Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 21, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 275

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Benefits of roundabouts for B.C.

L. Throness

D. Routley

Partnership with Indigenous communities

N. Simons

P. Milobar

S. Cadieux

A. Kang

Paid leave for workers facing domestic and sexual violence

J. Routledge

M. Morris

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 15 — Right to wear religious and cultural symbols in workplace

J. Johal

R. Kahlon

M. Hunt

M. Dean

B. Stewart

M. Elmore

J. Tegart

G. Begg

J. Thornthwaite

R. Singh

S. Gibson

MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2019

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[10:05 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

BENEFITS OF ROUNDABOUTS FOR B.C.

L. Throness: I’m going to talk about a way to ease traffic congestion and

increase safety in B.C. This morning I’m talking about

roundabouts.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Of course, when we talk about roundabouts, we have to refer to the

U.K., which first developed them in the 1960s and has the highest

proportion of roundabouts in the world. There are 25,000 of them in all.

They also have one of the safest traffic systems. In 2015, the U.K. had

the fourth-lowest traffic fatalities in the OECD, but Canada was No. 17

on that list.

Well, let’s compare B.C. specifically with the U.K. In 2016, there

were 181,000 injuries from accidents on all of Britain’s roads. In B.C.,

we had 69,000 injuries from accidents at intersections alone, in just

this province, even though the population of the U.K. is 11 times

greater than B.C.’s population. In all of B.C., there are 3.7 million

vehicles, but there are 39 million vehicles in the U.K. — over ten times

more — and the U.K. is a much smaller place. Their 39 million vehicles

are crammed into an area one-quarter the size of B.C. That means that

the U.K. is 40 times more crowded with vehicles than our province, yet

it’s much safer.

Roads are narrow, cars are small, traffic is fast, and 92 percent

of Brits do not use public transit. They use good old cars and trucks to

get around. There needs to be a way to move very large numbers of people

quickly from place to place. The roundabout is one way the U.K. has

chosen to do that, and they’re very successful.

This summer I had the occasion to drive in the U.K., which took

some getting used to, I can tell you. I drove a total of 3,300

kilometres. Even though traffic was always heavy, I spent very little

time waiting in lineups, and I did not encounter one single accident,

which was a real surprise.

There are different types of roundabouts in the U.K. There are

large ones with three lanes and traffic lights to control them. There

are large and clear markings right on the roadway in front of the driver

that help to navigate them. There are smaller roundabouts with two lanes

or one lane. They even have what is called a mini-roundabout, which is a

big white dot painted in the middle of smaller intersections. You treat

that just like you treat a roundabout. It means that you can effectively

do a U-turn in the middle of an intersection if you need to.

I think it’s a wonderful improvement over the four-way stops and

the signals that we have here. You don’t have to stop at the average

intersection, it’s quicker, and it’s safer. In fact, there are few stop

signs or yield signs at all in the U.K. There are far fewer traffic

lights as well, except perhaps in dense urban areas.

The U.S. is building more and more roundabouts. They’ve doubled

their number to 5,000 over the past decade, and they’re encouraging

them. Why are they doing that? There are three main reasons.

The first is that they are safer. In a regular four-way

intersection, there are 32 possible points of collision, but in a

roundabout, there are only eight. Studies show that crashes resulting in

an injury are reduced by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or

signals were previously used. They’ve also found a 37 percent reduction

in overall collisions, a 90 percent reduction in fatalities and a 40

percent reduction in pedestrian collisions. This is because everybody

has to slow down to enter a roundabout. In B.C., everyone accelerates on

a green light, or they often speed up to try and beat a red light or a

yellow one. So they’re speeding up as they go through the intersection,

which is more dangerous.

Second, if you hit someone in a roundabout, it can’t be a head-on

collision because the flow of traffic is one way. It’s not even possible

to T-bone someone or have a head-on collision, so there are fewer

accidents, and when they do happen, they are less severe.

The second big reason to choose roundabouts is that they improve

traffic flows. That’s because they promote a continuous flow of traffic.

In most roundabouts, you don’t have to wait for a green light at a

roundabout. You don’t even have to stop. You just yield. So the

intersection can handle more traffic in the same amount of

time.

We in B.C. waste a lot of time waiting at red lights where there

is no other traffic at all and it would be otherwise safe to go. This

cannot happen with a roundabout. I think they lead to less driver

frustration as well, because you’re not sitting for minutes at a time

fuming at a red light or waiting for the next person in line to finally

pay attention and start out when the light turns.

[10:10 a.m.]

Studies by Kansas State University measured traffic flow at

intersections before and after conversion to roundabouts. In each case,

installing a roundabout led to a 20 percent reduction in delays. In

Washington, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studied

intersections in three states and found that roundabouts contributed to

an 89 percent reduction in delays and a 56 percent reduction in vehicle

stops.

The third big reason to choose roundabouts is that they are less

expensive. While it may be slightly more expensive to build a roundabout

than a signaled intersection, when it comes to long-term costs,

roundabouts don’t need the hardware and the maintenance and the

electricity costs associated with traffic signals. Over the years, the

cost of light bulbs blinking four ways every hour of every day on a

permanent basis really adds up. And there is the added bonus that

roundabouts work just fine during power outages. Because vehicles spend

less time stopping at roundabouts, fuel is saved for an environmental

benefit, and there are savings in cost and time for drivers as

well.

While roundabouts may need more property within the actual

intersection, they often take up less space on the approaching streets.

For example, you don’t need left-hand turn lanes. Roundabouts usually

require fewer lanes approaching the intersection.

Finally, a roundabout can be aesthetically appealing. You can put

a garden in the centre instead of a forest of traffic lights and wires

and poles. You could put artwork in the centre, as we have done in

Chilliwack, which also serves a practical purpose of blocking the view

of the other side of the roundabout as a safety measure.

Roundabouts, of course, aren’t appropriate for all intersections.

For example, Robson and Burrard in Vancouver, with all of its heavy

pedestrian traffic, wouldn’t be a good place to put one. But there are

so many other opportunities in B.C. to improve safety and traffic

circulation with roundabouts.

I’ve had great experience with roundabouts. I drove a long way in

the U.K. It was a little tough getting used to at first, but once you

get used to them, they really work wonderfully. And I’m looking forward

to the government side announcing its plans to build more roundabouts in

B.C.

D. Routley: Before I start, on behalf of the Agriculture Minister, I would

like to welcome students and adults from Pacific Christian School from

her riding.

I really appreciate the member bringing forward this conversation

on traffic circles, roundabouts. They are considered to be safer,

definitely, but as a cyclist, I’d bring one caution to mind. I’ll get to

that in a moment.

The reason that they’re considered safer is that they encourage

lower speeds. Situations change more slowly because of that slower

speed. It’s a very forgiving environment where people can make decisions

more slowly, and they have more time to respond. There’s no demand for

accurately judging the closing speeds of fast vehicles because cars are,

essentially, at a much lower speed. When there are crashes, they are

lower-energy crashes. They’re at a lower-impact angle and create fewer

injuries and less damage. And they create these uncomplicated situations

where decision-making at least ought to be more simple as we get used to

using traffic signals.

That points to a little bit of a problem in B.C. in that the

Ministry of Transportation versus the Road Sense manual is confusing.

There’s a difference in how they recommend you enter a roundabout.

Essentially, one says signal left if you’re turning left, no signal if

you’re going straight and signal right if you’re leaving to the right.

The other says no signals except right leaving the circle, which is what

I adhere to — just signal your way out of the roundabout. That is where

most of the problems happen, and misunderstandings.

There is a problem for cyclists, and that is that although there

are fewer collisions with cars generally, there are more collisions with

cyclists. There are more collisions in roundabouts with cyclists than

there are in regular intersections. But cyclists make that trade-off, I

suppose, because the accidents are at slower speed and have a much lower

impact and less severity of injury.

Pedestrians do fairly well with traffic circles and roundabouts.

They only have to cross one lane at a time, and there’s a refuge in the

centre. They only have to make decisions to the right, never to the

left. So there are a number of reasons that it’s actually safer for

pedestrians. And speed, of course, is a major factor in the degree of

severity of accidents and injury.

[10:15 a.m.]

Of pedestrians, the percent who are fatally injured when they’re

hit at 32 kilometres per hour is only 5 percent. I mean, that’s a

terrible number, but 5 percent are fatally injured at 32 kilometres per

hour. At 48 kilometres per hour, which would be the speed a car would

likely go through or blast a stop sign at a regular intersection, it

goes up to a 45 percent fatality rate. And then at 64 kilometres per

hour, which we see commonly in 50 kilometres-per-hour zones, the

fatality rate is 85 percent. So you can see this kind of hockey-stick

curve, where severity goes up at a very rapid rate along with

speed.

Traffic circles in that way are definitely a benefit. But having

been hit five times on my bike by cars and motorhomes and having hit two

pedestrians myself, I know that speed is an important factor. And I know

very well that speed is an important factor when you hit the

ground.

Anything that slows down traffic — in simpler situations, where

people can respond more intuitively and without the haste of a faster

pace around the intersections and more confusing in-and-out traffic —

the better. It’s always better to simplify traffic situations and to

slow down traffic. So traffic circles do that. You get a few more

cyclists hit but a lot fewer severely injured. That’s a trade-off that

as a cyclist, I’m willing make.

Take the lane if you’re a cyclist. Take the lane. Don’t let them

pass you in the roundabout. And to all drivers: never pass a cyclist in

a roundabout. They’re going 20 to 30 kilometres per hour. You wait for

20 minutes behind farm equipment going that speed. So please — as a

cyclist, I ask every driver — never pass a cyclist in a

roundabout.

L. Throness: The member opposite said some good things about bikes in

roundabouts. In the U.K., they are, more and more often, providing a

special lane for them.

I’m proud to say that Chilliwack has led the way in roundabouts.

In Chilliwack, we were one of the first cities in B.C. to install them.

We now have five single-lane roundabouts and two multi-lane ones.

Feedback from our residents has been very positive, although some are

confused by them. So the city holds a couple of information sessions

every year on how to navigate them.

From personal experience, I can tell you that they have been very

effective. There was a very dangerous intersection at the junction

between Yale Road and Highway 9 in Rosedale. And 30 years ago when I

would drive there, I remember approaching that intersection with great

trepidation, because traffic would whiz by at highway speeds and there

were fatalities there. But Popkum roundabout, as it is known, has been

in place since 2004. Although some people might say it’s too small, no

one says it shouldn’t be there. As an added benefit, there have been

some successful retail businesses that have popped up on three corners

near that roundabout, so it has not been a hindrance to commerce at

all.

Our newest roundabout recently opened on Lickman Road. I travel

that road regularly, and I used to wait in long lineups with long lines

of big trucks. Those lineups have been virtually eliminated.

In the past two years, we’ve installed two roundabouts near each

other at the Vedder Bridge — one at the bridge and the other at the

turnoff to Cultus Lake. There were enormous delays at various times,

particularly during the summer, when the entire province, it seemed,

wanted to get up to Cultus Lake. You could easily sit for an hour on the

road, waiting for that light to turn over and over and over. With the

new bridge, thanks to an infrastructure grant and two new roundabouts to

move the traffic, those delays have been hugely reduced. Everyone in

Chilliwack is very happy about that.

How are we doing provincially? ICBC is currently studying the

effectiveness of roundabouts around the province, but their review won’t

be until next March. I would have thought that ICBC would have been on

this much earlier, given the positive experience with roundabouts in

B.C. and in the U.K. and the huge number of accidents we have in B.C. In

B.C., we have 350,000 accidents every year, and 120,000 of them occur at

intersections. Three-quarters of those intersections are in the Lower

Mainland, and over half of the accidents at intersections result in

injuries.

The costs of personal injuries have been literally bankrupting

ICBC, so it is in the interests of the corporation, as well as all

drivers, to address this. ICBC has a program in place to assist with the

cost of making roads safer, particularly in certain high-accident

intersections. A little bit of investment from that program now will

save accidents and injuries and, ultimately, be reflected in lower auto

premiums.

My message to the government, to ICBC and to the rest of B.C. is:

let’s get going with this. Why not catch up to Chilliwack? Look to

Chilliwack as a provincial leader, and see what we’re doing in the

Fraser Valley.

[10:20 a.m.]

Let’s build more roundabouts — the safer, quicker and cheaper way

to drive.

PARTNERSHIP WITH

INDIGENOUS

COMMUNITIES

N. Simons: My topic this morning is partnerships with Indigenous communities.

As I thought about this issue over the last week that we’ve been back in

our constituencies, I wondered exactly how it would be that we would

talk about partnerships without implying that there are power

differentials and what the relationships are in those

partnerships.

First, I’d like to just say that I’m really pleased with the fact

that our relationship with Indigenous communities is evolving in the

right way. It’s happening because of dedicated people who are interested

in healing some of the injustices of the past, not solely for the

purpose of simply remembering our history but from learning about that

history and learning to incorporate the lessons that we have learned

from that history as we all continue our path in British Columbia

here.

We have over 200 First Nations communities in British Columbia.

There are Indigenous communities that are living, as they say, off

reserve, outside of the traditional territories of those nations, and

they are, indeed, communities as well. We have urban Indigenous

communities and rural Indigenous communities, and the goal is to improve

our partnerships with those communities, wherever they are and however

they’re manifested.

We have economic relationships that require partnerships, that are

helped by having partnerships, that all sides are…. Conditions are

improved by those partnerships. There are economic relationships with

how we deal with our natural resources. We have partnerships with

Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities have partnerships with

the province. We have partnerships with each other. We have partnerships

with local governments, with Indigenous communities. In Powell River,

for example, the community accord is well known throughout Canada — a

relationship of mutual understanding, of recognition of the past, of

acknowledgment of future challenges that go with

relationships.

Anyone who’s been in a relationship knows that it’s not always

exactly the same day to day. I think when we talk about our partnerships

that we create and foster with each other, Indigenous communities or

not, we’re always striving to improve those relationships and those

partnerships.

For partnerships, we sometimes have this idea that they are always

based on equality. I think that’s the goal. The effort that we have when

we develop partnerships is that they are of mutual trust, mutual respect

and of some sort of sense of equality. I hope that as our government

continues, I think, in this very historic time in terms of our

relationships, we do so with humility and we do so recognizing that it

is not up to us to request or demand partnerships. But it is to be open

to finding ways of going forward that are not repeating the mistakes of

our past.

I see economic relationships, economic partnerships, in the forest

industry with the foundation agreement with the shíshálh Nation, which

is the lower Sunshine Coast and territories around, that show that these

partnerships could have positive impacts on all our communities. Whether

they are to provide some economic security for Indigenous communities or

if they’re to provide some certainty and predictability in the wider

economy, I think that those show that partnerships are a structural

urgency for our future relationships.

Social relationships and partnerships are also important. I think

about our cultural tours, the Aboriginal cultural tourism sector where

community members from the many First Nations in our province offer

cultural tours for non-Indigenous communities. Those tours, I think,

create partnerships on a human level.

[10:25 a.m.]

They are not government-to-government partnerships. They’re not

industry-to-industry partnerships. They’re hu­man relationships that

become partnerships, community members who are aware of the history of

their community and who have seen and have learned from communities.

That creates, I believe, a relationship that is long-standing, based on

mutual respect. And from that foundation, other partnerships can be

developed.

Now, Eric Blaney up in the Powell River area, in Tla’amin

territory, and Candace Campo from the shíshálh Nation on the lower

Sunshine Coast both offer tours to tourists to see wildlife and to

experience the geography and the natural beauty of the territories that

those communities have existed in since time immemorial — and before

that. I think that those partnerships and culture are essential to the

strengthening of our community bonds. We know that as a province, we’re

at a place where relationships are being defined — that the old ways

have been seen as inappropriate for our modern understanding of our

history.

I think that, fundamentally, the partnerships that we create, the

partnerships that we encourage and support and nurture, are the

partnerships that we can be proud of. We all understand that the history

that has landed us in a situation where reconciliation is necessary also

has lessons on how we can become a stronger, more cohesive community,

recognizing that past. So I believe that, with some of the steps that

our government has taken, in partnership, in cooperation, with the hope

of building relationships with Indigenous communities, we’re on the

right path.

It’s not up to me or to my colleagues to say that this is a

success or not a success. These are efforts being made by, I believe we

can say, the province to reconcile the past and to establish a good,

strong foothold for the future. I believe that is necessary and only

possible if we create partnerships with communities, with individuals,

with different sectors — that it isn’t just government to government;

it’s community to community.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to provide some comments around

partnerships with Indigenous communities as well. As I was, like the

member opposite, contemplating what to say over the last week, it struck

me that being from Kamloops, it’s a little symbolic, I guess, when you

consider that back in 1910, the Laurier memorial document was signed in

Kamloops with Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the time — and in conjunction with,

now, today being federal election day.

Unfortunately, that document never did get enacted. There was a

federal election from the time that Wilfrid Laurier went back to Ottawa

from Kamloops and signed with area Chiefs. And area First Nations have

been waiting now 100-plus years for some of those principles to be acted

upon by the federal government and the provincial government. I think

it’s important that we do reflect on where we have come, though, in

spite of that document not being enacted and acted upon.

It is important to recognize, just as anyone would, feeling that

perhaps your government is not working always with the best interest at

heart, when document after document does not get enacted or followed up

on in a meaningful way. It’s certainly understandable why Indigenous

leaders in the province will continue to challenge all of us to make

sure that we are participating in a fair and equitable way and treating

agreements with Indigenous nations in such a way that they will actually

be followed through upon. It is a long process. I note that over the

last several years….

In fact, since 2014, there have been more than 200 agreements

signed by the province and Indigenous communities across this province —

more than 500, if you take a slightly longer window of a few extra

years. Final treaties, five treaties with nine First Nations.

Agreements-in-principle, eight are current with 12 First Nations.

Incremental treaty agreements, 23 agreements with 27 First Nations.

Clean energy revenue-sharing agreements, 50 agreements with 37 First

Nations. Clean energy equity investment funding, 15 agreements with 15

First Nations.

[10:30 a.m.]

Mining agreements, single- and multi-project economic and

community development and revenue-sharing agreements, 32 of those with

44 First Nations. Forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements,

262 agreements with 156 nations; in total, 120 active agreements with

140 First Nations. Reconciliation agreements, 17 agreements with 35

First Nations. Strategic engagement agreements, seven agreements with 37

First Nations.

Pipeline benefit agreements, 64 agreements with 29 First Nations,

and 48 of those agreements have been publicly announced. Economic

benefits agreements and interim economic benefits agreements — three of

those with four First Nations, as well as a resource-revenue-sharing

agreement with five First Nations.

Again, I know from the Kamloops area, we have

resource-revenue-sharing agreements with our local area Indigenous

communities, as mines were brought back into production, and those

agreements were worked with cooperatively. As the member opposite said,

it is important to make sure…. Those local connections and local

agreements are a good starting place.

I’m proud to think of the agreements the city of Kamloops has with

our area bands. We have an agreement where sewer connections are made.

The sewer system is used for the whole valley, and everyone pays their

fair share. We have fire service agreements so that there’s professional

firefighting protection for the band lands as well as city of Kamloops

lands, again at an equal rate of pay, making sure that everyone is

participating in the local economy in an equal and equitable way, to

make sure that all in our communities can strive and move

forward.

It’s those smaller agreements — that look to be smaller on the

surface — that I think can guide us into our future with some of these

larger agreements. But we should not lose sight of the fact that a lot

of work has been done in the past; a lot of work still needs to be done.

I think all sides of this House recognize that the work needs to

continue to be undertaken and to move forward in a way that will

actually provide stability both for Indigenous communities and for

others in our province and our communities, so that everyone knows where

we can head together as one community, in a broader sense, on a

provincial level.

I thank you for the time to be able to address the more than 500

agreements that have already been signed with First Nations — more than

200 of those since 2014. I look forward to hearing the member opposite’s

closing remarks.

N. Simons: I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Kamloops–North

Thompson. I think he has outlined quite clearly the number of agreements

that have been reached between governments and Indigenous communities,

whether they’re governments or local agreements with subgovernment

offices.

He does speak about the fact that, in reality, our relationships

have evolved, and governments are, I think, improving over time how

those relationships and those partnerships get codified. I would just

like to say that it’s a reflection of the efforts of individuals to make

these partnerships take place, to have these partnerships go

forward.

What I like to think of is that community-to-community

partnerships are essential in order to address what still exists in our

communities — some mistrust and some lack of understanding and,

definitely, ignorance as well. I was just reading….

A friend of mine who’s a shíshálh member who does cultural tours

was talking to some tourists, some visitors, about the impact of

colonial approaches — the role of the church, the role of the government

— in what was catastrophic to Indigenous communities. She heard

feedback. She was told that the person had heard many good things about

the previous education system, the residential schools. That was quite

troubling because ultimately, when you think about the ignorance that

comes with those kinds of statements…. Perhaps it’s a form of racism,

but it’s definitely ignorance.

I think that as we increase our partnerships, as we improve our

relationships, that kind of ignorance will disappear. That ignorance

will be replaced by an understanding and a knowledge, not a

defensiveness as much as a reassurance that we are on a better track

now. We haven’t fixed everything, but we’re working towards it.

Ultimately, partnership means that as we go across these bumpy roads

together, we will recognize our mutual history, and we’ll recognize that

it’s not always going to be easy.

[10:35 a.m.]

I am looking forward to the incorporation of the United Nations

declaration in our legislation. I think we’ve been quite clear that

that’s an important part of our mandate. As a province we can lead the

way. We can show other jurisdictions how partnerships and how

relationship-building can be put into legislation. It’s not as the

be-all and end-all of our building of relationships, but it’s a strong

step towards that. I think that together, as a province and as a

legislative body, we can encourage that ongoing, improved

relationship.

S. Cadieux: How would you feel if you went out for dinner with friends, and

you couldn’t get a table because you couldn’t negotiate stairs? How

would you feel if you were the keynote speaker at an event, you arrived,

and you couldn’t get on the stage? What if you couldn’t speak, and you

were refused medical services unless you allowed someone else to speak

for you?

What if you booked a vacation of a lifetime and arrived at your

destination to be told they didn’t have a room after all? What if you

applied for a job, but they called to book the interview, and when they

learned you had a disability, they hung up? What if you wanted to attend

a sporting event or a concert with friends but were told you couldn’t

sit with them because you were limited to sitting in accessible seating

with only one of your two friends, or if you tried to sit elsewhere, you

were told you were a fire hazard?

What if you took your three-year-old to the park to play but

couldn’t get to the playground equipment because the surface was bark

mulch? Worse, what if you were a child with a disability and the

playground at your school wasn’t accessible? What if you were six years

old, and you couldn’t go to the birthday party all the kids were going

to because the friend’s house was inaccessible?

What if you were to buy a condo in a building with basic

parking was designated limited common property under the Strata Act, so

there’s no accessible parking available to residents? What if you needed

accessible housing, and you called B.C. Housing and were told that if

you wanted accessible housing, you should quit your job and go on

assistance, because that’s the only way you’d be eligible? Have you ever

had to decline an invitation to go somewhere, to an event or an activity

with friends, because there was no accessible washroom?

Accessible parking spaces may not seem like a big deal, but if you

don’t have adequate space to open your door to get your chair out or to

lower a lift, or if the snow is piled up there on a snow day, it may as

well be a brick wall.

What if you were a voter, you wanted to attend a debate of the

local electoral candidates, but you were deaf, and there was no sign

language interpreter present? What you were if blind or had limited

vision, you went to a restaurant for lunch alone, and they didn’t have

large-print and Braille menus? What if you had a cognitive impairment,

and you couldn’t understand the form you needed to fill out to receive a

service? Would you feel sad, frustrated, angry, disillusioned, left

out?

The barriers are real. They still exist in 2019; they still exist

in B.C. It’s not a sob story. I’m not telling it to make you feel sorry

for me or for the others that it affects. It’s quite the opposite. I’m

telling you this to emphasize the opportunity and the obligation we have

to eliminate these barriers, because they’re real but

unnecessary.

There are more than 926,000 British Columbians over the age of 15

who have some sort of disability, some sort of barrier to full and

equitable participation. That’s nearly 25 percent of the population, and

it’s only going to increase as the population ages. It’s 25 percent that

may not, because of these very real barriers, be able to access their

community, employment or even government services like health

care.

We can change that, but we have to be honest. We have to

acknowledge that the biggest barrier of all is ourselves. It’s our own

biases. In fact, attitudinal barriers are the most pervasive, because

they contribute to all of the other barriers. For example, some people

may not be aware of the challenges that exist in getting into a place

and that can limit a person with a disability from participating. Some

just don’t take the time to think. Others just don’t think it’s their

problem.

Sometimes we stereotype, and we’re all guilty of this in some

capacity. We often stereotype people with disabilities by assuming that

their quality of life is poor or that they are unhealthy or unwell

because of their disability. Others think that disability is a personal

tragedy and something that needs to be cured or prevented. Some think

it’s an indication of the lack of ability to behave as expected or the

lack of a willingness to overcome.

[10:40 a.m.]

Thankfully, broader society’s understanding of disability is

improving as we’re shifting the definition of “disability” from personal

deficit to something that occurs because a person’s needs aren’t

addressed by the physical or social environment. Some of those imposed

barriers are things like communication barriers, physical barriers that

are structural obstacles or in man-made or natural environments that

block mobility. Some are policy barriers that are related to a lack of

awareness or enforcement, that require programs and activities to be

accessible to people with disabilities. Transportation barriers are

often a lack of adequate transportation, which can interfere with a

person’s ability to be independent and function. But there are

others.

Why do these barriers persist? Because they can. They can. As I

was recently told by a business when I suggested some improvements to

certainly would have hoped that people’s thinking would have evolved by

now, thirty years after my injury first thrust me into this reality, but

it hasn’t, at least not enough.

Now, I’ve always been a believer that education and positive

reinforcement was the answer. More carrot, less stick. But 30 years

later, I’ve evolved my thinking, and more stick is required. That’s why

I introduced the new housing amendment act last year, because we need to

be designing and building housing that works for everyone. It’s why, a

legislation.

I’ve followed with interest and anticipation the progress of Bill

C-81 federally since it was first proposed. Like others, my initial

response was hopeful for an all-encompassing law that solved all of my

barriers. So I understand the angst of the community. I live it. I also

understand the jurisdictional issues and the framework that’s been

established and, while there are very inclusive goals, the confines

within which they will be realized.

I believe that with Bill C-81, our country is taking a very bold

and necessary step to ensure foundational change that will profoundly

advance the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities. And now we

are on the path to provincial legislation.

I understand and applaud the fervour of the disability community,

their perseverance over decades and their sense of urgency for the

completeness of the removal of barriers. I also understand, with the

deepest of experience, the realities and limitations of legislating this

change. There is much to do.

A. Kang: Firstly, I want to thank the member for Surrey South for her

passion and her advocacy on this topic. Thank you so much for the

and to recognize all of the great work that the Ministry of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction is doing to improve access and

inclusion for all British Columbians.

This discussion also comes up at a perfect time to highlight that

October is Community Inclusion Month. In this month, we take the

opportunity to recognize people with developmental disabilities and

celebrate the importance of all people being able to contribute and to

be included at home, at school, at work and in the community.

This year the theme for Community Inclusion Month is “The future

is accessible.” Through October, Community Living B.C., service

providers and community groups will host events and initiatives to build

awareness about inclusion for adults with developmental disabilities.

The month also recognizes the important role families, friends,

caregivers, volunteers, community groups and employers play in ensuring

the full participation of those living with developmental disabilities

in our community.

According to the “Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017,” conducted

by Statistics Canada, more than 926,000 British Columbians aged 15 or

older are identified as having at least one disability. That’s 25

percent of our population. As many as 70 percent of people with

disabilities report that they have more than one disability. The

different abilities noted in the report involve seeing, hearing,

mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain-related, learning, developmental,

mental health–related, memory and much more.

[10:45 a.m.]

Under the leadership of the Minister of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction, as well as our Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty

Reduction, our provincial government is helping differently abled

British Columbians overcome certain disadvantages by implementing the

province’s first-ever poverty reduction strategy. By increasing the

assistance rates by $1,800 a year and increasing the earning exemptions,

provincial programs are relieving more and more British Columbians.

Coupled with other policies, this government is helping break the

poverty trap and opening up more opportunities for all British

Columbians to succeed.

Of course, making our province more accessible and inclusive goes

beyond financial assistance. It also requires us to be involved in our

community, in the conversations, and to invest in our physical

environments. To create an inclusive society that welcomes everyone, all

three orders of government must work together.

Taking, for example, my community in Burnaby, I am extremely proud

to say that the city of Burnaby has made tremendous and thoughtful

efforts to ensure that city bylaws, policy programs and services

appropriately consider gender equity concerns and the needs of various

subsections of the general population and to include children and youth,

the elderly, persons with mental and physical disabilities, persons of

diverse ethnic or cultural backgrounds, persons who are functionally

illiterate, persons of low socioeconomic status and other relevant

groups.

Burnaby facilities are undergoing improvements to include more

portable pool lift or an accessible ramp. Some people may not want to

ask for help, and a lack of independence would create a barrier to

people who have trouble navigating the pool ladder to be more

independent.

The Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is

leading work across government to improve access and inclusion for all

legislation that will bring about a culture shift toward greater

on the rights of persons with disabilities and the principle of “Nothing

about us without us.” I strongly include everyone to participate in the

provincewide consultation process between September 16 and November 29.

For more information, please visit the ministry’s website.

Together we can work toward building a community for everyone,

life is essential to creating liveable communities, including

workplaces, buildings, neighbourhoods and businesses. Building a better

B.C. is the job of all of us.

S. Cadieux: Well, my own disability provides me a perspective. My work with

the disability community broadly, as a board member of Disability

Alliance B.C., my work with SCIBC and other disability groups and my

work as former minister responsible for social programs in B.C. — all of

those experiences have broadened my views and exposed me to the vast and

varied disability experience.

It has taught me the importance of the challenges associated with

bringing those diverse experiences to a common goal. Be it the built

environment, employment, communication, service delivery, transportation

or procurement, the reality is that barriers continue to exist, continue

to be erected. We now have the express intent to proactively confront

those barriers and break them down. So let’s get it right.

We do need to learn, though, from those who have gone before us.

We do need to attempt to move to a national standard and away from

creating yet another different standard. There are good examples of work

already done. We need to recognize that

an act, apart from other

standards like the building code, will be ineffective unless there is a

requirement within the existing processes, like building permits that

have to be adhered to.

For example, in Ontario, despite great efforts to provide built

environment standards that would ensure access and inclusion, it was

deemed unworkable and not included in the building code. So the lesser

minimum standard is still how buildings are built, leaving businesses in

a very difficult position — a building built to a code that doesn’t

conform to the requirements to meet the human rights code or the

rules. People with disabilities are still paying the price.

[10:50 a.m.]

In the case of service delivery, a move to things like kiosks and

self-serve on iPads and the like…. While standards may very well state

that they must be accessible, without a clear definition of what that

means, there’s no consistency or assurance that those kiosks have

Braille or an earphone jack or a help button.

Just like a situation in Vancouver I experienced recently where a

new elevator was installed — no buttons, just a kiosk in the front

lobby. No audible signals. No Braille signage. Someone who was blind

would just have to stand around and wait and hope that a stranger would

arrive and ask if they needed assistance. A very high-tech and, no

doubt, expensive renovation that is an absolute access

failure.

What about our public schools today? Do they meet everybody’s

needs? A constituent of mine, Jacquelyn Perry, shared a very frustrating

story with me. She was asked to do a presentation at her little sister’s

high school. The classroom was not wheelchair-accessible, so they had to

book a special room at a special time to be able to have her present. It

made her feel like an inconvenience and a problem instead of a welcome

guest like everyone else.

There are good examples, too, on display, like at YVR where they

have made very intentional decisions. And just last week I had the

opportunity to test out a prototype wheelchair lift that could provide

wheelchair access to seaplanes, proving that almost anything is possible

with commitment and ingenuity.

The advocates in the disability community, in its broadest sense,

will be looking for the act, both federally and provincially, to bring

about systemic and societal change. It’s a big expectation, but it’s the

right thing to do. It makes economic and, most importantly, social

sense.

PAID LEAVE FOR WORKERS

FACING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL

VIOLENCE

J. Routledge: Earlier this year this government made some important amendments

to the Employment Standards Act. One such amendment was the inclusion of

new, unpaid, job-protected leave for workers who have experienced, or

are the parents of a child who has experienced, domestic or sexual

violence. Let me tell you why I think this amendment is so important and

why I think we need to do more.

When I was a young woman, I volunteered at a shelter for women and

children who were escaping domestic violence. It was called Interval

House, and it still exists today. It opened in the 1970s in an old house

in an old residential neighbourhood of Ottawa. It looked like all the

other houses on the street, but its location was fiercely kept secret to

protect residents from the very husbands from whom they were escaping,

sometimes with only the clothes on their backs. They often arrived

traumatized, disoriented and humiliated.

My main role as a volunteer was to facilitate weekly house

meetings. Meetings were organized purposefully in such a way as to help

women regain their self-esteem, promote a sense of mutual support and

give them agency over their own lives. Together they planned weekly

menus, resolved interpersonal friction, made and remade house

rules.

Sometimes there were cultural clashes, and the women worked hard

to understand and appreciate each other’s cuisine and customs. I

remember a particularly tense debate about what to do with leftover

potatoes. Of course, the argument wasn’t really about potatoes. It was

more about asserting what feels normal and familiar in an environment

that is anything but normal and familiar.

I also volunteered, on occasion, to staff the crisis line on the

night shift. I remember taking a call from a woman who was being abused

by her husband. She wanted reassurance that it wasn’t her fault that she

was getting beaten up regularly, and she wanted to find out what options

were available to her. Her husband was a doctor.

I recall that two topics dominated the administration of Interval

House in those days. One was a severe lack of funding, and we operated

under a constant threat of closure. Two was how to get the police and

justice system to take domestic violence seriously. We knew that a part

of our job at Interval House was to change the widespread belief that

what happened in one’s home was none of anyone else’s business, that it

was acceptable for men to come home from a hard day at work and take it

out on their wives and, if he was triggered by something his wife did or

didn’t do, that it was somehow her fault.

[10:55 a.m.]

Attitudes have changed a lot since then. Once we as a society

started paying more attention to domestic and sexual violence, we made

some shocking discoveries. For example, we found out that while it can

happen to anyone, women and girls are seven times more likely to face

this type of violence. When we looked even closer, we found out that

Indigenous women are three and a half times more likely to be impacted

than non-Indigenous women. We found out that LGBTQ+ people are more than

twice as likely as hetero people to face it. And three to five children

in every classroom have been exposed to domestic violence.

While domestic and sexual violence may no longer be socially

acceptable, the facts are clear. We as a society haven’t done enough to

protect people from it.

Here’s something else that has changed since I was volunteering at

Interval House in Ottawa. Then, only about 40 percent of women in

domestic relationships were employed outside the home. Today, 80 percent

of married women have jobs.

The good news is that paid employment can provide victims of

domestic violence with a measure of economic security. They don’t have

to stay in an abusive relationship in order to put a roof over their

heads and food on the table for their kids. But it can make them

vulnerable in other ways. For example, the most dangerous period of time

for someone experiencing domestic violence is when they are escaping.

That’s why it’s so important that the address of the safe house remain

secret. But if the survivor is employed, their abuser can track them

down at their place of work, sabotage their work relationships and even

follow them back to the safe house, putting others in danger.

Survivors of domestic and sexual violence need to rebuild their

lives, and having a job is a big part of that. But so are medical

appointments, counselling, meetings with lawyers, going to court,

finding new schools for their kids and finding a new place to live. But

an employed survivor can’t attend those needs without taking time off

work, and that’s why this government amended the Employment Standards

Act to ensure that when a survivor comes back from court with a

restraining order, they have a job to come back to. But unpaid leave

results in loss of income, and for anyone starting over, living close to

the edge, that loss of income can be catastrophic. It can drive them

back into an abusive, dangerous relationship.

This government wants to take the next step. We have already taken

steps to protect the jobs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Now we need to look at ways to protect their income. That’s why we

launched a public consultation program. We want to hear from survivors.

We want to hear from those who provide support to survivors. We want to

hear from those who employ survivors of domestic and sexual

violence.

Domestic and sexual violence has been society’s dirty little

secret. We need to start talking about it. People have a right to feel

safe in their own homes. Together, we can find more ways to protect

them.

M. Morris: This has been a topic, of domestic violence and sexual violence

with children and women and others…. There are all kinds of examples of

sexual violence against men as well. It has been the scourge of society

for thousands of years.

I recall, back in my early days as a police constable, the

majority of my files as a young general duty constable were dealing with

domestic disputes on a daily basis and, all too often, sexual disputes

as well, or sexual assaults involving young children and young women.

Particularly in the small communities back in the early ’70s, there

weren’t too many resources available to police officers to try and find

the help that was necessary to help these people find a safe

spot.

The previous speaker talked about a safe home in Ottawa. We do

have dozens of safe homes in British Columbia, right across the province

here, and there are more being added all the time. But that’s only come

in the last, probably, 20 years or so, particularly in the small

communities.

[11:00 a.m.]

As a young constable, as an example — and I’m sure I wasn’t the

only one — we used to go around the community ourselves and find places

where we could place people who were in those kinds of situations where

they needed to get away and hide for a bit and wait until things settled

down.

The other part of it was that because there were no resources

available, the police themselves acted as a counsellor, acted as a

mediator, acted as a source for alternate dispute resolutions to try and

figure out whether they can get back together in a safe way or not.

Charges were laid in many of those cases that went forward to Crown

counsel. Policies changed with Crown counsel, as well, so that charges

had to be laid in the majority of those cases.

In every respect, the police officers in the small communities and

large communities were following up often. If we’d see the victim on the

street with her children, we would stop and talk to them, find out how

things were going and ensure that they were safe and had the opportunity

and knew where they could go in order to maintain a safe environment to

stay in.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

A lot of our missing and murdered women, unfortunately, started off

in rural British Columbia, in small First Nations communities up and

down the coast and were subjected to all kinds of sexual and domestic

violence. They migrated into the centres to try and get away from that

and to try and find the support services that would be available in the

larger centres and, unfortunately, succumbed to alcohol and drugs and

prostitution and some of those other scourges that affect victims of

domestic violence in small communities.

I think we’ve come a significant way forward over the last 30

years in this province in providing the resources necessary for the

victims of these types of offences to recoup from — and for the police

to follow through with charges on individuals and put them through the

court system. The law has changed quite significantly there

too.

One of the things that I was very happy to see when we were in

government: the proceeds-of-crime office seized a lot of money involved

in crime in British Columbia, and we offered it to the different groups

throughout the province on an annual basis. Any group that would be

dealing with violence against women, sexual assaults and those types of

things, would be eligible to apply for a lot of the grants that were

available to provide the services and the counselling to support the

victims of these kinds of crimes.

There are over 240 violence-against-women counselling and outreach

services across the province here, and I think that’s significant. And

there are over 160 police-based, community-based and victim services

programs throughout the province, as well, offering a host of different

support services for victims within that milieu.

One of the things, though, that is disturbing…. The Northern John

Howard Society of B.C. brought together a program here about 20 years

ago or so. It’s the STOP program, Stop Taking It Out on your Partner

program, which was very effective. For some reason, they lost funding

for this particular program for this year, and they haven’t been able to

offer it. But this is one of the most effective programs that we’ve had

in northern British Columbia, and it was copied throughout other

jurisdictions, as well, in order to reduce the amount of recidivism of

men abusing and assaulting their spouses.

This is something that needs to be taken a look at again, but

everything helps.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for engaging

in this important topic. I really appreciate him drawing on his

experience as a police officer in being part of a support network for

people who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. He adds an

important perspective and an important sense of history of this issue.

And I really appreciate that this is something that, essentially, we can

agree upon, on both sides of the aisle, about how far we’ve come but how

far we have yet to go.

[11:05 a.m.]

Turning to unpaid leave, the question of turning it into paid

leave is a big step, and it’s a big question. I expect that there will

be some controversy about that. So I would like to take a moment and

talk about what some of the arguments against paid domestic- and

sexual-violence leave might be.

One that comes to mind, that we’re likely to hear, is the issue

of: how do we know for sure that an employee has actually been a victim

of domestic or sexual violence? I am so glad that the member opposite

didn’t raise that question themselves, because, you know, to question

whether or not someone has been a victim of that kind of violence in a

sense re-victimizes the person. In this age of Me Too, we know just how

devastating it is to always to have to explain oneself and always have

to make the case that they were victims.

Now, I firmly believe that one should not have to be airing one’s

very private, very devastating experiences to the employer in order to

get that kind of leave. But I also…. In talking to some of the people in

my community who are advocates for people who have experienced domestic

and sexual violence, they would be open to an advocate or a counsellor

from a safe house to speak on the person’s behalf and basically verify

that they have in fact come there and that they are in fact in the

system.

We can’t wait until it’s been heard in court because that’s the

whole point of the leave — to be able to go to court. But I also think

that if the employer is entitled to that kind of information, the

employer also needs to be obligated to maintain strict

confidentiality.

I see the red light is on.

I want to conclude by thanking the people who have come forward to

make a case. I want to thank those who have supported them, and I want

to thank everyone here for listening so carefully to this. Together, we

can make a change.

Hon. C. James: I ask leave to make a quick introduction before I put the motion

forward.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Members.

The group just left, but I wanted to make sure that we introduced a

group of students who were here from Central Middle School, my old high

school, just down the road from the Legislature. Teacher Jessica Bambrough,

26 grade 6s and four adults were with them. I thank the House for the

opportunity to introduce them.

With that, I’d like to ask the House to please consider proceeding

with Motion 15, standing in the name of the member for

Richmond-Queensborough.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed

with Motion 15 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it

on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 15 — RIGHT TO WEAR RELIGIOUS

AND CULTURAL

SYMBOLS IN WORKPLACE

J. Johal: I’d first like to say that it’s a privilege to rise in the House

today to put this motion forward.

In light of recent actions by other Legislative Assemblies in

Canada, I feel it’s important that we solidify our commitment to

inclusion, acceptance and the freedom of expression that has been

granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and

extended….

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you be able to make the move?

J. Johal: Sorry. My apologies. I would like to move the motion:

[Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an

individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the

workplace.]

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

J. Johal: As I was saying, I feel it’s important that we solidify our

commitment to inclusion, acceptance and the freedom of expression that

is granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and extended

to all Canadians.

Here in this country, we’re rooted in heritage, culture, family

and community, regardless of our background or placement in society. A

part of that sense of community, for many, comes from associations with

religion and with that traditional iconography and attire. A turban is a

symbol of pride. A hijab is a symbol of pride. First Nations dress is a

symbol of pride. A cross is a symbol of pride, as are all other

religious or cultural symbols that honour and celebrate one’s connection

to community.

[11:10 a.m.]

You can ask any member of this chamber about their monthly

schedule, and there’s not one member who has not visited a place of

worship or attended cultural festivals or cultural institutions. Each of

these visits is a reminder of the incredible diversity of our province

and its people. This diversity and sense of inclusion should not be

taken for granted.

On Thursday, I was invited by Richmond Jewish School during a

community celebration. It was heartwarming to see so many children

immersed in their faith and in their culture. Many of them wore a

kippah, the traditional cap worn by many practising Jews. It was a day

of celebration. There were many people of different faiths attending

that day. This, at the core, is what makes our community and country

strong. We are collectively saying, “You belong,” and that’s what’s

important here.

It’s important that this House affirms the right of individuals to

wear religious symbols. I think back to the events on Thursday that I

attended, and I wonder: what messages do we send to our children when we

talk about Bill 21? You know, at its core, we want to tell people: “You

are a part of our community.”

I look back to my own parents’ history here in this country. Both

are orthodox Sikhs. It was a different time. We should know better

today, and that, I think, is the conversation we need to be

having.

Legislation like Bill 21 in Quebec serves as an affront to these

symbols of pride, fosters the flames of difference and prevents us from

rejoicing in our similarities and common connections. The notion of the

bill is clear, and it overwhelmingly discriminates against minorities

and people of colour. Bill 21 bans public employees, including teachers,

judges and police officers, from wearing symbols of faith.

It is not only a violation of freedom of religion as guaranteed by

the Charter of Rights; it also takes Canadians backward in terms of

women’s rights and the rights of minorities, undermining the very

purpose of the Charter.

In a statement regarding Bill 21, the United Church says the law

“sows division instead of weaving a stronger social fabric.” It goes on

to state: “After more than 50 years as a clearly secular state, we

wonder why the Quebec government now fears the personal religious

expression of individuals who represent the state. Why would someone

receiving services from our public institutions consider an employee

wearing a religious symbol to be promoting their religion and therefore

unable to carry out their duties in a professional manner?”

Expression of one’s culture in the workplace, as long as it’s not

rooted in hate and prejudice, should be supported, not suppressed. We

don’t celebrate sameness in this country; we celebrate

diversity.

Given the political climate in the United States and the simmering

tensions being stoked during our own federal election, as we’ve seen in

the last six weeks or so, there’s no better time to cement our resolve

in this House. We may differ in our political leanings and personal

choice, but I know in my heart that in this room we have a common goal,

which is creating the best B.C. that we can, and a part of that is

nurturing acceptance and diversity.

Ultimately, the motion today speaks about belonging, and I hope

that in the spirit of that, you will give us support to this

motion.

I thank you for my time.

R. Kahlon: It’s my privilege and honour to stand today in the House and speak

in favour of this motion: “Be it resolved that this House unanimously

affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural

symbols in the workplace.” I want to thank the member for

Richmond-Queensborough for bringing this motion forward.

I can’t believe we’re in 2019 and we’re still talking about this

topic. I think we should take a moment and reflect on the progress that

we’ve made as a society. Today is election day, and people are,

hopefully, getting to polling stations, voting and having their

democratic rights, a franchised vote, be made so they can have their

elected officials represent them in this place.

We think about the right of just the vote. In 1940, South Asian

people, Japanese people or Canadians of Japanese descent, Doukhobor,

Mennonites were told they could not vote. Yet over time, we saw progress

in our society, and people came to realize that that’s not right. We

made progress. First Nations were able to get their votes, unbelievably

in the ’50s.

[11:15 a.m.]

I reflected this morning, when I was thinking of this motion, on

Baltej Dhillon, a South Asian Sikh man who was the first to wear a

turban in the RCMP, and all the trials and tribulations he had to go

through to have that right. When he first joined the force, there were

people within the RCMP that told him they would not want to be his

partners. There were people within the RCMP that were starting petitions

to say: “We don’t want him to serve.” There was a Calgary businessman

who started a petition in the community and had pins made of a person

with a turban in an RCMP uniform and a cross across it. These are the

things that he had to go through.

When I see what’s happening in Quebec, when I see Bill 21

presented, I think of all those historical wrongs that we in this

Legislature have seen people apologize for and that we’ve seen, in the

federal parliament, people apologizing for. It is my belief, and it is

my hope, that one day my child or my grandchild will be able to see an

apology in the Quebec chamber on Bill 21, where people will recognize

that this is historically wrong. Given the context of our society, the

things that we’ve done and the progress we’ve made, for us to go

backwards in a province in Canada…. I want them to one day be able to

say that the chamber here stood unanimously together to oppose the moves

of Bill 21.

I think it’ll be a moment of pride for everyone here to be able to

say that. I appreciate there are lots of conversations happening about

jurisdictions. And yes, Quebec can do their thing. But here we’re

unanimous in our support. You know, change comes from within. We must

continue to make progress. We must continue to do things.

I’m really grateful to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for

identifying changes that we need to make within our own rules to make

this place more inclusive. I know that the Speaker would allow someone

wearing a turban or others to speak in this place, but the rules still

preclude it. So to see that change is an important step. To see this

motion brought together and supported by members of both sides of the

House is a very important step.

I’ll just say, in closing, that we have a lot of work to do, as a

society, to move this conversation along, to make sure that we provide a

more inclusive and more welcoming Legislature. We make it more welcoming

in our politics. We make it more welcoming in every opportunity of

representation. Whether it be boards, whether it be positions of power,

we must make that space.

My hope is that this motion sends a message to everyone in B.C.

that we stand united here in opposing Bill 21, and we stand here united

in wanting a better place for ourselves, for our families, for our kids

and for the next generation.

M. Hunt: It’s my privilege to be able to stand and speak to the resolution:

“Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an

individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the

workplace.”

I’m grateful to be able to speak to this motion because we’re

debating a fundamental right of Canadians and the

interpretation of one

of the very freedoms that defines this as our nation. We’re talking

about the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression, values that

bring many people to Canada in the first place.

My ancestors left England 400 years ago seeking religious freedom.

First they went to the Netherlands and eventually found their way to

North America in the 1620s. Now, the advance party arrived on the

Mayflower in 1620, but half of them died that first winter.

The First Nations taught us how to live off the land and how to survive

in this area. My ancestors left their homes, braved the new land for the

freedoms — freedoms like religious expression.

It’s disappointing to see Canadians today being denied these

freedoms — freedoms that make Canada the best country in the world to

live. When the Coalition Avenir Québec passed Bill 21, they targeted

judges, police officers, teachers and those working in the public sector

— those who often are the very face of our national identity.

By removing their freedom of religious expression while performing

their duties as public servants, the National Assembly of Quebec has

sent a message to the rest of Canada and to the world that there is no

place for freedom of expression in our national identity. But we know

that this is not the case.

[11:20 a.m.]

Freedom of religion and expression are grounded in our Charter of

Rights and Freedoms under

section 2, which includes the freedom of

conscience and religion; the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and

expression. This is not the freedom from religion nor the freedom of one

religious belief to dominate the others. If my family, which arrived 400

years ago…. Countless families since then have immigrated to Canada to

enjoy that religious freedom. How can we deny that same freedom to those

who come today?

We’re beginning to see cases like Amrit Kaur, a Sikh teacher in

Quebec, who recently moved to British Columbia just so that she can wear

her turban. Amrit felt that in order for her to pursue her passion for

her career and to enjoy her religious freedom, she needed to leave her

home in Quebec and work in schools here in British Columbia. How can a

teacher teach inclusion to our children when they have to hide their

religious identity? How can police officers promote justice when they

feel discriminated against?

It is our job, as elected representatives here in British

Columbia, to use our voices to speak up for our fellow Canadians who are

facing discrimination and oppression here in our own country. All of us

here in the House can certainly exercise our differences of opinion, and

we do it regularly. We can also celebrate the differences we have —

differences of religion, culture and identity.

I’m proud to be from Surrey. As the member for

Richmond-Queensborough who put forward this resolution, yes, I go to

many cultural events in my city where many individuals wear their

religious symbols each and every day. Some wear crosses; some wear

turbans and kirpans . We all celebrate where we’ve come from and

who we are. I strongly support the rights of an individual to wear

religious and cultural symbols in the workplace, and I encourage every

member of this House to do the same.

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for this motion. Of course, we must affirm

the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in

the workplace. No one deserves to be discriminated against in the

workplace due to their religion or their culture, and we must stand up

to protect diversity throughout our province.

For example, our government was the first to notice the

discriminatory nature of Standing Order 36. We took action to ensure

that the rights of MLAs to wear religious and cultural head wear in the

House are clear and indisputable, because we know that the Legislature

must be a welcoming place for all people. We thank the Speaker and other

parties represented in this House for helping to pass this motion

unanimously.

The concern was initially voiced by my colleague the member

representing Surrey–Green Timbers that if a Member of the Legislative

Assembly wore a turban, a kippah, a head scarf, Indigenous headdress or

any other traditional or spiritual symbol, it wasn’t certain that they

would be permitted to speak in chambers. Leaving issues of personal

identity to

interpretation or popular precedents makes those protections

by definition precarious. That wasn’t good enough, so she made a motion

to change the standing order.

Making this change ensures that the Legislature remains a safe and

a welcoming space for all Canadians. This is especially important at a

time when we are seeing alarmingly frequent expressions of hate and

racism. Our Legislature must be a reflection of the great diversity of

our wonderful province. As legislators, we’re in a position to ensure

that our systems are supportive of everyone in our province. This

includes modernizing our own procedures to break down barriers, like

this amendment to the standing orders.

Our government is working hard to get results for all people. Part

of that is making sure that our public institutions and workplaces are

just and non-discriminatory and that people are defended if their human

rights are threatened. That’s why we’ve done a number of things to

combat religious and racial oppression in B.C., including

re-establishing the Human Rights Commission. We believe that every

person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. The UN’s

universal declaration of human rights was ratified over 70 years ago,

yet B.C.’s Human Rights Commission was disbanded in 2003.

[11:25 a.m.]

In 2017, our government consulted with British Columbians on human

rights, and we got a very clear response from our communities. Now B.C.

is no longer the only province without a human rights commission. By

re-establishing a human rights commission, we are creating a more

inclusive and just society for us all.

The commissioner is responsible for promoting and protecting human

rights in British Columbia, with the key function to educate people on

human rights and to reduce and eliminate discriminatory practices,

particularly issues of systemic discrimination — systemic discrimination

like the potential of Standing Order 36, systemic discrimination like

we’ve seen as a result of colonization that needs to be addressed

through implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples.

Our government is making reconciliation a cross-government

priority by mandating all ministries to fully adopt and implement the

United Nations declaration and the calls to action of the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission. We’re co-developing legislation with B.C.

First Nations to establish the United Nations declaration as the

framework for reconciliation in B.C.

The missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls are also a

priority. I attended the final workshop, held by Elaine Alec. I felt the

power of the work that she guided. That’s going to provide a foundation

for our work moving forward.

This is important work. We must break down the systemic barriers

and call out the hate and racism in our communities. We all have a role

to play. If we’re not taking action, then we are part of the systemic

collusion.

Again, I thank my colleagues for all of their work in tackling

discrimination and oppression and call everybody to action.

B. Stewart: I know it’s a little far forgotten place in British Columbia, but

anyways, we’re very proud of the diversity that we have in our

community, and that’s what I’m here to address today. I just want to

make certain that this House knows that I unanimously affirm the rights

of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the

workplace.

The idea of denying one’s freedom to manifest their religion and

culture is toxic. This motion needs to serve as a reminder that

multiculturalism is a way of life in British Columbia and in Canada. We

often talk about respecting other people. How about we start with

tolerance, the willingness to accept that something different has the

right to exist. By something different, I mean behaviours and beliefs

different from your own and whether you agree with them or

not.

As a former Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism in 2009 and

2010 — that was during the Olympic period — I had the wonderful

experience of not only meeting with hundreds of ethnic groups that were

here in British Columbia from all around the world, but the reality is

that I discovered how diverse British Columbia was. Even I was surprised

by the things that were taking place in British Columbia.

We’re all fortunate to live in British Columbia, the most

ethnically diverse province in Canada and one that has attracted

newcomers from around the world. About 25 percent of British Columbia’s

population are visible minorities, and another 5 percent are

Indigenous.

Multiculturalism is also what makes our province unique and

strong. Because of Canada’s Pacific gateway strategy, we face many

different cultures.

In October of 2013, I had the privilege of being appointed as

British Columbia’s special representative in Asia to further strengthen

British Columbia’s government-to-government relations in China, Japan,

Korea, India and Southeast Asia. My goodness, a huge marketplace,

divergent ethnicities, and the reality is that we need to make certain

that we understand those and be tolerant.

During the 3½ years of this assignment, I had the opportunity to

meet with many local officials to promote and attract investment to

British Columbia and to witness trade being an important driver of

economic growth in British Columbia. Our strength, therefore, lies in

acceptance and cooperation between the many people who call this

province home.

[11:30 a.m.]

That is why it is all the more important to talk about affirming

the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in

the workplace. Dress codes are a reflection of the work culture, and

they change with time. The Legislative Assembly here in British Columbia

recently reviewed its 40-year-old dress code to bring it up to

date.

When we think about today’s world of increasing populism and its

potential impact on minorities and religious rights, discrimination

demeans us all. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees

the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Everyone has the right of

religion. Everyone has the freedom and belief and expression of wearing

religious and cultural symbols as one of the ways that we express

ourselves. That’s the foundation of Canada’s free and democratic

society. The government has the responsibility to ensure that

individuals are able to observe their religion.

You might remember the controversy that several Euro­pean countries

— including France, Belgium and Denmark — restricted religious symbols

in public, such as face veils worn by Muslim women. Canada is not immune

to this intolerance. Just in this last June, Quebec passed Bill 21,

banning public servants from wearing religious symbols. That was a dark

day in this country’s history. It sends the wrong message to students

when their teachers are not allowed to exercise their religious rights

and freedoms. It does not unite us. It divides us in the form of a

cultural war.

It’s up to every one of us to uphold Canadian values and guard

against hatred based on race and place of origin. Here in British

Columbia, it has not always been the multicultural land that it is

today. Discriminatory policies towards the Japanese, Chinese, Irish,

First Nations, Punjabis, are just a few examples of how minorities were

treated in this province. We as a province have apologized for

historical wrongdoings, but that’s far from enough.

Every British Columbian deserves the right to honour their

heritage and celebrate who they are. We legislators should not

legitimize discrimination against people based on religion or culture.

It’s okay for people to look different. It’s okay for people to speak

differently. It’s also okay for people to dress differently.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of the motion, “Be it

resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual

to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace,” moved by the

member for Richmond-Queensborough.

I’m very pleased to rise and hear remarks from all members of the

House in favour of this motion. I think it shows a united front and a

real commitment that we have as legislators in British Columbia to stand

and uphold human rights for all British Columbians. So I’m very pleased

to rise and speak.

We’ve seen, across the globe, the rise of nationalist, far-right,

racist movements really sweeping Europe, even in terms of seeing

acceptance with respect to citizens of those countries electing

representatives in their legislatures. We’ve seen, as well, the rise in

the United States of the alt-right, the alternative right, movement,

characterized by white supremacy, anti-Semitism and a severe restriction

on immigration, with just terrible stories of children being detained at

the border.

While that was happening, Canadians, I think, felt a little bit

removed from that. But certainly, in terms of the global context, we are

also seeing that in our country and in our province. It’s expressed, as

well, electorally, in our election, around really giving mainstream

voice to these issues — not explicitly, but certainly around severe

immigration restriction. In Vancouver-Kensington, as well, I’ve heard

instances around racism and criticism against refugees. So certainly,

racism is alive and well, and there’s a need for our government and all

elected representatives to take a strong stand against this.

I think we need to go beyond the issue of tolerance. It’s not a

matter of tolerating somebody’s difference. I think we have to look

deeply and really value and respect folks. That also talks to a real

change in attitude and a real transformation of our system.

[11:35 a.m.]

Our government has recognized the need to take steps to address

religious freedom and also respect different cultures here. Certainly,

no one deserves to be discriminated in the workplace due to their

religion or culture, and we must stand up to protect diversity

throughout our province. Our government was the first to notice the

discriminatory nature of Standing Order 36 and took action to ensure

that the rights of MLAs to wear religious and cultural headgear in the

House are clear and indisputable, of course, because we know that

Legislature and government must be a welcoming place for

people.

I also thank all parties in the House as well as the Speaker for

helping to pass this motion unanimously. It was led by an initiative

from the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers, who wrote a letter to the Speaker

and also moved a motion that was approved unanimously to Standing Order

36. It now states: “Every member desiring to speak shall do so from

their assigned place and address the Speaker.” The change removes a

former reference that required members to be uncovered when addressing

the Chair.

As well, our government has undertaken…. It’s not only changing

laws; it’s changing attitudes, engaging folks in that process. A key

component of that, which really contributed, was publicly engaging

British Columbians on needed changes for human rights protection in our

province. The parliamentary secretary from North Delta tabled a report

in 2017, A Human Rights Commission for the 21st Century: British

Columbians Talk About Human Rights , about needed changes in

human rights protection. We also re-established a new human rights

commission. We’re making reconciliation across government a priority,

and we are also to implement UNDRIP throughout all ministries, so a

comprehensive, systemic approach.

A number of the initiatives and tools that we have in the

Legislature with respect to our human rights code, our Human Rights

Tribunal, re-establishing the Human Rights Commission…. My former

colleagues have mentioned that it was disbanded in 2003. We’re taking a

proactive effort to ensure that education is an important component of

addressing human rights and discrimination and, really, be

forward-looking to engage British Columbians.

The new Human Rights Commissioner mandate is to promote and

protect human rights in British Columbia. Every person deserves to be

treated with dignity and respect.

J. Tegart: I’d like to thank the member for Richmond-Queensborough for

bringing this forward today and giving members of our Legislative

Assembly the chance to clearly and unanimously support this motion and

to speak to our commitment to accepting expression and inclusion. I

would also like to speak out against the decisions made by the

legislators in Quebec.

All of us in here know how much work goes into passing legislation

from concept to implementation. It’s a hands-on exercise that promotes

conversation and reflection with a variety of inputs from staff and

stakeholders. Dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of policy work goes into

a bill before it gets to the floor of the House. In light of Quebec’s

Bill 21, I find it unbelievable that policy-makers would spend their

time discussing, debating and eventually passing legislation that only

serves to degrade society and, by its own nature, primarily impacts

minorities. There is no inherent upside to this type of legislation, so

I don’t understand how it can be supported.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear about

the freedoms that we all share. The most connected to this motion is the

right to the freedom of expression. Religious symbolism is expression —

expression that, devoid of hate and exclusion, of course, should always

be free. Turbans, hijabs, crucifixes or any other religious symbol, for

that matter, do not pose a threat to our society or to our personal

safety.

[11:40 a.m.]

How one chooses to express themselves should not be an issue for

the policy-makers of Quebec to regulate and pass judgment on. To me, the

message of Bill 21 is: “If you express your religious beliefs, you are

wrong. Your beliefs are wrong. Your heritage is wrong. Your expression

is wrong.”

Bill 21 will be damaging to Quebec. It will create rifts and erode

relationships. I’m saddened that the residents of that province have to

bear the weight of that decision, and I implore this House to reaffirm

our commitment to tolerance.

Diversity is a blessing in all of our lives. It excites and

challenges and creates community. Diversity also brings life to our

democratic institutions and to this room. This motion helps reinforce

that. In all things that we work on in this House, I agree that

inclusion and acceptance are the path forward. Celebrating how we are

different is the only way to reflect how we are all so

similar.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this motion

today. It is an important issue throughout the country as we go to vote

today.

G. Begg: Thank you to this House for this motion: “Be it resolved that this

House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious

and cultural symbols in the workplace.”

It is, I believe, a basic tenet of human rights that all persons

have the inherent right to be treated with dignity and respect. That is

a universal declaration: all persons have the right to be treated with

dignity and respect. It follows, therefore, I believe, that no one

should be discriminated against in the workplace due to their religion

or culture, because to do so would not be dignified and respectful

treatment.

I’m reminded today of the terrible attack just about exactly a

year ago at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh — a unique house of

worship where three separate and distinct Jewish congregations meet in

three separate sanctuaries all under one common roof. A gunman opened

fire, and 11 congregants from all three congregations were

killed.

Today in the United States, the Anti-Defamation League will

release new figures indicating that the number of incidents against Jews

and Jewish targets in the United States reached 780 just in the first

half of this year. At least a dozen white supremacists have been

arrested for such shootings, plots and threats since the deadliest

anti-Semitic attack in U.S. history at the Tree of Life.

We all now live in perilous times. The ugly face of bigotry is

appearing more frequently every day, and minority groups are becoming

increasingly targeted. So what does all of that have to do with us in

this House? We are in the people’s House. We are leaders, and leaders

must lead. That is why it’s so important for all of us to do all we can

to promote diversity and inclusiveness at every level.

I am pleased that our government was the first to notice the

discriminatory nature of Standing Order 36 and took action to ensure

that the rights of MLAs to wear religious and cultural headgear in the

House are indisputable because we know that this House must be a

welcoming place for all people. We thank the other parties represented

here, as well as the Speaker, for helping this motion pass unanimously.

I salute and applaud the member from Green Timbers for bringing this to

the attention of the House.

I am pleased, as well, that our government is working hard to get

results for all people. Part of that is simply making sure that our

public institutions and workplaces are just, non-discriminatory and that

people are defended if their human rights are threatened. That’s why

we’ve done a number of things to combat religious and racial oppression

in this province, including engaging British Columbians on needed

changes for human rights protection in our province and to re-establish

a new human rights commission.

[11:45 a.m.]

We’re making reconciliation an across-government priority by

mandating all ministries fully adopt and implement UNDRIP and the calls

to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We’re also

co-developing legislation with B.C. First Nations to establish UNDRIP as

the framework for reconciliation in all of B.C.

Proudly, B.C. is no longer the only province without a human

rights commission. By re-establishing that, we’re doing our best to

create a more inclusive and just society. I’m very proud to be a part of

a government, here in B.C., that is at the forefront of all of Canada in

ensuring that all persons are treated with dignity and

respect.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of the

motion to this House, unanimously affirming the rights of an individual

to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.

I believe that it is vital for all members of this House to take a

united stance against intolerance and discrimination. On a national

scale, Canada is known as a cultural mosaic, and I’m privileged enough

to see evidence of that every day, both in my riding and throughout

British Columbia. Unfortunately, though, there are still persistent

dissenting voices that try to disrupt the peaceful coexistence of our

cultural mosaic. These voices strive to divide people based on

difference, rather than unity.

It is saddening to see that even in this modern age of technology,

where the world is getting smaller, and we’re all able to see glimpses

of other people’s lives and cultures, there still are people who choose

to stand divided.

We all love. We all hurt. We all laugh. And we all feel pain. We

are more the same than we are different. In these times of uncertainty,

we need to stand together, not apart.

Somehow history is repeating itself though, allowing intolerance

in our society to remain prevalent. An alarming amount of hate speech is

firing out of the mouths of public figures, off of an anonymous keyboard

or a phone and being spat in people’s faces. Equally troubling is the

sheer volume of personal insults, bullying and threats spouted over

indirectly by those who profess to want to represent you, and I say that

in reference to the election today.

As the critic for Mental Health and Addictions, I feel that it is

important to also highlight the toll bullying and divisiveness can take

on a person’s mental health. Bullying of any kind, especially when

pertaining to one’s livelihood, is incredibly stressful and can result

in serious mental health ramifications. When anxiety becomes crippling

for someone, it can be very difficult to navigate a path towards mental

wellness.

It’s Anti-Bullying Week and Bullying Prevention Month. Tad

Milmine, an anti-bullying advocate who founded Bullying Ends Here,

started his Canada-wide Kindness Tour last week, bringing this Kindness

Tour to schools and parents. “Where are the adults monitoring their

children’s behaviour online?” he asks. Kids don’t start out as bullies —

and I might add, as racists. They learn it from somewhere, and sometimes

they learn it at home.

We all deserve to feel well and to thrive and have positive mental

health. One strategy recommended by the Canadian Mental Health

Association is to help you to succeed and to embrace your culture,

reflect on your heritage, embrace your uniqueness and your

history.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That’s what makes it essential for our schools, communities and

our workplaces to be welcoming to all religions and cultures. It not

only embraces Canada’s true multicultural nature, but also improves our

mental well-being. We need to stand together, person to person,

neighbour to neighbour, and start making changes to ensure that we

create a world in which everyone feels safe, a world where people are

proud of their heritage and not afraid to showcase aspects of their

culture and their religion, and that they’re proud of it.

British Columbia is made up of a diverse fabric of cultures and

ethnicities which must be supported by all elected officials. It is

critical to work together to ensure workplaces around this province,

including the one we are standing in today, reflect the values and

cultures of all who call B.C. home. I’m proud today to stand against

bullying, against discrimination and against racism and to support

British Columbia’s rights in the workplace.

[11:50 a.m.]

R. Singh: I feel really privileged to be standing today and talking to this

motion. I really would like to thank the member for

Richmond-Queensborough for bringing it up.

We all know that diversity is our biggest strength. Especially as

a British Columbian, living here, being an immigrant, I know the

importance and how I feel privileged to be living in a place that is so

diverse.

That was the reason, Mr. Speaker, that when I first saw Standing

Order 36, looking at the language, I was quite surprised that it was

somehow creating barriers for the people who are representing at the

people’s House. That’s why I wrote the letter and also brought the

motion. I’m so thankful to you, and also to my colleagues for passing

that motion unanimously.

Completely, I really want to thank everybody who spoke today,

bringing the importance that we are living in a free society. We have to

keep it like that. We know we are being challenged by people who want to

distract us, who want to create divisions. It is important, especially

sitting here in the Legislature, in the people’s House, to uphold those

rights for people who are working — for them to wear their religious or

cultural symbols. It is extremely important.

Personally, I would like to just recount about my father, who

wears a turban. He was a professor in India. Although he never taught

here, if he was teaching in any of the universities or colleges here, I

would be very, very disappointed if somebody told him that he cannot

work just because of what he looks like. I want those kinds of rights

for everybody, for those rights to prevail, whether they’re wearing a

hijab, a turban or a kippah.

We, as legislators, have to uphold that. Thank you to all of the

members. Thank you to the member who brought this motion. Really, it is

an honour to support it.

S. Gibson: I welcome the motion proposed by the member for

Richmond-Queensborough: “Be it resolved that this House unanimously

affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural

symbols in the workplace.”

It’s tragic, in many ways, that we have to even speak to this here

today, but it’s important that we do so in light of our heritage and who

we are as British Columbians and, indeed, Canadians.

A new party elected in Quebec — their goal is to completely

enforce secularity. The dark side to this bill, of course, is that it’s,

in many ways, discriminatory. This is ironic because, I suppose, in the

hearts of these individuals, their aspiration is to create some kind of

secular state which is tolerant to the extreme, but actually, the

opposite is taking place.

I think my colleagues, in particular, have spoken very well. I

don’t want to repeat what they’ve said. I think it’s clear that you

can’t regulate faith like this. One of the tragedies is that they want

to do it in the face of government. The list, of course, is well known —

teachers, police officers, judges, many others. They’re denied the

opportunity to wear any kind of religious symbols at all. So we’re

effectively in the situation where we’ve got a whole two-tiered system

in the province of Quebec.

I would suppose that people coming to our country because of our

heritage and legacy of freedoms and the fact that we’re one of the most

highly regarded countries in the world…. I believe that people are going

to be fearful moving to Quebec with religious beliefs. It’s tragic. I

find it almost overwhelming when I think about it.

Now, I come from the Abbotsford-Mission area, and Abbotsford is

well known with the nomenclature of the “Bible Belt.” But we have many

other places of worship in our community, and people get along very

well. They serve on committees together, on boards. There’s a great,

healthy dialogue in our community.

[11:55 a.m.]

As a matter of fact, my wife and I attend a church in Abbotsford

which has a history of being persecuted, a history of its members being

persecuted and run out of a country as well. I count it as a privilege

to be able to attend that church — my wife and my family.

There’s no doubt that this legislation in Quebec is dark. In many

ways, it could be characterized as evil. It’s totally out of context

with who we are as a nation. I’m so thankful that this is something that

has provided a mutuality of agreement on the floor of this Legislature.

Indeed, I’m very encouraged by all of the remarks made by both sides of

the House from the members.

S. Gibson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada