3rd Session, 37th Parliament

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Victoria

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Issue No. 5

BARRY PENNER, MLA, CHAIR

ISSN 1703-2474

Published under the authority of the Speaker Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/cmt

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Victoria Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Chair: * (-Kent L)

Deputy Chair: (-Edmonds L)

Members: Bill Bennett (East Kootenay L) * Jeff Bray (Victoria–Beacon Hill L) * (Oak Bay–Gordon Head L) * Walt Cobb (Cariboo South L) * (Chilliwack-Sumas L) Paul Nettleton (Prince George–Omineca L) Joy MacPhail (Vancouver-Hastings NDP)

* denotes member present

Clerks: Ian Izard

Witnesses: Michael V. Roche (Alexander Holburn Beaudin and Lang)

CONTENTS

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Page

Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)...... 27

MINUTES

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Wednesday, May 15, 2002 10 a.m. Douglas Fir Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

Present: Barry Penner, MLA (Chair); Walt Cobb, MLA; Jeff Bray, MLA; John Les, MLA; Ida Chong, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Patty Sahota, MLA (Deputy Chair); Paul Nettleton, MLA; Bill Bennett, MLA; Joy MacPhail, MLA

1. The Committee met at 10:05 a.m.

2. Business: Bill Pr 401 — Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002

3. The Law Clerk reported that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of the Standing Orders.

4. The Committee received a presentation from the applicant:

Michael V. Roche, Alexander Holburn Beaudin and Lang, agent for Spring Enterprises Inc.

5. Resolved, on the motion of Ms. Chong, seconded by Mr. Cobb, that the Committee reports that the preamble of Bill (No. Pr 401) intituled Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration Act), 2002, has been proved and recom- mends that the Bill proceed to Second Reading.

6. The meeting adjourned at 10:16 a.m.

Barry Penner, MLA Ian Izard Chair Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk

27

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002 company which has been struck for a period in excess of ten years. The only way of doing that is by a special The committee met at 10:05 a.m. act of the Legislature, and accordingly, I am here. I believe you have in your materials Mr. Pelligrini's [B. Penner in the chair.] petition and his affidavit which attests to the facts that I have just explained to you. Mr. Pelligrini wishes the B. Penner (Chair): Good morning. We'll call the company to be restored under a different name, which is committee to order. a little bit of a twist. The original name of the company, We have only one item before us this morning, and of course, is Spring Enterprises. After the company was that pertains to a private bill. You'll recall that when struck, someone else in incorporated a the committee was first convened, we had a short company with almost the same name. Instead of Spring overview by Clerk Ian Izard with respect to the history Enterprises Inc., a new company was incorporated by a and procedure pertaining to private bills. Mr. Izard completely unknown third party under the name Spring will now refresh our memory somewhat more in terms Enterprises Ltd. Accordingly, Mr. Pelligrini wishes his of private bills. company to be reinstated under the name 184639 B.C. Ltd., which is the number of its incorporation. That's the Spring Enterprises Inc. company's incorporation number. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 [1010]

That's pretty well it. There's nothing more to ex- I. Izard: Okay. The bill before us is Pr401, Spring plain, really, except that the consequences, of course, of Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002. Mr. not being restored are fairly severe. Like British Co- Michael Roche, who's the solicitor for the applicant, is lumbia, Ontario has escheat legislation, which means here. I think the process we follow is that Mr. Roche that when a company is dissolved, title to its real prop- will explain the bill, entertain any questions from the erty falls to the Crown. Normally, what would happen members, and then we can have a motion on whether in a restoration in British Columbia is we would obtain it's to proceed or not. I do have a draft motion for you. a letter from the minister saying that British Columbia

would have no interest in the land once the company is M. Roche: Thank you for coming here this morning. restored, and it would be deemed to have owned the I'll try not to keep you too long. I represent a gentleman land since its state of incorporation notwithstanding by the name of Pietro Pelligrini who in 1978 incorpo- the dissolution. Ontario has similar legislation, and that rated a company called Spring Enterprises Inc. under the will occur in Ontario as well, as it would have done in laws of British Columbia as they then were. In 1982 the British Columbia. It's vitally important that this com- company acquired some land in Ontario, and as it was pany be restored to the register. going to carry on business in Ontario, it extraprovin- cially registered itself in that province, although it main- That's pretty well it. If you've got any questions, I'd tained its place of incorporation in British Columbia. be very pleased to answer them. Now for some reason, obviously inadvertence, the company, although it kept its corporate filings in On- B. Penner (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Roche. Ques- tario up to date, stopped making filings in the province tions from members? of British Columbia for annual reports and, accord- ingly, became not in good standing. After a period of W. Cobb: Well, I guess my first question is why he years, notices were sent out, none of which Mr. Pelli- would not have received the notification. It isn't only grini received or had notification of, although the no- advertised in the Gazette. One of my companies actu- tices were sent out by the registrar of companies. In ally got notification, and it was sent…. 1986 the company was struck from the register and dissolved for failure to file annual reports. M. Roche: I really can't explain that, nor could Mr. Mr. Pelligrini continued to act to operate his com- Pelligrini, because of course he didn't receive any notifi- pany in Ontario. The land in question, I'm told, is a cation. It was some time ago. Mr. Pelligrini lives in Italy, farm. The land in question is valued at approximately and I don't know if he had a solicitor handling his file $2 million today and is an operating farm. It's filed here. I think what he did, when he moved his company income tax returns; it's an operating business. Unbe- extraprovincially — registered it in Ontario — was sim- knownst to Mr. Pelligrini, the company had been dis- ply think: "There's no need for me to keep anything up solved in its jurisdiction of incorporation. He became in British Columbia." I think he moved to Ontario first aware of that earlier in 2001 and retained our firm to and then subsequently moved back to Italy. restore the company to the register.

Normally, the restoration of a company is accom- plished in a very simple manner by an ex parte applica- W. Cobb: You said the income tax and everything tion to the Supreme Court and the filing of all the back had been filed on the company as per normal. annual reports that were not filed. Unfortunately, the company's been struck for in excess of ten years, and M. Roche: The company's carried on as if it were in the Company Act does not provide for restoration of a existence like nothing ever happened.

28 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2002

W. Cobb: So there's no arrears of property taxes or I. Izard: If I can add one thing. This situation here is anything like that as well as not filing financially. analogous to a bill we did, I think, two years ago, deal- ing with a person who registered in British Columbia, M. Roche: Not to my knowledge, and they would owned an apartment building and then moved to Cal- be Ontario arrears, in any event. gary and didn't have his mail forwarded. That may possibly answer Mr. Cobb's question. It was a similar B. Penner (Chair): Anyone else? situation. It would have been escheated in Alberta, just as this would in Ontario. W. Cobb: The property is not owned here in B.C. B. Penner (Chair): That's right, Mr. Roche. Your M. Roche: They have no assets at all in British Co- client lives in Italy, I believe. lumbia, as a matter of fact. M. Roche: He does, yes. B. Penner (Chair): Sorry. Say that again. B. Penner (Chair): Seeing nothing further…. M. Roche: There are no assets at all, I'm told, in Brit- ish Columbia owned by the company. I guess the bene- I. Izard: Now we put forward a motion, which fit to British Columbia for this would be that we have to ought to be moved by somebody other than the Chair, file all of the back annual reports and the fees for filing which can then be voted on. That will produce the re- since 1986 as well, which is some money in our coffers. sult.

B. Penner (Chair): I have one or two questions. If W. Cobb: Be it resolved that the committee report the farm owned by Spring Enterprises, as it was then that the preamble of Bill Pr401, intituled Spring Enter- known, is located in Ontario, why was the company prises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, has been incorporated here in B.C.? proved and recommends that the bill proceed to sec- ond reading. M. Roche: I can't tell you that. Obviously he in- tended to carry on business and, I think, probably did B. Penner (Chair): That's the motion. Any debate do something in British Columbia between 1978 and on the motion? 1982 when he extraprovincially registered the company in Ontario. Motion approved.

B. Penner (Chair): I'm also a little disappointed to I. Izard: Then you have a motion to adjourn. hear that the registrar of companies allowed someone [1015] else to register a company with an almost identical name. I thought there was a restriction on that. B. Penner (Chair): At this time a motion to adjourn would be in order, but I'll just remind members that M. Roche: Well, certainly there is, but when the our next committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, company was dissolved, there was no company called May 28 at 8:30 a.m. I believe that will be the matter Spring Enterprises on the register, so the name became pertaining to the premature disclosure of a draft com- available again. mittee report from the Legislature, so please mark your calendars and be here Tuesday, May 28 at 8:30 a.m. B. Penner (Chair): Right. I don't see any further questions. The committee adjourned at 10:16 a.m.