2014 Legislative Session: Third Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 11

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: Before we embark on continued bill debates this afternoon, I rise, by leave, to make the following motion with respect to the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits, a copy of which has been provided to all members.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

CHANGES TO
COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Hon. T. Stone: Here’s the motion. By leave, I move:

[Further to the motion adopted on October 9, 2014, that the date for the Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits to examine, inquire into and make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly regarding its Phase 1 work be amended to read by December 15, 2014.]

Madame Speaker, I call debate on this motion.

J. Tegart: The Special Committee on Local Elections Expense Limits was appointed in October 2014 by the Legislative Assembly. The committee’s mandate is to make recommendations to support legislation and regulations necessary to implement expense limits for the next local elections in 2018. The timelines for the special committee are set out in the committee’s terms of reference and include two distinct phases.

[1335]

Since the committee was established, it’s been receiving input from the public and key stakeholders in support of its mandate. The committee is building on the work done through the UBCM and the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development throughout 2013-2014. The committee has heard concern regarding the timeline and, in response, was requesting an extension to allow for further opportunities for input and consultation.

In many ways this is an ideal time to ask the public and local elections participants for their views on expense limits, given general local elections were just held in B.C. on November 15. Elector organizations are now active, which means the committee can easily reach out to these organizations and seek their views.

The deadline for the committee to consider and make recommendations on phase 1 of its terms of reference was November 27. The House Leader is proposing that the House approve a motion to extend the deadline to December 15, 2014. The additional time will allow the special committee to hear more input from key stakeholders while also ensuring the committee is able to conclude and make recommendations on the first phase of its work.

S. Robinson: I am pleased to find out that there’s an appetite to extend the consultation process. I was a little concerned from the get-go about the very tight timeline, given that there were local elections, upon these efforts that we were doing. What we were hearing was that there were not a lot of folks who actually could make the time, because they were very focused on elections. Now that we can hear from people until December 12….

I think it’s really important post-election. It’s fresh in people’s minds. We can hear about some of the challenges. We can get a better, fulsome description of what the experience has been like and what the implications are. I’m pleased to see that we have till December 12 to hear from people from all around the province.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: As there are no further speakers, I close debate on the motion, and I thank both members for their informative interventions.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I would now like to call continuing committee debate on Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — CONTAINER TRUCKING ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 1:40 p.m.

On section 22 (continued).

H. Bains: I would like to go back to where we finished before the lunch break. It’s a question about those companies that the 14-point joint action plan applied to. As I said at that time, the provincial government, the federal government and the stakeholders all signed on to that document, and they all committed to pay those rates. The minister’s answer: that in the event that one of the companies doesn’t pay those rates, then there’s no mechanism for anyone to enforce that agreement.

It’s something that really is concerning. Once you sign an agreement, it’s up to the parties to enforce that agreement. The provincial government and the federal gov-
[ Page 5376 ]
ernment are parties to that 14-point action plan, and the rates are established in that. The promises were made that the companies will pay, effective April 3. I believe that’s the date that was mentioned. Now the minister is saying there’s nothing that we can do in the event that a company doesn’t pay those rates and there’s no mechanism to collect on behalf of a trucker.

Rather than what the minister has said — that the trucker has courts and litigation available to them — I would suggest that the government, which signed on that piece of paper, should be the one that should be enforcing that agreement. It was with that hope and that understanding that everyone agreed to those 14 points to end their dispute. I think government can’t simply walk away and say, “You’re on your own; you go and enforce that agreement,” with whatever cost that may be for that employer or trucker.

My question would be: would the minister commit that the provincial government will enforce this agreement? If it means taking those companies to court, or whatever other means are available to the government, that they will engage in that to make sure that everyone gets paid according to that agreement?

Hon. T. Stone: As I said earlier, before we broke for lunch, we’ve been working very hard on this file since the disruption was ended back in March and the joint action plan was signed to fulfil the commitments — the spirit, certainly, of the commitments — that were contained in that joint action plan.

There’s been an unprecedented amount of effort and energy put into this on the part of the province, the federal government, the port and other stakeholders in the sector. Through that time, through the weekly steering committee meetings that have been taking place, through the consultations that have taken place with Vince Ready and Corinn Bell, the province, as have other stakeholders, has certainly encouraged any drivers who have felt that they’re not getting paid what they should and who have felt aggrieved.

We have strongly encouraged them to embrace the whistle-blower mechanism, which was one of the joint action plan commitments that we followed up on quite quickly — to enhance that whistle-blower mechanism. The audit function was another piece that was a commitment of the province — to significantly strengthen the audit piece. We did that. Through that time there was a good increase, a significant increase in the number of audits that were conducted.

[1345]

The reality is that the results of those audits didn’t find much. You certainly can’t act upon an audit that has come back not demonstrating that there was any abuse or lack of payment of compensation owed.

Again, through this legislation, this perhaps represents the most significant fulfilment of the commitment that we made through the joint action plan, and that is, in coordination with the federal government, to implement this legislation so that we create the office of the commissioner who will be responsible for all facets of rate regulation, and at the end of the day, also authority over licences.

Through this long-term approach and the measures that we have contained in this legislation and that will come under the companion regulations, we believe we’re setting the drayage sector up for success and long-term stability.

H. Bains: Maybe I’m not explaining myself as clearly as I should, or the minister is not where I think the real issue lies. The issue is if, through those audits, you find that there is a company that hasn’t been paying according to the joint action plan. The question to the minister is: how would you enforce?

Will the minister or the government take the initiative, whatever avenues are available, to enforce this joint action plan? To make sure that the truckers and employees are paid according to the joint action plan, will you enforce it utilizing maybe a quota system, maybe something else? I don’t know — whatever is available to the government. The government has many, many options available to them — much, much better than the individual employee or the trucker has.

So if you have a case where the company hasn’t lived up to this agreement, then will the minister commit that the government will enforce and have the moneys collected on behalf of the trucker or the employee and paid to the trucker or to the employee?

Hon. T. Stone: This is exactly why we strengthened the audit system. We put a tremendous amount of additional resources into the audit program, significantly increased the overall number of audits, the capacity to do audits. We did see an increase in the number of audits that came forward. Again, a lot of this was also made possible because of our action on enhancing and strengthening the whistle-blower mechanism.

The fact of the matter is that through those audits that have been done to date, very little has come forward that has not been in compliance with the joint action plan. We have been encouraging for months now any driver that feels that they are owed moneys, pursuant to the joint action plan, and do not believe that they have been paid. There is a process today, and that process is the whistle-blower mechanism and the audit program. Those will both be in play over the next number of weeks for any drivers who still, to this date, feel aggrieved.

Outside of that, if an audit program doesn’t actually produce any non-compliance, there’s no action to pursue, certainly as the province. However, drivers would certainly be welcome if they chose to pursue their own civil remedies.
[ Page 5377 ]

H. Bains: Well, if you don’t find anything through the audit, fair enough, you have nothing to worry about. If no one complains, you have nothing to worry about. My question is: in the event, between April 3 and when the new system comes in place, if there’s a complaint that comes forward through whistle-blowing or whatever, or the auditing…?

[1350]

If there’s a case where a company is found to not be in compliance, I’m asking the minister: what mechanism do you have to enforce and have that money collected on behalf of the trucker? That’s the question.

If nothing comes out, then nobody has to worry about anything. I think the question is: when you do, if there’s a bona fide case to be made before the next changeover comes into place, between April last year and the next stage, will the government commit that they will support those truckers and employees and will take their case and enforce it and have them paid if there’s a legitimate complaint?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, let’s talk about the two phases here. The current phase is the phase that we’re in right now, until things change. So until such time as the province assumes responsibility, through the independent commissioner, for licensing, attached to which will be a condition of the licence related to the statutory declaration that we talked about earlier today…. Prior to that phase is the phase that we’re in right now.

As I mentioned in my last response, the audit program is the mechanism that is there today to facilitate any complaints, any grievances that drivers feel they have. It is the audit program that the drivers can take their complaint to, and an audit is conducted.

The process works like this. If an auditor goes through an audit and determines that there actually is merit to the complaint — that, in fact, let’s say, a company is found to not have been paying — then as it stands today, until there’s a change, the auditor would forward his or her findings, his or her report, to the port. The port today is responsible for all compliance issues.

Now, the port has a number of remedies available to it. The port could, for example, opt to revoke or suspend a company’s licence. Those are the remedies that are available today.

On a go-forward basis, the next phase, there will be much, much stronger teeth through the office of the commissioner and the responsibilities that will come with that office, the authority that will come with that office to ensure rate compliance, and on a retroactive basis as well, for those companies that actually apply for and receive a new licence under the new TLS system.

H. Bains: Perhaps I will come from a different angle, then. Will the minister ensure that their federal counterparts, through the ports, will…? Or you’ll work with the federal government to make sure that the retroactivity during this phase, this period, is enforced?

[1355]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, I would encourage the port to ensure that appropriate action, as they see fit based on the circumstances that are presented to them through an auditor’s report…. Certainly, I would encourage the port to take necessary action to remedy the situation and thus enforce the rates.

But, again, we’re focused primarily in this legislation…. What we’re here to debate in the context of this act is to fix what has been a mess in the drayage sector for far too long and to establish a new reality through the office of the independent provincial commissioner, who will truly have the authority, the teeth, in the legislation, in the regulations to ensure complete rate compliance and on a retroactive basis, as per our discussion earlier today.

H. Bains: I guess that’s the best we’re going to get out of the minister on this particular piece.

I want to go back to section 22. In here it speaks to establishing “an initial minimum rate” that the licensee must pay to a trucker. Then there’s a definition of “trucker” and there’s a definition of “employee” under the definitions section.

I think my colleague from North Island has debated this issue at great length. My question would be: trucker is mentioned here; what about employee? Does this also cover an employee of a trucker?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the definition of “trucker” does include an employee of a trucker. We believe that in the definitions section, section 1, which we went through yesterday, it’s well captured there.

H. Bains: Let me go into some of the rates here. The 14-point plan says that the rates will be paid on a round-trip basis, whether empty or loaded. My question would be: is that the intent of this particular section?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, the spirit and the intent of this section 22, which is really the heart of this act, as I know the member agrees, is all about fulfilling the commitments in the joint action plan. As it pertains to rates, the member knows well that the rates were very specifically detailed in the joint action plan — the hourly rates, the trip rates, the fuel surcharges and so forth.

Again, we are committed to ensuring as a starting point, as I’ve said several times now and said again, fulfilling the commitments that were made in that joint action plan related to the rates — hourly, trip and the surcharges. That would be a starting point that would be reflected in the initial regulation.

[1400]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
[ Page 5378 ]

H. Bains: Let me put this as an example. If a trip started…. I think the big issue here is off-the-dock rates. It’s very complicated and very, very confusing. So I’ll put it in a way that we all understand.

For example, if a trip started at Deltaport and goes all the way to Chilliwack — say the rate is $270 — and then you pick up another container in Chilliwack and deliver it, whether two blocks from the end point or you bring it back to Delta, there’s another $270. Is that the understanding?

Hon. T. Stone: I will reference back to the comments I think I made earlier today about the fact that the rate regulation that we will bring forward is going to be very specific. It’s going to actually likely contain a schedule. Earlier in this debate the member will recall I listed all of the specific to and from points. There will be a very specific dollar amount that would be paid for each leg, for each move. If you think of this schedule almost like a mileage chart, you pick your “from” on one axis and your “to” on the other axis, and you pinpoint the specific dollar amount. That will all be detailed.

The other overlay to this to keep in mind, as provided through this section, is that the moves have to be drayage sector–related. That’s to some of the questions that your colleague from North Island asked earlier today. This is why we’re defining a very specific geographic area. This is also why we’re specifically referencing container trucking services — again, to put a fine point on the reality that the intention here is for these rates to be applicable to drayage sector moves.

H. Bains: Just to further clarify, the off-dock chart that is used…. I think it is called a Ready chart. It would only be used, the off-dock portion I’m talking about…. The Ready chart will only be used when a round trip cannot be calculated, right?

[1405]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the concept, as I articulated a moment ago, is this. All of the port-related locations will be detailed in the regulation or a schedule to the regulation, and specific dollar amounts will be noted for each and every leg. It may be $140 for a particular leg, or it might be $220 for another leg, taking into account the distances involved and so forth. That will all be detailed in the rate regulation.

H. Bains: Just to capture it one more time. That means when you are putting those regulations together and all those rates of different legs, it will capture the entirety when it comes to the rates of the joint action plan, right?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

H. Bains: My other question. It talks about establishing of rates by the commissioner. Once the initial rates are established to regulations, my question would be: is there a mandate to the commission? Or how often will those rates be readjusted?

Hon. T. Stone: The regulation will not be prescriptive insofar as mandating the commissioner to change or otherwise amend the rates on any particular frequency. It will be completely the authority of the commissioner to amend rates as she sees fit.

H. Bains: But I think the expectation and the intent of this bill would be that periodically, to adjust for inflation, inflationary costs and other costs that come, the commissioner will be expected to review those rates and adjust them accordingly, right?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the commissioner will have complete authority to amend or change the rates as they see fit. Obviously in doing so, they will be basing those decisions on their understanding of the realities and circumstances of the industry and the broader economy and so forth.

Their decision on rates, any changes that they may propose, will be substantially informed by the industry advisory committee, which will have broad representation on it. Labour and trucking companies and shippers, terminal operators — the broad sector representation will be on that industry advisory committee. Part of their mandate would be to provide advice and input to the commissioner on the issue of rates and ongoing licence issues.

H. Bains: The minister said earlier, and I think it’s in one of the previous clauses, that no collective agreement…. The parties can negotiate rates lower than what they are established by the commissioner. My question would be: are parties free to negotiate better and higher rates than what the commissioner will establish?

Hon. T. Stone: Absolutely, yes.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

[1410]

C. Trevena: Picking up on the question my colleague just asked. In section 23 — this is about licensees complying with the rate, both the payment rate and the fuel rate — I wondered why we have subsection (3). This section applies “despite any provision of a collective agreement to the contrary.” It seems like this is actually going to be allowing the overruling of the collective agreement.
[ Page 5379 ]

Hon. T. Stone: Section 23(3). The intent here is to essentially ensure that collective agreements, should they be negotiated, can’t undermine the minimum rates in this act.

One of the complaints that we heard loud and clear through the weekly steering committee meetings — and we certainly heard it, and Vince Ready and Corinn Bell heard it in their discussions — was a concern that, on occasion, there have been examples within the Vancouver drayage sector. There have been examples of collective agreements which actually undermine the existing minimum rates. This provision is in here to ensure that that’s not the case.

C. Trevena: Going back to 23(1), is there any provision to ensure…? We had this discussion a little earlier. Again, I’m not sure if there’s any sort of clarity prescription to ensure that fees — whether it’s the licence fees, the enforcement fees, the damage deposits and that — are not passed or downloaded from the company to the truckers themselves, specifically in section 1.

Hon. T. Stone: The member asked a similar question in respect of this. I would point the member to section 24. It is the section that ensures that there can be no financial set-offs, commissions, deductions — essentially, downloads, as the member has referred to them in our debates this afternoon.

C. Trevena: Is there any penalty for breach of any of these clauses?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the commissioner will have the authority — very similar to the discussion we had earlier about compliance with licence conditions.

If a licensee is found to not be in compliance with these provisions in section 23, the commissioner will have the authority to issue an order that could, again, involve similar penalties to those we’ve talked about earlier in the context of licence infractions. Those penalties could include administrative fines and potentially the suspension and potential termination of the licence.

C. Trevena: Back to section (3). Picking up again from my colleague, he may have more questions about this.

Is there any mechanism here for the retroactivity to be included in this? Or is that all under section 22, as discussed earlier on this morning and early afternoon?

Hon. T. Stone: We’re confident that all aspects of retroactivity are actually captured under section 22(2).

[1415]

H. Bains: I think we discussed this retroactivity issue, but I would like to ask another question here. Are there any time limits for any employee to file a complaint, or is there any time limit on retroactivity?

Hon. T. Stone: The regulations that we’re developing do not contemplate any limitation or time limitation on the ability of employees, drivers, to come forward with complaints.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

H. Bains: Just a further question on this. It is very clear: the licensee “must not solicit or receive, directly or indirectly, a financial set-off, commission or rate deduction or rebate from a trucker.” If a licensee decides to provide the trucker an additional benefit, can they deduct from the hourly rate of that employee that is established under the joint action plan?

Hon. T. Stone: Section 24. Again, the intention of this section is to prevent a licensee from offering or accepting a financial incentive which effectively lowers the rate of compensation paid to a trucker. It’s pretty broadly defined here, in terms of being all-encompassing, to ensure that that’s the case. Back in section 22, that is where, through the rate regulation, we will be establishing that schedule of rates that will be very specific — by hourly and trip and for each and every move within the geographic area.

H. Bains: I think, just coming out of that…. There are hourly rates set. If the employer decides or a company licensee decides that I will provide you with Medical Services Plan, for example, will they be able to deduct from the hourly rate, or are those hourly rates set in stone and the licensee cannot deduct from those rates?

[1420]

Hon. T. Stone: Again to the member, a very similar response to my last one. In this section, the intent here is to ensure that there is no erosion of the rates through the payment to a trucker of any financial set-offs, commissions and so forth. This is probably one of the most significant complaints, which we’ve certainly heard in the weekly steering committee meetings and other discussions with truckers. This section ensures that that cannot happen.

The issue of the rates in and of themselves — the establishment of the minimum rates by hour and by trip and so forth — is dealt with in section 22 and will be attached in detail in the rate regulation, which will be forthcoming.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.
[ Page 5380 ]

H. Bains: Just a couple of questions on this. Again, it’s very clear on paper. But I can tell you from my experience out in the industry…. Yes, they are required to keep records, but quite often it happens….

Through the employment standards investigations, employers are required to keep records of their employees. But what so often happens during an investigation is that a portion of the record is missing. How do you then justify how much money is owed — except that the employee has all the records to show that this is how much they have actually worked?

So my question would be: in the event that records are missing and the trucker is saying, “I have certain evidence to prove that I actually worked during this period of time,” then what’s the penalty? Also, what is the minister’s expectation on how the commissioner will handle situations like that?

[1425]

Hon. T. Stone: This section, section 25, makes it a requirement of law that records be kept and that they be kept by the company for the purposes of being able to verify the hours of their drivers and, therefore, the rates that the drivers have earned and so forth.

As the member knows well, truckers keep records, and trucking companies will be required under this act to keep records. If there were to be a discrepancy between the two — if a trucker was to come forward and say, “There’s an issue. I believe the company I work for isn’t maintaining its records” — the auditor would take a look at the records provided by the company and the records provided by the employee.

If they didn’t match up, then it would be within the discretion of the commissioner to issue an order, and subject to that order, the same types of penalties — which we’ve talked about in the context of non-compliance with the licence conditions and a few other aspects that we spoke about earlier — could be applicable here: administrative fines, suspension of the licence and potential termination of the licence.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

C. Trevena: Are many complaints expected? I mean, is this going to be largely, as well as a rate-setting body, a complaints-hearing body?

Hon. T. Stone: Section 26 is intended to ensure that there is a conduit available to the broader public, to ensure that if any person…. Likely, the individual would be involved in some capacity with the gateway or with the port, with the drayage sector. That individual would have an opportunity to know that there is a conduit into the commissioner’s office so that any issue or concern or complaint that they may have would be received and potentially acted upon by the commissioner. This is enabling.

As we’ve talked a lot about through this debate, we are erring on the side of flexibility here. What the commissioner decides to implement to actually bring this piece to life, we will see once the commissioner is in place. But again, this is intended to ensure that there is the opportunity for a conduit to be there for any person to provide a complaint directly to the commissioner’s office.

C. Trevena: So any person, whether they are involved in the industry, involved with the port or not — just anyone who might have had a problem at any stage with the company or for whatever grievance — they can issue a complaint?

Hon. T. Stone: I think the important language here is at the end of the sentence in section 26, and that is: “…contravened a provision of this Act.” The intent here…. Yes, to the member’s question. It is to provide literally any person or company with a conduit to submit a complaint to the commissioner’s office, as long as that complaint involves something that represents a contravention of the provisions of this act.

[1430]

C. Trevena: One last bit for clarification. If somebody was concerned about the reservation system at the port, that wouldn’t be included in here because it’s not included in the act, even though the commissioner would possibly be in discussion with people about that. It has to be specifically the rates and issues that are only enunciated in this act.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, technically speaking, the way the member has just described how this would be applied is correct. An issue with the reservation system or access to the port, the night gate hours — those kinds of things are beyond the jurisdiction of this act.

That being said…. Again, I think in terms of the practical application of this, the commissioner very well may decide that he or she is willing to accept input or concerns about some of these matters. The point is the commissioner will not be authorized to issue an order or to act on any of the complaints if they’re complaints that don’t involve a contravention of the act. But remember that there’s also going to be an industry advisory committee. That will be another conduit through which we do expect issues like the common reservation system and port access and so forth to be raised.

This is an ecosystem. The commissioner’s office and his or her responsibilities are not going to be in isolation from what the port is responsible for. There needs to be a good, smooth-working relationship for this all to work. That is, in part, the thinking behind the industry advisory committee as well.
[ Page 5381 ]

C. Trevena: Just again, an example. For instance, the issuing of licences would be something that could be seen as something that could be going through this complaints process. Once the licences are deemed, the way the commissioner is issuing licences, that would be…. For instance, there’s already concern about the age of trucks. That would not be part of the complaints process. If there is any regulation from the port or the industrial advisory committee about having trucks no older than ten years old, that would not be something that could be complained about through this process.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the examples that the member opposite gave are good examples. The reservation system, port access, the night gates and so forth would not be applicable in this complaints process. However, aspects of anything to do with rates and licensing, the audit system, the whistle-blower program — those pieces would be.

C. Trevena: Going back to a bit of a discussion we had earlier — yesterday, I guess — about how lean this office is going to be and the fact that we’re going to have the one commissioner — she or he may or may not have one or two deputies — and trying to ensure that it is as cost-effective as possible.

Is there the opportunity, if there are complaints…? I know this is trying to resolve disputes by having the commissioner in place so we don’t go, as we have seen in the last decade, three stoppages at the port. Is there the opportunity to ramp up this section — both the work of the commissioner or how a complaints office is seen to be needed?

[1435]

We are about to get on to the whistle-blower clause. That will feed into that. You might get more people willing to come forward, knowing that everything they’re saying will be in confidence.

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, it will be at the discretion of the commissioner to establish procedures and protocols as he or she sees fit in terms of managing a complaints process. Remember that the whistle-blower component will feed directly into this piece as well. If the commissioner determines that additional resources are required or if it needs to be fairly nimble up and down, depending on fluctuations in the level of complaints at certain times of the year and so forth, there certainly will be no limitations placed on the commissioner in terms of what those processes and procedures look like. We will leave that up to the commissioner to determine.

C. Trevena: It may be prejudging what the commissioner is going to determine, but will the complaints process also allow employees to complain about operations of a specific company? Or am I now going into the whistle-blower clause here?

Hon. T. Stone: If the employee’s complaint relates in any way to rates, then yes, the member is absolutely correct: this would be the process. If the issue that the employee has relates to some other facet of their employment, then that would not be applicable here. That would more likely be an employment standards or human rights issue.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

C. Trevena: I’m assuming this is the whistle-blower clause. I’m just wondering, really, the rationale for having this. I mean, there’s a lot of desire to have it. But just from the structure, what is the minister’s rationale for having such a clause? What sort of issues are expected to come through this rather than through the open and, I would say — I mean, it’s important to have whistle-blowers — more transparent process of section 26?

Hon. T. Stone: This section is written as it is because we want to make sure that the safety of truckers is foremost in our minds here. We heard loud and clear from truckers through the weekly steering committee meetings and in other discussions that in some situations, when there is an issue of a company not paying rates to a driver, there has been some hesitation in coming forward for fear of some form of retribution. Truckers have said to us very loudly and very clearly that they expect, they need, for there to be confidentiality wrapped around the complaint if they so choose. The onus will be on the employee to determine whether or not that is the case.

[1440]

C. Trevena: I just wondered if the minister could explain why we have the clause…. It says: “If requested by a complainant, the commissioner must make best efforts to avoid disclosing any identifying information respecting the complainant unless the disclosure is necessary for the purposes of a proceeding under this Part.”

Surely that undermines the idea of having anonymous or protected complaints — the fact that there may be this need to have some form of disclosure. This does seem, if not contrary, a little concerning for the security of the individual who is making the complaint.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the intent here is…. Two very important words, as well, in this section are make “best efforts.” The point here is to make the best effort to avoid disclosing identifying information about a complainant if the complainant so chooses.

However, there are situations that arise where the complaints may be so specific in nature, so surgical in nature, that to not know who the complainant is actually makes it impossible to continue with an investigation, to con-
[ Page 5382 ]
tinue to actually do the due diligence and look into the complaint. So it’s in those kinds of situations.

Furthermore, if there is a follow-up legal action, witnesses can’t be anonymous in subsequent legal action.

Those are the kinds of scenarios that we’d be contemplating. I would point out to the member that the wording of this section is very, very similar to a similar section in the Employment Standards Act which is intended to serve the same purpose.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

C. Trevena: This is a trucker — in all its definitions, I’m assuming — not to be mistreated if they have made a complaint or there’s an inspection or investigation.

I wonder if the minister could explain, particularly if there has been the protection of the whistle-blower clause but generally: how is there going to be any proof of the linkage between the mistreatment of the employee and the complaint or the investigation — to draw that A leads to B leads to C? Usually when there is some retribution, of whatever form, people are slightly more subtle.

I’m wondering how you’d get that direct link here and, again, how this section is going to work.

[1445]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the whistle-blower provisions that are woven through this act are very similar in nature, worded very similar, to provisions in the Employment Standards Act, where the best that you can do is to make your best effort, when a complaint is brought forward, to not disclose the identity of the individual. It does happen, and such an investigation can and has been successful.

That being said, from a practical perspective, some of the time it’s not possible to not disclose the identity of the individual. In those cases and for those cases, we wanted to make absolutely certain — and this is contained in section 28 — that it was made abundantly clear that a trucker must not be mistreated because of the complaint or any related investigation, thus providing truckers in this situation with the same protections that are available to employees through the Employment Standards Act.

C. Trevena: What penalties or sanctions would be imposed if the licensee did contravene this and did threaten a trucker who’d taken a complaint about the work they’re doing, the rates being paid or whatever? What is the sanction here? Is it, again, the penalties over the licence? What would be the level of sanction?

Hon. T. Stone: Very similar to the discussion that we’ve had related to penalties for non-compliance with the licence conditions and so forth. The commissioner can issue an order. The commissioner can then impose administrative fines. The commissioner can suspend and/or revoke a company’s licence.

I would add one additional piece, though, which isn’t applicable in the scenario of a non-compliance licence issue, and that would be if the matter in question was criminal in nature. If it involved harassment or threatening, obviously there’s a criminal dimension to that, and that would be referred to law enforcement.

H. Bains: I think that in a number of places the minister said that the commissioner will decide where the penalties will be. It will be under the regulations. But I’m looking at section 42. If there’s any violation of section 16 or subsection (2), there’s a prescribed penalty right here. Can the minister explain why it was felt necessary to put a dollar amount of penalty for violation of 16 or (2) and not anywhere else?

[1450]

Hon. T. Stone: Maybe if we deal with 42 now, we won’t have to deal with it later. Is that what the member is suggesting?

No, what section 42 deals with is very specific. It deals with an offence under the act: the offence being any person who contravenes section 16 or holds himself or herself out to actually be a licence holder when indeed they’re not. There’s a very specific penalty that we are coding into the legislation for that particular offence.

To the member’s broader question, though, about why be prescriptive here and not on any of the other fines as they relate to non-compliance with rates or non-compliance with licence conditions, the simple answer is this. We believe that there needs to be maximum flexibility there.

The circumstances will be very different in an issue of non-compliance with rates. The amount that a particular licence holder may be found to be in non-compliance will vary greatly from one situation to another, and therefore, one fine that the commissioner decides is appropriate in a situation A may be very different than the level of fine that the commissioner decides is appropriate for situation B.

Again, that will all be…. The issue of penalties ranging from administrative fines, the potential for suspension and revocation of licences…. Also the ability to go after or dip into the bonds — that’s an important piece of this discussion as well. An important part of the condition of licence will be potentially a $300,000 bond or security that will be attached to the licence that will also be there as added security as well.

We want to make sure that there’s flexibility there for the commissioner to act commensurate with the specific circumstances of each unique case.
[ Page 5383 ]

H. Bains: I think one of the deterrents to the licensee is…. If there are too many complaints like this and there seems to be a record of a licensee in violation numerous times, will that be one of the factors used when the licences are renewed?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, absolutely. If there are complaints respecting a licence holder related to rates or anything else, for that matter, the commissioner will have the authority to consider that reality in the context of the decision as to whether or not to renew that particular licence.

H. Bains: I think on one hand it does look a deterrence, and it could work as a deterrence, but on the other hand the victims of a violation of any part of this act could be re-victimized if that company’s licence isn’t renewed. And what happens to those truckers? Is there a mechanism…? Is there thought put into having to accommodate those truckers whose company may not get their licence renewed because they have a history of violation of these acts?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, this is where it will be so important for the commissioner to address each and every case as the unique case that it is. The circumstances will vary from one situation to the next.

[1455]

I would suggest that the commissioner, in exercising their judgment on this, will look at the facts of the particular case and determine which penalty is most appropriate. What we would also expect to see is that there would likely, in most cases, be an escalation of penalties based on non-compliance.

Likely, in most cases, the non-compliance would start with an order to pay an administrative fine. Well, first to remedy the situation, and if not, then pay an administrative fine. That could then be escalated from there to some of the other measures that we’ve talked about.

Fundamentally, the member poses a question that I think really cuts back to market forces here. If a company, because of inappropriate actions of that company, is no longer able to continue to conduct its business as a drayage trucking company, then the drivers that work for or that are affiliated with that company presumably, based on market conditions, would be picked up or would have the opportunity to associate themselves with other companies in the drayage sector.

H. Bains: I think that’s much easier said than done. Every licensee is given a licence, and the licence will stipulate how many trucks they have. You can’t simply leave one company and go to another one just because you feel that the other company treats their employees better. That may or may not be the option available to them. But I think that at the end of the day, if the company is…. I mean, you will find some bad actors out there. We’ve seen it now. You will find them in the future.

Right now you have options provided to the commissioner through this act on how to enforce the act. A company could very well be depleted of the security that they have deposited and other deposits that they’ve made. But at the end of one year or two years, when the licences are renewed and…. Because the commissioner doesn’t want to continue with the headache of that particular company, decides that this company’s licence should not be renewed….

My question is…. It’s not the trucker’s fault; it’s not the employee’s fault. Is there a mechanism anticipated in here that the commissioner will look into having those truckers re-employed? If the commissioner would advertise for a new company to come in, will they get the first preference?

Hon. T. Stone: It is an important point, to the member’s question, that at any point existing companies can apply to have their licence amended to add more trucks. It would be at the discretion of the commissioner if he or she chooses to publish that or advertise that there may be some capacity that needs to be filled from a drayage perspective.

Again, I come back to…. I know that nothing is guaranteed in life, but I will put my faith more in the market forces here to determine exactly how many trucks are needed. Those companies which are reputable and that pay their drivers as per the rates, that are well-capitalized, that are professionalized companies — those companies are not going to have any issues.

Companies that mistreat their workers, that fail to pay their workers, that harass or threaten their workers because legitimate complaints were brought forward — those companies will be investigated, and the commissioner will apply the necessary penalties.

There is a reconsideration process in this legislation, as well, for companies or licensees to embrace if they feel that an order of the commissioner was inappropriate. But again, I will put my faith in the market to determine exactly how many trucks are required.

[1500]

I believe that those companies that are well-capitalized and professional and that treat their workers fairly, compensate them appropriately, will be just fine on a go-forward basis.

H. Bains: Fair enough. I agree with the minister. You can’t answer all of the questions and eventualities. I get that. But I think we, as the legislators, have to think it through — how decisions that we make today will start a reaction chain right after that.

I think the question is not about the market forces. You have 150 companies with contracts with different shipping companies. They have their work. If they expand their work, of course the drivers will have an option to go and apply there.
[ Page 5384 ]

I’m talking about this particular company who is a bad actor. They have a contract with certain shipping companies, and others can’t simply pick up that work. They have to apply if they feel that their work is being expanded. They apply for the licence to be readjusted. I’m talking about this particular company.

There will be underlying threat. The minister talked about it earlier. There will be always an underlying threat for their employees and their truckers — of that particular company I’m talking about — that their jobs are on the line: “If we complain too much, this company may not get the licence renewed because of our complaints.”

But if they know that their jobs will be secured — even if this company does not get their licence renewed because of their bad actions — then there is a mechanism for them to be adjusted with all of the companies by amending their licences, or a new company coming in where the commission will require that these truckers will have the first choice to be hired by a new company to replace this company.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes. The member has outlined a number of scenarios. A new company could apply for a licence. An existing company could apply to add some trucks to their existing licence. Another scenario, though, is an existing company could decide that they have the trucks; they just need to add a couple more drivers. Maybe they add a few more shifts on, and they’re able to take on that added capacity.

The point, again, in my mind, though, is that those companies that don’t pay the rates they’re supposed to pay, that don’t meet the conditions of the licence, that are not well-capitalized, that are not professionalized, that mistreat their workers in whatever fashion that looks like will find it very difficult to operate in this new environment.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

H. Bains: I think it talked about a “Commissioner to pursue complaints,” but “The commissioner may refuse to accept or review a complaint or may stop or postpone….” Just a question to clarify section (2)(d) and (c). The commissioner may refuse to accept under the following situations. One of them, (d), is: “a proceeding relating to the subject matter of the complaint has been commenced before a court, a tribunal, an arbitrator or a mediator.” Then (e) talks about: “a court, a tribunal or an arbitrator has made a decision….”

I thought earlier we said the entire jurisdiction arising out of the matter of this bill…. The commissioner has the entire jurisdiction. How could anyone…? What would be the situation where (d) and (e) could be a possibility?

Hon. T. Stone: I think the key words here are in sub (2), and that’s the use of the word “may” in a couple of spots. “The commissioner may refuse…or may stop or postpone….”

[1505]

That’s important, because again, the discretion is there for the commissioner to determine whether or not he or she is going to look into or follow up on any particular complaint. What the section does, in (c) and (d) in particular, is basically provide somewhat of a framework, a lens through which the commissioner can look at complaints and make a determination as to whether or not the complaint will be investigated.

H. Bains: But my question was: what would be the circumstances where he or she, the commissioner, may have to make a decision under (d) and (e)? We are talking about the “subject matter of the complaint has been commenced before the court.” But if the commissioner has the powers, the entire jurisdiction — no one else has jurisdiction under the matters arising out of this bill — then what would be the circumstances where it could be before a court or tribunal?

Hon. T. Stone: I’ll give the member one example that pertains to sub (d). If there was a collective agreement issue that was going to mediation and if all parties had determined that they were going to mediation, the commissioner, through sub (d), could determine that he or she is not going to follow up on that particular complaint because it’s already being dealt with through the mediation process.

H. Bains: What will be the situation with matters before the courts?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, if there was a matter before the court…. There are all kinds of different types of examples, I suppose. Any particular matter…. Say that a driver had had an issue that already was at court and was well through court or had already gone through court. This provides the commissioner with the flexibility to choose not to pursue an investigation of that complaint because to do so would effectively represent a parallel process. The process would already be underway in that court proceeding.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

C. Trevena: My question on section 30. “The commissioner may enter into an information-sharing agreement with the director or a person or entity approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” I wondered if the minister could give some examples, with the agreements, of what entities the commissioner might enter into an agreement with.
[ Page 5385 ]

[1510]

Hon. T. Stone: A couple of examples that fall under subsection 30(2).

One would be the director or an official with the employment standards branch obviously wanting to have the ability to share information back and forth as required. Another example would be if the commissioner were to terminate a licence. That information would have to be shared with the port to ensure that no further port access was provided to that former licence holder.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

C. Trevena: The audit is something that was recommended in the Bell-Ready report and, clearly, is going to be quite welcome.

My question here…. If I might just cover 31 and 32 in one set of questions, because it’s generally about the audit and not the specific details of the audit.

Audits are a very thorough process. We’ve seen an inclination to go more for inspections rather than audits. I’m wondering: what resources would be provided to the commissioner’s office to conduct audits, and how many audits are expected to be faced in any one year?

Hon. T. Stone: There will be two types of audits. There will be audits driven as a result of complaints. The other type of audit, which is really important as well, is the random audit. We wanted to ensure — and we cover that off through this section here, through section 31 — that the commissioner has the authority to conduct an audit, whether it’s in response to a complaint or on a random basis. That is important.

In terms of the budget for this, all those details are being worked on within the context of the overall budget allocation that we think is going to be required for the overall office of the commissioner. We do expect to continue similar contracting-type relationships that we currently have with auditors. We would expect those types of relationships to carry forward and continue once the commissioner’s office is established.

As I said yesterday, I believe, there will be a specific appropriation that will address the overall expenditure, the authorized expenditure for the office. And the office is expected to pay for itself based on licence fees that will be coming to the province.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. He answered one of my subsequent questions about who is going to be carrying out the audit.

[1515]

There is, then, the potential of the audits being limited by financial resources — the number of audits and/or the scope of the audits. I’m wondering how important this is seen as part of the legislation, point 1. I’m aware that we’re running close to when we want to finish the discussion, I suppose, so my second question is: will the audits be about all aspects of the trucking company’s business or the licensee’s business or only those parts that relate to the commissioner’s powers?

I mean, the commissioner has the power over licensing and setting the rates. Will the audit be narrowly focused on what is included under the commissioner’s power, or will it be a complete audit of the licensee?

Hon. T. Stone: The commissioner will only be able to conduct audits that are specifically related to matters with the act, any of the regulations — the rate regulations and other regulations that we’ve spent considerable time discussing today — as well as the licence and, in particular, the conditions of the licence. The commissioner will not have audit authority on any matters not pertaining to the act, the related regulations and the licence.

C. Trevena: On a potential hypothetical, will the commissioner in the audit have the ability to look at the issue of the age of the trucks in the fleet, the requirements that are set by the port on that? Will he have the ability to oversee any other things where the company may have some concerns, where there may have been issues raised by the port over any area? Or is it literally, as the minister says, that we’re talking rates, fees, licences, and that is essentially it?

Hon. T. Stone: The commissioner will be empowered to audit any of the conditions of the licence, any of the compliance relating to the regulations and anything specifically detailed within this act, and nothing else.

Sections 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

On section 34.

C. Trevena: On the penalties section, this goes a little bit to what my colleague was asking about earlier. The penalty — is it limited to the one-year suspension of a licence? How long can the licence be suspended for, and in what increments up to (b), where it is the cancellation of the licence?

Hon. T. Stone: Subsection 34(6)(a) specifically details that the suspension of a licence can be applicable for up to a period of one year. At that point, essentially, you’ve gone through the calendar cycle.

The commissioner would then have a decision to make if that licence holder determined that they wanted to reapply for their licence. Then the commissioner would look at the past behaviour of that company, presumably, and would make a determination at that point.
[ Page 5386 ]

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

[1520]

C. Trevena: Just a very quick question to the minister, and I apologize if we’ve had this discussion before. Who actually sets these fines, the administrative fines?

Hon. T. Stone: Through rate regulation, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will determine the maximum level for fines, for all types of fines. The commissioner will then have the authority to issue an order and impose a fine, so long as said fine is not higher than the overall maximum that is permitted in the regulation.

Sections 35 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to get some clarification on section 39. In reading through it — I think it’s in 39(3) — I might be wrong, but it looks to me like if you’ve got a reconsideration of the commissioner’s decision, that reconsideration is only being done by the commissioner. It doesn’t seem to be anywhere in 36, 37, 38, 39 any third party involved in the reconsideration.

So a complaint goes to the commissioner. The commissioner rules against the complainant or rules there is no complaint. There is a request for reconsideration, and it’s the commissioner reconsidering his own previous decision.

I’m wondering if I’m correct and, if I am correct, how that is going to work. It seems a bit incestuous, really. There’s no arm’s-length approach, and one of the things is to have an arm’s-length approach with this commissioner’s office.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, the member is correct. That is what is provided for in the act here. The commissioner will be responsible for reconsidering orders that the commissioner has made.

Essentially, this involves a presumption that this statutory tribune, if we can call it that, is going to act in good faith and act according to the facts in the case. If any of the facts have changed from the time that the initial order was brought down, obviously that will form a critical part of the reconsideration. This model is very common throughout many different tribunals and similar-type organizations across government.

[1525]

C. Trevena: I was just concerned — because there has been so much contention to get us to this stage, to have the commissioner’s office, to try and have that sort of arm’s-length third party to mediate and work through a number of the problems — that when you get to the real crux and you get a licensee, if it’s a big licensee losing the licence and they’re appealing, they’re going back to the same person who has said, “No, you’re not going to have your licence,” for whatever reason.

It may be common practice, but is there any concern that this will not make it a little more divisive?

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, I would always be concerned that any such process is fair and reasonable and transparent and accountable. But I come back to my previous response. We are certainly relying upon the commissioner to do his or her due diligence in these situations and to act in good faith based on the facts that are at hand.

Sections 39 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 44.

Hon. T. Stone: Is this an appropriate time to move an amendment? I’m just going to move an amendment to section 44(2)….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, it’s in the orders of the day already — the amendment. You can read it.

Carry on, Minister.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that section 44(2)(j) be amended by deleting the text shown as struck out in orders of the day and adding the underlined text as shown.

[SECTION 44 (2) (j), by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

(j) respecting security required under section 20, including, without limitation, prescribing

(i) the maximum amount of securityminimum or maximum amount of security, or both, that may be required,

(ii) the forms of security that may be provided, and

(iii) the circumstances under which security may be realized; .]

Amendment approved.

On section 44 as amended.

C. Trevena: It was actually one of my questions. It seemed to be, again, an indication that maybe this had been pulled together in a little bit of haste in the desire to get it up and running very quickly.

Also, in the desire to get things up and running somewhat quickly, there is…. I’ve been referring to this a lot, both in my second reading speech and as we’ve been going through this. This section 44 is handing over quite a lot of authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Under section 16 it’s prescribing a lot of errors. It prescribes the requirements. It’s setting amounts of securities that have got to be paid, how it’s going to be paid.
[ Page 5387 ]

One of my questions about this is…. We’ve had the discussion about how independent the commissioner is going to be. How much of these regulations will stand when the commissioner is working? We’ve already had the minister talking about, when the commissioner is starting to change the rates, that some of these will be rescinded. So I just really wanted to know sort of how much the regulations from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will be controlling the operation of the commissioner and how much will be rescinded at a certain stage.

[1530]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, at a high level here, we don’t expect many of the regulations to change. Once they’re brought in, they will be set. There will be a few notable exceptions to that. Most notably, the rates regulation will at some point need to be amended — and likewise the regulation that deals with the geographic areas and the specific to-and-from locations and so forth. Those pieces, as a matter of practicality and consistency, will likely need to be changed over time. But broadly speaking, most of the regulations that will be forthcoming will be set.

Section 44 as amended approved.

Section 45 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Stone: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 5 — CONTAINER TRUCKING ACT

Bill 5, Container Trucking Act, reported complete with amendment.

Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. T. Stone: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — CONTAINER TRUCKING ACT

Bill 5, Container Trucking Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 8, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2014

Hon. M. Polak: I’m pleased to rise and move second reading of Bill 8.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This bill modifies the boundary of Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park. If approved, the amendment would remove 63.5 hectares of land from the park for the construction and operation of a natural gas transmission line by Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Ltd., should it be approved through the regulatory processes and the park description in the Nisga’a treaty is amended.

This pipeline would supply natural gas to the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG plant in Port Edward. These projects are key parts of the development of the natural gas export industry in British Columbia. The proposed pipeline cannot be authorized in the park under the Park Act. If the project is to proceed along the proposed route, the land must be removed from the park by this amendment.

In addition, Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park is collaboratively managed by the province of B.C. and the Nisga’a Lisims Government. Under the terms of the Nisga’a final agreement, the consent of the Nisga’a government is required in order to modify the boundaries of the park, and the description in the Nisga’a treaty must be amended. The Nisga’a Lisims Government passed a resolution in their legislature on October 29 supporting this modification to the park’s boundaries.

[1535]

The route selected through the park is adjacent to the existing corridor for Highway 113 for most of its length. Making use of the highway corridor reduces the amount of new land disturbance resulting from the construction of the project and reduces the impacts of the project on the park’s environment.

This amendment will be brought into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The amendment will be only be brought into force if the proposed pipeline receives the other regulatory approvals, including an environmental assessment certificate that it requires to proceed, and the description of the park in the Nisga’a treaty is amended. B.C. would then consider the treaty amendment by means of a resolution of this House, likely in the spring of 2015.

This amendment is an important step towards meeting government’s objectives for the development of a nat-
[ Page 5388 ]
ural gas export industry in British Columbia, and I look forward to hearing the comments and discussion in the House this afternoon.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

R. Austin: It’s my privilege to stand up and rise to speak to second reading of Bill 8, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. I’d like to thank the minister for her quick overview of what this act is all about. Her overview was short, in part because it is a very short bill — just two sections, one of which is a text, a written description of all of the coordinates of this pipeline that’s going to go through Nisga’a territory.

This piece of legislation, as the minister has already alluded to, is very similar to another piece of legislation that we passed — another amendment to the Lava Bed Park that we made in previous sessions in relation to the B.C. Hydro transmission line that was extended and went through a part of the Lava Bed Park. Here again we are seeing a piece of legislation that is brought into this House largely as a result of the Nisga’a treaty, as the hon. minister mentioned.

The Nisga’a spent a total of 113 years arguing and fighting for the day when they would have the ability to make decisions on their own land. The highway which is referred to as 113 was given that number by them as a result of the 113-year fight for their rights. What we are seeing here today is this Legislature being asked to approve something that they themselves have negotiated with the proponent for this pipeline.

If you go and look at the original pipeline route that was brought forward at the outset of these negotiations, you’ll notice that there is quite a lot of change that’s been made. That’s largely in part because of consultations with the Gitxsan, first of all, and then, of course, not just consultations but, I would regard, negotiations that happened with the Nisga’a Lisims Government and the British Columbia government via the Ministry of Environment in terms of finding the best route that would reduce the amount of damage and collateral damage that comes from any time when you build a pipeline.

The Nisga’a for the longest time did not have their own treaty, and they were dependent on money that came from the federal government to be dispensed for health care and education and upholding cultural traditions. But they wanted more. On the day when this Legislature passed the Nisga’a treaty, they then had the ability to decide what happens on Nisga’a territory, on Nisga’a land. That means making their own decisions, particularly those that have an economic impact on the Nisga’a.

They have, since the Nisga’a treaty, made an agreement, which I have already alluded to, with B.C. Hydro. That gave them a benefit. I believe $30 million up front was the signing agreement when they decided to allow the western route for the extension of the northwest transmission line to come through Nisga’a territory.

They have since made another agreement with Avanti Mining, which wants to bring back the mine at Kitsault. Here, again, we see that the Nisga’a are making another decision on their own to help facilitate a pipeline that would go through their territory and onto Lelu Island.

[1540]

These are, I think it’s fair to say, always difficult decisions. There’s never unanimity on any of these issues. But the important thing is that the Nisga’a have decided that the benefits come against the costs, both to the environment and to the social impact.

They certainly don’t give us any details as to the benefit impact agreement they have signed with the proponent, but they’ve said this, and I’m going to read from this. “The Nisga’a say the agreement includes ‘substantial financial and other benefits that will accrue to the Nisga’a Nation,’ including direct financial benefits, further capacity funding, milestone payments, annual right-of-way payments and additional payments ‘made on the basis of shared future success’ for both the company and the Nisga’a.”

I think all of us in this Legislature should feel proud, because that’s what having a treaty is all about — sitting down and making decisions on their own that will benefit their people.

One of the things that isn’t mentioned in that little quote is that this pipeline, if it ever takes place and actually comes to fruition, will allow the Nisga’a to take some of that gas off and use it in their own communities, something that’s of huge benefit to them.

Also, I think, not mentioned, but it’s no secret, is that the Nisga’a have themselves gone to Asia, particularly to Korea, and have been promoting potential sites for an LNG plant on their territory. So who knows? If the Petronas project does not come to fruition, maybe the Nisga’a would be able to take advantage of this proponent and this pipeline route to further their own ends in making sure that there’s a different LNG plant on their own territory.

Now, I think, again, that pipelines do sort of bring up a lot of debate. Certainly, we’ve seen a huge amount of polarization in the province of British Columbia with regards to the Enbridge pipeline and to the pipeline that’s going down to Burnaby. But I think it’s fair to say that when it’s a gas pipeline, it certainly doesn’t have the same kind of furor that a heavy oil or bitumen pipeline has.

I think that while there hasn’t been unanimity within the Nisga’a, certainly their voices have been heard. There has been, in fact, an agreement passed in the legislature in New Aiyansh. So the Nisga’a have had their own debate on this, and they have asked for this to be passed.

I think it’s very important for all of us here to recognize that we are not here discussing the pipeline route, nor are we discussing whether this is a good thing to have. What
[ Page 5389 ]
we are doing here is recognizing that the Nisga’a have made that decision. They have done their own consultation and have decided this is to their benefit.

Over the weekend, I had an interesting conversation with a member of the Nisga’a, someone whose opinion I respect highly. He’s an elder. His father was involved in politics in the Nisga’a Tribal Council. He has followed the debate and everything that’s happened since we have had the Nisga’a treaty. He was chatting with me about this, and I was saying: “So what do you think about the people who are not very happy about this?”

I’m going to share this with the Legislature so they understand this. He made the point that many, many years ago…. I was trying to find, when I was researching, exactly when the road through Nisga’a territory was built, but I happen to know that it was certainly built before 1887, because that’s when the Nisga’a travelled down to Victoria to begin talks on what became the Nisga’a treaty.

He made the point that at that time there was no discussion. No one asked the Nisga’a whether they could take a road and drive it through the Memorial Lava Bed Park. It was just done. Those were those days. We didn’t sit and worry about what First Nations wanted. If we thought it was a good thing, we did it. That’s what occurred.

In this instance, it is the Nisga’a themselves who’ve had to have that debate as to where this pipeline goes. Just so people who are listening understand what’s happening here, the pipeline route in total that’s going through Nisga’a territory is 85 kilometres. Of that which runs through the Nisga’a lands, approximately 12 kilometres will run through the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park, and that will have a right-of-way that’s approximately 32 metres wide. Of course, the right-of-way through the park, as the minister has already noted, will essentially follow the road that has already been there for a number of years.

I think that they have chosen a route and that they have negotiated a route that causes the least amount of disruption within their lands. Obviously, they see huge potential benefits coming as a result of this.

[1545]

I think it’s fair to say that our role here is to fulfil our legal obligations, our duty in terms of the Nisga’a treaty. There is a clause in the Nisga’a treaty that stipulates that the park is jointly managed by the province and by the Nisga’a themselves. What we are doing here today is fulfilling that legal obligation.

Certainly, that being said, I think all of us here — I hope all of us here — will be supporting this, because to not support it would be to be denying the rights of a treaty once we have already signed that treaty and given it to the Nisga’a.

I will sit down and allow others to pass their comments in regards to this bill.

M. Morris: It was very gratifying to hear the member opposite supporting our LNG and our pipeline projects that we’ve been striving so hard to accomplish here in British Columbia.

I lived up in the Nass Valley back in the 1980s and got to know the people of the Nass Valley very well. Gitlaxt’aamiks and Gitwinksihlkw and Laxgalts’ap — they’re places that these people have lived. The Nisga’a people have lived there since time immemorial, they stated back in those days when I was there, long before the recorded history of man. They have a strong attachment to the Nass Valley.

Approximately 250 years ago, or more now, we had the volcano erupt in the Nass Valley that caused the deaths of 2,000 inhabitants of the Nass Valley at that particular time. It destroyed two villages of the Nisga’a people. So the ground is sacred to them. They hold it very near and dear to their hearts.

They have a process in place now since the Nisga’a treaty was signed and ratified in 2000 that any changes to the land must be agreed to by the majority of the citizens within the Nass Valley. They’ve got a very comprehensive process in place for doing that. They’ve got the Nass Area Strategy Working Group that they developed in order to discuss any of the major changes that resource development or tourism…. Anything that is going to disturb the natural beauty of the land is discussed with this group and other groups and is brought before the Legislative Assembly of the Nisga’a Lisims Government to ensure that it meets their common needs.

They work under the common-bowl concept in the Nass Valley with the Nisga’a, where everybody is involved in it, and everybody has access to the resources and the natural beauty of the land there.

I’m very comforted by the rigour and the regime that they have in place to ensure the development of the natural resources — that this pipeline route has been adequately reviewed by experts to ensure that any risk to the community and to the Nass Valley has been mitigated to the extent possible.

Again, we are recognizing that the Nisga’a have signed this treaty. This is what they want to have done there, and I think it’s the duty of this House to help support the decision and the direction that they’ve taken in the Nass to have this pipeline built and to look at future possible economic benefits from this pipeline and other benefits that might accrue associated to resource development in the Nass Valley.

I’m not going to say more than that. I support this bill 100 percent, as does the member opposite that I just heard. I think we should move this forward as quickly as possible.

S. Fraser: I’m very pleased to take my part in the debate in second reading of Bill 8, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, a very small bill, as
[ Page 5390 ]
has been mentioned already by the speakers before me. Actually, the bulk of the four pages of the bill are coordinates, latitude-longitude coordinates, and areas that designate parts of the park that would be affected.

[1550]

Small bill though it may be, this is a piece of governance and nationhood. I think we should take it in that context. I believe it is being agreed to by all parties, both sides of the House that have spoken so far, that that is what this is about.

The bill contains amendments to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act to remove approximately 63.5 hectares of land from Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park to enable the construction of the proposed Prince Rupert gas transmission pipeline, which is proposed to transport natural gas from near Hudson’s Hope, B.C., to the proposed Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas export facility. That’s the nature of the bill.

It’s been mentioned already before. Under the terms of the Nisga’a final agreement treaty, the consent of the Nisga’a Nation is required to modify the boundaries of Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park, and the description in the Nisga’a treaty must be amended. The Nisga’a Lisims Government passed a resolution in their legislature on October 29, 2014, consenting to this modification to the park’s boundaries upon the granting of an environmental assessment certificate.

This amendment to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act is required because the Lava Bed Park is jointly managed by the province and the Nisga’a.

I would also like to follow up on the previous speaker, from Prince George–Mackenzie. Certainly, in the late 1800s, when much of the Nisga’a territory was declared Crown land, the Nisga’a people began petitioning government to recognize their connection to the territory. It was 1998 that a signing ceremony signalled the completion of what amounted to a quarter of a century of negotiations and the birth of the Nisga’a final agreement, the first modern-day treaty in this province. It was a proud day for all British Columbians.

There was controversy in this House. The government…. We were on other sides here. We’ve come a long way since that controversy. I think all recognize the importance of nationhood. For a First Nation to get out from under the yoke of the Indian Act and take their place as a nation in this province is a powerful, powerful thing.

I’d just like to read a little bit here. I’m going to try the Nisga’a term here. I know I’ll probably get it wrong, and I’ll hear about it. I’ll try to read it phonetically here. Wil Ksi Baxhl Mihl, which is literally, if I said it right — I might have said something wrong — “Where the Fire Comes Out.”

“Long ago two children were playing down by the river. One child caught a salmon and slit open its back. The child stuck sticks into the salmon’s back, set them on fire and returned the fish to the river. The children were amused to see the salmon swim erratically, smoke rising from its back.

“The other child caught a salmon and slit open its back, inserted a piece of shale and put it back in the river. The salmon floated on its side, weighed down by the shale. The children laughed at the struggling fish.

“An elder happened upon the scene and warned the children. ‘Take care what you do. The salmon will curse you, and the Creator will respond in kind.’ The ground began to tremble and shake. Nature’s harmony had been upset.

“A scout was sent to investigate. From the top of Gennu’axwt he saw smoke and flames and ran to warn the people of their fiery destiny. In panic, some of the villagers fled up the mountain. Others canoed to the far side of the river but were killed by the lava.

“As the people watched the lava flow over their villages, a powerful supernatural being suddenly emerged to block the lava’s advance. For days, Gwaxts’agat fought back the lava by blowing on it with its great nose. Finally, the lava cooled, and the powerful supernatural being retreated into the mountain, where it remains to this day.”

That is from traditional oral history of the Nisga’a. It reflects the oral history and the depiction of the Lava Bed Park. That was from centuries ago, but it’s interesting how time does a circuit.

[1555]

Here we are now in this House passing a bill for and by the Nisga’a, in partnership with the province, to allow the Nisga’a to exert a form of nationhood as a nation treaty in this province.

I’m proud to take my part in this debate. I will also, if you haven’t noticed, be supporting Bill 8.

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I am honoured to speak to Bill 8, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. It is an honour to speak in favour of this legislation because it is one of two bills that mark a major milestone for the Nisga’a Nation.

Bill 8, when coupled with its companion legislation Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, both represent a coordinated effort between the government of British Columbia and the Nisga’a Nation to provide a prosperous future for everyone. Combined, these acts will enable the Nisga’a Nation to become a major participant in the emerging LNG gas economy in northern British Columbia.

Bill 7 will establish the Nisga’a Nation as the primary property taxation authority over Nisga’a lands. It will allow the Nisga’a government to levy and collect property tax from people other than Nisga’a citizens, including companies that operate industrial installations such as LNG pipelines and supporting infrastructure.

Consequently, Bill 8 is an initial step towards a proposed LNG project that will require modification of the boundaries of Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park.

I should emphasize here that the introduction of this legislation follows extensive discussions between the government and the Nisga’a Nation. The two parties jointly manage Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park, and any alteration to the park’s boundaries requires the consent of the Nisga’a Nation. I should also emphasize that B.C.’s pro-
[ Page 5391 ]
tected areas have a very high level of protection, and any decisions to make boundary adjustments are not taken lightly.

It should be noted that British Columbia’s system of provincial parks and protected areas comprises over 14 million hectares. In fact, British Columbia has the highest percentage of its land base dedicated to protected areas of all provincial Canadian jurisdictions. Furthermore, it is one of the largest protected area systems in North America. There are over 1,000 provincial parks, recreation areas, conservancies, ecological reserves and protected areas in B.C. This covers approximately 15 percent of the provincial land base.

Any alterations to these lands will always trigger a rigorous review process. In this instance, six conceptual routes were considered during the initial stages. Three routes were considered that avoided the park, but in the end the preferred route has fewer watercourse crossings and avoids specific cultural sites.

The Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Provincial Park covers almost 180,000 square kilometres. It was the first park in B.C. to be jointly managed between the provincial government and a First Nation. It is also believed to be the site of Canada’s most recent volcanic eruption, a geological disaster that destroyed two villages and killed an estimated 2,000 Nisga’a people.

As you can imagine, this is a significant site to the Nisga’a people, and any proposed alteration should be minimal in its impact on the land.

After extensive consultation, Bill 8 will permit the removal of 64 hectares of land from the park and enable the construction of the proposed Prince Rupert natural gas transmission line. This pipeline will transport natural gas from Hudson’s Hope to the proposed Pacific NorthWest liquefied natural gas export facility on Lelu Island in the district of Port Edward. This project is expected to generate 42,000 person-years of employment during the three-year construction period and its projected 30-year operation period.

Once construction is complete, the pipeline will be buried for its entire length through the park and will not be visible from the surface. This project is designed to avoid the most intensively used parts of the park, such as the campground and the visitor centre. The proposed route traverses the park for 12 kilometres approximately, following Highway 113 for most of its length through the park. By following the highway the proposed route will reduce the amount of land disturbance resulting from construction and reduce impacts on the environment.

Naturally, the Minister of Environment has affirmed that the proposed pipeline must receive all regulatory approvals, including the environmental assessment certificate, before it can proceed.

In conclusion, I am satisfied by the process that has led to these two important pieces of legislation. They will assist the Nisga’a Nation participating in the emerging LNG economy on terms that are acceptable to the Nisga’a.

[1600]

If I may quote Mitchell Stevens, the president of the Nisga’a government: “Allowing the modification of protected land is never easy, but it strikes a balance between respecting our treaty rights and encouraging economic development for Nisga’a citizens.”

I am proud of the fact that this government is establishing a new era of cooperation between the provincial government and First Nations. This legislation proves that economic growth and environmental stewardship can exist in British Columbia, and we are working to achieve the right balance. While that balance is never easy to arrive at, we are setting a standard not only for other provinces to follow but other jurisdictions around the world. For that reason, I am honoured to support this legislation.

D. Donaldson: I am pleased to take my position today to respond in second reading to Bill 8, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act. In this second reading we get to generally comment on the act. I’m really happy to do that, because I do have a number of questions. I hope the minister is able to answer these questions in her responses, or even further down the line when we go through the committee stage.

I note that we’re talking about a class A park, the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park. I’ve visited the park. It’s an amazing geographic formation. I know other members have visited it as well. I’ve camped in close proximity to it. It’s also of major significance to the Nisga’a people, for reasons cited by colleagues on both sides of the House previous to my comments — not only for the number of people, ancestors of the Nisga’a, who are buried under the lava flow but for many other cultural reasons.

It’s a significant topic to be talking about, the plans for the park that are presented in this bill. I acknowledge that the Nisga’a Lisims Government were very much part of this process that the bill has resulted in. In fact, as my colleagues mentioned before, they addressed this bill in October and passed it in their governance structure as well.

I’m curious, and I hope the minister will address this in connection to the bill, which appears to remove a number of hectares — I believe it’s a strip of 35 metres wide by 12 kilometres long — from the park. If the intended use of this corridor does not come to fruition…. There are still a lot of questions about the potential developments in the LNG sector, so if the intended use, which is for a natural gas pipeline, does not come to fruition, then I have questions about what then happens.

Is this strip of land, strip of lava, forever removed from the park? Can it be used for other purposes other than the pipeline? Those kinds of questions aren’t addressed in the bill, but I’m sure the minister has an opinion on that and can illuminate this Legislature, and myself, as well, on that.
[ Page 5392 ]

As my colleague from Skeena pointed out, the area we’re talking about is 12 kilometres long by 35 metres wide, along the Nisga’a Highway but in the park and on the lava, and the lava will obviously be significantly impacted by that.

I think of another area that was developed in a linear fashion similar to this but for a different industrial use. That was the strip of land just south of Iskut that was developed for the electrification of the Red Chris mine project, developed by Imperial Metals in order to connect with the northern transmission line. I believe it was about a 135-kilometre hydro right-of-way for the transmission line to connect.

[1605]

I was up there recently this summer looking at that project that Imperial Metals is attempting to finish in order to connect with their proposed mine. Locals and Tahltan people told me that the actual clearing was much bigger than they envisioned, and some said it was much bigger than what was in the permit for clearing. Of course, the trees are gone now, and it’s a vast stretch, a swath of clearing for the transmission lines.

I would also be interested in knowing from the minister who will be providing oversight, a legislative oversight, around surveillance and continual monitoring about whether the 35-metre strip is actually being adhered to. Obviously, once you destroy the lava, if you go over that 35-metre strip, there’s no going back. So I’d be interested in knowing who is the legislated oversight body for that kind of surveillance, that kind of monitoring.

Finally, the Prince Rupert gas transmission project were the proponents in this case. They provided information about their project and about the route, the potential pipeline route, the proposed pipeline route for natural gas, and obviously, provided information about the 12 kilometres through the class A park.

I’m hoping the minister can help again with this process. My understanding is that this information provided by the Prince Rupert gas transmission would be provided to the ministry, the different options that Prince Rupert gas transmission project considered, and then the options were whittled down or narrowed down or at least analyzed by staff within her ministry. You know, there are many experts within the minister’s ministry, and we depend on that expertise to come up with recommendations around the options.

From my understanding, there’s always a decision note that goes to the minister from senior staff, the good scientists that we have working in the Ministry of Environment. I’d be interested in knowing from the minister which of the options was recommended to her in the decision note from her staff in regards to this project. I think that’s just part of transparency, especially when it comes to a class A park. It also would be of interest to many people who live in the northwest and the Nisga’a as well.

Those are my comments in second reading of this bill, and I’m happy to take my place once again.

D. Barnett: I’m honoured to stand in this House today to support this Bill 8, entitled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014.

We’ve come a long way over the years, working with our First Nations communities. Working with the Nisga’a, I believe, has been an experience that we have enjoyed — appreciated each other’s dialogue and respect. As I listen to my colleagues, who are all supporting this initiative, I know that we can move forward every day that we continue to work together to support all British Columbians together. This country was built on resource revenues. This country was built on respect for each other, and we must continue to move forward in that vein.

As I listened to my colleague across the floor here, the speaker before me, with his concerns, I know that our minister, the industry and the Nisga’a will have an agreement that satisfies all and will be monitored to the highest standard. We all know that if we do not monitor our projects, if we do not agree on our projects and if we do not do what we say in all of our projects, we will create problems that we don’t need and none of us want.

[1610]

All of us want the same things: to look after our children, our land, our families and our province, to respect each other and to learn from each other, and to learn from history and not repeat.

When we go and talk about the impacts to the lava bed, it is my understanding that the key impacts to the park involve the disturbance of the lava bed within a 50-metre corridor for 12.1 kilometres through the park. This would include the evacuation of a trench. Within this corridor the lava and associated lichens will be disturbed, and the disturbance will change the texture of the lava and disturb the lichens and will also create some change to the visual experience for park users travelling the highway.

For recreation, there will be some impacts. The project is designed to avoid the most intensely used parts of the park, such as the campground and the visitors centre. I appreciate my colleague from Skeena who I know has spent much time in this area, and I trust what he has said. I trust what my other colleagues who know the area have said and how the impacts will be there.

But I know once the pipeline is approved, which will be in the future…. I sincerely appreciate my colleagues from across the floor who understand that pipelines must move forward with LNG and other initiatives in this province so that we can provide the things we all talk about. I am very appreciative of their support for these initiatives.

I take my place in this House today supporting this bill and wishing all parties to this agreement well, and look forward to many, many new agreements with partnerships with government, industry and First Nations in this province in the near future.
[ Page 5393 ]

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

Hon. M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Oh, we do have another speaker. I will yield the floor to the other speaker.

D. Plecas: In recognition of the fact that the government of British Columbia is breaking new ground in terms of consultation and cooperation with First Nations, especially with regard to the development of our natural resources, I am pleased to support Bill 8, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, on behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South.

This legislation is groundbreaking because it marks a major achievement for the Nisga’a Nation. Bill 8, when combined with Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, will set in motion a process in which the Nisga’a Nation will become a major participant in the emerging liquefied natural gas economy in northern British Columbia.

Specifically, Bill 7 will allow the Nisga’a government to levy and collect property tax from people other than Nisga’a citizens — namely, LNG companies that intend to operate pipelines on Nisga’a territory.

After extensive consultation and cooperation with Nisga’a Nation, Bill 8 will enable a small portion of land to be removed from provincial park status. The land we are talking about is the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park, which comprises almost 180,000 kilometres in total parkland. It is a site where an estimated 2,000 Nisga’a people were killed and two villages completely wiped out by a volcanic eruption in the late 18th century.

As one might imagine, this parcel of land is significant to the culture and history of the Nisga’a Nation. The proportion that Bill 8 seeks to remove is approximately 64 hectares from the park, which will allow for about 12 kilometres of pipeline to traverse the park, mostly underground, and along the length of Highway 113.

It will form a part of the 900-kilometre length of the Prince Rupert gas transmission line. Construction of this project is expected to generate some 42,000 person-years of employment over three years, and it is projected to operate over a 30-year period.

[1615]

In effect, this will assist the Nisga’a Nation participating in the emerging LNG economy on terms that are acceptable to the Nisga’a.

Bill 8 represents just one example of how the British Columbia government is working to establish new relationships with First Nations. British Columbia is the first province in Canada to share revenue from mining, forestry and other natural resources with First Nations. Shared-revenue agreements stimulate investment, create jobs and provide economic benefits to First Nations that would not otherwise exist.

These agreements flow a percentage of the provincial revenue from resource development on First Nations traditional territory directly back into the community and let the First Nations decide where it is needed most. For example, since 2010 the provincial government has shared $103 million in forest revenues with participating First Nations. This year approximately 135 First Nations are expected to share some $33.5 million in forestry revenues.

Another example is the First Nations clean energy business fund. Established in 2010 the First Nations clean energy business fund was established to promote increased First Nations participation in the clean energy and clean technology sectors. The fund provides for capacity-building in communities and investment in clean energy infrastructure. The fund is also used for revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations on whose traditional territory a clean energy project may be built.

Funded initially by a government contribution of $5 million, this fund is expected to receive additional revenue from new eligible power projects based on a percentage of land and water rentals. As of August 2014 B.C. has signed clean energy revenue-sharing agreements with 19 First Nations.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support Bill 8 in ushering in a new era of participation and partnership between First Nations and the provincial government.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. M. Polak: I’m very pleased to hear the support from both sides of the House today. We still have much work to do in terms of our relationships with First Nations, but I think that on an occasion like this it’s important for us to also take note and celebrate those successes that we can have. I think this certainly represents one for the Nisga’a in being able to exert their own authority over their own lands. I know that we are certainly proud to be a part of that.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I now call second reading debate on Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014.
[ Page 5394 ]

BILL 7 — NISGA’A FINAL AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m proud to introduce the second reading of Bill 7, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014.

This bill implements a real property tax coordination agreement that will further help to facilitate the Nisga’a Nation’s ability to prosper from its land base. This legislation delegates the authority to establish the Nisga’a Nation as the primary property taxation authority on Nisga’a lands. The Nisga’a Lisims Government will levy and collect property taxes from Nisga’a citizens and non-citizens alike.

Through this agreement the Nisga’a Nation will have the ability to generate revenue through property taxes from residential and industrial properties on Nisga’a lands, including from LNG pipelines at midstream infrastructure. This is a wonderful example of First Nations, the province and industry working together to encourage economic development in the north. The real property tax coordination agreement was the product of hard work and patience between both the staff of the Nisga’a Nation as well as from government.

[1620]

Beyond a number of provincial ministries and the Nisga’a Nation, these property tax agreements are interconnected with other key regional and provincial entities, including the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine, the northwest regional hospital district, the B.C. Assessment Authority and B.C. Hydro — which is why to implement the real property tax coordination agreement a number of statutory amendments are required.

These amendments will further solidify the Nisga’a Lisims Government’s relationship with regional authorities in northwest B.C. Nisga’a Lands will become a member of the northwest regional hospital district, and its delegate will sit as a full director on the regional hospital district’s board.

The legislation enables the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine to enter into a services and requisitions agreement with Nisga’a Nation. This government-to-government agreement will establish the appropriate taxation and service framework to address the unique elements of the relationship between the regional district and Nisga’a Lands.

The legislation also amends the Police Act to provide the Nisga’a Nation with the same ability as a treaty nation to exclude their treaty lands from the police tax if they enter into a qualifying policing service agreement with the province. The Nisga’a Nation and the province have committed to negotiating a qualified agreement which will exclude all Nisga’a lands, including any LNG pipeline corridors, from police tax. As a result of this commitment, the legislation sets out that any pipeline corridor crossing Nisga’a land will be exempt from police tax for ten years.

The province and Nisga’a Nation are eager to see this legislation pass. It provides for necessary authority for the Nisga’a Nation to levy property taxes on non-Nisga’a citizens on Nisga’a lands, and it provides for close relationships between the Nisga’a Nation and neighbouring government partners. This also provides certainty and confidence for LNG pipeline proponents, which will open the door to economic opportunities for all British Columbia residents in the north.

In closing, the coordinated introduction of this legislation with the legislation proposed by the Ministry of Environment allows for pipelines to cross Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed Park and demonstrates the alignment of B.C. and Nisga’a’s vision of a prosperous LNG future.

S. Fraser: I’d like to start speaking on Bill 7. It’s interesting. We did Bill 8. Now we’re doing Bill 7. So we’re going in reverse order.

I would like to thank the minister for introducing the bill. Also, I’d like to thank the minister for making his staff available for a briefing yesterday for me and Kenn McLaren, my very astute researcher. Also, there were staff from the Ministry of Justice and others made available too. So I wanted just to thank those involved and thank the minister.

On July 31, 2014, the Nisga’a Lisims Government and B.C. signed the Nisga’a real property tax coordination agreement. This agreement, entered into in accordance with the Nisga’a treaty, allows the Nisga’a Lisims Government to collect property taxes from persons other than Nisga’a citizens on Nisga’a lands. In addition, the Nisga’a Lisims Government will have taxing authority over industrial installations, as the minister has mentioned, such as any future LNG pipelines passing through the Nisga’a territories and lands.

Bill 7, Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, which we’re dealing with today in second reading, will bring the Nisga’a treaty into line with the treaties settled under the B.C. Treaty Commission. Just for those who are watching, the Nisga’a treaty predates the B.C. treaty process. It was interesting. In the briefing yesterday it was explained to me that treaty nations refer to nations that have treaties under the B.C. treaty process.

Technically speaking, Nisga’a is not a treaty nation because its treaty predates the B.C. treaty process, which is somewhat confusing. There is no doubt that Nisga’a has a treaty and has achieved nationhood. But because they predate the treaty process, this bill is required, it’s my understanding, in the House, as opposed to treaty nations that have achieved treaty through the B.C. treaty process. This taxation mechanism was already built into that process.

[1625]

The Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act will establish the Nisga’a Nation as the primary property taxation authority over Nisga’a lands. The legislation gives
[ Page 5395 ]
effect to the real property tax coordination agreement that I cited before. That’s between the province and the Nisga’a Nation, which was signed by the parties in July, as I mentioned, and enables the Nisga’a Lisims Government to levy and collect property taxes from persons other than Nisga’a citizens — including companies that operate industrial installations, such as LNG pipelines and midstream infrastructure.

I’d like to read from the Nisga’a Lisims Government.

“The Nisga’a people have lived in the Nass River Valley since time immemorial. In the late 1800s when much of Nisga’a traditional territory was declared Crown land, the Nisga’a people began petitioning government to recognize our connection to and ownership of Nisga’a territory. In 1998 a signing ceremony at New Aiyansh signalled the completion of a quarter century of negotiations and the birth of the Nisga’a final agreement, British Columbia’s first modern treaty.

“May 11, 2000, the effective date of the treaty, was a historic and triumphant day for the Nisga’a people. It marked the end of a 113-year journey and the first steps in a new direction. On that day the Indian Act ceased to apply to the Nisga’a people, except for the purposes of Indian registration, and for the first time in modern history the Nisga’a people had the legal authority to conduct our affairs. The treaty ended the uncertainty regarding land ownership and has opened the door for joint economic initiatives in the development of the Nisga’a Nation’s natural resources. It benefits all Canadians.

“News of the Nisga’a final agreement has travelled far beyond the Nass Valley — across British Columbia, Canada and around the world. Governments and aboriginal peoples are all watching the implementation of the treaty with keen interest.

“The Nisga’a final agreement serves as an example. It demonstrates that governments and First Nations can in good faith work together to forge a more secure future for everyone.”

On July 31, 2014, the Nisga’a Lisims Government and B.C. signed the Nisga’a real property tax coordination agreement, an agreement entering into accordance with Nisga’a treaty that allows the Nisga’a Lisims Government to collect property tax from persons other than Nisga’a citizens on Nisga’a land. In addition, Nisga’a Lisims Government will have taxing authority over industrial installations, such as future LNG pipelines passing through Nisga’a land.

This is a piece of history. This is a piece of nationhood. Bill 7 allows for full taxation rights to be implemented by Nisga’a Lisims Government, and it’s a bill that certainly will be supported by, I believe, all members of this House.

M. Morris: Just mirroring the thoughts of members opposite and the discussion that we had here on Bill 8 earlier on, I think this is a monumental experience or day that we’re having in the House here today, expanding upon the Nisga’a treaty agreement and supporting their governance that they have in the Nass Valley.

This is just another step in the maturity of the initial Nisga’a treaty agreement — probably one of many maturing processes that we’re going to see over the coming years. I think it serves as a good example to First Nations across the province as to what can be done when we work collaboratively together to further economic development and to make life better for our First Nations people in British Columbia.

But I want to go back a little bit into the history. When I lived in the Nass Valley, back in the ’80s, I was visited by the chiefs in Gitlaxt’aamiks, or New Aiyansh at the time. They welcomed me to the community, and they gave me a bit of a history lesson as to what New Aiyansh and the Nass Valley were all about and what their people were all about at the time.

[1630]

They spoke about the struggles that they’ve had right from the beginning, of trying to impress upon governments — not only in British Columbia and Canada but the British government at the time — about land title and the fact that they didn’t secede any of their territory at that particular time.

It was back in 1887 that some Nisga’a chiefs travelled all the way to Victoria by canoe from the Nass Valley to discuss the land question with the Legislature. Of course, they were turned away at the steps of the Legislature that particular time and went home again. That was quite a journey to paddle back, in those particular days, in a canoe.

It was in 1890 that the Nisga’a established their land committee, the Nisga’a Land Committee, to further their negotiations with the different levels of government at the time.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

In 1913 the Nisga’a Land Committee went all the way to London and delivered a petition to the Privy Council, again expressing their desire to have some kind of a resolution to their land question at that particular time.

In 1924 the federal government allotted 76 square miles to the reserve lands for the Nisga’a territory at that particular time.

The next monumental occasion was in 1949, when Frank Calder, who was a Nisga’a chief at the time, was the first status Indian in Canada to be elected to any legislature in Canada. He was elected to the B.C. Legislature at that particular time.

L. Krog: As a CCFer, you might add.

M. Morris: I knew the members opposite would probably recognize that he was a CCF member at the time. However, in 1975 he did cross the floor and join the Social Credit Party, where he served as a member of that constituency until 1979, when he was defeated by one vote.

Frank Calder was also instrumental in developing the Nisga’a Tribal Council in 1955. He replaced the Nisga’a Land Committee with the Nisga’a Tribal Council, and he served in that position until 1974.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Calder when I was living in the Nass Valley in the late ’80s there, and I had some very interesting discussions with him.
[ Page 5396 ]

But Frank Calder was also known for a little bit more than being one of the first status native MLAs in British Columbia. He also took the province of British Columbia to court in 1969, which resulted in the 1973 Calder decision with the Supreme Court of Canada. It was one of the first decisions in Canada that gave some recognition to aboriginal title across Canada, and it transformed the way Canada and British Columbia started looking at the native land question.

That’s when the Nisga’a started negotiating with the federal government. The federal government changed their whole way of approach and developed some new federal land claims policy that developed into what we have here today and which, of course, led to some of the other Supreme Court of Canada decisions that helped us determine how we address the land title issue and aboriginal rights and title across Canada and British Columbia.

In 1982 the Constitution of Canada recognized existing aboriginal rights, and in 1990 the province of B.C. formally entered into negotiation with the Nisga’a people with respect to treaty. In 1996 Canada, B.C. and the Nisga’a signed an agreement-in-principle.

When I was living in the Nass Valley in the late ’80s and early ’90s, I sat in on many discussions that the Nisga’a Tribal Council had surrounding the treaty negotiations. I found it quite interesting. A lot of the history was brought up. A lot of the needs of the people were brought up, and it was very insightful into how they approached these types of negotiations versus the way I would have approached them as somebody from outside of that community.

The Nisga’a have had a long, long history in supporting their arguments and supporting their title over the land, and the final treaty that was signed in 2000 was the start of this modern era that we’re in right now, where the Nisga’a are now benefiting economically from this treaty and from some of the laws that they’ve passed here.

This pipeline, Bill 8, allowing them to tax the right-of-way and get some property tax from the pipeline — this is just one of a number of statutes that have been passed that are allowing some economic freedom for the people of the Nass Valley, the Lisims Nass Valley and the government of the Nass Valley to support their people in furthering economic development throughout the Nass Valley itself.

[1635]

I wholeheartedly support Bill 7. I think it’s a great step in the right direction. It puts the Nisga’a treaty front and centre to show that there are benefits to collaboration between all levels of government in British Columbia.

R. Austin: It’s a privilege to rise and speak to Bill 7, which allows the Nisga’a to finally be able to levy property taxes on their own territory. It was interesting listening to the comments from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I think it’s always interesting when some of us who have had direct experience with very remote parts of British Columbia share their thoughts and experiences.

There are a lot of amazing things that have happened as a result of the Nisga’a treaty. The member just cited Frank Calder and the famous Calder case in 1973. It not only really changed the debate around aboriginal rights and title here in British Columbia and in Canada, but in fact the Calder case was used and cited for the Mabo decision in 1992 in Australia, which in and of itself helped to move their indigenous rights movement forward, to try and give Australian Aborigines further rights for all the things that had happened to them, which is not dissimilar to what had happened to the First Nations here in Canada.

I also am so delighted to hear the warm words from the member because, of course, he spent time as an RCMP member in the Nass Valley. Clearly, I think, any of us who have spent a lot of time with the Nisga’a know that they are a very warm-hearted and generous people, especially when you consider how they were treated for the first 150 years after Europeans descended upon this province. It’s nice to hear someone speak so warmly about them.

I am reminded of the fact, of course, that he would probably have done really well if he’d been a member of the B.C. Liberal Party in the year 2000, because then at least the Liberals wouldn’t have at that time opposed the Nisga’a treaty. But we’ve moved on from then to a great extent. I’m saying this generally. It is wonderful that the Nisga’a treaty, in the end, brought all of us together and made even a government that at one time didn’t really hold aboriginal rights and title to be of the utmost importance come and recognize and do something which is difficult in politics, which is to say: “I was wrong, and now I recognize that I was wrong.”

It’s great that we’re having this debate because it means that in a place where we are often at each other’s throats, and in a very partisan way, we have now collaborated and recognized that aboriginal people always had a right to their own lands. That is now recognized in this Legislature and, I think, throughout Canada.

I want to share a story about Frank Calder. The member mentioned that he’d lost an election by one vote. For people who…. Often you hear it as politicians. You often hear: “Well, it doesn’t really matter who you vote for. Nothing really counts.” The interesting thing about Frank Calder losing by that one vote is that on election day — this is a true story — he and his wife were driving from Atlin down to Terrace. He represented Atlin at that time.

He left early in the morning. It’s a long drive. You’ve got to go into the Yukon and back down through Highway 37, down into Terrace. He left before he and his wife voted. He actually lost his own election because he and his wife did not vote for himself that day. So if anyone ever says to you in politics that voting doesn’t matter, that’s the story you want to tell — about how Frank Calder lost his own seat in this Legislature because he didn’t vote for himself before he got in the car and started that long drive.
[ Page 5397 ]

The other little thing I’d like to share about Frank Calder is that he was part of the committee that went to the Privy Council, to the House of Lords in Britain, because at that time they were the top court that would decide rights here in Canada. They were getting nowhere here with the government of the day, neither with the federal government. They went to London, dressed in full Nisga’a tribal dress, addressed the House of Lords and said that they wanted to have their rights existing.

One of the things that Frank was very fond of was football, soccer. A member of the House of Lords, after listening to their petition, decided to take Frank to watch an Arsenal game in a London soccer stadium. Now, you’ve got to remember that Frank grew up in a community that at that time probably had between 500 and 600 people. That’s where he’d spent most of his life.

[1640]

He then, later on, entered politics and of course came into this chamber, so he knew what a city was like. But here he was at the Arsenal Stadium watching Tottenham Hotspur play Arsenal. I remember him telling me this story, what it was like as a person who grew up in a small Nisga’a community to be in a stadium with 45,000 people screaming at each other as to who was going to win this game. It was quite an experience and something that he remembered forever.

Anyway, hon. Speaker, I digress. We’re telling lots of Nisga’a stories here, and that’s wonderful. They’re great storytellers themselves, so I guess we are showing that we have spent time with the Nisga’a if we can tell a good story.

I think the important thing about this bill isn’t only that the Nisga’a are going to be able to do what any community needs to do, which is to bring revenue into their communities to serve the interests of their people…. As we know, this particular piece of legislation is going to enable them to tax non-Nisga’a residents in Nisga’a territory. But the really important piece of this piece of legislation is to enable them to tax for industrial taxation purposes on their territory.

The real revenue that can come to the Nisga’a to help their nation grow and to provide all the services their people need will come from large industrial projects, whether it’s the Avanti Kitsault mine, whether it’s being able to getting charges from the B.C. Hydro extension that goes through Nisga’a territory, or whether eventually this particular pipeline, which we were talking about previously, in Bill 8, gets to a final investment decision.

That will enable the Nisga’a to really bring in the kinds of revenues that are necessary, because as part of the Nisga’a treaty, at the tenth-year of the treaty, they lost any more capital payments that came from the federal government. They’ve lost that revenue now, and as a self-governing nation, they need to be able to bring in large amounts of revenue to continue to provide services.

As all of us who live in our communities know, the property tax is the one way, particularly for rural British Columbia, in which some of the revenue that is generated from large industrial activity gets to stay in that region as opposed to just coming down to Victoria and going into the general coffers of the province. Industrial taxation is that one way in which some of that revenue gets to stay in the region and is used to provide services for the people who live in the outer regions of this province.

So it is for the Nisga’a. They have four very small communities. New Aiyansh is the biggest. I don’t think New Aiyansh even has a population of 1,000; it’s less than 1,000. Kincolith, or Gingolx, at the far end probably has a population of 350. These are very, very small communities.

I think that the passage of this bill, like Bill 8, is really us fulfilling our moral obligations and our legal obligations that come out of the Nisga’a treaty. The passage of this bill obviously will happen very quickly because there is almost unanimous support in this Legislature. It’s a very important bill for the Nisga’a. I am totally in support of it, and I’m delighted that it’s been brought to this House in a timely fashion.

I noted having spoken with Mitchell Stevens when they were negotiating this. I know it’s complicated. Tax negotiations are always very complicated because it’s not a simple thing. There was quite a long delay in getting this to the Legislature, so I’m glad that the agreement finally came to fruition.

It’s an important thing when you consider the things that are happening in the Nass Valley, the potential things that are happening in the Nass Valley. It is very important that we are able to bring this during this session and pass it so that they can take advantage of some of these industrial projects.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my place and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

M. Hunt: I, too, wish to rise and speak to Bill 7. It’s always interesting following the different members opposite, especially the member for Skeena, as we tell different stories, and we tell where we come from. I guess some people will want to go: “Hold on a second. Why is a guy from Surrey speaking about the Nass Valley?” Well, I had the awesome privilege of serving previously as the president of the UBCM. In serving as the president of UBCM, I also had the awesome privilege of being able to serve with Harry Nyce, who then, after me, became president of the UBCM as well.

[1645]

I’m particularly excited because this is an opportunity that continues to give to the Nass people those powers and the tools of self-governance so that they can truly be the national government that they are and have the powers inherent in that. Again, of course, we’re talking about the power to levy property taxes. But I think what’s also important is that we go beyond that.
[ Page 5398 ]

Not only are they having the ability to tax property, but the province is vacating that property, which is always an interesting challenge. As was said by the members previous, when it comes to taxes, every government likes to have its portion and nobody wants to give back. Whereas as a part of this legislation, the provincial government is in fact vacating that tax room so that it can be there for the Nisga’a Nation.

But it also goes beyond that. It also gives to them the power to contribute to the police services and the law enforcement in their area, which then will exclude them from police tax. Again, we’ve talked about policing.

Interestingly enough, my niece’s husband has also served as an RCMP officer up there. The stories that he tells, again, are those stories of a warmth of a friendship and a wonderful people that are there. Certainly, as all of us, they do incorrect things and make poor decisions from time to time. But usually the next morning they’re back to their normal selves and saying, “Sorry. I shouldn’t have done that,” and on goes life.

Also, when it comes to the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine, they will be able to customize their service and taxation arrangements with the regional district. Within this is their ability in the midst of setting their tax rates. The tax rates will be equivalent to those of their surrounding areas, whether it be for the rural tax or whether it be for non-residential, as in the city of Terrace. Again, keeping a commonality within the area and a working together and a harmony.

Also being able to give the proper tax exemptions and the permissive exemptions that other orders of government have, they will have as well. Also dealing with hospital districts — they will sit as a separate member in the northwest regional hospital district.

We’ve already talked about B.C. Hydro and their ability — well, not to tax — to get grants in lieu of taxes so that, again, they’re being treated as every other order of government that we have within this province and, of course, the abilities, should there be delinquency, to be able to actually collect those taxes and have the proper powers with that.

I certainly want to speak to this as a past president of the UBCM to celebrate the continued — what’s the word I want to use? — growth in self-governance that we are giving to the Nisga’a Nation here and the continuing working together as citizens of this beautiful province for the prosperity of all of the citizens of this province.

L. Krog: You know, like the moth to the flame, I couldn’t resist taking a few moments to address this bill.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh, what a difference a few years make. Oh my goodness.

Now, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, I’m sure, already had it in his wonderful speech, and he spoke very eloquently today of the fact that Frank Calder, of whom he spoke so affectionately and with such great respect, was, of course, a CCF member. I’m sure that was in his speech already. It had nothing to do with my heckle during his comments that he brought up that tiny little bit of history, which needs to be mentioned here today.

Sometimes you feel like you’ve gone down the hole in Alice in Wonderland. We’re here today speaking all in favour — unanimously, I expect — of a bill to allow for taxation that is a government bill brought in by the B.C. Liberals. Oh my, oh my. How things have changed.

You know, the member for Skeena spoke so well about Chief Calder, who was known as the Little Chief, and his visit to the greatest centre of the former British Empire, to London itself.

[1650]

I can’t help but reflect on the fact that now our commissioner to the Court of St. James, the hon. Gordon Campbell, the former Premier of this province, the recognized man for Canada, speaking on behalf of all Canadians, so to speak, to Her Majesty the Queen…. Now they’re anointed by the Conservative government as a hero for Canada, our great spokesperson.

Well, correct me if I’m wrong — and I know that you will, hon. Speaker, and I know there are many in this chamber who may have a different memory of history in this province — but I do seem to have some small recollection that it was that same Gordon Campbell, the former leader of the B.C. Liberals, as he then was, who, not simply, spoke in fiery language about the demise of democracy and unequal rights and all of those awful things that would come to pass if the B.C. Legislature approved the Nisga’a treaty. That’s what I recall. Now again, if there’s a member over there who can correct my recollection of events, I’d be happy to hear it.

It was that selfsame Gordon Campbell, the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, who, supported by his caucus and with a few bucks in his back pocket, hired a lawyer, not simply to raise the issue but to actually oppose the very concept of the Nisga’a treaty — the first modern treaty that recognized that the original inhabitants of this province, the people who had occupied its lands since time immemorial, were in fact entitled to compensation.

Some of the members may recall the wonderful speech that Glen Clark gave when he talked about how the Nisga’a women persuaded the chiefs to paddle from the Nass Valley all the way down the coast of British Columbia to this very Legislature to plead their case well over 100 years ago and how they were summarily, essentially, turned away — turned away. They had no rights. That was the position of the province of British Columbia, and the federal government said it was a provincial responsibility.
[ Page 5399 ]

Here we are now debating a bill that will give the Nisga’a rights to tax. It was that same Gordon Campbell who brought in significant tax cuts as Premier and who promised that taxation was the road to ruin, that it destroyed economies, that it was bad for business — all of those things….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The last century. I intend to remember those remarks from the member when he brings up the dismal decade. I intend to remember those remarks, and he will come to regret having made that statement in this chamber.

So here we are, as I say, come this full circle, debating a bill — it’s going to get unanimous support — allowing for taxation. My goodness, it is a wonderful thing to hear the reform that’s taken place in the B.C. Liberal Party today. I am delighted to support this bill. I am thrilled, absolutely thrilled for the opportunity for them to recognize the error of their ways — the error of their ways.

I am delighted to hear them renounce the legacy of Gordon Campbell, whose opposition to the Nisga’a treaty was a repugnant aspect of British Columbia’s history that deserves to be condemned but should be taught to every schoolchild in British Columbia to remind them of where the B.C. Liberals stood — and stood for so long and stood so vigorously. They were prepared to pursue a court case to set aside the first honest and tangible recognition of the rights of First Nations British Columbians that this province ever saw in its history.

Again, I am delighted to support this bill. I am delighted to hear the new views that have overcome the sensibilities of the B.C. Liberals in this chamber as they bring forward a bill to allow the Nisga’a to tax appropriately in order to support the kind of society that the Nisga’a have striven to obtain for literally several hundred years, since first contact. I’m delighted to understand that the B.C. Liberals now fully and completely absolve themselves of their sins, the sins of their former leader who so vigorously opposed what was so clearly right and just.

I will vote with enthusiasm, absolute enthusiasm, for this piece of legislation.

[1655]

I am, again, delighted to see the B.C. Liberals take these steps forward and to reflect on the remarks of the Minister of Energy and Mines, or whatever it is over there, who talked about it being the last century. I am glad to see that the B.C. Liberals have finally emerged from the dark thinking of their past, only a decade plus and a little bit ago, when they took such a horrible position, such a repugnant position on something that human rights activists around the world had been recognizing for decades. That was rights of aboriginal peoples throughout the planet to seek to strive and to succeed on their own terms, under their own laws and with their pride in their past.

Thank you again to the B.C. Liberals for this bill. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I am delighted. I look forward to its passage, and I look forward to more formal and informal acknowledgements by the B.C. Liberals of their wicked past.

Hon. J. Rustad: Closing debate, it’s a wonderful thing to see such unity in the House and such words of praise coming from the members opposite. It’s sometimes hard to imagine in the years of experience that we have, in the battles going back and forth.

I do want to make a few comments in closing. I find it interesting — the preach from the sermon that has just come from the member for Nanaimo and his comments about giving taxation authority. Well, the reality of this bill — and I think we should just make sure we have the clear context — is that taxation authority is being ceded from the province to the Nisga’a Nation, which enables them then to be able to move forward with what they would like to achieve on the land base.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

But I do want to take a moment just to actually talk about the strength of treaty. It has been brought up by the members opposite. It’s something, I think, that’s worth celebrating — when you look at what we have been able to accomplish by working in partnership and what the Nisga’a are doing, what nations like Tsawwassen are doing and the Maa-nulth are doing. Treaties which some of the members opposite actually weren’t even allowed to vote on because of some of the divisions in their opinion, but that was okay because that’s part of democracy, I suppose.

What can actually be accomplished through treaty? The Nisga’a, through what they’re trying to do here, are aggressively pursuing economic development. They’re aggressively pursuing opportunities for their people, which in turn will benefit all people in British Columbia. They’re doing it in a way of balancing their cultural and historic values with environmental values while pursuing the creation of an economy.

I look at that, and I say that is bold leadership. It is strong leadership that the Nisga’a people are showing in terms of taking that step forward, embracing opportunities that present themselves and finding the ways to balance all of those interests to be able to better things for their people.

This particular agreement, I think, is very innovative. It’s something that I’m hoping other nations across the north and, really, across the province will look at: at the benefits that the treaty has been able to bring and then what the Nisga’a Nation has been able to do with that.

At the end of the day, when you want to improve the lives of people, you need to be looking at how we can create jobs, how we can drive economic opportunity, how
[ Page 5400 ]
we can get to yes — something the members opposite, I see, have come to an understanding of with this particular bill, which is much celebrated. It’s coming to how you can get to yes to create that economic opportunity that can ultimately help to preserve and strengthen culture and the environment — how to help do things for their people and improve situations.

This, to me, is a very important piece of legislation. It’s an important step, especially in the development of liquefied natural gas. It has created the impetus for a deal that has been signed now between TransCanada and Nisga’a Nation which will see significant benefits flow to that. It’s one piece in the greater puzzle that will help to build the opportunity for liquefied natural gas in Prince Rupert.

I think Nisga’a Nation should be truly commended for their vision and their strength in being leaders, coming out in front and showing the way that I think other nations will want to look at and, hopefully, follow as well.

[1700]

With that, I will end my remarks and move second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Rustad: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Nisga’a Final Agreement Amendment Act, 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I’d like to call second reading of private member’s Bill M203.

BILL M203 — TERRY FOX DAY ACT

L. Reimer: Good evening, hon. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and speak to the second reading of this bill entitled the Terry Fox Day Act.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

For the past many months I’ve been working with Mark Pettie, a Fox family friend, and members of the Fox family to make this bill law. My first step was to do a proclamation to recognize this past September 14, 2014, as Terry Fox Day. I had the pleasure of presenting one of these proclamations at Blue Mountain Park to Terry’s best friend, Mr. Doug Alward. Doug and Terry played soccer together, and more than a decade after that, Doug drove Terry’s camper van, which was donated by Ford Canada, on his Marathon of Hope.

It was during the process of doing this proclamation and meeting with Mark Pettie that I realized we shouldn’t have to be doing a proclamation every year to recognize Terry Fox Day. I knew we had to do something to ensure that every second Sunday of September after Labour Day would be recognized as Terry Fox Day forever. That Terry Fox Day be the same day as the run were the wishes of Terry’s family.

Along the way, Terry’s words resonated with me. He once said: “I’m not a dreamer, and I’m not saying this will initiate any kind of definitive answer or cure to cancer, but I believe in miracles. I have to.” Terry has worked miracles, and this bill is indeed a positive step in ensuring that Terry Fox’s legacy is preserved.

It is a step to honour the man whose journey has raised more than $650 million for cancer research. It is a step that will help raise awareness for Terry’s dream of finding a cure for cancer, but also to make us all take pause and be thankful for Terry’s courage, his determination and contributions to the battles against cancer. While Terry was taken from us, many since have lived as a result.

In 1980 Terry began his Marathon of Hope, a cross-country run to raise money for cancer research. He hoped to raise $1 for each of Canada’s people, then 24 million people. When he first dipped his toe into the Atlantic in St. John’s, Newfoundland — and we all remember seeing that in photos and on television — his initial impact made a small ripple. Terry was committed, though, and ran the equivalent of a full marathon every day. By the time he reached Ontario his energy and dedication had touched the masses, and Fox had become our national star.

Sadly, he was forced to end his mission outside of Thunder Bay when his pain became too great, and he was informed that the cancer had spread to his lungs.

On December 22, 1980, Terry said the following, knowing what his fate would be: “Even though I die of cancer, my spirit didn’t die and that should influence a lot of people.” I’m sure Terry never dreamed that he would influence millions of people all over the world. His hopes of overcoming the disease and completing his marathon ended when he died, surrounded by his family, nine months later.

For his contributions Terry Fox has received numerous honours, including the Order of Canada, the Sword of Hope from the American Cancer Society, several memorials, schools such as Terry Fox Secondary in the member for Port Coquitlam’s riding, and a mountain named in his honour. There has also been a Canadian $1 coin minted with the image of Terry, the first time ever that a Canadian has been featured on a coin.

But his greatest legacy, his miracle, is the annual Terry Fox Run which is held in cities and schools across Canada and around the world and sees students and people of all ages come together to celebrate his life and the vision that he had and to raise awareness and funding for cancer research.
[ Page 5401 ]

I am reminded in the book on Terry Fox that was given to me by the Fox family of a drawing that Terry did. It reads: “Terry and other cancer victims need your prayers. The Canadian Cancer Society needs your donation. Give both now. Mail your donation to Terry Fox.” He says, “You wouldn’t want to be this way,” and it shows a picture that Terry had drawn in a hospital bed, saying: “Ouch.”

[1705]

Thanks to the brave individuals such as Terry Fox, who brought awareness to this disease, we now know so much more about different types of cancers and their treatments.

At this time I would like to reiterate how honoured I am to have put forward this private member’s bill to commemorate our great hero and his contributions. He’s a symbol of our unity as a province and a country, and this day is one small step in honouring his memory and in recognizing all who were saved because of his contributions.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the House, especially those such as the member for Port Coquitlam who is blessed to have grown up in Port Coquitlam, where Terry is their hometown hero.

L. Krog: I’m honoured to rise today and say a few words about Bill M203, the Terry Fox Day Act. I don’t think there’s a Canadian alive who won’t recall the day Terry Fox died. I think that’s because of what I’m going to try and say. It’s not easy to describe what I’m trying to say and to articulate it in a way that honours the memory of Terry Fox and his legacy to Canada and indeed, arguably, to the world.

When I opened the session this morning by being honoured to give the prayer, I mentioned a phrase when I talked about a world of celebrity and cynicism. There is a tendency in the modern world to ascribe to those who are celebrities some special talents or abilities or qualities that are often far removed from the reality of the lives they live or what they achieve or what they do on a daily basis.

It’s also a cynical age where, particularly in politics, very few people take advantage in the way that they could of the opportunity to vote, because they see politics as this cynical dark art. Yet many of the people we associate with being famous and important and heroic figures, figures who built nations or conquered empires…. We associate that with a kind of heroism, arguably, and heroism in the sense not of simply doing something wonderful and being brave in the face of adversity but of achieving something.

My generation heard about all kinds of heroes. We learned Pheidippides running the marathon and dying at the end of it, announcing to the Greeks, “Rejoice, we conquer” — a very heroic figure. We think of Alexander the Great, at 33, ruler of what was then the so-called known world.

We learned a little poem. What was it?

It was a noble Roman,

In Rome’s imperial day,

Who heard a coward croaker

Before the castle say:

“They’re safe in such a fortress;

There is no way to shake it!”

“On, on!” exclaimed the hero,

“I’ll find a way, or make it!”

We think of great people who have contributed significantly to humanity — Dr. Albert Schweitzer, for instance, or Elizabeth I, the great queen of England, who fought off the Spanish and preserved her country. We think of people like Florence Nightingale, the mother of modern nursing. We think of people like Mother Teresa, people who have given their lives to the service of others.

Lots of people have the image of hero thrust on them, and through, arguably, celebrity in the sense of publication and knowledge, they become known to the world and honoured. Sometimes that’s done for reasons of ego and a mixture of things. But I suspect that for many of us, why we think of Terry Fox as a real hero is because there was an element of selflessness in all that he did that spoke to what I call the real values of Canada and I think, arguably, the values of humanity.

[1710]

We have tended to use the word “hero” in the modern world over and over again to the point where the coinage is somewhat debased so that in a tragic circumstance, that person who has passed or died is somehow a hero. Yet in the era I grew up in, heroes were people who put themselves in situations of great danger. The overused phrase nowadays is “in harm’s way.”

In the last couple of months in my community, there have been two celebrations of life of veterans of the Second World War. The last one was Stan Hawkes. Stan joined the Canadian navy in the height of the war when he was a teenager. He lied about his age. He went into the Canadian navy and spent the whole of his time in the North Atlantic on a corvette, not very well armed, placing himself at risk. I would argue that what he did was heroic.

Hubert — H.J., as we called him — “Pat” Barron joined the British air force in the late ’30s as a young man, knowing, as many did, that of course they would face the threat of fascism, and they would fight it in the skies. He was a hero, in my view.

Terry Fox faced this incredible personal battle with his health. He faced cancer. It is the scourge of our time, no family untouched, members of this chamber having fought that battle themselves. When he could have chosen to do other things, to look after himself only, Terry Fox instead chose to use his fight to raise awareness, to find the cure for cancer. That was heroic in a way that I think all of us can agree was heroic.

He was a Canadian hero. He was part of a community and a family that cared, and he wanted to reflect something important in his actions. He put his words into ac-
[ Page 5402 ]
tion. What he started, and what he did in his life, made him, in every sense, heroic, and even more of a hero because he did it neither expecting nor seeking credit. He did it for some greater good than himself. He did it for the good of Canadians. He did it for the good of all those who would face the personal battles he’d faced with cancer.

There are times in this chamber, mercifully, when we can all come to agreement about certain things. I want to commend the member for bringing this bill to this House. I want to commend the government for, obviously, giving us an opportunity to debate it. I want to commend all the members in this chamber who will take the opportunity to support it. Because it’s important to send a message to those who are following us, the young, that we still honour heroes in our society.

We honour genuine heroes. We honour those who put the good of their fellow men and women above their own, that place the good of their community above their own interests. We would all be hard-pressed in this chamber to think of another individual who better represents what heroism is all about.

Let us hope that if this bill passes, all of us…. I suspect many members in this chamber have been asked, at various times in their careers as the MLA for any given community, to go out and say a few words at the start of the annual runs — an honour and a privilege to do so.

[1715]

Let us hope that, having given the significance to Terry’s life that the passage of this bill will do, it will enable all of us to speak with even more conviction and authority on Terry Fox Day to say that we are honouring our Canadian hero, that what he did was important, that the life he led was important, that the example he sets for all of us was important and that in the face of the most incredible adversity, there is always hope. There is always hope. There is always an opportunity to make things better.

Terry seized that opportunity with the kind of enthusiasm and passion that is in every sense heroic. I say with a sense of humility that I will happily, as will every member of this chamber, support the passage of this bill as we honour a Canadian hero, a British Columbia hero, a local hero, for demonstrating to all of us that life lived for some higher purpose is, indeed, a life worth living, no matter how short that may be. In Terry Fox’s short life, my goodness, what an example he is to all of us.

Hon. T. Lake: It is, indeed, a true honour for me to stand and support the Terry Fox Day Act that’s been presented by the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. I want to congratulate her and thank her for bringing this bill to the Legislature today.

Many people know the story of Terry Fox, but some of the highlights of his accomplishments, I think, bear repeating. We know that he was only 18 years old when he was diagnosed with his cancer — an osteogenic sarcoma, which is cancer of the bone — and had his right leg amputated above the knee.

We know that Terry was so affected by the plight of other cancer patients, many of whom were children, that he decided he wanted to do something to make a difference. He decided to raise money for cancer research, and not in a way that was short of inspiring. I mean, he decided to run across this entire country, which is remarkable in its thought, let alone in its practice.

In 1980 we all followed the story of Terry as he dipped his prosthetic leg into the Atlantic Ocean at Cape Spear in Newfoundland and started his Marathon of Hope. We followed him as he ran the equivalent of a full marathon every single day, and a nation watched him for 143 days cover 5,373 kilometres — remarkably, making his way across the eastern part of our country and into Thunder Bay.

He hoped to raise, initially, a modest amount of money but eventually decided that he wanted to raise the equivalent of a dollar for every Canadian, $24 million at the time. I think many of us have Terry’s image burned in our brains when he had to end his run on September 1 in Thunder Bay when cancer was discovered…. It had metastasized to his lungs. By that time he had raised $1.7 million, which in 1980 was a remarkable amount of money.

I remember that day. It was the day that we moved into our apartment in North Vancouver. My wife and I had decided to change our lives. I was going back to university, to Simon Fraser University, which is, of course, the alma mater for Terry Fox. I remember I was unpacking the boxes and watching BCTV at the time and seeing Terry on the stretcher, being interviewed, talking about his cancer coming back to his lungs.

[1720]

He was choked up like I am now, talking about how he would have to end that run. I remember the feeling — my wife and I crying, as many Canadians did that day as we watched Terry unable to continue on.

But it wasn’t the end, as we know. Terry fought his battle and lost his personal battle. He was successful because his spirit lived on. Canadians took up the cause, and Terry Fox Runs are held, starting in 1981, at more than 760 sites in Canada and around the world. The event attracted 300,000 participants and raised $3.5 million that first year.

Now it is all over the world. The Terry Fox Run has become the world’s largest one-day cancer fundraiser, and it takes place in over 60 countries around the world — either in the form of the National School Run Day, the Terry Fox Run or other Terry Fox fundraising events.

To date, a remarkable $600 million has been raised for cancer research because of a kid from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. People in that community and, in fact, in all of British Columbia are tremendously proud of Terry and his family for continuing on.
[ Page 5403 ]

We all remember the vision of the brown van that followed Terry. It has been renovated, rejuvenated, refurbished. I remember when it was in Kamloops a few years ago — I went to see it — and the amazing feeling of pride, thinking about Terry and his family and his team that followed him as he crossed that 5,373 kilometres.

I want to wholeheartedly support this Terry Fox Day Act. I again thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for bringing this forward. I think it’s something that is long overdue. As British Columbians, I know it’s something people will agree is the right thing to do.

Following Terry’s death, Prime Minister Trudeau in the House of Commons reflected, I think, the views of many Canadians at the time and many Canadians today. He said: “It occurs very rarely in the life of a nation that the courageous spirit of one person unites all people in the celebration of his life and in the mourning of his death…. We do not think of him as one who is defeated by misfortune, but as one who inspired us with the example of the triumph of human spirit over adversity.”

I couldn’t possibly hope to say it better than that.

With that, I will again say that I am proud to be an MLA in this House to support this Terry Fox Day Act.

S. Robinson: I am very pleased and honoured to rise in this House today to speak to the Terry Fox Day Act.

I, too, was once a runner. I ran a number of half marathons, a couple of full marathons, and I even did an ultramarathon on January 1, 2006. But just like Terry, my running career was cut short by a cancer diagnosis.

Six weeks after I ran that ultramarathon, I felt a fullness in my abdomen, and it wouldn’t go away. Initial thoughts were that I needed a hysterectomy, that this was due to fibroids. I went in to have a relatively simple procedure and came out of surgery with a gastric nasal tube and six inches of my bowel — along with other sundry parts of my body — removed. The cancer had spread from the initial site, and the prognosis didn’t look very good for me.

The diagnosis of a gastrointestinal stromal tumor, up until the early 2000s, was the kind of cancer that didn’t respond to traditional radiation or chemotherapy. Monitoring and surgery were the only choices that existed.

However, early in the 2000s, cancer researchers had started to develop a targeted chemotherapy. It was relatively new. I started on that chemotherapy in June 2006. I have taken that chemotherapy every day since. I have no evidence of any disease, but given the metastases, the protocol is to keep me on the medication for the rest of my life.

[1725]

What does this have to do with Terry Fox Day? For me and my family it has everything to do with honouring Terry Fox. I’m here in this House, I’m here being a mother to my children and I’m here as a wife, as a daughter, as a friend, as a neighbour and as a colleague because of the advances in cancer research.

I’m here in this House representing my constituents and supporting this bill because Terry Fox understood that a cancer diagnosis did not have to be a death sentence. He knew, and he knew well, that cancer could someday be a diagnosis that people live with, that they don’t just die from it. I’m here to honour that.

Terry Fox understood that the barrier to living with cancer was a lack of money for quality, long-term research. So what did he do? What did this hero — as the member for Nanaimo called him — do? As the Minister of Health so eloquently described, he decided to run across the country.

He decided to run across the country to raise money and to raise awareness. He was incredibly successful, even though he didn’t finish his run. He raised money, and he raised awareness.

We have 60 countries that participate. They range from Bangalore, India; Doha, Qatar; Dubai; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Cairo, Egypt; Cuba; Ho Chi Minh City; Lima, Peru — just all over the world. People have been touched by this story and understand the impact and the value that his run has brought to this area. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised for cancer research.

I am a beneficiary of that research. I am here because of that research. I am not alone. There are millions of us now, millions all over the world, who have benefited from Terry’s sacrifice, from his commitment to run a marathon a day.

Now, I don’t know if anyone else in the House here has run a marathon. I know that one of our Clerks has. You’re sore for days afterwards. You can barely walk — I see that the Minister of Health has run marathons — and it’s really hard on your body. Terry Fox did that every day on one leg.

It’s very easy to support this bill. It’s very easy to say, even: “How can we not support this bill?” That is the bigger challenge. Of course, we ought to be recognizing somebody who would step up — step up and push all of us. He pushed himself every day, but he’s pushed all of us to get up every year on the same day on an early Sunday morning in the rain — and lots of rain, lots of times — and the cold. He’s pushed us and challenged us — whether it’s the 2½-kilometre route, the five-kilometre route, the ten-kilometre route — to do whatever it is that we can, to raise money.

When I see people on their routes, they’re talking about him. They’re recognizing that they are there because he asked us to rise to the challenge. He asked us to find a way to come together in our respective communities to sacrifice an hour of our time, a little bit of money from our pocket, so that those of us who get that diagnosis of cancer can live with it rather than die from it.

I’m also pleased to rise in the House because of my personal involvement in starting the Coquitlam Terry Fox Run a number of years ago, at the behest of the Hometown Run in Port Coquitlam. You see, that run….
[ Page 5404 ]
Everyone in the Tri-Cities — and I know the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam is familiar with this — would go to the Hometown Run. It is the run to be at, certainly, in this province, and I think the member from Port Coquitlam would agree. It’s where it all started.

[1730]

They were beyond capacity. It was just too many people. We’re about 150,000 people in the Tri-Cities. They were at capacity, so they begged a number of us. “Please, please will you organize your own Terry Fox Runs in your own communities?” So I was very pleased to help bring together some of our community leaders in Coquitlam and have Rotary there and have Mark Pettie chair that committee now. It was Mark Pettie who really pushed the member opposite to bring forward this Terry Fox Day Act.

Even though I no longer go to the hometown run, it feels like it’s sort of adopted in some ways. The member for Port Coquitlam and I might have to take that outside. It feels like he’s all of ours. I guess that’s what I’m trying to say. All of us in this House own a little piece of Terry Fox. He doesn’t just belong to the member for Port Coquitlam, although he may lay claim to him.

It is with great honour, in all of my capacity as a member but mostly as a cancer survivor, one who lives every day with the fear — I guess I’ll call it — that you might, at your next CT scan, learn that the cancer has returned…. I rise here today, mostly as a cancer survivor, to say thank you to Terry Fox, to the Fox family and, I guess, to all those British Columbians and people around the world who have decided to participate in Terry’s dream, who decided to contribute something that makes the research possible so that more of us are survivors.

D. Horne: It’s with great pleasure that I rise today and do something that I don’t do normally in this House, as Deputy Speaker, and that is speak on a piece of legislation. It’s a bill like this that brings us all together, a bill that both sides of the House can support so wholeheartedly because it’s to commemorate the work and the dedication and the unbelievable efforts of someone that is synonymous with creating a great, great legacy here in Canada.

Terry Fox was a truly amazing, amazing individual — really, the work that he did in his short life, the fact that it continues on today. Many speakers have made the point before me that Terry Fox Runs exist in countries throughout the world, that $650 million has been generated for cancer research — the important work that that research has generated. You look to British Columbia and our cancer outcomes, among the best in the world because of the fact that we have the research done here and the great research facilities and the Terry Fox Institute, which does the great work that it does.

As the previous speaker, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, just mentioned, the four members from the Tri-Cities I think feel, even more so than most British Columbians…. As you know, Port Coquitlam is Terry’s original home. The member for Port Coquitlam actually went to school with him and his family. He is part of our community and continues to be part of our community in the annual run. His family continues to be part of our community. Many of the family members live in each of our ridings.

It’s an opportunity to create a Terry Fox day, to truly commemorate, in perpetuity, the great work that Terry Fox has done.

[1735]

Fred Fox, who is Terry’s brother, made a statement after the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam had brought forward and announced this private member’s bill. He said: “Terry Fox day will be a day full of hope.” I truly believe that that’s what this bill accomplishes. It really does bring hope to us all.

The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville talked about her personal struggle with cancer. I think each and every one of us has a story of a loved one, someone close to us, someone that we know well who has struggled with cancer — many of them with great success, who are here with us today. The member for Peace River North, who sits just in front of me, is a perfect example — someone who has gone through that struggle recently.

I have to say, it’s because of the research, because of the work of the Terry Fox Foundation, that we are as far forward as we are today. The outcomes are far better than we have ever seen in the past. Really, that is why we need to all embrace this and why this bill, in commemorating Terry Fox day, is such an important thing for us all.

Terry said, while he was still alive: “If you’ve given a dollar, you’re part of the Marathon of Hope.” It’s that contribution, whether it was big or small. It’s just that small contribution that really meant you’re part of something much, much larger and something that he has been able to create.

I remember a very close friend of mine who is an avid, avid fundraiser for the Terry Fox Foundation and takes part in each and every one of the runs. That’s Bill Pristanski, from Ottawa. Bill had the opportunity to meet with Terry, and he tells stories about when he had the chance to meet with Terry — just the incredible energy, the incredible vibrancy and the incredible willingness to give himself and give everything to everyone in Canada and the world. That really does talk about what an incredible individual this was and how wonderful it will be to commemorate him each and every year in perpetuity.

It’s with great pleasure that I stand in my place today. As I say, very infrequently do I do this, but it’s wonderful to be able to stand here in support of this bill. I thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for her great work. As the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville said as well, Mark Pettie, who is the chair of the Coquitlam run also did a significant amount of work to bring this forward. And I thank the Fox family as well.
[ Page 5405 ]

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to join members from both sides of the House in standing in support of this bill, the private member’s bill to declare Terry Fox day in British Columbia. I think for many, many of us across British Columbia — certainly, for the many of us who were alive and fully aware and living in British Columbia at the time that Terry started his Marathon of Hope and went many kilometres across Canada, even in his training….

For those of us that remember that time and then remember the time when he had to stop because the cancer had come back and progressed to the point that he had to quit, for those of us that were alive, it’s part of our history, and I think it is part of our character in British Columbia. It’s part of a character…. He’s an icon that represents the very best that we all aspire to. So I think he is very dear in all of our hearts in British Columbia, and he remains an icon and part of a dream, part of a tradition that continues on to this day.

So $650 million raised — some of which may have been raised but a large proportion of which would not have been raised without this young man. Fourteen schools in Canada and 15 roads named after Terry Fox just shows how important Terry Fox was to all of us.

[1740]

I am a cancer survivor. My father was not. All of us, every member in this House, every person who works in this building, everyone in British Columbia has stories, personal stories about battles against cancer, some of them successful and some of them not. But we all know that those battles against cancer…. So far fewer of them would have been won, with good outcomes for the future and good prognoses, if it had not been for Terry Fox.

You know, I think back on that time, because Terry Fox was just a few years younger than me, and it was so inspiring. What Terry said when he wrote to the Canadian Cancer Society to originally support his run is: “I’m not a dreamer, and I’m not saying this will initiate any kind of definitive answer or cure to cancer, but I believe in miracles. I have to.”

With those inspiring words, he was training. He ran over 3,000 miles, or 5,000 kilometres, while he was training — unbelievable dedication. I think part of why we so love the legacy of Terry Fox is not just the money that has been raised but the values that he represented — his determination, his caring, his drive. We all know that it was only this cancer taking him that made him stop, that he would have completed his run.

We all have that iconic vision. Can you imagine that vision of him, day after day after day, running marathons every day, essentially, on his own. I don’t know about the technology then, but I’m sure there must have been pain associated with that run and continuing to run while the cancer was coming back and taking him and fighting him in his fight.

I know we all remember in September of 1980 when we saw on the television that Terry Fox said…. When he had to stop outside of Thunder Bay, after learning that the cancer had spread to his lungs, he said: “I’m going to do my very best. I’ll fight. I promise I won’t give up.” I think that determination to complete, even though he could not complete the run, is what inspires all of us to carry on and continue the fight against cancer.

It’s a wonderful legacy. It’s a wonderful example of determination, of grit, of being concerned about others, and saying…. Even when he did not know, even before the cancer came back, to say: “Out of my own personal tragedy….” For a young person, this must have been a terrible setback, and it must have been a very difficult adjustment — a young man who is very active to have lost his leg. But instead of feeling sorry for himself, he said: “I’m going to use my experience to do something which is good for the world and which will help other people and which will raise awareness.”

Not only is the money that has been raised very important — $650 million — but it is also the awareness about cancer that I think has been so important in British Columbia. And, of course, it has led over time to the establishment…. I think it is part of the reason that we have been known as a leader in cancer research in British Columbia.

It’s a legacy which is passed on through generations. I remember I was a relatively young person when I was inspired by Terry Fox’s run. I was so proud and pleased when, as a result of that, there were Terry Fox runs every year. My kids were born starting in 1980, so they were there almost at the very beginning of the Terry Fox runs that were held every year.

I know that that legacy, the understanding of what an icon he was, of what a leader he was and what a great Canadian he was, was there for every single one of those schoolchildren that did the Terry Fox Run at school.

I remember back, and I remember the dedication of the teachers — the teachers in this province are always dedicated, always wanting to do the right thing — who dedicated their time to organize the Terry Fox Run every year in support.

[1745]

I remember my kids and the great example that it taught them about how you have to work hard to reach your goals in life, how some things are very difficult, how we can overcome but how sometimes life beats us back. It’s a bit of a bittersweet lesson for kids because it doesn’t have a happy ending — the Terry Fox story. It does in terms of the legacy that he created. But children have to learn that despite all of his fight, in the end he lost. I don’t believe he ever felt sorry for himself. He was determined to the end. He kept his fight to the end.

I am very pleased to be part of a small group of people who get to talk publicly in this Legislature about what an inspiration he was to all of us, what a legacy he left and what
[ Page 5406 ]
a difference he made in the lives of millions of people, not just in British Columbia, not just in Canada but around the world. We know now that every year millions of people in close to 25 countries participate in the national school run day, the Terry Fox Run, and Terry Fox fundraising events.

I’m not sure that Terry Fox, when he said that he was not a dreamer…. I don’t think that he…. “I’m not saying this will initiate any kind of definitive answer or cure for cancer, but I believe in miracles. I have to.” When he said those words before he started off on his Marathon of Hope, I’m not sure if he ever could have dreamed how close he came, through the years following his death, to having that dream realized.

So with that, I’m very pleased that I’ve had a chance to be part of this group that’s had a chance to support this private member’s bill.

R. Lee: I’m honoured and it’s my pleasure to stand up to support this private member’s bill, the Terry Fox Day Act, submitted by the Port Moody–Coquitlam member.

This is a bill we all can support because Terry Fox is truly a national hero. His inspiring action during his run and also the legacy he left behind truly inspired a lot of Canadians — not only Canadians but people all over the world.

Once Terry Fox said: “Even if I don’t finish, we need others to continue. It’s got to keep going without me.” I think he said that. After he passed away, the Canadian public and schoolchildren all came to the plate to support and to continue his dream.

The Terry Fox Run has been held in many cities and also in different countries. I had the opportunity to participate in two runs in China just a few years ago, one in Shanghai and the other one in Guangzhou. The Shanghai run was actually joined by the Premier, Gordon Campbell, and the mayor of Shanghai. At that time a lot of people came out to the run. Also, the consul general for Canada in Shanghai participated. They helped a local organization to organize the annual event and also to get a lot of people. Remember, hundreds and thousands of participants joined that run.

[1750]

The run in Guangzhou was joined by the governor of Guangdong. As you know, Guangdong is our sister province in China. The Guangdong fun was also well attended. Local associations got some of the fundraising support, and they used those funds for local cancer research and support.

Those experiences, I think, probably can be experienced in many cities, many countries in the world. So Terry’s influence was actually international. That’s why when people are talking about Canada, they know that Terry Fox is a hero for Canada. He has the spirit of Canada.

I also would like to say that Terry Fox’s legacy, of course, has really had a lot of impact in local organizations, in terms of research and development. His foundation maintains the principles of Terry while they are raising money for cancer research and activities.

Every year is the national school run. I have three children, and they all participated in those runs during those national school run days. I’m sure they also are being taught about the spirit of Terry Fox and how young people can learn from him.

The Terry Fox Foundation. I realize that they raise funds for research projects. More than 1,100 projects about cancer research were being funded by the Terry Fox Foundation. I think this has a good contribution to some of the results in B.C. I believe we are leading in some of the diagnoses in cancer and also for treatment in cancer. So that’s the contribution of Terry for B.C. — for our cancer patients and for research and development regarding cancer.

I also understand that we, actually, as government, established the Terry Fox Research Institute a few years ago, in fact in 2007, with a contribution of $30 million from the B.C. government in order to encourage research and development on cancer. The institute was created with a mandate to conduct research that has significantly improved outcomes for patients. I think that’s well recognized. This also helped to manage one of the foundation’s branches, which is called the Terry Fox new frontiers program project grants. The foundation helped the Terry Fox Foundation to manage some of the research and grant activities.

It’s indeed an honour for me to speak on this bill. Cancer research has been front and centre in our medicare system. Because of Terry Fox bringing a lot of awareness about cancer in our society, we know so much more about cancer and the different types of cancers and their treatments because of the research and development over the last 20 years.

I believe the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada in B.C. actually is doing a lot of research and development. Also, when they do the research, they said, as a component in Canada, B.C. cancer care is still a leader in that regard. We are the first in Canada to offer the complementary and integrated care, through the Inspire Health and healthy families B.C. That organization is instrumental in implementing some of the complementary care programs in B.C.

[1755]

Through this fundraising, I think a total of over $600 million was raised under this cancer research in B.C. Over 30,000 patients in B.C. receive cancer therapy annually. That’s with a budget last year of over $200 million in B.C., compared with about 15 percent of that 14 years ago. I think this is a big improvement in terms of research and development in cancer care and research on the disease itself.

I would like to quote Darrel Fox, the brother of Terry Fox. He said last month: “Not only does this recognize Terry, but it recognizes the Terry Fox Run volunteers.” He’s talking about the Terry Fox Day proclamation. I believe that to make it a permanent date in September would make the volunteers more excited about the run and the fundraising as well.
[ Page 5407 ]

With that, I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak. I also would like to thank both sides of the House and especially the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for bringing this forward.

S. Hammell: It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House and support this bill. I’m very, very pleased that this has been brought forward. It’s a bill both sides of the House can wrap their arms around and be very, very pleased to support.

I’m going to give a bit of a chronology of the events around Terry and then just say something very personal in terms of my debt to him and his family. Terry was 18 years old and a first-year kinesiology student at SFU and a member of the SFU junior varsity basketball team in 1977 when he was diagnosed with bone cancer. That diagnosis resulted in the amputation of his right leg six inches above the knee.

The night before his amputation, as the record shows, he dreamed about an amputee runner and dreamed himself of running. After undergoing chemotherapy and seeing other people, particularly children, suffering from cancer, Terry decided he wanted to make a difference in the world. So on April 12, 1980, in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Terry dips his artificial leg into the Atlantic Ocean and begins his odyssey.

He runs an average of 42 kilometres a day, or 26 miles, as someone has already said in the House, and he travelled through six of the provinces. On September 1, 1980, after 143 days and 5,373 kilometres, Terry stopped running outside of Thunder Bay, Ontario. He stopped because his primary cancer had spread to his lungs. Before returning for treatment in British Columbia, he promised all of us that he was going to do his very best, that he’d fight and that he would not give up.

On February 1, 1981, Terry’s hope of raising $1 from every Canadian to fight cancer is realized. The national population reaches 24.1 million, and the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope fund’s total at that point: $24.17 million. So Terry was alive to see his dream come true.

On June 28, 1981, after treatment with chemo and interferon, we lose Terry at Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster.

[1800]

On September 13, 1981, the first Terry Fox Run is held in more than 760 sites in Canada and around the world. The event attracts 300,000 participants and raises $3.5 million.

On October 29, 2007, the Terry Fox Research Institute is launched, combining clinical knowledge of cancer physicians with the advanced laboratory expertise of scientific researchers, overcoming the barriers of discipline and geography.

In May 2014 the foundation announces that over time they have raised $650 million to support cancer in Terry’s name. That, to all of us, is amazing.

When I talk about Terry, I think in my mind’s eye of that iconic shot of him running in his own particular way, with the long road laying out in front of him, on a wet, drizzly day in Ontario.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I, like many of the others in the House, want to personally thank Terry Fox and his family because I know that they have done a lot for people in this province around cancer. He has put Vancouver and his foundation and finding a cure for cancer in the centre of our province.

I raise my hands also because my son, my stepson, has prostate cancer. He has survived years beyond expectations, and I know that directly or indirectly, that is a consequence of Terry Fox and his family’s effort.

Terry would have been 55 this year, but he won’t grow old because in our mind’s eye, he will always be that young man running through our country on behalf of others.

Like everyone in this House, I’m sure, I am very pleased to support the private member’s bill that has been brought forward by the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam that dedicates a day in September on all our calendars as Terry Fox Day. I thank you, and I’m pleased to support your bill.

Hon. N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to stand on my own behalf and, more importantly, on behalf of my constituents in Kelowna–Lake Country to support this private member’s bill by the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam.

When I was 22 years old, I wasn’t thinking about legacies. I was probably thinking about final exams and papers and other things, maybe saving enough money so I could go out for a beer on Saturday night. And here we have this 22-year-old young man who lost his leg, who’s travelling the country trying to make sure that everyone knows that there is something a little more important happening, and that is cancer — cancer that needs to be fought and beaten. To do that, we need money.

Terry, obviously, was a hero to all of us. When I think of my heroes, I think of men and women who put aside their needs for their kids’ needs — parents across the world, particularly in our country and our province. I think of people like Tommy Douglas, who really championed our publicly funded health care system. And, of course, I think of people like Terry Fox, whose legacy continues throughout, not only in terms of fundraising. I think we’ve already heard the numbers — over $650 million generated since the Run for the Cure has started, since his hope has been challenged throughout this province and throughout the country and the world.

I remember back in 1981. I was in Banff at the time, a newly minted graduate from the University of Calgary, the place I was saving the money for, for those beers,
[ Page 5408 ]
and writing those papers. Here I was in Banff, brand new, starting my first business, and something called a Terry Fox Run was happening.

[1805]

I don’t know if anybody knows Banff, but basically, we started in the park, and we went out through the Cave and Basin, went up the hills and came back. Like every other opportunity I had to go around, I went around on my bicycle.

I thought, “Well, here’s a perfect opportunity for me to get ten kilometres in and help out at the same time,” and I was hooked. I was hooked on Terry Fox runs ever since 1981. I don’t know how many I’ve participated in, but quite a few — because Terry did so, not for himself but for others. I just thought that was such a great thing that Terry did. Those ten kilometres we did in basically good weather, rainy weather, but with both legs, in my case — travelling those ten kilometres, remembering and fundraising in his name and for cancer research.

Some other numbers, just locally at home. We have three ridings, of course, in the area. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the Premier and myself work together in the Kelowna area, and also together we have a very large contingent that puts together our Terry Fox Run — over 125 volunteers this year alone, with 1,400 participants.

It’s been led for many years by Shane Worman and his family. Shane is a ten-year survivor of cancer. I think this was their last year, and we’re going to get somebody new for next year. The 1,400 participants raising over $100,000 in our small part of the world, all because of Terry Fox and his vision and his desire to make sure that he’d leave this planet in a better place than he found it — a real testament to the human spirit.

I remember looking at these gatherings and seeing the kids mingling with their adults, seeing the seniors mixing up with their grandchildren, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people with running shoes, people organizing, all kinds of fun going on. What I actually said at one of the events that I had a chance to speak at, the privilege of speaking, was: “There is no problem with leadership in our country. Just look around this field to see young people mixing with old people, parents mixing with their children. All they need is a cause that will unite them.”

That’s what Terry Fox has given us. He’s given us that purpose — a purpose to get together once a year and do our bit to fight cancer by raising a few dollars for cancer research. That research has helped not only Shane Worman and his family but our friends right here in this Legislature.

We’ve already heard from people who have survived cancer. I know that my friend the representative for Peace River North is also a cancer survivor. He’s expressed that right here in this House. My wife is a cancer survivor. It impacts all our families, all our friends and all our constituents. It gives me just a great spirit to be here to speak on their behalf, to be their voice in this chamber, to say thank you to Terry Fox and all who followed him to make sure that his Marathon of Hope did not end back in 1980.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the last person I would like to thank is our Premier, for allowing this private member’s bill to go forward. I know that in past years we’ve seen many private members’ bills die on the order table. The order table is a place that the private members’ bills usually go and stay. But in this case, we’ve had the opportunity of actually speaking to a private member’s bill — a private member’s bill that I hope and I would imagine will pass unanimously in this House at some point in the near future.

I’d like to thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam and, of course, thank the Premier for allowing the bill to go forward. On behalf of all my constituents in Kelowna–Lake Country, I would like to thank Terry Fox for running his marathon and for all of the volunteers and people who’ve run with him ever since 1981.

J. Rice: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to contribute to the debate and the discussion on the Terry Fox Day Act. We all regard Terry as a hero, so no doubt we will wholeheartedly pass this bill. I’d like to thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for introducing it. Thank you.

[1810]

In 1980, when Terry Fox passed away, I was seven. I recall it was the first story my mom read to me out of the Reader’s Digest magazine. It was then that I actually learned about Terry Fox’s life, while I was also simultaneously learning about his death. It was a story that moved me. I remember the tears streaming down my face and wanting to blame my tears on my allergies as my mom read the story.

Again, it’s with honour that I get to rise in this House and speak about Terry Fox today. As I mentioned, Terry is a hero to us all, but I’d also like to talk about another hero, a hero that comes to my community every year. Every year Jim Terrion, who works in the housekeeping department at the University Hospital of Northern B.C. in Prince George, vacations in Prince Rupert. He comes to Prince Rupert every summer on what I call a working holiday to raise money for the Terry Fox Run. He knocks on every door, day-in and day-out, for three weeks raising money for cancer research. Jim is a former resident, and everyone in town knows his big smile when he comes knocking.

Jim was born deaf and communicates mostly by writing notes with a pad and paper that he keeps in his top pocket. Over 20 years ago Jim was amazed by Terry Fox being able to run a marathon a day with a prosthetic leg and, having a disability himself, was inspired to do the same. Jim has walked his own cross-country adventure, across Canada and back, raising money for the hearing impaired and other charities.
[ Page 5409 ]

For almost a quarter century now Jim Terrion has not missed a single Terry Fox Run. He has devoted so much time to fundraising, having raised $47,000 in Prince Rupert alone one summer, and he’s been recognized with a B.C. achievement award for his fundraising efforts. Overall, Jim has raised close to $600,000 for the annual Terry Fox Run, with a goal of achieving $1 million. He dreams of getting to Malaysia next year for the Terry Fox Run 2015.

I look forward to seeing Jim every summer when he comes back to Prince Rupert. He bounces into my office beaming with new motivation and inspiration for raising more money for cancer research. Inspired by one hero, Terry Fox, he has become a hero to me and to many of us in our communities.

It is with great pleasure that I will support wholeheartedly the Terry Fox Day Act.

Hon. S. Bond: People might ask what unique connection Prince George has with Terry Fox. While all of us have a personal and emotional connection with him, one that evokes pride and a sense of unbelievable heroism, Prince George does have a unique connection with Terry Fox.

It was September 1979, 35 years ago this year, that Terry Fox, his brother Darrel and his friend Doug Alward arrived to take part in the Prince George Labour Day Classic — 17.5 kilometres. It was a running race known then as the Prince George to Boston Marathon.

I want to read for you a quote from someone who is an icon in our community, Tom Masich, who has been involved in running and track for almost his whole life, and he’s still engaged. Here’s a quote from Tom. He was the director of the Labour Day Classic in 1979.

“After I got the race started, a lot of spectators asked me if I was crazy, allowing an amputee to run. I was still questioning myself.

“Well, what a day. I checked in on the two-way radio to find how things were going with Terry. To my shock, I was told that he had come to the end of the short race and just kept on going to complete the second section and eventually the overall long course. Three hours, nine minutes and 59 seconds after the start of the race, the crowd of spectators…were gathered at the finish line.

[1815]

“They were crying, and they were cheering on this magnificent young man as he, saturated in sweat from shoes to t-shirt…crossed the finish line. It was magnificent, it was emotional, and it was unprecedented. Terry Fox had stolen the show.”

I think all of us know that even today, 35 years later, we say with confidence that Terry Fox did steal the show. When Terry competed in Prince George, many of us saw that as the confidence that allowed him to launch his Marathon of Hope in Prince George. Prince George plays a significant role in the history of the Terry Fox Run.

This year in our community, thanks to some incredibly hard work by organizers who are so faithful to this run, a young man named Scott McWalter took over the run. He challenged the people of Prince George to come out in greater numbers.

In fact, this year our run saw 1,021 people cross the finish line, and the challenge had been to make the race exceed 1,000 people. Regardless of whether these great community residents were running, biking, wheeling or walking, each individual was there for the same reason: to raise money for cancer research and to celebrate Terry’s dream of hope.

There is another significant reason that I am deeply moved by Terry, as everyone in the House has stood today and shared. There is a mountain in British Columbia called Mount Terry Fox. That mountain is in my constituency. There is a beautiful sign along the highway that points travellers to Mount Terry Fox. The park and the mountain were officially dedicated on September 22, 1981, by the family of Terry Fox and the people of British Columbia.

When they looked at the way the mountain would…. What would the mountain serve to accomplish? It was written that the mountain that bears Terry’s name “will serve forever as an enduring and fitting memorial to a young Canadian’s determination, selflessness and courage.”

I don’t know if any of you have actually looked at Terry’s journal, but there are actually quotes in his journal that are compelling and very, very poignant. They talk about his goal and how important it was to him. One that was particularly meaningful took place on day 15 — 542 kilometres in — in South Brook junction, Newfoundland. “Today we got up at 4 a.m. As usual, it was tough. If I died, I would die happy because I was doing what I wanted to do. How many people could say that? I went out, I did 15 push-ups in the road, and I took off. I want to set an example that will never be forgotten.”

Today I think all of us stand in this House, and we want to thank the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam. I think that her introduction of this private member’s bill has helped to ensure that exactly what Terry said on day 15, 542 kilometres in…. “I want to set an example that will never be forgotten.”

I think this private member’s bill ensures that in British Columbia we will have at least one day every year from here into the future where Terry Fox will be celebrated, and he certainly will never be forgotten.

B. Ralston: I rise to take my place in the debate. I want to begin by thanking the member for Port Moody–Coquitlam for her insight and boldness in bringing this bill forward. I also want to acknowledge the role of the Premier in bringing forward a private member’s bill.

Of course, there are private members’ bills that are put forward by the opposition as well as the government. I’m optimistic that this will signal a new tone in the House when it comes to considering private members’ bills.

[1820]

Terry Fox was the quintessential Canadian hero: modest yet determined; almost noble in his bearing; possessing a maturity at an age when most of us, as some have noted here, don’t really exhibit that kind of maturity; a depth of understanding; and a real sense of the purpose of life. He was 19 when he was diagnosed, 21 when he began his journey and 22 when he died, just one month short of his 23rd birthday.

Thinking back in one’s own life, it’s difficult to imagine that maturity, that sense of insight and that commitment to such a powerful and public purpose.

I remember travelling across the country with my wife and three children late in 1999. Outside Thunder Bay there is a memorial above the highway on the side of the hill where his journey ended. We did stop. We did go up and think about that journey. I did tell the children, as we continued on to Toronto on the road, that this is the highway that he travelled, running in his own particular way, and to think about that as a remarkable achievement.

Here in British Columbia we’re very, deeply proud of Terry Fox. He’s known not only in Canada but internationally. I can’t think of a more fitting memorial that everyone can relate to than the purpose of this bill. So I want to join all members in my wholehearted support for this bill.

B. Ralston moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: At its rising, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada