2017 Legislative Session: Sixth 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)

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Donald Brothers

L. Larson

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M207 — Banning Publicly-Funded Campaign Advertisements Act, 2017

Bill M208 — Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2017

Bill M209 — Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act

Bill M210 — Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2017

Bill M211 — Fixed Legislative Calendar Act, 2017

Bill M212 — Empowering Legislative Committees Act, 2017

Bill M213 — Modernizing Public Participation in Democracy Act, 2017

G. Holman

Bill M214 — Public Records Accountability Act, 2017

D. Routley

Bill M215 — Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2017

S. Robinson

Bill M216 — Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2017

S. Simpson

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Women’s Memorial March

J. Rice

Moose Hide Campaign Day

M. Dalton

Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities

S. Robinson

Chinese New Year celebration and immigrants to Chilliwack

L. Throness

Bill M c Govern and Cape Horn Elementary School

J. Wickens

Post-truth and democracy

G. Hogg

Oral Questions

Reporting of assaults in youth death case

M. Mark

Hon. S. Cadieux

N. Simons

Foster home standards

C. James

Hon. S. Cadieux

Student housing and rental vacancy rate

A. Weaver

Hon. A. Wilkinson

PharmaNet system privacy breach

D. Routley

Hon. T. Lake

S. Robinson

S. Simpson

Reports from Committees

Report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth, November 2016

D. McRae

C. James

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Representative for Children and Youth

D. McRae

Standing Order 35

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance — Islamophobia and systemic racism

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Standing Order 35

Islamophobia and systemic racism

B. Ralston

Hon. S. Bond

H. Bains

Hon. S. Anton

J. Darcy

J. Thornthwaite

S. Robinson

Hon. T. Wat

R. Fleming

J. Yap

M. Farnworth

S. Hamilton

G. Heyman

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

D. Routley

Hon. R. Coleman

A. Weaver

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

G. Holman

Throne Speech Debate (continued)

Hon. A. Virk

[ Page 13595 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2017

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two constituents of mine, longtime friends. Well, the dad is a longtime friend. The son is only seven years old, so he’s a seven-year friend. He’s a very active young man. He’s very politically astute, and he’s here to visit us in the precinct for the first time. Please make Wilf and Alex Mulder very welcome to the House.

Hon. J. Rustad: It’s a great honour today to introduce four guests. In particular, I want to start off recognizing two who, through the important work they have done, have truly advanced the work of ending violence against indigenous women and children. Paul Lacerte and Raven Lacerte founded this campaign after a hunting trip. They’ve been working tirelessly through the aboriginal friendship centres and now have taken this campaign nationally.

Today I’m also very pleased that we have taken the campaign, as well, to the point where we’re now proclaiming our day today as the Moose Hide Campaign Day in British Columbia. They’re doing great work on behalf of all of us in terms of ending violence, and I’d like the House to please make Paul and Raven welcome.

With them are two additional guests that I’d like to introduce. Marilyn Lacerte and Marguerite Lipton are also down and are part of this. They are here today in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: I just want to echo the words of my colleague across the floor, welcoming three generations of the Lacerte family. Paul and Raven; and Marilyn Lacerte is here as well; Auntie Marg, I think — Marguerite Lipton — an elder in the House today. I should put it that way. A wonderful campaign that began with thoughts about how we can address the issue of violence and violence against women and children.

[1335]

I think Paul and Raven should be quite proud of the efforts that they’ve made and the fact that their message is spreading to all corners, not just the province but across the country. There are people across the country today who are fasting, and there are others in the House who are part of that campaign as well. My colleagues on both sides of the House are wearing a moose patch. So I echo the words of the hon. minister and welcome everyone who is part of the Moose Hide Campaign today.

Hon. S. Anton: I’m very pleased to introduce today to the House a longtime notable resident of Haida Gwaii, Mr. George Westwood, whom I was very pleased to meet this past fall when in Haida Gwaii for the visit of the duke and duchess.

For a number of years, George has helped residents in Haida Gwaii in their time of bereavement. In fact, he was referred to by myself in this House, and I misspoke at the time in describing him. What I would like to say now is that Mr. Westwood is an esteemed and admired citizen of Haida Gwaii, and I am very happy to have met him.

George will be meeting with the staff of Public Safety and Solicitor General later today to explore ways to better service small and remote communities and ensure that there are resources available to families in their time of bereavement. Would the House make Mr. Westwood very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the most patient woman in British Columbia, my wife, Lisa, who is here, I think, for the third time in eight years and probably the final time. As many members are aware, families put up with a lot when they have spouses in the positions serving British Columbians. In honour of Lisa, I know that the member for New Westminster will be very gentle during question period today. I would ask that the House please make Lisa very welcome.

J. Rice: Thank you to the Attorney General for her kind introduction of a very special constituent of mine, George Westwood, the Haida Gwaii undertaker. He is gracing us with his presence in the people’s House today.

George has been volunteering his undertaking services in Haida Gwaii for over 25 years now. He’s such a kind man. He has a great sense of humour, and he has an ability to put people at ease, particularly when a loved one has passed.

George has been a tireless advocate for the creation of funeral commissioners, much like marriage commissioners, in order to allow rural and remote communities to properly bury their dead, this without the burden of the extravagant costs of sending loved ones on a ferry or an airplane to a commercial funeral home in a larger city.

George reminds me that the basic obligations in life are to feed; to give drink; to clothe and to shoe; to visit; to console the sick, poor and afflicted; and to bury the dead. That is all that is required of humanity. Anything beyond that is either trim or greed. George embodies these principles in his compassionate personality and in the services he provides to the residents of Haida Gwaii.

George, we thank you for your service.

J. Yap: I have two constituents who are visiting Victoria today, Charles and Janet Barstow. They’re here with their good friends Ron and Norma Gatto from Langley. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

[ Page 13596 ]

K. Conroy: I’m really pleased to introduce another member of our ever-growing family. On August 5, our son Wyllie and daughter-in-law Jayme welcomed a daughter, Sayge Anne Grace, sister to Moss and cousin to Daira, Alexia, Eric, Ryen, Aydenn, Kaelin and Sarah, making our wonderful total of grandchildren now number nine. I promised them I’d get all their names in.

I also want to introduce another special arrival to our family. My brother Thomas and his wife, Sandy, had their first grandchild. Their daughter Samantha gave birth to Maverick Thomas on January13 — Friday the 13th — weighing 8 pounds 8 ounces. I have to tell the House that Maverick was three weeks premature. For the women in the room who’ve had babies, they all went: “Ooh.” Yeah, he probably would have weighed 11 pounds. They are very happy and very healthy, as are Granny Kat and Great-Auntie Kat.

[1340]

Hon. S. Bond: Today I’m very pleased to welcome to the Legislature and to the B.C. public service six young people who are working as co-op students in the labour market and information division of my ministry.

We’re very pleased to welcome Siddharth Jain, who is studying for his master of business administration at the University of Victoria; Leah Martin from the University of Victoria, who’s working toward her master of public admin; Kristen Bassett, who is studying at Camosun; Amy Phipps from UVic, who’s also working toward her master of public administration; Elayne Ma, who is working toward a bachelor of arts degree at UVic; and Charlotte Safnuk, who is also working toward her bachelor of arts degree at UVic.

These six young people are a tremendous asset to our ministry, and they certainly represent the future of the B.C. public service. I know the House will want to join me in making them most welcome today.

G. Kyllo: I’d like the House to please welcome…. We have Kelvin Campbell, the business representative for District Council 38 — that’s the Union of Painters and Allied Trades, representing 2,000 members; as well as Don White, the executive director of the Hazardous Materials Association of B.C. They hosted us for a great lunch today. It was a bit of a networking session.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Madame Speaker: Opposition House Leader.

Hon. M. de Jong: Not yet. [Laughter.]

Madame Speaker: I actually enjoyed that.

Government House Leader.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday we were introduced to the talented group of young people who are working with our colleagues in the opposition as part of the legislative internship program, and I’d like to take a moment today to introduce the balance of those talented young people who are engaged with the government caucus.

They are Anthony Bramwell, Cameron Fish, Brynne Langford, Kristen Littler and Tyler Norman. They joined the government caucus as part of that program in January. Anthony, Cameron, Brynne, Kristin and Tyler recently completed their undergraduate bachelor of arts degrees at Simon Fraser, University of Victoria, Mount Allison University, University of Victoria and UBC respectively.

Just as we heard yesterday, by virtue of their selection to that program, they have already demonstrated their talents and abilities. They will put those to work for us, as legislators, over the next number of weeks and months. As we have commented in the past, we would not be surprised if, one day, one of those talented young people found a seat in this chamber in another capacity.

I hope the House will make these interns very welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: Madame Speaker, thank you for letting me rise a second time, because it is important to acknowledge my predecessor, Brian Smith, QC, who is in the House today. Mr. Smith is often a visitor to this House. I, personally, always enjoy seeing him, hearing his advice, hearing his stories. He is very welcome, I know, in this House, and would the House show him that right now.

Tributes

DONALD BROTHERS

L. Larson: I’d like to inform the House of the recent passing of Don Brothers. He was born November 8, 1923, in Grand Forks, B.C., and passed away on February 9 in Grand Forks, at the age of 93.

He is lovingly survived by his wife, Betty, his daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He represented Rossland-Trail in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1958 to 1972 with the B.C. Social Credit Party, becoming the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources in 1964 and the Minister of Education in 1972. He was appointed to the Provincial Assessment Appeal Board of B.C., and after that he was appointed to a number of Indian bands to chair the assessment review board.

There will be a memorial service on Saturday, February 18, in Grand Forks. I would ask Madame Speaker, on behalf of the Legislature, to send condolences to his family.

Madame Speaker: It shall be done.

[1345]

[ Page 13597 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M207 — BANNING PUBLICLY-FUNDED

CAMPAIGN ADVERTISEMENTS ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Banning Publicly-Funded Campaign Advertisements Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I’m very proud to introduce a number of private member’s bills as part of an overall package of proposed democratic reforms from the official opposition that will make elections fairer, make the Legislature more transparent and accountable and, last but not least, protect citizens’ rights of free speech.

I move that a bill intituled Banning Publicly Funded Campaign Advertisements, 2017, be introduced and read for the first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: As we approach the election this May, we’re already seeing an increase in government advertising, the main purpose of which appears to be the promotion of the governing party. As in 2013, we can expect that this taxpayer-funded advertising will be ramped up as the election nears.

British Columbia has already been described as the Wild West with respect to the lack of rules around campaign fundraising. The continued refusal of the Premier to ban corporate and union political donations and the elimination of pre-election spending limits for political parties add to the concerns that partisan-tainted government advertising — in other words, taxpayer-funded partisan advertising — reinforces the inordinate influence of big money on our political process.

The purpose of reintroducing the government advertising act is to prevent any provincial government from using public dollars to promote its own political interests. Under this bill, all government advertising must be reviewed and approved by the Auditor General based on clearly defined criteria preventing advertising that promotes the partisan interests of the governing party or creates a negative impression of government critics. The bill requires government advertising to present information factually and objectively and also bans all government advertising four months before the fixed election date.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, Banning Publicly-Funded Campaign Advertisements Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M208 — ELECTION (SPENDING LIMIT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I move that a bill intituled the Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: The government has refused to take big money out of politics. In fact, while other provinces and the federal government have made changes to restrict the influence of donations from large organizations such as corporations and unions on the political process, this government has made the problem worse.

In 2015, government removed long-standing political spending limits in the 60 days prior to the campaign period. As a result of this change, despite the efforts of the official opposition, political spending leading up to the formal election campaign is now unlimited, exacerbating the problem of big money in politics. This bill would reinstate a limit on spending by political parties for the 60 days prior to the beginning of the campaign period.

To be clear, this legislation does not apply to third-party advertising, only to political parties and candidates. The reinstatement of pre-election spending limits would help restore a more level playing field in which smaller parties and independent candidates in the province can compete more effectively in election campaigns. The reinstatement of pre-election spending limits will also help restore confidence in the B.C. electoral system, which has been badly damaged in recent years.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M208, Election (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M209 — FIXED FALL ELECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act.

G. Holman: I appreciate the indulgence of the House here today. I also move that the bill intituled Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act be read for the first time.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: By moving the fixed election date to

[ Page 13598 ]

the beginning of October following the presentation of first-quarter public accounts, this will allow for more thorough assessment of the province’s finances. More importantly, it will better ensure that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to critically evaluate the budget before they vote.

I do want to point out and thank the work of the member from Delta on this particular legislation as well.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M209, Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1350]

BILL M210 — MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF

INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I now move introduction of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: This bill will ensure that public office holders leaving office, their ministerial staff and their advisers do not improperly benefit from their former positions or exercise any undue influence.

This legislation will help address the growing cynicism of citizens about the conduct of public officials.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M210, Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M211 — FIXED LEGISLATIVE

CALENDAR ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Fixed Legislative Calendar Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the parliamentary calendar act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce this bill, which will make fall parliamentary sessions mandatory in British Columbia.

Over the past six years, there have been only two fall sessions called by government, despite apparent commitments to a fixed legislative calendar with fall sessions for Legislative debate.

The continued denial of the fall session greatly reduces the days of active sitting in this chamber, which limits the ability of the opposition to hold government to account and to participate in the development of important public policies. It also means that the broader public is denied opportunities to observe and participate in the democratic process.

This bill will legislate an additional six weeks of motions, debates, statements, question periods and bills, all of which are essential elements needed for an accountable government.

In closing, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M211, Fixed Legislative Calendar Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M212 — EMPOWERING LEGISLATIVE

COMMITTEES ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Empowering Legislative Committees Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the Empowering Legislative Committees Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce this bill that would increase the number of standing committees of the Legislature and increase the power of these standing committees by allowing them more discretion to exercise their mandate.

I’ve been fortunate to have been a member of two standing committees. They are less partisan, they are more constructive by nature, and they can play an essential role in the development of public policy and legislation.

Currently the standing committees of the Legislature have limited powers and can only examine issues specifically referred to them by government.

Committees are also hindered by the infrequency of meetings. Some do not meet at all. This limits the ability of MLAs and, through them, their constituents and the broader public to meaningfully participate in policy and legislation.

This bill would expand the power of the legislative standing committees to carry out their intended function.

As members of this assembly know, there are some important issues that are not represented by standing

[ Page 13599 ]

committees at all. This situation compelled our official opposition spokesperson for agriculture to form a bipartisan committee to tour the province, seeking input regarding policy for this sector that is so important to our economy and our communities.

This bill will expand the policy areas that standing committees cover to include critical industries of agriculture, as well as forestry, and arts and culture.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M212, Empowering Legislative Committees Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M213 — MODERNIZING PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY ACT, 2017

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Modernizing Public Participation in Democracy Act, 2017.

G. Holman: I thank everyone for their indulgence.

I move the introduction of the electronic petitions act for its first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m very happy to reintroduce this bill to ensure that electronically submitted petitions would be recognized and accepted by this assembly. And I do want to acknowledge the work on this particular legislation by my colleague from Burnaby-Lougheed, who first introduced the bill last year.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M213, Modernizing Public Participation in Democracy Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1355]

A. Weaver: While I appreciate the intention of the former bill, I do note it seems to be absent on the order paper, so I seek clarification as to whether or not we can receive this bill, in light that it hasn’t been given two days’ notice.

It’s not to say I disagree with it. I do agree with it, but I think it should have been on the order paper.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, we understand it was No. 3 on the order paper. The one dealing with petitions is No. 3 on the order paper.

BILL M214 — PUBLIC RECORDS

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2017

D. Routley presented a bill intituled Public Records Accountability Act, 2017.

D. Routley: I move that a bill intituled Public Records Accountability Act be introduced and read for the first time.

Motion approved.

D. Routley: I move the introduction of the Public Records Accountability Act. I am pleased to introduce a records accountability act. This is the third time I have brought forward a bill to improve British Columbia’s access to information. This all is against the backdrop of continued scandals regarding information management in this province — this against the backdrop of repeated condemning reports from successive Information and Privacy Commissioners. This bill acts on many recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner as well as several select standing committees to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This bill does three key things. First, it creates a positive duty to document, which will require that the government maintain full and accurate records pertaining to any action that the government makes, which includes business done with contracted companies. Recent years’ triple-delete scandal and a plethora of “no records” responses to freedom-of-information requests require that the people of B.C. have more confidence in the management of the records of government.

Second, this bill requires that this information be maintained in an accessible form so that all may reference this information and ensures that no government document is destroyed without authorization.

Finally, this bill creates the duty to investigate instances of unauthorized destruction of government information and compels public bodies to release records as to how they process freedom-of-information requests. It also removes legal immunity from officials who fail to disclose documents.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M214, Public Records Accountability Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Again, the Chair is seeking clarification from Saanich North and the Islands that your

[ Page 13600 ]

bill that the other member queried, Modernizing Public Participation in Democracy Act, 2017, as on the order paper — that is the one?

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

BILL M215 — FAIRNESS IN FINANCING

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS ACT, 2017

S. Robinson presented a bill intituled Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2017.

S. Robinson: I move introduction of the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

S. Robinson: I would like to introduce, for the third time, the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act. This will amend the local government financing act to restrict campaign donations, in local government elections, solely to individuals, effectively banning political donations by organizations. This bill would eliminate some of the challenges and the perceived influence of big money in local elections throughout British Columbia.

[1400]

We know that British Columbians want good democracy, free of real potential or perceived influence of these organizations.

With that, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M215, Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M216 — WHISTLEBLOWERS

PROTECTION ACT, 2017

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2017.

S. Simpson: I move that a bill intituled the Whistleblowers Protection Act be introduced and read for the first time.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to introduce for the third time the Whistleblowers Protection Act. This bill has two purposes. The first is to facilitate the investigation and inquiry into matters that are potentially damaging to the public. The bill would establish a process for annual disclosures and empower the ombudsperson to oversee the administration of the law. It would require all reports to be public to ensure transparency and accountability.

The second critical purpose of this legislation is to protect individuals who make such disclosures. It takes courage to see something that is wrong and step up and talk about it. Legitimate disclosures of this nature are in the public interest, and people who make such disclosures need to know that they will not be punished for doing the right thing. The Whistleblowers Protection Act would provide them that assurance and guarantee.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M216, Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WOMEN’S MEMORIAL MARCH

J. Rice: Just under the McBride Street bridge on the Highway of Tears in Prince Rupert, people gathered to honour the missing and murdered, in concert with women’s marches held all over the province this past Valentine’s Day. Now in the 27th year, the February 14 annual women’s march is held on Valentine’s Day to honour the memory of all women who have died due to physical, mental, emotional and spiritual violence.

The 1991 murder of a woman on Powell Street in Vancouver led to the first Women’s Memorial March. An annual march has resulted to express compassion, community and caring for all women in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

The annual march has illuminated the unjust violence endured by women, especially indigenous women. As an MLA representing many First Nations communities, I know personally that families of the murdered and missing feel frustrated at the slow process to address these tragedies. They feel discouraged at the resistance to deal with the systematic nature of gendered violence, poverty, racism and colonialism, which can fuel these tragedies.

The memorial march reminds us that missing and murdered women — as well as their families, communities and loved ones — deserve answers, concrete action

[ Page 13601 ]

and meaningful justice. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who attended this year’s march, tells me it provides the space to come together, to heal together, to remember the women who are still missing and to dedicate ourselves to justice.

The growing number of these Valentine’s Day marches held not just in Vancouver but across our province reminds us that gendered violence is a much broader problem not exclusive to one postal code. It is everywhere. While thousands gathered in the streets of Vancouver two days ago to honour the women of the Downtown Eastside, three indigenous mothers organized a simultaneous vigil in Prince Rupert, reminding us that even though it is 2017, violence against women is still occurring everywhere.

MOOSE HIDE CAMPAIGN DAY

M. Dalton: Today is Moose Hide Campaign Day in British Columbia. From its inception in 2011 by aboriginal co-founders Paul Lacerte and his daughter Raven, the mission of the Moose Hide Campaign is to engage aboriginal and non-aboriginal men to stand up and speak out about the violence committed against women and children in our communities.

Members on both sides of this House and staff throughout the Legislature are showing their support, either by fasting or wearing moose hide pins or both. I want to recognize over 500 male public servants who are fasting today, as I am doing also. This fasting is to show commitment to women and children in our lives.

I was honoured to attend this morning’s opening ceremonies and also to be in attendance at the legislative steps for the first official proclamation of Moose Hide Campaign Day in British Columbia. This is a movement for healing, transformation and taking a stand against violent behaviour against women, against children.

Domestic violence affects entire communities. The shock waves from the trauma reverberate through children and families, workplaces and schools, and so easily become generational.

[1405]

The simple square of moose hide is an acknowledgment that the vision of individuals can change hearts and minds and lives. Wearing the moose hide signifies our commitment to honour, respect and protect the women and children in our lives. Over 500,000 moose hide pins have been distributed. This compares with 14,000 in 2014, a small indication of how this campaign has grown and is spreading from B.C. across Canada.

The Moose Hide Campaign is an example of how people can make a difference. For every wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece or grandmother — whoever has been subjected to violence — we say that we see you, we support you, and we respect you.

SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL

OF THE TRI-CITIES

S. Robinson: The word “soroptimist” was coined from the Latin soror , meaning “sister,” and optima , meaning “best.” Soroptimists are women at their best helping other women to be their best.

In the Tri-Cities, the Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities has been around for over 17 years, and they have been committed to improving the lives of women and girls both locally and internationally. The Tri-Cities Soroptimists make a difference in the lives of women and girls every day. They host a range of programs, including Bea’s Kloset, a free store for women and young girls at risk who are transitioning to a life of their own. Gently used household items are donated, and recipients are invited to shop for free for the household items they need.

They have a warm place for women, a monthly social evening for women in need, providing hot meals, friendly faces, clothes, shoes and resource referrals. They have the Enchantment Project, providing high school graduates whose families have limited incomes with formal attire so that these young women can attend their graduation ceremonies with pride.

They also have the Dream It, Be It project for girls in secondary schools who face obstacles for a future of success. The project hosts an annual two-day conference for girls 14 to 18 where the girls discover their personal values, explore careers, learn to set achievable goals and learn to overcome obstacles.

This coming weekend the Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities is hosting their annual fundraising gala, where they will be raising funds to run these programs. They will also be giving awards to women and girls who have made a difference in the lives of other women. There will be awards for women who have faced adversity and are persisting with their educational goals and awards for young women who are still in high school and are making the world a better place through their volunteer efforts.

As one of the award judges, I have to say that every single one of the applications that we reviewed was a story of hope and possibility. I read about the adversity some of these women have faced. In spite of these challenges, they persist in caring for their children, making their way in the world and persist in their dreams.

CHINESE NEW YEAR CELEBRATION

AND IMMIGRANTS TO CHILLIWACK

L. Throness: Recently I had occasion to visit a Chinese New Year celebration in Chilliwack at the Chinese Alliance Church there, which is pastored by Paul and Michelle Yua. After meeting a number of new people, we gathered for a delicious communal meal of authentic Chinese food. Then we all went upstairs to sing, listen to speeches and watch a video of Céline Dion singing in

[ Page 13602 ]

Mandarin, which I can tell you was a unique cultural experience in itself.

Chilliwack has always been a traditional area, a region populated by German, Dutch and other European immigrants. They are good people, solid people. They have built this province. Even today when I visit schools in my constituency, classrooms remind me of those that I grew up in, in northern B.C.

But our city is growing fast. Even in this area of relative ethnic uniformity, new people are moving in. Our community is changing, and we welcome that change.

I look forward to developing closer relationships with new Canadians in my riding. I especially want to wish my new Chinese Canadian friends a hearty Xin nian kuai le , which I think means something like Happy Year of the Rooster, and welcome to Chilliwack.

BILL M c GOVERN AND

CAPE HORN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

J. Wickens: When I was a child, I was never sent to the principal’s office. In fact, at that time, what I remember is that the principal’s office was the last place you wanted to be, and you certainly did not want the principal to talk to your parents.

[1410]

But when my children entered public education, things were much different. Everybody wanted to be in the principal’s office. I’ll never forget the day that I walked into Bill McGovern’s office, the principal at Cape Horn Elementary in Coquitlam. I was tired, scared and wondered if the public school system would meet the needs of my child. He was caring and attentive, and took out a pad of paper and a pen and said to me: “Tell me about your son and what we can do to make him successful.” He had all the time in the world for our family, and I left that meeting feeling like things would be okay.

Bill McGovern was at Cape Horn Elementary for eight years, and we recently had to say goodbye. I can tell you that all of the staff, students and parents were incredibly sad to say goodbye to Bill. My little boy even shed a few tears.

Many of the people I talk to in the education system tell me that one of the key ingredients to an amazing school is having a great principal. In the time that Bill McGovern was at Cape Horn Elementary, he was not only a principal. He was the school counsellor. He worked with gifted students. He did pull-out math programs and much, much more.

When my daughter entered kindergarten, she couldn’t pronounce “McGovern,” so she called him Mr. Government.

Mr. Government, thank you for being a fantastic educator and principal. There are no words to express the impact that you have had on the lives of students, parents and teachers.

POST-TRUTH AND DEMOCRACY

G. Hogg: Each year the Oxford Dictionary selects a word or phrase of the year, one that has attracted a great deal of interest. Last November they selected as the 2016 word of the year “post-truth,” an adjective defined as relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion or policy than appeals to emotion or personal beliefs.

Canadian professor Mark Kingwell has written that it can seem as if “we are living in a world where fact, truth and evidence no longer exert the rational pull they once did” and that “fake news sites, junk science, politicians blithely dismissive of fact-checks and Google searches that appear to make us dumber render truth redundant.” Of course, members of this Legislature would be the singular exception to Professor Kingwell’s observation.

The World Values Survey, a global study by social scientists, covers over 100 countries, including Canada, and has found some disturbing trends. Far fewer millennials object to autocratic governments than do their elders.

Only 19 percent of Americans and 36 percent of Europeans say that a military takeover would not be legitimate. Just one-third see civil rights as absolutely essential, and in 1995, only 16 percent of American youngsters thought democracy was a bad system. By 2011, the percentage that thought it was a bad system increased to 25 percent. I wonder what that percentage would be in America today.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman says that we can be blind to the obvious and also blind to our blindness. May we strive to overcome that blindness and ensure that facts, truth and evidence, not appeals to emotion and personal beliefs, are the foundation of our opinions and our actions.

Rational thought really means an ongoing agreement to take each other seriously. I know that that’s true, because I looked it up and found it on Facebook.

Oral Questions

REPORTING OF ASSAULTS

IN YOUTH DEATH CASE

M. Mark: Yesterday we did not get many answers about the tragic death of Alex Gervais, but perhaps we’ll do better today.

[ Page 13603 ]

We know that Alex would have thrived if he had been placed with his family, but government rejected that. We know that Alex was in desperate need of mental health services, but government rejected that too. We know that Alex pleaded for help ten days before his death, but government ignored him.

This government has a moral, a legal and a parental obligation to act — and, instead, did nothing.

In April 2014, Alex told his caregiver and his social worker that he had been sexually assaulted by two older children in his foster home placement. In response, government took no action. They offered no counselling, no mental health supports — nothing.

[1415]

My question is for the Solicitor General. A child in government’s care was sexually assaulted. Why didn’t anyone bother to report it to the RCMP?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The tragic death of Alex Gervais and the report which we have now received from the representative paint a very unfortunate picture, a very sad picture of how the system failed that young man.

I have spoken at length about this. I have issued a statement about this. I have accepted all of the recommendations made by the representative’s office in terms of how we learn from this, how we move forward, what we do differently. I’ve committed to all of those things. I’ve laid out how we will do that, and I am committed to doing that and more to ensure that the 7,000 children and youth in our care have a system that works to protect and care for them.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

M. Mark: With all due respect, I’ve heard that line one too many times. Kids in this province, especially vulnerable kids, deserve some accountability.

It gets worse. According to the representative, in August 2015, Alex told his social worker that he had been sexually assaulted by an adult respite caregiver. According to Alex, his caregiver, a private contractor with this government, plied him with cocaine and then sexually assaulted him. Government’s response was to provide Alex with literature, with information about the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth.

My question again is for the Solicitor General. A child in government’s care reported that he was provided a restricted narcotic and sexually assaulted by an adult in a position of trust. Can he tell the House who was supposed to report this incident to the RCMP, and can he tell this House if he even bothered?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No one is arguing the duty to report. It is clear. We stand by that duty. It is absolute. It is all of our responsibility, if we are the first person to understand that there is a risk to the child, to report. Let me just reiterate again for the member. They will continue to use an extremely tragic circumstance and a really difficult situation in the death of a child, a youth — for lack of a better term — to slime me. They can do that, and that’s okay.

But I want them to take a moment to remember that when they paint the entire system this way, it does not reflect well on the thousands of caregivers in residential circumstances, in foster circumstances, the social workers on the front line who devote their lives to protecting children. Each and every one of those people who does a fantastic job is hurt by the commentary. Most of all, it doesn’t do anything to support the children and youth in our care, those who are thriving, those who are in circumstances where they are succeeding and who deserve our respect.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a final supplemental.

M. Mark: Shame. Shame on making those remarks that somehow this is about the minister instead of Alex.

The government has elected to make good decisions, best-interest decisions and protect the most vulnerable. I would remind everyone in this House that this is about Alex and other vulnerable children that the Representative for Children and Youth reported on — not Plecas, but an independent office that exposed the truth in what happened for a vulnerable kid named Alex in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family.

[1420]

Let’s recap. Alex was sexually assaulted by two older children in foster care, and no one told the police. Alex was given narcotics by a caregiver and sexually assaulted, and no one told the police — not the caregiver, not the social worker and not anyone at the Ministry of Children and Family Development. According to the representative, Alex was reportedly stabbed in the neck and seriously injured, and no one told the police.

My question is for the Solicitor General. Surely he knows that people in a position of trust who care for vulnerable children are required, have a duty, to inform the police when a child is harmed. Can he provide an explanation to this House as to why no one ever bothered to inform the police when Alex was assaulted, not once but three times?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the death of Alex Gervais is tragic, and the circumstances leading up to his death are tragic and inexcusable. When something like this happens, it is our duty to investigate, for the representative to investigate, and for us to act to make changes to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. We are committed to that, and that’s what we will do.

N. Simons: Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development said it was not her practice to

[ Page 13604 ]

second-guess the decisions of her staff. For better or for worse, the minister responsible for the safety of 7,100 children, vulnerable children, in this province…. When one of them was sexually assaulted, no one bothered to call the police. Can the minister tell this House whose job it was to report Alex’s assault to the authorities?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, to the member, we all have a duty to report. Whoever is the first receiver of the information that a child is at risk has a duty to report.

Madame Speaker: Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a supplemental.

N. Simons: That’s a good message for the public to hear. However, it’s not one that’s obviously understood by everyone in this House. The minister has demonstrated a remarkable ability to be responsible without being accountable.

Alex is denied placement with his family, and that’s someone else’s decision. Alex’s repeated assaults are never reported to the authorities. That’s someone else’s decision. The obvious question to the minister is: if one of the children currently in the care of the province is assaulted, ultimately, whose job is it to make sure that the police are informed?

Hon. S. Cadieux: For those watching and for this House, let me remind the member that there are laws in this province. The CFCSA has guiding principles that outline the safety and well-being of children. Under that legislation, I, as minister, designate the authority to act on that law to designated directors. They are the statutory guardians of children in care, and they must act in the best interests of children in care. Similarly, there is a duty to report for those people who may be aware of a situation where a child is at risk. They have a duty to report.

But let’s just also remember that our front-line professionals go into homes where there may be domestic violence. There may be substance abuse. There may be child abuse. There may be a whole range of horrific circumstances. Then they have to make decisions, based on their professional judgment, whether or not to remove a child from their family.

The members opposite seem to think that it would be better for the elected officials — me, as the minister — to make those decisions, and I don’t. I don’t agree. In fact, I think that would be absurd and, frankly, dangerous, because I am not trained to make those decisions.

[1425]

FOSTER HOME STANDARDS

C. James: If the minister or this government actually cared about the most vulnerable children in this province, the minister would have made sure that the resources were there.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

Members, this House will come to order.

Please continue.

C. James: This government would have put the resources that were requested by the Representative for Children and Youth and the hard-working social workers in this province, who need the resources in the field. That’s what the government would have done if they took this issue seriously. They would have put those resources in place.

Yesterday we raised the fact that this minister has achieved a zero compliance rate for monitoring the safety and well-being of kids’ foster homes in the northwest, in the Kootenays and in the east Fraser Valley. So in three regions of this province, the minister could not or would not ensure that there were enough social workers to make contact with children in care at least once every three months.

My question is to the minister. Can she explain why she is apparently unable to enforce a law that she is directly responsible for?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The member opposite would have you believe that she and the NDP are the only people in this province that care about children. She couldn’t be more wrong.

The system is not perfect, not by a long shot. There is plenty to do. Quality assurance is one of those areas that we have acknowledged needs more resources, and more have been put in. There is no question that it’s unacceptable when we do an audit and our compliance is not in line. It’s not okay. Then our directors go in and they put in place an action plan with supports to fix those problems.

We report publicly because we’re not ashamed of the fact that there is more work to do. There will always be more work to do. But on my watch, the number of kids in care is down because we’re doing a better job of keeping kids with their families. The budget has been lifted significantly to support our front-line workers and to add front-line workers so that their caseloads are lower, so that they have more time to spend directly with the families and youth that they serve, because we do understand how important this work is and how much more there is to do.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Zero compliance. Three regions of this province have zero compliance with a very basic requirement

[ Page 13605 ]

to see children in care at least once every three months. The minister herself just said we need more resources. Since 2014, the minister has been unable to document that social workers are checking in on children in care at least once every three months.

In the case of contracted homes, homes like Alex was in, here’s how the minister’s own staff described their oversight responsibilities: “We had, like, a hands-off approach to contractors. They’re a business. We buy the service. We need to ensure they’re providing the service, but we don’t handhold them. We don’t provide support to their staff.”

If the minister isn’t monitoring kids in foster homes and she’s not monitoring kids in private care, where is she monitoring vulnerable children in this province?

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is monitoring. There is quality assurance. We need more of it. We need to do a better job of it. I am not arguing with that, and we’re committed to getting that done. We’ve laid out a plan for that, and more is continuing to be done because we value the foster and residential placements that we have for kids.

[1430]

In most cases, they are good. They are extraordinary, in most cases. In fact — the member will know this, having been a foster parent herself — there are thousands upon thousands of amazing families who give wonderful, loving, stable homes to foster children. Many of those have fostered upwards of 30 children over their many years of service. Most of our adoptive families start out as foster families.

There are tremendous caring people out there. There are also some bad actors, and we’re going to make sure we get to them.

STUDENT HOUSING

AND RENTAL VACANCY RATE

A. Weaver: Students at British Columbia’s post-secondary institutions are struggling to find affordable rental accommodation. Yet at the same time, colleges and universities across B.C. are desperate to build more on-campus housing. The barrier to building such housing is access to capital and government concern about increased public debt and how it will affect our triple-A credit rating and, hence, the cost of servicing existing debt.

But if an external organization were to own the debt, there would be no risk to B.C.’s credit rating. Colleges and universities could service it through operating revenues generated from on-campus residence fees, a very captive audience that exists there. Housing more students on campus frees up off-campus rental units, thereby easing upward pressure on rents.

Will the government commit to exploring the creation of an external non-government organization that would own the debt, thereby allowing colleges and universities to build more on-campus housing?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I thank the member from Oak Bay for his thoughtful and productive question, which distinguishes it from many in this room.

Now, the member is known to be a very clever man, but the ministry staff are at least a year ahead of him on this question. It’s actually interesting that yesterday I met with the president of the University of Victoria to discuss this very issue. The prospects there are very strong for this exact opportunity to build student housing which will not form part of government debt.

The details of this arrangement need to be worked out. There are arrangements that need to be set up for the deal structure, for the financing vehicles. But I think the key point here is to congratulate the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his insight, for his dedication to good public policy. I’m sure he’ll be so persuaded by his own genius that he won’t need to ask a follow-up question.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Well, I must say that was a somewhat patronizing response to a serious question. I would point out, in fact, that this lone B.C. Green MLA was several years ahead of the B.C. Liberals in identifying an affordability crisis in this province that they refuse to deal with.

There’s an ongoing affordability crisis not only in Metro Vancouver but here in the capital regional district. For many living in our two largest cities, home ownership is simply not an option for the foreseeable future. Yet at the same time, the private apartment rental vacancy rate in Victoria is 0.5 percent, and in Vancouver, it’s 0.7 percent.

My previous question offered one possible way for the government to reduce pressures on the existing rental stock, and I’m glad to see that they’re taking it up. But the question that I have is this: what other steps is this government taking to address the vacancy rates in Metro Vancouver and the CRD? An answer that’s saying “build more stock” is simply not going to deal with the issue in the time required to deal with it. What is the government doing?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The question actually reflects well into the member’s first question in that the novel housing arrangements for financing that we have come up with in this government, courtesy of the Minister Responsible for Natural Gas Development and Housing, have provided this financing vehicle that’s provided 800 non-profit housing providers in more than 280 communities across British Columbia with support for more than 104,000 households.

[1435]

The plans that the member calls upon are already being implemented. Since 2001, we have completed close to 24,000 new units of affordable housing, with more than 5,000 more units in development or under construction.

[ Page 13606 ]

Thank you for the question. If you have any further, we’d be glad to answer them.

PHARMANET SYSTEM PRIVACY BREACH

D. Routley: Last week the B.C. Liberals said they were victims of a privacy breach. The Premier said the breach made her really angry and that she was going to call the police. Then we learned that the Premier was just making stuff up.

As it turns out, last week thousands of British Columbians were victims of a real and serious privacy breach. Their personal information — including their names, addresses, dates of birth and personal health numbers — were illegally accessed through the PharmaNet website. What did the Premier say when thousands of taxpayers, thousands of citizens of British Columbia, were the victims of a serious privacy breach? Nothing.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services explain how he could allow the most sensitive personal information of 7,500 citizens of British Columbia to be illegally accessed from a site that he is responsible for protecting?

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, I believe the Premier did comment on this and expressed her concern that patient information should be confidential.

This is a matter that we take very seriously. PharmaNet is an internationally recognized network, and it protects patient safety by preventing potentially dangerous medication errors.

Unfortunately, we were made aware, through one of the providers, that there was unusual activity. It was reported, and we have followed up. An investigation is ongoing to determine how that occurred and the motivation behind trying to get this information. We also are doing a separate privacy security review through a private company to ensure that we are putting those privacy mechanisms in place. We do take this very seriously, and all British Columbians that have been affected have been notified.

Madame Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, it’s a pattern with this government. We could just roll the tape of the last privacy breach and roll the tape of the response. “Never again” is what they said the time before. When it comes to protecting the personal information of British Columbians, they just don’t seem to care.

Yesterday we spoke to a woman who was frustrated and angry after she and her mother received letters from the Ministry of Health. They were told that their personal health profiles had been viewed by an unauthorized individual. They are concerned about the impact of this breach, and all they get from the minister is a letter saying that they should hire a credit-monitoring service or contact the police.

Can the minister explain why it is that when his government fails to protect British Columbians’ private information, it’s not his problem; it’s their problem?

Hon. T. Lake: We do our utmost to protect the privacy of patient information, but we know that in the age of data and cyber technology today, this is a risk of the 21st century. This happens to governments. It happens to organizations, as we saw south of the border during a general election. Unfortunately, it is a huge challenge when we manage so much data in an electronic world. That means that we must meet that challenge by putting security in place to protect people’s information.

In this circumstance, investigations to date have not revealed that any financial information was received during this breach. But we will continue our investigation and make sure that we do the utmost to protect patient privacy.

S. Robinson: The Ministry of Health had privacy breaches in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 and now in 2017. So 7,500 more people have had their private data accessed. It’s clearly a pattern for this government. The last time that PharmaNet had a privacy breach, the ministry issued a press release and told everyone that they would get to the bottom of things.

[1440]

But this time we only found out about this breach because the people affected by this latest breach…. Well, they contacted the opposition and the media. Government seems more interested in covering up than in actually answering people’s questions.

My question is for the minister. Is the reason that he didn’t inform the public about this latest breach because he didn’t know about it himself, or is it because he just didn’t care?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, firstly, I think that is a ridiculous question because I care very much about patient privacy.

There is a duty to report, as we heard earlier, in many circumstances, and when people’s private information is made available, our first duty, the duty of anyone that comes across a situation like that, is to report it to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. That is what people should do when they discover that people’s personal information is not being held confidential. That’s what we did, followed by an investigation that is ongoing.

It’s complex. The PharmaNet system serves all the pharmacies in British Columbia. Over 3,000 physicians use this system, and we are determined to make sure that it is held secure.

[ Page 13607 ]

S. Robinson: It would be helpful if we actually got an answer that, in fact, this ministry did care. But clearly they don’t because the last time that the ministry failed to protect PharmaNet data the ministry actually offered every affected person free credit protection services. Government messed up, government got caught and government had to take responsibility.

This time, what did they tell people whose privacy was affected? They told them that they are on their own. People have been calling the ministry, and they’ve been getting no answers and no help from this government.

Has this government’s lax attitude to privacy breaches become so engrained and so standard that they now expect people that they impact to just go out on their own and take care of business that they need to take care of?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, firstly, it appears that user names and passwords that are supposed to be held confidential by physicians were accessed somehow. It wasn’t the government giving out this information, as much the opposition members would have you believe.

To our knowledge, at this point, no financial information has been accessed. But we are working with individuals on a case-by-case basis. If there is any evidence that financial information was obtained or that people are at risk in terms of their credit, we will work with those British Columbians to safeguard their private, personal financial information and keep them from being at risk.

S. Simpson: In 2014, the last time PharmaNet had a data breach on the Health Minister’s watch, he promised to do better. The minister said: “British Columbians expect the Ministry of Health to safeguard their personal medical information, and as Minister of Health, I take that responsibility very seriously.”

The result of that serious concern is another breach that affects four times as many people. That’s five breaches in five years for the Minister of Health, a litany of privacy breaches under this government and this minister. While the minister may shrug and say, “We’re going to do better,” the thousands of people who have had their information breached are concerned about identity theft. They’re concerned about a whole range of issues.

What we heard today was nothing in response to a simple question. The question is: how come the government is telling these thousands of people to pick up the bill for credit protection services for themselves instead of paying the bill for your mistake?

Madame Speaker: Members know they’re directed through the Chair.

[1445]

Hon. T. Lake: Firstly, as I mentioned, if there are people who we determine, working with individuals, that their financial information is at risk, of course we will work to help protect their financial information and keep their credit from being at risk.

There are literally thousands and thousands and thousands of electronic transactions on PharmaNet each and every day, and as hard as I work and as hard as the people in our ministry work, as hard as physicians and pharmacists all across this province work, I can’t stand here and promise this House that we will never have this kind of thing happen again. This is the kind of thing, in the 21st century, where we have to be ever vigilant. If anyone is going to stand up and pretend to promise that we will never run into these challenges, it would be disingenuous.

But I do give my commitment to this House that we will work as hard as possible to keep patient information confidential and secure.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

D. McRae: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth.

I move that the report to be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

D. McRae: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

D. McRae: In moving adoption of this report, I’d like to make some brief comments. This report was deposited with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on November 15, 2016, and publicly released on that day. It presents the special committee’s unanimous recommendation to appoint Bernard Richard as the Representative for Children and Youth for the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Richard impressed the special committee with his experience serving children and youth, working with indigenous communities and managing independent non-partisan organizations. He also brings a record of high ethical standards and a principled and a collaborative leadership style.

Mr. Richard is in the gallery with us today — above you, Madame Speaker — along with his wife, Annie Richard; the Deputy Representative for Children and Youth, Dawn Thomas-Wightman; and the executive coordinator, Carissa Matheson. I would like to welcome Mr. Richard and his wife to British Columbia.

If I may, as he’s new to our province…. I know that his friends and colleagues back in New Brunswick perhaps are under a metre of snow right now in a second snowstorm. They always appreciate when we send pictures of cherry blossoms from Victoria, which will start ap-

[ Page 13608 ]

pearing in the next week or so. I think you’ll find that’s well received, Mr. Richard.

I also wish to express our appreciation to Ms. Thomas-Wightman and her colleagues for their professionalism and dedication during this transition period.

On November 15, 2016, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth also considered Mr. Richard’s extensive experience and qualifications and unanimously appointed him as acting Representative for Children and Youth, commencing on November 27, 2016. I commend the standing committee for this acting appointment. It has ensured a smooth transition for the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and has enabled the office to continue its important work on behalf of children and youth and their families.

On behalf of the special committee and all members of the legislative committee, I would also like to express my gratitude to Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond for her many contributions to B.C.’s children and youth during her ten years as our province’s first representative.

I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Deputy Chair, the member for Nelson-Creston, and all special committee members for their hard work and dedication on this important appointment process.

C. James: On behalf of the member for Nelson-Creston and myself, I would like to thank the Chair and thank the members of the committee. This certainly started off a very challenging task. I think, as you’ve have heard from the Chair, that replacing an extraordinary woman — Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond — was no small feat for us to take on as a committee. We had a very strong voice and a very strong advocate in our province and a woman who leaves a lasting legacy for all of British Columbia.

But we did take on this responsibility. We took it on and worked very hard over a number of months, and I am thrilled and proud to stand up and support this direction and to appoint Bernard Richard as our Representative for Children and Youth in this province.

You’ve heard from the Chair about the extensive skills and the experience that Bernard brings to the role: his experience as an independent officer, his experience with children and families. But I want to mention a couple of other pieces that really stood out in the interview process. The first one is Bernard’s passion for improving the lives of the most vulnerable. That was very clear in any discussion that we had and was first and foremost in his mind.

He also has had extensive work with First Nations, which certainly, from all of our perspectives, was an important piece in this role and was something that we felt was very important.

[1450]

The last piece I just want to mention was his respect for the voice of children and youth in the process of serving them. That was, again, another extensive discussion we had with Bernard Richard, and it was something that he felt very strongly about.

I think we are incredibly fortunate in British Columbia to have Bernard Richard come in as our representative — no longer acting, but Representative for Children and Youth.

Motion approved.

D. McRae: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to appoint Mr. Richard as Representative for Children and Youth.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

D. McRae: I move that:

[Bernard Richard be appointed Representative for Children and Youth and an officer of the Legislature for a five year term commencing on February 16, 2017, pursuant to

section 2 of the Representative for Children and Youth Act [S.B.C. 2006] c. 29.]

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kensington seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome a class of 20 students from the Take a Hike program at John Oliver. They’re here with us today in the Legislature. They’re accompanied by teacher and founding member Tim Gale, therapist Brian O’Neill and youth and family worker Adrian Connor.

The Take a Hike program is a unique program. It’s an experiential, adventure-based program that uses therapy to change students’ lives, and it uses a holistic approach to education, including the spirit, body and mind approach.

It’s really a groundbreaking program and a leading program, not only in British Columbia but across our country. Really, I think it’s the future, not only of ensuring that we’re bringing together experiential, therapeutic and educational aspects but as a model for all students to be successful.

They’re looking to expand the program. They’re currently at John Oliver, in Vancouver-Kensington, as well as in Burnaby and West Kootenay, and they are looking to expand the program to another district across the province. So if anyone’s interested in just a terrific program, you can approach me. I can pass on the information. I highly recommend it.

[ Page 13609 ]

When I asked the students, I said: “How would you characterize the program? What would you like me to tell everybody here what you think about the program?” They said: “Tell everybody that it kills.” Translation: it means that it’s really good. That’s from the students — just a great dynamic.

They’ve got a fundraiser snowshoeing next week. Just a shout-out for that for anyone who wants to join. One of the students said to me that being in the program is developing leadership for the future, and this young man told me that he plans to become the Prime Minister of our country.

Please ask everybody to give them a warm welcome.

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —

ISLAMOPHOBIA AND SYSTEMIC RACISM

M. Farnworth: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. If you approve the request under Standing Order 35, it is my intention that the House would debate a resolution that would condemn Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. Furthermore, it would condemn the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to my colleague the Opposition House Leader. I am obliged to him for having come to see me a couple days ago to indicate his and his colleagues’ interest in this matter and, also, the opportunity to consider the form of the motion that he has just related to the House. I’m happy to inform the House that it is the government’s view that this matter should proceed. We have agreed that the matter should be deliberated upon for one hour this afternoon.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it appears that there is agreement that the matter raised by the member for Port Coquitlam shall proceed. Shall leave be granted for a debate on the motion presented?

Leave granted.

Madame Speaker: Debate may proceed. By agreement, the debate shall not exceed one hour. As the mover of the motion, the member for Port Coquitlam may speak for up to seven minutes and other members for up to five minutes each.

[1455]

Standing Order 35

ISLAMOPHOBIA AND SYSTEMIC RACISM

B. Ralston: On the evening of January 29, 2017, six Canadians were murdered and others were seriously injured….

I have to move the motion. Pardon me.

[Be it resolved that this House condemns Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and, furthermore, condemns the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic Mosque of Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.]

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

B. Ralston: On the evening of January 29, 2017, six Canadians were murdered and others were seriously injured at the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec, the Islamic mosque of Quebec City. Canadians were shocked by the news of this horrific and despicable attack.

It is an assault on every one of us in Canada. It strikes at the heart of the very tenets of our civil society, our shared values and our commitment to multiculturalism, diversity and religious freedom.

One of the most gruesome aspects of these acts of terrorism was that these six people and others were injured while at prayer. Prayer is an intimate spiritual moment, whether at a church, a synagogue, a gurdwara, a mandir or a masjid. The violation of a sacred space makes this crime, this attack, particularly outrageous and despicable.

Many British Columbians and, indeed, many members of this House have gathered in vigils and demonstrations to express rejection of racism and hate. Most recently, last Sunday, a lively demonstration took place at the Peace Arch border crossing. No Ban, No Wall was organized by Jean-Michel Oblette, himself a new Canadian citizen only since January 10, 2017.

The hatred and racism that motivated the murder in Quebec has shown itself here in British Columbia, so we ought not to be complacent. In recent incidents, racist flyers were distributed in Richmond, attacking Canadians of Chinese origin. Material was distributed by hate-promoting groups in Abbotsford and Chilliwack, and pro-Nazi posters appeared in New Westminster.

When I heard of the terrorist attack of those at prayer in Quebec City in the midst of an intimate spiritual moment, I thought how it could easily be men or women at prayer in mosques and Islamic centres in my home riding of Surrey-Whalley at Masjid al-Noor on 98A Avenue, Masjid al-Huda on Grosvenor Road or Masjid Anwar-e-Madina on 105A; or children at prayer at Iqra Islamic School — and others in Surrey, whether at the Fiji Islamic Centre; the Fleetwood Islamic Centre on 162nd; the Masjid ur-Rahmah on 62nd, where the Imam Abdul Rehman held an open house just last week; or at the Surrey Jamea Masjid on 72nd Avenue; the Guildford

[ Page 13610 ]

Islamic Cultural Centre; the Cloverdale Masjid; or, indeed, the White Rock Masjid.

To give a sense of the diversity of places of worship throughout the province of British Columbia, there are Muslims among us in many, many communities. Members will know that, because I’m sure they’ve visited or offered condolences to those at those institutions very recently, whether Abbotsford, Burnaby, Chilliwack, Kamloops, Kelowna, Langley, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Prince George, Richmond, Vancouver or Vernon.

This community is feeling very vulnerable and fragile and I know will welcome the wholehearted support of the B.C. Legislature.

As some south of the border in the United States seek to build walls, to divide us, to ban people from their country, and others, based solely on their religion, we in Canada and British Columbia must reaffirm our commitment to tolerance, to diversity and multiculturalism and speak out against hate and against discrimination in all its forms.

Hon. S. Bond: The entire world was horrified on January 29 when we learned that six people were killed and 19 others were injured while they prayed in the sanctity of their mosque. Our hearts broke when we saw the images of grieving families, but we also felt heartsick that this could occur in our beloved country.

[1500]

As someone who, like the member opposite before me, has visited a mosque, it was incomprehensible to think that the incredible silence and peace of prayer in the mosque was shattered. It’s more than many Canadians could bear.

As many other MLAs in this House, I was humbled by my community’s response. In my hometown of Prince George, a crowd of over 300 people came out on a very cold Monday night to the steps of city hall to hold a candlelight vigil to honour the victims and their families. Together we shared our love and our support for our Muslim friends and our neighbours. On the steps of the city hall, the imam expressed gratitude for the visible demonstration of care and compassion. His words were powerful and personal, as they were yesterday when the imam of Victoria prayed here in the Legislature.

Ironically, I received an email from the imam this morning, noting his honour and how he felt to have led prayers in this House yesterday. And in his words: “Even though the loss of life was and always will be tragic, it is our responsibility to bring out something positive from such negative circumstances.” He said: “We must stand united against Islamophobia and against all other injustices. We must stand up for what is right, always. We are one people.”

I know firsthand that British Columbians have been working hard to ensure that we support those who choose to make British Columbia their home. Every year we welcome refugees — and most recently from Syria — people who in their country face persecution and threats against their lives. In Canada, we pride ourselves on being inclusive, accepting and accommodating to everyone, regardless of their religion, their ethnicity or their sexual orientation. With the most ethnically diverse province in Canada, B.C. welcomes nearly 40,000 new immigrants every year.

With the great privilege of living in Canada comes the responsibility for all of us as Canadians to make sure that those who come to our country seeking safety and help are welcomed as members of our communities and supported as such.

While I know that the majority of Canadians and British Columbians are tolerant, accepting and inclusive, it would be wrong to not address the fact that racism still exists in our society. Over time, many tools have been created to support and to partner with communities as we work together to combat racism. There have been community-led programs such as Organizing Against Racism and Hate, providing public education programs to help school students understand and challenge racism. We delivered in this very house the Chinese historical wrongs apology. We’ve provided funding for community groups to address racism in their communities.

As I said previously, British Columbians have come together as a community to support those who have come to us in need. While we know that we cannot say that tragedies like that that occurred in Quebec City will not happen again or that racism and hate crimes will stop, I know that all of us can say confidently that the people of British Columbia will continue to be inclusive, tolerant and accepting. To repeat the words of the imam of Victoria: “We must stand up for what is right, always. We are one people.” I hope that today this debate will demonstrate that very belief here in the Legislature.

[1505]

H. Bains: The motion before us is that “this House condemns Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and, furthermore, condemns the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic Mosque of Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.”

[ Page 13611 ]

It is my privilege, it is my honour, to rise in support of this motion. This motion is very timely and fitting to discuss the issues in this motion.

Recently, we have seen a rise in racist incidents in the Lower Mainland and other places, largely coinciding, I would say, with the rise of a person with his divisive approach to politics down south. I think it is a display of demagoguery of the highest form — blaming Mexicans for crime in United States cities and building walls to keep people out, blaming Muslims for terrorist attacks in the United States. Dividing communities must be rejected, and that’s what we are doing right now.

Issuing an executive order to ban travellers from seven countries, mostly are Muslim citizens, then to say: “It is not a ban on Muslims.” Really? Please, do not insult the people’s intelligence. By the way, in all terrorist attack incidents in America or any incident of harm to Americans, none of the people involved were from these seven countries that are banned.

Since that time, we have seen the racist flyers in different Lower Mainland communities — Abbotsford, Richmond, New Westminster. I want to thank all those communities who came together to stand together and reject this racist approach by a few.

The weekend of January 28, for me, I think, will be a weekend of remembering. It started with me standing with 34 community leaders of different faiths, of different groups, denouncing the United States’ ban on travellers from seven countries. On January 29, I, along with my many colleagues from the Lower Mainland and our leader, were with our Muslim brothers and sisters celebrating the B.C. Muslim Association’s 50th anniversary in Canada. Believe me, there’s a lot to celebrate there. But then the news of the terrorist attack in Quebec City started to pour in, and the celebration turned into mourning.

As a result, six people were killed — Khaled Belkacemi, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzedine Soufiane, Mamadou Tanou Barry and Ibrahima Barry — and dozens of others were injured.

This attack was not only on our Muslim brothers and sisters; it was an attack on all of us Canadians. It was an attack on humanity. It is hard to comprehend that someone can think about attacking another person who was probably in the most peaceful position that one can be: kneeling to pray.

We also want to send, with this motion, at this time, our deepest condolences and our sympathies and prayers to those families of the victims. Today, through this motion, we in this House are sending a message also, again to the families of the victims: “You’re not alone in this. The whole nation is standing with you in support.”

We also want to send a message to our Muslim brothers and sisters in Canada that we are united to quell the forces of division and those who are trying to divide us. We are one people. That’s the message that is coming out of this House.

We’re also reaffirming our commitment to the very basic Canadian human values of inclusiveness and multiculturalism, and recommitting to continue to build Canada on those values of love and caring.

[1510]

Send a message to the world that no one will be allowed to divide us as Canadians and as human beings, for whatever their personal purpose in life is, on the basis of religion, race and place of origin. At the same time, we must stay vigilant and not be complacent, because we in Canada are not immune to these kinds of racist incidents.

We also send a reminder to each one of us that together, we can build a better Canada, a Canada that is more equal, more peaceful and more inclusive.

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the mover for bringing this motion forward.

Along with the other members of this House, we grieve. I grieve. We grieve with the families of the victims. We grieve with Quebec. Our thoughts, our hearts, our prayers are with them. This was a terrible moment, and it was particularly grievous that the victims were shot as they prayed in their mosque.

We have fundamental freedoms in Canada, and freedom to worship is one of those key fundamental freedoms. Whether you’re a Christian, a Jew, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Muslim or any of the other myriad religions which make up our Canadian fabric, we all understand the importance of being able to practise our religion in safety and in peace. And that is not, of course, what happened in the mosque in Quebec.

In British Columbia and in Canada, we celebrate diversity. We celebrate the right of all persons to live without fear of harassment or harm.

Now, I represent the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, which is an extraordinarily diverse riding. Like many members in this House, I go to the high school graduations. When I watch those young men and women crossing the stage, I see young men and women of every religion, every colour, every nationality, everything that you can imagine. It is a happy moment. I’m sure my colleagues share that sentiment when they see that, when you see those young men and women in their diversity. We celebrate that as being part of our British Columbia fabric, as being part of our Canadian fabric.

My colleague the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Development talked about racism. Let me talk for a moment on the issue of violence because the two, of course, are linked. Now, we in government have a violence-free British Columbia initiative. We have a provincial office of domestic violence. But let me address, for a moment, our partners in anti-violence initiatives who make the difference every single day in their work in British Columbia.

In particular, let me talk about the Moose Hide Campaign, which many of us saw at lunchtime today. Like many of us, I’m wearing the moose hide, which is

[ Page 13612 ]

a symbol of the campaign. This is a campaign by men, mainly indigenous, against violence against women and children. What an admirable campaign it is. The sentiments and the expressions of the importance of the campaign were expressed today on the front steps of the Legislature.

Those are the kinds of things that make us safe in Canada and that help all of us. It’s those such programs against violence and against racism which keep us on guard and keep us remembering that we have to be on guard. We have to always be paying attention. Such programs can keep us on guard against such things as the violence, the hate, the Islamophobia which was served upon the victims in the mosque in Quebec.

J. Darcy: I rise to speak in support of this motion.

Eight days before the horrific shootings in a Quebec City mosque, people in New Westminster woke up to learn that a local United Church had been defaced overnight by pro-Nazi posters that targeted Muslims and Jews.

The reaction in my community was shock and disbelief and outrage that this could happen in our city, a diverse community that includes people from all corners of the globe, a community that came together to welcome Syrian refugees with open arms.

Speaking personally, it also affected me profoundly because my father lost family members in the Holocaust. After the war, he brought his young family to Canada but kept his Jewishness a secret from everyone — including his children — until a few years before he died at the age of 93.

[1515]

It was clear to everyone in our community, immediately, that we had to act, to say no to Islamophobia, no to anti-Semitism, no to hatred and bigotry in whatever form. So we put out a call to leaders of all faiths and community organizations and residents to come together as something we called #NewWestUnited for equality, diversity and community.

In only four short days, we gathered 250 people on the steps of city hall, an imam, a rabbi, the New West gurdwara, Chief Rhonda Larrabee of the Qayqayt First Nation, an Anglican minister, New West Pride, a Member of Parliament, our mayor and a community choir. The words of the imam at that time were incredibly powerful, when he said we must build bridges, not walls.

In our words and in our songs that night, we sent a loud and clear message that we were resolved that we would stand together and support anyone who felt targeted and unsafe. It was a message of love, not hate.

The next day the President of the United States introduced a ban on Muslims entering the United States. Two days after that, six Muslim men were killed and many others were injured as they prayed in a mosque in Sainte-Foy, Quebec. Canadians and British Columbians came together as one to express their horror and their outrage and to express their solidarity in many different ways with our Muslim neighbours and friends.

In my community, this solidarity runs very, very deep. The New West United buttons that we produced and the New West United posters are in wide use throughout the city, but there is also a profound level of fear that is in the hearts and minds of so many people in my community — first and foremost in the Muslim community in New Westminster. But the fear extends beyond them. I spoke with a young woman of South Asian origin the next day who shared with me the weight of fear that she carries, because her family members are routinely singled out and detained at airports because “they look like they’re Muslims.”

I visited the Thornebridge independent living to celebrate their tenth anniversary with them. Staff told me that elderly residents, some of them who served or lost family members who had fought fascism in World War II, were afraid to turn on the television sets in their residence because of the horror that was unfolding and because they thought that they had fought to protect the world from this kind of thing.

This motion says that it is incumbent on all of us to stand as one in the face of Islamophobia, in the face of racism and in the face of racists who have been emboldened in recent weeks and months; to stand together in our schools, in our workplaces, in our communities, in public places and in public debates and in this House; to speak with one strong voice and with millions of voices; to say no to Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and discrimination — not here, not now, not ever.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m pleased to stand today to support the motion: “Be it resolved that this House condemns Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and, furthermore, condemns the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic Mosque of Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in communities in British Columbia.”

I believe that we need to send a strong message against the discrimination of the Muslim community, against hatred, against Islamophobia, against xenophobia and against racism. Violence against any group for any reason, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, is not acceptable in Canada and having members in this House standing up to condemn the violence in Quebec will send a strong message that it is not okay. Bullying is not okay. Exclusion is not okay.

I’ve heard some critics say they worry that this singles out a particular religion or somehow gives special privileges. I disagree. If we can’t call out Islamophobia for what it is now, then when? Words matter. We need to speak out to stop what appears to be an increased climate of hate and fear.

[1520]

[ Page 13613 ]

We need to recognize that what has occurred south of the border is fermenting here too, that certain words do incite racism and violence that target a specific group, race or religion. This is wrong. This needs to be talked about. It needs to be condemned. And it needs to stop.

In relation to the argument that this motion only privileges one religion or that it’s politically correct, Andrew Coyne said:

“Yes, of course, all religious groups should be free of discrimination and hatred. But it does no disservice to the others to pay particular attention to one at a time when that group is particularly exposed to both. After the slaughter of six Muslims at prayer in Quebec City, people of goodwill, not to say common sense, would understand why it might be timely for all of us to offer some assurance to members of that community.”

And he continues:

“The alternative to political correctness is not bigotry and intolerance, and the answer to racism is not censorship. Indeed, we have too much of that already.”

S. Robinson: I’m honoured to rise to speak to the motion that this House condemn Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and furthermore condemn the recent terrorist murders of six people at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City and the rise of incidents of hate speech in the communities of British Columbia. I’m proud to have the opportunity to speak to it, but I’m so saddened at the same time.

I’m saddened because it’s 2017, and I thought that we had moved on from hatred, from racism, from making distinctions between self and other. I would have thought that we would have learned the lessons of the past.

As a Canadian and as a Jew, I stand with everyone in this House. I stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters and with all Canadians in sending condolences to those families and loved ones who are affected by the heinous attack of the people at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City.

Our local mosque in the Tri-Cities, the Masjid Alhidayah, an Islamic cultural centre, had a fabulous response in our community. It touched me to the core. Immediately after the attack, they put out a call to the entire community, welcoming everybody, and said: “Come be with us. Come be with us as one, as we mourn the loss of these lives.”

What that showed me was that we are one community. When awful things happen, we sort of drop the pretences. We remember that we are all one, that we all want to raise our families in peace and that we all want to grow old and take care of each other.

It’s important right now, more than ever, that we stand united together. I’ve certainly heard in this House people commenting on what’s happening south of the border and the rise of incidents in our own community. People are feeling freer to spread hate, freer to hurt others, freer to let loose, perhaps, underground hatred and thoughts.

Personally, I’d prefer that they kept those hidden. I find it revolting and actually quite disgusting when I hear the comments, when I read the posts. I think it’s time for all of us to really stand together and call it out when we see it, to stand up and to push back on any form of racism, any form of hatred.

What comes to my mind when I see it are the words by Martin Niemöller. It’s a German name. These were his words.

[1525]

He said: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak for me.”

I’m pleased that we are having this debate, and I’m pleased to look forward to other words from my colleagues here in the House today.

Hon. T. Wat: As the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, it is my distinct honour to speak to this motion.

First of all, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to the loved ones of the six men murdered at the Islamic mosque in Quebec City last month. Their deaths were made all the more tragic because they were spurred by hatred. They were spurred by discrimination against another person’s religious beliefs. It is a reminder that hatred and intolerance have no place in our rich multicultural society. It’s a reminder that we must be vigilant against all religious discrimination as well as other forms of racism, including Islamophobia.

Racism and discrimination are not tolerated in B.C. In fact, the government is constantly working to address racism to ensure that British Columbia is a safe, welcoming place to live. Inclusiveness and diversity are cornerstones of B.C.’s society. It is why the B.C. Multiculturalism Act mandates government to promote inclusiveness in our schools, in our workplaces and throughout our society. And it’s why each year the government provides funding for communities across B.C. to identify unique ways to challenge racism.

The B.C. government has taken a number of positive steps to combat racism, including developing committee programs such as the Organizing Against Racism and Hate networks throughout the province, providing public education programs to help school students understand and challenge racism, delivering the Chinese historical wrongs apology in the Legislature in May 2014, and providing multiculturalism grants for community groups to address racism and celebrate B.C.’s multicultural heritage in their communities.

As a champion of inclusion and multiculturalism, the government realizes that an ethnically diverse society

[ Page 13614 ]

makes our province stronger. As the most ethnically diverse province in Canada, British Columbians from various cultures and nations worldwide bring their skills, talents, energy and hopes to our province.

Not long ago, I was one of those new Canadians. So was my late husband, and so was my daughter. However, we were never made to feel like outsiders. We were never shunned because we were from another country. We never felt persecuted or threatened. Rather, we were welcomed, accepted and treated with respect, something that everyone in this country and this province deserves.

A rich multicultural society helps to nurture inclusiveness, understanding and mutual respect. It fortifies our province and helps to create a strong and vibrant social and economic future for British Columbia.

One of the things that I enjoy most about my ministry’s portfolio is the wide range of multicultural events and activities that I attend. I watch Polish dancers show off their skills. I have participated in Diwali and Vaisakhi festivities. I have listened to Buddhist prayers. I have celebrated lunar new year, celebrated by the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese communities. I have observed members of the Islamic faith commemorate Ramadan.

Not only are these events celebrations of multicultural heritage; they are educational and enriching for other British Columbians to learn about different cultures and customs. They force a positive change in our communities now and into the future, because there’s so much to be learned from other cultures.

In closing, government is in full support of this important motion. Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination are absolutely unacceptable and have no place in our province and our country.

R. Fleming: This afternoon, this is an occasion where I feel honoured to be able to speak as a representative of the community that has elected me to this place and to join with members on both sides of the House who represent every corner and region of this province to comment on the context of this afternoon’s motion.

[1530]

We have gone through a state of unofficial and official national mourning since a lone fanatical gunman murdered six Muslim men who knelt in prayer at their mosque in Quebec City. That has forced us to respond, and we have responded with dignity, proudly, from coast to coast in this country. Standing with the Muslim community of Victoria, the constituency, the community that I represent, was no different. It was a particularly proud and dignified and large response to those terrifying and tragic events.

Our country collectively bore a state of shock and horror for the week that followed that event. We mourned for the victims and their families. We united in solidarity with the Muslim community, whose personal peace and community security were targeted by an assassin. We stood with the Muslim community in the days that followed when, unbelievably, we saw a rise in hate crimes in different parts of Canada. But the numbers of Canadians who responded compassionately, with open arms, willing to help, shedding tears with their Muslim neighbours in British Columbia, in Canada, numbered in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Canadians stood together.

That massacre was a time when we will never forget where we were the moment we heard that terrible and tragic news. I was at a Chinese New Year dinner, sitting at a table with other community representatives, when the message came over our police chief’s phone. Obviously, it changed the entire mood of the evening, and people fairly quickly went home after the news spread around the room at that event.

I came home, and the first person I spoke to — we have CNN in my house all the time — was my daughter, who is old enough to be able to digest news like this pretty quickly. She had a sleepless night, as did many Canadians. To contemplate children in Quebec City that night receiving news that they no longer had a father to parent them because an assassin’s gun burst into a mosque and tried to terrorize that community as people knelt in prayer was something that all of us could not contemplate and was terrifying for children right across Canada and in my own family as well.

What happened 36 hours later was exactly the right response. I’m speaking about Victoria. A massive crowd of thousands of people, at 11 in the morning, from wherever they worked, from whichever part of the community they lived in, came down to the city hall in Victoria — a diverse crowd, all faiths, all ages, all ethnicities. Everybody I was in the room with at the Chinese New Year dinner, the police chief included, all the leaders of the Chinese benevolent associations, were there at that assembly to stand with the imam and the Muslim community of Victoria.

After the mayor and the imam spoke, something happened very spontaneously that I think touched us all. We rarely invoke our patriotism. That is a Canadian quality. But spontaneously, from the crowd, the national anthem arose and gathered in volume as all Canadians that were there, in the city of Victoria, in our city hall square, joined in, in singing a national anthem in what was the most appropriately defiant tone, the most respectful tone, the most inclusive tone I have ever heard our country’s anthem sung in.

Days later Canadians gathered in the tens of thousands in a hockey arena in Montreal. They filed in and filled that arena to pay tribute to the victims and to vow what this Legislature is doing this afternoon, which is to stand with the Muslim community, not just in tragic times like this but at all times when those who seek to divide our community try and strike.

I am pleased that we are paying tribute to the victims and the families that have suffered so greatly through this

[ Page 13615 ]

tragic event. This afternoon it is important that all of us, as lawmakers on both sides of the House, stand together as an example to the communities we represent. We wish all of our communities to stand together, and we will stand with the Muslim community of British Columbia and thank them for their contributions.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

[1535]

J. Yap: It’s my honour to also stand and join in this important debate. I agree with the member for Victoria–Swan Lake, who referenced at the beginning of his comments that this is one of those times when members from both sides of the House can enter into a debate on an issue, on a motion, that has great meaning and importance for all of us, regardless of on which side of the House we sit.

I affirm my support for this motion in condemning Islamophobia and all other forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. As others felt — no doubt, all Canadians — I, too, felt a sense of shock, a sense of hurt and a great deal of sadness at what happened. Six innocent members of a mosque in Quebec City were killed in a completely senseless act of violence. Many others were injured in this incident. And the Canadian public have been deeply affected.

One of the victims, Azzedine Soufiane, tried to disarm the shooter while he was attempting to reload. Azzedine was shot and killed in his heroic attempt. He left behind a wife and three children. Azzedine was a grocery owner and a halal butcher who helped newly arrived Muslims adapt and make a new life in Canada. He was not unlike so many other Canadians who work with newcomers, Muslim and non-Muslim, who make up the fabric of our nation.

I must admit that the sadness I felt was quickly replaced by a sense of pride that I felt when I saw so many Canadians come out in the hundreds and thousands to show their support and their respect for the Muslim community.

I felt the same outpouring of emotion recently in Richmond — our community, your community, my community — when people rallied together to share their disgust at a series of extremist flyers that showed up in the mailboxes of my constituents in Steveston, including near where I live. The flyers were directed against Chinese people, featuring xenophobic slogans and encouraging others to join the alt-right. The message of the flyer was blatantly racist and utterly vile and disgusting.

All of the neighbours in the area who received this hate literature were naturally outraged. They, too, felt a sense of hurt. But it is worth reminding ourselves that this is the work of only one or two or a few individuals who think their narrow-minded view represents the majority of my constituents. I can assure you that they do not. My constituents have said that much. To quote one individual: “I grew up in a multi-racial city and in a multi-racial country. I am married to a multi-racial man, and we have multi-racial kids.” That is the voice of my neighbourhood.

My constituents are not afraid, nor are they intimidated by one or two racist individuals who don’t have the courage to take responsibility for their own actions and simply cower behind anonymous flyers. We are talking about just a few bad apples and not the majority of British Columbians, who think little of their views.

It’s a fact that British Columbia was the first province in Canada to put its hand up and say: “We will welcome Syrian refugees.” Our Premier immediately announced a $1 million resettlement fund to get the ball rolling on welcoming refugees from Syria who had suffered persecution, had suffered the loss of their homes and, in some cases, members of their families and friends. Today there are Syrian families all across our province who are grateful to be here, as was pointed out by my colleague the Minister for Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training.

We are an inclusive society, we are a caring society, and we are not afraid to stand up for our values. We celebrate, here in British Columbia, and cherish our diversity.

[1540]

M. Farnworth: It’s a pleasure to rise and take my place in this debate on this motion, to join members on both sides of the Legislature in speaking to a motion which says loudly and clearly, with one voice, as representatives of the people who sent us here, that we condemn discrimination in all its forms, Islamophobia or on whatever basis — on race, on creed, on sexual orientation — against not just British Columbians but Canadians.

It’s important that we do that, because we live right now, I think, in a very trying and troubling time — not just in North America but globally. We see the rise of xenophobia. We see the rise of Islamophobia. We see the rise of racism. And we’ve seen in our own nation, in Quebec City, an absolutely heinous and horrific attack on a mosque, a place of worship, on people at prayer — a most solemn and personal and sacred moment — and the killing of six innocent men on the basis, solely, of their religion.

That’s something which I think all of us just recoil in horror at. Our Canada is a nation which we’re proud of, built on diversity, on wave after wave, over hundreds of years, of people who came to our land from other lands. And we’ve built a society that is inclusive. We pride ourselves on our tolerance. We pride ourselves on our openness. We pride ourselves on being a beacon for those fleeing persecution, for those seeking refuge, for those seeking safety, to build a better life.

What happened in Quebec, as colleagues on both sides of the House have said, was a wake-up call to all of us that there are those in our society who would seek to fracture the foundation. There are those who would seek to destroy the fabric on which our Canada, our British Columbia, our communities, are built.

[ Page 13616 ]

In my own community, at the Masjid Alhidayah and Islamic Cultural Centre, a mosque and cultural centre which serves a diverse community of the Muslim community. People from Somalia, from Syria, from Iraq, from Iran, of the different tenets of Islam, worship together, are active in our community together and were shocked and horrified and frightened — frightened at what had taken place in Quebec, frightened at what they’re seeing in other jurisdictions — and, at the same time, are looking to us, as elected representatives, for assurance, for us to be there.

I think speaker after speaker in this chamber has shown how Canadians, as British Columbians, as Victorians, as Abbotsford people, as PoCo-ites — you name it — have said loudly and clearly, there is no place in our society and no place in our province for the kind of xenophobia, the kind of hatred that we see and that manifested itself in Quebec.

The message that we send today is that we stand with you in sending a message that our Canada, our British Columbia…. You are welcome here. You are part of our community. You, along with the rest of us, are building one of the best places to live, one of the best nations to be, which will serve as a model of how a diverse society should be.

[1545]

We also need to remember that this was, hopefully, an isolated act. But technology has brought about changes in the Internet that make it too easy for those cowardly individuals who want to chip away at the fabric of our society to hide behind.

I just leave with this final closing thought. The words spoken by both sides in this House must not just stay in this chamber and stay here today. We must take back to our communities, as representatives of our individual communities, and make it clear that there is no place for intolerance, that there is no place for hatred, that those events in Richmond and Quebec and New Westminster are unacceptable and that we stand united against them.

S. Hamilton: I’ll start by letting the House know I wasn’t prepared to speak to this, although I am honoured to be able to stand on behalf of the Muslim community in Delta North and my community as a whole, to stand here and speak on behalf of them as a united voice in support of the Muslim community itself and to condemn the events that took place in Quebec last month.

I have a very active mosque, the Ahmadiyya Jama’at Mosque, on River Road, in Delta. It’s been my pleasure to have been greeted many, many times on different occasions at different events by that community. I cannot say enough about how welcoming, loving, peace-loving and peaceful that community is.

In my travels over the years and previously as a city councillor, I’ve been engaged in that community. In fact, we went quite a distance with them to build that mosque in recent years. It’s become a centrepiece for the Muslim community and, indeed, for all of Delta. They have reached out, and they presented themselves as wanting to preach a message of peace, to be able to communicate that message in a very loving and neighbourly way. Again, my community has welcomed them with open arms, as they do us.

I like to think of our cultural differences as being what brings us together. It’s been said before. It really is a fabric. It’s a mosaic, if you will. We are unlike, as many people refer to the United States, a melting pot. We are a mosaic. We are a tapestry of different cultures, and that is what makes us unique.

I cannot express my condolences as deep-hearted enough as I would like, because I don’t think words can adequately describe and say what we need to say, other than to suggest to the Muslim community that we do stand united, that we support them in their grief and that we support them as a community going forward. I look forward to many, many more opportunities to stand beside them and to walk with them in their journey, as they do with me in mine.

I attended a celebration of different religions at that mosque that I mentioned earlier, and we had representation from the Jewish community, the Christian community — obviously, the Muslim community — Sikhs, you name it. They practise what they preach, as we should all practise what we preach, in terms of tolerance and basically trying to live and establish a loving community.

I’ll conclude my words with my condolences again. My heartfelt thoughts go out to the community on behalf of myself and the residents of Delta North.

G. Heyman: It’s an honour but also a responsibility to stand today in this chamber and join many of my colleagues in speaking to this resolution.

[1550]

It’s an important role where we can set aside partisan differences, join together and show collective leadership as the elected political leadership of this province to speak out against hatred, to speak out against racism, to speak out against Islamophobia or anti-Semitism, and certainly to speak out against the murder of people simply for expressing their faith. We know where that can lead, and we know that it’s important for political and community leaders to speak out.

I want to speak a little bit personally in my remarks today as a child of Holocaust refugees who were given sanctuary in this country, from whom I learned much, who talked to me — not in a frightening way, but in a teaching way — about what it means to grow up and live in a country where hatred takes hold, where hatred becomes normalized and where hatred can escalate to the worst possible expressions of genocide if unchecked.

I remember very clearly my mother talking to me about her own feelings about what happened to her in

[ Page 13617 ]

Poland as a Polish Jew, what happened to her relatives as victims of the Nazi regime, telling me she wanted me to understand that. But she also wanted me to not build any hatred in my own heart, because that would take us nowhere but into a deepening of the divisions that led to what she experienced as a young woman.

I remember going to elementary school where it was normal and routine for comments that young children didn’t even realize as racist to be uttered, caricatures of particular religions or races. I remember as a young child — because no child wants to be different — wanting to be invisible when that happened, not wanting to recognize or own my own heritage and identity.

It took many years for me to get over that, for me to summon the courage as a young man to speak out against racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination. Not so much in a way to denounce the people who may have uttered them without understanding their impact, but simply to use it as an educational moment.

When we were all profoundly moved by the murders in Quebec, I thought of the synagogues in Vancouver-Fairview. I thought of the mosque on 8th Avenue in Vancouver-Fairview. I thought, as I went to an expression of solidarity on 8th Avenue at the mosque, and as I looked around on one of the coldest, wettest, most miserable days at the crowds of people who came to express their solidarity but also to denounce hatred and racism, how important it was for us to speak out. In that crowd were many representatives of every faith, including the Jewish faith.

On Holocaust Memorial Day, in the rotunda, we have heard leaders of the Jewish community remember the Holocaust and link those genocides to other genocides. It’s not about one religion. It’s not about a particular expression of hatred against one group, because if we allow one expression of hatred to occur, we will, inevitably, allow many to occur.

We have seen hate literature, as other members have described. Very recently, we found out that a very right-wing Japanese corporate owner who owns some hotels in Vancouver was distributing literature in a Vancouver hotel chain that echoed almost word for word the early words and characterizations of Jewish control in Nazi Germany in the ’30s. We all know where that led.

It’s important for us not to allow discrimination and hatred to become normalized.

In my mom’s final days, I asked her a question, as she had spent over half of her adult life in Canada. I asked her if she missed Poland, where she had grown up as a young woman. She said to me: “No, they hated us.”

Let’s not let any refugee, any immigrant, anyone’s parents have one of their last thoughts of the home in which they grew up be that they lived in hatred. Let’s not have that be the memory of the home they came to.

Madame Speaker: I thank all members for their contributions.

[1555]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

D. Routley: It is my pleasure to rise to speak in the House again and my honour to address the Speech from the Throne.

After several iterations of this role of responding to throne, as with so many things, you might just push a repeat button on the speech and the responses. As with so many other speeches that have been delivered from the throne in this House in the 12 years I’ve been here, this one was particularly vacuous.

People are facing huge struggles in this province. They come into our offices every day. We used to say that the institutions and supports in our society are near failure. Well, they’re failing. They’re crumbling at the edges. People are losing the support they need to the point where they cannot feed their children. They cannot pay their rent.

I know that every B.C. Liberal MLA, despite the spin that they put on the situation facing British Columbians…. Every one of them knows it, because the same people come into their offices with the same problems and then often move straight to our offices to have someone actually address their problems.

That’s the absolute truth, and every one of you should know it. Every one of the B.C. Liberal MLAs should know how many of their constituents are driven into our offices because they can’t get help. It’s absolutely true.

Madame Speaker: The member will direct his remarks through the Chair.

D. Routley: Thank you, Madame Speaker.

This government clearly has no vision. This government clearly, after 16 years, is worn out, tired and, to reuse a phrase that has been used so many times in this House