Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 24, Number 1

THE HONOURABLE , SPEAKER

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871)

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

Premier and President of the Executive Council ...... Hon. Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ...... Hon. Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ...... Hon. Minister of Advanced Education ...... Hon. Minister of Agriculture ...... Hon. Minister of Children and Family Development ...... Hon. Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ...... Hon. Minister of Education ...... Hon. Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review ...... Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ...... Hon. Minister of Finance ...... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations...... Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ...... Hon. Dr. Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ...... Hon. Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...... Hon. Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ...... Hon. Minister of Justice ...... Hon. Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation...... Hon. Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ...... Hon. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ...... Hon.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...... John Horgan Deputy Speaker ...... Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...... Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ...... Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees ...... Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...... Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ...... Gary Lenz ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING

Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) ...... Vancouver-Fraserview Abbotsford-Mission ...... Simon Gibson Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal)...... Penticton Abbotsford South ...... Dr. Darryl Plecas Austin, Robin (NDP) ...... Skeena Abbotsford West ...... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Bains, Harry (NDP) ...... Surrey-Newton Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ...... Scott Fraser Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ...... Cariboo-Chilcotin Boundary-Similkameen ...... Linda Larson Bennett, Hon. Bill (BC Liberal) ...... Kootenay East Burnaby–Deer Lake ...... Kathy Corrigan Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ...... Peace River South Burnaby-Edmonds ...... Raj Chouhan Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ...... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Burnaby-Lougheed ...... Jane Jae Kyung Shin Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ...... Prince George–Valemount Burnaby North ...... Richard T. Lee Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ...... Surrey-Cloverdale Cariboo-Chilcotin ...... Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ...... Vancouver–West End Cariboo North ...... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...... Burnaby-Edmonds Chilliwack ...... John Martin Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ...... Westside- Chilliwack-Hope ...... Laurie Th roness Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Columbia River–Revelstoke ...... Norm Macdonald Conroy, Katrine (NDP) ...... Kootenay West Comox Valley...... Don McRae Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ...... Burnaby–Deer Lake Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ...... Douglas Horne Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ...... Maple Ridge–Mission Coquitlam-Maillardville...... Selina Robinson Darcy, Judy (NDP) ...... New Westminster Cowichan Valley ...... Bill Routley de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ...... Abbotsford West Delta North ...... Wm. Scott Hamilton Dix, Adrian (NDP)...... Vancouver-Kingsway Delta South...... Vicki Huntington Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ...... Stikine Esquimalt–Royal Roads ...... Maurine Karagianis Eby, David (NDP) ...... Vancouver–Point Grey Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...... Hon. Rich Coleman Elmore, Mable (NDP) ...... Vancouver-Kensington Fraser-Nicola...... Jackie Tegart Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...... Port Coquitlam Juan de Fuca ...... John Horgan Fassbender, Hon. Peter (BC Liberal) ...... Surrey-Fleetwood Kamloops–North Th ompson ...... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Fleming, Rob (NDP) ...... Victoria–Swan Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ...... Hon. Todd Stone Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) ...... Vernon-Monashee Kelowna–Lake Country ...... Hon. Norm Letnick Fraser, Scott (NDP) ...... Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Kelowna-Mission ...... Hon. Steve Th omson Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...... Abbotsford-Mission Kootenay East ...... Hon. Bill Bennett Hamilton, Wm. Scott (BC Liberal) ...... Delta North Kootenay West ...... Katrine Conroy Hammell, Sue (NDP) ...... Surrey–Green Timbers Langley...... Hon. Mary Polak Heyman, George (NDP) ...... Vancouver-Fairview Maple Ridge–Mission ...... Marc Dalton Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ...... Surrey–White Rock Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ...... Dr. Doug Bing Holman, Gary (NDP) ...... Saanich North and the Islands Nanaimo ...... Leonard Eugene Krog Horgan, John (NDP) ...... Juan de Fuca Nanaimo–North Cowichan ...... Doug Routley Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ...... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Nechako Lakes ...... Hon. John Rustad Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ...... Surrey-Panorama Nelson-Creston ...... Michelle Mungall Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ...... Delta South New Westminster ...... Judy Darcy James, Carole (NDP) ...... Victoria–Beacon Hill North Coast...... Jennifer Rice Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ...... Esquimalt–Royal Roads North Island ...... Claire Trevena Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ...... Nanaimo North Vancouver–Lonsdale ...... Hon. Naomi Yamamoto Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant North Vancouver–Seymour ...... Jane Th ornthwaite Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ...... Shuswap Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...... Dr. Andrew Weaver Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ...... Kamloops–North Th ompson Parksville-Qualicum ...... Hon. Michelle Stilwell Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) ...... Boundary-Similkameen ...... Pat Pimm Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ...... Burnaby North Peace River South ...... Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ...... Kelowna–Lake Country Penticton...... Dan Ashton Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ...... Columbia River–Revelstoke Port Coquitlam ...... Mike Farnworth McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ...... Comox Valley Port Moody–Coquitlam ...... Linda Reimer Martin, John (BC Liberal) ...... Chilliwack Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...... Nicholas Simons Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ...... Prince George–Mackenzie Prince George–Mackenzie ...... Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ...... Nelson-Creston Prince George–Valemount ...... Hon. Shirley Bond Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) ...... Cariboo North Richmond Centre ...... Hon. Teresa Wat Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) ...... Peace River North Richmond East ...... Hon. Linda Reid Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) ...... Abbotsford South Richmond-Steveston ...... Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) ...... Langley Saanich North and the Islands ...... Gary Holman Popham, Lana (NDP) ...... Saanich South Saanich South ...... Lana Popham Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ...... Surrey-Whalley Shuswap ...... Greg Kyllo Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ...... Richmond East Skeena ...... Robin Austin Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ...... Port Moody–Coquitlam Stikine ...... Doug Donaldson Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ...... North Coast Surrey-Cloverdale ...... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Robinson, Selina (NDP) ...... Coquitlam-Maillardville Surrey-Fleetwood ...... Hon. Peter Fassbender Routley, Bill (NDP) ...... Cowichan Valley Surrey–Green Timbers ...... Sue Hammell Routley, Doug (NDP) ...... Nanaimo–North Cowichan Surrey-Newton ...... Harry Bains Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ...... Nechako Lakes Surrey-Panorama ...... Marvin Hunt Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...... Burnaby-Lougheed Surrey-Tynehead ...... Hon. Amrik Virk Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Surrey-Whalley...... Bruce Ralston Simpson, Shane (NDP) ...... Vancouver-Hastings Surrey–White Rock ...... Gordon Hogg Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)...... Parksville-Qualicum Vancouver-Fairview ...... George Heyman Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ...... Vancouver-Langara Vancouver–False Creek ...... Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) ...... Kamloops–South Th ompson Vancouver-Fraserview ...... Hon. Suzanne Anton Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ...... West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Vancouver-Hastings ...... Shane Simpson Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...... Vancouver–False Creek Vancouver-Kensington ...... Mable Elmore Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...... West Vancouver–Capilano Vancouver-Kingsway...... Adrian Dix Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ...... Fraser-Nicola Vancouver-Langara ...... Dr. Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) ...... Kelowna-Mission Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ...... Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...... North Vancouver–Seymour Vancouver–Point Grey ...... David Eby Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal)...... Chilliwack-Hope Vancouver-Quilchena ...... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Trevena, Claire (NDP) ...... North Island Vancouver–West End ...... Spencer Chandra Herbert Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ...... Surrey-Tynehead Vernon-Monashee ...... Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) ...... Richmond Centre Victoria–Beacon Hill ...... Carole James Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) ...... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Victoria–Swan Lake...... Rob Fleming Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ...... Vancouver-Quilchena West Vancouver–Capilano ...... Yamamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ...... North Vancouver–Lonsdale West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ...... Yap, John (BC Liberal) ...... Richmond-Steveston Westside-Kelowna ...... Hon. Christy Clark

Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members ...... 7495

Statements (Standing Order 25B) ...... 7496 Capilano River salmon R. Sultan Indian Residential School Survivors Society S. Simpson Organ donation and transplantation G. Kyllo General Gordon Parent Advisory Council D. Eby Great Bear Paleo Bites L. Larson Culture and Heritage Awards in Nanaimo L. Krog

Oral Questions ...... 7498 Government action on gun violence in Surrey J. Horgan Hon. C. Clark Programs for prevention of gang involvement among youth J. Horgan Hon. C. Clark Wait times for surgeries J. Darcy Hon. T. Lake B.C. Ambulance Service response times K. Corrigan Hon. T. Lake Interior to Lower Mainland transmission project A. Dix Hon. B. Bennett Proposed national park in South Okanagan area S. Chandra Herbert Hon. M. Polak Child death case and access to information D. Donaldson Hon. S. Cadieux

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House ...... 7503 Bill 24 — Societies Act Hon. M. de Jong C. James L. Krog V. Huntington K. Corrigan

Reporting of Bills ...... 7523 Bill 24 — Societies Act

Th ird Reading of Bills ...... 7524 Bill 24 — Societies Act Second Reading of Bills ...... 7524 Bill 22 — Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act (continued) D. Eby N. Simons L. Krog A. Weaver S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply ...... 7536 Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued) C. Trevena Hon. T. Stone G. Heyman M. Karagianis 7495

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 2015 J. Darcy: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Tiana Major to the Legislature today. She’s a student in political sci- Th e House met at 1:32 p.m. ence at Simon Fraser University and is planning to move on to do her masters at UBC in the fall. According to her [Madame Speaker in the chair.] partner, who is a legislative intern in this House, Kevin Sage, she is the smartest person that he knows. Will the Routine Business House please join me in making her very welcome.

Prayers. J. Th ornthwaite: In honour of Earth Day today and on behalf of our Minister of Environment, I’d like to Introductions by Members welcome some very special guests in the House from the B.C. Bioenergy Network. B.C. Bioenergy Network is an Hon. N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to intro- initiative focused on promoting bioenergy development. duce some hard-working public servants for the province Bioenergy is created by taking biowaste and transforming of British Columbia in the gallery. We have our Deputy it into electricity, heat, biofuels and specialty chemicals. Minister of Agriculture, Derek Sturko, and Dr. Jane Today I would like to introduce several bioener- Pritchard. Dr. Jane Pritchard is the chief veterinary offi cer gy leaders of B.C.’s climate action work. Dr. Shahab for the province of B.C. and the director of the Animal Sokhansanj, adjunct professor of chemical and biologic- Health Centre veterinary diagnostic lab in Abbotsford. al engineering, UBC; James Repenning, senior vice- She’s currently the chair of the Canadian Council of Chief president, western Canada, Harvest Power; Darcy Quinn, Veterinary Offi cers and a member of the National Farmed director of business development, Nexterra Systems Animal Health and Welfare Council as well. Corp.; Michael Weedon, executive director of the B.C. We also have Dr. Gary Marty who is here with us today. Bioenergy Network; and Marnie Plant, B.C. Bioenergy Dr. Marty is one of Canada’s foremost fi sh pathologists, Network. diagnosing disease and certifying the health of wild fi sh I would ask the House to please make these guests and fi sh farms, aquaria and scientifi c laboratories. Th is welcome. one you’ll like to hear. During his career Dr. Marty has analyzed tissues from 328 diff erent fi sh species. R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a Would the House please make all of them feel very woman on a mission, Dr. Harshinder Kaur. By profession welcome. she is a medical doctor, but she is better known as a med- ical social worker whose work is focused on the plight of N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to women. She has written 22 books and was awarded by the chamber the Association of Book Publishers. It’s won- the United Nations for her work to protect young girls derful that they’re here — Ruth Linka, the president, and in India. She is joined by her husband, Dr. Gurpal Singh, Margaret Reynolds, executive director. What a wonderful and their son Nanak. event it was this morning in the rotunda on B.C. Book Also with them is my dear friend Ajmer Rode. He has Day. I know that many MLAs and Madame Speaker were also written over 20 books of poetry, drama and prose. able to attend. I think it was a wonderful event for the His latest book is called A Journey with the Endless Eye, second year in a row, and I’m pleased to hear that it is go- the story of the Komagata Maru. ing to continue for years to come. May the House please Please join me to give them a very warm welcome. make them welcome. [1335] Hon. S. Bond: I’m delighted to introduce a group of individuals in the Legislature from the Coalition of L. Larson: It’s my pleasure today to introduce two amaz- B.C. Businesses. We have Jeff Quinard, James Chase, ing young women from my riding. Th e B.C. ambassador Jon Garson, Muneesh Sharma, Neil Moody, Mark von program is an annual event that takes place in August each Schellwitz, Gord Stewart, David Lynn, Kate Dodd and year. It recognizes young men and women between the George Higgins. ages of 17 and 24 who have previously held ambassador or We have an excellent working relationship, and we look royal titles in their communities. Th ey earn scholarships forward to a meeting later this aft ernoon. I’d ask all of my and travel throughout the province promoting their man- colleagues in the House to make them most welcome. date of education, motivation and self-esteem. Today 2013 ambassador Lauren Sherwood from Hon. T. Wat: Joining us in the gallery today are Ray Osoyoos and current 2014-2015 ambassador Juliana Schmalz from Creston and Wendy Stander from Port Martine from Oliver are here in the House. Would the Alberni. Th ey are the relatives of my chief of staff , and House please make these exceptional young women wel- they are visiting the Legislature for the fi rst time today. come. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome. 7496 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

M. Dalton: I have a special guest in the gallery today, Fed by snows on the peaks of Howe Sound, it trickles Lynne Gendron, from Alberta. She was my grade 4 teach- south, turns left at the paws of the lions and heads for er. She’s been here before, visiting and keeping tabs on the sea. It’s trapped for a time behind Cleveland dam, me. She was my teacher when I was in Holberg, and we where it’s asked to contribute to Vancouver’s drinking also knew her as a family friend in Valcartier, Quebec. I water. When it does rush over the spillway, it performs a found out today during lunch that she has lived in 4 Wing, 100-metre dive, which stuns the migrating juvenile fi sh. Germany, where I lived and where I was born. It then races through a deep, dark canyon, million-dol- Would the House please make her feel welcome. lar homes on one side and the remnants of forests which never felt the logger’s axe on the other. As it exits to the J. Tegart: I’d like to share with the House today that sea, it salutes today’s version of the Squamish Nation vil- April 22, 2015, has been proclaimed as B.C. Book Day. lage on the beach, which was and still is a prime location Welcome to the publishers, authors and special guests who for catching salmon. participated in the B.C. Book Day event in this precinct. Returning salmon must navigate a cluster of anglers [1340] guarding Capilano on the left and the insult of poorly treated sewage outfl ows on the right. But return they do, G. Kyllo: Th is week is National Organ and Tissue Donor enhanced by over one million fi ngerlings released annu- Awareness Week. Joining us in the gallery today are two ally at the Capilano fi sh hatchery. Far fewer than 5 per- very special guests. We have Shannon McCloskey, the B.C. cent will survive ocean dangers and return. Transplant in-hospital donation coordinator for Vancouver Most steelhead smolts, hatched with care, don’t even Island, and Kim Jordison, B.C. Transplant volunteer and survive the few kilometres to Point Atkinson. Hatchery- B.C. government employee. raised juveniles are kind of dumb and are easy prey. B.C. Transplant supports the needs of patients and Swimming in the sewage does not help, but giving them families of donors and transplant recipients and reminds a larger share of Capilano water surely would. us of the need for organ donation. Would the House join me in welcoming Shannon and Kim to the House, and INDIAN RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL please make them feel very welcome. SURVIVORS SOCIETY

Hon. B. Bennett: I’d like to introduce two people to S. Simpson: I’m pleased to recognize the 20th anniver- the House today from the Canadian Home Builders sary of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. Association, B.C. branch. First of all, Neil Moody is up Established two decades ago, the society responds to the there somewhere. He’s the CEO. Secondly, the president, needs of those who suff ered the impacts of residential Simon Howse, whom I had lunch with today. Simon is schools. Residential schools are a sad fact of our history, from Fernie, so this is, I think, two weeks in a row that I’ve a notorious strategy to rip aboriginal children away from actually had the opportunity to introduce people from their families and institutionalize them, to extinguish Kootenay East. Please help me to make them welcome. their language and culture — a scheme aimed at, essen- tially, ending First Nations as a people by assimilating D. Horne: It’s with great pleasure that I introduce their children. a group from SFU who is visiting today, led by André We know that too oft en physical and sexual abuse was Gerolymatos, who is the head of the Stavros Niarchos a reality for the children in these schools. Yet today B.C.’s Centre for Hellenic Studies at SFU. He’s accompanied identity is inherently linked to First Nations. When we by Rob Gordon with the criminology department and celebrate British Columbia, it is almost always defi ned by Garth Davies, as well as Colleen Prescott. I’d hope that our natural beauty and First Peoples culture. the House would make them truly welcome. First Nations refuse to be extinguished by residential schools, refuse to be assimilated, refuse to lose their iden- Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, please join me tity. In fact, First Nations have strengthened their place in welcoming a wonderful group of grade fi ve students in B.C. Sadly, that doesn’t diminish the damage done to from Kathleen McNeely Elementary School in my riding school survivors — mental health challenges, addictions and their teacher Gillian Ewart. Please welcome them all. and the struggle for identity that many still suff er today. [1345] Statements Th e Indian Residential School Survivors Society was (Standing Order 25B) established to address these complex issues. Its mandate is to assist First Peoples in B.C. “to recognize and be hol- CAPILANO RIVER SALMON istically empowered from the primary and generational eff ects of residential schools by support, research, educa- R. Sultan: Only a river pebble’s throw from my con- tion, awareness, establishing partnerships and advocating stituency offi ce fl ows an aquatic jewel, the Capilano River. for justice and healing. Th e society assists survivors with Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7497

crisis counselling, court support, information, referrals, grade school. It’s also the school bus stop for kids headed workshops and more.” to Queen Elizabeth school, which is the swing site while For 20 years the society has played a critical role. the school is under construction. However, their work, which remains important today, is Instead of a low-energy, boring wait for the bus, there clouded with uncertainty, as funding is only committed was a tent. Th ere was coff ee. Th ere was a fundraising drive till March 2016. underway. Th ere was lots of energy. Th e bus stop had Let us join today to celebrate the valuable work of this been turned into an early morning parent and student society. Let us tell them that we know their work is not meet-and-greet festival by the General Gordon Parent fi nished, that there is still a road to travel and that we Advisory Council and, of course, they invited their MLA. will be with them to ensure that they get to fi nish this Th at there was an early morning street party at the important journey. school bus stop would be no surprise to anybody familiar with the General Gordon PAC and their commitment to ORGAN DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION the school community. Co-chaired by Karen Wood and Jane Pike, the General Gordon PAC members are as di- G. Kyllo: This week is National Organ and Tissue verse as they are active. PAC members at General Gordon Donation Awareness Week, and there is no greater gift work in all various careers in Vancouver. Some are busi- than the gift of life. Did you know that one organ donor ness owners. Some are gardeners, volunteers, organizers. can save up to eight lives? I wanted to share with this But they all share a commitment to our public education House a very touching and inspirational story of one such system and to General Gordon School. donor: Carol Moulton, the mother of B.C. Transplant vol- When not holding bus stop street parties, they’re fund- unteer and government employee Kim Jordison. raising hard for playground equipment at the new school, Carol was a vibrant and caring mother and active vol- using the sale of bricks they thoughtfully had set aside unteer in Langford who encouraged her family to regis- during the demolition of the old building. Th ey work ter as organ donors. Carol, sadly, passed away on April closely with Principal Margaret Davidson and her staff to 11, 2011, yet through her registration as an organ donor, maintain a sense of connection for parents to the school she was able to give the ultimate gift to seven eternally community during this time of transition. grateful organ donor recipients. Co-chair Karen Wood says that the strength of the PAC I know that Carol would be so very proud of her comes from their diversity. She says: “What surprised me daughter, Kim, for the volunteer work that she continues was not only the depth and the breadth of the commun- to do with B.C. Transplant. Just this week Kim initiated ity but also the myriad of perspectives and ideas. It’s like an eff ort to help raise organ donation awareness, with being in the epicentre of society, where every nationality, over 25,000 government employees across the province, learning and physical ability and disability, wealth polar- through inclusion of key messaging posted on the B.C. ity and any other refl ection of society is present.” government @Work Internet site. Th ough General Gordon’s concrete foundation has Currently 465 people are waiting for life-saving organ been carried off in dump trucks, it’s clear that the General transplants in B.C. Sadly, many of those waiting for a trans- Gordon’s school community is as strong as ever, thanks to plant will die before a suitable organ is available. Despite 95 the General Gordon PAC. To all of the parents, teachers, percent of British Columbians supporting organ donation, staff and administrators at General Gordon: thank you less than less than 20 percent have registered on B.C.’s or- so much for making our community better. gan donor registry, resulting in a chronic shortage of organs. [1350] B.C. Transplant supports the needs of patients and families of donors and transplant recipients and reminds GREAT BEAR PALEO BITES us of the need for organ donation. By registering to give the gift of life, we can contribute to healthier, longer lives L. Larson: I rise in the House today to tell you about for those in need. It takes less than two minutes to register a local business in my riding. Great Bear Paleo Bites is your decision on line. Th ese two minutes could save a life. a small business. It started in Oliver back in 2008 as a I’d like to thank B.C. Transplant for joining us here to- home-based business company serving groups at the lo- day, and I encourage members on both sides of the House cal owner’s crossfi t gym. to register as an organ donor. Organ donors save lives. Inspired by crossfi t and the paleo diet, Tracy Lydiatt embraced her love of baking to create a snack that all GENERAL GORDON could enjoy. With a background in sustainability, the PARENT ADVISORY COUNCIL two-time TED talk speaker created these paleo bites which are vegan and organic, as well as gluten-, soy-, D. Eby: Friday morning last week I headed down to dairy-, nut- and egg-free. a construction site in my community. Th e construction In 2012 Tracy decided to widen her base and started site is the historic and the future site of General Gordon selling them commercially. In the past couple of years her 7498 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

company has blossomed, selling not only to paleo dieters Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for but also the allergy-friendly community. In 2014 the B.C. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain seeks leave to make an food producers awarded this business two awards — best introduction. product of the year award and Rising Star Award. Th e company focuses on healthy, sustainable living Leave granted. and contributes to the local community. I am happy to say that, in January of this year, Th rift y’s started stock- Introductions by Members ing their shelves with these delicious cookies. Further to this, just last week they were featured in B.C. Job Makers, D. Horne: Visiting the chamber today is a delegation a website that highlights business success stories in B.C. from the Nisga’a Lisims Government. Th ey are spending Congratulations to another successful young B.C. the day to learn more about the work of this assembly entrepreneur. and this House. We are honoured to have the opportun- ity to host Stephanie Lysyk, Debra Febril, Myrle Morven CULTURE AND HERITAGE AWARDS and Kristy White. I hope they’ve enjoyed their time here IN NANAIMO at the assembly and in Victoria. May the House make them truly welcome. L. Krog: April 9 in Nanaimo — 2015 Culture and Heritage Awards, celebrating all the great culture that Oral Questions exists in my fair city. The venue — the premier per- forming arts centre in our city, the Port Th eatre, built in GOVERNMENT ACTION ON the 1990s with federal, provincial and local contributions. GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY The evening kicked off with Bruce Williams, well known to all of us here in this chamber, the most ener- J. Horgan: Last night I joined 700 people in an audi- getic host on Vancouver Island, following a welcome torium in Surrey to talk about the escalating gun violence from the Footprints of the Wolf, a local aboriginal dance in that community. I heard anger, I heard frustration, and group, followed by a poetry reading from Ms. Naomi most of all, I heard concern. Beth Wakan, Nanaimo’s poet laureate, and fi nally, a wel- [1355] come by newly elected mayor Bill McKay. I heard concern about how it could be that 23 shootings It was a great evening to celebrate Nanaimo’s arts and could take place in their community, in their hometown, culture. Kicking off , the Honour in Culture Award went over a 30-day period. What they were trying to under- to Arlene Blundell, one of the most active members of stand — with representatives from the RCMP, with rep- the theatre group in town for many, many years and a resentatives from the school board and representatives real leader in arts in our community. from the Surrey council — is: what was the plan? What Following that the Heritage Building Rehabilitation was the coordinated eff ort of multilayers of government to Award residential was given to Andrea Saam-Lawry address the outbreak of gun violence in their community? and Mr. Tim Lawry, owners of the famous and an- My question to the Premier is: just what is the Premier’s cient McCourt Residence. Following that we had the plan to address the concerns and the fears of the people Excellence in Culture Award presented to Grant Leier of Surrey? and Nixie Barton, two very well-known — indeed inter- nationally known — and successful artists. Hon. C. Clark: I want to just add to the Leader of Th en the Heritage Building Rehabilitation Award insti- the Opposition’s comments in this respect, and say to tutional was presented to the Anglican diocese of British the people of Surrey how deeply concerned everyone Columbia for their work at St. Paul’s Anglican Church — in British Columbia is about what’s happening in their I might add, where my grandparents were married. community. Finally, the Emerging Cultural Leader Award went to Surrey is a community that I know to be a thriving, a young woman who is operating Th e Vault restaurant friendly, open place to live, a great place to raise your in Nanaimo, a facility where she opens it up every even- kids and start a business and live out your life. Th at’s the ing, virtually, to local performing artists, all of whom do Surrey that I know. But the events that have been unfold- a great job celebrating arts and culture in Nanaimo. ing recently have been very disturbing to people in Surrey I would be remiss if I didn’t close mentioning that and to all of us across British Columbia. some years ago our fl amboyant and famous mayor, Frank We are working with the city of Surrey and with the Ney, said that when it came to a choice between culture RCMP, as we always do. But I want to say this. Th e chief and corn, Nanaimo would chose corn every time. I am to of police in Surrey has been very clear. He said that this happy to announce that with this signifi cant celebration is not a problem of a lack of resources on the policing that has gone on for several years, culture in Nanaimo front in that city. Th is is a problem of people failing to has conquered corn. come forward. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7499

What I would do today is to join him and the mayor on or one that they see in their school — one that they of Surrey in calling on anyone — any relative, any friend, think might be cool, one that might be the only place any neighbour — who knows anything about these where they feel comfortable. Part of that, an important shootings in Surrey, and I would call on them to come part of that, is making sure that our schools, our school forward, because by coming forward and speaking out, districts, police, cities, the province and the federal gov- they could very well be saving lives. ernment are all working together to make sure we sup- port young people in fi nding the right path. Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official [1400] Opposition on a supplemental. About $60 million a year goes into the RCMP to sup- port the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. PROGRAMS FOR PREVENTION OF GANG Th ey work with anti-gang initiatives. Th ey are doing that INVOLVEMENT AMONG YOUTH work now. Th ey are going to continue to do that work. We are going to continue to evolve the work that we do and J. Horgan: What I heard again last night from the com- our approaches to anti-gang work in schools all across munity and through the head of the RCMP in attendance, the province. and also from the Attorney General some days ago, was It’s important work. Prevention is worth a pound of that the public does have a role to play. Th ere’s no ques- cure. And in answer to the member’s question, we need tion of that. both, and we are there to support the people of Surrey in But what I heard from the public last night is they’re making sure that we deliver on both. prepared to play that role. Th ey want more than law en- forcement, although that’s critically important. Th ey want Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official to ensure that there are programs in place to make sure Opposition on a further supplemental. that kids don’t go down that path. One of the speakers last night was a gentleman named J. Horgan: I’ve been a member of this Legislature Jesse Sahota. Jesse Sahota, in 2005, was heading to the for ten years now, coming on next month. During that gang life. Jesse Sahota was concerned that his future rest- ten-year period I have been witness to debates in this ed with the allure of big cars and fl ashy clothing. But it Legislature. I’ve been witness to events in communities was programs within the school system that took him in that have seen an escalation in violence, an escalation another direction, took him on another path. He’s now a in concern and fear in communities and an absence of two-time Canadian wrestling champion, a graduate from public safety. Simon Fraser University and is employed by the Surrey Do we need to put these people behind bars? Absolutely. school district to provide the same services that he got Do we need more law enforcement? Absolutely. Do we when he was going to choose the path of right or wrong. need to stop the pipeline of kids to these gangs, most It was that response from the public that I heard last importantly? Yes, we do. How do we do that? By giving night. It wasn’t about snitch lines, as important as they those kids options, and most importantly, giving those are. It wasn’t about families coming forward, as import- families options. ant as that is. It was a concern from the public that the What I heard last night in Surrey was mothers and fath- programs for kids are not available. ers standing up and saying: “If I need help, I’ve got no- Th ey start in schools. Th ey start with community ef- where to turn. If I see my children going down the wrong forts. Th ey start with mentoring. Jesse Sahota is a sym- path, I don’t know what to do, where to go, how to help bol of the right path. them.” Th at was the appeal from the community last night. My question to the Premier is: can we make more Were they concerned about an absence of police pres- Jesse Sahotas? I believe we can, and we do that by fund- ence at certain times of the evening? Were they requir- ing programs in schools. Will the Premier commit to do ing more police so we can get these people behind bars? that today? Most assuredly. But the concern from the families was there was an absence of services for them. Hon. C. Clark: Both are necessary. Both are abso- Th at starts with decisions that we make right here at lutely necessary. On the one hand, we need to deal with budget time — the priorities we make as a society to help what’s going on today. We need to put those folks in jail. to lift kids up so they don’t turn to the dark side. My ques- We need to get them off the streets and end the threat tion again to the Premier: will she commit today to pro- that they pose to the people of Surrey and the citizens of vide the resources to the Surrey school board, and other British Columbia. Th at’s the fi rst part of it. school boards in the Lower Mainland that are aff ected by Th e second part is making sure that we’re doing every- this violence, and stop it where it starts? thing that we can to prevent young people from joining gangs in the fi rst place, helping them fi nd a way to a life Hon. C. Clark: I should say, just to start with this, in that is diff erent from the path that they might be going terms of policing in Surrey, we have joined with the city 7500 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

of Surrey in calling on the federal government to address 90 percent and 138 percent respectively — so a lot more the request for 100 more offi cers as a priority for Surrey procedures being done. — so on the one side, making sure that there are more Th ere are some inequities around the province. We see police available. that on the Island, for instance, they’ve had some chal- In this case, though, however, the police have been lenges. As they did more resources into colonoscopy very clear. It is not a shortage of resources. It’s a shortage screening programs, that came at a cost perhaps to some of information, and I understand that family members, elective surgeries. Th ey are addressing that with an RFP neighbours and friends are oft en reluctant to come for- to make sure that the surgical services are performed. ward and speak. I want to urge them to do so. It is time We are working hard to make sure that British that we ended this terrible carnage that we have seen Columbians get timely access for elective surgeries in in Surrey and allow that community to reclaim what it the province of British Columbia. knows about itself so well, which is its title as one of the greatest places to live anywhere in Canada. Madame Speaker: Th e member for New Westminster When it comes to stopping kids going into gangs, there on a supplemental. are a whole range of initiatives that we’ve been working on over the last decade and more to try to support that J. Darcy: Th e minister loves to throw out numbers. But in schools, including the anti-bullying work that we do, Trevor Norsworthy is not a number. Trevor Norsworthy including the work that we do in creating safe schools, in is a 72-year-old man who’s already waited 21 months for schools that have a safe and respectful culture. a hip replacement at Royal Inland Hospital, in the min- Much of that is also focused at giving kids a safe place to ister’s own community, and he still doesn’t have a date for go as an alternative to fi nding their way into gangs. Th e $60 his surgery. Th at’s 21 months on heavy-duty painkillers, million that I referenced — that is also being deployed on with his condition getting worse all the time. the ground. We need to continue to evolve this, absolutely. You know, the minister’s tired old excuses are cold What I heard from their MLA who was there yesterday comfort. They’re cold comfort to people like Trevor — the member from Surrey-Tynehead, a former police of- and thousands of other people like him across British fi cer in Surrey himself — is that the community is vitally Columbia. Trevor Norsworthy deserves better. engaged in trying to fi nd solutions. So are we. We want this to end, and I will repeat this one last time. Madame Speaker: Question. Th e way to ensure that this ends is for people in Surrey who know something about this to come forward so that J. Darcy: Fourteen years in government, the problem we can make sure that the people who are responsible is getting worse, and the minister just keeps throwing out fi nd their way to jail. numbers and platitudes. Th at’s not good enough. When is this minister going to take action so that Trevor and WAIT TIMES FOR SURGERIES thousands of others like him don’t have to wait years and years in pain to get their surgeries? J. Darcy: Last week a national report was released that shows that wait-lists for some surgeries in British Hon. T. Lake: In my tradition of throwing out num- Columbia are amongst the worst in the country. Th e min- bers, how’s this? Between 1996 and 2001, when the NDP ister tried to explain this away by throwing out numbers were in power — hip replacements, a 74 percent increase about how many surgeries have been performed. in wait times; knee replacements increased by 69 percent [1405] in terms of wait times. Th is is a challenge as the popu- But according to this report, the CIHI report, prov- lation ages. We all recognize that. And there are certain inces right across the country are providing “more pro- areas of the province where there are inequities. For in- cedures now than they did fi ve years ago, yet wait times stance, there are some wait-lists that are longer than are remaining stable.” Th ey’re remaining stable in other others — individual surgeons. provinces, but not in British Columbia. In B.C. wait times We want to make sure that the best available technol- are getting longer. ogy is available for booking surgeries. We want to make When will the minister stop downplaying this serious sure there are models looked at, like we have here in problem and commit to taking action to shorten wait- Victoria with the fi rst available surgeon, so that that will lists in this province? speed up access to surgeries. We’re working extremely hard to make sure people do get timely access. Hon. T. Lake: When I rose in the House last week If we want to talk about personal stories, we can talk on this question, I used the large increase in the hip re- about a 75-year-old skier who has had two hip replace- placements and knee replacements in the province of ments and three knee replacements and is still active. British Columbia…. At a time when the population has Th at’s the system we have in British Columbia, and we’ll increased 13.5 percent, those procedures have gone up continue to make things better for all British Columbians. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7501

B.C. AMBULANCE SERVICE Hon. T. Lake: B.C. Ambulance does, in fact, look into RESPONSE TIMES every incident that’s reported to them. I have spoken with the chief medical offi cer for B.C. Ambulance, and K. Corrigan: In February we asked about the B.C. they assure me that there have been no incidents as a Ambulance Service’s refusal to release data on ambulance result of the resource allocation plan changes that were wait times. In fact, for a year and a half mayors across made. In fact, what has happened is that the wait times the Lower Mainland have been raising concerns about — the response times for emergent calls — have actually the risks associated with the downgrading of calls and decreased, which was the objective of the resource allo- longer wait times. cation plan. The minister insists this new ambulance regime is Having said that, B.C. Ambulance Service is doing a “good health care,” but the minister’s former colleague Lower Mainland study to look at deployment and look at who is now the mayor of Mission, Randy Hawes, says at demand, because that’s something that they always want least two residents have died waiting for ambulances in to do to ensure they are providing the very best care for his community. British Columbians. [1410] My question to the minister: what does the minister INTERIOR TO LOWER MAINLAND have to say to the mayor of Mission, and does he still in- TRANSMISSION PROJECT sist that, despite the growing body of evidence to the con- trary, this is good health care? A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Energy about the $725 million Interior to Lower Mainland transmis- Hon. T. Lake: B.C. Ambulance is a provincial ser- sion project. Th e main project, worth $384 million, was vice that has served the province of British Columbia given to Liberal contributor Flatiron-Graham in 2011. for 41 years. It is a unique model in Canada. It serves all Th e ILM project is more than a year late, costing tax- of British Columbia, and it is the emergency room on payers and ratepayers a bucket of money. Th e minister wheels. It uses a dynamic deployment model to make doesn’t know what the fi nal costs will be. sure that there are no borders. Th ey don’t recognize mu- B.C. Hydro had to take back 20 kilometres, the most nicipal boundaries. Th ey go where they’re needed to go. diffi cult 20 kilometres of the work, because of “failures If you look at the data, it will show that the average by the contractor.” Th ere was major non-compliance with response times in Mission and in Maple Ridge are un- provincial laws. Th e steels in towers, according to the changed over the last three years. Now, if there are situa- minister, brought in from India by the contractor were tions where fi rst responders or local government offi cials below standard and repeatedly failed. know of cases where there is a concern about response Th e contractor, according to the minister, slowed down times, we want to know about that. Th ere is a critical inci- the work in order to extract more money from the Liberal dent review done every time there is a concern over that. government and B.C. Hydro. Th e whole issue is before an We are using information from Mission to follow up arbitrator. Doesn’t this mess demonstrate the failures of on the information provided by the mayor. We are com- B.C. Liberal and B.C. Hydro contracting policies? mitted to making sure that B.C. Ambulance provides a high-quality service, which they have done in British Hon. B. Bennett: Th e NDP wouldn’t know anything Columbia for 41 years. about the challenges of building things, because they didn’t build anything during the 1990s. Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supple- [1415] mental. We’re in the midst of the largest buildout of transmis- sion here in B.C. in 30 years. Th e ILM, Interior–Lower K. Corrigan: Well, I’m glad the minister is inviting Mainland transmission line, is intended to ensure that communities to contact him when there are incidents. In power from the Peace and the Columbia is reliably de- fact, the city of Burnaby has sent four letters to the VP of livered to the Lower Mainland. In fact, when it is com- health at B.C. emergency health services about dozens of pleted, it’ll reduce transmission losses, saving about $23 serious incidents, including one death. Th ere has been no million a year. response to any of the concerns. Communities across the We’re expecting demand to increase by about 40 per- Lower Mainland are raising similar serious incidences cent over the next 20 years. Th at has made it necessary to when ambulances simply are not responding adequately. invest $2.4 billion a year. Th at’s a lot of money. Th at in- My question to the minister: why is the government cludes Site C, of course, but it also includes several trans- refusing to respond to the serious concerns about failures mission lines — a lot of generation. of the Ambulance Service? Is it trying to hide something? Now, B.C. Hydro has 661 transmission and distribution And when is it going to fi x these potentially deadly prob- projects that they have delivered over a fi ve-year period. lems with ambulance wait times in the Lower Mainland? Th e total budget was about $3⅓ billion. Th at’s between 7502 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

fi scal ’10 and fi scal ’14. On those 661 projects, they have My question to the Minister of Environment: why does been about 4 percent, almost 5 percent, under budget. her government refuse to act? I think that the record is clear that B.C. Hydro is doing [1420] a good job with its capital budget. Hon. M. Polak: May I also extend a Happy Earth Day Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway to our colleagues across the way, and yourself, Madame on a supplemental. Speaker. Th ere’s no question that in the South Okanagan, the A. Dix: It’s unbelievable. Th e minister is bragging — community, the First Nations, place huge value on their three major transmission projects under his leadership, natural landscape and for many years have talked about fi ve years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over the potential for a national park. However, a national budget. Th at’s the record. park is one tool that, in fact, is fairly restrictive when it B.C. Hydro chose the contractor, a contributor to the comes to some of the other many activities that people Liberal Party, with limited experience in transmission pro- hold important in that region. So the member is wrong. jects. According to the minister, the contractor’s source It’s not that we have not taken any action. In fact, we’re steel in towers that were below standard repeatedly failed. taking what can be even more valuable action. Th e project is delayed and a mess, and the ratepayers will Together with the local MLA for the region I have al- have to pay for it. Th e minister is less managing the project ready been to the area twice where we have met with than participating in an episode of Fawlty Towers. community groups. We now have an ongoing discus- How can the minister say, with this record of failure on sion with the Okanagan Nation Alliance. In fact, we had this project, that his tendering process is anything other a half-day meeting with the Okanagan Nation Alliance than a disaster? where we identifi ed the kind of provincial tools that allow us to provide the types of protections that people want, Hon. B. Bennett: I think what would be a disaster while at the same time being able to allow the activities would be to be in government for ten years and not invest to take place that they also value. any appreciable amount of money in the system. Th at’s, in fact, what this group over here, many of them…. Th e Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver–West End Leader of the Opposition was actually the special ad- on a supplemental. viser to the Energy minister. I can show the Leader of the Opposition the records, the annual reports from S. Chandra Herbert: Local leaders, the chambers of B.C. Hydro for the last 20 years. And I can show the hon. commerce, the tourism industry will tell you that you member or the critic that, in fact, when they had their need a national park designation if you want to make opportunity — both of them — they failed to invest, in the millions of dollars, if you want to create all the jobs. any meaningful way, in either transmission or genera- Th at’s why they propose that we start discussions again. tion or distribution. Indeed, the public supports them. In the Boundary- It is true that it is necessary today to spend $2.4 bil- Similkameen constituency 65 percent of residents lion a year on building out transmission and building out support the idea of a national park. In the Penticton generation and building out distribution so that we can constituency support is even higher at 75 percent. Th e meet the demands of a growing population and a bur- Liberal MLA for Penticton has spoken support. Th e NDP geoning economy. has as well. Indeed, our all-party Finance Committee united to call for discussions to begin again. PROPOSED NATIONAL PARK IN Good for jobs, good for the environment. Why does SOUTH OKANAGAN AREA this government refuse to act?

S. Chandra Herbert: Happy Earth Day, hon. Speaker. Hon. M. Polak: Th e fact is, if there’s a jurisdiction in Th e South Okanagan–Similkameen hosts some of the North America that leads with respect to protections most endangered landscapes and species in Canada. It on the environment and environmental values while also is the home of a proposed project that could gener- still growing the economy and growing jobs, it’s British ate millions of dollars, many jobs, while protecting those Columbia. species. I speak, of course, of the proposed national park. I’m not sure. Perhaps the member has misplaced his A recent survey shows, yet again, that the public sup- memories around our extensive British Columbia park ports discussions to get to that national park. Th at sup- system. Th ose parks have millions of visitors each and port is widespread. Local tourism associations, chambers every year. Wells Gray Park is not a national park. It’s an of commerce, local leaders, the wine industry and, most extremely popular park. importantly, residents support this — good for jobs, good Th e need here is to balance the interests in protecting for the environment. the values on the land base while at the same time en- Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7503

suring that activities of communities, businesses and also Committee of the Whole House First Nations can continue. Th at is extremely diffi cult to achieve just with a national park. We have the range of BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT tools to accomplish it. We’re going to do that together with the community and the First Nations. Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 24; R. Chouhan in the chair. CHILD DEATH CASE AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION Th e committee met at 2:29 p.m.

D. Donaldson: Isabella Wiens, 21 months old, died On section 1. while in the care of the ministry, on March 16, 2013. A postmortem conducted three days aft er her death listed Hon. M. de Jong: Just by way of introduction to the multiple bruises found on her chin, forehead and face, topic, fi rst of all, very pleased that we are joined today by arms and legs; fractures in her upper and lower arm; Jill Sinkwich, Tona Hetherington and Marcus Gill. swelling of the brain. A year later the coroner’s offi ce [1430] completed their report and found the cause of death un- Th e hon. member opposite generously, in her second determined. reading remarks, referred to the tireless eff orts of many We now know a decision was made by the designat- people within government and outside of government. ed director on the minister’s staff to not conduct a case Today we will have the benefi ts of those who have toiled review into this tragic death. It’s unbelievable that the on this project many years from within government. minister refuses to answer basic process questions, citing In acknowledging their presence and contribution, I privacy around this case, when the lack of transparency also want to highlight the contribution of those who are could put other children at risk. perhaps watching but have certainly made a contribution Th ere are also too many unanswered questions in this to the statutory product before us. case for her not to comment. When and how did the I also want to alert the committee and the hon. mem- injuries that were identifi ed in the postmortem exam ber that when we get to section 289, there is a one-digit occur? What medical treatment was sought for her frac- fl oor amendment relating to an error that appeared in the tured bones? Why was the foster home she lived in shut fi nal bill. I will certainly highlight it when we get there. down? I have written a letter to the minister with these very Section 1 approved. questions and others and will release it directly aft er question period today. On section 2. So to the minister: you’ve repeatedly refused to answer questions in this House. So will you commit today to an- C. James: Th ank you to the minister, and thank you to swering the questions in my letter that Isabella’s mother staff . As the minister has said in the opening of this bill deserves answers for? when we went through second reading, it was important [1425] to acknowledge the years of consultation that have oc- curred on this bill. I think the fact is that most not-for- Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, the circumstances the profi ts, most societies, have been very pleased with the member references are, for the family, certainly tragic. changes that were made and the work that was done. I Due to the privacy laws in the province and the CFCSA want to pass along my appreciation, as well, to the min- provisions, I’m not going to speak about the specifi cs of ister and staff for that good work. this case in the House. I have outlined in this House and Under the purposes section, subsection 2(3), there is in the media, and for the member, multiple times the a mention that: “Th e registrar may, in writing and giving thorough processes and oversight that exist in cases like reasons, order a society to alter its purposes if the registrar this and how that procedure unfolds. I will be happy to considers one or more of those purposes to be contrary to respond to the member’s letter. this Act or otherwise unlawful.” Does the registrar have the power to issue penalties for contravention of this section? [End of question period.] Hon. M. de Jong: No specifi c power per se to issue a Orders of the Day fi ne for disregarding an order of this sort. Th ere is an ul- timate power relating to the registrar’s ability to dissolve Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of a society but no specifi c fi ne attached to enforcement of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates this provision. of the Ministry of Transportation — and, in this cham- ber, committee stage debate on Bill 24, the Societies Act. C. James: So no stepped-up — or stepped-down pro- 7504 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

cess, depending on how you take a look at it — for a so- Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved. ciety if there is a contravention? Th ere is no distinction between which issues will withdraw and which won’t. On section 7. Basically, you have the right to withdraw the society from the Societies Act if there is contravention? C. James: Section 7 talks about restricted activities and powers. It says: “A society must not….” And then Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. One, to goes through to talk about various activities. Subsection serve as a practical matter. Whereas there may be areas 7(2) then says: “An act of society…is not invalid merely in the 300-plus sections of the act that occasionally cre- because the act is contrary to subsection (1).” ate friction between the registrar and a society, generally, It appears to contradict itself. I’m sure there’s an ex- at the formation stage, the incorporation stage, societies planation from the minister. Subsection (1) and subsec- want to ensure that they are in compliance. As a prac- tion (2) appear to contradict themselves, with one saying tical matter, they are inclined to want to ensure that their the society does something and the other saying they formative documentation is in good order. won’t be in contravention if don’t do it. I wonder if the Secondly, with respect to the penalty that is available, minister could go through that. the sin in this case has less to do with the actual circum- stance than with the failure to abide by the order of the Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll begin here, if this is helpful. registrar. It is to that issue that the penalty applies. The hon. member has referred to the specific subsec- tion which within its provisions includes reference to a Sections 2 and 3 approved. specifi c type of transaction. It extends beyond that, but I think it’s instructive to focus on the type of transaction On section 4. as contemplated specifi cally in the section, a transfer of [1435] property. I’m advised that two things have occurred here with C. James: Speaking to section 4, “Restrictions on dis- respect to the amendment. One is an attempt to incor- tributions,” subsection (a). It says: “A society must not porate what is standard corporate law language, and the distribute any of its money or other property other than objective there is to create legal certainty, particularly (a) for full and valuable consideration.” with respect to and on behalf of a third party. I wonder if the minister could just speak to the use of In a circumstance where, for example, a society had that language — “a full and valuable consideration.” What eff ected a disposition of real property…. We, for this ex- does that entail, and what type of consideration would be ample, presume that I represent the society and that I considered full and valuable? have purported to transfer real property to the member and, for a reason I won’t try to enunciate here, am acting Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. It is essentially language contrary to the provisions of my society but the member, designed to ensure and encourage the receipt of market as the purchaser of that property, is acting in good faith value for the distribution of assets or property. It is also and receives, in exchange for fair consideration, title in that phrase drawn from the existing act. It is a phrase that that property. already exists in the existing statute. Th e rationale is that the member — in this case, the third party — should be able to rely on that transaction C. James: It was just an odd use of language, which was and not have to worry about whether or not the society why I was curious whether there was something more has conducted itself in accordance with its own internal than just market value in that. processes — which, in this case, the purchaser may have Th e second piece in this same section, subsection 4(c), no access to. speaks to a qualifi ed recipient. I wonder if the minister [1440] could give a description around what or who would be a qualifi ed recipient when they’re talking about how a so- C. James: Th e minister mentioned land, and I think ciety must not distribute any of its money other than to that’s the easiest and clearest way of looking at it. But are a qualifi ed recipient. there any other circumstances that the minister would see, then, where the act of a society isn’t merely invalid? Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, it’s an appropriate question. Are there other examples other than land sales? Assistance can be derived from the defi nition section, section 1. It’s a defi ned term. I won’t read the defi nition Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t believe it is meant to be re- into the record, but it is on the second page of defi nitions, strictive. It may be a contract for services. It could be an under “qualifi ed recipient.” Th ere are fi ve subsections, employment contract, for that matter, I suppose, where and if there is a particular one that engages the member’s the third party who is relying on the fact that they have interests, I’ll expand on the answer. entered into an agreement in good faith need not con- Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7505

cern themselves with whether or not the society has car- Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded that there is a fairly ried on an activity or exercised a power inconsistent with practical imperative operating here. But it also relates to what is authorized by its bylaws. It could be just about any a change around this notion of unalterable provisions. kind of contractual relationship that a third party would What we have now, I’m advised, is a circumstance where have with the society. a society would have these formative provisions, many times contained within their constitution and others con- Sections 7 and 8 approved. tained within their bylaws. Th e purpose is, candidly, I think, to strip down the On section 9. constitution and have all of the provisions that would be relevant to determining the purpose for which a society C. James: Th is section speaks to reserving a name for exists, the rules by which it must operate…. And whilst the purposes of the act and talks about requirements to there are no longer unalterable provisions, there may be reserve a name for the society. It also says under subsec- provisions that require 100 percent of membership sup- tion 9(5) that the registrar “may, in writing and giving port, unanimity amongst the members, to change. reasons, order a society to change its name” if it’s contrary Th e objective here is to have those all in one place in the to the requirements or if “the registrar, for good and valid bylaws. It becomes particularly important with respect to reasons, disapproves of the name.” I wonder if the min- electronic fi ling and the notion that a third party or mem- ister could just give an explanation around what might ber, for that matter — let’s start with a member — could go be good reasons to disapprove of a name by a registrar. to a single site, a single place, and know that the description of how this society has determined to operate is contained Hon. M. de Jong: Th ere is a whole, I’m advised, broad fully within those provisions. I think that lies at the heart of range of policies that govern the exercise of this admit- the rather curious language that the member has identifi ed. tedly discretionary authority on the part of the registrar. Trademark infringement, profanity, use of or reference Sections 10 and 11 approved. or allusion to the monarchy, the royal family…. Th ere is, apparently, a broad range of policy. Th is may not be at On section 12. the top of the member’s hit parade today or even tomor- row, but if she would like to have that information, it is C. James: Again, I appreciate the minister’s responses. readily available. I think it’s important to remember — and I think that sec- tion identifi ed it — that a large portion of the work that C. James: Very much summer reading, perhaps, was done with this act is around modernization, around Minister. making sure that it fi ts what happens now with societies. Is it appealable? Are there appeals to the registrar if a I appreciate that. society feels that there’s a valid reason for the name to be I wonder if this is similar when we’re talking about sec- there? Is there a process for that? tion 12, where it talks about the full names and addresses of the directors of a society. I think that’s pretty straight- Hon. M. de Jong: Th e short answer is that there is. forward. I think most people would see that. But in sub- It’s a rather drastic step insofar as, under the Business section 2(a) it mentions the director’s residential address. Corporations Act, which is incorporated here, it is an ap- I just wondered, around protection of privacy issues, peal to the court. I don’t want to leave the impression that whether there are any concerns that were raised there, there is some administrative mechanism short of that. It’s and why the director’s residential address would be listed. a rather drastic step that would need to be taken to appeal the exercise of the discretionary authority. Hon. M. de Jong: Th anks to the member for the ques- tion. I think it would be troubling if the requirement was Section 9 approved. for the residential address, but what the draft ers have en- deavoured to do here is provide an option. On section 10. Th e key objective here is to create a mechanism by which a director is obliged to disclose where they can C. James: In section 10 — just a curiosity question, be found. It might be…. Well, (b) of course provides an perhaps. It says in the section: “A society must not have option, but if a director is not in a position to or wishes a constitution that contains provisions in addition to the not to provide a daytime, if I can use that term, address, name and purposes of the society.” Again, I’m just curi- then they are obliged…. Meaning a precondition, if we ous why it would limit a constitution to not include more take to this to its logical extension, to serving as a direc- information than those provisions — than the name and tor is disclosing where you can be located as a director purpose of the society. on a reasonably regular basis for the purpose of receiv- [1445] ing documentation or requests. 7506 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

C. James: I appreciate that. I just wonder about the provisions, are tending to think a lot not necessarily about number of directors of not-for-profi t societies who are the societies that exist with vast staffi ng levels and layers retired, who don’t have a workplace. Th at’s a large por- of expertise and complexities but the myriad of societies tion, I think. A lot of our not-for-profi ts continue to go that operate on the strength of volunteers exclusively. because of retirees. Th e big change in this section, I think, relates to the [1450] fact that now one or more persons can incorporate. I Are these documents — just to remember from other believe under the previous provision it required a min- clauses in the bill — accessible by members of the soci- imum of fi ve. Th at’s the signifi cant change here, but there ety? Are they accessible by members of the public? I’m are, to be sure, obligations to keep the records up to date just curious where that director’s residential address will through the passage of time. be. Would that be accessible by members of the public or [1455] members of the society? L. Krog: Th e minister raises a point I wish to ask a Hon. M. de Jong: I think the key part of the member’s couple of questions around, and that is with respect to question was where that information would be available. the number of persons required to incorporate a soci- I think it would be available in terms of a search of the ety. Th is is a signifi cant shift in law, and I’d appreciate registry that would…. Th e person would need to list. It’s some explanation from the minister why this particular an improvement to this extent: apparently the existing change has been brought forward, particularly given the provision only has sub (a). So there’s been an option. number of scandals and issues that have arisen around I’ll be careful how I say this, because I don’t want to in certain societies in the province, how they’ve been man- any way belittle or diminish, but the member said some- aged and handled. thing that’s very practical about societies in which there As I’ve mentioned in this chamber myself, there was a are many seniors, and this might apply to societies that local society in Nanaimo that was responsible for ensur- do not include seniors. But I suppose sub (b) would allow, ing that immigrant families got settled. Th ey received all if someone were a regular attendee on a daily basis at a sorts of funding and had one employee and one family seniors centre, that that, too, could qualify as an address. to look aft er. I think the word on the street was that that Although I think, as a practical matter, most people will person was paid about $50,000 a year to handle the settle- opt for something other. ment of one immigrant family. What happens in societies is somewhat important, so Section 12 approved. I’m curious to know: why the reduction to one, and is there any further requirement beyond having one mem- On section 13. ber? Th e section, I do know, talks about a statement of directors, so I presume the presumption is that there will C. James: Just a quick question on section 13. Th is be more than one director. I’d appreciate hearing from talks about the incorporation of a society by fi ling with the Finance Minister why we are doing this this way now. the registrar, and it talks about the information that’s re- quired — so the name, the constitution, the bylaws and Hon. M. de Jong: A few relevant bits of information to a statement of directors. convey to the member. Th e fi rst part does not necessar- I wondered whether, when information is varied or ily qualify as an ultimate rationale for the change except changed in the future, that would impact the incorpora- to point out factually that the Business Corporations Act tion of the society. As directors change, etc., are there re- has made this shift in favour of allowing incorporation quirements? Perhaps it comes up later as we go through by as few as one person, as well as the federal, Ontario the bill — requirements around how soon that change and Saskatchewan not-for-profi t acts. So this is not un- has to happen. Would that impact the incorporation of precedented nationally in terms of either corporate or a society? societal provisions. I take it the problem that arose with the existing provi- Hon. M. de Jong: I may not have properly understood sions was that whilst they required fi ve members for the the question, and the member will correct me. Where purpose of incorporating, there was no prohibition on a there are changes along the way, as there inevitably are, reduction in those members over time. A society could with the directors and bylaws and addresses and regis- begin with fi ve and in short order end up with one. Th ere tered offi ces and so on and so forth, there is an obliga- is a requirement, which we will get to later in these ample tion to fi le. Now, we’re hoping, through the advent and provisions, that three directors be maintained. Th e mem- the statutory accommodation of the use of technology, ber referred to that in his question — the fact that there that that will be a task more easily performed. will be a requirement for more than one director. I suspect that the member and I, in having the conver- Th e fi nal thing I might say in response to the question sation we are having and will continue to have about the — two things, actually — is that this will assist with re- Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7507

spect to the provision of the on-line registration appli- At the same time, though, I suppose it is conceivable cation process. But none of the other provisions — call that an individual may decide that they have a particular them safeguard accountability provisions — that govern focus for an activity in mind and wish to create a mech- a society that incorporates with one person…. Th ey all anism by which they can present those ideas, or engage apply. Now, there’s that distinction between self-funded in that activity, to others. and otherwise. But all of the provisions that apply will I say this not to be glib. Is it appropriate to require that continue to apply to societies, notwithstanding the fact person, before they are able to avail themselves of this they may have been incorporated on the strength of one vehicle — as a prerequisite to that — to have to convince member, including the need to maintain three directors. even one other person that it is a good idea? I don’t have [1500] a good example. People that engage in this work are gen- erally surrounded by like-minded people and have a pas- L. Krog: I don’t purport to be an expert on the new bill sion and share that passion with others. or an expert on societies. But from a historical perspec- Conceptually, at least, should we be saying to some- tive, we’re now shift ing from a society to the two types one: “As a prerequisite to utilizing this instrument, you of society — I understand that — self-funded and those have to be able to convince at least X number of other which receive funding from government sources. I sup- people that your cause is a worthy one”? You can make pose the issue becomes one of the public interest and it a question. We tell people who want to run for public public scrutiny, really, if you have a society that has one offi ces that they have to convince X number of people member and its three directors — and yes, there are re- before they can engage in that activity. porting qualifi cations, etc. [1505] But it seems to me that one of the benefi ts of having at Th e choice that is made here is to say: “No, although least a minimum number of members — the old Society you must have directors. So I guess you’ll have to con- Act was defi cient in that; I get that — is that there is a vince at least three other people that your idea is worth greater opportunity for scrutiny of the behaviour of those pursuing.” members of the society or the society in general, because surely there are special privileges attached, from tax and L. Krog: I appreciate I may be carrying this point fur- other perspectives, and presumptions about value and ther than there may be interest in it, but it just strikes me all sorts of things relating to someone being able to say, that it’s a privilege given by law. It’s not a right. Th e con- “Well, I’m the president of the Good Earth Fellowship stitution doesn’t recognize to incorporate yourself as a Society” or whatever the case may be. society, but essentially, this act provides that privilege to My concern is that even though there may be provisions you. One person can incorporate themselves as a society, respecting scrutiny, as the minister has outlined, which receive the benefi ts of that, as long as, as the minister has we’ll come to later during the course of committee stage…. pointed out, you can persuade three directors. Nevertheless, one person being able to incorporate a soci- Then, arguably, as a self-funded society, it might ety — is there a societal interest in allowing any one of us help…. Perhaps the minister can answer this a little ear- to incorporate a society? Is there some benefi t to the com- lier than he might have had to in the course of committee munity? Is there something to be presumed of some value? stage. A self-funded society — does that mean you put It’s not like a corporation. If you incorporate a corpora- the money in yourself, or does that mean you’re entitled tion, your intent is to make money, presumably. No one to go out and collect money from others? incorporates a company just because they want to have Mr. Smith incorporates his Happy Society and says, a corp. Well, some people might, I suppose, but most “I’m going to go out and look aft er” — I don’t know — people are doing it because there are advantages from a “stray deer in Oak Bay,” as a local example. “I’m going to tax perspective, from a liability perspective, from a num- take my tin cup around, and I’m going to collect a whole ber of perspectives. pile of money. Th ere’s me and there are the three direc- Again, I want to ask this question. What interest is tors who watch me. I’m a self-funded society. I’ve man- there in society in general that is being promoted by al- aged to collect $50,000. I decide that I work really hard at lowing one person to incorporate a society? this, and as the directors approve my salary at $49,900….” Is that rather silly scenario that I’ve just created pos- Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think it’s a legitimate sible with this statute? Apart from the three directors, question to pose. My philosophical response to it relates who’d be there to criticize it if I’m wandering around Oak to the fact that in dealing with the desire that people have Bay collecting the money for this worthy cause of look- on a not-for-profi t basis to engage in certain activities ing aft er the stray deer? and to engage the attention of fellow citizens, by defi n- ition, it seems to me, there is generally an interest in at- Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t think it’s a ridiculous ques- tracting colleagues and like-minded people, whatever the tion. Later in the provisions, though, to answer the specif- area of interest may be. ic question or concern that’s been raised, the collection 7508 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

of public donations, and we haven’t…. Th e amount will minister alluded to it earlier when he mentioned the dif- be specifi ed in regulation. Th e collection of public do- ference in societies — the diff erence in size, in capacity, nations beyond that amount would preclude the kind of in staff abilities, any staff or simply volunteers. scenario from developing that the member has alluded to. I think there will be sections of this act that are going We have not stipulated the amount in regulation thus to need a strong education component to go with them, far, and I actually don’t have an answer if the member’s particularly, as I said, for those very small societies. I next question is: what do I think the appropriate amount could see societies wondering: “What is no longer rel- is? I don’t have a ready response for him yet, but hopefully, evant? What don’t we need to keep?” Or: “What do we that in part provides some comfort to the member that need to keep?” the kind of scenario he has described would not occur. I think the fact that they can be guided by the previous section…. But perhaps some education will be necessary Sections 13 to 20 inclusive approved. as we go through this, just to provide that support and end up with some consistency for societies. I think, cer- On section 21. tainly, diff erent boards of directors in diff erent years are going have a very diff erent view around what’s relevant C. James: If we get big sections without questions, we’ll to the activities of the society as it changes over the years. make sure we pass them along. Section 21 speaks to the issue of records and the keep- Hon. M. de Jong: I agree entirely with the hon. mem- ing of records and the disposal of records. I wonder if ber. We’re in the midst of working through a transition the minister could tell us: have there been changes from plan: educational, documentation programming; website the previous act? Th is talks about ten years since the re- availability to assist with the transition. But I agree en- cord was created. Is that consistent? And why ten years? tirely with the hon. member. Is that consistent with the previous act? Just to add, as well: who decides which records are relevant? Where is Sections 21 and 22 approved. the description of “relevant”? Is that in defi nitions some- where, or is that something that the society determines On section 23. or the registrar? [1510] C. James: Section 23 deals with the diff erent methods in which records can be kept, precautions around keep- Hon. M. de Jong: If I can endeavour to answer the ing records, keeping those records in a complete state. It question in this way, in terms of the question of relevance, talks about avoiding loss or destruction to those docu- I think we derive some guidance from section 20 in terms ments, falsifi cation, etc. of the types of records that would be covered. It’s worth I wondered with this section and a couple of other pointing out and reminding ourselves that through the sections, but this section in particular: are there penal- electronic fi ling mechanism, some of the key documents ties that are in place anywhere around contraventions will now be available for those who are entitled to see of this section? And who inspects, or who checks? How them on line. Th ere will be — from my experience with will there ever be any checks to know whether societies volunteer-driven societies, at least — a great benefi t there. are starting to follow this or even contravening the act? Th e ultimate relief, I think, the section provides re- [1515] lates to the fact that there was no limitation period pre- viously. My guess is that the hon. member, in her days Hon. M. de Jong: Th e act — this section of the act, to of volunteerism, has been confronted by the shoebox or be specifi c — is largely instructive, as opposed to includ- the archive box full of stuff that makes its way from one ing sanction. It would allow — again, in a case where the secretary-treasurer to the other over the years. At least extraordinary step or the extraordinary proceedings in- this will limit that shoebox or archive box to ten years. volving a court were undertaken — for a court to inter- Hopefully, section 20 will provide some guidance — vene and, I suppose, render an order consistent with the and the fact that documents are available for viewing on section. line and kept current on line. I don’t want to, again, leave the impression that were a society to fi nd itself wanting, there is a fi ne in the range C. James: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I had the of X to Y that is available for the registrar to impose. Th at largest house in the neighbourhood, so oft en those boxes is not the case. But in a situation where things had escal- were kept at my house for many societies. I complete- ated to judicial involvement, it does provide a mechan- ly understand. I think it’s important to have a timeline, ism for the court to provide an order. which is why I asked around the ten years. I think, similar to other sections that we’ll talk about C. James: I appreciate the minister’s response. I don’t as we move on through committee stage…. I think the think at this stage — particularly with the new act and Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7509 with the major changes that are occurring here, supported would describe that as interest — in a couple of instances, by most societies — that looking at fi nes or looking at that perhaps, disagreement. But I wouldn’t say that it regis- kind of penalty is going to be helpful for societies, which tered as a raging controversy. are going to have some major changes, for very small so- cieties, to have to start following and paying attention to. C. James: I’ve heard some of that concern, but I would Th at’s a plus, from my perspective, to hear. agree with the minister. It certainly isn’t people saying: “Don’t pass the act because there are huge concerns.” Section 23 approved. I think this one may be one where staff may be wanting to take a look at the bylaws that are passed around access On section 24. to information, because that may give an idea of whether there’s potential to come up later on if societies are pass- C. James: Section 24 and section 25. One talks about ing lots of bylaws around access to information. It may access to records; one talks about restriction of access to raise a red fl ag or it may raise some issues to be looked at records. So the two clauses kind of go together. Section as the act is implemented over the years. Th at may be an 24 speaks about a member of a society inspecting records interesting piece just from a research perspective, to be of the society that they are required to keep. able to gather and take a look at how that’s implemented. I just wondered whether the minister, in his consul- tations or the ministry consultations or the round table, Section 24 approved. foresaw any challenges or any issues around access to rec- ords in this section. I think, again, when you create legis- On section 25. lation that covers all societies…. Oft en we talk about the exceptions, where there may be challenges or there may C. James: Again, I think a similar kind of question, be a member who wants to access documents over and and it may be the same kind of answer around restric- over and over again for, perhaps, not positive purposes tions of information. for the society or the act. Th is section, section 25, talks about that the inspection Th is certainly isn’t something that I think would hap- of register of members may be restricted. Th is is access to pen with all societies. I think it’s those rare cases, but I the society’s register of members. But it appears that, by wondered whether there had been any discussion in the default, members are allowed to see that registry of mem- consultations that the minister had gone through about bers unless they pass a bylaw. Have I got that correct? Th e any kinds of challenges that societies saw around the in- access is open unless the society determines through a by- spection of records section. law that there has to be a change there around members.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, because she zeroed Hon. M. de Jong: What the member says, I think, is a in on an area, I wouldn’t say there was a raging contro- correct analysis. Th ere is a presumption in favour of ac- versy around this, but there was interest. I’m trying to re- cess to the register of members. Th at can be altered by a call if it came up in the large session that we had. It may director’s resolution that would restrict that. have, peripherally. I am advised that the federal, Ontario and Saskatchewan In eff ect, here is the change. I was asking to be reminded not-for-profi t statutes do not provide a mechanism by about a circumstance under the Business Corporations which access to the register of members could be restrict- Act. It’s really a question of the presumptions. In the ed. Th e act here is diff erent to that extent. Business Corporations Act model, there is a presump- Th ere is a presumption in favour of access but a mech- tion that shareholders do not have access to certain things. anism by which the directors of the society could choose [1520] to limit that access. Th e model here is to enshrine, statutorily, a presump- tion in favour of members and directors having access to C. James: Around restrictions of the use of the infor- basic societal records and documentation but also cre- mation. Th ere’s a mention there in the restriction of the ating, within these provisions, a mechanism by which, use of the information. I just wondered if…. Again, back through the bylaws, there can be certain restrictions to the penalties issue. Would it be a matter of the per- placed. For example, restrictions that restrict a mem- son whose information was used incorrectly bringing ber’s access to minutes of directors meetings and soci- forward a concern to the society? Is that how, I guess, a ety accounts. concern or a charge or a worry to the society would be Th e presumption, the default, is in favour of access, brought forward if that information was misused? and then in certain circumstances, creates a mechanism [1525] by which societies can provide for some restrictions. Th e provision, the alteration engaged…. It did engage atten- Hon. M. de Jong: No specifi c remedy…. Well, the pos- tion from certain quarters within the family of societies. I sibility of injunctive relief to prevent an ongoing trans- 7510 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

gression of the act is one remedy. I was going to say, “No if a member was genuinely concerned and wanted to in- remedy,” but I suppose that is a remedy. No specifi c mon- spect the register because he thought there was some- etary sanction or remedy enunciated within the provi- thing happening within the society and yet…. sions. I suppose, in a worst-case scenario where damages What my concern is, is that with the deletion of that had been suff ered by an individual as a result of a failure ability, 25(1) enables the directors to restrict an inspec- to abide by these provisions, the possibility of a civil ac- tion if they think that it might be harmful to a member tion that included pleadings to the extent that these pro- of the society or to the society. If that restriction was self- visions hadn’t been followed would be a possibility. motivated or self-interested, there would be no ability to access the register if you were concerned about improper V. Huntington: I note that section 25 in the draft of motives and that restriction was put in place. the bill contained a clause that allowed the members to Is that a concern or am I…? I’m looking only at a inspect the register for other matters related to the inter- narrow issue here, but I’m worried that the restrictions nal aff airs of the society. Th at has been deleted from the might prevent somebody from an inspection that would fi nal bill. I’m wondering if the minister could explain why be worthwhile. they felt that was unnecessary or why they felt it should be a restriction to the members. Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll take this crack at it and, hope- So “matters related to…the internal aff airs of the so- fully, lurch towards an appropriate and comprehensible ciety” — I notice that that phrase pops up in section 26. answer. Th e fi rst thing I would say is this. And I think Whether that’s considered a redundancy or a mistake, the member knows this. It’s as much for my benefi t as I’m not sure. hers. We are dealing with inspection of a specifi c docu- ment here within the societal fi le of documents, and that Hon. M. de Jong: I’m reminded that in the submis- is the register of members. sions we received from agencies within the family of so- The second thing is that for reasons contemplated cieties was a concern that that language was simply too within 25(1), the directors quite clearly have the ability to broad in terms of what it specifi cally was intended to con- restrict a member’s access or ability to review that docu- vey or what that meant members were to have access to. ment, that register of members. What they do not have I think this member’s specific question was: what the right to do, notwithstanding their determination of gave rise to the decision to delete it from the fi nal draft ? what is harmful or in the interests of the society or one At the end of the day, we were convinced that the ob- of the members, is contained in sub (7) of this section, jectives around providing reasonable access to societal where a member for those purposes is, in all instances, documentation and records could be achieved without entitled to review the register of members. this sort of broad, ill-defi ned notion that was included Th e balance, I believe, that is being sought here relates in the white paper. to circumstances where, for example, someone might seek membership in a society for no other reason than V. Huntington: I can understand that that’s the purpose to garner information for marketing purposes. So with behind the deletion. I guess where I’m concerned is that respect to the legitimate and important functions con- if you look at sub 25(1), the directors can restrict access if templated within subsection (7), a member does have they feel that “the inspection would be harmful to the soci- access to the register of members. ety or to the interests of one or more of its members.” If the [1535] need to inspect the register had to do with a concern about But quite clearly, the act would preserve or create a activities within the society that might be considered im- mechanism by which directors, for other reasons, could proper, then, can the directors forestall any inspection of restrict a member’s right of access to that one document, the register that might be necessary in an attempt to fi nd to that register, that one fi le, the register of members. It out improper activities or something of that nature? represents an attempt to fi nd a balance between the de- [1530] sire to preserve access and enhance access but also pro- tect the interests of the society and the members who are Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize. I was trying to follow within that society. very closely the member’s question, and I can probably prattle on, but it won’t help the member get an answer. Section 25 approved. Maybe she could take another crack at helping me to understand the question. On section 26.

V. Huntington: I oft en have to repeat my questions. I V. Huntington: Just quickly, then, section 26 says that think you intimidate me, Minister. a member must not use the information he obtains from I’m worried that when you delete the clause or the the inspection of the register of directors “except in con- phrase “other matters related to the internal aff airs,” then nection with matters related to the activities or internal Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7511 aff airs of the society.” Has that been left in deliberately? earlier, with the variety of kinds of societies, I think this Or is it an oversight, seeing as how it was removed from is probably a piece that will be important around the edu- the draft in 25? cation piece, not simply for the directors in the society I just wanted to add that I’m not totally familiar with but for members of the society to pay attention to as well. section 20, and I recognize that 26 refers to the register of directors, but I’m presuming that the internal aff air Hon. M. de Jong: I agree. clause is not in section 20 also. Section 34 approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I think what the draft ers and the government are endeavouring to acknowledge here is On section 35. that there is diff erent information contained in two dif- ferent places. Th e registry will contain the name of direc- C. James: On section 35. Th is talks about fi nancial tors, and there are to my knowledge no restrictions that statements. It talks about end of a fi scal year and getting apply to the use of the information — that basic infor- fi nancial statements in. It just has a piece in subsection mation that one receives from a perusal of the registry. (2)(b) that talks about ending not more than six months Conversely, the register of directors will contain other before the annual general meeting, which, if I read it information and contact information, and therefore, correctly, could actually leave people with a six-month there is a test that is applied in an attempt to ensure that fi nancial statement. If you’re talking about the fi nancial that information, that additional information, is only statements beginning at a fi scal year-end and, at most, used for specifi c purposes as enunciated. Th e discrep- being provided six months before the annual general ancy, if you will, or the diff erence — maybe that’s a bet- meeting, you could in fact end up with a six-month fi - ter word — relates to the fact that between the registry nancial statement. and the register there is diff erent information available. Does the minister foresee the six months being any kind of challenge? Sections 26 to 33 inclusive approved. Hon. M. de Jong: Th e timing around this is carried On section 34. forward, I’m advised, from the existing legislation, so no change there. What is contemplated, though, is the pos- C. James: Section 34 talks about borrowing and issu- sibility, by a regulation, to create an option for simplifi ed ance of securities. I just wondered if the minister could fi nancial statements for smaller societies, and there will talk about whether there are any limits on the amount or need to be a test for what qualifi es as a smaller society. the amounts that societies could borrow or loan, in this Th e idea is to try and create a mechanism by which…. section. Any limitations or anything coming in regula- It’s for some of the organizations with less capacity and tions? less sophistication — when I say that, I don’t mean that [1540] in a pejorative way — to be able to present easily under- stood material that reveals the state of their fi scal situa- Hon. M. de Jong: One of the issues that arose during tion but is somewhat short of what we might expect of a the various stages of consultation was the concern that large, complex organization. at the moment, absent specifi c authority, there were lim- Timeframes unchanged. Th e possibility of a mechan- its on a society. Th is kind of turns that on its head and ism by which the burden smaller societies face…. Having says that the presumption is in favour of an authority to, some options is probably the biggest change in this sec- an ability to, issue debt obligations unless there are by- tion. law restrictions. It may be my nature, but I see some…. Notwithstanding Section 35 approved. the desire to create some freedom of choice, I could say that as a member of a society, I would probably want to On section 36. create some bylaw-level restrictions on the borrowing [1545] power of the organization. Th e member is quite correct. Th is represents a change V. Huntington: Section 36, I fi nd quite interesting. If insofar as it will be for the members, via the bylaws, to I’m reading it correctly, the government will determine a determine what those restrictions are. threshold above which employees and directors and even contractors have to publish their remuneration. Th e so- C. James: I can understand the change. I think it does ciety has to publish the remuneration. put the onus on the society and the members of the so- I fi nd it somewhat peculiar that it can say that some ciety to be sure that they’re doing those checks and bal- employees, up to a number of ten employees, should have ances and are paying attention. Again, as we talked about their remuneration published, whereas if there are more 7512 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

than ten, we don’t have to publish that. So, fi rstly, I’d like Hon. M. de Jong: I may not have a convincing response to ask: if there are more than ten, does the society that is for the member. I note that the Business Corporations receiving, say…? Th e white paper, I think, noted $75,000 Act, with respect to community contribution companies, a year. If there are more than ten employees receiving uses the threshold that we have been discussing: $75,000. $75,000 a year, yet only ten have to be made public, does I think the reality is that at any point, whether $40,000, the society have to at least say how many others receive $50,000, $75,000 or $100,000, there are going to be agen- more than $75,000 a year? cies and individuals we are talking to — directors’ and executive pay — that are captured by that and others that Hon. M. de Jong: Here’s the scenario that I put to staff . aren’t. So I don’t think I have a convincing answer. If the scenario I put is not consistent with the member’s We clearly stopped short of requiring societies to dis- question, then she’ll alert me to it. close all of the remuneration they pay to everyone and I think what the member is asking for is a…. And by created a regulatory power to set a threshold. When you the way, we have not fi nalized what the threshold would do that, as the member correctly identifi es, there will be be, but for the purpose of the conversation here in the a society that falls just above it and a society that inevit- committee, let us assume that it is $75,000. It may or may ably falls just below it, and I’m not sure how we would not be, but for this purpose, let us assume it is. prevent that arbitrariness from revealing itself. With a society that had 15 people making in excess of $75,000, the act requires that the top ten be disclosed. I Section 36 approved. think the member’s question is: what about the other fi ve? What would the obligations be there? On section 37. Th e fi rst thing is that the number ten is an arbitrary number. Th e regulation could do — and it hasn’t been C. James: Th is section talks about reporting on fi nan- fi nalized — what the member has suggested, which says cial assistance. Th at’s fi nancial assistance “by means of a to disclose with specifi city the top ten and the number of loan, a guarantee, an indemnity, the provision of secur- employees beyond that that are making in excess of the ity or another transaction” for the society. I think, speak- threshold amount. I think that kind of a regulation would ing about fi nancial assistance for the society, this section be consistent with the act. It would not run afoul of the act. seems to make sense. It also appears fairly open-ended. I haven’t thought about it, so the member has raised Th e section I’m looking at is subsection (2), where it something that we’ll have to think about when it comes talks about the need to put that information into a state- time to fi nalizing the regulations. But I’m not aware of ment. It says that “the note need not identify the recipi- a statutory impediment in the wording that would pre- ent by name.” Th at leads me to believe that it isn’t just a clude dealing with that kind of a situation in the way that loan or a guarantee to the society — that it could be to a the member has suggested. director, that it could be to a staff member. I just wonder why it talks about identifying the recipi- V. Huntington: At a minimum, I would suggest that ent by name. Is this fairly open-ended? Does this leave that would be the way to go. Surely, if a threshold re- the opportunity for someone to provide a loan or guar- quires disclosure, then everyone at that threshold should antee to a director of a society, for example? require the remuneration to be disclosed. Picking an arbitrary number of disclosures is rather meaningless Hon. M. de Jong: I believe, in this case, and would sug- if somebody is concerned about what the remuneration gest to the member and the committee, that the balance and the numbers receiving a certain level of remunera- we are endeavouring to establish is between ensuring that tion are in a society. So either use a number over, or use members or directors — those who might be paying atten- them all. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be all or none tion to the aff airs of the society — have a clear indication or at least the total number. of when a loan or a benefi t or a guarantee has been ex- [1550] tended to someone or some agency, but at the same time One of my other concerns is the rationale for setting respecting the fact that there are privacy considerations. thresholds for transparency. For instance, why would a [1555] society — it’s similar to the earlier question — with 20 I’m trying to think of a practical example. Some of employees earning $74,000 each not have to disclose, the societies — and the member may have personal ex- when a company or a society with one employee earning perience in this…. A philanthropic society dealing with $75,000 would have to disclose? Th e arbitrariness of the families who are in diffi cult circumstances might extend numbers and whatever regulatory threshold is set — it’s a loan or a guarantee. It might be part of the….Well, they a strange beast. If it’s going to be done properly, to alert may do that, and there’s a defi nition for what is outside individuals about remuneration and levels of that, then, of the ordinary course of the society’s activities, but the it should it be very carefully considered in an all-or-noth- members may come together and decide they want to ing approach, I would think. provide that special assistance. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7513

Th e balancing act — was it necessary in all cases, or ap- tion 24(4) and (5) of the Society Act. We haven’t changed propriate in all cases, to require the identifi cation of that it. Th at’s clear. in the fi nancial documentation? Where we’ve clearly land- I also won’t pretend to the member or the committee ed is to say that the member is entitled to know when the that I turned my mind specifi cally to the question of the society has assumed a liability. It may not always be neces- one director being a resident of British Columbia. Th e sary or appropriate to disclose the nature of that liability, member now has happily obligated me to do so, which is but they should know that it exists. It may give rise to a fi ne. Th at’s why we have the committee debate. demand for further information at a meeting or an AGM. I’m probably speculating about the original intention. If I were, as I have now been, asked to rationalize its on- C. James: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the issue going existence, it would be to off er that societies, by around the recipient not being named or that that may defi nition, represent organizations designed to address be a possibility. I’m just wondering about the timing. It societal needs, societal objectives. Asking that or, in this talks about the need to put that information into a fi nan- case, requiring that one of those minimum number of cial statement so that all of the members can see it. As the directors actually be resident, within that society, strikes minister said, perhaps they might want to do a follow-up. me as something defensible at least. But that’s the annual general meeting. It says it’s “re- quired under section 35,” which is an annual general [D. Horne in the chair.] meeting. So it could be, in fact, 11 months until that in- formation comes forward for the society members. Section 40 approved. I just wonder whether the minister felt that there were any concerns there. Again, not talking about most soci- On section 41. eties, but I could see potential, without any limitations, for a director to receive a loan from the society and that C. James: A question around this section — section 41. information doesn’t go forward for 11 months. Are there Th is talks about the “majority of the directors of a society some kinds of concerns around the checks and balances must not receive or be entitled to receive remuneration being in place for that society? from the society under contracts of employment or con- tracts for services….” But it still allows, in this section, for Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member has raised a directors to actually be employees or to be contracted and legitimate point. Th ere are two areas, relevant areas, that to receive remuneration. impact upon this, although they’re not an absolute an- I wondered if the minister could talk a little bit about swer to the concern that the member has raised. One is confl ict, about concerns in this section. I think there are the general fi duciary duty that is contained within the a lot of societies that are very concerned about people provisions of the act for the directors to act in accord playing dual roles — both a staff person as well as a dir- with the interests of the society. ector on the society — and this section, although it lim- Th e other is perhaps more specifi c, if the members its it, appears to legitimize the opportunity for people to chose to act upon it. Again, I recognize that, especially in be able to do that in societies. the transition, this will not be top of mind for many small I wondered if the minister could both talk about the groups. But there is always the opportunity to impose checks and balances but also any concerns that may have additional requirements on the directors and/or manage- been raised during the consultation on this section. ment of the society by creating specifi c bylaws that would [1605] require a more timely disclosure to the members of the types of obligations that we are discussing here. Hon. M. de Jong: Th is is one of those areas of the act that did engage some submissions and attention and Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved. where, again, we’ve tried to accommodate a fairly broad range of opinions. On section 40. I can tell the member and the committee that under the Business Corporations Act there are no similar re- C. James: Section 40. Just a quick question, again, out strictions on board composition. Th e federal, Ontario of curiosity more than anything else. It mentions that “A and Saskatchewan not-for-profi t statutes restrict board society must have at least 3 directors and at least one of the composition by prohibiting more than one-third of the directors must be ordinarily resident in British Columbia.” board from being employees, so there is similarity there. I’m just curious why that specifi c piece is put in there. I think the member may be aware that the B.C. Law [1600] Institute recommended against any director being affi li- ated or an employee or a contractor. I think there is a Hon. M. de Jong: Th e fi rst thing I can tell the member certain attraction to the purity of that position. We got is that section 40 replicates, I am advised, an existing sec- feedback from societies and agencies who felt that was 7514 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

going to inhibit, and very negatively inhibit, their abil- hibit it. But certainly, common practices prohibit it, and ity to operate and their ability to engage the people they that’s not the way most societies operate. wanted to, both as an employee and to draw on that ex- I wonder if the minister can point to an example that pertise for directorial guidance. exists in the existing act, where an employee or someone Th is represents a compromise. Th is says that in cir- who is receiving signifi cant remuneration or other servi- cumstances where…. You need to have a majority of the ces, just as the wording of the section is, is actually sitting board, who, aft er people who are…. Let’s take the budget on the board of a society. — where those employees have a clear interest in a cer- tain budget. Aft er they have taken the appropriate step Hon. M. de Jong: I, as always, appreciate the certainty and absented themselves from those discussions, you still of the member’s convictions around this. Th ere are no re- have to have the majority of the board who can — in a strictions that I’m aware of in the existing legislation, so dispassionate way, free from any self-interest — have the this is a step towards that purity, if you will. discussion. So we have stopped short of the purity advo- I’m not going to try and describe or off er up how many cated by the B.C. Law Institute and arrived, again, in this societies might be captured, but I will say this. We’re talk- case, at a compromise. ing about employees, and we’re talking about contrac- tual relationships. Again, this comes back to something C. James: I appreciate the minister’s answer. I think the member’s colleague and I were discussing. Are there this may be one of the ones, again, that we’ll want to keep small societies out there that engage in community-based track of and just see how the implementation occurs. I activity that have a director to whom they contract with think if we go back to the earlier questions around one at a much-reduced price for certain services? My guess member incorporating as a society and three directors, is there are. the challenge that that could create if two of those people To create an absolute ban…. Whilst, undoubtedly, that were working for the society…. Th at could be a real issue would make sense for some of the larger, more complex when you’re talking about confl ict of interest and the op- organizations, the feedback we heard tended to come portunity for who gets to make a decision about salaries from those smaller agencies who were saying: “You may or who gets to make a decision about the budget. fi nd that there are some unintended consequences.” Th at’s where I could see some issues occurring. I appre- I get and endorse 100 percent the wisdom of the mem- ciate the minister’s comments that things have changed ber’s submission around basic governance. Th e challenge and that some people would want the opportunity to be in going from where we are to there is that along the able to have some of their directors as employees, but way we may discover that a lot of small, unsophisticated I think that may continue to be a challenge, so one to organizations that are just trying to do good work get watch, I believe. caught in the transition. Now, I am reminded again that there is nothing to Hon. M. de Jong: I agree with the wisdom of main- prevent a society from, in addition to the requirements taining a watch on this. In the example the member gave, here, including bylaw provisions that establish the pur- the three-directors example, under this provision only ity that the member — and I, for that matter — might one of those directors would be entitled to be an em- favour, but they would need to take that step beyond ployee or a contractor. what is in the act.

L. Krog: I very much appreciate the hard work of the L. Krog: Th e minister will be familiar with the name B.C. Law Institute and Jim Emmerton and his team. I of Peter Ramsay, Q.C. — Ramsay Lampman Rhodes, mentioned that in remarks earlier with respect to this Nanaimo, the largest law firm in central Vancouver bill. I think the wisdom of their approach, with great re- Island. Peter, I think, could legitimately take credit for spect to what the minister has had to say, is indeed the a great deal of the work done on the Wills, Estates and wisdom that should be followed. Pardon me for putting it Succession Act. Th e wills variation aspects of that are par- so bluntly. It’s “you’re either a virgin, or you’re not.” ticularly an area of his expertise. He’s certainly made his Candidly, the concept that you would have, potentially, wisdom available to government, and I remember him the managing director, if you will, the executive direc- saying years ago around the issue of boards: “We lay the tor of a society, sitting on the board is just so contrary to tracks, but we don’t play with the trains.” common sense and to practice. I’m not aware now of any I must say, in my community experience — and I’m major boards of societies in British Columbia where the not suggesting for a moment it’s any greater than any executive director, for instance — and presumably that’s other member’s of this chamber — I have never run the kind of person you’re going to want to have on the across a community board where you sat on the board of board — sits on the board of the society. directors and got paid as an employee in any way, shape [1610] or form with the community board. And I’m not talking I’m not positive, but indeed the existing act may pro- about massive boards. Although Mid Island Co-op in its Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7515

heyday…. When I was on it — and we had, I think, $50 est guidelines, where public servants, where all kinds of million a year in sales and 100-plus employees — it never people in every walk of public life are covered by guide- would have crossed our minds. lines and rules and law around the issue of confl ict of No reasonable lawyer or counsel that I am aware of interest, this legislation is going in exactly the opposite would ever advise a society to have someone on the direction for the 27,000 societies that I understand exist board who is an employee. It is just the most basic and in British Columbia today. obvious confl ict. If a lawyer…. I mean, the rules of the Law Society would prevent this in a heartbeat if it was Hon. M. de Jong: Th e member, with gusto and passion, anything related to that. Th e concept that we would allow has articulated his concern, and it is, conceptually, one this simply because some other provinces have engaged that I am alive to. But let me draw a diff erent scenario, be- in it, I think, is patently ridiculous. cause the member has challenged members of the com- If there’s a member in this chamber who can stand up mittee to stand and describe the situation. He has chosen in this debate today and tell me of a board they’re aware to zero in on but one aspect of this section. Th e section of in this province where an employee or someone re- speaks to other potential scenarios as well. ceiving remuneration actually sits on the board of direc- Th e organization that exists in order to build a trail net- tors, then I will sit down and be quiet in a heartbeat. But work through a particular community has existed for a I suspect that there’s not a person in this chamber today period of time and has a board of directors. One of those who can tell me that, and I don’t see any of the mem- directors is in the aggregate business and in a position, at bers twitching in their seats to jump up and tell me to a fraction of the cost that would otherwise accrue to the the contrary. society, to provide that product. [1615] Now, the question is this. Do you force that society What possible public value, what philosophical basis to…? Th e individual may have been a member of the is there, for the concept that you’re going to allow soci- society and felt passionate about that local endeavour eties — particularly societies that may be small, where for years, for decades. You could say: “Too bad.” You do it’s even more important that you have an independent what good governance dictates and go to an unaffi liated board, where the relationship between the board and third party and pay market value to acquire that good or their only employee is so much closer and more signifi - service, or you obligate that director, because of that in- cant than a larger society…? stance, to resign. Th at is purity. And that is the kind of What possible public interest and what philosophical purity that societies reacted to when the draft was pre- basis is there for the concept that you would allow soci- sented. eties to do this? Particularly when it appears that with the I hope the member appreciates. I am not challenging scrutiny that’s provided for in the act, which the minister his description of what represents ideal governance. But has talked about — those sections which we’ll come to…. I am also…. Yes, there will be reporting requirements, but the fact [1620] that it’s out in the open doesn’t make it any less of a con- Th is piece of legislation is the product of an attempt fl ict, with great respect. And it doesn’t mean any less that to take into account the very wide diversity that exists boards, which oft en switch and change their membership amongst those 27,000 societies and the fact that there are because of various diffi culties, will be in any less of a vul- circumstances where it may be legitimate to capitalize on nerable position than the executive director, for instance, the expertise, the experience of a director. the manager of the offi ce, whatever, who will be sitting Th e alternative is clear — simply to say no. We have on the board and instinctively and perhaps even uncon- chosen a diff erent path. I understand that the member sciously promoting their own interests. disagrees with that. I understand that he, as I do, has I’d like to hear from the minister a little more on this. I great regard for some of the individuals that have assisted appreciate he treats this as: “You know, we’ll monitor this, greatly in craft ing this legislation. Th at’s why we did the and this is something to look at.” But this wasn’t recom- white paper. Th at’s why we put it out there and solicited mended by the very people who prepared this legislation, views and responses. an institute that is without blemish, that has signifi cant I understand that the member’s view was that in this public support and a high reputation in the legal com- case we should ignore — absolutely ignore — the views of munity, the B.C. Law Institute, just as, indeed, the minis- those societies that articulated a view and opt for the pur- ter wisely listened to their recommendations around the ity of what has been advocated by the B.C. Law Institute. proposed section 99, which wasn’t recommended by the We have chosen not to do so and, in embedding a re- B.C. Law Institute. striction that doesn’t exist today, opted for a compromise I’d like to hear a little more from the minister as to why that hopefully will aff ord the protection that we’re seek- we’re including this section. It sends a message to the ing and, coupled with steps that societies themselves can public around confl ict of interest. When every member take by their bylaws, avoid circumstances or — as the of this chamber is covered by signifi cant confl ict-of-inter- member said; I’ll use his term — avoid basic confl icts 7516 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

that have arisen in the past and, hopefully, won’t arise as there was going to be a future discussion on that before it regularly in the future. was fi nalized. I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about that process for age of directors. L. Krog: I appreciate the minister’s example and the minister’s response and comments. But I come back to Hon. M. de Jong: I’m actually glad we stopped here my point that I’m trying to make. Even now without the briefl y to maybe articulate and exchange views on the prohibition in place, I’m not conscious of — and again, wisdom of this or ideas around how it might have some if the members of the committee are, let them stand up life breathed into it. Again, I want to pay tribute to the and say so — any board that I’m aware of, of a society, younger folks who took advantage of the opportunity to that has its employee or employees, or anyone making provide submissions and argue for the possibility of cre- money off it or from it, sitting on the board of directors. ating an exception to the general rule. It’s just absolutely basic. It is absolutely basic. Th e general rule is one that makes sense. It is that with No reasonable lawyer is going to advise in a situation the rights come responsibilities and that there is still any society where they sit on the board: “Oh, let’s have magic in the age of majority. Th e Business Corporations the executive director or the manager of programs sit Act makes that clear. Other statutes do as well. Yet there on the society’s board.” It just doesn’t happen in practice. are clearly circumstances in which people below the age By passing this section, the message from government of 18 have more than a passing interest. In some instan- is very simply that it is legitimate to do so because it’s not ces, they are asked to contribute fi nancially to societies, prohibited. Th e section says: “A majority of the directors student organizations, and are obliged to do so, and the of a society must not receive or be entitled to receive re- right for those societies to claim that contribution has muneration from the society under contracts of employ- been upheld. So what to do? ment or contracts for services, other than remuneration Th ere are those circumstances where the activities of for being a director.” A majority. Th e message is that it the society are by defi nition geared towards advancing must be okay, then, to have some people do that. the interests of young people, and then there are other Th e minister’s response is: “Oh well, societies can pass organizations that are philanthropic in nature that — I bylaws and do that — prohibit it and stop the practice.” think the member and I agree — you would want to en- But the message is still the same to the general public — courage young people to be involved. Th at is what gave that it is acceptable. Frankly, I haven’t heard, certainly, a rise to the notion of creating a regulatory power to cre- convincing argument from the minister or a public out- ate a circumstance in which someone under the age of cry in my community, I can assure the minister, about 18 could sit as a director. allowing persons to sit in this obviously confl icted role. I should say to the member that I don’t have a draft With great respect to the minister, I think this is a copy of what the regulation would look like. But here are situation where the advice of the B.C. Law Institute was some thoughts, and then the member can disabuse me of good advice. It should have been taken. Th is is not go- the thoughts here in the committee. ing to enhance the operation of societies who already, in I am thinking about young people aged 16 and 17. I’m practice, don’t do this and who will now be encouraged, not actually contemplating an open-ended provision. It quite frankly, I think, by this provision to engage in this would be specifi cally for younger people aged 16 and practice, which is in violation of common sense. 17. I also am hesitant about allowing a circumstance in I’m not going to repeat myself any further, but I can- which a majority of the directors on a society would be not and will not support this section of the bill. It is sim- below the age of majority. Th ose are two biases, if you ply bad public policy. It will not enhance the operation of will, that I acknowledge I am taking into the process of societies, and it sends the absolutely incorrect and wrong developing a regulation. message to people who want to engage in community ac- tivities for the benefi t of the community as a whole. C. James: I would certainly agree with those biases that the minister has mentioned. When it comes to legalities Section 41 approved on division. around directors and voting and budgets, etc., I think there is some rationale around having a legal age there. Sections 42 and 43 approved. But I think the opportunity for young people who are keen and eager and want to get involved in societies…. On section 44. Aft er all, one of the great strengths of not-for-profi ts [1625] and societies is that they come in all shapes and sizes. Th ey cover all issues. I think we all want to encourage C. James: To the minister, we had some of this discus- young people to get involved and engaged in their com- sion in second reading around a process that’s going to munity. What better way to start their involvement than be looked at for the age of members, the age of directors with a not-for-profi t society as a member but to have an of a society. Th e minister mentioned that he’d hoped that opportunity, if they’re responsible and they want that re- Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7517

sponsibility, to be able to sit as a director? ber’s question. Th e fi rst thing I can tell the member is To me, I would certainly encourage the opportunity that it is a new provision. It is based on section 143 of the for those discussions. I would encourage the minister Business Corporation Act so that corporate law knows to have that discussion for regulations. I think looking this remedy. at limitations around the numbers on a board would be We talked earlier in a slightly diff erent context about something perfectly reasonable, but I think we want to protection to third parties. Th at is equally applicable encourage, not discourage, those young people who want here. In a circumstance where, for example, approval to to be involved. enter into a contract involved a director who, it was sub- sequently determined, had not been properly appointed, V. Huntington: I certainly agree with the comments that would not be grounds to declare the contract void, of my colleague. But I am also interested in how the gov- to the detriment of the third party. ernment intends to account for the general legal liabil- Also, protection for the society itself, were a third party ities that a director normally has and how they expect to to allege, “No, no. I am not obligated to follow through”— handle those directors who are below the age of majority. on whatever — “because one of your directors acted be- [1630] yond their capacity….” Actually, we were just talking about confl ict. Th e society itself would have protection Hon. M. de Jong: Th e member has correctly identifi ed from an argument that says that the provisions you are a question that I put as well. I am told that through the relying upon are void, or the agreement you are relying advent and evolution of jurisprudence, a director, not- upon is void, because one of your directors acted outside withstanding the fact that they are below the age of ma- of their authority or was not duly constituted. jority, may, in fact, attract liability. It’s third-party protection, but it’s also protection for I won’t go beyond that and off er a legal dissertation on the society. the case law that supports that proposition, but there will [1635] be responsibilities assumed by a 16- or 17-year-old that accepts a posting as a director. Sections 47 to 57 inclusive approved.

V. Huntington: Without, then, going into the case law, On section 58. would those responsibilities devolve onto a family, to par- ents, or are they just limited to the director who is not of C. James: Th is talks about contracts. It mentions pen- age, specifi cally? alty here. Th is does say: “….the court may, on the appli- cation of the society or another person whom the court Hon. M. de Jong: I’m hesitant to try and off er a defi n- considers to be an appropriate person to make an applica- itive position. I think it’s a valid point and something that tion…to do one…of the following….” And then it men- a parent or parents would want to have a defi nitive an- tions a number of pieces. swer to in discussing whether or not their child accepted I wonder if the minister could tell me whom the court that opportunity to serve as a director. would consider to be an appropriate person, why that wording is in there. I think people understand “on the Sections 44 to 46 inclusive approved. application of the society.” But another person “whom the court considers to be an appropriate person” — who On section 47. might that be?

C. James: I just wonder if the minister could explain Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. Th e short answer is…. this section, because it appears to invalidate all of the Th ere are always exceptions, but the common example other sections in the legislation, and I’m sure there’s a would be a member of the society — in circumstances rationale around it. But it says: “(1) An act of a director where a member went: “Wait a minute. Th at whole con- is not invalid merely because of a defect in the director’s fl ict of interest discussion we had a few moments ago. designation, election or appointment…(2) An act of a Something terrible has gone on here.” So that would be society is not invalid merely because (a) fewer than the another person whom the court considered appropriate. required number of directors…elected or appointed.… I’m also reminded that the section pretty much repli- or (c) a majority of the directors, contrary to section 41… cates what is in the Society Act now. Th is, unlike some receive remuneration….” of the other sections we’ve been dealing with, does not It just seems to, basically, give an out to the society. As represent a substantially new provision. I said, I’m sure that’s not the intent, but I wonder if the minister could just explain the intent of this section. Sections 58 to 68 inclusive approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: A three-part response to the mem- On section 69. 7518 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

K. Corrigan: I do have some concerns about section 14, 2014, a submission signed by Devon Cass, the exter- 69. Th e reason I am raising these concerns is that there nal relations offi cer for the Graduate Student Society at are concerns that have been raised by several graduate so- Simon Fraser, said: “Mandatory membership, including cieties of individual universities as well as by the Alliance fees, is fundamental to the successful operation of our of B.C. Students with regard to section 69. Graduate Student Society. We would be unable to re- Section 69 talks about the termination of membership source our staff and activities, meet overhead costs and and provides that a member’s “membership in a society function in our current capacity if not for mandatory terminates when (a) the member’s term of membership, membership and related levies.” if any, expires, (b) the membership terminates in accord- Th at largely relates to fees. But I think there is also — I ance with the bylaws, (c) the member resigns….” I think certainly understand from the information I’ve received subsection (c) is the one that is of particular concern to — a real concern that if the membership itself is not man- many students. datory, the ability to win, I guess — I’m paraphrasing — [1640] the hearts and minds of the students and to feel that they I mentioned the Alliance of B.C. Students. Th at in- are representing those students could be lost. cludes the Northern Undergraduate Student Society, the Th e Graduate Student Society at Simon Fraser says Capilano Students Union. Th ey represent many organiza- section 66 — it was then section 66 in the paper; now it’s tions. Certainly, I know the Graduate Student Society at 69 in the bill — “draws alarming parallels to the higher Simon Fraser University has expressed concerns, as well education bill of 2005 in Australia, which failed to deliver as the student society that represents undergraduates at its promise of self-sustaining student organizations able Simon Fraser University. What they are concerned about to survive off voluntary membership, investments and is whether or not…. I guess my fi rst question to the min- trading operations.” ister is: does this section allow students to terminate their I do want to stick with the fi rst question then. Does membership in a student society? section 69 mean that students in student societies in post-secondary institutions in British Columbia…? Will Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the member and the com- students therefore be able to withdraw from those stu- mittee will forgive me if I attempt to anticipate where dent societies? I think the line of questioning is going. It did come up [1645] in the course of the consultation. It came up at the large consultation meeting we had. Hon. M. de Jong: If I have a moment, and I probably I am advised as follows. Th e act we are dealing with won’t, I’ll grab the University Act from behind me to as- here is a statute of general application with respect to certain more authoritatively whether or not that act…. statutes. I am further advised that specifi c post-second- Th e advice I have authorizes the mandatory collection ary acts, specifi c acts dealing with post-secondary in- of fees. I’m not certain that it requires mandatory mem- stitutions — the University Act, for example — provide bership, but we would look to that legislation for guid- specifi cally for the mandatory collection of fees from ance on this matter. students and the remission of those fees to designated Th e general societal provisions contained within this student societies. act are going to allow for resignation from a society. I’m Th e reason I’ve answered the question in that way is happy to pull the University Act off the shelf and deter- because the member’s question related to the ability to re- mine the specifi c wording of the section relating to man- sign from the student union or student society. I wouldn’t datory payment of fees versus mandatory membership. presume to speak for societies, but I think, from what I’ve Th at is where we will need to look to answer the question heard, the essence of the concern is less about member- that the member has asked. ship in the society than having the ability to collect the fees that relate to that membership. Th e information that Th e Chair: Th e member for Powell River–Sunshine I have been provided with indicates that the ability to col- Coast seeks leave to make an introduction, if leave be lect those fees is not compromised by the section or the granted. act that we’re dealing with. Leave granted. K. Corrigan: Th e minister has correctly anticipated the area of concern. But I would be concerned, and I Th e Chair: Proceed. know these student societies are concerned, not only about the collection of fees — that is important, and I’ll Introductions by Members ask some more questions about that — but mandatory membership as well. N. Simons: It’s a real pleasure of mine to be able to Maybe I’ll just quote from the Graduate Student introduce some folks visiting from California. I heard Society at Simon Fraser University. A letter dated October some beautiful music from the rotunda this aft ernoon. It Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7519 was the Bellfl ower High School Vocal Ensemble who are submission that was made, says: visiting on a tour of British Columbia and Washington. “In 2008, through a democratically approved student society fee, I’d like to introduce them: Director Carolyn Kelley — the Alma Mater Society of UBC made the largest single donation to UBC in the history of the institution: $85 million towards the thank you for being here — Jan Hopp, assistant princi- building of a new student union building…. pal of the high school; Lin Th ompson, the social studies “In 2009 Kwantlen Polytechnic University voted to establish a teacher. Th e choir members are Elizabeth Afu, Amanda student society fee to fund the construction of a new $15-million Castro, Alyssa Duran, Cristian Luevano, Ian Backer, student union building. Millions of dollars have already been Lashea Childs, Christian Gatica, Ariel Th ompson, Floyd raised for this project.” Bell, Stephanie Deslate, Kayla LeBaron and Elden Villarin. It goes on to talk about how Simon Fraser University has Will the House please join me in welcoming them to voted to raise $65 million through a student society and British Columbia. the University of Victoria students voted to raise over $2 million through a student union fee. Debate Continued We are talking millions of dollars, and we are talking something that the universities and the students rely on. K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear. Th e way it would I fi nd it very disconcerting to hear the minister say that work with graduate student societies — and I’m not sure he doesn’t know what the bylaws are or what the impli- how their boards are…. I haven’t seen all the bylaws, of cations are. course. But student membership is now mandatory. If the I think students across this province should be very membership was mandatory in the bylaws of a student concerned. It will fundamentally change the ability of society or graduate student society, then I would presume student unions to do the good things — we’re talking that that membership would continue to be mandatory about U-Passes; we’re talking about lots of different until such time as they chose to resign. Is that correct? things — if, in fact, the result of this change in the legis- lation is to mean (1) that memberships can be terminated, Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry, I’m not trying to be argumen- which has all sorts of implications all by itself, but (2) that tative here. I’m not sure that I’m in a position to off er an possibly student societies are not going to have the abil- authoritative position. When I say speculative, the hon. ity to have mandatory funds raised through votes. All of member is referring to institutions, and I’m not certain these things are done through votes. Th at could imperil to what extent they may have specifi c provisions that a hundreds of millions of dollars. student agrees upon when they enter that institution. I’m I guess I want to go back to section 69 specifi cally. I just trying to fi nd it on the fl y here in the University Act. I want to clarify, then. Th e minister is confi rming through haven’t been able to so far. the earlier answer that membership in a student society, Th e member will know, as counsel, that in terms of whether or not it is mandatory at the beginning, would statutory interpretation, where there are specifi c provi- end up being something that would not be mandatory. sions versus more general provisions of the sort that we’re Th e student could resign from the membership under dealing with here, the specifi c will apply. I’m just — (a) I the operations of section 69(1)(c). don’t want to provide incorrect information, and (b) I’m just not in a position to off er an authoritative view on that. Hon. M. de Jong: I’m wondering if in raising the issue [1650] the member is also asking me to render an opinion with respect to section 27.1 of the University Act. K. Corrigan: Th e Graduate Student Society at Simon Fraser University, as well as the student society of the K. Corrigan: I don’t have section 27.1 of the University university, as well as the Alliance of B.C. Students and its Act in front of me. If the minister could let me know what member organizations made submissions. that section says, if it’s what the minister was referring Whether or not membership is mandatory — and then to earlier. If the minister is talking about the mandatory the separate but related question of whether or not stu- fees, not at this point. dent fees would continue to be mandatory — is of crucial What I’m asking about right now is whether or not concern to those organizations. Th ose organizations talk, membership will be voluntary or mandatory — period. for example, about some of the fundraising that has gone Apart from the fundraising, will membership be voluntar- on which would be decimated and would be impossible ily or mandatory under the operation of this new section? if there was not mandatory, certainly, fi nancing or fees. I’m sorry, but I fi nd it quite incredible that the minister Hon. M. de Jong: Th e member just spent some time has not thoroughly considered what the implications are alerting the committee to her concern around the fund- for student societies and is not ready to answer that right ing implications that may exist for a student society. now, particularly considering that this has been brought [1655] to the minister’s attention. I hope, by virtue of some of the other changes that we I’ll give you some examples. Th is presentation, this have just discussed in this House, she will accept that the 7520 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

government and I took very seriously the interests of stu- K. Corrigan: Okay, so then I misinterpreted what the dents and their societies, to the extent that we changed minister has said. Just for fi nal clarity, then, if the author- provisions of the white paper. Th e suggestion that some- ity for having a society at the university says that student how we have been, and I have been, blind or indiff er- membership is mandatory, that membership will con- ent to this issue I reject. Th ere are provisions within the tinue to be mandatory, despite subsection (c) of the act. University Act. Th e member has just admonished me for, Is that correct? as she characterized it, somehow being unprepared or in- [1700] diff erent to the issue. Th e issue, as I understand it, is this. Th e issue that was Hon. M. de Jong: What I am saying is that there are brought to us during an extensive consultation period statutory provisions which ensure that a student soci- was to ensure that new provisions of the Societies Act ety is in a position to collect fees from students whether do not interrupt or adversely impact the right of stu- they are a member of that society or not. And those pro- dent societies to collect fees. Th ey do rely on the levying visions continue. of fees to students attending all post-secondary institu- tions. I think that generally is the case. Th e information K. Corrigan: Th at is not the answer that I just got. I have been provided with, the information I have con- What I want to know is at this point…. I understand what veyed to the member, the information I have conveyed the minister has just said. Finally, what I would like to to the committee is that that is so — that the provisions understand is if membership — not collection of fees — of the Societies Act do not interfere with the right to col- in a student society is mandatory, then once the provi- lect those fees. sions of this act come into being, will the membership in Now, the provisions contained within the act with re- that student society continue to be mandatory? I’m not spect to membership in a society and the ability to re- talking about the fees. I’m talking about the membership. sign from a society are clear. How they would apply with Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not aware of any statute that respect to the provisions, and combined with the provi- makes membership mandatory. sions of the University Act, is not something I am in a position to off er an extensive legal opinion on, except to K. Corrigan: Well, the students — and I’m sorry that say that the information we have and are relying upon I haven’t looked at the act — at Simon Fraser University is that the fi nancial position of a student society, insofar say that membership is mandatory. Is the minister now as the University Act provides the specifi c authority to saying that membership in student societies is not man- render and collect fees, is not adversely impacted by the datory at this point? provisions we are dealing with. Hon. M. de Jong: I will repeat what I said. I’m not K. Corrigan: I know that a part of the concern of the aware of any statute that makes membership in a society student societies was certainly the fi nances. Certainly, of the sort the member has described mandatory. that would be the major concern that was considered in the submission that was made by the Alliance of B.C. K. Corrigan: I don’t know why I get the sense that the Students on October 15, 2014, in its commentary on the minister is trying to not answer the question that I want Societies Act White Paper. answered. But I will try one more time. I’m clear from the submissions that I have — for ex- If there is a bylaw or some governing piece of policy or ample, from the Simon Fraser Student Society — that document or practice or legislation that covers universi- while that is one of the implications they’re particularly ties that provides that membership in a student society is concerned about, they are also concerned, and I am con- mandatory, would this piece of legislation, section 69(1) cerned, about the implications for the future of student (c), overrule, supersede that provision, if it exists? Th ere societies if students can, in fact, resign from the societies, may not be an act, but there is something, and whatever whether or not the fundraising can happen. Th at’s cer- that is — bylaw or whatever — if that exists, would sec- tainly clear from the quotations that I received from the tion 69(1)(c) supersede that provision? Simon Fraser Student Society. Finally, on this section I want it to be clear. What the Hon. M. de Jong: Th e member has just asked me to minister is saying, then, is that under section 69, stu- render a legal opinion on something that she describes dents will have the right to resign, in spite of a bylaw at as “if there was this” and in very general terms “if there a student society. Th is would supersede a bylaw at a uni- was that.” I’m sorry that the member didn’t read the versity society that says you have to be a member of the University Act before coming in to participate in this society. Is that correct? debate. But I have rendered the honest responses that I am in a position to provide and will repeat the answer Hon. M. de Jong: No. if necessary. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7521

K. Corrigan: I know that we have to continue on with replacement for that. Th ey deal with separate circum- this act, so I am not going to continue on any longer. But stances. I may take a moment to refresh my memory I would have thought that the minister, knowing this was about section 102 specifi cally. an important question and an important issue…. Th e In the case of section 99, though — we talked a little bit minister may think it just has to do with money. Money about this in second reading — it was a specifi c provision. is certainly a part of it. But the issue of mandatory mem- It drew on some of the evolving approaches to corporate bership is also important, and that was clear from the governance. But it did create and use language that ob- correspondence that I received. viously attracted the attention of the societal community. I would have thought that if the minister is so prepared Th e motivation for providing an additional level of scru- and has read the acts and has three staff sitting there with tiny and accountability, I would say, is what motivated its him, the minister would have been able to answer that inclusion in the white paper in the fi rst place. question. But apparently that is not possible, and I will [1710] leave it at that. Why is it gone? I think, at the end of the day, two rea- sons account for that: the articulation of the concern and Sections 69 to 90 inclusive approved. the nervousness and the apprehension weighed against the benefi t of the section in the fi rst place. On section 91. Th ere are 27,000 societies. Th e vast majority of them move along and do good things, good societal purposes. C. James: Just a straightforward question around Are there problems? Yes, there are. But at a certain point whether this is a new section — I’m guessing it is — I think you have to weigh the anxiety that one particular around amalgamating with another corporation to form a provision was causing and whether or not, at the end of corporation in a jurisdiction other than British Columbia. the day, I or the government shared the concern around Th ere is discussion around links across Canada that soci- the potential for misuse or abuse. In my view, it became eties may have or corporations may have with each other, less important than the measure of anxiety it was caus- and this seems restrictive. So I just wanted the rationale ing in the fi rst place. on section 91 around amalgamation. Th e objective, through the years that people have toiled [1705] on this project, was to create an updated legal instrument that would assist and guide and ease the burden, to the Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I apologize. I was on extent that we could, for not-for-profi t agencies, societies. the wrong section, which would have made for an inter- Th at particular provision seemed to have the opposite ef- esting answer. fect and seemed to colour the overall regard and colour Essentially, a provision…. It’s a new provision. It the overall tenor of the engagement between societies doesn’t currently exist. It is designed to ensure that there and government. are public protections in place that, through an amal- At the end of the day, the decision one made, I made, gamation with an entity governed by statutory provisions was that that was causing more distress than any benefi t outside of B.C., wouldn’t be in a position…. It wouldn’t that was going to accrue from its inclusion. I can advise assume the ability or acquire the ability to, for example, the member and the committee that the assessment or distribute assets in a way not authorized or contemplated the calculation or the consideration, the decision, at the by B.C. legislation. end of the day, was very much infl uenced by the result — the nature of the submissions. Sections 91 to 101 inclusive approved. I will say this. In the opportunities I had for face-to- face discussions, the submissions from people were re- On section 102. spectful. I think they were genuine. It struck me that the positive relationship that both assisted in the develop- C. James: Th is section is the new section to replace ment of this statutory instrument and will be necessary the section that was removed, as we talked about at the particularly through the transitional period was being opening of our discussion on this bill — the rationale for compromised by a single provision that, as defensible as section 99. Again, I appreciate that section being gone. I it might have been, was compromising that overall ob- wonder if the minister could talk about the changes, what jective. Th at, at the end of the day, is what gave rise to the the rationale is for section 99 being removed and, with decision to delete it. this section 102, what the complaint process is based on to replace section 99. K. Corrigan: Th is section also concerned many of the students. I think it would be helpful, perhaps, if I just Hon. M. de Jong: Let me deal fi rstly, if I may, with the read from the letter of October 14, 2014, to the minister provision that is not here, section 99. I don’t, also, want about their concerns about the white paper. What it says to leave the impression or characterize section 102 as a about this section…. It was section 98 in the white paper. 7522 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Th ey say: “In addition, we worry that the threats posed debate and so on, which is a good thing, but to take that by section 66,” which is renumbered as the section we to the courts is another thing. were talking about previously, “are compounded by sec- I’m not going to ask a question again but simply refl ect tion 98,” which is now 102, “which opens student soci- the great concern that students do have about the pos- eties to vexatious litigation. Th is could be the case, for sible use — and the fact that the minister changed the instance, if mandatory memberships and fees or other legislation and recognized that there could be oppressive activities of the society were considered” — and I’m quot- types of legal cases. At least, I think…. You know, there ing the legislation now within their letter — ‘oppressive to was discussion about SLAPP cases. Th e fact that the min- one or more interested persons, including the applicant, ister recognized that there could be abuse by others, cer- or unfairly prejudicial to one or more interested persons, tainly, I would say, almost implies some understanding including the applicant.’” that there could be abusive lawsuits brought or diffi cult Now, I understand there was a change made to this sec- lawsuits brought under this particular section. tion so that it has to be a member of a society that would apply to a court. I’ve talked to the Graduate Student Sections 102 to 169 inclusive approved. Society at Simon Fraser. Th ey are still concerned because they think that the membership, obviously, of a student On section 170. society of a university — at least, up until now — is very large and that this section could make it very diffi cult. C. James: In section 170, it’s just a question. It speaks [1715] to extraprovincial non-share corporations, and it talks Th e letter says: “Members may not always fi nd consen- about requirements for those corporations. It says that sus, and we believe that the diversity of the society across the EPNS corporation must have an attorney in the head 37 academic programs at three diff erent campuses is not offi ce if the corporation is not in B.C., but the society only adequately protected in section 98.” “may have” an attorney if the corporation is within B.C. So I’m wondering if the minister could respond to the there’s a “may” and a “shall.” I just wondered why those concerns that I’ve raised now on behalf of the students requirements are diff erent. with regard to this section. [1720]

Hon. M. de Jong: To be specifi c, I am not particu- Hon. M. de Jong: Th e objective is to ensure that there’s larly sympathetic. Th e argument seems to be “we want a local presence or domestic presence for the purpose of mandatory membership, but we don’t want a general re- serving documents, and I believe this section replicates medial provision that provides members with basic re- an existing section 77 of the Society Act. view rights.” Th ere is still a test here. Th e member, in fairness to her, Sections 170 to 190 inclusive approved. has identifi ed a change that was made. But you can’t, on the one hand, say “I want mandatory membership” and On section 191. on the other hand say: “But I don’t want those members to have basic rights for which there is a test.” So I guess C. James: It think because this is a change in the act, the short answer is: I’m not particularly sympathetic. and we talked about it earlier in defi nitions, I wonder if the minister wants to just take a minute to talk about the K. Corrigan: Th e minister has already said that mem- distinction in this act between member-funded societies bership is probably not going to be mandatory at all and publicly funded societies. I think it is an important anymore. We couldn’t get an answer to that particular distinction that’s brought forward in this act. Th is talks question. about the constitution and the fact that societies will have Th is raises a higher standard. Standards are fi ne, but to declare themselves. I think it’s just worth hearing the the students are very concerned that this could be used rationale around the two distinctions. frivolously. Th at’s the word. Th ere could be vexatious litigation which they may not be in a position to oppose. Hon. M. de Jong: Th anks to the member for the op- So I am simply refl ecting a concern that they have, and portunity to enunciate the distinction here. I think it is a legitimate concern that they have expressed Th e fi rst thing I would say is that, with respect to a — that they as a society that is representing the students…. member-funded society, that is a distinction that is not Th ere is a diversity of interests, and there could be vexa- imposed on any society. It is self-declaratory, and it’s the tious litigation. It’s very subjective what is oppressive, constitution for that society from which the designation getting tied up in court. Perhaps if there is a particular derives. Member-funded societies are, I think, essentially group at the campus that has very strong views with re- equivalent to societies without any, if I can say this, char- gard to any number of areas…. And, of course, student itable purpose referenced in the sections 74 and 134 of societies and universities are ripe with discussion and the current act. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7523

Th e approach here, and hopefully we’re successful, is cause the government, about a decade ago, got very excit- intended to alleviate the confusion that presently exists ed about a world trade university and basically got duped about what constitutes a charitable purpose. A soci- and was later embarrassed about the fact that there was a ety that receives government funding or public dona- United Nations–related World Trade University that was tions above the threshold that we were discussing earlier, going to have a campus in British Columbia. Th is has which has not yet been set, is precluded from being a never happened. Th ere’s no building. Th ere is no council. member-funded society, as is a society that receives taxes Th ere is no organization. It has never happened. or other revenue that government collects as its agent. I’m just wondering. I know that a colleague of mine, As well, I should point out that certain types of soci- the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, brought in a pri- ety — registered charities and qualifi ed donees under the vate member’s bill in 2008, suggesting that it would prob- federal Income Tax Act, student societies and hospital ably do this province well to actually simply rescind the societies — are not permitted under the provisions to be World Trade University Canada Establishment Act. He member-funded societies. Th ere’s a structural answer to brought in a private member’s bill to do that to help us the distinction. all forget the embarrassment that that whole endeavour was for this government. Sections 191 to 288 inclusive approved. I’m wondering why we continue on with this charade when there never was, never will be or never would have On section 289. been a world trade university. Why do we keep amend- ing? Particularly, I’m interested because the section that’s Hon. M. de Jong: Th e amendment that I am tabling being amended says: “Th e Business Corporations Act refers, in section 289 — I’ll provide it to the member — and the Society Act do not apply to the university, ex- to sub (a.1), section (i) and (ii). Th e last line is: “…the cept as provided in this Act.” And there are no provi- articles referred to in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph sions in the act with relation to the Society Act, anyway. take eff ect under section….” And it’s written “267 (b)”. I’m wondering if the minister could explain why we con- Th e reference to sub (b) is incorrect. Th e reference should tinue on with this. be to section 267 period. If I can table that, and perhaps the hon. member could have a look. Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member has expressed, I move: and I’m sure will continue to express, her views about [SECTION 289, by deleting the text shown as struck out: the legislation in question. I think she knows the answer, 289 Section 433 (2) is amended by striking out “and” at the though, from a technical point of view. To the extent that end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following paragraph: the legislation remains on the books and makes refer- (a.1) in the case of pre-existing reporting company that (i) is a special Act corporation that has applied to be converted ence to the act, it is appropriate and necessary to make into a company under Division 2 of Part 9, and the change. I shall take her admonishment with respect (ii) has, under section 266 (2) (b), included in the articles referred to the future of that act under advisement. to in section 266 (1) (a) (ii) some or all of the Statutory Reporting Company Provisions, the articles referred to in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph take Sections 364 to 366 inclusive approved. eff ect under section 267 (b), and.] Title approved. Amendment approved. Hon. M. de Jong: With thanks to all members who Section 289 as amended approved. participated in the discussion, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment. Sections 290 to 363 inclusive approved. Motion approved. On section 364. [1725] Th e committee rose at 5:29 p.m.

K. Corrigan: Section 364 deals with the consequen- Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. tial amendment to the World Trade University Canada [1730] Establishment Act. It’s a section that says…. Th e act itself says: “Th e Business Corporations Act and the Society Act Reporting of Bills do not apply to the university, except as provided in this Act.” And that changes that reference to the Society Act BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT to the Societies Act. My question for the minister is…. Th e World Trade Bill 24, Societies Act, reported complete with amend- University Canada Establishment Act came about be- ment. 7524 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered cence you were in pretty good shape because there would as read? be no more locations. She said the sleeves of the person drawing the names Hon. M. de Jong: By leave now, Madame Speaker. for the lottery would be rolled up so that there would be no cheating. Th at was part of the rules that went out in Leave granted. the press release, evidence about how fair this process would be. Th ird Reading of Bills I’ll read to you from this press release, and the Attorney General, hopefully, can explain to us where it said that BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT she would be issuing new licences with special privileges, not subject to the one-kilometre rule, that could locate, Bill 24, Societies Act, read a third time and passed. as soon as they were issued and purchased, right beside an existing liquor store. Keep in mind that this fair and Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, second reading on square, level playing fi eld licence relocation lottery press Bill 22, Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act. release was issued by the Attorney General on February 26, 2015, just 23 days before this bill was introduced, with Second Reading of Bills its very special licences that don’t need to follow the one- kilometre rule. BILL 22 — SPECIAL WINE STORE LICENCE AUCTION ACT [R. Chouhan in the chair.] (continued) “Liquor stores throughout B.C. will have an opportunity to enter D. Eby: Th is is a very short bill, just 20 sections, and a lottery to determine the queue for relocations, moves to other communities or into grocery stores…. yet there are so many contradictions of the Attorney “Th e lottery system is set up to ensure fairness. Each applicant General’s media releases, statements in this House, com- will be given an equal chance at qualifying to relocate, understand- mitments to industry and promises to the public. ing that the one-kilometre rule will continue to play a large role in the assessment and approval of applications. If more than one [D. Horne in the chair.] store wants to relocate its licence within the same one-kilometre radius, the fi rst applicant chosen is given priority.” Th e lottery system is set up to ensure fairness — fair- I read to this House not one, not two, not three but ten ness, indeed — except for the completely unfair fact that diff erent quotations from the Attorney General, from her the Attorney General didn’t mention in her media event speeches and answers in this House, promising a level that she planned to sell, had staff writing legislation to playing fi eld for licence holders. Th ese quotes came not sell, new licences that would be signifi cantly more fair two years ago, not one year ago but as recently as 15 days than any other licences held by retail business owners before this bill was introduced. in the province. Another example of her abandoning her so-called [1735] principle of the level playing fi eld through this bill is She excluded from her press release that just 23 days her abandoning of the one-kilometre rule for the deep- later she would introduce this bill, guaranteeing that pocketed grocery store chains that can aff ord to buy the these very special wine store licence privileges exempting new licences proposed by this bill. their holders from the one-kilometre rule would be sold For those who don’t know, the one-kilometre rule says to the richest and the deepest-pocketed grocery store you can’t move your public or private liquor store within chain owners, and tough luck for everyone else. one kilometre of an existing store. All liquor stores are Here’s the minister in this House, speaking on March subject to this rule across the province — all liquor stores 11, 2015, just 15 days before she introduced this bill, except for a handful of VQA licences held by wineries, promising a level playing fi eld for locating licences inside who needed this competitive advantage to break into the grocery stores, without a single word that she would be very diffi cult wine market internationally. creating new licences that didn’t have to respect the one- It was a level playing fi eld across B.C. except where kilometre buff er rule. there’s a principled reason to move from that — until this “Let me talk about a few more of the level playing fi eld pieces that bill. Th is remarkable contradiction of the so-called level we have coming on the fi rst of April. We’ve got store within a store. playing fi eld policy up until this bill was introduced is In other words, private liquor stores can now move inside grocery best demonstrated by the fact that the Attorney General stores so that people can do their shopping all at the same time. B.C. wine stores are going to be able to move into grocery stores sent out a press release that she was holding a fair and — again, so that you can buy your B.C. wine with your things that square lottery to see who would get to move their licence you’re taking home to dinner.” into a grocery store in the province. Everyone would have Now, this bill makes it clear that there is no level play- an equal chance to participate. As she said, if you had a li- ing fi eld around relocating into a grocery store. One set Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7525

of licences has to be at least a kilometre away from an — if we can stand up vociferously…. I would also suggest existing store. Th e other set of licences created by this to the minister that perhaps an opportunity should be bill can be right next door to an existing store. Not even taken to reconsider some of the provisions of this legisla- famous television contractor Mike Holmes could level tion. In fact, perhaps withhold it for now until the proper the playing fi eld renovated by this minister. corrections can be made to a bill which…. To summarize, the licences issued under this bill let [1740] the holders of these licences buy their product at a dis- You know, as a former social worker, I’m sure that the count on advantageous terms and locate immediately minister has some good intention with this legislation, beside an existing small business or public liquor store somewhere. It might be just diffi cult to fi nd beneath all that doesn’t get the same discounted prices or favourable the words. But the legislation as it stands right now is very buying terms. problematic. It’s problematic for liquor outlets. It’s prob- For all of these reasons, the minister’s bill is a sad joke lematic for grocery store owners. It’s problematic for wine for business owners across the province. It is grossly un- stores. It’s problematic for small businesses throughout fair to many family businesses in the grocery world and this province, rural and urban alike. in the liquor retail world. It will close small business I fi nd it remarkable to consider that so much talk has across the province. It hands huge advantages to some gone into the presentation of liquor reform by this gov- of the biggest businesses in B.C. at the expense of some ernment. Whenever there was something bad in the of the smallest. It gives discounts to these big business- news, they’d announce something that would make us es who don’t need them while the Attorney General re- all get distracted and see something shiny. fuses discounts to B.C. restaurants, who have to buy at I understand that tactic. I understand that eff ort on full retail. government’s part to distract people from things that are It breaks promises made by the Attorney General to going to cause them concern, but using liquor legislation the public and to industry — not once, not twice but doz- and liquor reform as that shiny object seems to fall fl at ens of times, and not years ago but a mere 15 days before here, because this is nothing that is going to make any- this bill was introduced. Th e only apparent motivation for body excited or interested in changing the subject. Th is the province issuing these unfair licences is that it’s just in itself is so contrary to what the people of the province one more way to bring in some quick cash at the expense were promised over the last two years, I would suggest. of small business in the province. I know that people from all political stripes look at this Th e number of licences the Attorney General plans on bill and are searching for where there is fairness. Where issuing — unknown. She says this edition of licences will is this level playing fi eld? Now, I’m not sure if maybe the be “limited.” But there’s nothing in this bill that limits the minister was referring to a level playing fi eld for the big number of licences to anything but the largest number grocery chains and a level playing fi eld for the independ- the Attorney General can dream up. Th ese licences could ent, smaller grocery chains. Th at’s two level playing fi elds. be as limited edition as an upside-down airplane stamp Maybe the minister was talking about…. Th e minister or as limited edition as the McRib sandwich. Th e term wants to create two level playing fi elds, which just hap- “limited” is meaningless, but the impacts on small B.C. pen not to be at the same level. I’m not sure that’s how businesses are well known, and the minister is well aware. we usually use that kind of terminology — maybe in this I received an e-mail from another small liquor retailer House, when we kind of weasel words sometimes just to this morning. He wrote to me: “If I could sell my stores get around the actual, factual reality of the legislation. today, I would, but no one is sure of the value of their I think when you say a level playing fi eld, it’s suppos- business in this state of chaos. Scary. I’m 46 and now ed to mean level. I think what we have is multileveled — looking at starting over to prepare for retirement.” a multileveled playing fi eld. Maybe that’s what was just For all of these reasons, this side of the House will missing — a word in the press release: “We’re creating a not be supporting the minister’s bill. And for all of these multileveled playing fi eld for people in the liquor indus- reasons, the members on the other side of the House try in British Columbia.” Who doesn’t like a multilevel should look themselves in the mirror carefully when playing fi eld? You can watch many sports at once, if we they consider what they’re doing by passing this very think of it in the literal sense. unfair legislation. Th is particular legislation is creating hardship. It will create hardship. It probably has created hardship, listen- N. Simons: It’s my privilege to speak to Bill 22 at ing to my colleague, for folks who are now sitting on a second reading. I will echo the considered comments of licence that is of unknown value. It’s unknown value. my friend, who has roundly and, I think, forcefully and You have, suddenly, these grocery stores in rural parts eloquently stated the reasons for our principled oppos- of our province who are going to be subject to an auction, ition to this bill. and that auction is likely to include bidding as high as I would prefer to suggest, instead of simply and cor- you can for a licence, I’m presuming. Th at’s what an auc- rectly stating that we’ll be vociferously voting against this tion sounds like to me. People don’t usually go ten, 20, 30, 7526 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

20, ten. Th ey go higher and higher. Th ose with the deep- bers of this side of the House who support this kind of est pockets, as has been mentioned already, are going to legislation. Th ere are elements, obviously, in the legisla- be at a great advantage over those who don’t have those tion, in the changes that the minister has brought about same deep pockets. in British Columbia that are benefi cial to the people of So there’s a level playing fi eld for the people with the the province. Let’s not pretend that everything that the deep pockets, and there’s a level playing fi eld for those government always does is always negative. with less-deep pockets. I have to say, I’m doubtful that Th ere are things about the liquor changes that have met even this government could construe, or could pull this with satisfaction from the public and from craft breweries one out of a hat, without thinking that folks are going to and from distillers and from…. [Applause.] have a problem with it. Th at was the sound of one hand clapping. [Applause.] We have a situation where the rules that have generally Th at’s the sound of six hands clapping. governed liquor licences in our province seem to be al- I think that the minister’s attempt at humour is pleas- most…. Maybe they’re being ripped up. Th ey’re certainly ant, but it is kind of distracting from the fact that really being heavily amended and with an incredible impact on what we’re talking about here is legislation that’s un- the purveyors of goods in this province. supportable. I think that if any of the backbench mem- I’m concerned about the fact that there doesn’t seem to bers of the Legislature on the government side read this be any restriction on location. In my communities that I legislation, they would see the failure, really, of the min- represent, I can see a number of severe confl icts poten- ister to accomplish the goals that she promised the people tially arising from this legislation. of the province. [1745] Just the promises that were made. I don’t know what…. Not just confl icts over the fact that people are not go- Maybe I’m misunderstanding the words when the min- ing to be able to bid for in-store or wine-on-the-shelf li- ister says that nobody has to worry. Th ere won’t be new cences, but just the fact that they could be located next licences. Th e one-kilometre rule will remain. Th e dis- to existing government stores and next to existing liquor counts will be the same for everyone. Maybe when I retail outlets. Who knows? It’s possible, I suppose, that hear that from the minister, I think she’s telling us what even in our rural areas, where there are rural agency she means. Clearly, the minister is saying something she stores, there might be some impact there. We don’t ac- doesn’t mean. What is that? How are we supposed to…? tually know. How is anyone supposed to know what the minister You know, my worry is not that I don’t necessarily means when she changes what she means? She says one know. It’s that it’s clear that the minister doesn’t know thing one day, another thing the next — like that. I don’t what the impact of this legislation is going to be. And if hear her clapping anymore. I don’t hear her smiling. I the minister actually does know the impact of this legis- don’t even hear her rolling her eyes. lation, then I’m kind of shocked. I’m kind of shocked Th is is the reality. We’ve got a situation where…. that the minister would actually contemplate pursuing this legislation and pushing this legislation through the Interjection. Legislature if she really did understand the impact. It’s possible, very possible — in fact, may I suggest it’s N. Simons: Yeah, it’s possible. even likely — that not all consequences of this legisla- My concern is for constituents. My concern is for those tion have been thought through. Evidence of that would people in my communities who are going to be negatively be in the fact that answers were given two weeks ago to impacted by this legislation. Whether the minister wants questions about changes in liquor legislation that don’t to joke about it or not, I think she has to realize that this coincide with the reality of this legislation — not just is not a good piece of legislation, and it’s going to result two weeks ago but two months ago and six months ago. in problems for our communities. Th ere were quotes from the minister about what the She can ignore me when she feels like it, and she can people of the province could expect from legislation. listen when she feels like it. Th at’s her prerogative. But Th ere were hints. Th ere were little bread crumbs spread when she tells people of this province one thing and along the trail that people followed. People did things with does the absolute opposite the next day, I think the rest their licences. People contemplated purchasing locations. of the province has to realize we have a problem with Th ey thought about shelf space in their grocery stores. this minister. For the previous regime which involved a lottery sys- [1750] tem…. Well, we go from lottery to auction. What hap- Yesterday my colleague gave her the benefit of the pened to good governance, applications, changing of doubt. Yeah, maybe she had nothing to do with writ- policy that meets the needs of the communities, meets ing the legislation. Very, very possible. Maybe she wasn’t the expectations of communities? properly briefed on the legislation. Entirely possible. Now, what sometimes infl ames the argument is the Maybe she doesn’t understand the legislation. Very likely. suggestion that the minister made that there are mem- Maybe she hasn’t contemplated the negative impact Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7527

on constituents of hers and of mine. Th at is unfortunate, would all be like, you know, hurting ourselves pretty because it’s her duty. It is the minister’s duty to refl ect badly. I mean, I’ve played on some unlevel playing fi elds, the interests of her community, and her community in- by the way, that haven’t been properly fl attened out. It’s cludes all of British Columbia — rural British Columbia, not fair. It’s not fair for anyone. You’re the lucky one with urban British Columbia. You know, it’s kind of madden- the pothole on your end of the fi eld, or you’re the unlucky ing when a minister thinks that it’s a joke that she chan- one with the big huge ant hill next to the goal. Th at’s not ges her policy day to day to day. a level playing fi eld. I wonder if the minister knows what I don’t believe that those who are in the business of a level playing fi eld is. selling alcohol are going to be pleased with this minister. [1755] I think they’ve already expressed their concern. I don’t Who supports this, Mr. Speaker? Who supports this? understand the intransigence of a minister who says one I don’t know. Clearly, it’s a failure of the legislative draft - thing and then presents a bill like this, within two weeks ing process. And if not the minister responsible, who’s re- of saying the opposite of what the legislation holds. sponsible? Like, here we are again, you know, shuffl ing it I’m troubled by that, because it further brings the off to someone else. Is the minister going to blame some- process that we’re engaged in here into disrepute. To me, one else for the failure of this legislation? Is the minister sometimes it’s not even the content. Sometimes it’s just going to blame someone else for completely misleading the attitude of government that is so off ensive. You know, the people of the province? Who’s responsible? I think the government said there would be no new outlets. Oh, the minister should be accountable for this. except for the new outlets. I don’t get that. Does the minister agree that she has said one thing and Dormant licences. Well, they’re going to be woken up. done something completely diff erent? Not just once, not Th ose are kind of like new. Maybe they’re not new. Maybe twice — at least six times. And more were mentioned by the minister can get away with saying there are no new li- my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey. cences. Th ey were dormant. Like, how many kids do you I mean, it’s quite clear to anyone who has a look at this have? You don’t just talk about the ones that are asleep or that this is going to be bad for business. Bad management the ones that are awake. Th is is a minister trying to get and bad for business — wow, a hallmark of the Liberal away, squeeze out from underneath the words she gave Party. Bad for business, bad planning, bad management. us a month ago. It’s an explicit contradiction of the min- Incompetence, perhaps? Maybe. Maybe it’s incompetence. ister’s previous comments in the media. Say one thing to In December of 2014 the government said: “A limited the people outside, everyone claps. She thinks that that’s number of new licences will…be made available specifi c- the way to bring legislation to this chamber. ally for the ‘100 percent B.C. wine on shelves’ model.” A I don’t understand how the minister thinks that an limited number. But on February 17: “We are not increas- auction is going to be fair. Maybe she has a diff erent def- ing the number of liquor outlets in B.C., so anybody with inition of “fair.” Maybe it’s, like, fair for some people and a licence is in pretty good shape.” Maybe “pretty good not fair for other people, or a diff erent kind of fair — real- shape” is one of those things — pretty good shape, good ly extra fair, major fair, super fair and, then, almost fair. I shape, really good shape, excellent shape, pretty good mean that’s fair. Maybe that’s all fair. Th e minister prob- shape, bad shape, no shape. Th at would be bad. ably doesn’t want to have to address that, probably needs Maybe this is where we have to fi gure out that the to read the legislation again to recognize it. Attorney General has a diff erent scale, a diff erent therm- I’m not trying to be insulting, but when she responds ometer, sort of like maybe metric and Celsius or some- in such a dismissive way to legitimate concerns, what thing. “Pretty good shape” — for me, that means pretty are you left with in this place? What are you left with good shape. But “pretty good shape” for her means, like: when ministers say one thing one day and another thing “Oh, you’re about to go under.” I don’t know. It’s hard to the next day? What are you left with when the Minister tell. We have example aft er example of using words that of Education promises something to the teachers of the we used to know. You know, “fair” — it’ll be fair. We’re province and then, a few months later, decides to com- leveling the playing fi eld. Everyone is going to be in pretty pletely ignore his ethical statements about talking to good shape. Well, it’s unfair. Th ere are a bunch of diff er- teachers, about communicating with teachers? ent level playing fi elds, and I don’t think anyone is going Th is is what this minister is doing with the liquor in- to be in pretty good shape. dustry. I think the minister should be considering that Th ere are so many problems in this legislation. Th is is maybe this is a trend. You know, it’s the special wine store from Hansard, February 19: “A change that is not com- licences, exempt from the one-kilometre-radius rule. It’s ing is the number of liquor outlets.” I wonder if “not” was not only that but buying their product at a lower rate just thrown in, because it’s not usually written that way: and then grocery stores not having to pay the supplier a change that’s not coming. I’ll tell you something else until they’ve sold. that’s not coming. Whoa, just remarkable, really. Everywhere you look, there’s a diff erent level. I mean, We have a moratorium until 2022. What’s that morator- if I was playing on the minister’s level playing fi eld, we ium for? “Everything else. We weren’t talking about that.” 7528 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

It’s like…. I don’t know. I’m thinking there are probably ial are no longer in the defi nition, like “fair” and “level.” people in this province who felt misled, I would suggest. I You know, “level,” to me, is not like the side of a pyramid. wonder if the minister minds that people in this province Th at’s not level. felt misled by her ministry. I wonder if she has a problem I don’t understand. I don’t understand how the minis- that people listening to her talking were misled. I won- ter thinks this is going to…. It’s not just that it’s bad legis- der if she is concerned about the fact that the people in lation; it’s not what the minister promised. Th at, on the this province, who have a government that’s supposed to face of it, is enough reason to say: “Well, what the heck refl ect the needs of the province, were looking out there is this government doing?” What are they doing? Th is? and going: “Were we just misled? Were we purposely mis- Whoever said anything about this? Nobody knew this led? Or were we just misled? Did we not understand it?” was coming. You know, they’re going to be able to buy the I wonder if the minister thinks about the people who product at 26 percent below the price paid by other stores. are selling in LRSs or, you know, in grocery stores. I won- I don’t understand why the minister thinks that the der if she wonders if they…? Did she check: “Do you feel people of the province are going to be pleased with this. misled by what I said two weeks ago, compared to what People like to have access to alcohol, but at the same time, legislation I tabled?” Th at would be a good check. I would there needs to be some process that folks can count on — suggest that any time you want to write a piece of legisla- due process, for example. Wouldn’t that be nice — due tion, check with some people to see if it’s what you said process? you were going to do. To wrap it up, I guess, is to say that we will vote against And if it isn’t…. Oh, a bit of percussion there. it. We will do what we can in opposition to support the li- quor outlets, to support grocery chains and independent Deputy Speaker: Member, be careful about the equip- grocers and wine stores and the rest of the industry. We ment in the House. I’m just cautioning you about the will stand here and vote. We’ll do our part for the people equipment in the House. of the province. We’ll do our part for the small businesses that they always claim to be best buddies with. N. Simons: Th ank you, hon. Speaker. I should really I think everyone is seeing the falseness of that claim. have my hearing assistance thing on, but I will be cau- Th ey see the falseness of their claim to be good managers. tious about everything that I do right now just in case I Th at’s just false. Th at’s just talk. It’s talk about “no new li- missed what the caution was about. I think it was about cences.” Th at’s just talk. You know what? Th ere’s a word. hitting my microphone with the paper. Th ere’s a colloquial expression for that, which I can’t use in the House, but it’s just talk. We just call it “just talk.” Interjection. Th e government’s really good at just talking, but when you see what they write, and you see the kind of propos- N. Simons: Oh, no. I suppose the word I was using…. als they put forward, it’s just obvious that there’s no con- Yeah, I understand, Mr. Speaker. nection between what they say and what they do. I just wonder what people in the province are thinking That’s fundamentally the problem with this legisla- when they’re being told one thing for at least six months tion. Th e government said one thing, and they’re doing to a year. Th ey’ve been hearing the same thing over. “No something else. It’s going to hurt constituents in my area, more outlets. Everyone’s in pretty good shape. Level play- and it’s going to hurt British Columbian businesses. For ing fi eld. Fair.” And we fi nd out it’s pretty much the op- that reason, I hope the minister withdraws the bill. If she posite. I fi nd it diffi cult to have to tell grocers in my area chooses not to, well, we’ll stand in opposition against it — grocers who don’t have the pockets that maybe the and wish for a day when there’s a government that re- minister is pandering to — to compete in these auctions. spects business and communities. I worry about the people who aren’t best buddies with the minister, who haven’t maybe had the clearest line to L. Krog: Whether the member who spoke before me, the people writing the legislation. the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who al- [1800] ways speaks passionately on issues, realized it, he gave Maybe I think about the independent grocers in my me a bit of an opening when he talked about wrapping it area. I know that if they were ever asked about this, they up. For those of us of a certain generation, we remember would say quite clearly: “Th is isn’t going to be good. Th is when you didn’t go into the liquor store, which was a gov- is not a good idea. In fact, it’s a bad idea.” ernment liquor store, and leave without having the item Until there’s some sort of…. Maybe it’s too late. Maybe you’d purchased wrapped up. It was not to be seen by the everybody knows now that you can’t really trust what the public for fear it might excite some increased consump- government is going to say because they’re not going to tion of alcohol or because the labels weren’t attractive. I do it anyway, or if they do it, they’re going to excuse it was never entirely sure, but that was the policy. by saying: “Well, that’s not what we meant.” Th ose def- Th e only place you could buy alcohol, apart from off - initions that we’ve all agreed to since time immemor- licence sales at a beer parlour, as we used to call them — Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7529

I see the member for West Vancouver–Capilano smiling, For a police offi cer who is anxious to perhaps track because I think he might remember those days as well — people who tend to drink and drive — and it’s not un- would be a case of beer at a beer parlour. common to go in at least with some level of impairment, Now, we’ve come a long way. I’m not suggesting for not noticeable or detectable — it makes the job of poli- a moment that we’re going to turn the clock back or cing alcohol consumption, people who drive on our that the opposition expects to turn the clock back, but roads, that much more diffi cult. So there’s another social I must state right at the start that, notwithstanding I’m cost of the proliferation of liquor stores and private stores a consumer of alcoholic beverages like most British that sell alcoholic beverages. Columbians are, I have never supported philosophically Coming from that position, however, I accept the re- the concept of the expansion of the availability of alcohol ality that we are not going to roll the clock back. I accept through liquor stores around the province. that. But in setting up a system for licences for these [1805] stores that become valuable — where signifi cant invest- We have had antiquated laws related to consump- ments have been made, where people have mortgaged tion in restaurants and food. We’ve had antiquated laws their homes, where investors have invested in compan- with respect to families being allowed to have a drink at ies in order to operate the private distribution of wine dinner with children present, all those kinds of things and alcoholic beverages generally — you cannot simply which in other countries — I will call them older coun- ignore that, which is what this legislation purports to do, tries, perhaps more advanced nations in some respects and pretend now that we have, in the words of the gov- — have become the norm and have been the norm for a ernment, of the B.C. Liberals, some dormant licences. very long time. It conjures up a vision of, I don’t know, Alien or some- Once we started down the road, however, of allowing thing, where we’re seeing these things suspended in little the proliferation of private liquor sales or private wine cocoons, dormant licences hanging, waiting to be sent sales, we took a major step away from a system that, in off to some uncolonized part of the universe. Except my view, probably provided better social control for the that we’re going to pay a great deal of money for those, distribution of alcoholic beverages. and we’re going to put them in competition with small Now, many will disagree with that. Others will say that business people in this province who’ve already put their the member for Nanaimo is an old fogey. But I come necks out, mortgaged their homes, invested their money, from a community which in historic times, at the height perhaps, and employed people in their local commun- of the coal-mining era, I think had 17 breweries supply- ities. ing beer to slake the thirst of the miners working in coal Th ey face losing their businesses because this govern- in Nanaimo. ment didn’t have either the decency or the foresight to It has changed somewhat over time — whereby you think about this problem or, alternatively, have deliber- could purchase alcoholic beverages other than, as I say, ately chosen to proceed with a policy that will have the beer at the beer parlour, at off -licence sales. When that impact of driving out of business legitimate business system was set up, it obviously went into competition with people in this province who’ve played by the rules. government liquor stores, which were a signifi cant source [1810] of revenue for provincial governments for a very long time. Whatever they may be and whatever I think of them, I speak with some experience in that, not that anyone’s they played by the rules, and now they face potential ruin terribly interested. It was working in a government liquor with a system that is absolutely designed — and I can- store — two locations in my time — that provided a great not believe otherwise — to ensure that if this goes to a deal of the funding that supported me through post-sec- high-bid process…. ondary education. So I have a certain fondness for and a Th at’s the only sensible thing a government could do, certain memory of what it was like. because otherwise, I don’t know how you’re going to en- I also understood the signifi cant controls and the level gage in the distribution of these dormant licences. Th at of control that was provided by that system. If you showed process will mean only people or corporations with sig- a sign of impairment coming into a government liquor nifi cant resources will be in a position to purchase these store, you were not going to be served. Any employee who dormant licences. so served would face discipline and potentially being fi red. What is that going to do? Well, it essentially means Now, that may be a more puritan era. But what has hap- that the mom-and-pop operation, the people — some pened, in my view, with the proliferation of the availability of whom I had the privilege and pleasure to meet a few of alcohol is that now a police offi cer in a small commun- weeks ago — who operate specialty stores, who have de- ity can’t even pick off the pigeons, so to speak, leaving the veloped expertise, who have a customer base that trusts government liquor store because chances are that person them and likes them, are now going to face competition has been able to go to a possible multitude of private li- which, based on the discount rate, is going to be abso- quor stores around any given community or a govern- lutely unfair, unreasonable and will have the eff ect of pot- ment liquor store, working in competition together. entially destroying these existing businesses. 7530 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

For what? So that we can have even more opportun- to let them know: “By the way, we’re going to expand the ities to purchase a substance, which…. Anybody who fi eld. We’re going to provide new licences”? works in the family law practice in this province as a law- Th e member for Vancouver–Point Grey quoted the yer or as a counsellor or a drug counsellor or an addic- other day the Attorney General. It’s in the Vancouver tion counsellor or works with people in the health care Sun, February 17, 2015. It’s not a millennium ago. It’s a system will tell you that alcohol is still the most destruc- few months. “We are not increasing the number of liquor tive drug in our society. outlets in B.C. so anybody who has a licence is in pretty Th e government is not only going to commit the sin, good shape.” I don’t think we’ve seen that much confi - arguably, from my perspective, of expanding so that dence expressed since the captain set sail on the Titanic it’s available, I won’t say quite anywhere but practically, and said: “Th is ship is unsinkable.” where you have a multiplicity of operations available; Thirty-five days before this bill was introduced — you’re now in the process of doing it, going to kick sand again, my thanks to the member — a quote from the in the face of those very small business people that the Attorney General. A “change that is not coming” — I love B.C. Liberals always pretend that they represent. the double negative — “is the number of liquor outlets. To the advantage of who? Major corporate interests. We have the moratorium until 2022.” People with extreme wealth who will be in a position I get it that in politics we oft en make promises or com- to buy those — I love that phrase — dormant licences. mitments — during campaigns in particular — that when Th ey’ll be able to pack them up and take them home you, if you’re lucky enough, become government, become and cuddle them and then open them up at their whim impossible to implement because of change in fi scal cir- with all the capital resources that they have and turn to cumstances, declining markets, collapses of industry. You mom and pop down the street and kind of laugh and know, the Japanese lumber market back in the ’90s went say goodbye. in the toilet virtually overnight — signifi cant impact to Notwithstanding what the government says about the forest industry, government had to respond. B.C. prosperity, there are a lot of British Columbians Goodness knows I don’t think we have to mention li- who aren’t making $100,000 a year or $200,000 a year quid natural gas in this chamber, do we? I mean, there or half a million dollars a year. Th ere are a lot of British was a great promise that has disappeared with the same Columbians who don’t spend $5 without looking at it rapidity as the sinking of the Titanic, if I can come back three or four times. Th ey’re going to be driven by one to my maritime example. thing only — price. Arguably convenience — I accept But 35 days before the bill was introduced? And it’s not that — but price. a campaign promise. It is not some piece of a platform Th e large stores will be in a position with this discount, that was created by some obscure candidate in a remote having purchased these dormant licences, to operate with riding where nobody was listening. It was a publicly an- a better bottom line. It is absolutely unfair competition nounced, widely reported promise. “We have the mora- to those people, as I say, who’ve already paid their dues, torium until 2022.” played by the rules in the existing system, set up their I don’t know how the government and the Attorney businesses and made their investments. General can look in the faces of all of those people work- Now, it would have been one thing if this had been the ing in the industry — I mean it in the broadest sense — result of a true consultation process. We know we had and believe for a moment that anything they say hereaft er this on-line consultation process. Well, you know what? I around liquor policy in this province will ever be believed. suspect, like many processes that don’t have a high public Th e damage that has been done to the credibility of this profi le, we didn’t perhaps get the full impression of what government with a sector of the economy — in particu- British Columbians really think. Of course, the people lar, by that, I’m talking about the private sale of alcoholic who want alcohol more available are going to make their beverages…. A sector of the economy they have promot- views known. But the temperance union is gone, so I sus- ed and supported and from whom they’ve received do- pect that we didn’t hear from them. nations, substantial donations in many cases, has now [1815] been told that what the government says one day can’t If the government was going to go through this pro- be relied on a few days aft er. cess and then come to conclusions and then announce Now, as I say, we’re getting used to that in British what the public policy was, wouldn’t it have been at least Columbia. Liquid natural gas. Won’t sell B.C. Rail. sporting, let alone fair or honest, if they had indicated very clearly to those people over the last months, year, two, Interjections. three — this has been talked about for a while — who have been making conscious investments in the sale of wine L. Krog: HST. Everything is good. All this technology and alcoholic beverages in their stores, perhaps expanding is working just fi ne, just fi ne. Oh well, yes, that’s true. But their facilities, purchasing an existing outlet, whatever the only — what is it? — one-third of it’s actually in oper- case may be…. Wouldn’t it have been fair and appropriate ation in the ministry. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7531

I don’t want to go through a long list and harangue too public controversy. Th e government thereby would be much today, but it’s not impossible at this stage for the given an opportunity to reconsider its position. Th e op- government to take what I’ve referred to many times, and position could decide whether or not their position was, what W.A.C. Bennett called it himself, God bless him, the in fact, a logical or a sensible or a correct one. It would famous second look. give everybody a cooling off period. What’s wrong with [1820] that? What possible loss can be suff ered? I don’t think the world will collapse or British Th e government has to accept that its credibility on Columbians will wake up crying, terrifi ed by the pros- this issue, let alone others, is gone. It is absolutely gone. pect that the government doesn’t proceed with Bill 22. And all of the quotes from the Attorney General, all of the Would it really harm the legislative agenda or damage the comments from government make that absolutely clear. government any more than it’s already damaged itself by As tempted as I am to gild the lily, there’s no need to its introduction to simply pull this bill, and pull it now? repeat over and over again what’s happened here. Th is Firstly, go back and apologize to all of those British government has entered down a policy path that is go- Columbians who have a keen interest in this and say: ing to damage the economy, benefi t only a few and cre- “Sorry, that was a mistake. We won’t do it again. We will ate disruption in an area of the economy where people now sit down with this broadly based industry, which I were looking for progress, for a modern approach — for acknowledge is a signifi cant economic contributor to this an ability to take British Columbia’s alcohol consumption province’s bottom line.” patterns in distribution and sale and habits into the 21st Whether it’s the grape grower in the Interior or the century so that instead of thinking they were coming to wine merchant in the West End or the clerk in the liquor some primitive backwater, international travellers could store in Haida Gwaii, people have an interest in this de- say: “Th is kind of looks like home. It feels comfortable. bate. For the government to actually do some consulta- Th ese people have a civilized attitude towards it.” tion now — with some live bodies, with great respect, Instead, we’ve thrown this whole industry, to some ex- as opposed to some electronic gathering — and to talk tent, into a form of chaos — not everybody but enough. about people who are legitimately outraged by their be- [1825] haviour around this issue, I would suggest, is a politically My darkest suspicion, the way they’ve structured it, is smart thing to do. You know, there’s nothing like sitting that this is essentially, over the longer haul, about ensur- around a table and having a negotiation and a discussion. ing that the government liquor store revenue starts to As I say, no harm will come from withdrawal. Indeed, drop off . Th en the whole system will be ripe for privatiz- the government might actually recover a little bit of its ation. Th e government can then sell it to its friends, and spent political capital around the community. I’m not they will be their major donors, not their minor donors. getting any e-mails — and I’m sure that the critic who You’ll see that stream of revenue gone forever, and the spoke so eloquently yesterday and today on this issue is taxpayers of this province — I don’t really like that phrase, getting a whack of e-mails — from a bunch of people but I’ll use it tonight — the citizens of British Columbia saying, “How dare you oppose Bill 22. Th is is amazing who will bear the health care and social costs of the wider legislation.” “Th is is just the greatest thing since” — you and greater distribution of alcoholic beverages, are going know how the cliché goes — “sliced bread. Th is is go- to be the ones to feel the pain. ing to really help everybody.” “I’m just delighted to see What we will have achieved with this eventually will my business disappear in order to support B.C. Liberal be the elimination of union jobs, which aren’t that well policy.” I don’t think so. paid, if you actually talk to people who work in the gov- I don’t think the member…. I’ve looked at him care- ernment liquor stores now. It’s not a career, like it used to fully, and he hasn’t nodded his head in the correct man- be for many folks. It’s not a family-supporting job. Th ey ner to indicate that that information is being transmitted will disappear. We’ll see the further increase in lower- to his offi ce. Not one. wage jobs. Th e government will have gotten out of this Again, I come back to my point. We’re only at second industry entirely. We’ll see greater public consumption reading. Th is is really not that necessary. If the govern- and greater social costs. ment wants to introduce legislation and believes it’s ne- It’s bad policy, so I urge the government — it’s not too cessary to do so and that there’s such a public demand for late — to simply withdraw the bill. Try and save your- this, then do what would have done: selves. You’re being thrown a lifeline. Th e opposition is have a fall session. Oh my goodness, that would be the giving you a lifeline. Th e public is already furious. fi xed legislative calendar. Wouldn’t that be a novel con- Your only possibility of reducing the public anger, for cept? those who are extremely and keenly interested in this, is We’ll actually have a fall session, and we’ll have it regu- to step back, go out, consult, do the right thing, fi gure it larly. We’ll deal with legislation which, when it was intro- out and understand that the present course will mean the duced in the spring — which was one of the concepts concentration of the distribution in fewer and smaller behind the fi xed legislative calendar — created signifi cant hands. It will mean the destruction of family- and local- 7532 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

ly owned businesses. It will mean, potentially, the loss of Really, it doesn’t matter what we’re told because the a level of expertise. regulations grant the minister to prescribe “the number I predict this as well, because it’s no diff erent than in of special wine store licences in respect of which bids the grocery industry. Items that don’t sell, items that have may be accepted under this Act.” So whatever has been a smaller market, tend to disappear off the shelves of the said doesn’t really matter, because the minister can put big operators, and so, ultimately, selection will suff er and however many permits he or she wants at any time he consumers will suff er. or she wants. We’ll see a less vibrant industry and an industry that, It talks about wine in this bill. Again, this is why I’m candidly, will probably only be able to attract invest- beginning to wonder about the speed at which this legis- ment for the largest and most profi table corporations, lation is brought in. Whose needs are trying to be met? because if you lose a little money in British Columbia, Well, I think I know whose needs are trying to be met. you can make it up in Alberta. Maybe you’ll make it up It talks about wine being plant products grown in in Saskatchewan. But that locally owned wine shop in British Columbia — “…to sell wine in respect of which the West End or downtown Victoria catering to tourists, the naturally occurring sugar used in the fermentation those smaller operations, can’t take that risk. No one, no process comes from only (i) plant products grown in right-thinking small business person, is going to be pre- British Columbia.” Does that mean blackberry wine? pared to take that risk. Perhaps. Th at’s a plant product, but it’s a fruit. On every level, it’s bad public policy. It is a bad bill. It My question would then be: why are you saying plant needs to be withdrawn. I urge the government to do so. products instead of fruits if you wanted to include other wines? As soon as you say plant products, you’re starting A. Weaver: I, too, would like to join members of the to include corn wine. You mean corn wine here? I don’t offi cial opposition and rise and speak against this bill. Bill know. Some might argue that beer is actually wine. It’s 22, the Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act, is a bill distilled, but…. which, in my view, is again following a similar pattern What about juniper berries being used in gin? Th e that we’re seeing emerging with the government legisla- member for Saanich South might be interested to hear tion. It’s a pattern that is putting more and more power in on that. Th e defi nitions of what wine is here are very odd. the hands of the minister to do whatever he or she wants I have a grocery store in my riding. It’s an iconic gro- to do, with no accountability. cery store in greater Victoria. It’s a grocery store called Herein, again, the problem with Bill 22 — one of the Pepper’s. Th e original owner of that is widely recognized problems with Bill 22; there are so many of them — lies in for his contributions and his philanthropy in the area, but section 15, where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council Pepper’s now has a new owner. can essentially make regulations to do anything. Th at, to Th is new owner pointed out to me recently that his me, defeats the purpose of this bill. store has 7,500 square feet. Now 7,500 square feet is We have the government bringing in legislation last not…. It’s under 929 square metres. I love it when we year that British Columbians were excited about. British hear legislation pretending to be actually metric intro- Columbians were excited about the modernization of our duced, but when you actually convert 929 square metres, liquor laws in the province. Th ere is no question that this it’s exactly 10,000 square feet. In actual fact, this is 10,000 was an incredibly comprehensive and consultative pro- square feet here. cess that led to the introduction of legislation that British It’s less than that. Th is means that Pepper’s is ineli- Columbians wanted. gible to be considered a grocery store. Pepper’s is one of [1830] the highest-grossing grocery stores per square foot in all It’s mind-boggling to see how the government could of greater Victoria. Th ey have a steady stream of traffi c mess up so badly a good-news bill over the subsequent in there because they off er a unique product. Th ey of- months. It starts off with liquor pricing — the number of fer locally grown products. Th ey cater specifi cally to the outraged business owners, etc., who got involved in the local residents. Th ey are an iconic institution in this re- liquor pricing problems. Th ere’s media story aft er media gion, but they don’t happen to be 10,000 square feet. Th eir story I’ve got here in my fi les, where people are express- owner is outraged. ing concern over the regulations that came in aft er the Th ere are liquor stores, wine stores, that have specif- legislation was brought in last year. ically grown up and developed next to grocery stores. Th en we have this piece of legislation. I simply cannot Metro Liquor in Victoria. In Tuscany Village Metro understand why it would be brought in. We talk about Liquor specializes in wine. You can get a bottle of gin dormant licences. You know, I start to think about volca- there if you want, but they have targeted their commun- noes. I’m wondering if there are explosive licences over ity. Th eir community wants the wine, so they specifi c- here as opposed to the dormant ones. We’re told that ally target their liquor store to wine, near a supermarket. there will be no new licences, but then we’re told, at some But guess what. That supermarket doesn’t have to point, that there will be a limited number. worry about the fact that somebody has invested their Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7533

future in developing a small business right next door to should refl ect upon this. Perhaps we should wait. Perhaps them, because they’re exempt from the one-kilometre we should listen to those across the fl oor. Perhaps we rule, and they could have a B.C. distribution of wine on should listen to those who’ve invested heavily in set- their shelves. ting up small businesses and are now going to be under- I also have questions as to whether or not this legis- mined by this.” lation would hold up under NAFTA. I suspect that Members on this side of the House…. Dare I speak California grape growers will be somewhat concerned for the offi cial opposition? I suspect they, too, support about what some might view as protectionist policies be- the B.C. wine industry. Who wouldn’t support the B.C. ing put forward from B.C. wine industry? I only ever buy B.C. wine. Th at’s all. I have always sup- Th is is not about supporting or not supporting the B.C. ported our B.C. industry. I only ever buy B.C. craft beers, wine industry. Most of us would buy B.C. wine because it but that’s not the point. We have international law. We is B.C. wine, because it is fi rst-rate wine, wins prizes inter- have a free trade agreement. nationally. Th is is about giving a large corporate sector [1835] vested interests, an unfair advantage over small business- I would like to hear from the minister at some point es in B.C. that are struggling to make ends meet, strug- whether or not they have sought and received legal ad- gling to pay those MSP premiums, struggling to meet vice as to this actually being acceptable under NAFTA. I payroll, struggling to pay the rent. Here, they can just be don’t see how it could be. You’re essentially saying: “You taken out by the big chains coming in and putting wine are not allowed to sell your product, if it’s from America, on the shelves and undermining these family investments. here in our grocery stores because we’re putting in exclu- We’ve seen a similar pattern here. We’ve seen guide- sive policies for a specifi c industry.” outfi tters’ vested interests being put ahead of resident There are other concerns about this. The way in hunters in British Columbia. We see big corporations be- which auctions are set up and carried forward is unclear. ing put ahead of small business. We see friends and rela- Everything is in regulation again. My own opinion is that tives getting preferential treatment, in my interpretation government was planning to do this, and then someone of this, as opposed to hard-working…. I’m beginning along the way said: “Oops, you cannot do this because to sound like I’m with the offi cial opposition here. I do when you do an auction, it’s considered a tax. You’ve got apologize — not to the offi cial opposition. to bring in legislation if you want to do what you wanted I mean the hard-working British Columbians who to do.” So in a rush and a hurry and a fl uster, rapid legis- have actually spent a lot of time putting these business- lation is put forward. Again, the ramifi cations of this are es in place, working to create small beer and wine stores not really well thought through. that actually have niche markets and those grocery stores We have a situation where a government that proposes that just happen to be 9,962 square feet that are no longer and argues that it is there for business in B.C. is actually able to compete in this auction process. It just isn’t fair. putting in legislation that hampers business in B.C. It’s [1840] mind-boggling to me that this government has tried to It’s just not fair, and ultimately, that’s why I cannot sup- argue, over the years, that it is there for small business. port this bill. It is not fair, and bills that are not fair at a Th ey’re not there for small business. fundamental level should not be brought forward by gov- Th ey are there for vested corporate interests, the big ernment to be debated at the scale we are debating it here. supermarket chains that could buy these dormant per- Th ey should be withdrawn. Th ey should recognize that mits, whatever that means, through outbidding any small this is wrong. Th is is wrong for B.C. industry. local grocer — these large-scale stores that could realize It probably wouldn’t stand up under NAFTA anyway. there are neighbourhoods in our region where people I just can’t wait until the government starts getting a for- drink more wine and people drink more beer. mal complaint from California wine growers. I’m sure There are different neighbourhoods around. They it’s coming. Under NAFTA I don’t think this will be sup- could target those particular neighbourhoods where portable. Why are we doing this? And where would be there are existing, thriving businesses that have built up the legal opinion that government has — perhaps they liquor stores, beer and wine stores, specifi cally focusing could table that and share it with us — that this actually on niche wine markets. Th ere are such stores. I outlined does stand up to NAFTA scrutiny? With that, I’ll pass the one earlier, in the Tuscany Village here in my riding in fl oor. I will be voting against this, strongly voting against Victoria. this. If you can vote strongly versus weakly, I will do that I just simply cannot understand why this government strongly. I would suggest and urge government to also would bring in this legislation that is so punitive to small just once, or maybe for a second time, allow a free vote. business in British Columbia. Again, as the member for Allow members on the government side to actually vote Nanaimo pointed out, it simply behooves government in the interests of their constituents — not because some to stand back and refl ect upon this and say: “You know corporate backroom person has told a few inside staff ers what? We made a mistake. Th ere’s outrage. Perhaps we that they better get government to do this but because 7534 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

their constituents, those small business owners, recog- Th e piece that the government and the minister hung nize that this is the wrong thing to do, whether that be their hat on in a pretty signifi cant way was this notion the Quality Foods in Parksville-Qualicum, whether that of bringing liquor to grocery stores, bringing beer and be the Pepper’s Foods in the Cadboro Bay Village. Th ese wine and liquor into grocery stores — the store-within-a- small business owners are concerned. store model. Now, there was a whole lot of concern raised For that, I will vote against this, and I urge members about that, and quite rightly so, by the private industry. opposite to do the same. [1845] Th e private industry — hundreds and hundreds and S. Simpson: I’m pleased to get an opportunity to stand hundreds of stores across this province, people who set and participate in debate on the Special Wine Store up private liquor sales outlets, employed thousands and Licence Auction Act, Bill 22. thousands of people across this province and invested, We’ve heard from a number of members here on this as other members have said, mostly as small business- side who have raised a whole range of critical questions es. Some of them have grown to be more signifi cant but about fairness, a whole range of questions about how this largely, in the scale of things, certainly small- to medium- legislation came to be, a whole range of questions about sized businesses. Th ey invested very heavily. Th ey in- why the government would choose to put this piece of vested heavily, and they located their stores in places legislation in place. What we know…. Maybe we have to — some of them 5,000- to 10,000-square-foot stores — to go back and refl ect a little bit on how we got to this place. be able to mostly take advantage of being close to food We’ll know that the government went and did its liquor outlets and major food chains. Th at made a lot of sense review and produced a number of changes from that. It if you were going to have a liquor store. was a review that was not a consultation by any…. In any Now, I wasn’t certain about this at the beginning, but responsible way, it certainly wasn’t a consultation. But a we’ve now seen where we’ve got a couple of hundred gov- decision…. Th ere were 700 or 800 people that responded ernment stores and many, many more — 1,200 or 1,300, to a blog, and that seemed to determine how the govern- whatever — of these private stores in total. Th is system ment would put a range of changes in place and a range actually has worked reasonably well in the province, and of amendments in place. it has worked in an eff ective way. A number of those amendments made sense. Th ey What happens, though, is the government says they are made amendments around how food and beverage essentially going to allow the large corporate supermar- operators could function. Some of those changes — just ket chains to get into the liquor business. Now, they’re not commonsense changes that I think everybody is pretty going to get into the business, of course, in the way that comfortable with and pretty supportive of. But there were some of these larger private stores are, where you’ve got some fundamental changes put forward here that raised 8,000 or 9,000 square feet. You’re going to have, at best, in serious questions. some of these stores maybe 1,500 square feet. Th ey have We know the issue around wholesale pricing, which a limited amount of space — 1,500 or a couple of thou- was never part of that review…. Th at was a decision that sand square feet of space for liquor. got jammed, presumably, at the cabinet table. We know There is a great concern by the private stores that that there are senior ministers who have been encour- they’re going to get jammed. Th e government says, and aging that not just for years but for many years, looking we know, that there’s the one-kilometre rule. Now, the for that change — even though I remember the member one-kilometre rule, for people who don’t understand from Richmond, who was the parliamentary secretary that, essentially says that if you have a liquor store in who conducted the liquor review on behalf of the govern- place, nobody else can locate a liquor store within one ment, had on a number of occasions said: “Pricing is not kilometre of that location where you are. Th ere has to be part of my mandate, and I’m not looking at pricing.” Lo some space, some area. and behold, of course, pricing and this change to a sin- Th e government, the minister says that’s not going to gle wholesale price became one of the fundamental and change, says we’re going to keep the one-kilometre rule. core changes that was in the package. Th at happened for Of course, as we know, you keep the one-kilometre rule a range of reasons that I think most people who know in place and the government’s proud announcement this industry are pretty clear about. about putting liquor in grocery stores goes in the ditch It was a number of changes. It is going to lead, in time pretty quickly. — and we will all see that over the next period of time — I believe it was the Vancouver Sun. Th ey did a story. to higher prices. We’re either going to have higher prices Th ey identifi ed 58 or 59 major supermarkets, food stores in government stores, or we’re going to see those gov- in the Lower Mainland. I think they determined that out ernment stores not generating the kind of revenue that of those 58 or 59, only one of them would actually be able has been generated previously out of this sector for gov- to open a liquor store inside, the store within a store, be- ernment. Th at’s going to be a reality that we’ll see. Th at’s cause every one of the other ones had a private or a gov- another matter. ernment liquor store within a kilometre of that location. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7535

Why is that? Th e reason that exists is because the gov- What do we face? What’s the situation we face? Th ey’ve ernment stores and the people who open the private put in place this rule with some indeterminate amount of stores are smart enough to know that the idea of locat- stores that they won’t talk about. Th ey talk about it being ing, if you can, close to a major food outlet makes a lot of fair and balanced. We know that what’s happening here…. sense. When I go and buy my groceries, it doesn’t seem Th e people at ABLE, the people in the private sector, like a bad idea to walk across the parking lot and pick up I think to some degree were saying that as long as the a bottle of wine and a case of beer if that’s what I want to one-kilometre rule stayed in place, they were prepared buy. Th at makes sense, so they located there. to talk about the grocery store model because, fi rst of all, Th at tells us two things. One is that it’s certainly con- they had the protection of one kilometre. I’m sure that venient. It is, though the minister doesn’t seem to want for some of them, they saw the opportunity to sell those to acknowledge this, about as convenient in many ways, licences for big, big money, to be able to have a windfall — particularly with the much broader selection in these lar- sell their licence to that Safeway, to that Save-On, for mil- ger stores, than a store within a store. lions, potentially — and to put themselves out of business, Th e problem is the minister and the government make but to put a lot of dollars in their pocket as they did it. this commitment that they’re going to put liquor in gro- Now, all of a sudden, they are quite opposed to Bill cery stores. Th en all of a sudden they discover they can’t 22. Th ey’re opposed to this model. Th ey’re opposed to do that without breaching the one-kilometre rule. Th ey it because these are not dumb people. Th ey understand have stood up and told us, and the minister told us: exactly what this means. What this means is the govern- “Th at’s not going to happen. We have the moratorium in ment is doing exactly what it told them it wouldn’t do. place. We’re not going to breach that rule. Don’t worry Th e government is setting up a liquor store in those gro- about it. It’s going to be fi ne.” cery stores. Th ey’re going to set up a liquor store. It may, How do they get around this? We then have the spe- at the beginning, have some limited product, but I believe cialty store. We have the idea of the special wine store, the that’s only a matter of time. VQA store or the B.C. wine, the B.C. product store. Th is Th ey’re going to set up a store within the grocery store, all of a sudden becomes this great idea to do this, to do and they’re going to compete with those private liquor what we see, essentially, located in this legislation. stores — those private liquor stores where those people What we actually see in this legislation, I believe, is set up a business. Th ey took a chance on this. Th ey in- the government putting itself in a corner and in a box by vested their money. Th ey set up shop. Th ey grew their making promises around liquor in those grocery stores, businesses. Th ey hired local people. Th ey have a success- realizing they cannot do this without, in the most overt ful small to medium-sized business. Now they are at risk, way, breaching every promise they made around the one- and they know they’re at risk. kilometre rule and throwing the one-kilometre rule out Th ey’re at risk, and then you have the small, independ- and not being prepared to do that. So they end-run the ent wine stores. I know I have those in my constituency one-kilometre rule. Th at’s what we’re seeing here. You on Commercial Drive. I have one a block away from a end-run the one-kilometre rule. government liquor store. Why is it a block away from As we know in here, there is no commitment on: is this a government liquor store with the one-kilometre rule? going to be 10 or 20 or 30, or is it going to be 100 or 200? It’s because their commitment is that they won’t sell any How many of these stores are there going to be? We have product that’s in that government liquor store. Th e gov- no idea, and the minister won’t tell us how many. So what ernment liquor store carries a particular wine; this store is to say that this is the fi rst opening of the door. doesn’t carry it. Th ey carry B.C. wines, they carry wines [1850] from elsewhere in the world, and they specialize. Th ey do What is to say that this is the government saying: “We well because they specialize, because they have extensive promised you that store within a store, but we really knowledge, and they have become a valuable asset in the couldn’t deliver that without breaching a rule that, polit- community for those people who want to experience wine ically, we think is too tough for us to breach, so we’re go- from around the world. Th ey’re pretty excited about it. ing to give you a better deal in some ways. You don’t even Well, those folks now are very concerned. Th ey’re not have to do the store within a store. You can just put it on only concerned because these stores are going to pop your shelves and sell it the same way you sell everything up. Th ey’re concerned because they don’t have the same else. You don’t have to set up another cash register system, pricing regime as those folks are going to have who open another system of retail here. You can just do it this way. up a store under Bill 22 or open up in a Save-On or a Trust us. If we can get away with doing this — we’re not Safeway. Th ey are not going to have that. Th ey’re going to very far down the road — we’ll be expanding this prod- have a diff erent pricing regime that is much more advanta- uct line. It’ll go bigger, and it’ll go better.” geous for them than what you’ve now done, particularly in I think that in a couple of years, that’s where we’ll be if eliminating the discount for the independent wine stores. this moves forward. I don’t for a minute believe that this is about the limits that there are here. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] 7536 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Th ose stores are at risk. Again, those are small busi- On Vote 43: ministry operations, $813,473,000 (con- nesses. Th ey committed investment. Th eir families com- tinued). mitted. Th ey grew those small businesses. Some of them [1435] have two or three outlets. It’s a good thing in our com- munity. People enjoy them. Th ey are at risk because of C. Trevena: I’m just going to start off this aft ernoon Bill 22. Th at is the reality of the situation that we face at with a bit of discussion about B.C. Ferries and then move this time. on — give the minister notice — about transit and then We’ve created a situation, as has been noted by a num- on to TransLink. ber of my colleagues, where there were promises made My fi rst question — I hope it’s a simple explanation — by the government around these liquor changes. Th e is on the government funding for ferries. Th ere’s been an promises were that you wouldn’t create unfair competi- increase 2014-15 to 2015-16 of 0.7 percent of government tion. You wouldn’t put the private operators up against funds to B.C. Ferries, as I understand. Th ere’s been an the megastores and the big money behind corporate food increase, meanwhile, to the inland ferries of 11 percent. chains and that the protection was in the one-kilometre I wonder if the minister could explain the discrepancy. rule. Everybody was told: “Trust us. Th e protection is in the one-kilometre rule.” Hon. T. Stone: In response to the member’s question — unless the member is referencing a diff erent line some- We now see with Bill 22 the steps to get around and where else in the budget, and she can point that out to erode that rule, to get around that rule, to get the foot me in a moment — the actual funding for coastal ferries in the door, and then we’ll see where we go from there. is going up by about $1.4 million year over year. Th at’s I do have a few more comments. I believe there are a about a 1 percent increase year over year. couple of other members who will look forward to speak- Th e budget for the expenditures for inland ferries is go- ing to this when the bill comes back tomorrow. But for ing up by about $200,000 year over year, which is actually now, I will move adjournment of debate and reserve my a much smaller percentage increase. Th at’s a 0.02 percent right to fi nish my comments. increase. I’m not certain where the member is drawing her numbers from but would be happy to dive into this S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate. further with her, if she would like to.

Motion approved. C. Trevena: I’m looking at fi gures that have…. Th ese are from both estimates and the public accounts, which Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported has the appropriation for coastal ferries at $192.6 million progress, was granted leave to sit again. for 2014-15 and $194.015 million for 2015-16. Similarly, for inland ferries, the global fi gure is $21.903 million to Hon. J. Rustad moved adjournment of the House. $24.306 million, which is where we get the 0.7 percent and 11 per cent. Motion approved. [1440]

Madame Speaker: Th is House, at its rising, stands ad- Hon. T. Stone: First off , I previously indicated a total journed until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. dollar increase for inland ferries of $200,000. I misspoke. I should have said $2,000 — so a very modest amount. Th e House adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Th at’s the net allocation. We’re now looking at the same line here. Th e mem- ber is referring to the gross operations for inland ferries, PROCEEDINGS IN THE which is the total cost to run inland ferries. Th e mem- DOUGLAS FIR ROOM ber’s numbers are correct as she read them into the rec- ord a moment ago. Committee of Supply Th e increase in cost year over year here from an ex- penditure perspective relates to three key areas which are ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF dealt with via the four service agreements, or contracts, TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE that we have with the contractors who actually deliver (continued) the inland ferry services in diff erent parts of the province. Th ose cost drivers are labour, fuel and maintenance costs. Th e House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Th ere have obviously been escalations in one or some of Bernier in the chair. those three items in each of the four contracts. Th is relationship is governed…. In terms of the use of Th e committee met at 2:34 p.m. a third party or a contractor, it’s very similar to the coast- Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7537

al ferries. As the member knows very well, we have the nual basis, moving forward. But it’s within that service coastal ferry agreement between the ministry and B.C. fee and that level of service fee that we provide the B.C. Ferries, which governs the service levels and provides for Ferries corporation — which, the member knows very a number of other provisions. well, is a quasi-separate, independent corporation from We have service agreements with four separate con- government — that level of funding on an annual basis. tractors for the provision of inland ferry services. Again, Th e inland ferries are run from within the Ministry part of this is increases for negotiated union wage in- of Transportation and, obviously, have a much, much creases, for example, year over year as well as projected smaller footprint than the coastal ferries do. Th at being fuel costs and maintenance on the terminals and vessels said, it’s also important, I think, for British Columbians that are part of the inland ferry system. to know that last year, which was a pretty normal year in terms of funding levels of the inland system compared to C. Trevena: We know there’s a major diff erence be- the coastal ferry system, the average vehicle investment tween the inland and coastal ferries, although the ad- or subsidy that the province of British Columbia provid- ministrative structure may be a little the same. We have ed the inland ferry system was $19 per vehicle. Th e aver- this sort of quasi-private operation for the coastal fer- age per-vehicle investment or subsidy that the province ries, whereas the inland ferries come under the Ministry provides to the coastal ferries is $23 per vehicle. of Transportation. Overall, when you net it out on a vehicle basis, we ac- I just have a couple of…. Let’s see how best to go on tually provide a higher level of provincial investment in to this. I think I’ll move a little bit onto some questions our coastal ferry system than we do in our inland ferry I’ve got about capital and then move back to some of the system. more operational ones. [1445] C. Trevena: I’m very pleased to hear the minister talk On the inland ferries, recently, last summer, there was about investments rather than subsidies, because we are a new ferry on the Arrow Lakes for Nakusp. WaterBridge talking about investing in our marine infrastructure. I Steel was very pleased to be able to launch it and built it, think that if we can keep on that language, we might ac- actually, on the lake. I was wondering if there was any tually be able to move on. provincial money that went into that capital build. Much of the capital investment is the service fee, and much of the operating cost actually comes from the users Hon. T. Stone: Th e inland ferry that the member is ref- of B.C. Ferries. I think the minister would agree on that. erencing is the M.V. Columbia, which is a success story. I just wanted to see whether the minister does agree that, Th e member pointed out it was built in Nakusp. Th e all- eff ectively, it is the users, particularly of the major routes, in cost for the M.V. Columbia is about $30 million, and who will pay the operating costs. Operating costs are in- the cost was paid by the province of British Columbia. cluding, when we talk about operating costs, fuel and labour, because that is all part of operating costs. C. Trevena: Does the province of British Columbia [1455] put any money into the new builds that are going ahead, either for the three intermediate vessels that are going to Hon. T. Stone: Th e quick answer to the member is be built in Poland or the cable ferry that is presently be- yes, of course the users cover a good chunk of the cost to ing built in B.C. for the B.C. Ferries builds? operate the coastal ferry system known as B.C. Ferries in this province. I don’t think that has ever been in dispute. Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the replacement vessels I do want to reinforce, though, the point that I make — the three intermediate vessels which are being built and many times on this. If really where the member is going the cable ferry which is being built…. Th e cable ferry will here…. I can maybe shorten the distance from A to B if be in service this summer. she’s contrasting the inland ferry system with the coastal [1450] ferry system and the level of investment that the province Th e province of British Columbia contributes toward makes in the two systems and so forth. these projects via the service fee that we actually provide I remind people oft en on this that they’re completely B.C. Ferries, which is governed by the contract that we diff erent systems. Th is is like comparing apples and oran- have with B.C. Ferries, the coastal ferry services contract. ges. As I said a moment ago, the inland ferry system re- As the member knows well, that contract is renewed. ceives an investment by the province of British Columbia We anticipate…. Well, if we look back over the last four to the tune of $19 per vehicle. Th e coastal ferry system years, or through PT — performance term — 3, the aver- receives an investment of about $23 per vehicle from the age annual contribution or service fee investment from taxpayers of British Columbia. the province of British Columbia into our coastal ferries Th e operating cost of the inland ferry system runs in has averaged about $180,000 per year. We expect and in- the range of about $20 million per year. Again, it’s a very, tend to maintain that level of funding on an average an- very small system, all fresh water, very minimal labour 7538 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

costs because there are very few crew. A lot of these fer- Hon. T. Stone: On the member’s fi rst question with ries have one or two crew members. Some have none. respect to fuel consumption, we’d be more than happy Th ey involve reaction ferries, cable-type ferries. Very in- to get that information for her. We don’t have it at our signifi cant fuel is consumed, obviously. Th ey operate on fi ngertips here today, but we’ll get that for her. And with fresh water, not salt water. respect to the second question, relating to, if I heard It’s $20 million, roughly, to operate the entire inland it correctly, economic impact in Poland versus British ferry system, compared to the coastal ferry system, which Columbia, no, there wasn’t an economic impact analy- costs around $750 million per year to operate. It has some sis done. of the longest ferry routes of comparable ferry systems It was a procurement process where there was an RFP in the world. It’s obviously all salt water, very signifi cant put out for the three intermediate vessels. No British labour costs involved due to the required crewing levels Columbia fi rms bid on the work, and B.C. Ferries needs from Transport Canada. Again, a very diff erent ferry sys- three intermediate vessels. The shipyards in British tem — $750 million versus $20 million. Columbia indicated — Seaspan in particular — that they Th e third piece of this discussion, which I’m certain the did not bid on the project because they’re too busy. Th ey member will raise as well, is highways in this province. have no capacity at the moment, largely due to the federal Th e annual cost to maintain our highway system is about contracts that they won a couple of years ago. Th ey have $540 million. We maintain 47,000 kilometres of highway no additional capacity to take on these projects. Th at was in British Columbia for several hundred million dollars disappointing. I would love for those ships to have been less than it costs to operate coastal ferries — very diff er- built here in British Columbia. ent transportation systems, completely diff erent. What is happening through those federal contracts, Th is is why I oft en push back at the suggestion that which British Columbia was instrumental in helping simply declaring coastal ferries part of the highway sys- secure for Seaspan, is that we are seeing that capacity tem solves anything. It solves nothing. Th e underlying in B.C.’s shipyards is growing. The expertise and the structural fi nancial challenges of B.C. Ferries, because of wherewithal at our shipyards are increasing week by the cost structure involved, is very diff erent, very unique week. Th at’s very, very exciting. Th at’s going to position compared to our highway system in this province and Seaspan and other companies here in British Columbia certainly in comparison to inland ferries. very well, very strongly to compete on a world scale for shipbuilding contracts that will be tendered, not just by C. Trevena: I don’t want to get caught up in a debate B.C. Ferries in the future but by companies worldwide. over highways, ferries and the sort of system. I have a number of other questions. I just wanted to pick up, C. Trevena: I think it’s very disappointing that the though, on the per-vehicle investment in inland ferries, ministry hasn’t done any economic analysis of the impact. coastal ferries. We had the discussion back in the fall about the economic We always have to remember it’s not just vehicles. impact on B.C. Ferries of changing fares, which, again, I’ll Th ere are a lot of people walking onto the ferries, particu- hopefully have time to reference later on this aft ernoon. larly on many of our routes now, because they can’t aff ord But when the government is talking about investing in the fares, which I will get onto a little later on. jobs and investing in the future, not to have done that I want to keep focused for a short time on the capital sort of study is disappointing, I think. program, because there are a number of things that are I also understand that the RFP structure was organ- happening in the capital program with B.C. Ferries. I’d ized in a way that didn’t allow shipyards to work together, like some clarity from the minister, particularly since to put together collaborative processes that they used to the province…. Th e service fee is its contribution to the do when you’re building ferries. Th at did limit the abil- capital program. ity of B.C. shipyards to bid on it. Th at being said, these At present we’ve got the intermediate-class ferries be- are now being built in Poland, and let’s hope that the ing built in Poland. Two previous ferries were built in next major projects are built in B.C. I’m sure the minis- Germany. I have two questions. One is whether the min- ter wants to see that, too, and will work with the oppos- ister has to hand the fuel consumption of the German ition to ensure that. ferries. If he doesn’t, that’s fi ne. I can fi nd it from B.C. One of the next projects is going to be the refi t of the Ferries, I’m sure. Spirit-class vessels. I’d like to ask the minister if he knows [1500] when this is going to be, whether he can say that it’s go- Secondly, as the intermediate ferry build has pro- ing to be in B.C. and if he can give me an estimate of the gressed, has the ministry done any economic impact cost of these refi ts. analysis, both positive to Poland and negative to B.C. — [1505] the person-hours of building these three ferries and the impact on the Polish economy versus the lack of impact Hon. T. Stone: Th e Spirit-class vessels, as the mem- on B.C.? If there has been no study, just a no will do fi ne. ber has just referenced, consume the most fuel in the Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7539

fl eet, obviously. Th ey are huge. About 20 percent of all just fi ve years ago and lasted for two years, a refi t of the the fuel consumed by B.C. Ferries on an annual basis is Queen of Chilliwack. Th e minister, I’m sure, is well aware consumed by these two vessels. of the Queen of Chilliwack. Th is is the one that was used B.C. Ferries did identify and announce recently that on some of the Sunshine Coast runs as a backup ferry and they do believe there is a tremendous opportunity in light was used in what was then route 40. As I understand it, of the need to do a refi t, to do refi t work on these two this was $15 million. ships, which is normally scheduled work that takes place [1510] on vessels, no matter what size. Th is would be a good op- Th e refi t, completed by 2012, included a new car deck, portunity to also include, as part of this refi t work, a con- watertight doors, new propeller seals, a new instrumenta- version of the fuel system. As the member knows, B.C. tion control system, new sewage treatment, holding tank, Ferries has announced that they are moving forward pump-out system and life-saving systems. Th e second with dual-fuel capabilities on the two Spirit-class vessels. phase, which began in 2012, was the installation of three Th e savings will be enormous. B.C. Ferries is projecting new generators, electrical and HVAC system upgrades about $9 million per year of fuel savings between those and a renewal of the propulsion control system. two vessels alone for 27 years. When you roll in the three Th is upgrade meant that the ferry was going to have a intermediate vessels being built in Poland as well, which signifi cant increase in its life. Yet last year, in 2014, just will be LNG-diesel dual fuel, that’s an additional $3 mil- two years aft er this money was put into the ferry, it was lion per year in savings between those three vessels for taken out of service. I now believe it’s just sitting at Deas a combined $12 million per year over 27 years — very dock. I wondered if the minister could explain why all signifi cant savings. this money was invested for the ferry simply to sit at Th e member, I’m sure, agrees with me that anything Deas dock. that could be done to reduce the cost at B.C. Ferries and apply downward pressure on fares is a good thing. Th is Hon. T. Stone: Really quickly, back on the refi t work is exactly going to do that. for the Spirit-class vessels and just to provide a little bit of In terms of what we anticipate the cost of the actual a tighter time frame for the member. On one of the ves- conversion work to be, we don’t know. B.C. Ferries, at sels the refi t work will be done between the fall of 2016 this moment…. Th e reason is that B.C. Ferries is in the and will be back in service at some point in the spring of midst of an RFP procurement process. Even if I did know 2017. Th en the other one will be done in the fall of 2017 the number, I would not want to put it out there so as to and will be back in service in the spring of 2018. I just potentially compromise B.C. Ferries’s eff orts at obtaining wanted to provide those details to the member. the absolute best value for dollar on behalf of those who With respect to the Queen of Chilliwack, the member pay the bills. is correct. Th ere was some refi t work that was done in Th e last point on this would be the timeline. I think the 2012 and a little bit in 2013. Th at refi t work extended the member was inquiring about when we would expect to useful life of the Queen of Chilliwack by fi ve years, which see these refi t dual-fuel Spirit-class vessels to be back in means — coming up in 2017. Th is is a vessel that has been service. Our understanding is that B.C. Ferries would be quite useful at providing relief on other routes — most doing one ship at a time. One ship would be converted in notably route 17 to Powell River — and has been used for 2016, and one ship would be converted in 2017. relief purposes quite oft en over recent years. I don’t, again, have exact dates to provide the mem- Again, part of its former life was to service what was ber. Again, a lot more of the details will be fl eshed out previously known as route 40, as the member knows well. on this once B.C. Ferries concludes their competitive We canvassed this really thoroughly last year, and I’m procurement process, which they’re in the middle of at happy to go into a lot more detail if the member wants the moment. me to. It was going to cost $100 million at minimum to replace this vessel for that route, which made it a very C. Trevena: The minister obviously can’t use his diffi cult decision based on the utilization rates, the loads suasion to make sure that a B.C. yard wins the bid. that the vessel had. Like everybody, as the minister says…. Save money. [1515] Let’s hope that those millions of dollars that are being A year and a half ago when the decision was made to saved in changing the fuel or having the opportunity of end route 40 as part of a broader strategy to wrestle fare dual fuel will relate in lower fares, because I think that is increases down, this was probably right up there as one very clearly one of the main problems with B.C. Ferries of the toughest decisions that I had to make as the min- from the users’ point of view, from the economic point ister. But the vessel is still available to this day for use on of view and from the community point of view. a relief basis as B.C. Ferries requires. Continuing with some questions on the capital plans. We just talked about the Spirit-class refi ts, major refi ts — C. Trevena: As the minister says, he’s extended the going to be very important. We had a refi t which began life to at least 2017. Yet the decision was, despite major 7540 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

investment in upgrades…. I mean, we’re not talking of a their fault. It’s their operational decision to have it sit- light investment. We’re talking about new engines, new ting in Deas dock. It was our decision to allow the refi t instruments, new control systems. Th is is all serious in- to go ahead.” I fi nd that it’s very diffi cult for the minister vestment. Despite that, it was pulled from the route, and to square this circle. it isn’t actually being used as a replacement. It’s just sit- We also now have the Nimpkish on the route. We’ve ting in Deas dock. had lots of discussion in the House about whether the I wondered if the minister could explain the fi nancial Nimpkish is the appropriate vessel or not. I’m not going logic of investing this money in this vessel and then just to go into that at this moment. However, the minister allowing it to sit at Deas dock, not being used as a re- has recently had a briefi ng about the anticipated retire- placement vessel. ment of the Nimpkish. I wondered if he could tell me when the Nimpkish is going to be retired and what’s go- Hon. T. Stone: Th ose are operational decisions to B.C. ing to replace it. Ferries. Th e decision that was the government’s to make, [1520] and as the minister responsible was largely my respon- sibility to make, was related to the service levels as pro- Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the Nimpkish, I won’t vided for in the contract that the government has with regale the member with my experience, unless she would B.C. Ferries. like me to. She’s saying no. Route 40 was a route that had been losing well over $7 First off , the date that it would likely need to be either million per year. Th at’s $7 million that was going into a substantially refi tted or replaced would be 2017. Th at was route that was only serving the communities on that par- always the date that, I think, has been understood. It was ticular route for a very small fraction of the time, just a fi rst understood in the context of the Queen of Chilliwack matter of months. decision that we made. Th e decision that was taken, which I stand by to this Th ere are two sides to this, as the member knows. First, day, was that those dollars were of much more impact with respect to capital decisions at B.C. Ferries, those are to continue to maintain service elsewhere in the B.C. decisions that are B.C. Ferries’ to make. Th ey don’t seek Ferries network than to be going towards a route that my approval on how they go about procuring vessels, was losing $7.35 million per year, that was going to sub- what vessels they feel they need to procure, in what order sequently also require a new vessel by 2017. they need to procure them. Th ose are decisions that are B.C. Ferries would have had to have initiated a pro- taken by the independent corporation that B.C. Ferries is. curement process a year and a half ago in order to have Th at being said, there is a check and a balance in place that vessel built and ready to launch in time for pulling — a very important one, one which was, I think, re- the Queen of Chilliwack out of service. Th at was going to affi rmed very recently. Th at is the role of the B.C. Ferry cost B.C. Ferries upwards of $100 million for a replace- Commissioner, Gord Macatee, and his deputy. ment vessel — again, for a route that was seasonal, had very low utilization and was losing $7.35 million per year. As a government, we amended the Coastal Ferry Act, As for the Queen of Chilliwack, it’s not like when it as the member knows, a number of years ago, providing wasn’t in use serving the old route 40…. It’s not like it responsibility for the Ferry Commissioner to approve the hasn’t been used on many occasions as a critical relief ves- global capital plan at B.C. Ferries, as well as to ensure that sel in the ferries network. It’s been pulled into service on the Ferry Commissioner is required to actually sign off a number of occasions, particularly to service a route into or approve specifi c capital investments, capital projects. Powell River, as the member knows. And thank goodness Whether they involve terminals, whether they involve B.C. Ferries had some fl exibility in terms of their vessel vessels, the Ferry Commissioner has to sign off on those. complement in order to be able to rely on and use the I would point out that the other side of this relates Queen of Chilliwack on other routes. to service levels. Th at’s the piece that is fully within the Again, very important to reinforce why that decision control of the province, and as the minister responsible, was made and to indicate, yet again, that we stand 100 that’s where my role comes in. Th at’s governed though percent behind the decision that was taken when it was the coastal ferries agreement that the ministry has with taken a year and a half ago. B.C. Ferries. In that agreement, we indicate on which routes we de- C. Trevena: I think people will still question the fi nan- sire service and what levels of service we desire on each cial acumen of investing this money in a refi t and then of those routes. I can say unequivocally that it is our gov- deciding to pull the vessel. ernment’s intention to see that the service and the level of Th e minister and B.C. Ferries have the very conven- service that’s currently in place continues on those two ient approach of sometimes working very closely so that combined routes from Port Hardy to Bella Bella, Bella one can’t tell one from the other. Sometimes it’s: “Well, Bella to Shearwater, Ocean Falls and into Bella Coola. it’s not my fault; it’s their fault.” And on this one it’s: “It’s [1525] Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7541

C. Trevena: While we’re on this — I have a couple of those that would defi nitely have to continue under the more capital questions to ask — very interesting on the Coastal Ferry Act and those that just could be lost in any ending of route 40 — not on the economics, not on the attempt for trying to rein back money. social aspects but on the way that it happened under the Coastal Ferry Act. As I understand it — and please cor- Th e Chair: Mr. Minister. rect me if I’m not right on this — the route was deregu- lated. It wasn’t decommissioned. Th at allowed it to be Hon. T. Stone: How are you today, Chair? taken out of service without the Ferry Commissioner’s approval. I just want to confi rm that was the case. Th e Chair: Very good, sir. If that is the case — by ministerial decision that it could be deregulated — is there any thought of deregu- Hon. T. Stone: With respect to unregulated routes, lating any other route? Because this would, obviously, al- there are a number of unregulated ferry routes in British low other interested parties to come in and operate those Columbia. Just so that everyone understands how these routes without any consultation or without the Ferry work, I’ll provide a couple of very general comments in- Commissioner’s approval. itially, and then I’ll dive into a little bit more detail about the specifi c routes. [M. Hunt in the chair.] Th ese unregulated routes are routes where the prov- ince has determined that it would like to see ferry service Hon. T. Stone: I’ll address the question in this man- provided. Many of these unregulated routes involve First ner. Th e legislation provides for the following: the ser- Nations. Obviously, in each and every case there was a vice provider — being B.C. Ferries — cannot unilaterally commitment made by government to ensure that ferry cancel or change any services on routes without the ex- service is provided. plicit permission of the B.C. Ferry Commissioner, fi rst Th e way this works is B.C. Ferries actually negotiates and foremost. and signs the contracts with each of these contractors If, however — and this is governed through the agree- or third parties that provide the unregulated routes. Th e ment that the ministry has with B.C. Ferries — there is province of British Columbia, through the Ministry of mutual agreement between the two parties on a discon- Transportation, provides the funding. Th e funding is pro- tinuation of a route or a service level change on a par- vided to B.C. Ferries and through B.C. Ferries to cover ticular route…. If there’s mutual agreement to amend a the cost of the unregulated routes. contract in midstream of that contract, then the Ferry [1535] Commissioner doesn’t need to approve that. Each of these unregulated routes has a contract, as I Th e province can also, when we set out to renegotiate said, with B.C. Ferries. Th e terms of the contracts are tied the contract on an ongoing basis, determine at that point, to the performance terms, which I think makes sense. as we did recently, that we’re not going to continue to Th e renewal of these contracts kind of comes up at the provide service on a particular route or we would like to same time as consideration of the renewal of the coastal change the hours, the levels of service, on a route. Now, ferry agreement takes place. I should point out that each that’s at the high level. and every one of these regulated routes meets Transport Specifi c to the old route 40, that was a route that was Canada’s safety requirements, which is important as well. discontinued. It wasn’t deregulated. It was discontinued. Th e specifi c routes are as follows. Route 25u is a route [1530] from Alert Bay to Sointula and Port McNeill. Route 51 I think it’s important. Maybe this is where the mem- is Ahousat to Hot Springs Cove to Tofi no. Route 53 is ber was really going with her question. Th e services that Kyuquot to Tahsis and Gold River. Route 54 is Dodge remain in terms of the service between Port Hardy, Bella Cove to Prince Rupert. Route 55 is Lasqueti Island to Bella, Shearwater, Ocean Falls and Bella Coola are regu- French Creek. Route 59 is Bamfi eld to Barkley Sound lated. Th ey haven’t been deregulated in any way. Th ey to Port Alberni. Route 60 isHartley Bay to Kitkatla to continue to be regulated under the auspices of the coastal Oona River to Metlakatla to Prince Rupert. Th en there’s ferry services act. a separate charter agreement between Prince Rupert and I do have a list of a number of unregulated routes in Tuck Inlet. the province, if the member would like me, in subsequent Th e budget for the unregulated routes at the present questions, to read those into the record. time is $3.3 million annually. Th at includes the Ahousat. I should point out that that contract — Route 51, Ahousat C. Trevena: Just for clarity, then, the unregulated to Hot Springs Cove to Tofino — actually expired. routes could be closed off at any specifi c stage? Is that B.C. Ferries actually terminated the contract, eff ective what the minister is saying? If so, yes, I would like to February 14, 2011. Th at being said, it’s in the process of know what they are, because I think people would like being reinstated or coming back, so we’ll have more de- to know where their routes are in the greater framework tails on that coming up. 7542 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Th e fi nal one is the Tuck Inlet service. Th is is a bit We do believe that when we look at, broadly, B.C. of a unique provision in that it actually provides for…. Ferries’ entire network and we compare the Transport Under the charter agreement, B.C. Ferries provides the Canada crewing levels that are mandated, we contrast a Lax Kw’alaams band with a vessel. Via the contract, the lot of those routes with very similar routes in other com- band pays annual maintenance costs of the vessel, and parable ferry systems, notably in Washington state and B.C. Ferries covers the refi t costs every four years on that Alaska, the Transport Canada crewing levels, in many particular vessel — a bit of an outlier situation but one cases, are signifi cantly higher. Th ree, sometimes four that’s very important to the Lax Kw’alaams. times more crew is required on B.C. Ferries than on com- parable ferry systems. C. Trevena: Th e minister has been talking about safety We think that there’s an opportunity here, while fi rst — number of crew and impact on safety. One of the areas and foremost ensuring safety. Reductions in crewing where this has been highlighted is the new cable ferry levels on the route from Prince Rupert through to Haida that’s coming into operation — Buckley Bay to Denman. Gwaii…. We’re not likely to see any changes there, nor do I have one very quick question on the cable ferry itself we want to see any changes in crewing levels in a wide- — whether the minister is aware of any time overruns. It open ocean route. But on a number of other routes, where was understood that this ferry was going to be in oper- you might…. ation at the beginning of summer. It’s now understood In Washington state a comparable route might only that it’s going to be the end of summer. Th at’s just a very require 15 crew on board. On a similar route in British short question. Columbia, Transport Canada requires 45 to 50 crew My other question is that the minister has been talking on board. What we’re saying is, even if that 45 or 50 about safety and talking to Transport Canada about crew were brought down to 30, that there is still considerably levels. Is this one of the ferries where he is looking to see more crew on board than, say, a comparable route in a reduction of crew levels? Secondly, at what state is his Washington state, but signifi cantly less than is currently approach? He had mentioned in the House just yesterday required, which, as the member knows well, second to…. that he’s been talking to the Transportation Minister, fed- Fuel and labour are the two most signifi cant cost driv- erally, about this. Where are his conversations at? ers at B.C. Ferries. [1540] We want to make sure we cover off safety fi rst and fore- most, but if there is an opportunity where it practically Hon. T. Stone: Th e cable ferry to Denman Island is makes sense to reduce, modestly, crewing levels, then expected to be in operation, actually carrying passen- we would like to see consideration of that on the part of gers and vehicles, this summer. We don’t know if it’s ear- Transport Canada. In terms of those discussions, I have ly summer or late summer. Staff inform me that they’re had a number of conversations with the federal Transport not hearing late summer, so I’m not sure if the tune has Minister, including quite recently, where she has con- changed there within B.C. Ferries. Maybe the member fi rmed that she has directed staff in Transport Canada to has picked up on that. We haven’t. Th e summer of 2015 continue the discussion with staff in our ministry. it will be in the water. [1545] Obviously, working backwards from that, there will be Th ose conversations are taking place now. Th is is not rigorous tests to ensure that it’s safe, that it works and all something that I expect a resolution on in a couple weeks the rest of it. In terms of Transport Canada or the crew- from now. It’s going to take some time and some dili- ing levels…. It is B.C. Ferries’ intention to have three crew gence and so forth. But I am happy to report that staff in on board. Now, that’s B.C. Ferries’ intention. Th e fi nal both levels of government are actively engaged on this decision on the crewing level will be made by Transport particular fi le. Canada, and Transport Canada doesn’t make that type of a determination until aft er they’ve actually looked at the C. Trevena: I’m sure the minister is very well aware results of all the water testing and have, therefore, provid- that there’s going to be a lot of consternation about this ed their certifi cate of operation and their safe manning because of safety issues. document. It’s in that fi nal piece that will specify three…. It’s interesting how we all compare to other jurisdic- It might even specify two. What B.C. Ferries has said is tions. While I’ve compared Washington State Ferries to that even if Transport Canada provides for a lower num- B.C. Ferries on a number of issues, such as the cost and ber than three, B.C. Ferries’ commitment is to have three the use, one of the great diff erences between the two crew on board at all times. operations is that Washington state has the Coast Guard In terms of the other part of the member’s question there. Th ey keep their crewing levels down because the around crewing levels, just generally, and discussions Coast Guard is used for safety in Puget Sound, whereas that are taking place with the federal government, this here we don’t have that same structure of safety backup. would not be one of the routes that I would have in mind Th at’s why B.C. Ferries is very proud of its safety record for reductions in crewing levels to achieve some savings. and has the crew on board to ensure that safety record. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7543

If the minister is pushing this, I’m sure that there’s go- then the service could begin. Realistically, I would say ing to be quite a lot of concern from the people who are the service could be up and running and in operation as operating the ferries, not just B.C. Ferries the corpora- early as July, but it could be later depending on Transport tion but B.C. Ferries workers who are highly concerned Canada certifi cation. about diminution of numbers. Th ey’re already concerned [1550] that it’s only going to be, possibly, three on the cable ferry. Now, on to Gabriola Island and the fi xed-link feasibil- But on any other area…. ity study. Th e consultants are still actually working on it. I don’t know whether the minister has ever done this. It isn’t fi nished. We haven’t received a fi nal copy. We, as You’re trying to get on the ferry, and the car deck is part- the member is, are eagerly awaiting its provision to us. I ly empty. You still can’t get on because there are so many do believe that we should have it — and have it provided passengers on board. Th ere are only enough crew for a to the public, released publicly — certainly, by this sum- certain number of passengers, and that is because of the mer. I’m hoping early summer, but we’ll see how that goes. structures that we have. So I would be very interested to I just wanted to highlight, again, that the intent here hear the end results of the minister’s conversation. is to do a feasibility analysis. Nothing is going to be im- I have one quick last question on capital work. I think posed on the people of Gabriola Island. What we want it’s capital work. Th en I have a couple of other questions. to do here is based on the fact that we received a tremen- Unfortunately, you’re going to have to move on to transit dous amount of requests from people on Gabriola Island — not unfortunately for transit. But I have so many ques- to at least understand what it would cost. What would the tions on B.C. Ferries. cost of a fi xed link look like compared to the cost of the My fi nal question. I put it down to capital. We dis- provision of continued ferry service? cussed in the Legislature…. My colleague from Nanaimo– We determined…. Again, in our eff ort, consistent with North Cowichan and I presented a petition from people our strategy to embrace every initiative that we possibly on Gabriola Island who are concerned about the feas- can to drive down fares at B.C. Ferries…. If indeed the ibility study for the bridge that has been put together by independent consultants come back and they are able to the ministry, the feasibility study that was commissioned provide analysis that demonstrates that a fi xed-link cost by the ministry. — which would truly be highway, would truly provide We were representing Islanders who are concerned highway access to the folks of Gabriola Island — was less that this feasibility study and the idea of a bridge con- expensive over a comparable life between a highway and travene Islands Trust policy and the offi cial commun- a ferry, then why would it not be responsible to have that ity plan. Islands Trust has, obviously, got a very special on the table as part of the overall discussion? mandate, and it specifi cally precludes linking the island Th ere have been a number of suggestions and ideas with the main island with bridges. So there is both the provided over the last number of years in terms of driv- trust nature and the fact of the local government offi cial ing down pressure on fares. Some have been rejected. community plan. Some have been explored and then rejected. Th is is yet Th at being said, we understand the feasibility study another potential initiative that could help us in our ef- is complete. It was going to be complete at the end of fort — I would say our mutual goal here — of actually February but wasn’t going to be released till the summer. driving fares down at B.C. Ferries. I wonder if the minister would be in a position to release Once we have the report — hopefully, by this summer this earlier or at least explain why that study cannot be — we will make that report public. I hope it plays some released until an earlier time. role in helping to inform the broader discussion. As I said a moment ago, there will be no forcing a fi xed link Hon. T. Stone: I will answer the question in one mo- upon the people of Gabriola Island, if that is not what the ment. folks of the island want. But we do think it’s important Again, just to provide the member with a couple more to have those facts out on the table, and that will inform details from her last question. Th e Denman cable ferry — the discussion likewise. the construction is almost done. It’s expected to be towed up into its place this May. Th e three cables are actually C. Trevena: It’s very interesting that the minister is being installed as we speak, and that work will continue. so quick to act on a petition of 600 names, when there Th ere will be rigorous…. Th e sea trials are anticipated have been many petitions with thousands of names con- to take place through the months of May and into June. cerned about the direction B.C. Ferries is going and the Th en there will be the actual training of the crew through cost of B.C. Ferries. June and July. Th e minister talks very oft en about driving down fares Somewhere in that kind of June-July period is when and making it sustainable. Th ere are ways of increasing we would anticipate the certifi cation to be provided by usership of B.C. Ferries, which would fi ll the vessels to Transport Canada, which would then dictate the min- capacity, all the vessels to capacity. Th at would be just by imum crewing level. Once those certifi cates are in place, the unilateral reduction or freezing of fares to get more 7544 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

people using the ferries, and the revenues of B.C. Ferries I applied as much moral suasion as I could. It was their would go up. If there was also greater government invest- decision to make at the end of the day. Th ankfully, they ment in B.C. Ferries, that would also be able to reduce did what I believe to be the right thing, and they phased the costs on those people and those businesses that are out bonuses. reliant on B.C. Ferries. Th e discontinuation of their executive bonus plan ac- I have been speaking for nearly an hour and a half and tually saved $900,000. Th ose are dollars that go right have not gone into the real economic impact on commun- back into the bottom line at B.C. Ferries. It was one of a ities. We’ve had this discussion many times about the need number of initiatives that have helped apply downward to be investing in B.C. Ferries and ensuring that people pressure on fares. can aff ord to use them, that the fares are reasonable. I would point out — and the member knows very I just wanted to raise a couple more points before well; it was only a matter of weeks ago — the B.C. Ferry moving on, one of which might be a way of saving some Commissioner, the independent Ferry Commissioner, money for B.C. Ferries and saving some money to help, looked more broadly at the cost structure at B.C. Ferries, though minuscule, reduce the rates. Th at is the arm’s- particularly related to administrative costs. He looked length relationship that the government has with B.C. at management levels. He looked at overall compensa- Ferries. I mean, it’s quasi-private, quasi-public, whatever tion levels. it is. I don’t think anybody knows quite what it is, but it I know she’s read Gord Macatee’s reports, like I have. does have, I believe, two boards. His fi nding was that, in his opinion, B.C. Ferries has done It has at least one active board of directors. Th e chair- a very good job at bringing the cost of management down man of the board gets $100,000, and other board mem- and that their management levels, their compensation bers get some recompense for being members of the levels, are very much in line with what one would expect board. Th ey all get, I understand, $1,200 for every meet- in a corporation of their size. ing that they attend. Th is is one piece of the overall discussion around oper- [1555] ational savings. Th e member also knows fully well — she And if I am not wrong, they and their families get “a doesn’t talk about this much — that B.C. Ferries has ferry travel pass provided to directors, including the chair achieved over $54 million in operational savings. Th ey’re of the board, and eligible members of their respective im- doing a lot of things much smarter at B.C. Ferries, which mediate families that provides for complimentary vehicle is saving signifi cant dollars. and personal travel on B.C. Ferries.” [1600] I wondered if the minister, in his arm’s-length discus- All of this has been mandated by the Ferry Com- sion with the CEO of B.C. Ferries and with the chairman missioner and signed off by the Ferry Commissioner. As of the board, had any discussions about perhaps reducing Gord Macatee outlined in his recent preliminary price- remuneration for the board of directors, saying: if seniors cap decision for the next performance term, tremendous can’t get free ferry passes, why can the board members progress has been made. B.C. Ferries is doing its part in get free ferry passes? terms of driving down cost, in terms of effi ciencies and being much smarter in how they spend their dollars. Hon. T. Stone: Yes, I’ve had a number of conversations Th e British Columbia government has done its part in the past couple of years with the CEO of B.C. Ferries in terms of maintaining a record high level of funding and, more importantly, with the board chair of the B.C. in B.C. Ferries — I mentioned earlier, approximately, on Ferry Services board, Donald Hayes. Certainly, one of average, $180 million per year. We made some tough de- the very fi rst things I did on this fi le a year and a half ago, cisions, as well, relating to underutilization and service in meeting with the chair of the board, was to express levels, cutting the seniors discount in half. I also went to the concern that the government had and that I had as great lengths to acknowledge folks in coastal commun- minister with the issue of executive bonuses, which up ities and the sacrifi ces that have been made there to large- to that point had been a part of the compensation struc- ly adjust to these new service levels. ture at B.C. Ferries. All of the above, in the opinion of the Ferry Now, we strongly encouraged Donald Hayes and the Commissioner — and his opinion is the one that really board at B.C. Ferries to bring their executive and man- matters in this; he’s independent — is that we’ve made agement compensation practices in line with the execu- tremendous progress towards our goal of driving down tive compensation guidelines that we had established pressure with respect to fares. Are we where we want to provincially, which are applicable across the provincial be? No. But we’re making good progress as we continue government as well as within Crown corporations. this multifaceted approach. Very important, again, to remind folks that B.C. Ferries We’re about four years ahead of schedule, we believe, at did the right thing here in bringing their compensation getting fares roughly in line with infl ation, 1.9 percent per practices in line with Crown policy. Th ey did so volun- year through the next performance term, which is very, tarily. At the end of the day, it was their decision to make. very signifi cant — as I said, arguably four years ahead Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7545

of schedule. I’m going to continue to work hard so that gram as well. If she’s going to stand here and say that there we can, hopefully, get to a place where we can actually should be no passes provided for directors, she should see those percentage increases come down and perhaps also stand up and say that she has an issue with the em- ultimately get to a place where we can actually see price ployee pass program. I wonder if she’s had that conver- reductions in terms of fares. sation with her union friends at the B.C. Ferries union. Th e last piece to all of this is actually ferry traffi c and [1605] volumes. Th e member knows well that traffi c volumes The fact of the matter is that I have actually made have been steadily increasing over the last number of very clear to B.C. Ferries. At a time when government months. We’ve had some very good months — December, is tightening its belt and we’ve made service changes January, February, March. The numbers are up, and that have impacted coastal communities, would it be my they’re up largely on the majors, but it would appear that choice to see a pass program for directors and, for that volumes have stabilized across the entire system. Th at’s matter, employees at B.C. Ferries? No, it would not. But part of the solution as well. We’re very hopeful that those these are decisions that are operational to B.C. Ferries. numbers are going to continue to increase, particularly Th ey’re for B.C. Ferries to make. with the summer months coming up in front of us here. Again, if you want to have an honest discussion about it, you need to look at the entire pass program — dir- C. Trevena: I fi nd it very frustrating — I think many ectors, management and, indeed, the employees of B.C. people in the opposition fi nd it frustrating — when a min- Ferries. For reasons that B.C. Ferries defends to this day, ister takes the opportunity to give the spin and not just not they have opted to maintain the pass program that they answer the question but completely ignore the question. have. Th at is their decision to make. I had one question for the minister, and this is my last question on B.C. Ferries, as I mentioned. Th at is, ef- C. Trevena: I have one last comment on this. Th is is fectively: how can the minister justify the $1,200-a-day not a question. It is a response to the minister. meeting fee for the board of directors, the $100,000 re- Yes, there is a taxable benefi t for B.C. Ferries staff , in- tainer for the board chair and, on top of that, free ferry cluding the CEO, Mr. Corrigan. It’s a taxable benefi t. It’s passes — for directors, the chair of the board, eligible very clearly laid out. members of their respective immediate families — that What the concern is that we have is this board of direc- provide complimentary vehicle and personal travel on tors that gets paid very well — I’m not quite sure what — B.C. Ferries vessels? for their meetings and gets not a benefi t but, literally, a free We have had in this last year fares go up, we’ve had sen- ferry pass for themselves and their immediate families. iors discounts disappear, and we see the board of directors I think at this point it’s not going to be particularly getting their gold pass, that they can ride on B.C. Ferries productive for either of us to continue in this debate. In and their families can ride on B.C. Ferries freely. Th at the interest of ensuring that we have a productive rest was my question to the minister. I don’t expect a response. of our estimates debate on B.C. Transit, I would suggest I’m going to move on to B.C. Transit now, so if the min- that we move on. But I thank the minister for his vigor- ister would like to change his staff around, that’s just fi ne. ous honesty on this one. We’re moving from B.C. Ferries to B.C. Transit, and Hon. T. Stone: If the member doesn’t want me to ac- our next line aft er this will be TransLink. tually provide the facts, then that’s not my issue. I’m pro- Very recently the government announced it’s going to viding the facts. be doing a review of B.C. Transit to examine and make recommendations about “all aspects of B.C. Transit’s oper- Interjection. ations, planning, forecasting, fi nancial performances… human resources, partner agreements, procurement, fi s- Hon. T. Stone: I’m providing the facts. cal forecasting, service level planning — including rider- Th e interesting piece on the employee pass program…. ship, scheduling and capacity — and revenue debt, cost mitigation, capital assets and other fi nancial performance Interjection. aspects.” Th is is going to be fi nished next year. Th ere was an independent review of B.C. Transit just Hon. T. Stone: Let me fi nish. three years ago, Modernizing the Partnership. Very thor- ough. It had 18 recommendations in it. Th e Chair: Th rough the Chair, please. My fi rst question is to the minister. Why do another review so quickly, when a number of the recommenda- Hon. T. Stone: Th ank you, Chair. When the member tions in the fi rst review have still not been acted upon? asks questions about free passes for directors, she should also understand and be intellectually honest here with Hon. T. Stone: Th e review that the member is referen- British Columbians that there is an employee pass pro- cing was a review of governance, primarily. It was a re- 7546 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015 view that looked into a number of governance issues. It C. Trevena: So the minister is still considering them. looked into relationships, partner-community relation- He’s not actually guaranteeing that these recommenda- ships and so forth. It was not a cost review. It was not a tions are going to be followed. Th ere are some — for in- fi nancial review. stance, the appointment process to the board of directors The Crown review which was announced recently, to allow local government to directly appoint represent- which the member referenced, is exactly that. It’s a stan- atives to the board…. I know that there has been some dard review which…. Frankly, most other Crowns in gov- anticipation of this. ernment have actually been through this Crown review Th e fact that we’re talking already…. It’s usually un- process over the last two to three years, including ICBC likely that we have the fall session, so we’re possibly talk- and B.C. Hydro and B.C. Lotteries and so forth. It is now ing next spring. We’re talking yet another year out. I’m B.C. Transit’s turn to have this review. interested in the minister’s somewhat, I think, equivocal [1610] answer, saying they’re just considering this. It’s a review that’s conducted by the Ministry of Finance, which I know the member is probably aware of. It’s intend- Hon. T. Stone: Just to reiterate my previous response, ed to be a review that is quite collaborative in its nature. In most of the recommendations are in place. Th ere are a fact, B.C. Transit has indicated very clearly to me, in meet- number that require legislative action. We are still re- ings I’ve had, that they welcome the assistance that they viewing those particular items. No fi nal decisions have think will come from this review to help them identify any been taken on them. But it would be our intent to follow potential effi ciencies that may exist within B.C. Transit. through on those actions that we do decide to proceed with. It would be our intent to move those forward at C. Trevena: So we still, then, have the outstanding some point in the future. 2012 review, with a number of recommendations which I will say, though, that there are a few of them that require legislative change. We still haven’t seen any of we’re already kind of respecting the intent beyond the recommendation, even though we haven’t made the those come forward. legislative change. Th ese are item 2, which is increasing the board of dir- For example, the recommendation around ensuring ectors; item 3.2, that we should revise the appointment more local participation on the board of locally elected process to allow local government to directly appoint representatives. Th at is pretty much the practice today. representatives to the board. Again, another local gov- We put out a call to mayors and councillors around the ernment one: including elected offi cials. Appointment province to gauge interest in participating on the board should be made on the basis of staggered terms, for con- and have been selecting members of the board from in- tinuity. Th e government should amend the Transit Act to terested parties. allow local government to appoint members. Th e prov- While that’s not enshrined in the legislation, it is some- incial government should amend the Transit Act to en- thing that we, through practice, are following through on able multi-year operating agreements, should amend the in relation to the specifi c recommendation that was made Transit Act to require one agreement between local gov- on that in the report. ernments and transit and should develop a policy frame- work for intercity routes. C. Trevena: In light of that, is the ministry also look- Th ere’s been nothing on any of these coming forward, ing at the staggered terms? I understand that can be and I’m wondering if the minister can give a bit of ex- done through policy. It doesn’t have to be automatically planation of when that’s going to happen. through legislation. It will be through legislation, but in- itially it can be done through regulation. Hon. T. Stone: Th e recommendations from the review I just wondered if the minister could enumerate exact- that the member has referenced — all of the recommen- ly which ones there is some movement on, out of these dations have been implemented, except for the ones that ones, and which ones we’re still just going to have to wait require legislation. I think the member acknowledged for regulation. that in her question. [1620] It is still our intent to implement the balance of recom- mendations that haven’t yet been implemented through Hon. T. Stone: In terms of which of the remaining legislation. We’re just assessing the details of each one. recommendations have not been implemented via the Of course, through this legislative session we have a full legislation that would be required to implement them legislative calendar, so we won’t be addressing those legis- — however, we’re maybe doing in practice anyway…. lative items this particular session. But we’ll be assessing Obviously, legislation is required to increase the board of these items and considering them for potential action in directors from seven to nine. Th at one requires legislation. subsequent legislative sessions. Th e next one: “Th e provincial government should re- [1615] vise the appointment process for the board to allow lo- Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7547

cal governments to directly appoint representatives to Hon. T. Stone: Th at one is strictly a matter of policy. It the board.” Th at one we’re pretty much doing in prac- does not require any legislative amendment. Th is recom- tice today. Again, a good example: the last couple of ap- mendation has already been factored into B.C. Transit’s pointments. We put the call out to locally elected offi cials policy with respect to intercity transit. or to councils. We are only selecting candidates for B.C. Transit’s board from those candidates that come forward. C. Trevena: While still talking globally, I have a few I think, in practice, we’re kind of already doing that. local questions to ask as we move on. Talking globally, I Th e next one would be, “Provincial government and just wanted to go through the service plan — a little piece local government board appointments should be made — because I fi nd it very interesting. on the basis of staggered terms,” which the member ref- Th e budget for B.C. Transit is actually lowered, as I erenced in her previous question. Th at is a best practice. read it, by $1.1 million this coming year. Th e acknow- If you look at the current terms for existing board mem- ledgment in the service plan is that while they want to bers, we have not done this one yet in practice. But it is investigate new technologies, ensure service and reliable one that, frankly, wouldn’t need legislation in order to routes are designed to meet travel demand, that buses are begin to do. clean and so on, customer demands for transit exceed I appreciate the member’s question on this, because it’s available funding levels. I wonder if the minister could drawn my attention to this particular one that, I think, explain how that circle is going to be squared. as a matter of just good board governance practice…. [1630] Whether it’s B.C. Transit or any board, staggered terms are always a better way to go. Th at one I’ll take a look at [S. Hamilton in the chair.] moving forward. I think I can probably, practically, cover that one off without requiring legislation. Hon. T. Stone: For the member’s benefi t, I want to point to page 14 of the service plan. Th e number that Th e last one would be: “Th e provincial government represents the dollar value of the actual grant being pro- should amend the B.C. Transit Act to allow local gov- vided from the province to B.C. Transit to provide service ernments to appoint all members of a transit commis- is indicated here again on page 14, under government sion and allow the transit commission to hire its own transfers. Th e projection in funding is going up, actually, clerical and technical staff .” In practice, this is happen- from $103.862 million last fi scal year to $104.112 mil- ing today as well. lion this year. Th e greater Victoria transit commission forwarded I think the numbers that the member was referencing a…. As a result of the municipal elections recently, there include the ministry’s view, which includes the recoveries were some mayors who were not successful and some to the BCTFA. So that’s a slightly diff erent perspective. If new ones that were elected. Th at resulted in the need to we’re strictly looking at what is the total dollar value of replace an individual representing the greater Victoria the service that is funded through the grant that’s pro- area — one of the mayors, one of the regions within vided from the province to B.C. Transit, on page 14 this greater Victoria — on the transit commission in greater is the number that indicates that. In fact, fi scal year over Victoria. We did appoint the individual whose name was fi scal year we’re actually increasing the total dollars that put forward by the region, so I think in practice we’re we’re fl owing to B.C. Transit for the provision of service largely doing this one. hours. Th e last one that would require legislation, which we wouldn’t be able to do in practice, is recommendation C. Trevena: However, the plan does note that demands 11: “Th e provincial government should amend the B.C. do exceed the funding level. So there is clearly a desire Transit Act and regulation to require only one agreement to increase this. Given the arguments that everybody has between local governments and B.C. Transit and one seen for transit as a good alternative, I’m wondering if the operating agreement between B.C. Transit and a transit minister can explain how we’re going to make sure that operating company for one transit service area.” Th at one if we have this demand and we have a public service of is a fundamental question of how the…. I mean, it relates transit, we’re going to actually serve the public who are to partner funding and how that’s all structured and man- wanting the transit. aged. So this one would require a legislative amendment. Hon. T. Stone: Th e most general comment I would C. Trevena: If I’m not mistaken, there are also the make in response to the member’s question, and I’m intercity routes, developing the policy there. Th at would sure the member would agree with me on this, is the de- be a policy one, as I understand it, rather than a legisla- mand for transit always exceeds the budget that’s avail- tive change. I’m wondering whether that is outstanding able. Th ere’s no question. or whether there is still movement on it — item 18. Th e balance that is struck within a particular commun- [1625] ity between the level of service that’s provided to serve 7548 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

the diff erent needs in the community — for example, the ent perspective. Th at’s why in any given year we will see transit needs that are very much related to students, serv- some communities keep fares fl at and others increase ing universities and colleges, versus handyDART service, them. From time to time there’s even consideration given which is largely there to serve seniors, versus providing to a reduction in fares. for an increase in a service that covers off the broader As the member would know, in an eff ort to increase network in a particular community, more frequency on ridership, certainly lowering the fare would potentially all routes…. I mean, those are really challenging discus- help with that. One of the unintended consequences of sions of balance that are largely up to the local govern- lowering fares is that even if you’re increasing the result — ment in question to determine. you see an increase in the number of riders — you could Now, I will say that we’re…. Th e member has heard me actually see the overall revenues available to the system say this in the House and elsewhere. British Columbia is a decline, and that means fewer dollars available for the real leader in terms of the level of funding that’s provided actual service levels that are provided. to transit service. We’ve seen a dramatic increase in dol- It’s a bit of a catch-22, one that I know that B.C. Transit’s lars that are provided from the province to B.C. Transit partner communities don’t take lightly. It’s one that I over the last ten years. As a result of that, one would ex- think local governments struggle with each and every pect there to have been…. I know there’s a direct cor- year, to strike that balance just right between aff ordabil- relation between the level of funding that’s provided and ity — recognizing many people really rely on transit to matched with partner funding from local governments. get to their places of employment, to get to school, to get Th at’s an important piece of this as well. to their jobs, their doctor appointments aff ordably — all Th ere has been a very signifi cant increase in the service the while ensuring that there’s the service that people hours that are provided provincewide and the ridership. expect — the frequency of service, handyDART hours Just to read it into the record, the ridership in the last and so forth. ten years on B.C. Transit…. Th is is a tremendous suc- It’s a very, very diffi cult balance to strike, but it’s one cess story that I think we’re all proud of. In 2004 there that’s the responsibility of the local government in com- were 38.6 million rides on B.C. Transit systems around munities. the province. In 2014 it was 51.9 million rides. Th at’s a 34 percent increase in the total number of rides that are C. Trevena: Th e service plan does say there is going to provided across the system. be a fare structure strategy underway to look at oppor- Of course, there’s always a demand for more, and that’s tunities to improve revenue yields. I wonder if the min- where I think this Crown review is so important. It’s a ister could explain that in English. good opportunity to take stock of how transit does what [1640] it does and to take a look at the contracts that are in place with partners and with suppliers, their fuel procurement Hon. T. Stone: Th e fare structure strategy is a conver- strategies, every facet of transit’s operations to ensure that sation that’s taking place between B.C. Transit and part- transit is as effi cient as it possibly can be and that every ner communities right now. It’s a conversation that…. dollar that is currently being invested in transit is actually Actually, in the context of the Crown review, which is going towards the provision of front-line service hours about striving for effi ciencies, this is one area where B.C. in communities around the province. Transit really believes there is an opportunity to poten- Th ere will continue to be signifi cant demands on tran- tially save hundreds of thousands of dollars. sit systems as people want more hours. Our tough chal- B.C. Transit currently spends about $1 million per year lenge here is to balance that with the resources that are printing tickets, transfers and passes. Th ose printed prod- available. But we’re very proud of the very signifi cant in- ucts, obviously, are costly, and the overall cost of printing crease in ridership and service hours that we have seen actually goes up in direct correlation to the number of in our province over the last ten years. diff erent products that have to be printed. For example, if [1635] a community had — and some communities do — a two- day pass, a fi ve-day pass and a ten-day pass, reduce the C. Trevena: One of the ways of dealing with revenue number of products that they have, which thus requires for B.C. Transit is, obviously, fares and farebox recovery. far less paper to be printed, and you’re actually going to Unlike B.C. Ferries, it’s much lower. Is there any suasion save some money there. by the government on B.C. Transit to increase that fare- Likewise, communities are gradually moving to a fl at- box recovery and see in diff erent jurisdictions that fares cash system. Kamloops is actually moving in this direc- increase? tion, as one recent community, whereby the same fare will be charged to everyone. Th ere won’t be a student rate Hon. T. Stone: Th e responsibility relating to fares is and a regular passenger rate and a senior rate. What that the responsibility of the local community in question. does is it reduces confl ict at the fare box and reduces the Each community comes at that discussion from a diff er- confl ict that comes with a transit driver having to discern Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7549 whether this person is a senior or not. It keeps the wheels across the system but in communities like Squamish, on the bus moving more frequently. where there’s a high demand for continued expansion. Th ere are a number of opportunities as part of this dis- cussion, again, which largely involves reducing the num- C. Trevena: As I understand it, though, it means that ber of products that are available within each particular for this year there is no money on the table for Squamish. community. Also, standardizing between communities It’s going to be trying to fi nd money through effi cien- — moving to a system where, for example, a monthly cies that are identifi ed or through cuts that are identifi ed pass looks the same in Whistler and looks the same in with the review. Kamloops because there’s no mention of a dollar num- ber on it, so it’s just standard, almost like postage stamps. Hon. T. Stone: Again, with respect to the Squamish Th ere’s no dollar number on it, so you actually, technic- transit system, a huge success story in the province — ally, can use the thing for years and years from now, as no question about that. I’m very pleased that, moving opposed to the way they used to do it at Canada Post. forward, I’ve protected funding. Th ere’s not going to be Th e long and short of it is B.C. Transit believes that a reduction in funding in terms of the service hours that there’s an opportunity here to actually save some dol- Squamish is able to provide their citizens in terms of the lars. Even if they can save $100,000 or $200,000 with transit system there. this one strategy over time, those are dollars that will go As I said earlier, there have been very steady increases right back into providing service hours in communities year over year to B.C. Transit’s budget. I think it’s a good across the province. point to put this on the record. It’s one of the few depart- ments in the Ministry of Transportation over the last six C. Trevena: Well, talking about service hours that are years that has actually increased every single year. It was around the province, I just wanted to raise for the min- 10 percent of MOT’s budget six years ago; it’s 13 percent ister a couple of communities where there have been of our budget today. Th at growth in grants is refl ected problems with access to service, before we come back to directly in the increase in service hours and ridership, a couple more specifi cs on the service plan. which I’ve mentioned previously. One is in Squamish, where they’ve apparently had a We’ve protected funding. Th ere isn’t a cut here. Th ere’s good increase in ridership. Th ey’ve seen their ridership go not going to be a reduction in service hours. But we’re up, I believe, 23 percent, which is great news. And they’ve moving into a period over the next number of months been looking at broadening their service through the com- through this Crown review, working really closely with munity but now are very concerned that they’re going to partner communities. B.C. Transit is getting under the possibly, because of contraction in the provincial budget, hood of their operations and looking for every opportun- have their service cut over the next three years. I wonder ity to achieve some effi ciency and plow those dollars back if the minister could explain how that’s going to happen. into providing additional service in the months ahead.

Hon. T. Stone: Squamish is one of the more successful C. Trevena: In other words, they can’t expand the ser- transit systems in the province. I think they’re very proud vices they’re wishing to this year. Likewise, I understand of that — rightfully so. We’re proud of having been a part- that in the minister’s own community of Kamloops there ner with them in their growth. Squamish has actually is a desire to increase hours by about 6,000 hours, and seen a 59 percent increase in their service hours over the that won’t be going ahead because of a freeze in funding. last ten years — that’s 59 percent — and a 67 percent in- I just wondered if the minister could confi rm that. crease in ridership as a result of those increased service hours in the last ten years. Hon. T. Stone: I’ve said this on the public record a [1645] number of times now. I’m not prepared to concede that A lot of that was predicated on a very signifi cant in- there is no opportunity to add some additional hours crease in dollars, grants, from the province of British in any of the transit systems around the province at this Columbia — a 194 percent increase in the level of gov- point. I think it’s highly premature. ernment funding in the last ten years. Th ere’s no question [1650] that every dollar you put into transit has a direct correla- We are working collaboratively with B.C. Transit, who tion to an expansion in hours and an expansion in the is working collaboratively with their partner commun- number of riders. Th at all being said, we’re very aware of ities, as I said a moment ago, to get under the hood of the Squamish’s ambitions, their intent and desire on continu- operations through this Crown review process, which we ing to expand their transit service. We want to work with think will be very useful to helping identify areas for cost them on that — no question about that. savings. We talked about the fare structure strategy a mo- We’re working our way through this Crown review ment ago as one of a number of pieces to this. now. Again, every dollar that’s identifi ed as effi ciencies I’m very confi dent that coming out of this process will be plowed right back into providing service hours, there will be identifi ed effi ciencies. Th ose will be dollars 7550 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

that will be allocated towards additional service, not pro- to actually enable an increase in the gas tax. Now, again, tecting current service. We’re protecting current service we’ll get the specifi c dates for the member, but I believe levels. Th is is about additional service. it was shortly…. It might have been three to six months For everything I just said about Squamish, the same ap- aft er the last election. It was probably in the fall of 2013, plies in my home community of Kamloops — again, right early 2014. I’m expecting that’s probably the date that we up there as one of the more successful transit systems in received the initial request. the province. I’ve said to my constituents in Kamloops [1655] that I think it’s highly premature to just automatically I also had a meeting with the chair of the commission suggest that people should brace for, certainly, reductions. at the time, and we talked through the request. We then We’re maintaining the funding levels moving forward. went back and indicated to the transit commission that But there might not be opportunities for some expansion. we would not be able to consider such a request unless I certainly would like to see that in my own home com- there was a business plan to support, or that outlined, the munity. I mentioned it’s a success story. Th e ridership request and so forth. Th ere was quite a period of back- in Kamloops is up 28 percent in the last ten years. Th e and-forth with the transit commission. Simply put, the total number of service hours is up 27 percent in the last opportunity to address the increase in the gas tax for ten years. Again, that’s because the city of Kamloops has greater Victoria…. Th e window of opportunity to do that, stepped up to the plate in a big way with their partner as part of the last budget process, closed. funding, as has the provincial government. Our grants Th e latest contact or communication that we’ve had to the city of Kamloops for transit service have increased with the transit commission is that…. We were not able 89 percent in the last ten years. to deal with it as part of the last budget process for the We would certainly like to continue to work with current fiscal year. However, it is something that we Kamloops, with Squamish, Nanaimo, Vernon, Prince are prepared to discuss with them once we get into the George and all the other partner communities around the budget deliberations with respect to next year’s budget. province to not just protect service levels but to grow them in the years ahead. We think it’s really important, out of C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. Obviously, respect for the taxpayers of the province, that we take this it’s going to take some time for the initial request. opportunity, through this Crown review process, to en- My last question. I hope it will be quite quick in re- sure that for every single dollar that Transit expends, every sponse, because my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview dollar possible is focused on the provision of service hours. is going to be moving on to questions about TransLink. Again, in the service plan there is a reference to investi- C. Trevena: But just to clarify, there will be no expan- gating new technologies for transit and specifi cally saying sion this year, although both communities had hoped for automatic voice enunciators. I know that this is an issue an expansion this year. in the Victoria area about the adoption of this or whether I’d like to just quickly move on to Victoria and the the driver should read out the stops. Regional Transit Commission’s application for a gas tax. I know that there are other jurisdictions that have these I wondered if the minister could tell me: when did the enunciators. I guess my question is: why is this one so dif- Victoria transit commission fi rst make the request to him fi cult to sort out — that we can’t have a simple, cost-eff ect- for the gas tax? ive one transit-wide that we see in other transit systems?

Hon. T. Stone: I will have to get back to the member Hon. T. Stone: With respect to automatic voice enun- with the specifi c date that the request was fi rst made from ciators, as the member knows well, the Human Rights the greater Victoria transit commission with respect to Tribunal made the ruling that they did. Transit has been the increase in the gas tax. We don’t have that with us collaboratively working with the drivers union to come here today, but I’ll endeavour to get that for the member up with an interim solution that involves drivers call- as quickly as possible. ing out the stops. Th e union has representation on an IT committee that is charged with the responsibility of as- C. Trevena: I was really just wondering about the sessing the diff erent technology options that are out there. length of time the process has taken, because I under- [1700] stand it’s not actually going to be coming into eff ect until Frankly, a lot of the technology that’s in use in other about 2016 now. I’m a little concerned about how long jurisdictions is extremely expensive, so the concern that it’s taken to get from a request to practicality there. If the B.C. Transit is trying to balance here is implementing minister could clarify, that would be great. an automated solution as quickly as possible but imple- menting a solution that’s cost-eff ective — so as to ensure, Hon. T. Stone: I do appreciate the member’s ques- again, that the maximum dollars are actually going into tion related to timing and process moving forward. At service provision for the customers as opposed to tech- the end of the day, we have not made a decision whether nology in buses. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7551

Th at all being said, there’s an invitation to quote that’s Th e contractor, Cubic, was retained to implement the out, which I believe will be closing on May 5. B.C. Transit, system. Part of the rationale for the system, a big part anticipates that a number of vendors will indicate, as part of the rationale, was that TransLink users were sick of of that process, their intentions to provide a quote. people they perceived to be fare cheats or fare evaders Again, the goal here is to really challenge industry to and that this system would stop that and save the whole come up with creative but cost-eff ective technology solu- system money. tions that could then be implemented in transit buses, Unfortunately, TransLink itself says that they’ll be pay- not just in the Victoria region. B.C. Transit’s got to cover ing Cubic, once the system is fi nally up and running, $12 off the entire non-TransLink region of the province with million a year to operate but only expect to recoup about whichever solution they come up with. $5 million to $7 million a year from fare evaders. It’s still worthwhile implementing measures to stop G. Heyman: I see so many people at the bus stop with fare evasion, and we have a system on which much the minister. I’m a little worried that the 99 B-line is going money has been spent, so clearly we’re going to go to sail by a couple of times before we fi nish the questions. ahead with it. Unfortunately, the delays — the gates and Does the minister want a short break before we begin? the Compass tap card readers on buses and at SkyTrain stations — have turned into kind of a visual image for Th e Chair: I will turn that to the minister. people who are being asked to consider a half percentage Minister, would you like to proceed right away, or point increase in their sales tax, an image that tells them would you like a short break? that they believe TransLink doesn’t use money wisely. I would dispute that with them if it’s possible to Hon. T. Stone: Could we just take a one-minute break? have a rational argument, because this actually wasn’t TransLink’s choice. Th e Chair: Yes. Th e committee stands recessed for Let me ask the minister. TransLink says they expect one minute. Compass to be up and running by the end of 2015. I’m not aware of what conversations the minister has had or Th e committee recessed from 5:02 p.m. to 5:05 p.m. not had with TransLink executives or the board. But does the Transportation Minister have confi dence that this [S. Hamilton in the chair.] project will actually be done by the end of 2015? [1710] G. Heyman: I’m going to start with some questions around the Compass card — a little bit of history of the Hon. T. Stone: Welcome to the member for Vancouver- card. Back in November, 2007, former Transportation Fairview for this discussion — the TransLink portion of Minister , following a trip to Europe in the estimates. which he was pretty impressed with turnstiles and cards, In terms of the Compass card program, you know, it’s stated that they would be installed at the SkyTrain sta- not going to come as any surprise to the member…. I cer- tions and expected them to be up and running some- tainly have indicated many times that I share the frustra- time in 2008. tion that I think he shares and that the people of the Lower In 2009 B.C. committed $40 million and the Canadian Mainland have expressed in terms of the delays that have government committed $30 million for the project. Later been realized through this program up to this point. in ’09 the fi rst budget came in at $171 million, which was I’ve expressed on numerous occasions my concerns to about double the cost estimate of then Minister Falcon. the board chair at TransLink about just how important it Th e project was expected to be operational by 2013, fol- is for them to get this project on track. I know the mem- lowing commencement in 2010. ber shares, I think, the position that most in the region Th e second Compass budget, which I believe is still have, and that is that once implemented, the benefi ts of the operational budget, came in at $194 million in 2013, this program will be signifi cant. about $23 million over the original budget. We now see Th e fare gates, complemented with the Compass card, that the initial target dates have come and gone. In July is a system that’s in use on transit systems in many parts 2014 TransLink says they won’t know until October when of the world. It’s demonstrated to reduce fare evasion, the system will be functional and, later that year, said they which, again, is instrumental in ensuring that dollars that expect Compass to be up and running by the end of 2015. should be in the system to fund the system at current lev- Now, I appreciate, as the minister does, that there’s no els and expansion are there. Fare evasion is a challenge, point in starting a system in which the bugs remain and and these systems will help with that challenge. have not yet been worked out by the contractor. We have Th ese systems make transit systems safe. I certainly a system that was imposed on TransLink by the provin- know that any eff ort that can be made to enhance safety cial government through Transportation Minister Kevin on TransLink’s operations is something that I think is Falcon. worthwhile pursuing. 7552 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

As for where TransLink is at with the program today Transportation or any other facet of the provincial gov- and what we can expect in the months ahead, the mem- ernment. It’s an independent corporation. It has its own ber knows well that TransLink is under new leadership. board of directors. Th ere’s a new interim CEO who’s in place, Mr. Doug Allen. As such, the province of British Columbia has no input He, by all accounts, is highly respected and is really into or infl uence over the operations of TransLink, past, sinking his teeth into this particular project, as I under- future or present, including any of the operational de- stand it. Certainly, based on his track record, I’ve got a tails relating to the selection of Cubic as the vendor in high degree of confi dence that under his leadership we this particular project. All details of procurement are will see the Compass card program fi nally get pushed operational to TransLink. We don’t have any visibility over the fi nish line. into those details. So at the end of the day, those benefi ts that I men- Th e member is welcome to reach out to TransLink dir- tioned a moment ago — safety, fare evasion, as well as ectly, though, if he would like to follow up on those de- having usage statistics…. Th ey will be instrumental for tailed questions he has. TransLink in the future being able to better calibrate its fares and understand who its users are and what their G. Heyman: It would be an interesting exercise to travel patterns are, better match service to those travel know what the result would have been. I know what the patterns and so forth. result was when the former board of TransLink wasn’t in- Th ose benefi ts are really, really important, and they are terested in the then Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line going to be instrumental to TransLink in the months and that Minister Falcon was so intent on putting in place. I the years ahead. wonder what the reaction would have been had the min- ister given his clear indication that he wanted fare gates G. Heyman: I, in fact, don’t entirely share the minis- in place and the executive chose not to do that. ter’s view on the utility of fare gates. I don’t necessarily In any event, having said that, I would like to ask the think they add to safety at all. minister whether the government or TransLink ever I know that TransLink didn’t come up with this idea on completed a cost-benefit analysis before announcing their own. It was foisted on them by then minister Falcon. that fare gates would be installed. If not, why was the It’s over budget. Th e amount of money that it will cost system installed? TransLink to have Cubic operate the system will exceed, [1720] by some $5 million a year, the amount of money that will be recouped from foiled fare evasion. Hon. T. Stone: Yes, there was a business case or a cost Frankly, the issue of safety at SkyTrain stations, in par- benefi t that was done back in 2009. It was done under the ticular, is critical. Th ere’s a record of assaults, both on direction of the TransLink board. It was used as a refer- trains…. Sexual harassment and, in some cases, sexual as- ence point for the province’s confi rmation of our fund- saults. Th ere have been incidents at a number of stations. ing contribution. [1715] As the member knows well, the province is nothing It seems to me, and I suspect it seems to the public, that more than a funding partner insofar as this particular an investment of not even that same amount of money project is concerned. Th e business case, the cost bene- in enhancing TransLink security with real people would fi t, was done. It was a process that was completely man- both deal with the issue of fare evasion and deal with the aged and overseen by the TransLink board back in 2009. issue of the public’s safety at stations and on SkyTrains as well as on buses, but we are stuck with this very costly sys- G. Heyman: I would ask the minister if he would be tem. So let me ask the minister if he has any information willing to obtain that cost-benefi t analysis and business on the request-for-proposal process that selected Cubic case and share it with me — not today, obviously, but at to run the Compass system. some point in the future. I ask this because Cubic hired Ken Dobell — a former Let me move on to the referendum itself — or the adviser to Gordon Campbell — who was charged with plebiscite, as it is now called. Before I begin, I think the failing to register under the Lobbyists Registration Act minister knows well that I have been quite outspoken in and somehow managed to escape any meaningful penalty supporting a yes vote. I’m a bit at a loss to explain why for that. Does the minister have any information on the the minister regularly in the House says that there’s some request for proposal, and can the minister say whether confusion about what my position actually is. He seems the former minister directed TransLink to implement the to be confusing my criticism of holding a referendum/ Smartcard system and/or to use Cubic as the contractor? plebiscite at all on a matter of such signifi cance to B.C.’s economy with whether or not I actually want to see a yes Hon. T. Stone: I know that the member knows well vote, faced with the fact that it’s going ahead. that TransLink is an independent corporation. It is not a Putting that aside, I know the minister…. At least, I Crown corporation. It does not report to the Minister of take the minister at his word, and I assume the minister Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7553

has enough of a handle on the implications of congestion critically important to the economy not just of the Lower in Metro Vancouver for the entire provincial economy Mainland but the entire province of British Columbia. that he wants to see a yes vote proceed, if only because I It’s critical to the environment, reducing greenhouse gas believe it will be a signifi cant challenge for government emissions in particular, and it’s really critical to the qual- to deal with the issue if it were to fail. ity of life in the Lower Mainland as well. It’s critical from I’ve been supporting it as well. I’ve been going door a goods-movement perspective and recognizing the im- to door campaigning for it. I don’t know if the minis- portance, as the member mentioned in his comments, of ter has, but I hope he’d consider it. I think it would be a an effi cient transportation network that can move goods good sign to the people of Metro Vancouver that he has in and out of the province quickly and cost-eff ectively. faith in TransLink and he recognizes how important the Th is is why we, as a province, have said very clearly that investment in transit is. the province stands ready to invest our one-third — one- It’s heartening that the…. I think the vote is now up third in the major rapid transit projects and one-third in to about 31 percent return with fi ve weeks to go. Th ere’s the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. We’re ready to do no particular reason to expect a big infl ux of ballots in that. We’re ready to do that tomorrow. the last fi ve weeks, but that may happen. I think the min- Th e decision that is in front of the people of the region ister is checking that. I think there’s 21 percent verifi ed, is how the region is going to cover its one-third. Now, but there’s another 10 percent waiting to be verifi ed. So there were some, I thought, very honest remarks made there has been about a 31 percent return, unless I’m mis- this morning, or that were at least reported today, from taken. Th at was information that was relayed by the Chief the mayor of Vancouver that really attest to what I’ve just Electoral Offi cer this morning. said. He said very clearly in a range of media outlets, or [1725] media outlets reported very clearly that he said: “It’s really I think it is important to plan ahead. Th e consequences important that, through this vote, the region determine of a no vote would be, I think, quite devastating for the how it’s going to come up with its third. How is the re- region. People would have to regroup and fi gure out what gion going to pay its third?” to do next. Th ere are ongoing implications for the provin- [1730] cial economy that have been estimated at, at least, $1 bil- lion dollars a year by the failure of trucks carrying goods [G. Kyllo in the chair.] and commodities from around the province to quickly and expeditiously get to port, lost productivity by people We are proud — I’m particularly proud, personally limiting the hours in which they will work because of — of the collaboration that we have seen develop with certain periods of intense traffi c congestion, the diffi - local government in the region over the last year and a culty of delivery vans and service people making their half. When I took over as minister responsible, I think way around the region and the productivity costs of that. the relationship to that point, in some respects, was at a Let me ask the minister a series of questions. Th ere bit of a low point. But I set about really reaching out to was a memorandum of understanding signed in 2010 the mayors and councillors of the region and getting to between the government and the mayors that committed know them. to work collaboratively on fi nding and identifying fund- While they made it very clear to me consistently — ing options for the needed investment in transit. Th en- and I’ve never suggested otherwise — that this was not a Premier Gordon Campbell trumpeted the memorandum policy choice of theirs and they didn’t necessarily support of understanding as something very important. the decision to hold a plebiscite, slowly but surely some Let me ask the minister quite simply: in the event of of the trust in the relationship has developed. a no vote, is the memorandum of understanding from Th ey came together through this process, and they put 2010 still operative, and will the minister work with the a good plan together. We challenged them to suggest a mayors to identify funding options so we can relieve funding source. Th ey suggested an increase in the sales congestion in Metro Vancouver without waiting for who tax regionally, which we’ve said we’re prepared to enable knows how many years for a plan B? if the voters say yes. Th ey asked for the same exemptions to apply to this 0.5 percent as applied to the existing sales Hon. T. Stone: I certainly agree with a fair amount of tax for simplicity, particularly from a small business per- what the member from Fairview just said in his question spective. We’ve said yes to that. We’ll make that happen — or in the statement that preceded his question — in if there’s a yes vote. terms of just how critically important it is to continue to Th ey were also concerned about leakage, largely in re- see investment in transit and transportation in the Lower lation to the purchase of automobiles. We said we will en- Mainland. I think on that we have consistently agreed. It’s sure that there’s the same tax treatment on the purchase very important to continue to invest in the rapid transit of a vehicle, that the tax will be applied based on where projects and a replacement for the Pattullo Bridge. the individual lives, not where they purchased the vehicle. I’ve said, and I know the member says this as well, it’s Th at will address the issue of leakage. 7554 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Th ere’s a tremendous amount of collaboration, I think, member knows well, that the federal government has up to this point. We’re certainly all focused on a yes vote. been a very good funding partner on a wide range of We’re all focused on planning for this thing to be success- infrastructure projects that we’ve seen built in British ful. Th e member is correct. Roughly speaking, I think, Columbia, covering many diff erent facets of transpor- in terms of the numbers that the member mentioned in tation. We certainly expect that that will continue to be terms of the percentage of ballots that have been received the case. by Elections B.C., he is correct. It’s about 32 percent, in- Th e federal government launched their new Building cluding those that have been verifi ed and those that re- Canada fund a couple of years ago to great fanfare. We’re main to be verifi ed. appreciative of the dollars that are available to British We’re seeing a steady stream of ballots come in. We’re Columbia in that fund. Th ere is a provincial and territor- at the halfway point now in this process. It’s been a vig- ial component that has, as the member I’m sure knows orous debate. Both sides are out there having the conver- well, a small communities component of about $100 mil- sations they feel they need to have with the people who lion. Th ere’s about $900 million additional dollars that live in the region. are available in the national and regional components of While I haven’t been out door-knocking, I certainly the provincial-territorial fund that is available to British have delivered a number of speeches in the region. I’ve Columbia. had countless meetings with organizations. In every en- One of the challenges we have with the overall dollars counter that I have in the Lower Mainland, I make sure available is that they are earmarked for a ten-year time to make very clear the province’s position in terms of not frame. And they are a bit back-end loaded in terms of just supporting this process but also supporting a yes vote when the dollars are available. But we are appreciative of and why that’s so critically important. the funding that the federal government has earmarked You know, the member and I both went through the for British Columbia. last provincial election. Th ere were ups and downs and Th ere is also a national component which is strictly surprises and all the rest, but I think the common lesson merit based. Th e national component of the Building we all learned is that elections matter. Actually, people Canada fund…. I believe there’s $4 billion in that fund going through the process of voting and not coming to and those are earmarked for projects that the federal gov- any conclusions until the votes have been cast is really ernment deems of national interest. Th ey’ve allocated important. dollars from that fund to transit in Toronto, to a bridge I would not count the yes side out in this thing. I think in Montreal and to the bridge in Windsor. One can make there’s a tremendous organizational advantage that’s play- a compelling case, and we certainly are, that our transit ing out across the region as those 140-plus organizations needs in the Lower Mainland would be no less import- that support a yes vote have rallied to the side of the may- ant to this country than transit in Toronto. ors, who really have assumed the leadership that one ex- Of course, the federal government introduced its pects of them in terms of not just having come up with budget yesterday. One of the items that we had strongly the plan but getting out there and selling their plan to the indicated to the federal government that would be of high people of the region. interest and high value to the people of British Columbia We’re focused on a successful yes vote. I still remain would be more infrastructure dollars specifi cally ear- optimistic that we’re going to see that, once all the bal- marked for public transit. lots have been counted. So I was very pleased, on behalf of the province of British Columbia, to see in the budget that the federal G. Heyman: Notwithstanding the minister correctly government brought down yesterday an additional $750 pointing out that elections are important, I hope that million per year for two years, starting in ’17 and ’18, nothing about this plebiscite or referendum exercise and then growing to $1 billion a year for years beyond leads him to think that it would be good policy in the fu- that. Th at’s going to provide additional opportunity for ture, particularly on the government’s pet projects. funding public transit across Canada, and we certainly Let me, in the interest of time, clump the odd ques- expect and will certainly ensure that British Columbia tion together. Let me ask the minister what conversations receives its fair share. he’s had with the federal government about their third of We’re committed to our one-third. As I’ve said consist- funding for the capital projects that will be involved in ently, this plebiscite is about the region determining how the mayors’ transit plan. it’s going to pay for its third. We’re going to do everything [1735] that we can to ensure that the federal government is there at the table, as well, with their third. Hon. T. Stone: Th e federal government is obviously going to be an important funding partner in terms of G. Heyman: Has the ministry calculated how much the major rapid transit projects in the Lower Mainland. congestion is costing the B.C. economy, in terms of the Th ere’s no question about that. I would point out, the eff ects of both gridlock on the movement of goods, ser- Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7555 vice people, delivery vans, etc., as well as increased green- continue to reduce emissions is probably the more appro- house gas emissions? And has the ministry done any priate way of looking at that. Th at’s why we say — and calculations about how that cost may increase if there’s the member said it, as well, earlier — a yes vote is really any further delay in implementing the proposals in the critical to the environment — so we can continue to be Mayors Council plan to relieve congestion? driving down greenhouse gas emissions that come from I also am wondering what ideas the ministry has with the transportation sector. respect to how transportation infrastructure can be built, We know there are going to be a million more people both from a service frequency level as well as new capital coming to the region in the next 20 to 30 years. Th at’s projects, if this referendum does not pass. How can these going to mean a heck of a lot more vehicles on our road- things be adequately funded with an expected growth of ways if we don’t have the transit capacity to help accom- one million people over the next two to three decades? modate some of that additional growth. [1740] Th at leads me to the second part of the member’s ques- Th e minister has previously suggested property taxes tion. I believe it was in relation to cost-benefi t analysis. are the answer, which the mayors have rejected. Th e min- In terms of the current costs and future costs of conges- ister has rejected a number of other proposals made by tion if no continuation of investment is seen, there have the mayors. Is the minister willing to put options that he been a number of studies done on this — the impacts of has previously rejected back on the table if this referen- the cost of congestion. dum were not to pass? Th e most recent cost-benefi t analysis that was done — again, that looked at this globally across the whole Lower Hon. T. Stone: Th ere were three questions there. First Mainland region — was actually done by the Mayors off , with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. Th rough Council, as I’m sure the member is aware. It projected the Ministry of Environment, the province conducts a that current congestion costs are estimated at $487 mil- greenhouse gas emission inventory every year. Certainly, lion worth of delays, vehicle operating and related costs; transportation is I think one of the largest components $592 million in lost business revenue; and $340 million of that process. Th ere’s no question one of the areas we in lost regional GDP. Very dramatic costs of congestion can continue to make a very signifi cant impact on, and with the network today. in reducing, greenhouse gas emissions is through trans- Then, of course, when you overlay a million more portation policy and transportation choices. people and the growth that everyone anticipates in the Giving the member one example. Over the last ten region, the congestion challenges and the costs related to years we’ve seen a 34 percent reduction in emissions those challenges are just going to continue to increase if from transit buses in the province of British Columbia there is not to be continued investment. because of cleaner-burning fuel and the technology Now, in terms of the ministry’s approach to assess- improvements and so forth. Obviously, every vehicle ing the cost benefi t of congestion and the overall ques- that we’re able to get off the road, because more people tion of cost benefi t, more appropriately, we look at that are using transit, is going to have a huge impact on our on a project-by-project basis. When you look at a major carbon footprint. new piece of infrastructure or a signifi cant improvement Th is is why we’re so rigorously pursuing CNG buses to an existing piece of infrastructure, one of the critical across the province. We will have 50. Twenty-fi ve are in components to the decision to go or no go on that par- operation in Nanaimo at the time. Th e fi rst two were de- ticular investment is the cost-benefi t ratio analysis that’s livered in Kamloops the other day. Th e other 23 will be undertaken, which includes looking at the impact of arriving shortly. Th ere are a number of transit commun- congestion. ities that have put their names on a list and want these Th e third part of the member’s question was: if there CNG buses. TransLink has a number of CNG buses as were to be a no vote and through that a rejection by the well. Th e overall cost of CNG bus technology has come voters of the region of an increase in the provincial sales way down in recent years. tax on a regional basis, then what other funding sources [1745] would the province be willing to consider? I’m not go- Th en when you look at the savings from fuel and the ing to speculate on that today. What I am going to say reduction in the emissions — they’re quieter — it’s def- is that we would be willing to sit down with the mayors initely the way to go. It’s why we’re going to continue to and have that conversation with them immediately fol- vigorously pursue dual fuel on ferries — a huge oppor- lowing the vote. tunity to reduce emissions there, as well as natural gas in Th e region is going to have to come up with one-third. commercial trucks. If it’s not the regional sales tax, it will have to be some- With respect to the last point, on the emissions, ob- thing else. Th e member knows well that many other ideas viously, if there were to be a stop in investments in con- — taxes, levies and so forth — have been discussed over tinued transit capacity in the Lower Mainland, that will the years. We would have to see what the next preferred have an impact on emissions growth. Th e opportunity to funding source would be that the mayors would want to 7556 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

put forward and assess that funding source on its merits with the people of British Columbia in May of 2013 — a at that particular point in time. very specifi c commitment that we included in our plat- form. We said it in an eff ort to end what had up to that G. Heyman: In January 2013 the then Transportation point become a logjam in terms of coming to a place of Minister and the now Environment Minister stated that agreement between the province and local government there were some principles around funding for transit, about what that source of funding was going to be for the and they were in the TransLink jurisdiction. region’s one-third, but also to come up with a diff erent [1750] process within which the region itself could achieve con- Th ere were four of them. Th e funding options must be sensus on funding sources as well as priorities. aff ordable for families, they must be regionally sourced, We made a determination that the people of the region they must avoid negative eff ects on the provincial econ- are going to have a say. Th ey’re going to have the fi nal say. omy, and they must include land value capture. Th ey’re going to approve through a referendum, a pleb- I have a couple of questions for the minister. Land iscite, any new taxes or fees that the mayors believe are value capture appears to now be somewhat optional and necessary to invest in expansion of transit and transpor- left to the mayors, in that it’s not currently part of the ref- tation — i.e., to cover the region’s one-third. erendum question. Th rough this process the mayors, despite a tremen- Second question is: at what point did the referendum dous amount of angst and, I would suggest, displeas- become a principle? Was it some point prior to the elec- ure on their part with the process, pulled together, and tion platform being put together in 2013 or some other I give them full credit for that. Th ey pulled together as a point? Is the referendum now an immutable part of the region. Th ey put one heck of a plan together. Th ey were principles — in other words, a fi ft h principle, or perhaps challenged to identify a single funding source. Th ey did a fourth principle, replacing land value capture? that with the sales tax. We’ve challenged them to get out A corollary to that question. If other funding sources there and sell their plan, which they have been doing. need to be considered, I know that it is possible for cab- At the end of the day, the people of Metro Vancouver inet to waive, under the legislation, if my memory serves are going to make the fi nal decision in the weeks ahead. me well, the need for a second referendum or plebiscite. Or will the minister make this an immutable principle? G. Heyman: My fi nal question in this section has to do with the provincial tolling policy review. We’re going Hon. T. Stone: First, with respect to land value capture, to have a new Pattullo Bridge. Th e government says we’re the position of the province is this. We believe that land going to have a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel. Th e value capture presents a tremendous opportunity to gen- mayors’ plan considers looking down the road at some erate a sizeable amount of revenue, particularly as transit form of road pricing or mobility pricing. expands — a good amount of revenue that, increasingly, Can the minister say whether the tolling policy review should be going back into expanding transit. is underway and at what stage it is? If it hasn’t yet com- Now, that’s a conversation that is ongoing, that we’re menced or it’s at a very early stage, why is there a delay? having with municipalities across the region. But there’s no question that…. I mean, land value capture is taking Hon. T. Stone: I made a commitment to the region place today. It’s debatable how many dollars from land about a year ago with respect to the tolling policy. I said value capture are actually going back into expanding there will come a point in time whereby this tolling policy transit. Our position is that more dollars should be. Th at’s will need to be reviewed. Fundamentally, there will come a subject that we raise in our discussions with the may- a point in time where it will be an issue of equity and fair- ors, and we will continue to do so in the months ahead. ness related to those who live south of the Fraser. [1755] As the member knows well, today there is a toll on the With respect to the member’s question relating to the Golden Ears Bridge, and there is a toll on the Port Mann requirement for a referendum — or a plebiscite, as it’s Bridge. Th e member’s quite correct in pointing out that the now referred to — this is more than just a principle. It’s mayors are proposing a tolled replacement for the Pattullo actually the law in the province. Th ere is no mechanism Bridge, and we have moved forward with a project plan to waive the requirement for a referendum, or a plebis- for the George Massey replacement. One potential option cite, to ensure that, if the mayors were to want to intro- for the George Massey funding could be a tolled option. duce a new funding source for the expansion of transit In terms of reviewing the tolling policy, the tolling and transportation, that that funding source has not fi rst policy becomes problematic once Pattullo is built and been approved by the people in the region. Th at is not a tolled and once George Massey is built and potentially matter of policy. Th at is the law of the province of British tolled. It’s not problematic today because there are non- Columbia. It was brought through the Legislature last year. tolled options. The current tolling policy is being re- In terms of the origins of this law, this was — again, spected today. Th ere are alternative, non-tolled routes going back to the 2013 shareholders meeting that we had for people to choose. Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7557

[1800] mature. Likewise, we need to make a fi nal decision on I’ve said that that review of the tolling policy will need George Massey in terms of which options we’re going to to take place once we cross two — pardon the pun — consider — and ultimately, an option we’re going to se- bridges on this: one being the decision of the people of lect to fi nance the George Massey replacement as well. the region on the mayors’ plan in this plebiscite — i.e., Pattullo. If it’s a yes vote, they’re moving forward with a M. Karagianis: May I fi rst say a great thanks to my tolled replacement for Pattullo. Th e second key decision colleague for allowing me this time. I’d like to ask just a point is on George Massey. couple of questions about Highway 16. Now, we are just in the midst of putting the fi nal refi ne- Th e minister knows we have canvassed this in ques- ments on what the George Massey Tunnel is actually go- tion period and other opportunities. As we all clearly ing to constitute — how high, how long, how many lanes, know, in December, 2012, the Missing Women Inquiry as well as how much road work is going to take place on and Wally Oppal called on the government to commit either side of the bridge. Once we are able to put a tight to developing an enhanced public transit system along fence around the scope of the George Massey project, we this highway and provide safer transportation options then move into the next phase, which is the funding dis- for these communities. cussion. Once we have that price tag, what are the options Th is was again reiterated by the 2015 Inter-American for actually fi nancing it? Commission on Human Rights report and the 2006 One of those options, as I said a moment ago, could be Highway of Tears Symposium, and, of course, it has been to toll it. If a decision is made to toll the George Massey reiterated oft en since then. Th e government has rejected replacement and if the Mayors Council vision is suc- the call for this kind of transportation option but under- cessfully endorsed by the people of the region, there will took a consultation process. come that point in time — sooner, not later — whereby Although we have been frustrated with our ability to every crossing to south of the Fraser will be tolled, with get some of that information, there were a couple of clear the exception of the Alex Fraser Bridge. It would be at things that emerged from the consultation process and that point that the tolling policy, as currently written, what we could glean of it — that meetings were focused would be no longer valid. on interconnectivity between communities, not safer op- tions for women, and that it was declared that hitchhik- G. Heyman: I’m about to sit down for a moment while ing was not the issue, despite the fact that anyone else my colleague from Esquimalt–Royal Roads asks some who has experienced that highway…. I went and travelled questions of the minister. it myself with my colleagues to experience it fi rsthand. It wasn’t my understanding when the minister an- [1805] nounced a tolling policy review that it was a tolling policy Experts like Dr. Jacqueline Haller, who is doing a com- review that would take place aft er a number of other plete thesis on hitchhiking, were all aware of the fact that things happened. people hitchhike there every single day. Consultations Th ere was an announcement of a tolling policy review. were done with about 76 people, but only four of them Th ere are a number of people who think the current tol- were aboriginal women. ling policy needs review, not just because there’s a ques- I just wanted to set the context here for a couple of tion of whether untolled options will remain but for a questions about this. Th e Smithers and Moricetown com- whole bunch of other reasons, not the least of which munities have said that they want substantive improve- is why some people who may drive from just over the ments to public transportation. I know this fi rsthand bridge in Surrey to Coquitlam are paying a toll and other from these communities as well. Th e provincial govern- people who drive for tens or hundreds of kilometres ment has refused to partner with them. Th e Ministry of throughout the region pay no toll whatsoever. Transportation offi cials stated in December 2014 that I’m going to take the minister’s answer to mean, un- these municipalities and the municipalities in this area less he corrects me, that the tolling policy review has not would have to pay for any improvements to public trans- commenced and that the reasons he gave are, in fact, rea- portation themselves. sons for the delay. However, other B.C. communities get to partner with government for public transit. I’m not sure why the com- Hon. T. Stone: Really briefl y in response, the member munities along Highway 16 would be denied that. We is correct. Th e review of the tolling policy has not com- know from the experience elsewhere in British Columbia menced to this point, and it hasn’t for the reasons that I that the ministry is a partner, a happy partner, with muni- stated in my previous response. cipalities. But apparently, it’s not prepared to do that with To review the policy in advance of knowing whether or Smithers, Moricetown or some of these other communities. not the region of Metro Van is moving forward with the Mayors Council plan as it’s currently constituted, which Hon. T. Stone: First off , I want to just acknowledge includes a tolled replacement for Pattullo, would be pre- the eff orts of the member from Esquimalt in relation to 7558 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Highway 16. I know how much work she’s done on this [1810] fi le and how important it is to her. Transit services between Smithers and Telkwa, be- She’s quite correct that the recommendation that was tween the Hazeltons and both Smithers and Kispiox, be- made was to develop safer transportation options along tween Terrace and Kitimat and between Prince Rupert the corridor, and so we’ve certainly endeavoured to try and Port Edward — those services are in place today. and do that. Th ere are no easy, quick fi xes to this. Th ere We’ve also worked really hard to expand cell coverage, just aren’t. I know the member knows that well. which I think, in fairness, is part of this discussion. Cell We did conduct an extensive consultation meeting coverage, in and of itself, is obviously not transportation, with about 80 leaders — municipal, First Nations and so but ensuring that people are able to use their phones, es- forth — last summer. While I know there were some in- pecially in moments of crisis and emergency and need, itial challenges in obtaining records in relation to those is an important part of the solution. We’ve made pretty meetings, my understanding is that they were subse- good progress at expanding cell coverage through the quently provided — those records and so forth. network. We’re not going to rest on that front either until As easy, as desirable as it would be in some respects we’ve got cell coverage up and down every inch of that to simply commit to a shuttle bus type of service up and particular corridor. down this corridor, we have ruled that out. We didn’t More work to do. I want the member to really hear rule that out lightly, and it’s frankly not strictly a matter me on this. I, by no means, believe that this fi le is closed of budget. Th ese are people’s lives that we’re talking about. and that we’ve done what we can do and it’s time to move I take to heart the method by which and the manner in on. Th e discussion with First Nations, with local gov- which the member frames this particular issue. It’s not ernments, continues. We’re very much focused on con- just about budgets. It’s about people’s lives. tinuing to enhance service as best and as fast as we can Th at being said, it’s a 718-kilometre stretch of road through this corridor for the safety of everyone who lives from Prince Rupert to Prince George. When we look at, along this particular route. from every possible angle, how one could possibly pro- vide a shuttle-type service across that length of road that M. Karagianis: Well, certainly, the minister will ap- would be viable, that would actually meet the needs of preciate the fact that, for people living in these commun- people along that corridor, it’s very diffi cult to get to a ities, they need some assurance that even an expansion of conclusion that says a shuttle bus would work. Th is is service is something that the government is considering. similar to the driving distance between Vancouver and, Certainly, I agree, there are little pockets where there is almost, Revelstoke. Telling someone in a particular spot some service, but in the case of Smithers, they have asked along this road that a shuttle bus will be there at three for partner dollars to expand that. Moricetown has done o’clock in the aft ernoon every other day, or every day for that as well. I know every community that I met with that matter, is I’m not sure going to meet the needs of that along that corridor between Prince Rupert and Prince individual when they actually need transportation. Th at’s George seemed very willing to come to the table and try the bigger challenge that we’ve encountered with respect and look for some solutions that worked in their par- to the concept of a shuttle bus. ticular area. What we are doing is we did provide $75,000 in fund- Th e reality is that far too many people are hitchhiking. ing to support increased training for access to driver edu- Even today, if you live in a remote area and you have to cation, safe driver and driver licensing programs for First go into town to get a loaf of bread, a quart of milk, see Nations. Th is was identifi ed as a priority by a good num- your social worker, take your child to a doctor because ber of First Nations leaders that we met with. they have a sore throat, you have to hitchhike because the We also heard loud and clear that there was a tremen- service is inadequate. dous lack of cohesion in terms of people knowing what Frankly, I know that the minister alluded to the por- resources are actually available today. Th ere are gaps, no tal that talks about the other services that are available. question about that, but there are resources available to- Limousine service is listed there. For poor people living day. We endeavoured to pull all that together into one in these communities on very fi xed and minimal incomes, place via the web portal that we’ve established. We’ve re- a limousine service certainly can’t be a replacement for ceived positive feedback on that piece. a shuttle bus service that’s aff ordable and accessible and We also do partner with communities up and down regular. For aboriginal women who are hitchhiking today the corridor. Th ere’s the Northern Health bus. I appreci- to take their children to the doctor because they have a ate that we’ve had a diff erence of opinion on its relevance sore throat, they can’t aff ord a limousine service. For even in this discussion, but it is there to serve. We also have the sporadic services that are available in some of these partner agreements in place through B.C. Transit with a communities, they’re not aff ordable for people on fi xed number of communities, some of which provide service and minimal incomes. between their communities. Th at is available — I believe It’s hard not to become very irritated with the govern- about $1.5 million per year. ment’s inability to at least come to these communities Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7559

and say: “We do understand that these things are hap- have been provided have actually had a desired impact pening.” For the government to be dismissive that hitch- and have helped reduce the prevalence of hitchhiking. hiking is not an issue…. Of course it’s an issue. You can’t When you talk to law enforcement up and down the drive the highway without seeing people hitchhiking. It corridor, the prevalence of hitchhiking today, compared would seem to me that the government needs to do a bet- to fi ve or ten years ago, is going down. Th ere’s progress ter job of saying: “Yes, we recognize that there do need to being made. I’m not suggesting, by any stretch of the im- be expanded services.” agination, that it’s time to start celebrating or to, again, All of these communities know that there is huge re- declare “mission accomplished” on this. Th ere’s a lot source extraction going on along this entire corridor. more work to do, but I think we’re making progress. Lots of money is being put into government revenue The partner ministries that we’re working with on from these communities, and a social contract of at least this…. Th e member is very correct in characterizing the returning some of it in public transportation systems, I solutions to these very complex problems as very much think, is apropos. cross-ministry or requiring cross-ministry collaboration. Now, because I know that time is very tight here and [1820] my colleague has lent me some time, I’d like to just say, Th e Ministry of Transportation works very closely with without belabouring the point that I and others have the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, made very clearly about the impracticality of the gov- the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Children and ernment’s approach on some of this…. Th e July 11 brief- Family, for certain, as well as the First Nations Health ing note to the minister states: “Participants were told Authority, which has been a very important partner at that the Ministry of Transportation would be creating a the table in these discussions as well. summary and further discussions with ministry partners Th e member has mentioned a couple times now the in- and that this would be distributed to those communities.” clusion of a limo company on the web portal. I very much I don’t know. Has that summary been done? Has it regretted the fact that that was included. I had hoped the been distributed? Has the summary been prepared and member would ask the question in question period one released to the public in any way, or is it going to be? Th at day so I could really clearly set the record straight on that. is one part of a question. Th at was a mistake. No question about it. [1815] Th e direction that staff were given was go and pull Th e second part of that same question. Th e govern- together a comprehensive a list of transportation op- ment talked about discussions with ministry partners tions that are currently in place along the corridor and aft er the consultation. What ministry partners are those? include them in this portal. In their fervent eff ort to de- What has taken place? What is the progress on that con- liver on that directive, inadvertently, a link to an airport sultation? I guess last is: what next steps is the ministry limo service was included. It shouldn’t have been. Th at planning coming out of these consultations? was a mistake. It was immediately taken off the moment A limousine service and just saying, “Yeah, we know it was brought to my attention. it’s a serious situation up there, but we have no clear dec- Th e last piece is the member’s question around the laration for the community that we are going to expand summary of actions and next steps. Where do we go from service, that we do see the need for this, that whatever here? We certainly circled back with a number of the or- barriers you think are up there to doing this will be re- ganizations. We’ve had ongoing conversations with a lot solved….” You can provide a transportation system in of the municipalities and with a lot of the First Nations. much more complicated areas than along Highway 16 in Th e Carrier Sekani, for example — it was the First Nation communities that want to cooperate with the government. that we provided the $75,000 to — have been a very im- If the government can answer those questions, that portant partner, working with us on potential solutions would be great. and bringing other First Nations to the table as well. We went back and actually met with the North Central Hon. T. Stone: First off , I want to acknowledge the Local Government Association, which represents 41 lo- member’s comments about hitchhiking. Certainly, I’ve cal governments in this region of the province. So we cir- never said that hitchhiking is not an issue. I don’t think cled back with them in terms of the items that we were she was implying that I had said that. I certainly share confi dent we would be able to implement and those ac- the concerns that the member has expressed around the tions which we were still considering. prevalence of hitchhiking along this corridor. I’ll end on this note. As I’ve said a few times now, our I will say, however, that one of the key themes we heard work is far from being done on this. Th e discussions with from a good number of the mayors that we met with in all of these First Nations, with local governments and the initial consultation was that the Ministry of Justice with other agencies are very much ongoing. We’re going and MCFD have been dedicated, previously, to aware- to continue to identify additional initiatives that would ness and education related to hitchhiking and resources to represent practical solutions to the very real challenges help reduce the practice of hitchhiking. Th e resources that that are encountered throughout this corridor. 7560 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

G. Heyman: I want to return to a question I asked with respect to any new tax or fee that the Mayors the minister earlier about whether the requirement for Council deems is necessary to fund transit and trans- a referendum — or referenda — for additional fund- portation expansion. ing sources had now become a fi ft h immutable princi- [1830] ple, further to the principles enunciated by the former Transportation Minister. Th e response of the minister G. Heyman: I’d simply remind the minister again was that there was no choice because the law stated ref- that when an act says that the Lieutenant-Governor- erenda must be held. in-Council may, it also implies that the Lieutenant- Th at was not my memory, so I went back and looked Governor-in-Council may not. And when an act is at the bill, now an act. What section 2 actually says is: specifi cally written to give cabinet the ability to repeal the “Th e Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, section of the act that refers to demonstration…. In that order that referenda respecting funding for the regional instance, the Transportation Authority Act doesn’t refer transportation system be conducted.” Th e act then goes specifi cally to a referendum but just refers to demonstrat- on to state what will take place in the event that a refer- ing support. One presumes it was written for a reason. endum is ordered. Let me move on to governance. I had some lengthy de- There are consequential amendments to the South bate with the minister about the TransLink board when Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act the amendment act was introduced at the same time as in section 34, which defi nes “additional funding sources” the referendum act was introduced. Th e minister knows and says: “Th e mayors’ council on regional transporta- well, as I do, that the mayors have called for quite some tion must demonstrate to the minister’s satisfaction that time that they have majority control over the board and a majority of the electors in the transportation service re- specifi cally that they have the ability to approve budgets. gion supports the proposal referred to in subsection (2).” But that was not contained in the act. However, subsection 4 says: “Th e Lieutenant Governor in Th e mayors commissioned a report on last year’s chan- Council may repeal this section by regulation.” ges to the governance structure through Bill 22. Th e It appears to me that, in fact, the act allows referenda report indicated that the act did not go far enough to ad- and prescribes the conditions under which they will take dress the problems that had been previously identifi ed by place and what’s required of whom if they are to take a review of the governance structure commissioned by place, but it doesn’t make them mandatory. the Mayors Council. Again, I would ask the minister: if this referendum Th e review compared the governance structure to lead- fails, is it the minister’s position that referenda are ing model governance structures for transit organizations now an immutable condition for additional funding throughout the world and found that this governance sources? structure was, I think, “precisely unique, and not in a [1825] good way.” Th e report stated that the changes would only take the region part of the way to a structure that is fully [P. Pimm in the chair.] analogous to those in place in leader regions. Especially considering that the whole issue of trans- Hon. T. Stone: In terms of the member’s question of parency of TransLink has become a major issue in this whether or not the requirement to hold a vote — a refer- referendum, a major issue for the public…. endum, plebiscite, call it what you will — is an immut- The public, in stating that it doesn’t have faith in able principle moving forward, the answer would be yes. TransLink, has also oft en articulated that as not trust- We made the commitment to the people in the region ing how decisions are made or knowing how decisions in the last election that a vote would be required demon- are made and not actually being able to reach and hold strating majority support within the region, should the accountable those people who are making the decisions mayors decide that a new tax or fee is required to expand — which they could, if they were the people who are elect- transit and transportation. We followed through with ed to local government, who can be either re-elected or that commitment, actually turned that policy into law in thrown out every four years. the legislative session last year. So that’s the policy today, Will the minister consider further changes to the gov- and that’s the law today. ernance structure, taking into account that the issues the Now, of course, this government and subsequent gov- mayors have requested be addressed, the reports that they ernments reserve the right to change any policy of gov- have commissioned and the feelings of the public? For in- ernment or to change any of the laws as is seen fi t at stance, will the minister consider changes that give the that particular point in time. But I can say, again, to the mayors legislative authority to review and approve annu- member from Fairview that the policy of this govern- al plans and budgets, such as contained with the Victoria ment today and, in fact, the law that is on the books today Regional Transit Commission? provides for a requirement for the majority support to be Will the minister review the governance structure with clearly demonstrable to the Minister of Transportation a view to including a greater number of representatives Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7561

— ideally a majority of representatives — from elected of- ments, but it’s also detailed in terms of costing. I’ve said fi cials in the region? many times that the mayors did a great job in pulling this plan together. I think that some of that credit goes to the Hon. T. Stone: Th ere is no question that during the process, which was enhanced through the governance plebiscite process that has been unfolding over the last improvements that we made last year. number of weeks, particularly at the front end of the pro- Th e fi nal piece I’ll say on this is we don’t hear much cess, there was a signifi cant amount of discussion with- about governance at the moment in this plebiscite cam- in the region — not just amongst mayors but, I think it paign. Th e person you hear a lot about governance is would be fair to say, broadly across many who live in the Jordan Bateman. On and off through this campaign, he region — with respect to the eff ectiveness of the current has done a masterful job, much like a circus conductor governance model at TransLink. No question about that. creating little fl ashes of light here and there to distract Right or wrong, the TransLink board decided, in the people’s attention from what the fundamental issue is in earlier stages of this plebiscite campaign, to bring in a this plebiscite campaign. new interim CEO. I think by all accounts, when you talk To the extent that Jordan Bateman can continue to to the mayors, when you talk to residents, when you talk make this about governance versus the need to con- to many of organizations that make up the “yes” coali- tinue to invest in transit and transportation in the Lower tion in this plebiscite campaign, the common theme that Mainland — do you support the mayors’ plan or not? — I hear is one of improving confi dence in TransLink under let’s hope Jordan Bateman isn’t successful at accomplish- the new leadership that is in place in the CEO’s offi ce. ing his goal. I think to some extent, in the early part of [1835] the campaign, he was more successful than many of us As the member knows well, we did expand or signifi - would have liked, having defi ned the campaign to be cantly enhance the authority of Mayors Council last year about governance. in the spring legislative session in 2014. Th ose legislative I don’t hear as much talk about governance today. I changes to governance provided the Mayors Council hear a lot of good talk from mayors about the benefi ts of with more authority related to customer service and com- their plan. I hear a lot of talk about the challenges of con- plaints, asset disposition, the responsibility for the long- gestion, as the member and I spoke about moments ago. term vision, the ten-year investment plans. It provided I hear a lot about the need to continue to invest. People them with enhanced responsibilities relating to the ap- are actually talking about the merits of the plan. Th at’s proval of compensation, not just of the board but of the what they should be talking about. executive at TransLink. Th at’s what gives me hope and gives me a sense of con- Th e member knows well that it’s actually…. With the fi dence. A lot of people may be surprised, at the end of exception of two appointees that the province now makes the day, when the results are actually determined, when to the board and the two that are there as the chair and all the votes are counted and the results are known and vice-chair of the Mayors Council, the rest of the current people wake up and realize that the people of the region board at TransLink are all people that were actually ap- have actually voted to support the mayors’ plan. I get a pointed by the Mayors Council. lot of hope and feel confi dent about the conversation and Th e member knows well that there’s a selection com- the discourse that I see taking place in the region at the mittee that consists of representatives of the Mayors present time. Council and the province and other organizations that [1840] actually pull together a list of potential candidates for We feel that we’ve taken great strides at enhancing gov- board positions. At the end of the day, it’s the Mayors ernance, providing a number of additional tools to the Council that selects from that list and approves the ap- mayors which they have embraced and which helped pointments of individuals to the board. them pull together a really good plan. Now it’s up to the Th ere has been a tremendous amount of enhanced au- voters to decide whether or not they can get behind this thority transitioned to the Mayors Council over the last plan. year. On the one hand, I would argue that, perhaps, not enough time has gone by yet. It hasn’t fully been a year G. Heyman: In response to the minister saying that since those enhanced governance changes were made. It governance isn’t really an issue, I’d simply say that the might be a bit premature to judge them as successful or core of what people who are saying they’re voting no are not at this point. saying is that they don’t believe TransLink is accountable. On the other hand, I think you could equally argue Whether they would frame that as governance, that’s ul- that this enhanced authority for the Mayors Council timately what it’s about. played some role, not the entire…. I don’t take 100 per- I have a question that I hope the minister can answer, cent credit for it, but it played a role in the mayors being and then I have one more question which he won’t have able to pull together and achieve consensus on a long- time to answer, but I’m hoping I can read it into the rec- term plan that is not just detailed in terms of invest- ord so that he can provide an answer. 7562 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, April 22, 2015

My next question has to do with party buses. The [1845] minister recently announced that he was changing the I think everyone has an expectation, rightfully placed, Passenger Transportation Board control of the party bus that if you send your sons and daughters off to gradu- industry from general authorization to special authoriz- ations and other moments of celebration in one’s life, ation but made no further changes. My question is: why you’re sending your child off with a reputable operator, did it take the minister so long to act at all, given that and at the end of the evening, your son or daughter is this has been an issue since 2008 and many members of going to come home. the public have called for action and other jurisdictions Th is is a fi le that we have been working on for a good have taken action? year or so. It has been important to try and identify a Th e minister knows well that I introduced a private solution here to this challenge that would not necessar- member’s bill with a number of provisions that included ily automatically, right out of the gates, represent a whole requiring chaperones on trips; safety training for oper- bunch of new regulation. ators; giving instructions to passengers respecting legal We can debate the merits of regulation. I tend to come and safety requirements; requiring safe drop-off provi- from a place, as a default, that regulation is not the answer sions, because in many cases young people were simply to every single challenge that we have in society. In fact, being dumped in parking lots; and penalties for adver- only aft er we’ve demonstrated that we’ve fi rst exercised tising activity that is illegal — for instance, ads that show every alternative and not come up with a viable solution, people standing around with glasses of alcohol in their should regulation be considered at that point. hands on buses, which we all know is illegal. We spent a fair bit of time consulting with the families. None of these were introduced, but there is perhaps Th e member knows the Raymond family quite well. We a possibility. Th e Passenger Transportation Board can’t had very extensive discussions with the Raymonds. We’re regulate, but it can impose terms and conditions on li- very pleased that they welcomed the solution that we did censees, even though it must do so individually. come up with, and they participated in the announce- I would also add that on April 16 Washington state ment of that solution. passed a bill that requires a number of things, including Where we landed on this was to require all vehicles that somebody other than the driver be responsible for that have predominantly perimeter seating, which are enforcing licence holder requirements on a party bus; vehicles that we colloquially refer to as party buses…. that someone other than the driver is available to monitor Th ese vehicles would be required to have a special au- and control party activities, to prevent the driver from thorization licence, as opposed to the general authoriza- being distracted and to ensure that unsafe conditions tion that they had. Th at was going to do two things. One, are dealt with. So other jurisdictions are moving further. it was going to improve the safety of the passengers who My question for the minister is: has he or anyone are transported in these vehicles by making the vehicles in the ministry had discussions either directing the more accountable. Secondly, it was going to ensure that Passenger Transportation Board or asking the Passenger law enforcement would more easily be able to track these Transportation Board to use their section 28(2)(a) pow- vehicles, track the operators and enforce the law. ers to impose terms and conditions refl ecting any or all Th e special authorization licence, as I’m sure the mem- of the safety requirements that have been suggested or ber knows, in contrast to the general authorization li- implemented in other jurisdictions? cence, provides far less fl exibility on a number of fronts: Or is he simply going to wait and see what the Passenger the ability to set rates, the ability to work anywhere in the Transportation Board does, or perhaps wait to see if there province, the ability to add vehicles to their fl eet at any are future incidents before suggesting the Passenger time. Th e general authorization licence provides max- Transportation Board actually implement more stringent imum fl exibility in all of the above. Th e special author- terms and conditions, which they will now be empowered ization doesn’t. It provides much tighter control over the to do by dint of the special authorization permit? number of vehicles that an operator can have. Each vehicle has to be individually plated and there- Hon. T. Stone: Let me begin by just acknowledg- fore can be individually tracked. Th e hours of operation ing the interest and the good work that the member for are not just at the whim of the operator. It must be ap- Vancouver-Fairview has clearly demonstrated on this proved by the passenger transportation branch. In fact, particular fi le. It is an issue that he has asked a number of the communities within which the operator can operate questions of me over the last year and a half and I know have to be approved. Th ere are much tighter controls in has put a tremendous amount of work and eff ort into place. coming up with solutions. The last point that I will make is in relation to I think we all want the same thing. We want people Washington state. Th e member references Washington who use these services, which is predominantly young state’s approach to this industry. Th e fundamental diff er- people, to be able to use these services and to do so in a ence between Washington and British Columbia is that safe manner. in Washington state it’s legal to have alcohol in a vehicle Wednesday, April 22, 2015 British Columbia Debates 7563

if you obtain the equivalent of a liquor permit to have their way through all of the applications from the diff er- that liquor in that vehicle. We don’t have that provision ent companies, and everything is progressing at the pace here in British Columbia. It is not legal to have alcohol that we expected. in any type of vehicle — period. Th ere’s no special permit We’re going to continue to monitor this fi le very closely. that you can obtain in order to have alcohol in a vehicle. At the end of the day, the goal here is to ensure the safe As a starting point, we believe that we already have a transport of passengers in these vehicles. We’re going to much more strict and rigid regulatory environment with- keep a close eye on this, and we’re hopeful that the chan- in which operators must operate. Th at all being said, the ges that we’ve made through these regulatory amend- passenger transportation branch is working very closely with the operators. Th e existing operators of party-bus ments have made the industry safer. We’ll be keeping a vehicles that would like to continue to operate under the close eye on that in the months ahead. new specialization licence have until May 1 in order to With that, I move that the committee rise, report register themselves and meet all of the fi tness require- progress and ask leave to sit again. ments and the other requirements of the special author- ization licence. Motion approved. My understanding is that the passenger transportation branch is quite pleased with the uptake. Th ey are working Th e committee rose at 6:50 p.m.

Hansard Reporting Services

Director Robert Sutherland

Manager of Reporting Services Christine Fedoruk

Publishing Supervisor Laurel Bernard

Editorial Team Leaders Janet Brazier, Karol Morris, Robyn Swanson, Glenn Wigmore

Technical Operations Offi cers Pamela Holmes, Dan Kerr, Yvonne Mendel

Indexers Shannon Ash, Julie McClung, Robin Rohrmoser

Researchers Liz Belsten, Mike Beninger, Mary Beth Hall, David Mattison

Editors Kim Christie, Deirdre Gotto, Jane Grainger, Betsy Gray, Iris Gray, Linda Guy, Martin Hicks, Barb Horricks, Bill Hrick, Jessica Hutchings, Treava Kellington, Catherine Lang, Paula Lee, Donna McCloskey, Bob McIntosh, Anne Maclean, Jill Milkert, Lind Miller, Erik Pedersen, Janet Pink, Amy Reiswig, Murray Sinclair, Antoinette Warren, Heather Warren, Arlene Wells, Kim Westad

Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker.

Printing Agent Crown Publications, Queen's Printer for British Columbia PO Box 9452 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, B.C. V8W 9V7 www.crownpub.bc.ca

Daily and annual Hansard subscription information is available from Crown Publications.

www.leg.bc.ca

Access to on-line versions of the offi cial report of debates (Hansard) and webcasts of proceedings is available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television.