this case. But we feel that this bill will protect young people from the potential harmful effects of e-cigarettes and also serve to protect them from a gateway activity that may lead to smoking of tobacco products.

D. Donaldson: I’m happy to rise today to speak in favour of this well-thought-out amendment to Bill 14, the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015. I want to reiterate my congratulations to the minister for bringing this bill to the Legislature. I also want to say that, yes, I, too, have had personal family experience, with the lives of members of my family who started smoking at a very young age being significantly reduced because of the effects of tobacco.

I think what I’d like to say in supporting this amendment is that waiting any time in a situation where we can introduce legislation to prevent people starting smoking, especially when we have the opportunity to enact legislation to prevent that from happening, is not a good move. I’m speaking in favour of this amendment because I think it improves the bill to a great extent.

[1440]

The minister has spoken about federal regulations and waiting for them to be enacted. We know that there are many uncertainties on the federal front at this time. There could be — who knows? — a change in government, but there’s definitely going to be an election. That tends to slow down the legislative process and the enact-

[ Page 7168 ]

ing of regulations. So I’m not sure what the timeline will be on the regulations from the federal side, which he has discussed in his comments to this amendment, but my point of view would be that waiting any time is waiting too long when it comes to more young people becoming addicted to tobacco products.

Again, the reason I’m supporting this amendment is that fruit flavours, we know, are effective in attracting youth to smoking, especially menthol flavours, where the menthol tends to anaesthetize the user’s throat and make it easier to inhale.

We have smoking rates — and this is especially of concern to me — amongst the aboriginal population in Canada that are twice as high as non-aboriginal people. In Stikine — and this is similar demographics to the rest of the province but in Stikine particularly — 70 percent of the population is under 30, which is twice the provincial average. This reflects the First Nations majority demographic in Stikine.

These products that are described in the amendment, which are not in Bill 14 as it stands now, I think can be considered what someone called gateway products. They are products that are particularly attractive to young people — the way they’re marketed, the way they almost seem like toys. The spokesperson for Health has shown me many of these products, and I’ve seen them on the shelves of businesses that I’ve gone to in the area I represent. They’re brightly coloured. Again, they seem like toys, and it’s not apparent that they’re an addictive product and a gateway product.

I think this is a great opportunity to improve Bill 14 with this amendment. It’s the role of the official opposition to make positive suggestions when we see that things can be done and to congratulate the government when we think they’re doing well. I think they’ve done well in introducing Bill 14. I also think they would do well to consider and support the proposed amendment.

With those comments, I look forward to hearing from other members and I’ll take my seat in this debate.

N. Simons: I’d just like to add my support to the amendment as proposed by the member for New Westminster. I might add my thanks to the minister for considering this issue at all. But I do think that the two excuses the minister used for not going further, not going the distance that the Canadian Cancer Society would have liked, fail to convince me that they are legitimate.

The first excuse, he said, was that this kind of legislation to ban flavoured tobacco shouldn’t be done province to province to province. Well, it’s happening that way, many other laws are happening that way, and many other jurisdictions take the initiative and lead the way.

We don’t have to necessarily wait till the government tells us we should do this, and then we’ll do it. What about showing a bit more leadership in that particular area? I understand that the likelihood of amendments getting accepted by government…. They’re kind of set in their way, and they like to show what they would do and try and get as little negative feedback on it.

I have to say that the steps they’re taking are positive, but there were some very logical steps once this act was opened up for amendments. This is the bill in which flavoured tobacco could be banned. This is the legislation in which that ban could occur.

I think saying that it’s more difficult to enforce province to province is also somewhat questionable, because we’re not talking about a federal enforcement agency. We’re talking about the same enforcement agents in our province that are our provincial employees. They’re B.C. folks enforcing B.C. laws.

[1445]

We have the opportunity here to lead the way. I’ve quit smoking, but I smoked for over 20 years, and my first smoking was with flavoured tobacco. I’m not saying that that’s the reason I smoked and it’s the reason I didn’t quit. Those are all things that ex-smokers have to contemplate as they look back in their life.

I do think that, if the minister isn’t personally aware of the impact of flavoured tobacco, maybe he doesn’t recognize its significance to young people who access tobacco even before they’re legally allowed to. I think it would have sent a really strong message. It would have probably gotten broad support and enthusiasm had the minister taken that extra step.

You know, even if this amendment is not successful, I’m hoping that the minister contemplates future amendments that include the ideas as proposed by the opposition here today. I understand the way things work in this place. I’m not sure of the record of amendments passing since I was elected, but I think it’s probably zero for about 300 or so. This may fall victim to the same problem.

With that said, I do say, on the one hand, it’s a good start, but we do have a few more steps to go. I don’t think we should concern ourselves with whether other jurisdictions have done the same thing or not. I think British Columbia has a proud history in some respects — not always but mostly a proud history — in enacting legislation that is progressive. This is an opportunity to do that same thing with the amendment as proposed by my friend and colleague from New Westminster. I’m looking forward to further discussion on this.

C. James: I also rise to speak in support of the amendment brought forward by the member for New Westminster to add banning flavoured tobacco as one of the prohibitions in this bill.

Like many and like other speakers, and I think probably like most of us of an age category in this House, I have also been impacted by smoking in my family’s life and my husband’s family’s life, including the passing of relatives.

I also was a smoker, as I said, like many in my generation. Not as long as the previous member, but I smoked

[ Page 7169 ]

for seven years and started at 16 on menthol cigarettes. That was my gateway into smoking. I had many friends who smoked in high school. It was the place to hang out. It was the opportunity to be part of a group. I found cigarette smoking very difficult, but I found menthol cigarettes easier to smoke than other cigarettes. For that reason alone, I think the strength of this amendment….

I believe it is the intent of the minister, I believe it is the intent of government, to continue on with B.C. being a leader when it comes to reducing the rates of smoking, when it comes to keeping our reputation as an amazing province when it comes to health and rates of smoking.

I think the opportunity to include in this bill flavoured tobacco is part of that work. It’s part of the prevention work. It’s part of not leaving our young people to the difficulty that many of us had in having to quit smoking — a very tough thing to do, a very difficult thing to do, for many who have gone through the experience.

From my perspective, I support the amendment, because I think anything we can do to help young people not start is a positive. To help young people not get hooked on cigarettes and smoking is a positive. I think if you take a look at the statistics, as the minister probably knows, 29 percent of high school students who smoke, smoke menthol. That’s a large percentage of the high school students. Fifty percent of high school students who smoke use flavoured tobacco.

This is an obvious place for young people to begin. This is an obvious place for young people to be attracted. I think the marketing, as others have talked about, of these products is very clearly to young people. It’s very clearly done to attract young people, to bring them in, to have them hooked on smoking. I think anything we can do to help prevent young people from the cycle of smoking is a plus. To me, this amendment is our opportunity.

I appreciate the minister’s comments that the federal government is moving and we’ll get there, and when the federal government is there, we’ll have consistency across the country.

[1450]

All of that may be true. But let’s remember that, as others have said, we have a federal election coming up, which means regulations often take longer, which means things are stalled while we go through the federal election until after the federal election, which puts a stall on all of this.

I think the other piece is that B.C. is a leader. We are a leader in anti-smoking. We are a leader when it comes to a province. Why wouldn’t we continue to be a leader? Why would we say: “Let’s sit back”? I think we’ve seen ourselves say “let’s sit back” on too many issues and wait for the federal government.

I agree with the minister. I think it’s great to have it enacted across country, but if it’s not going to happen, let’s take the leadership to help make it happen. Let’s take the leadership to encourage it to happen. Ontario’s already moved. There’s no reason why British Columbia can’t say: “Let’s step out. Let’s take a leadership role and encourage that to occur.”

I am standing in support of this motion. I would hope that the minister would see it as an amendment that strengthens the bill that has come forward, that adds to the bill and that certainly adds to our arsenal of prevention programs that are so necessary to keep our young people from entering into a world of smoking.

A. Weaver: I was listening in my office, and I heard the amendment come forward. I wanted to stand here and offer my strong support for the amendment as well.

I’ve had people come to my constituency office expressing concerns about flavoured tobacco products and the effects they have, on targeting youth and getting youth actually hooked on tobacco. I’ve had the Canadian cancer association. I have had numerous others come and suggest to me that this is something that needs to be dealt with.

I particularly agree with the comments that I just heard from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who pointed out that we are a leader. We have been a leader in Canada, in the world, in terms of tobacco prevention and smoking prevention.

This is such an ideal opportunity for us to build upon that and to actually become a leader not only in tobacco products but also flavoured tobacco products, which are designed specifically to actually hook the youth such that down the road they’ll be picking up on other tobacco products.

I stand and speak in strong support of this, and I appreciate the official opposition bringing this amendment forward.

[1455-1500]

The Chair: Hon. Members, the question is the amendment moved by the member for New Westminster to

section 2 of Bill 14.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

James

Dix

Ralston

Fleming

Popham

Kwan

Conroy

Austin

Chandra Herbert

Huntington

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Trevena

Simons

Fraser

Weaver

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

[ Page 7170 ]

NAYS — 42

Horne

Sturdy

Bing

Hogg

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Letnick

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Lee

Tegart

Throness

Larson

Foster

Martin

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

[1505]

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

J. Darcy: I would like to propose an amendment to

section 7.

The Chair: Please proceed.

J. Darcy: I am moving to amend

section 7 in the following ways.

[ To amend

section 7 by adding the following subsections:

Section 2.3 is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by striking out “ or hold lighted tobacco, ” and substituting “ hold lighted tobacco, use an e-cigarette, or hold an activated e-cigarette ” , and

(

b) in subsection (6) by striking out “ smoked tobacco, or held lighted tobacco, ” and substituting “ smoked or held lighted tobacco or used or held an activated e-cigarette, as described in subsection (1) ; ” .

(

b) adding the following:

(

c) The prohibitions in subsection (1) with respect to e-cigarettes do not apply to retail outlets whose primary purpose is the sale and distribution of e-cigarettes and vapour products. , and

(

c) in subsection (6) by striking out “ smoked tobacco, or held lighted tobacco, ” and substituting “ smoked or held lighted tobacco or used or held an activated e-cigarette, as described in subsection (1); ” . ]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: If I could speak to that issue, I certainly want to take the opportunity to say that the official opposition supports wholeheartedly the thrust of the bill. We’ve spoken about that on previous occasions. This bill speaks to many different aspects of regulating e-cigarettes: the sale to minors, where it can be sold, use in public places — in health care and school boards and so on — all of which we support.

But there is also, and I think that the minister will acknowledge this…. He’s certainly heard from constituents, I’m sure. He’s heard from people who use e-cigarettes. I’m sure he’s heard from medical experts on it, as well as people who sell e-cigarette products, that there is considerable debate — some would say controversy, but certainly considerable debate — about the beneficial versus the harmful effects of e-cigarettes, the potential negative effects as well as the issue of harm reduction and the use of e-cigarette products for people who are attempting to quit smoking.

Certainly, the federal Health Committee debated this in committee stage for some considerable period of time, heard submissions from everyone affected by this — consumers, distributors and so on. They devoted considerable time in a report that they issued to the issue of harm reduction and smoking cessation and the possible potential positive impact on smoking cessation with the use of e-cigarettes.

The folks that have approached me on this issue, including those people who distribute or sell these products, are themselves supportive — the Canadian Vaping Association most prominent among them — and certainly accept the prohibitions in the bill on sale to minors. They support the prohibition in the bill on use of these products on health authority properties and school board properties, in public places and so on.

But they’ve also made the case to me. They’ve made the case to other MLAs, as have consumers of these products who are attempting to quit smoking made the case to me in phone calls and in e-mails. I know that representatives of some of these organizations have met with the minister’s staff also to discuss this issue. The one case that they make, which I think is a worthwhile one, is that in those establishments that exist for the sole purpose of selling e-cigarette products, there should be an exemption from the other provisions of this bill.

This bill prohibits, as I’ve said and as the minister is well aware, the use of these products in a number of places, including the use of these products in workplaces.

[1510]

General prohibition on use in workplaces — absolutely. The case that these folks make is that a business establishment that sells e-cigarette products or vaping products is also a workplace. Therefore, they would be prohibited from allowing people, when they come in, to buy those products, and they’re coming for the express purpose of buying those products.

These business establishments would be restricted for people who are not of legal age to consume these products. They would be prohibited from entering. So this is not about access by youth, who are the people we’re most concerned about accessing these products. They’re already prohibited from entering it.

The issue of potential impacts of secondary smoke — the potential impact of the vaping by-products, which is a subject great debate but understood — does not become an issue, because everyone who is in that particular

[ Page 7171 ]

business establishment is there for only one purpose, and that’s because they’re interested in sampling and potentially purchasing one of these products.

They have made the case, as have a number of people who have written to me, that when you are attempting to quit smoking and when you are considering using one of these products…. In fact, people are attempting….

I’ve never tried them. I don’t have any interest in doing it. I quit smoking a long time ago and don’t want to go near it again. People are approximating, through the use of e-cigarettes or vaping products, what the smoking experience was, but in a way that does not include the burning of tobacco, which is the most dangerous thing about it.

What this amendment serves to do is have an exemption from the prohibition of use of these products in workplaces alone, in all workplaces, and have a specific exemption for workplaces that exist for the sole purpose of selling these products, that being a business establishment that sells these products — an exemption for those establishments and those alone.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to speak against the amendment.

I understand the member’s argument. I understand the arguments made by vendors of e-cigarette products. The reality is that these are workplaces, and we don’t know the effects of the products that are being vaped. There are no federally regulated vapour products on the market, no Health Canada approved uses, in terms of harm reduction, which may very well be a good use for e-cigarettes.

I have told people that have contacted me on this subject that people interested in making a living selling e-cigarettes should invest in the studies and trials necessary to get a Health Canada approval for such use, if they were serious about that intention.

These are public spaces. They’re workplaces, and therefore, people going into them should not be exposed to a product, the harmful effects of which are entirely unknown at this point in time.

C. Trevena: I would like to actually speak in favour of this amendment, which would allow the use of vaporizers in stores that are selling them. The minister, in one of his reasons not to support it, talks about the fact that we don’t know what is actually in these vaporizers and they might be harmful. But the people who are going into the store, who are working in the store are, I would very likely guess — I think it would be an educated guess — most likely users of vaporizers, and the people coming into the store are people who want to purchase vaporizers. So you’re talking about quite an enclosed circle of people who would be going into that atmosphere.

I spoke on second reading of this bill to talk about…. I think we’ve all had our little personal moments. We’ve all exposed how much we used to smoke, and being one of those people and having mentioned that before, I’ll move on.

[1515]

But after speaking about it and having commented about the vaporizer, I got, actually, a lot of correspondence back, including people who were concerned about the fact that we call them e-cigarettes rather than vaping, because it parallels the vaporizers with cigarettes. Those who are using it have done research. It might not have been approved yet by Health Canada or international health bodies, but they have done research and have found that it is a lot less problematic. There are far fewer chemicals, as they understand it, than there are in traditional cigarettes.

While the minister might have a laugh at that, there is a real perception that this is a very good way to lead out of smoking. Any time that you’re taking a smoking cessation device, any sort of system you’re using — whether you’re using nicotine chewing gum, a nicotine patch or a vaping system — you are going to be imbibing and absorbing certain chemicals so you can lose that addiction to nicotine and lose the addiction to smoking. This is one way that people can make that step, make that break. It’s very, very hard, as we know, to quit smoking.

I have a letter in front of me. In fact, somebody who lives in the constituency of a colleague, from Comox Valley, went to a vapour shop in Nanaimo and bought his personalized vaporizer in February 2014, a year ago. He extols the health benefits. He has been able to get back to running, can go out with his kids. He says it’s all much more enjoyable. “I have much better lung capacity and feel fantastic.”

I’m totally in agreement with the fact that we should be restricting purchase by minors, whatever age a jurisdiction says is a minor. Here we say it’s 19. Restrict the sale to minors and restrict the use in public spaces. But on this very limited area of saying we should be allowed in this one specific workplace…. It is a very, very small area. As I say, it’s within a very small area that we would be permitting people to vape. Likewise, we’re not stopping people from vaping in their own homes. We would be prohibiting them from vaping in cars where you have a young person, as we do with tobacco.

I think in this very small exception, it is really one worth considering. It is still limiting, very stringently, where one can and cannot vape, which may…. I think we might in future years want to be, perhaps, a bit more accommodating here to ensure that those last people who are smoking tobacco cigarettes do have that opportunity to ease off. I think if we can have this little bit of leniency for this specific instance….

The vaping associations all think that this is as much as they need. The people who are vaping, while they would like a much broader opportunity, accept that this might be the only place that they can “publicly” do the vaping.

I would hope that the minister does take a second look at this, address it with his caucus colleagues and his cabinet colleagues and think very seriously about allowing this specific amendment.

[ Page 7172 ]

N. Simons: I’d like to offer my support for this amendment as proposed by my colleague from New Westminster.

I think that making it impossible to demonstrate to folks what an e-cigarette does or how to use it is extremely shortsighted. I think the idea that this government doesn’t have the flexibility or the elasticity to permit, in very restricted circumstances, the demonstration of the use of an e-cigarette is a bit of a copout.

I think that the minister is…. I don’t know what he was chirping over to us the other moment ago, when my colleague from North Island was speaking. He seems to take issue with the simple….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Oh, he was asking about the definition of “research.” I can help him with that. Clearly, he does need some assistance.

[1520]

My worry is that this minister has chosen, contrary to common sense, to specifically make it impossible for the purveyor of these e-cigarettes, which have helped many people quit smoking…. That idea that he doesn’t have the flexibility…. Maybe it wasn’t in his mandate letter. He can’t do it unless it was in his mandate letter. That seems to be the refrain that the minister seems to use. Why not think of it yourself? Why not think of that as a possibility?

This is going to create great hardship to folks who want to demonstrate a product that could potentially save some lives. So if that’s not the purpose of this legislation, I don’t know what is.

Let me just, for the record, read a couple of comments that support this amendment from constituents.

“My name is Kyle. I’m from the Sunshine Coast. I find it appalling that e-cigarettes, because they’re unlike traditional tobacco cigarettes, are being treated the same way that tobacco is.

“I was a smoker of two packs a day for nearly ten years. I tried everything available to try and be rid of the foul things, as they were harming me in a lot of ways. Over the past three years I was introduced to electronic cigarettes. Not only did they allow me to give up tobacco altogether; I feel great healthwise.

“My respiratory system is working properly. I can do my job now, which is fairly physically active. From studies I’ve read, I am not harming my surrounding peers with awful, toxic secondhand smoke.

“I really hope these wonderful devices that have changed so many lives for the better don’t get tossed into the same ship as the world’s leading killer, tobacco.”

Now, that’s just one person who needed to find out about this product in order to allow him to quit smoking two packs a day. I know that the minister doesn’t want to go on anecdotal evidence. Where are the studies that British Columbia is undertaking that show the harmful nature of the e-cigarette? That would be something that perhaps he would consider investing in. But as it stands right now, this product, which will be for sale, will not…. The owner of the store or the workers in the store will not be able to demonstrate, will not be able to show prospective tobacco quitters how to use these products.

I don’t understand. To me, the copout here is that the minister doesn’t want to try any harder than he has. I think maybe he needs to try a little harder. I think he needs to try and figure out how you can make an exemption. If you can ban smoking in cars with people under 16, you should be able to make a law that allows you to try an e-cigarette in a store.

To me, it doesn’t make sense at all. It doesn’t make sense at all that the minister thinks it’s too complicated to allow a person selling an e-cigarette to demonstrate to the prospective customer how to use it. That doesn’t make sense at all. You can’t think of one tiny, little exemption.

I’m not saying, “Use it everywhere,” obviously. This is about one exemption. This amendment is about making it possible for people who wish to quit smoking tobacco to be able to learn how to use one product that seems to many ex-smokers the best, the fastest and even the easiest way to quit tobacco.

As the minister knows, quitting smoking tobacco has been compared with quitting heroin. It’s a very addictive product. One would hope that if, in fact, this minister’s underlying reasoning for enacting these restrictive rules is to improve the health outcomes of British Columbians, a little bit more thought into this particular

section could have gone into this.

Once again, I understand the record of amendments passing in this Legislature. I understand the desire on the part of the government to pretend that they did everything exactly the way they wanted. They don’t want to admit, perhaps, that this is a little bit of an oversight. Maybe in future amendment opportunities this minister will reopen this. Maybe we can ask the Premier to put it in his mandate letter so that he can do it without feeling too bad about it. But I really do believe that the idea that you cannot demonstrate to a prospective customer, to a prospective tobacco-smoke quitter, that you’re not allowed to demonstrate the product in your store….

[1525]

Here’s another letter from another Sunshine Coaster.

“I’m writing to you to tell you that the new act not only confuses me but makes me frustrated and angry. I began using e-cigarettes seven years ago, when my grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer and my own doctor told me I was on the verge of developing COPD while I was hooked up to the respiratory inhalers in the hospital.

“On average, I was having asthma attacks every day and pneumonia four times a year. Since starting on e-cigarettes, I have not had an asthma attack in six years, and I’ve not had pneumonia once. I believe that e-cigarettes saved my life, as I have not been this healthy during the almost 20 years I smoked cigarettes. Tobacco cigarettes were killing me, and e-cigarettes made me quit smoking and brought my quality of life back tenfold, so I can continue to live my life and watch my children grow.

“My children — 13, ten and one month — are so grateful that I’ve quit smoking and were by no means affected during my use of e-cigarettes. They do not show interest in the product or flavours. I do believe that they should not sell these products to minors, but to take away adult choices to better their lives is unfair.”

I think most objective people looking at this who see

[ Page 7173 ]

the government’s intent to move people away from the tobacco products…. That’s understandable. But to eliminate what seems like the obvious alternative, to allow a store to demonstrate a product in a controlled setting, maybe even in a back room….

I can imagine that someone writing legislation would know how to make an exception in cases where people are selling these in stand-alone stores. If it’s lack of imagination or simply not having thought about it, here’s an opportunity in our system where the official opposition and the members in the opposition have an opportunity to assist the government in improving what is a pretty good bill with minor flaws.

We’re not trying to attack the integrity of anyone in here. We’re not trying to personalize this whatsoever. The minister doesn’t seem to want to consider alternatives, and I think that’s a shame. I think my constituents and constituents around the province, if they knew that e-cigarettes contribute to the reduction in tobacco smoking, would support that.

When we see that the sale of these products will be legal but without the ability for purveyors of the product to demonstrate it, I think it’s just a little bit of a problem, and it probably just needs a little bit of a fix. I would suggest that the amendment as proposed by my friend and colleague from New Westminster is the fix necessary.

[1530-1535]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Ralston

Fleming

Popham

Kwan

Conroy

Austin

Macdonald

Karagianis

Eby

Mungall

Bains

Elmore

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Donaldson

Krog

Trevena

D. Routley

Simons

Fraser

Weaver

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 44

Horne

Sturdy

Bing

Hogg

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Morris

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

Polak

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Letnick

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Lee

Tegart

Throness

Huntington

Larson

Foster

Dalton

Martin

Gibson

Moira Stilwell

[1540]

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

J. Darcy: I would like to move an amendment to

section 9.

The Chair: Please proceed.

J. Darcy: This amendment would amend

section 9:

[ To amend

section 9 of the Act as follows:

9 The following

section s is are added:

Exception for prescribed medical products

2.41 A person is exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 2 to 2.4, other than

section 2 (1), with respect to vapour products that are prescribed products or devices intended to be used for medical purposes, including to reduce nicotine dependence.

Flavoured Cigarillos

2.5

(1) No person shall sell or offer to sell a flavoured cigarillo at retail or for subsequent sale at retail or distribute or offer to distribute it for that purpose.

Flavoured Tobacco Products

(2) No person shall sell or offer to sell a flavoured tobacco product at retail or for subsequent sale at retail or distribute or offer to distribute it for that purpose. ]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: This amendment speaks….

The Chair: Member, just a second.

Minister, your point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. T. Lake: I rise on a point of order. Firstly, we’ve canvassed this issue, and secondly, there is no definition in the definition

section to describe the products that the member is seeking to have inserted into the bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I think we are going to debate the amendment, and then it can be dealt with by vote.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: I have spoken, as have my colleagues, about this issue at length. What we’re attempting to do here is consistent with amendments that we moved earlier.

This particular

section of the act deals with promotion and advertising and display of tobacco products. I

[ Page 7174 ]

think it is absolutely appropriate that in this

section we add to it flavoured cigarillo products and flavoured tobacco products.

I think this is a critical

section in which to do that because, as we know and as we’ve spoken about at great length in this House, advertising and promotion of flavoured tobacco products targets youth in particular. I won’t repeat the arguments I’ve made previously about these being gateway products to lifelong smoking, about the menthol exemption in the federal regulations that are being considered still being there — that affecting 29 percent of youth.

I have spoken at length already in this House about the new and innovative and quite creative ways that tobacco companies are trying to market menthol products, in particular to young people, with new products on the market and new forms of advertising all the time. I think in a

section of the act that deals with promotion and advertising and display of tobacco products that it absolutely makes sense that we should amend that to include flavoured cigarillos and flavoured tobacco.

Amendment negatived on division.

N. Simons: I have a question about who this particular

section is geared toward. What person would be exempt? What person would be likely exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 2 to 2.4. Who does the minister anticipate to include in that?

[1545]

Hon. T. Lake: The intent here is twofold. There are products that are essentially nebulized for prescriptions — asthma medication, for instance. Also, this allows for the future regulation — or approval, if you like — of electronic vapour products for harm reduction purposes. It leaves the door open for future approved products that are approved by Health Canada for the prescribed purposes.

N. Simons: So this particular amendment is for future use only. It currently couldn’t be implemented because we don’t have nebulizers that are tobacco reduction products.

Hon. T. Lake: Where there are prescribed medical products that are nebulized or vaporized at the moment, there are no electronic vape products that are approved for medical purposes or for nicotine reduction strategies. It does allow for that possibility to occur in the future, in which case a person would be exempt from the prohibitions in sections 2 to 2.4.

N. Simons: If my doctor told me that I should reduce my smoking and I should use a vaporizer — the doctor is telling me this — is that what this is intended for? For a doctor who says, “You’d be better off with an e-cigarette, whatever’s in it, than continuing your two-pack-a-day habit”— is this the loophole that we’re looking for, for people who want to try this product? How will they…?

Let me read: “A person is exempt from the prohibitions set out in sections 2 to 2.4, other than

section 2 (1), with respect to vapour products that are prescribed products or devices intended to be used for medical purposes….”

Doctors are going to tell their patients that in order to reduce their nicotine dependence, they should use a vaporizer. Is that what this

section is covering?

Hon. T. Lake: We’re not banning e-cigarettes. The opportunity to purchase and use e-cigarettes by adults is still available, if someone was advised by a medical professional to do that.

I want to be clear that “prescribed” in this

section means prescribed by regulation, not prescribed by a doctor. It allows us to prescribe in regulation products or devices that are intended to be used for medical purposes. It is not referring to a doctor’s prescription.

N. Simons: Thank you for that clarification. So a doctor who says you should use a vaporizer or you should use an e-cigarette, because you need to reduce your nicotine dependence and your smoking — that has nothing to do with this particular section. A doctor suggesting that to a patient — the doctor would be unable to send them to somewhere where they could get this, to have it demonstrated.

It just seems strange that there’s an acknowledgment that there’s the possibility for the reduction of nicotine dependence with the use of e-cigarettes, yet previous sections say you’re not allowed to show someone how to use it. It just seemed to me a little bit strange.

[1550]

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

J. Darcy: I’d like to move an amendment to

section 15.

The Chair: Member, proceed.

J. Darcy: This amendment to

section 15 would have the effect of adding the following:

[ To amend

section 15 as follows:

15 (

i) in subsection (2), adding the following :

(

m) exempting tobacco products from the definition of “flavoured cigarillo” and making the exemption subject to the conditions, if any, that may be provided for in the regulations;

(

n) defining “flavouring agent” for the purposes of the

definitions of “flavoured cigarillo” and “flavoured tobacco product” in

section 1;]

On the amendment.

J. Darcy: This

section of the act allows the minister to

[ Page 7175 ]

assign by regulation the products that are regulated by the act. There is a set of

definitions, to which we are adding “cigarillo” and “flavoured tobacco,” and the amendment would allow the minister in the future to introduce regulations concerning these new products without coming back to the Legislature. So it would treat these products — the new categories of them that may arise — the same as others that are regulated by the act.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

N. Simons: I’m just wondering if the minister knows how many ticketing offences have occurred for people smoking tobacco in a vehicle while minors are present.

Hon. T. Lake: My staff inform me that in the past year one person every three days, on average, received a ticket for smoking with children in the car.

N. Simons: That seems like a high number. I’m wondering if the minister is contemplating public education campaigns to remind people that they’re not allowed to smoke in a vehicle with minors present.

I’m also wondering if the minister is aware that the use of e-cigarettes is a fundamentally different usage than tobacco. I would imagine that the minister knows that a king-size cigarette probably takes about eight minutes to smoke and a regular probably takes about 6½. When people use e-cigarettes, it’s usually, I think, about eight seconds. What was the motivation to include this in the act?

[1555]

Hon. T. Lake: The motivation is the same as the rest of the act, and that it is to protect those under age 19 from the potential harmful effects of vapour products. The member’s supposition is that these products are less harmful than tobacco. That very well may be the case, but we don’t have enough regulation, we don’t have enough research, we don’t have information to know what is in these products.

To use these vapour products in a closed, confined space with young children in that closed, confined space could be particularly harmful for that child. We know that some of these products have things like propylene glycol in them. The problem is that we have such a lack of information as to what is in these vapour products.

The intent of this

section is the same as the entire bill, which is predominantly to protect people under the age of 19 from potential harmful effects of vapour products.

N. Simons: I don’t think the minister has really explained specifically why the ministry has not undertaken studies themselves and sort of uses the legislation instead just to…. I mean, it’s just-in-case legislation. We could think of lots of other places where we could be much more careful in terms of what we permit to be sold.

I suppose this is just my cheeky question without a convertible. I suppose it’s probably covered under the Motor Vehicle Act. That’s not a question either, hon Minister. It’s just a comment.

Sections 17 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — TOBACCO CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 14, Tobacco Control Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call committee on Bill 2.

[1600]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 2 — BC TRANSPORTATION

FINANCING AUTHORITY TRANSIT ASSETS

AND LIABILITIES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:01 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Heyman: Let me begin some of my questions by just thanking the minister and the minister’s staff for the briefing that did take place. It’s unfortunate we weren’t able to have the discussion prior to second reading, but the material that was provided in response to the questions that I put forward in my meeting were fulsome and thorough, and I appreciate that very much. Hopefully, the minister also appreciates that on this piece of legislation I don’t particularly have extensive questions on the

definitions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

[ Page 7176 ]

Let me begin with some questions on

section 2. While I think most of the issues in this piece of legislation are fairly straightforward, I think it’s useful to put some questions and some answers on the public record. Some of the answers that the minister will provide will be similar to ones that were provided to me and my colleagues in writing, but I think it is a service to the public to have them on Hansard transcripts.

My first question is: why was RTP 2000, Rapid Transit Project 2000, kept alive for so long after the initial purpose for which it was created was served, and why is it not being wound down now?

Hon. T. Stone: I look forward to a good discussion here on Bill 2. In terms of his first question, which, if I understood correctly, was why this was not done earlier, that’s a question that perhaps would be better asked to those who were in government in previous years.

As the minister responsible for these assets today, and I have been the minister for the last couple of years…. As the member knows well, we have been engaged in a core review process across government. One of the items that crossed my desk that staff in the ministry felt was a worthwhile candidate for the core review process was the wind-down of RTP 2000.

[1605]

When we looked at the most expeditious and most efficient way of doing that, it was determined that transferring all of the assets and liabilities of RTP 2000 to the BCTFA through this legislation would be the best way to deal with the situation. Then I can assure the member that shortly after this work is done, this legislation is passed, RTP 2000 will indeed be wound down.

G. Heyman: Given the minister’s answer to my first question, it would be safe to assume, then, that there is no contemplation being given to using RTP 2000 as a shell for any other projects?

Hon. T. Stone: The answer would be no. We have no intentions of using RTP 2000 for any other purpose.

G. Heyman: The minister’s staff provided to me in writing a listing of the assets and liabilities of RTP 2000. I think it would be useful to the public if the minister could read those into the public record.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly. I’d be happy to read into the record the assets, the major asset categories, and a few details of each of them that are affected by this piece of legislation. First off is the Millennium Line, which includes a guideway between Columbia station and VCC-Clark station, including tracks and bridges.

Next, the passenger stations and all station equipment. The passenger stations are at Sapperton, Braid, Lougheed Town Centre, Production Way–University, Sperling, Burnaby Lake, Holdom, Brentwood Town Centre, Gilmore, Rupert, Renfrew and VCC-Clark.

The second major asset category would be vehicles. There are 40 SkyTrain cars.

The third asset category would be land — specifically, a property and property rights between Columbia station in New Westminster and VCC–Clark station in Vancouver, which is about 200 parcels of land. This land is mostly statutory right-of-way. About 10 percent are fee simple, are owned properties, and there are some leases, licences and access agreements.

I will say, in

summary, again, that this legislation is very, very straightforward. What it does is transfer all of those mentioned assets out of RTP 2000 and into the BCTFA on an as-is basis.

G. Heyman: Finally on this section, has TransLink spent any money on improving the assets in question? If so, was it through the use of gas tax funds? If so, how was that tracked?

Hon. T. Stone: I’m not aware of any major upgrades or investments that TransLink has made in these assets — certainly, from a recent perspective.

[1610]

However, I will certainly commit to the member to have staff take a look at this very shortly after we’re done here, and we’ll be happy to provide the member with any specific details, if indeed there have been any recent investments or upgrades relating to these specific assets.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Heyman: With respect to the transfer from B.C. Transit to the BCTFA, did B.C. Transit request this transfer now or at some point previously? If so, what reasons did they give for requesting the transfer? Or was this an initiative of the ministry, either on its own or with some discussion with B.C. Transit?

Hon. T. Stone: We have had ongoing discussions with B.C. Transit, certainly for the last couple of years that I’ve been the minister responsible. My understanding is that there had been discussions over the years prior to me assuming responsibility for this as well.

As the member knows well, B.C. Transit no longer has a mandate in the Lower Mainland, Metro Vancouver — the region within which these assets are located. I can say categorically that B.C. Transit was very supportive of this piece of legislation when we broached the idea more formally with them as we were preparing for this decision that government has made.

G. Heyman: Again, if the minister wouldn’t mind, if he

[ Page 7177 ]

could read into the public record the list of assets of B.C. Transit that are being transferred and that were included in the information sent from the ministry.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly. Assets that will be transferred from B.C. Transit to the BCTFA via this legislation include the following.

First, property and property rights between Waterfront station in Vancouver and King George station in Surrey. That involves approximately 300 parcels of land. That’s mostly statutory rights-of-way and licences. Again, about one-third of these parcels are fee simple properties. As well, there are some leases and access agreements.

The second major asset category being transferred from B.C. Transit is guideway tracks, tunnels and bridges between the Waterfront station and the King George station. This includes New Westminster–Surrey SkyBridge, as well as the operations and maintenance centre.

The third major category is stations and all related facilities and equipment of those stations. The stations include Waterfront, Burrard, Granville, Stadium, Main Street, Commercial-Broadway, Nanaimo, 29th Avenue, Joyce-Collingwood, Patterson, Metrotown, Royal Oak, Edmonds, 22nd Street, New Westminster, Columbia, Scott Road, Gateway, Surrey Central and King George.

As the member knows well, in addition to those assets, there are major asset categories within West Coast Express that are also a part of this transfer. Those West Coast Express assets include, again, property and property rights between Waterfront station in Vancouver and Mission station. That involves about 30 parcels of land. Again, about half are fee simple properties. Most of the rest are leases, licences and access agreements. There are some statutory rights-of-way as well.

Secondly, improvements at West Coast Express stations, which include stations, shelters, pedestrian access facilities and park-and-ride facilities. The specific stations are Waterfront, Port Moody, Coquitlam Centre, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Meadows, Port Haney and Mission.

Last but not least, the last major category of West Coast Express assets which are being transferred involves the rolling stock — specifically five locomotives.

G. Heyman: The minister mentioned some improvements. My question is: how much time and/or money has B.C. Transit spent on administration of these assets over the years? Has there been some tracking or assessment of these costs?

[1615]

Hon. T. Stone: As with the response that I provided the member a moment ago in relation to his similar question about the Millennium Line and any recent upgrades that have been made, I will endeavour, through staff, to pull together a definitive list of any recent improvements or upgrades that have been made on these B.C. Transit assets, whether they be West Coast Express–related or SkyTrain-related, and provide those details to the member as quickly as possible.

G. Heyman: I may well get a similar answer to this question but perhaps not. Has TransLink spent any money on improving the assets in question via gas tax funds, for example? How has that been tracked, if it has been tracked?

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to any investments that TransLink has made in any of these assets, there have been some investments. Often these investments have involved cost-sharing between TransLink and the federal and provincial governments.

These investments have included upgrades at SkyTrain stations. They have included the purchase of new SkyTrain cars and other related pieces. Again, as with the previous answers, I would be very happy…. We will take a very holistic look at this in terms of all of the assets, whether they are currently B.C. Transit or RTP 2000, and make sure that we provide the member with as thorough a

summary of upgrades and investments that have been made in any of the assets that are actually involved in the transfer that will be facilitated by this piece of legislation.

G. Heyman: Are there any assets held by any other provincial bodies that aren’t currently being consolidated?

Hon. T. Stone: No.

G. Heyman: I’m a bit curious about subclause (4) that says: “The minister may, by order made after this Act receives Royal Assent and before this Act comes into force, exclude from the transfer under subsection (1) any asset or liability of BC Transit.”

Is this simply a precautionary measure, or is the minister contemplating something that will need to be done in the foreseeable future?

[1620]

Hon. T. Stone: The member is quite correct. This is, for all intents and purposes, a stopgap measure to provide one final opportunity for B.C. Transit, once this legislation moves through this House, to identify any asset that may have been inadvertently captured by the intent of this act that actually relates to an asset that B.C. Transit needs and uses to support its operations and its broader provincial mandate.

Again, the mandate that B.C. Transit has is outside of the Lower Mainland. At this point, we’re not anticipating that this particular subsection will need to be employed. But again, we put it in there through an abundance of caution, to provide B.C. Transit with that one final opportunity to identify and to extract from this transfer process

[ Page 7178 ]

any particular asset that they require for the fulfilment of their mandate outside of the Lower Mainland.

G. Heyman: Just further to that question, I would assume in any event that there was some discussion with B.C. Transit to identify anything that could or should be excluded because it should rightfully stay with B.C. Transit or there was some overlap. Or is this a matter of the discussions were not commenced or not completed?

Hon. T. Stone: Actually, there have been several discussions, lots of different interactions and meetings between B.C. Transit and staff in the ministry over the last number of months, as this legislation has been prepared, to identify and put as accurate a fence as possible around all of those assets at B.C. Transit which will be captured through the intent of this particular legislation.

This is not a case whereby this clause was put in here to facilitate subsequent discussions, because we’re having a lot of discussions. This was, again, really just a stopgap measure, one final opportunity, should the legislation pass the House, to afford B.C. Transit with the opportunity to identify an asset that really should not be part of this transfer because it’s critical to their operations outside of the Lower Mainland.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

G. Heyman:

Section 5 refers to the lease of assets to TransLink under the TFA. When is the lease due for renewal?

Hon. T. Stone: The lease goes until January 30, 2018.

G. Heyman: Is the minister planning any significant renegotiation of the lease or a simple extension?

[1625]

Hon. T. Stone: At this point in time, we’re not anticipating any significant modifications to the lease agreement. Then again, it doesn’t come up for renewal until January of 2018, as I mentioned a moment ago. As we move forward, the Evergreen line comes on stream likely in the late spring or summer of 2016. The Expo and West Coast Express lease goes until January of 2018. The Millennium Line lease goes until 2017.

Certainly, as we move forward in time, as issues are identified and opportunities are identified, that may impact our thinking around all of the lease agreements. In fact, this was exactly the kind of opportunity that we believed would present itself by bringing all of these assets into the BCTFA so that they’re all in one place. There can perhaps be some better coordination and consistency of the lease terms involving all of the assets that make up the complete transit system in the Lower Mainland.

G. Heyman: To follow up on that a bit, can the minister think of any ways in which the consolidation might lead to some beneficial or contemplated changes in the lease?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, one of the benefits that we anticipate, one of the goals, is to achieve some efficiencies. That’s one of the underlying objectives of this piece of legislation, again — and transferring all of these assets into one place.

One area where there could be some efficiency is in the management of the terms of the leases for the different assets but also the management of those leases. It’s premature to project or to speculate at this point exactly what those efficiencies could look like, but again, that’s one of the driving objectives of this transfer of assets that would be facilitated through this piece of legislation.

G. Heyman: Can the minister indicate if the consolidation affects the existing lease in any way?

Hon. T. Stone: No.

[1630]

G. Heyman: Can the minister indicate if any consideration is being given or might be given to a direct transfer of the assets to TransLink at the end of the lease and, perhaps, give reasons why or why not, depending on the answer?

Hon. T. Stone: No, we are not contemplating any transfer of these rapid transit assets to TransLink. They are, in their current incarnation, assets held by the province of British Columbia on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and they will continue to be once they’re all transferred and located within the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.

G. Heyman: If I remember my history correctly, at the time of the original lease agreements the province was providing substantially all of the funding. That’s no longer the case. The province is providing about a third of the funding. We’re waiting for the federal government to commit a third, and of course, taxpayers in Metro Vancouver are being asked to contribute a third to TransLink.

Given this, why would the minister not consider a transfer of the assets to TransLink, who will be charged with the costs of maintaining as well as operating the assets without full funding from the provincial government?

Hon. T. Stone: I’ll add my two bits here, as well, in terms of a history lesson on this file.

The original assets of the Millennium Line, the Expo Line and the West Coast Express were actually paid for 100 percent by the province of British Columbia. Obviously, Evergreen is a cost-sharing arrangement.

[ Page 7179 ]

There have been a number of upgrades to stations and the purchase of cars and so forth that have been cost-shared, but the original assets were 100 percent paid for by the province of British Columbia.

I would also remind the member — I know he knows this but for the purposes of saying it into the record — when TransLink was created, the deal that was agreed to by the government of the day, which was an NDP government, and the mayors of the region at the time was that this entity, TransLink, would be responsible for the cost of transit and transportation expansion of the transit network in the Lower Mainland along with the major road network that represents assets that are part of TransLink’s mandate. In exchange for that, the province would fund 100 percent of hospital capital expansion. Indeed, that is what the province has done.

In recent years the province has stepped up, as has the federal government, beyond that original agreement and has also agreed to participate in a one-third cost-sharing capacity on expansion of transit and transportation in the Lower Mainland.

[1635]

G. Heyman: The minister, of course, is correct in his history. It’s precisely the change in the history to which I was referring that would lead, I would think, to some rethinking of the terms of the lease or a transfer of some or all of the assets for TransLink — and, by extension, the Metro Vancouver residents who are being asked to increase funding for TransLink — so it can take its one-third responsibility for expansion of these assets as well as for operation and maintenance.

I will leave my questions on clause 5 at that.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

G. Heyman: That’s one vote that will have to be retaken, I think.

Can the minister outline which records to be transferred to the TFA are being contemplated by this clause that refers to B.C. Transit records — either specific ones of which he knows or categories of records?

Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the types of records that B.C. Transit will be required to provide as part of this transfer of assets, as the member knows,

section 9(2) of this bill refers to a copy of these records being provided to the TFA in accordance with the terms established by the TFA. The TFA will provide an itemized list of the types of records that it requires B.C. Transit to transfer.

That list would likely include items like agreements, invoices, licences, plans, approvals — any types of documents that in the opinion of the TFA are documents that relate directly to the assets that are being transferred and that particularly relate to the ongoing operation of the existing assets. Those would be the types of records that the TFA would require B.C. Transit to provide.

G. Heyman: The minister talked about records that relate to the ongoing operation. Would the TFA — the TFA, of course, is substantively the minister and the deputy minister, and that’s about it — consider other records that may not pertain to the ongoing operation but have historical significance or may need to be referenced for one reason or another in the future?

[1640]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the staff within the ministry that are responsible for the Transportation Financing Authority will pull together that list. On that list will be the records that staff believes are necessary to have as part of this transfer. Again, they may involve documents that are directly related to the ongoing operation of the assets, possibly, and the ongoing maintenance of the assets as per this section.

Staff may also determine that there are certain types of documents that are of a more historical nature that relate to the assets that also would be of value to have. Again, those documents would be included in the itemized list that TFA will provide B.C. Transit.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

G. Heyman: Perhaps the minister could indicate, with respect to this particular clause that has a sunset of three years, why, first of all, the three-year sunset was chosen and what time frame the minister is actually contemplating for actions under this clause.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, as the member knows, while it’s a very simple transaction at its highest level — simply transferring all of the assets, these different rapid transit assets, on an as-is basis — when you actually get into the detail to implement this, it can be quite complex. It’s going to take some time.

There’s going to need to be an ongoing opportunity for the TFA and for B.C. Transit to be able to ensure that if an asset, for example, in the determination of both parties at the end of the day was inadvertently transferred to the BCTFA and needs to be transferred back — this just as one example — that can take place.

Now, in terms of the three-year time frame, we settled on this time frame as a period of time that we think is not unreasonable. It’s not too long. It’s not too short. It should give both parties ample opportunity to facilitate all aspects of this transfer.

G. Heyman: I appreciate the minister’s answer.

Within the parameters that the minister outlined, is

[ Page 7180 ]

there a shorter time frame than three years that is a target time frame for an intensive review to ensure that everything that was intended to be done or needs to be captured or would advisedly be captured is, in fact, captured?

[1645]

Hon. T. Stone: We do not have a target time frame that’s less than the three years provided for in this section. That being said, we can say that staff will begin working on this transition and the transfer of assets immediately, should this legislation pass this House. There will be a lot of details to work out, and there are a lot of moving parts here.

We talked a moment ago about the leases, the different assets. Evergreen will be completed next year, so in 2016. The Millennium Line lease expires in 2017. The Expo and West Coast Express lease agreement expires in 2018, and 2018 is about three years from now. Again, we think this is not an unreasonable period of time, during which staff in the ministry will be working very closely with B.C. Transit staff to facilitate this transfer of assets as quickly as possible.

G. Heyman: Subsection (4) indicates that there could be further inclusions or exclusions. Are there any specific inclusions or exclusions that the minister is contemplating or ministerial staff are contemplating or at least that have been identified as needing further review or discussion before a final decision is made, so that within the record we can know if there’s something specific that’s at least being contemplated or considered that’s not listed in the bill or in the specific assets that were read into the record earlier?

Hon. T. Stone: No, there are no specifics that we are contemplating today in terms of items that could be excluded or included in the transfer as per this section. Again, this

section is simply here to provide maximum opportunity or latitude to best address any situations which arise, once staff with the TFA and staff with B.C. Transit actually begin the process of working together to facilitate the transfer of these assets.

G. Heyman: For the record, if memory serves me correctly, I think the minister at an earlier date indicated to me that these transfers were at least in part a result of the core review identifying some potential administrative savings that would result from this, and while not great, they were quantified. Perhaps the minister would like to read that into the record as well.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, as I said, I believe, in second reading, the hard cost savings from this transfer of assets we believe will be very modest. We’re anticipating administrative savings in the range of $50,000 to $80,000 on an annual basis, and that will largely come about through savings related to accounting and legal.

That being said, we do anticipate, again, that this transfer of assets will afford the opportunity to potentially achieve some additional efficiencies beyond those hard costs savings of between $50,000 and $80,000 per year.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

G. Heyman: On its surface, at least,

section 11 appears to be substantially similar to

section 10.

[1650]

Perhaps the minister could explain what the differences are, in that they both address to some degree the ability of the minister, after the date the bill passes for a period of up to three years, to order transfer with or without conditions, assets or liabilities.

Hon. T. Stone:

Section 11 provides for an order that can be made that, essentially, is effective the moment it’s issued.

Section 11 does not allow for the possibility of an action that is retroactive in nature,

whereas

section 10, because it provides for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulations, does afford the opportunity for retroactive actions to be taken if retroactive actions are required.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister for the explanation. Again, is it safe to assume that, like with

section 10, this is essentially a precautionary clause, or is there anything in particular that the minister or ministerial staff are considering?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. It is simply precautionary in nature, very similar to the responses I’ve given to the questions that the member has asked. There is nothing specific that we are contemplating at this point in time.

G. Heyman: We’ve read into the record the assets and liabilities that are going to be transferred today as we debate this bill, but sections 10 and 11 both provide for actions subsequent to the bill becoming

an act, should it pass today. Does the minister contemplate that if there is some further inclusion or exclusion in the future, there would be some period of consultation or debate with respect to the inclusion or exclusion or a notice period prior to transfer?

Hon. T. Stone: The intent through this legislation, again, is to provide the tools necessary for B.C. Transit and the TFA to engage as required to facilitate the transition of these rapid transit assets to the TFA.

Certainly, in the course of that work, if there are issues identified or if a potential inclusion or exclusion is identified, that issue — certainly, from the perspective of the TFA, and I would expect nothing less from B.C. Transit — would be dealt with in a very respectful manner and would

[ Page 7181 ]

involve providing the other party with as much opportunity for engagement and consultation notice as possible.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

[1655]

G. Heyman: This

section removes reference to Rapid Transit Project 2000. Does this change have any effect, or can the minister or his staff contemplate any effect, aside from the simple deletion of the reference?

Hon. T. Stone: This

section will allow B.C. Transit to continue to own, acquire and dispose of property in Metro Vancouver as required in the operation of their services outside of the region — those services that integrate with services in the region. That being said, it does facilitate the removal of the reference to the Millennium Line SkyTrain because that particular asset, through this legislation, would be transferred to the TFA.

G. Heyman: Sub (9) refers to owning, acquiring or disposing of “property that is located in, or is being employed in, the transportation service region as defined in the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.” Are there any specific properties in mind for either acquisition or disposal?

Hon. T