Second Session, 43rd Parliament

Official Report

of Debates

( Hansard )

Thursday, March 12, 2026

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 141

The Honourable Raj Chouhan , Speaker

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

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights Code and Enforcement

Hon. Mike Farnworth

Hon. Niki Sharma

Á’a:líya Warbus

On the amendment

Á’a:líya Warbus

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Question of Privilege

Dallas Brodie

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights Code and Enforcement (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert

Kiel Giddens

Hon. Grace Lore

Hon Chan

Jody Toor

Jordan Kealy

On the main motion

Jody Toor

Hon. Jessie Sunner

Tara Armstrong

Rob Botterell

Elenore Sturko

Jordan Kealy

Trevor Halford

Second Reading of Bills 5873

Bill 9 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued)

Korky Neufeld

Lynne Block

Tony Luck

Bryan Tepper

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 3 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026

Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act

Bill 7 — Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act

Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

Reann Gasper

Hon. Jodie Wickens

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

Hon. Ravi Parmar

Ward Stamer

Donegal Wilson

Thursday, March 12, 2026

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth : In this chamber, I call Motion 13 on the order paper.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call estimates for the Ministry of Children

and Family Development.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Forests.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights

Code and Enforcement

Hon. Mike Farnworth : I move Motion 13, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, to

affirm unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the Human Rights Tribunal.

[That this House affirms its unequivocal support for the B.C. Human Rights Code and the Tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and discrimination

based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital

status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender

identity or expression, and age.]

Hon. Niki Sharma : It’s my pleasure to speak in support of this motion.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

I believe that this motion is an opportunity for every party, every member of this

House to be clear on where they stand on human rights. A couple of weeks ago, I have

to say, I would not have imagined that this would be necessary.

The human rights code is pretty simple. It protects people from discrimination based

on the colour of their skin, their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,

disability, age and more.

The human rights code has existed in various forms since 1969. It has almost always

been a matter of cross-partisan consensus. The B.C. Liberals, including some members

still in this House, added “gender identity or expression” to the code in 2016. It

was passed unanimously.

The Human Rights Tribunal enforces the code. It investigates complaints to find out

if discrimination has occurred. Without it, the code essentially has no effect. Again,

support for the tribunal has almost always transcended parties. The B.C. Liberals

strengthened the tribunal, and they appointed the current chair.

The code is different than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter protects

people from the government. The code prevents organizations and people from discriminating

against other people.

For example, in 2024, the tribunal ruled on a case involving a man who was denied

service at a massage business because he was Muslim. The business demanded that he

“certify you are not of the Islamic faith, which, as you know, has earned a bad reputation

for raping and killing of infidels in Canada and elsewhere.” Then that business turned

him away.

[1:05 p.m.]

The tribunal ruled that this behaviour violated the code and directed the business

to compensate him. Without the code and tribunal, he would have had no recourse and

there would be no consequences for this kind of horrific behaviour in our society.

Unfortunately, fighting hate is as important now as it ever was. We’ve seen spikes

in hate and white supremacy across this province. We’ve seen far-right commentators

and activists, including members of this House, attempt to co-opt the tragedy in Tumbler

Ridge to advance a shameful and completely false agenda against the trans community.

Both the code and the tribunal have come under attack since a recent decision regarding

the former trustee Barry Neufeld. The tribunal found that: “Contrary to his arguments

that he was merely expressing his opinion about legitimate topics of political and

social debate, his expression went beyond a critique of a government program. Mr.

Neufeld’s publications are replete with negative stereotypes and pejorative assumptions

about LGBTQ people, which undermine their inherent dignity and discriminate against

them.”

The member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream’s objections go well beyond the queer

community. She has said: “Multiculturalism is anti-Canadian.” I am in this House from

parents that emigrated from India, left their family to come here to build a life

for us. I am so grateful that they made that decision.

We are a country and a province that takes pride in people coming from all over the

world to set up their home here. Unlike many jurisdictions across the world, we welcome

them. We build a good life for them. We respect their identity, their religion and

who they are, and we call them neighbours.

I am just so profoundly offended by that comment that she made about multiculturalism

being anti-Canadian, and I think we all should be. She has said Canada needs “mass

deportations,” and that we have to end and reverse mass migration. The member should

clarify what she means by reversing immigration. Say it to the members of this House

who come from families, all of us, that immigrated here to build a life.

White supremacists advocate for what they call re-immigration, which means deporting

legal immigrants, including Canadian citizens, based on their ethnic background and

skin colour. It’s racism, pure and simple. We on this side of the House will not stand

for it. It’s no wonder that she wants to abolish the human rights code entirely.

But she’s not the only one in this House who has attacked the code. The member for

Chilliwack North introduced a motion this week that targets

section 7 of the code,

which is a

section about discriminatory publications — hate speech. She has strongly

The member for Langley-Abbotsford has said about the tribunal: “When I become Premier,

it’s gone on day one.” That’s what his leadership would bring to this province — gone

on day one.

What would he say to that Muslim man who was denied access because of his religion?

What would he say to women who have been fighting for pay equity for years when they

are paid, because of their gender, less than their male counterparts? What would he

say to all the immigrants who fought for equal rights in this country since the founding

of this province? I would love to know.

A candidate for the opposition party’s leadership, Caroline Elliott, called the tribunal

a playground for NDP activists to live out their social justice dreams. What would

she say to those people that I was talking about? What would she say to women across

this province who have fought for their pay equity?

It’s really ironic, given that it was her own party, the B.C. Liberals, who first

appointed the current chair of the tribunal in 2016 and that all appointments to the

tribunal are made in consultation with that chair.

[1:10 p.m.]

I know many of the opposition members dispute the meaning of their first reading votes

and have been working to clarify their position. Well, here’s their opportunity. But

when prominent members of their own party are openly attacking the code and the tribunal,

it’s natural for everybody in this province to wonder where they stand.

It’s also right for the public to expect them to not only vote for this motion but

to ask all of their colleagues to do the same. I genuinely, genuinely hope that that’s

where we get to today. Too much is at stake.

For too long, we have let this far-right, racist ideology take root in this province.

For too long, we’ve seen members of this House bring in bill after bill that attack

people who are vulnerable, who deserve equal rights. Where is their line?

There’s no reason that this motion should not be supported by every other member in

this House. This is about standing up against hate. But at the heart of it, it’s about

freedom, the idea that you can work to build a good life for yourself without overt

discrimination. Isn’t that what we all want? That you can’t be denied a job because

of your skin colour or be denied renting an apartment because of who you love. That

you can go to work without being attacked for your identity.

My hope for today is that all of us send a strong message to those British Columbians

who are watching that we will stand up for their human rights and will never give

up ground to those who are seeking to compromise them.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I want to thank the Attorney General for her comments on this topic and this motion

that the government has brought forward.

I want to make it very clear, as was afforded by this opportunity to bring this debate

to the House, for all of us to have the opportunity on public record to clarify positions

in this conversation.

I want to start off by revisiting the very specific wording in the motion just to

ground the conversation a little bit that we’re having here today and to allow for

the public to understand, as we’ve worked really hard, what processes happen within

the House and what they really mean.

There has been misunderstanding about the difference between a private member’s bill

— which could be debated as legislation, which could be passed; the chances of that

are very different than legislation that governments would bring forward — or the

ability for members to bring forward motions and the difference of when government

has the ability to bring forward motions that can be debated.

On this one in particular, it reads that this House affirms its unequivocal support

for the B.C. human rights code and the tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting

people from hate speech and discrimination based on — and this is where the list starts

— Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital

status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender

identity or expression and age.

[1:15 p.m.]

Again, I think the Attorney General did justice to some of the history that we know

exists in this province, that we know exists in this country and around the world.

I do have to say that I’m proud to be in a province and in a country where we have

debate about our differences, where that’s allowed to happen, where we have the freedom

to express ourselves and where we are not driven to the kind of violence that we’re

seeing around the world today. We live in a country where that ability and freedom

of expression is a very coveted and protected right.

As an elected member of this House, I have a responsibility to my constituents. I

have a responsibility to the values that I believe we all hold. Again, I really welcome

the opportunity to have this debate in the House. I welcome the opportunity for us

to be able to understand just how heavy words can weigh and how we have to inspect

and understand them very carefully. And the risk of a category, a type of person,

maybe something that is missing off of that list….

One of the things that immediately comes to mind is that I’m not sure if health conditions

could be defined as a physical disability. As far as I know, they’re not. A lot of

people experience discrimination based on having a chronic health condition, so in

a list like this, as the motion is before the House and we’re debating it, then that

could be misunderstood. That group of people could feel that they are not included.

But why I’m bringing the House’s attention and talking about it today is that oftentimes

in this House and in politics — I’m new to this, and I am learning as I go — motions

will pack a lot of ideas into a statement.

I think that the premise of it is something that I can fully support and that I agree

with. I support everyone having equal human rights, absolutely everybody, and that

there is protection that is afforded and that there is a fair process that ensures

that it isn’t just something that exists where there’s no way to enforce it.

But when we look at the tribunal specifically…. There are other models around the

world and there are models federally that have a different way to enact justice, to

ensure that there is never any blurring of lines between politics and the way that

that justice is enforced.

I think that it’s very important to note that as a country and even as a province,

we’re growing. We’re young. It wasn’t too long ago that Indigenous people did not

have the right to vote, and if they did, then they would have to agree to become enfranchised

— not long ago, 86 years ago.

I know that there are people in my family, in my community, other members’ families

and communities, other members in this House that gave their lives for the rights

that exist today, for the ability for me to stand in this House, to be elected without

hate or discrimination. I’m not blind to that reality. But I also understand nuance,

and I understand that what we do sometimes as people is we single one another out.

[1:20 p.m.]

As a community and, as I said, a province and a country, we’re growing. When you’re

growing, you have growing pains. When you have diversity, you have diverse opinions.

I don’t like to see that we would be drawn into any sort of conversation, comments

that might elicit hate. But I also don’t think that we should be driven by fear, because

we have faced a lot together as a country, as communities.

Right now there are a lot of important questions on the table in front of this House.

It takes a lot of time to get into those questions and to debate them with finesse

and to be very careful about how we choose our words and to be very careful about

what we choose to stand on.

What I really don’t want to do today is give any impression, as I said, that we can

debate something as fundamental and foundational as human rights. It’s non-negotiable.

It’s the foundation of our relationship with one another. Where we’ve gone as a society

and within politics, unfortunately, is back to some of these conversations. But there’s

a lot of noise.

Some have caused statements to go out with no context, and then we’re forced to answer

to those statements. Some have shown up as votes that will have no impact on the law.

We are, in my humble opinion, taking the precious time of the House and elected officials

at certain times to just really test one another on our words and how we choose them,

on the integrity and our commitment to the oath of office. When we do this, unfortunately,

nobody’s perfect, and mistakes can happen. Mistakes can happen to anyone.

My mom has taught me a lot. She’s instilled values in me that I still am learning,

I’m still trying to live up to. One of those ideals and one of those teachings — and

something she always says, actually, a lot — is the less that you say, the better.

At first, I could take her words and think: “This is somebody who faced far too much

punishment and oppression, and she had to stand in way too many rooms where the cards

were stacked against her.”

In my younger years, in my immaturity, I often silently thought to myself: “Mom, the

times have changed. I’m meant to speak up. I’m meant to use my voice. I’m meant to

stand up, unapologetically, for what I believe in and for what I believe to be true.”

But here’s where the wisdom comes in, because I’ve sat back and I’ve listened and

I’ve watched a lot happen in this House — a lot.

In politics and in our communities, some extremely important conversations have happened.

I’ve heard a lot of things that I don’t like, that I don’t agree with, from all sides.

But I sat back, and I waited patiently. I listened, because listening is just as important

as any opinion that I might have, that I might feel and that I might charge into debate

with.

So I understand her words better than I ever did before. They have way more meaning

to me now than they did before. What’s profound about this teaching is…. As I hear

her voice in my mind saying, “The less you say, the better,” what she means is that

when somebody is angry or they’re misunderstood or when there is malice or there is

gossip and even in heated debate when we’re angry at somebody else, mistakes can be

made. You can say words that even you don’t quite understand in the moment.

[1:25 p.m.]

I can learn a lot more from listening, and I have. I’ve learned from almost everybody

in this House, even the people that I don’t agree with. It certainly taught me where

I stand on things. I represent constituents that elected me to come here to debate

issues responsibly on their behalf. I have to put the question forward, back to government,

back to everybody: are we taking that responsibility seriously?

So before I add my voice to all of the noise…. If I choose to do so, I certainly should

add more clarity and calibre to the conversation. I should choose my words wisely,

or I should save them altogether. I know that’s what my mom meant. I know that’s what

she means when she says: “The less you say, the better.” It comes from wisdom, not

restraint.

As leaders, we’re tasked with a few simple things to accomplish. I don’t want to pare

down a very complex world or a very complex job. I don’t want to make it seem easy

because I know it is not.

To go back to my original point, about the question put before this House today, I

stand by the fact that as leaders, we must listen to everyone. We must absorb the

emotion that people may have. We must consider their opinions deeply, try to understand

a great many perspectives and understand their positions with compassion and care

for why that person may think or feel the way they do.

Then we have to decide: what is the right thing to say, and more importantly, what

is the right thing to do? It’s to honour and trust what people have placed on me.

That is the duty to lead. For some, maybe, that’s easy and the set of values that

they operate on and with allows for the answers to arrive without great distress or

journey. But my guess is that for most, this is a process of great precision. It takes

time, introspection and calculation.

Everyone has two things that drive us all: love and fear. My question to each and

every one of us is really simple: what drives you? Is it love, or is it fear? I think

it’s an important one. I think it relates directly to the debate that we’re having

today. I go back to the words, as I said, as they’re put in the motion. It comes on

to us as a technicality: do you agree with it wholeheartedly, every single word, yes

or no?

Of course, this is something that filters out to the public. The public has to understand

processes. Is that a law? Is that a motion? What happens with a motion? Well, the

short answer, in terms of a motion, is nothing. It’s non-binding. What it does do,

and the Attorney General touched on this, is bring to light a conversation, I think,

that perhaps was bubbling up because of events in this House.

Those events are also tied very closely to things that we have in our power to decide

on and to choose. Between my office as the Opposition House Leader, the Third Party

and the Government House Leader’s office, there are decisions before us all the time,

every day that we’re here, about how we want to accept or change processes and what

kind of pressure that puts on people’s time — and even their mental health, to be

quite honest.

What do we give time to? We have the power to decide that and to be responsible with

the time we have to debate legislation that, actually, will impact and will change

people’s lives.

[1:30 p.m.]

It is a serious question that I ask myself all the time. When I’m coming here and

I’m leaving behind responsibilities I have at home to my family and my community,

I ask: “Is it worth my time? Am I using it wisely? Am I representing the voices of

the people that elected me to be here?” These are really important questions.

I go back to, again, the words and the motion as they’re put. Whether we list individual

groups or not — and I understand the history; trust me, I do —

definitions can be

very important. I think, at the end of the day, that we can agree all people deserve

the dignity to be free of discrimination and hate and that it should be a very fair,

transparent, accountable, arm’s-length and non-influenced process.

If we can make that system better, I think it’s incumbent upon this House to do that

— to see how; to examine those questions, whether it be through legislation or committee

or further debate; to talk about: are there other systems that address this process

better than we are, than we do it today?

If there are criticisms about the process — not about the premise; the process — and

if anybody is feeling that they are not accepted or covered or seen under the law

as it’s written, then we all should take pause, take that seriously and reconsider.

That’s how I truly feel.

With that, in today’s debate, I’d like to offer an amendment to the government motion.

I’d like to move:

[That Motion 13 be amended by deleting all the words after “ Human Rights Code ” and substituting therefor the following “and protecting all people from hate and

discrimination.”]

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member. The amendment is in order, so continue to speak to it, and we’ll

print it and circulate it to all the members here.

On the amendment.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I know that this opens up debate on the amendment. Again, back to the reasoning.

I feel we can simplify this discussion. It is not to simplify the history. It is not

to diminish the importance of the discussion that we’re having. It’s truly not to

take away from anyone’s ability to speak about the premise of the government motion

put before us today.

What this is about is being able to answer the question simply, in a straightforward

manner, leaving out any attempt to wedge anyone and their ability to speak about how

they relate to human rights. I think in this instance, less is more because we know

what’s in the human rights code.

I made reference to a specific question. If I have that question, that means lots

of people have that question. I doubt if it’s everyday practice for people to look

up the code and read it and become super familiar. Oftentimes, people may only visit

that code if their rights are being violated.

[1:35 p.m.]

We know through the work of the commission and their report and other systems, that

has happened. Sadly, that has happened. Sometimes there is systematic discrimination.

There is a need for us to have, as I said before, the ability to examine any process

to ensure that there is a fair approach and that that approach applies to everyone

equally under the law.

If we can make a system better, I urge the House and anybody who may sit on that committee,

and I’ll be talking to members that we have in our caucus who sit on that committee,

to offer those solutions, offer those clarifications and offer the adaptations that

we could take to consider but to not be afraid of having voices on these topics.

I think we have to have limits. Of course, we all do. But as I said before, and these

were in my opening comments, we’re a very young province and young country and our

societies are growing. So that is why I tabled the amendment as I did.

I don’t believe that it takes away from the premise of the debate put before us. But

it simplifies and allows for people to talk truly just about one idea and to not have

to try to discriminate between words, because words are very powerful. We know that.

Not everybody has the ability or the quality to quantify exactly how they feel about

something, what they know, in an eloquent way. That’s just the difference that we

have among all of us.

But I think that what we’ve been afforded in the House is a chance to examine that

more closely. I truly believe that with this amendment, we have the opportunity to

talk about the premise and not allow any sort of divergence or off-ramps from what

we should be examining here today and taking the precious time of this House to do.

That is to talk about this motion in the amended form as I tabled today.

With that, I thank you. Thank you for the time. I look forward to further debate on

this.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : I listened closely to my colleague across the way’s words. She’s correct. Words are

important, and words are very much relevant to this debate because we’re talking about

B.C.’s human rights code.

She shared concerns that maybe people who had a health issue might not be covered

in the code. Well, I can assure her that a quick google, a quick check on the internet

or a quick conversation would tell her that, indeed, they are.

If that was a concern, I would hope that members would do research before coming into

the debate, because these words matter. To suggest that people with health conditions

aren’t covered by the code doesn’t tell the reality of what actually is covered.

She wanted clarity on words. The Conservatives wanted clarity on words. They said

that we need to be clear about who’s covered and who’s not. Yet their amendment completely

eliminates who is protected by B.C.’s human rights code. It makes what was explicit

invisible.

So if the concern was that we don’t know who’s covered, she’s done exactly that through

her amendment. She’s deliberately taken out those people who are covered, and she

suggests that, well, maybe more people should be added to the list.

[1:40 p.m.]

If she supports the human rights code, I would urge her to support it, and not bring

forward an amendment that would take out support for the covered grounds of discrimination

in the human rights code, or move an amendment to suggest more people should be covered

in the human rights code. But that’s not what this is about.

Of course, hate against anybody is wrong. But you know what? We need to be specific

when we’re talking about discrimination because people feel discrimination in different

ways. I’m currently being attacked online because I’m gay and I have a family. Those

are protected grounds in the human rights code. This amendment would eliminate those

grounds from this motion. This amendment would suggest that race is gone, that religion

is gone.

Let me go through. “Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin,

religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual

orientation, gender identity or expression and age.” All of these are currently in

B.C.’s human rights code, and I don’t know why the B.C. Conservatives can’t endorse

those covered grounds. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Trying to get us to amend this motion to eliminate those specifically covered grounds

that are in the law is sending a very clear message. The clear message is: “We won’t

stand up for each one of those protected grounds.” If they did, they would support

them being in here. They would support them being in the motion.

But by voting to eliminate them and trying to get the House to take out the protected

grounds in the B.C. human rights code on a motion specifically about supporting the

B.C. human rights code, they’re being clear, I believe, that they don’t want the protected

grounds to be supported in the human rights code. Otherwise, they would support them.

That to me is a problem. That to me is a big problem. It’s saying we could move an

amendment to say: “Why don’t we just eliminate the whole thing and say we all love

each other?” We’ll move a motion to say we all love each other and we’re against people

being mean to each other. That’s, basically, what this comes down to if you support

this amendment.

I like that idea. But the fact is that when one specific group, and this is something

maybe some Conservatives don’t understand, is targeted for who they are, you need

a targeted response. You need a response that actually stands up for that person.

I think the tribunal does that.

The current chair was appointed by a former government, not this one, so to suggest

there’s some sort of partisanship going on — not correct. Again, trying to muddy the

waters of human rights. The tribunal stands up so that when you get denied a job because

of your race, you have a place to go, you have an ability to stand up for yourself.

Again, the Conservative motion eliminates the tribunal for consideration here. Again,

why is that? Probably because of a fellow named Barry Neufeld and OneBC trying to

eat the Conservatives’ lunch in terms of which party is more radical.

Well, Barry Neufeld targeted staff in the Chilliwack school district by calling them

things like “pedophile,” by saying they were groomers trying to grab children up.

This is not somebody you want to be associated with. You don’t want to be on the cheering

squad like OneBC is, but it seems this party has been dragged so far to the OneBC

view that they have to try and suggest they are much the same. It’s wrong.

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : The member says I’m obsessed. Well, it was her candidate who’s online right now trying

to defame me. It’s her candidate, not me. It’s gross.

Deputy Speaker : Just a minute, Minister.

Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Question of Privilege

Dallas Brodie : I’m now being repeatedly attacked personally and subjected to hatred by a member

on the other side of the House. It’s ironic that right now we are discussing hatred

directed at people when I’m engaging in my job as a legislator and representing points

of view in this province that want to be represented. If you can’t catch, then don’t

pitch.

I would like this member to retract the personal comments he keeps hurling at me in

the context of making — whatever he’s doing today — this defence of comments on this

motion. This is way off topic, and he’s using this as an opportunity to once again

come after me. It has become an obsession.

Deputy Speaker : Before we continue debate on this motion, I want to remind all members of the importance

of respectful and orderly conduct in the chamber. The topic of the motion will understandably

elicit strong views, and I expect all members to approach their remarks with care.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : It’s unfortunate that when I talk about racism and hate, the member always feels

I’m talking about her. I didn’t mention her, didn’t discuss her.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker : Just a minute, Member. Member, just a minute.

I have to recognize you before you speak.

Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, do you have a point of order?

Dallas Brodie : Yes, Madam Speaker.

This member cannot have it both ways. Personally attacking me in the Legislature,

using my name, the name of my party, pointing at me, looking at me, sneering at me,

and then turn around and say that he says that he’s not directing comments at me….

It’s very obvious what he’s doing.

Once again, if you can’t catch, then don’t pitch.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member. That’s not a point of order.

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights

Code and Enforcement

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Just to say that I speak against this motion, and I do it for a couple of reasons.

Very specifically, if you’re going to stand up against hate and discrimination, you

need to know who’s being hated and discriminated against. It says it in the code,

and that’s why we have it in this motion. I don’t understand why the House Leader

for the Conservatives would move an amendment to delete the protected grounds in the

code. It doesn’t make sense.

When you say you stand for human rights, you’re explicit on what those human rights

are. You don’t say: “It’s just to everybody, but we’re not going to be clear about

who we’re talking about and how.”

Interjection.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : The member wants to heckle me now?

The member is heckling me now because I’m speaking to her amendment, an amendment

which eliminates the protected grounds from this motion. Very specifically, the amendment….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker : Hold on, Minister.

The minister has the floor.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert : Thank you.

Very specifically, her motion deletes all the words after “human rights code.” And

what are those words? The protected grounds in the human rights code. So let’s not

pretend this amendment does anything different than deleting “Indigenous identity,

race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status,

physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression

and age.”

Those are grounds in the human rights code. So specifically, if somebody is discriminated

against from getting a job because of their race, their family status; if they’re

discriminated against because of housing, so they can’t get a suite; or they get evicted

because they have a mental disability; or maybe they’re transgender; or maybe they

are old or young or something that somebody doesn’t like, and they make that decision

based on their identity, their ancestry, their religion…. Maybe the person doesn’t

want to provide them a health service because they’re married or they’re not married.

Those are the protected grounds in the human rights code, and that’s what we’re asking

the House to support. Right now this amendment does not support those grounds. It

eliminates those grounds from this motion.

I will not be supporting this motion and I urge members not to support it, because

we should be explicit in what we support. This actually obfuscates. This hides. This

eliminates the code so we can say: “We all support everybody. Everything’s fine. All

things are all equal.” But they’re not, and the member knows that.

The member knows that there are specific people who are targeted for hate worse than

others. That’s why we have protected grounds in the human rights code. That’s why

we need to stand up for those grounds, not create smokescreens to hide because a party

is not united on supporting the human rights code, because the Conservatives do not

support the human rights code and do not support the tribunal. Otherwise, they would

stand and support this motion.

This is a basic motion, our motion, but the amendment actually eliminates the guts

of this thing to replace them with: “We all just get along. Everybody should just

get along. We should all say we don’t like hate.”

Well, that’s an easy thing to say; it should be. But it should also be easy to say

that you don’t support hate against transgender people, you don’t support hate against

Indigenous People, you don’t support hate against somebody who has got a disability,

you don’t support hate against somebody because of their religion. These are all things

that should be easy to stand up and support.

I don’t understand why the Conservatives would not support these grounds and why they’re

voting or seeking to vote on an amendment that would eliminate them from this motion.

Á’a :líya Warbus : I rise on a point of order, mainly for clarification.

The minister repeated many times that it’s about deleting the human rights code, but

I want to be clear and put it on the record that the amended motion would read that

“this House affirms its unequivocal support for the human rights code and protecting

all people from hate and discrimination.”

[1:50 p.m.]

So drawing the fine, fine line between what the motion says and saying, “There are

some things in the code. You should do your research.” Then saying, on the other hand,

that deleting those things from the motion means those people aren’t protected actually

isn’t true.

We’ll pull the….

Interjections.

Á’a :líya Warbus : No, but I just….

I would like to make a point of order on the record because I don’t want to be characterized

as not supporting the human rights code. So that’s my point of order.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member. Thank you for expressing that. It’s not a point of order, but

thank you.

Kiel Giddens : I’m going to speak to the amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader. I

respect the words that we’ve heard from the Minister of Indigenous Relations previously.

I respect the passion he has brought to this. But I do want to turn the temperature

down in the room a little bit with this discussion as well. I recognize the strong

emotions, and it’s for good reason.

We’re talking about, in the broader context of the government motion, support for

the B.C. human rights code and the powers under it. At its core, this motion asks

us to reaffirm something very fundamental, that people in British Columbia deserve

protection from discrimination and hate and that our laws must provide meaningful

mechanisms to uphold those protections.

I also want to acknowledge the comments made by the Attorney General as well as the

Opposition House Leader, in eloquently explaining how important those protections

are. I am going to get into a little bit about British Columbia’s history and why

this amendment is actually part of the DNA of the code overall.

I think the code reflects a basic principle that I would hope would unite members

of the House — that every person deserves dignity, fairness and equal opportunity.

Of course, as we’ve said, it protects people from discrimination based on race, including

Indigenous identity; colour; ancestry; place of origin; religion; marital status;

family status; physical or mental disability; sex; sexual orientation; gender identity

or expression; and age. That has been clearly talked about.

To be honest, I am happy to affirm those particular views. I have no problem with

that whatsoever. But the code includes more provisions, as well, that need to be taken

into account.

Sections 13 and 14 of the code speak, in matters related to employment, to those who

have faced a criminal conviction or

summary conviction. It also speaks to political

belief. These are other areas that need to be taken into account. Another area speaks,

in tenancy matters, to a lawful source of income. These are areas that are missing.

I am going to get into a little bit of the history of the code and explain in context

why all of the protections in the code and support are, actually, quite important

to make sure that we are, in fact, protecting all people from hate and discrimination.

The history includes many moments where individuals and communities have been treated

unfairly because of who they were. I’ll just mention Chinese Canadians, for example,

who played a critical role in building the Canadian Pacific Railway and contributing

to the development of British Columbia. Yet they were later subjected to discriminatory

policies such as the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act.

Japanese Canadians faced one of the most profound injustices during World War II when

thousands were forcibly removed from their homes, had their property confiscated and

were interned solely because of their ancestry.

Indigenous Peoples in this province experienced and continue to confront systemic

discrimination and policies that sought to suppress their cultures, languages and

rights.

Other communities, indeed, have faced barriers to employment, housing and public services

simply because of their race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

These injustices affect real people, real families and real communities. I hope we

can agree on that.

Over time, British Columbia came to recognize that preventing discrimination required

more than goodwill. It actually required laws. And that is what has led to the creation

of the human rights code.

But it didn’t happen overnight. The recognition led to a gradual development of human

rights protections in the province.

[1:55 p.m.]

Beginning in the mid-20th century, B.C. started adopting legislation to prohibit discrimination

in certain areas of public life. In the ’50s and ’60s, laws were introduced to address

discrimination in employment and public accommodations. Those early measures represented

important progress and reflected a growing understanding that discrimination had no

place in a modern society.

Over time, those protections were brought together into what we now know as the human

rights code. This code created a comprehensive framework protecting people from discrimination

in all of these key areas. It created mechanisms through which individuals could seek

remedies if they experienced discrimination.

Later the establishment of the Human Rights Tribunal strengthened this system by providing

an independent body capable of hearing complaints, evaluating evidence and making

binding decisions. I’m bringing this in because the history of the human rights code

and what is included in it is important here.

Later, of course, with the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

all of that is overlapping with our human rights code in B.C., and that goes right

to the Constitution of Canada.

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder. We’re speaking to the amendment, so if you can just refer

your remarks to the amendment.

Kiel Giddens : Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The amendment related to the history of the code is also related to what I’m going

to bring into my remarks here.

A big portion of that is one of the protections that I believe matters very much,

and that’s protections in the workplace. Work is more than earning a paycheque. It’s

about dignity, stability and opportunity, and it’s how people support themselves and

their families. The workplace is essential, and it’s something that the code also

takes into account.

All of the areas that we’ve already brought into the debate are part of what needs

to be protected in the workplace, but there are other areas as well. The human rights

code ensures that employment decisions are based on merit and ability and not on prejudice

in any way. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation and to maintain

workplaces that are free from discrimination and harassment.

Imagine a young worker starting their first job. They’re eager to prove themselves.

They show up early, work hard and want to contribute, but over time they hear comments

in the workplace — comments about their background, their accent or their identity

or, indeed, their political belief. Perhaps they are passed over for opportunities

while others move ahead. Perhaps they’re made to feel like they don’t quite belong.

Eventually they begin to wonder whether the problem is their performance or whether

it’s simply who they are.

That kind of experience can have a profound effect on a person’s confidence, their

career and their sense of belonging. The code in its entirety exists with all the

protections included to ensure no one in British Columbia has to accept that kind

of treatment as simply part of working life. It exists so that individuals have somewhere

to turn if discrimination occurs.

One particular Human Rights Tribunal case, Schrenk v. British Columbia …. In that case, a construction worker alleged that he experienced repeated racist

harassment while working on a jobsite. The individual responsible for the harassment

was not his direct employer but an employee of another company working on the same

project.

Eventually this reached the Supreme Court of Canada, and the court confirmed that

workplace discrimination protections can apply even when the harassment comes from

someone who is not the complainant’s direct employer. The court recognized that modern

workplaces often involve people working side by side and what matters is whether discriminatory

conduct affects someone in their workplace, not simply their formal employment relationship.

So I’m just saying with all this, it’s why the work of the tribunal…. Bringing all

that into it, there is a legacy of precedents that have been created that are also

part of the code, that need to be reflected into the totality of what we’re speaking

to here. All of this ensures that the protections contained in the law are not symbolic.

They’re actually enforceable, and they help to ensure that workplaces across our province

are governed by principles of fairness and respect.

But I don’t believe human rights should ever be the subject of political games. I

sincerely hope that is not what is happening here.

I want to turn to sections 13 and 14 of the human rights code. It differs from what

the government language is in the original motion in its favour, which seems to be

limited to

section 7, which is specifically related to discriminatory publication.

[2:00 p.m.]

Section 13 says…. I quote right from the human rights code.

“A person must not refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person or discriminate

against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment because

of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief,

religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual

orientation, gender identity or expression or age of that person or because that person

has been convicted of a criminal or

summary conviction offence that is unrelated to

the employment or to the intended employment of that person.”

I raise that because these provisions do reflect an important principle, in that employment

decisions should be based on a person’s ability to do their job, not on two things

that are omitted from the government’s language in their original motion. They should

not include any discrimination based on political views or on past circumstances that

have no relevance to work. I think that’s what that’s speaking to here. These protections

are part of the broader framework of fairness that the human rights code was actually

designed to establish.

One case…. I’ll reference another Supreme Court decision, and that was Fraser Health Authority v. Hospital Employees’ Union . While the case ultimately focused on labour arbitration, it arose from disciplinary

action taken against employees who posted comments that were considered offensive

online about their employer during a political dispute in the workplace.

The broader legal discussion in the case touched on how employee expression and political

viewpoints intersect with workplace discipline. It relates why protections related

to political belief and expression in employment contexts exist within human rights

law. This also is in the code but is not included in the government’s motion.

In British Columbia,

section 13 of the human rights code recognizes that employees

should not face discrimination because of their political beliefs. These protections

help to ensure employment decisions are not made on the basis of a person’s political

views rather than the ability to perform their work.

Whether a person votes Conservative, whether they vote NDP or Green Party or whatever,

there should be no discrimination based on this, either, in the workplace, and we

need to actually fundamentally protect this. That’s something that is currently missing

from the government motion, and that’s what I believe the amendment would actually

cover.

Furthermore,

section 14 mirrors many of these provisions. It says:

“A trade union, employers’ organization or occupational association must not exclude

any person from membership, expel or suspend any member or discriminate against any

person or member because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place

of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or

mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age of

that person or member or because that person or member has been convicted of a criminal

or

summary conviction offence that is unrelated to membership or intended membership.”

I add all this because this is fundamentally within the code as well. It has these

points that are meant to protect against discrimination both in the workplace and

in a trade union, employers’ organization or occupational association.

That’s why I think that the motion needs to be amended. The government’s motion should

reflect a genuine commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of people in our

province, all people, and I think it currently falls short in that.

Even the motion’s use of

section 7 in the bill, related to discriminatory publication,

because I think that’s where their

interpretation of the original motion is coming

from, in its current form…. It says, of course, and I’ll repeat again for the House:

“because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion,

marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation,

gender identity or expression or age.”

But that has left out the last part of that sentence that is actually in the legislation,

which reads: “of that person or that group or class of persons.” So we’re missing

a very important part of what is actually in the legislation itself, and we should

reference the code in its entirety, not pick and choose what is convenient or preferred

sections.

[2:05 p.m.]

That last part about “group or class of persons” is very, very important. I’ll use

a very important example that we’ve been talking about in the House. I won’t speak

to other bills, but I will state that the Jewish community in B.C., for example, has

expressed serious concerns regarding allegations of antisemitism within the public

service. There were also accusations that this included the cabinet of the day as

well.

These are things that we’re actually excluding from the government’s motion because

it is inconvenient to include “a group or class of persons.” I don’t think that’s

acceptable. We need to make sure that we are keeping the true intent of the code intact.

We should be affirming our support for the entire code and really standing up for

the Jewish community. They’ve faced, over centuries across the globe, discrimination

for being part of a group that has faced historical discrimination — many other groups

as well, though. So I think that’s something that we need to take into account. That

speaks to the Opposition House Leader’s amendment.

I’ll mention one other area that is not reflected in the government’s motion, and

it’s under

section 10. That

section of the human rights code speaks to non-discrimination

in residential tenancy from a lawful source of income. I won’t repeat the whole list

that’s in the government motion, but that particular

section of the human rights code

adds: “or lawful source of income of that person or class of persons or of any other

person or class of persons.”

What that is saying is that we don’t want to see people on income assistance discriminated

against in residential tenancy when they’re trying to rent or someone who is on a

fixed income, like a senior. That income source can’t be a source of discrimination,

and that is actually left out of the government’s original motion.

I think what the Opposition House Leader has done is actually doing a service and

making sure that those on income assistance, those seniors on a fixed income can’t

be discriminated against when they’re trying to rent housing. I think that’s something

that’s very important. That’s why it’s in the human rights code to begin with. So

when we speak about human rights in this chamber, we should do so with seriousness

and respect for the people whose lives are affected.

Human rights protections were not created overnight. There are decades of jurisprudence,

decades of work that have gone into this code. So let’s not pick and choose what we

put into the code. Let’s just say we’re respecting it in its entirety. All of this

represents our collective decision in British Columbia that discrimination has no

place.

For that reason, I believe this House can affirm its support for the human rights

code and the work of what’s included in it. But let’s affirm our support for that

entire code, not select provisions that are preferable.

I want to just go to something that is very important at the outset of the code —

again, it’s because I want to turn down some of the temperature with what we heard

from the previous speaker a little bit, what we’ve heard so far and what we’re likely

still to hear in the House — and that’s the purpose of the code, and that is in

section

3. I’m going to quote it directly because it is important for the House to recall.

“The purposes of this code are as follows: to foster a society in British Columbia

in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic,

social, political and cultural life of British Columbia; to promote a climate of understanding

and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights; to prevent discrimination

prohibited by this code; to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality

associated with discrimination prohibited by this code; and to provide a means of

redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this code.”

In summarizing, that is the purpose of the code. Let’s remember what this actually

is and bring that into this debate. It’s not about politics. This is about that original

purpose that was embedded in this code for a reason. We can’t pick and choose what

is convenient from the code.

[2:10 p.m.]

Let’s take it for all its entirety, whether that’s making sure people aren’t discriminated

against because of their political beliefs, whether that’s making sure that they’re

not discriminated against if someone, for example, has had a minor offence, like a

drug possession charge at the age of 19. Are we honestly going to say that we’re going

to allow discrimination from future employment because an employer can decide to say

they can’t have a job down in the future? Have they not faced justice and retribution?

Is that not something we want to make sure is not happening?

If someone has had a minor offence, if they’ve had a penalty and all that, we want

to make sure…. If justice has already been served, let’s make sure they’re not being

discriminated against later — when the dignity of them rejoining society and having

that dignity as persons includes work, I believe, and employment in the workplace.

So regardless of the political context surrounding the government’s original motion,

I do think the dignity and equality of people in this province should never depend

on partisan considerations. Let’s just fix this motion to include the code in its

entirety.

For that reason, I will be supporting this amendment, and I believe that the House

should do what we can to support all human rights and prevention of discrimination.

Hon. Grace Lore : I appreciate the chance to speak to this briefly. I rise to speak against the amendment,

and I have significant concerns.

My first concern is what happens to some of the most vulnerable people at this or

any point in time. Trans people, queer people, people who are discriminated against

based on their gender identity or expression are facing unprecedented attack. They

would not have protection in the absence of this explicit recognition.

Members opposite should know that. They must know that at this point in time. They

should know that the rights; safety; opportunity for expression, employment, sport

and joy are at stake and need to be explicitly listed as a protection.

There are many others that require explicit recognition, and those needs change over

time. I mentioned it today, but I’ve seen some of the worst attacks I’ve seen in politics

before today against a friend in this House. It should be a reminder of the importance

of explicit recognition.

Second, not only was the explicit list removed, but you’ll notice that the amendment

removes the tribunal’s power to enforce. Their amendment either contains a significant

error or reflects an intention to end the tribunal and its enforcement, to end the

tool that keeps people safe and accountable.

Finally, if the members are concerned about what is missing…. I hear criminal conviction,

political belief, source of income, and I share a belief in the rights of people to

be free from discrimination on these bases. I believe that people should be able to

access employment and support and housing regardless, for example, of their source

of income. I ask members why the amendment did not add the pieces missing instead

of removing all.

The member referenced also antisemitism. The Jewish community, including my community

where the synagogue has faced graffiti, where threats and attacks have been real….

Religion is in that direct list. If members think that that’s not sufficient, that

it needs to be explicit, then I would encourage a motion to add, not take away, religion

as an explicit protection.

I hear the concerns on the basis of source of income — low-income seniors, those on

assistance. I agree. Those protections are important.

As a believer in the rights of sex workers, I also believe that discrimination on

the basis of conviction or source of income is important. Again, I ask why the motion

did not add.

We’ve been asked not to pick and choose among the protected rights. To me, the solution

of that is not to remove all. It is to add the ones that you are concerned about.

[2:15 p.m.]

Again, I just draw a note, also, once again, to the removal of the tribunal and its

powers to enforce. This amendment could have expanded the list, could have addressed

the concerns of the people that members opposite are worried about. It could have

supported the enforcement and the power to use tools. It did not. That is why I do

not support this amendment.

Hon Chan : I just want to say something very clearly. On this side of the House, we support

human rights. We support dignity. We support the fundamental belief that every person

in Canada and British Columbia deserves to live free from discrimination and hatred

and has the freedom to express themselves without the fear of retaliation.

For the amendment, this government — the government side — keeps attacking and saying

we are removing stuff. I want to be very, very clear. In the motion paper on the amendment,

it clearly says that we support the human rights code — not subtracting something,

not deleting something from the human rights code. So please do not spread misinformation

or false information that we’re removing anything from the code.

A motion cannot remove anything from the code itself. It’s in the act. Whenever we

put a motion out, do we need to…?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker : Members, hold on. The member has the floor.

Continue.

Hon Chan : Thank you.

When we put a motion out, do we copy and paste the entire act out? I bet the government

bills do not do that. Do they always copy every single word? No.

In this motion paper, in this amendment, it clearly says that we accept and we respect

all people. So nothing is deleted. The human rights code is still the human rights

code, and nothing is deleted from the code.

However, before I continue on the amendment, I also need to respond to the minister’s

response to the amendment and also to the AG’s previous note. I will have to quote.

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder that all your remarks are on the amendment right now.

Hon Chan : Yeah, it is, because it’s a response to their point of having this motion. We need

to explain why we need to put an amendment out to respond to this motion.

The AG mentioned, and I quote: “I know many members of the opposition dispute the

meaning of their first reading votes and want to clarify their position. Well, this

is their opportunity.”

Thank you. I will take this opportunity to stand in support of human rights but also

to question the AG’s position and the Minister of Indigenous Relations’ position.

The AG and the minister know, all members of this House know, all the ministers should

know and the Premier should know — even if the public may not — that it is a long-standing

parliamentary tradition to allow the first reading to pass so that legislation can

proceed to debate.

All members know we do not have the bill before us before the first reading.

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder again — on the amendment.

Hon Chan : Yes, thank you. Again, we need to explain the reason behind this amendment. This

is what the AG mentioned about why this motion is being brought forward and why we

have to remove some of the words in our amendment. Without the background, I cannot

fully describe why we have to remove them.

I would urge the Chair to let me finish the whole background of this motion and why

we have to put an amendment forward. I will continue.

That is why, exactly, we need to explain to the public that nobody in this House actually

knows the bill in first reading. However, this government, this Premier, Attorney

General and this minister have chosen to twist that very tradition to attack the opposition

just mentioned before. This is not a good faith debate. This is playing political

games.

Deputy Speaker : Member, this is comments specifically on the amendment. When we go back to the main

motion, then you’ll have an opportunity to more wide-ranging…. So just with respect

to the amendment. Thank you.

Hon Chan : Okay, I will be more specific then.

The human rights code exists for a reason. It exists to protect all people for any

characteristic that makes up who we are as individuals and as communities. Those protections

matter. They matter deeply.

As someone who represents a very diverse community in Richmond Centre, I see every

day how very important those protections are for people who come from different backgrounds,

cultures and life experience.

[2:20 p.m.]

Speaking personally, as someone who is Chinese, as someone who grew up in an immigrant

family, this issue is not abstract to me. It’s part of our history.

Chinese Canadians in this country did not always enjoy the rights that many people

today take for granted. Chinese workers helped build the Canadian Pacific Railway,

one of the very most important infrastructure projects in our nation’s history. They

did the hardest and most dangerous work. Many of them lost their lives doing it, yet

after helping to build the country, they were denied basic rights. They were denied

the right to vote. They faced a head tax. They faced the Chinese Exclusion Act. For

decades, Chinese Canadians were treated as second-class citizens.

It took generations of advocacy and courage for Chinese Canadians to gain the rights

that should have existed from the beginning. In fact, statistics repeatedly showed

that immigrants with comparable education, skills and experience often earned significantly

less than Canadian-born workers. Some studies show that newcomers earn roughly 20

to 30 percent less, especially in their early days in Canada.

I just want to share a little bit of my own story and highlight the important role

that ethnic media plays in bridging these gaps. During my years working in the news

industry, there was a reason why we had an ethnic media round table. Many immigrant

communities do not always have the same access to mainstream information networks.

Language barriers matter. Cultural familiarity matters. And access to information

matters. Ethnic news outlets help bridge the gap so that communities can stay informed,

engaged and connected to public life.

I understand the importance of the human rights codes because, personally, I lived

Like many immigrant kids, I had an accent, and even today, I still have it. Anyone

who grew up as an immigrant knows what that experience can be like. Sometimes you

can be judged before people even know you or know who you are. Sometimes people assume

things about you simply because of how you speak.

Those experiences also shape resilience. That reminds us of why fairness matters,

why equality matters and why we ensure that every individual, regardless of their

background, has the opportunity to succeed and be treated with respect. That is why

this amendment matters. All people need to be respected.

Let me be very clear again. The goal of the protection is for all people, protection

from discrimination. That is something that we support. Supporting human rights does

not mean that we should never ask the question of how the system operates. This is

where this motion and this amendment become more complicated. We need to amend it

because this motion also raises another very important question about priorities.

At a time when British Columbians are struggling with affordability, when small businesses

are closing, when families are worried about the economy and the rising cost of living,

this government chose to bring forward a motion like this. We have to ask why.

Interjection.

Hon Chan : It is.

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a reminder: on the amendment.

Hon Chan : It is relevant, because the wording in the motion has so many things behind the tribunal’s

power, etc. We have to delete it because it matters. Why do you guys bring forward

such a motion? We need to amend it because we found out that the government is trying

to play political games.

That’s why we have to delete some of the wording, to make sure we do not support the

government’s political game and we move forward in discussion and debate on the stuff

that matters to British Columbians — like public safety, like housing, like private

property rights. Those are the things that matter.

I will just end with the words and tone, just like the AG. I genuinely hope that’s

where we will get to today, because too much is at stake. For too long, we have allowed

this government to play political games, instead of actually working to solve the

problem and the mess this government has created.

I genuinely hope that today we can discuss and debate the issues that truly matter

to British Columbians — the growing deficit, jobs for younger generations, senior

care, long ER wait times, private property rights, growing our economy, strengthening

our education system and improving public safety.

These are the issues that we should be focusing on, not a motion that asks us to support

the expansion of a powerful tribunal appointed by this government. That’s why this

amendment matters, and I urge the House to support this amendment.

[2:25 p.m.]

Jody Toor : I rise today to speak in response to the government’s Motion 13 and the amendment

that was put forward, which calls on the House to affirm its support for British Columbian

human rights and protecting all people from hate and discrimination.

Let me begin by stating something very clearly. Human rights matter, and I am in full

support of all that it includes. They matter to the people of this province, they

matter to the communities we represent, and they matter deeply to me. I support the

amendment because it adds to the code.

Human rights protections are fundamental to free and democratic society. They exist

to ensure that every person in British Columbia can live free from discrimination,

hatred and injustice. They protect individuals based on many characteristics, like

race and religion, that form the diversity of this province.

Those protections are not abstract principles. They affect real people. They affect

families. They affect communities. They affect the everyday lives of the citizens

we are elected to represent. That is why debates about human rights often evoke strong

emotions and passionate responses.

Over the past several days and weeks, that passion has been very visible, and it also

has been very personal. Over the past week, I have received numerous numbers of emails,

phone calls, messages from loved ones, from family, from people in my community of

Langley-Willowbrook. Many of these individuals care deeply about human rights and

equality. Many are people who have long supported policies that protect communities,

that protect people and ensure fairness within our society. I respect that deeply.

But many of these messages I received were written under the belief that my actions

in this chamber somehow represented opposition to human rights. Some messages expressed

disappointment, others expressed frustration, and some accused me of abandoning principles

of equality. A few suggested that I even turned my back on my own community, from

the South Asian community. We have historically faced discrimination.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a minute. Just one minute. The member for Penticton-Summerland has a

point of order.

Point of Order

Amelia Boultbee : On a point of order, I believe we’re supposed to be debating the amendment. If I’m

not mistaken, the other member is talking about a debate that happened days ago, and

the other members are often debating the original motion, not the amendment.

In the interest of getting through this, this afternoon, my point of order is just

that, if I’m not mistaken, we are supposed to only be debating the amendment at this

time.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

The member from Langley-Willowbrook continues. I know you were making your case for

the amendment, speaking to the amendment.

Debate Continued

Jody Toor : Thank you, Madam Speaker.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people they serve,

it is not something that can be simply ignored. It must be addressed, and that’s why

I’m standing up today to address that. It must be clarified and it must be examined

honestly, because the citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how the chamber

functions and about the intentions of those….

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a minute. I’d like to recognize the member from Surrey-Cloverdale.

Point of Order

Elenore Sturko : She just said that she was standing to address the concerns of her constituents.

She’s supposed to be addressing her concerns with the amendment to the motion.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member. I’m providing leeway in the debate to allow the member to make

her case with respect to speaking to the amendment.

Continue.

Debate Continued

Jody Toor : Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It must be clarified. It must be explained honestly, because the citizens of British

Columbia deserve clarity about how this chamber functions and about the intentions

of those who we serve within it. That is why I rise today, not only to speak on the

motion before us but also to explain how the events that led us to this debate have

been widely misunderstood.

Before discussing those events, however, I want to make something very clear. I believe

deeply in human rights.

[2:30 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker : Member, sorry to interrupt you, but just a reminder that we’re not speaking to the

motion. It’s specifically to the amendment.

Jody Toor : Yep.

Human rights are not a political slogan for me. They’re not a convenient phrase used

to score points in debate. Human rights are fundamental to democracy. They’re fundamental

to justice and are central to my own personal journey in public life.

I did not enter politics because it was easy. I did not enter politics because it

was comfortable. I entered politics because I witnessed injustice. I saw individuals

and families navigating systems that felt distant from their everyday realities. I

heard stories from citizens who believed their voices were not being heard within

the institution.

Deputy Speaker : Member, just a minute.

Point of Order

Hon. Grace Lore : I also rise on a point of order.

I appreciate the member’s comments. They seem very relevant and important to the motion.

I don’t want to take away from her opportunity to speak to the motion, but she’s explicitly

saying she’s speaking to the motion, and I haven’t heard the tie to the amendment.

I would like to make sure that we’re able to discuss and vote on the motion, so that’s

my point of order.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Member.

My ruling is that I’m providing leeway to the member to speak to the amendment.

Debate Continued

Jody Toor : I support this amendment, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Jordan Kealy : I’ll make this very quick. I’m in favour of this amendment with the intent of the

motion that’s brought forward to this House. The intent, when it’s brought forward

to the public, is that it’ll support the human rights code. It gives that impression.

When this House votes on it, we will be displaying that intent to the public.

Right now with the way that it’s phrased, it is not worded to reflect the whole human

rights code. This amendment clearly changes that and makes it represent that intent.

When it is voted on this House floor, that is how it will be displayed to the public.

I am in favour of this amendment.

Deputy Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, we will call the question.

The question is the amendment to Motion 13, to delete all words after “human rights

code” and substituting therefore the following: “and protecting all people from hate

and discrimination.”

Division has been called.

[2:35 p.m. – 2:40 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker : Members, the question before the House is the amendment to Motion 13 moved by the

Opposition House Leader.

[2:45 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Loewen

Kindy

Warbus

Halford

Wat

Kooner

Banman

Hartwell

L. Neufeld

Van Popta

Dew

Clare

Rustad

Wilson

McInnis

Paton

Day

Toor

Hepner

Giddens

Dhaliwal

McCall

Block

Stamer

Gasper

Mok

Davis

Chan

Brodie

Kealy

Williams

Chapman

Bird

Doerkson

Luck

Tepper

NAYS — 50

Lore

Blatherwick

Dhir

Routledge

Chant

Toporowski

B. Anderson

Neill

Osborne

Brar

Krieger

Davidson

Parmar

Sunner

Beare

Greene

Wickens

Kang

Begg

Arora

Higginson

Sandhu

Lajeunesse

Choi

Rotchford

Elmore

Phillip

Popham

Dix

Sharma

Farnworth

Eby

Bailey

Kahlon

Chandra Herbert

Whiteside

Boyle

Yung

Malcolmson

Gibson

Glumac

Shah

G. Anderson

Chow

Morissette

Valeriote

Botterell

Boultbee

Sturko

The Speaker : The House will continue debating the main motion.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

On the main motion.

Jody Toor : I rise today to speak in response to government Motion 13, which calls on this House

to affirm its support for the British Columbia human rights code.

Let me begin by stating something very clearly. Human rights matter. They matter to

the people of this province. They matter to the communities we represent, and they

matter deeply to me.

Human rights protections are fundamental to a free and democratic society. They exist

to ensure that every person in British Columbia can live free from discrimination,

hatred and injustice. They protect individuals based on many characteristics like

race and religion and that form the diversity of this province.

Those protections are not abstract principles. They affect real people. They affect

families. They affect communities, and they affect the everyday lives of the citizens

we are elected to represent. That is why debates about human rights often evoke strong

emotions and passionate responses.

[2:50 p.m.]

Over the past several days, that passion has been very visible, and it has also been

very personal. Over the past week, I have received numerous emails, messages, phone

calls from family, loved ones and people from my community of Langley-Willowbrook.

Many of these individuals care deeply about human rights and equality. Many are people

who have long supported policies that protect people and communities and ensure fairness

within our society. I respect that deeply.

But many of the messages I received were written under the belief that my actions

in this chamber somehow represented opposition to human rights. Some messages express

disappointment; others express frustration. My own family members, some of them, accuse

me of abandoning principles of equality that they fought really hard for. A few suggested

that I even turned my back on my own loved ones.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people they serve

and their family members, it is not something that can be very simple or ignored.

It must be addressed, it must be clarified, and it must be explained honestly. The

citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how this chamber functions and

about the intentions of those who serve within it.

That is why I rise today not only to speak to the motion before us but also to explain

how the events that led to this debate have been widely misunderstood. Before discussing

those events, however, I want to say something very clearly. I believe deeply in human

rights.

Human rights are not a political slogan for me. They are not a convenient phrase to

use to score points in debates. They are not something I invoke only when it benefits

a political narrative. Human rights are fundamental to democracy. They are fundamental

to justice. They are central to my own personal journey into public life.

I did not enter politics because it was easy. I did not enter politics because it

was comfortable. I entered politics because I witnessed injustice. I saw individuals

and families navigating systems that felt distant from their everyday realities. I

heard stories from citizens who believed that their voices were not being heard within

the institution that governed their lives. I saw situations where transparency was

lacking, where accountability was insufficient and where decisions that affected people’s

lives were made without accurate public understanding.

Those experiences left a profound expression on me. They strengthened my belief that

democracy must function for everyone, not just for those who have access to power,

not just for those who have influence but for every citizen of British Columbia. That

belief is why I chose to serve. It is why I chose to stand for election. It is why

I continue to work in this chamber on behalf of the people of Langley-Willowbrook.

Much of the dispute surrounding this debate arises from a misunderstanding of the

legislative process, particularly the stage known as first reading. In the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia, bills must pass through several stages before they become

law. The first stage is called first reading.

At first reading, the title of a bill is read into the official record of the House.

The bill is introduced formally and becomes part of the public record. Its text is

printed and made available to the public, to the members of this chamber and to the

journalists who follow the work of this institution.

At this stage, there is no debate. Members do not rise to argue in favour of the bill.

Members do not rise to argue against the bill. Members do not yet examine the principles

contained within this bill. First reading is procedural. Its purpose is simple: to

allow the bill to enter the public domain so that it can be examined and debated at

later stages.

The real debate occurs at second reading. Second reading is the stage where members

stand in this chamber to express their support or opposition to the principles contained

within a bill. The bill passes second reading and moves to committee stage, where

the bill is examined clause by clause and amendments may be proposed.

Deputy Speaker : Excuse me, Member, just a minute.

Recognizing the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness.

Point of Order

Hon. Kelly Greene : I rise on a point of order. Relevance. Thank you.

Deputy Speaker : Thank you, Minister.

Allowing some leeway to allow the member to speak to the motion. So speaking to the

motion….

Debate Continued

Jody Toor : I will continue.

Finally, if it passes third reading, it receives royal assent and becomes law.

This process exists for an important reason. It ensures that the bills are examined

carefully. It ensures that proposals are debated and transparent, and it ensures that

democratic accountability is maintained.

[2:55 p.m.]

This structure is not unique to British Columbia. It reflects the Westminster parliamentary

tradition that guides across Canada and around the world — in Ottawa, in London and

in provincial legislatures across Canada.

First reading is widely understood as a procedural stage, not an endorsement of the

ideas contained within a bill. That difference is important because the events that

led to the debate we are having today began at that procedural stage.

Recently a private member’s bill was introduced. This bill proposed the repeal of

the British Columbia human rights code. Let me clarify several important factors.

First, this bill was introduced by an independent member of this chamber. It was not

introduced by a Conservative caucus member.

Second, it was introduced as a private member’s bill, meaning it was not a government

bill.

Third, it reached the stage of first reading, where a procedural vote took place to

determine whether the bill will be formally introduced and printed for public review.

It is the procedural vote that sparked the public reaction we are seeing today in

this House.

There’s an important distinction that must be made here. That is between process and

narrative.

The process is the legislative procedure that governs how this House operates. It

ensures that the bills can be introduced, reviewed, debated and scrutinized before

becoming law. It protects transparency. It protects democratic debate, and it protects

the ability of citizens to see how their government functions.

The narrative, however, is something different. The narrative suggests that a procedural

vote automatically represents the personal beliefs or moral positions of the members

who cast that vote.

But those two things are not the same. Process allows democracy to function. Narratives

can sometimes distort how that process works. Let me say something clearly. Allowing

a bill to be introduced is not the same as supporting it.

I would like to speak personally on Motion 13. I’m a South Asian woman, a woman of

colour, and I’m proud to be the first Punjabi woman of colour elected to the Conservative

Party of British Columbia.

My father, my mother, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law immigrated to Canada in

the late 1960s. At that time, many newcomers faced barriers that we sometimes forget.

They experienced discrimination. They experienced exclusion. And they fought for human

rights and equal opportunity for their families and for their communities.

Those values shaped the environment in which I was raised. From a young age, I understood

what it meant to fight for a seat at a table. I understood what it meant to sometimes

be overlooked because of the colour of your skin. I understood what it meant to work

harder just to be heard. Those experiences do not weaken a person’s belief in human

rights. They strengthen it.

Earlier this week I spoke in the chamber about the importance of freedom of information.

I described freedom of information as the anchor of democracy, because democracy depends

on citizens being able to ask questions. It depends on citizens being able to access

information. It depends on transparency.

My purpose in politics has always been rooted in protecting the rights and the freedoms

of British Columbians — the right to take

part in democracy, the right to question

government, the right to access information and the right to live with dignity and

equality. I entered public life because I believe deeply in the integrity and the

rights of every person in this province.

That belief is not new to me. It is the reason I chose to serve. It is the reason

I will continue working every day to defend both democratic freedoms and human rights

for the people of Langley-Willowbrook and for all British Columbians. In the end,

democracy is strongest when citizens know their voices matter, their rights are protected

and their representatives remain committed to truth and transparency.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jessie Sunner : I rise today in strong support of the motion to affirm our unequivocal support for

the B.C. human rights code and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s powers to enforce

it.

I recognize that the member that spoke before had really powerful words and spoke

to why the B.C. human rights code is so important and why we have gotten to a place

where we need it and we continue to need the code. In saying this, I have to say that

it is deeply troubling that we are in a place where this affirmation is even necessary.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

When I was elected to this Legislature, I never imagined that I could be standing

here debating people’s human rights. But here we are.

Before I was elected, I spent my career as a human rights lawyer. I stood before the

Human Rights Tribunal representing people who had been discriminated against because

of who they are — the colour of their skin, their religion, who they love or their

sex or gender identity. These are all protected grounds under the B.C. human rights

code.

This means you can’t pay a woman less simply because she’s a woman. You can’t fire

someone because you find out they’re gay or trans. You can’t turn someone away from

housing because of the colour of their skin or because they wear a turban.

When these rights are violated and people have nowhere else to turn, the Human Rights

Tribunal hears these cases and enforces the law.

I remember standing before the Human Rights Tribunal and representing a woman who

had been harassed for years in the workplace because she worked in a workplace that

was male-dominated. She was the only woman in the workplace. Think about that. All

she wanted to do was go to work every day and make an honest living for her and her

family. She wasn’t able to do so without intimidation, without facing daily insults,

jokes at her expense and safety dangers that the male co-workers thought would be

funny to impose on her.

I represented people who faced racial discrimination in the workplace, people who

came to work each and every day to serve in our health care systems only to feel like

they did not belong, like they were less worthy than their co-workers because of the

colour of their skin.

We’ve seen many other historic cases also make their way through the Human Rights

Tribunal, like the landmark case of Brar v. the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association , which spanned a decade and found that the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association discriminated

against a group of 13 South Asian veterinarians in Vancouver for over a decade, causing

them to face unequal licensing barriers, intense scrutiny, complaints, inspections

and disciplinary actions — all because they did not look like what their co-workers

expected them to look like, because they were educated in a different country or because

of the language they spoke. Because of a characteristic that they had no power to

control, they were discriminated against.

Each and every one of these cases, and so many more, have taught me something that

every single member in this House should understand clearly. The human rights code

is not theatrical. It’s not symbolic. It is a shield that protects real people when

discrimination shows up in their workplaces, in their housing and in their everyday

lives. This shield exists because generations before us fought for it.

On this side of the House, that is not something that we forget. We remember that

each and every day. We remember that these rights that others may take for granted

were not freely given. They were hard-won through struggle and through persistence.

Women in this country did not always have the right to vote. Many women of colour

and Indigenous people were excluded even decades after women won the right to vote.

South Asian people and Asian people had no right to vote and then had their rights

stripped away and could not vote until 1947. Someone that looked like me could not

enter this House, let alone speak in this House — could not even enter the building.

Equality protections in workplaces, houses, housing and public services only became

better because people organized. They spoke out, and they demanded better. So when

people and members opposite hesitate or fail to affirm these protections, it is and

should be profoundly concerning.

[3:05 p.m.]

Instead, in this House, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream brought forward

a bill to repeal the Human Rights Act after the tribunal ruled against former school

trustee Barry Neufeld for his years-long campaign for publicly attacking gay and trans

teachers over their identities.

We struck down that bill at first reading with a principled stance that included the

Greens and former Conservatives.

But the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream isn’t the only member of this House

to defend Barry Neufeld. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has. The member for Langley-Abbotsford

has. The member for Chilliwack North has.

All of these members have publicly criticized the human rights code and tribunal in

recent weeks because they disagreed with the decision against Barry Neufeld. In fact,

the member for Chilliwack North has introduced a motion to try to limit and decrease

the strength of the human rights code because of this decision against Mr. Neufeld.

This case has triggered debate, so it’s important to be clear on the facts of what

happened in this case. The tribunal wrote in its decision:

“People can debate the protections afforded to different groups of people, express

disapproval of sexual orientations or gender identities and opine on what the government

should do. Tolerance of such speech is a pillar of our democracy which nourishes self-fulfilment

and furthers the search for truth.

“However, as we have said, this is not what Mr. Neufeld did. Contrary to his argument

that he was merely expressing his opinion about legitimate topics of political and

social debate, his expression went beyond a critique of a government program. Mr.

Neufeld’s publications are replete with negative stereotypes and pejorative assumptions

about LGBTQ people which undermine their inherent dignity and discriminate against

them.”

Mr. Neufeld regularly accused gay and trans people of sexually abusing children.

The tribunal wrote: “Mr. Neufeld says repeatedly that teaching children about sexual

orientation, gender identity, non-heterosexual people and non-cisgender people confuses

them and grooms them to be abused by sexual offenders.”

He defended anti-gay laws in other countries as attempts to control pedophilia. That’s

only a few of the examples of what Mr. Neufeld did over these years. I’d encourage

members to read the whole ruling, if you haven’t already, rather than making assumptions

based on what you read or what you hear in a 30-second clip online.

I think it’s time for the members for Chilliwack North and Langley-Abbotsford to ask

themselves if they really agree with those things. If they don’t, they should stand

with us today and the member for Chilliwack North should withdraw her motion and the

members opposite who say they stand for human rights should ask them to do exactly

that.

As we speak about human rights, I cannot let pass a flagrant comment that was made

in this chamber yesterday. The member for Kelowna-Mission stood in this House and

said that women in this House would sit like meek women while men in suits decide

things for us. That comment says far more about that member than it does about any

woman in this chamber.

Let me be very clear. There is nothing meek about the women in this Legislature. Women

here have fought their entire lives to earn a seat in these desks. They are leaders.

They are advocates. They are lawyers, businesswomen and community-builders who have

fought to be here and who fight every day for the people they represent. Dismissing

women as meek is not just insulting. It reveals exactly the kind of outdated thinking

that human rights laws were created to challenge.

So if that member wants to talk about courage and spine in this Legislature, then

here is his moment. Have the courage to stand up for human rights, because it takes

absolutely no courage to stand up in this chamber and throw around deranging comments

like he did.

The real test of courage is whether that member for Kelowna-Mission will stand up

when the vote is called and support something as basic as defending the human rights

code. If he truly believes in equality and dignity for people in this province, then

the choice should be easy.

But if he and his colleagues cannot bring themselves to support a motion that simply

affirms the fundamental protections against discrimination that people rely on, then

why should British Columbians trust them with anything else? When leaders refuse to

defend human rights clearly, it sends a signal.

[3:10 p.m.]

Silence — or worse, opposition — creates space for racism, sexism and misogyny to

flourish. It tells people who discriminate that maybe the rules protecting equality

are negotiable.

We don’t have to imagine what happens when that door is opened. We can see what’s

happening right now. When human rights protections are weakened or dismissed, as we

can see just south of us from here, it emboldens discrimination and division. It tells

marginalized communities that their rights depend on who is in power, and that is

exactly the opposite of what human rights law is supposed to do.

But given the highly questionable remarks we heard in this chamber yesterday, I must

say, it, unfortunately, would not surprise me if the members opposite don’t support

this motion, because they simply do not believe in these protections in the first

place. They may not believe in equality in the first place.

This motion gives every single member in this House a chance to prove otherwise. Affirming

this commitment should be the easiest vote that any of us have had to make in this

chamber.

So I will say this plainly to all the members on all sides of this chamber. If you

truly believe in equality before the law, if you truly believe in fairness and dignity

for every single person in this province, then supporting this motion should not be

difficult.

This is not a partisan issue. This is not ideological. It is far more basic. It is

about whether we as legislators are willing to stand up and say clearly that human

rights in British Columbia are non-negotiable and that the protections in our human

rights code are worth defending.

Tara Armstrong : Well, everybody knows that you should never judge a book by its cover, but that is

precisely what the government is asking the members of this House and the people of

this province to do. They think that just because they have a law with the phrase

“human rights” in its title, everyone will believe that this law actually protects

human rights. But it doesn’t. It actually does the opposite. That is why every member

in this House should oppose this motion.

The code, together with the commission and the tribunal, is taking human rights away

from people of this province. They are taking human rights away from women — the right

to fair competition in women’s sports, the right to privacy in women’s bathrooms,

the right to safety in women’s shelters. They’re taking those away thanks to

section

7 of the so-called human rights code. So if you support the human rights of women,

you must oppose this motion.

They are taking human rights away from white people, as well, along with men. As I

explained last week in question period, the NDP-appointed Human Rights Commissioner

uses

section 42 of the human rights code to intentionally exclude healthy white men

from university hiring. And the NDP’s Attorney General says that the government is

“proud of that.” They are proud of taking human rights away from white people and

men.

I’m not. I will never accept the unequal treatment of any race or either sex. So if

you oppose discrimination on the basis of race or sex, you must oppose this motion.

And how about the human rights of children who are being convinced that they need

harmful puberty blockers and surgeries? The human rights code is taking away their

right to go through puberty with their bodies intact and to one day have children

of their own. The code is taking away the reproductive rights of our children. So

if you support reproductive rights, as I do, you must oppose the motion.

And let me address the right to free speech, which has come under great threat in

this same code. Free speech is a human right too.

Deputy Speaker : Member.

Tara Armstrong : It is a fundamental duty…

Deputy Speaker : Member.

Tara Armstrong : …of every MLA to protect free speech.

Yes?

Deputy Speaker : Member, I need to interrupt for a moment and recognize the member for Penticton-Summerland.

Amelia Boultbee : I rise on a point of order. The member has stated that the code takes away the rights

of children to go through puberty.

[3:15 p.m.]

The code protects rights. It does not impose anything on anyone, especially children.

This is factually incorrect, and I would ask that the Speaker ask the member to withdraw.

Deputy Speaker : Penticton-Summerland, it appears that this might be a matter of division on the

interpretation

of this act, so I will not rule on that.

Tara Armstrong : I’ll go back to free speech. Free speech is a human right too. In fact, it’s a fundamental

duty of every MLA to protect free speech. Free speech is the foundation of our democratic

traditions and constitutional laws.

That is why as members, we are afforded absolute privilege when addressing these matters

of debate in the House. Absolute privilege, this immunity from defamation claims,

is granted because in order for ordinary people to have their interests protected,

the peers that they elect to represent them in this House must be able to speak freely,

without fear of political reprisals. We don’t have to agree, but we do have to have

the debate.

Contrary to the claim by the member for Burnaby East, it is not terrorism to be invited

to debate matters on which we disagree. In fact, it is a great privilege. Debate is

the literal opposite of terrorism. It is how we resolve disputes without violence.

Terrorism and violence are what we are left with when all forms of peaceful and civil

debate are eliminated.

That is what made the Human Rights Tribunal ruling against school trustee Barry Neufeld

and the commissioner’s related comments afterward so indefensible. These NDP appointees

have no place telling elected government officials, like Mr. Neufeld or any member

of this House — or really any other citizen, for that matter — that they must adopt

the political ideology or religious beliefs of another group holding favour with the

current government.

In conclusion, it is obvious to anybody who isn’t benefiting from this discrimination

that we need to abolish the code, the commission and the tribunal and replace them

with laws that actually protect human rights for everybody equally.

That is what members in this House should support if, like me, they actually support

human rights and equality. They cannot unequivocally support a law that the government

uses to abuse the human rights of British Columbians, no matter how nice the name

of that law sounds when they say it. Every member of this House should stand with

me and demand that this broken human rights code be replaced with fair laws that actually

protect the equal rights of every single citizen in British Columbia.

Rob Botterell : Before I begin my remarks, I just want it noted on the record that I have no intention

of responding to the statements made by the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream.

I don’t want to grace them with a reply, because they do not deserve a reply in any

way, shape or form.

Instead, I wish to rise in support of the motion, from the Government House Leader,

“that this House affirms its unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and

the tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and discrimination

based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital

status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender

identity or expression” — yes, gender identity or expression — “and age.”

[3:20 p.m.]

I just want to thank all the previous speakers who have risen to speak in support

of this motion and draw on their lived experience to remind us how incredibly important

the human rights code of B.C. is.

I’d like to start by thanking the Pride organizations from across British Columbia,

which stepped forward to register the need for all members of this House to do more

to uphold human rights in British Columbia. My thanks to the Pride societies of Langley,

Kelowna, Chilliwack, Vancouver, Delta, Prince George, Fernie, North Island, Nelson,

Sunshine Coast, Nanaimo, Vernon and Cranbrook, the Northern Pride advocacy group,

Queer Centre Comox Valley, Northern Pride Centre and the UVic Pride collective for

your powerful and important advocacy.

We must always support those organizations in the community, which work so hard to

bring forward their views and help us and support us to advocate for the protection

of their rights and their members’ rights through the B.C. human rights code.

I’d also like to thank the Government House Leader. Also, the Attorney General, for

her remarks; the House Leader, in particular, for bringing this motion forward; and

the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity, for her thoughtful written response

to these Pride organizations.

The hate-fuelled actions of a member of this House have brought us all into disrepute.

Our democracy in this House should be a place that all British Columbians can look

to proudly, knowing that the people there are working for them and their best interests.

Instead, the public is witnessing racism, sexism, ignorance and disinformation from

this building.

We must be better than this. As hate and fascism find traction around the world, we

cannot stand idly by. All of us — and that’s what we’re doing today — must recommit

ourselves to an active defence of human rights. We must stand up for all members of

our society, particularly those who continue to face marginalization and hate simply

for existing, as they are, in this world.

This is no time for precedence to be more important than human rights. We must also,

though, go further than words. Words are important, but we need to go further than

words. We need to take concrete action to improve the human rights situation in British

Columbia.

None of us can stand here and congratulate ourselves or consider it a job done while

we represent a province with incredible human rights failures. It’s up to all of us,

on all sides of the House, to work together in unity to take the actions that bring

meaning to these words.

I’d like to put on the record some of the types of areas that we need to work together

to focus on.

Housing is a human right, yet British Columbia has the highest rate of unaffordable

housing in Canada. For people on social assistance, the provincial shelter allowance

rate is only around one-third of the median rental price.

I am not making these comments to assign responsibility. I’m making these comments

today so we can develop a shared vision and a shared effort, as a unified House, to

address these issues.

In 2022, 342 people experiencing homelessness died due to violence, lack of nutrition,

sanitation or housing. Some 40 percent of people experiencing homelessness are Indigenous,

11.3 percent are 2SLGBTQIA+ and 3.2 percent are transgender. These are vastly disproportionate

and a shame on all of us.

[3:25 p.m.]

The life expectancy of First Nations people in this province is 7.3 years shorter

than that for non–First Nations British Columbians. Some 44 percent of women in Canada

have experienced some form of intimate-partner abuse — whether physical, sexual, psychological

or emotional. For young women without homes, 63 percent have been assaulted and 37

percent sexually assaulted. And 16.7 percent of children in British Columbia live

in poverty. This is a shocking figure, and it rises to 34.8 percent for First Nations

children and 42.2 percent on rural reserves.

Children with disabilities face numerous barriers to their full participation in education,

and nearly 18 percent of parents have indicated that their disabled child was secluded

or restrained at school. And 62 percent of 2SLGBTQI+ students across Canada report

feeling unsafe at school due to exclusion, harassment, intimidation and violence.

The rate of death from the toxic drug crisis is six times higher for First Nations

people than for other British Columbians and 12 times higher for First Nations women

compared with non–First Nations women. There were 43 incidents of human trafficking

reported to police in 2023, a figure that is grossly underreported.

These are sobering, sobering facts, and they just remind us how important the human

rights code is as a guide for the work we have to do, the work we can do together

to change the lives of these people. This is not the time to weaken the human rights

code or the Human Rights Commissioner. It is a time today to reaffirm our strong support

for the human rights code and for the Human Rights Commissioner. If anything, we need

to make them stronger.

It is embarrassing that this House even needs to put this statement up for debate,

but here we are. We all know how we got here. Today is an important opportunity for

us to reaffirm that support for the human rights code, turn the page on the hate and

the things we’ve experienced over the last few months and move forward together to

address these many challenges I’ve outlined.

I urge all members of the House to support this motion. I urge them to go further

than this too, to work together across party lines to take meaningful action in support

of a province where all people’s human rights are upheld every day of the year.

Elenore Sturko : Before I start, I just want to address — I don’t know if I would call it an explanation

or a defence — some members in this House that voted on first reading for a bill to

repeal the human rights code of B.C.

I’m not buying that defence, for a couple of different reasons. The first reason is

it’s not something that the opposition did every time. There have been instances where

they did reject bills on first reading, so why not this time? If they uphold their

commitment so strongly to following procedure, then why was it not done previously?

A person can say that they don’t know what the bill says until it is read a first

time and they would be able to review it. But you knew the context, because you know

the member that was entering the bill, and you know the rhetoric that she has been

posting online.

[3:30 p.m.]

You know the context of almost every single bill, statement or question that that

member has brought in, the discriminatory things that that member is promoting and

the misinformation that she is spreading. In that context alone, you should’ve rejected

it on first reading if you truly believe in upholding the rights of British Columbians.

I support the government’s motion to affirm the human rights code because we are encountering

a rise in the use of discriminatory language. We’re witnessing the proliferation of

trans people in particular — even by members of this assembly. It has never been more

important to reaffirm our commitment to upholding the rights of all British Columbians.

When I started the process of coming out as a lesbian more than 32 years ago, I worked

in a restaurant in Kamloops. It wasn’t easy to come out. There was a waitress that

I worked with. I had thought that she was my friend, so I confided in her. I told

her what I was going through.

That very same day that I told her, she went and she told our boss, who pulled me

aside and told me that she heard about my little revelation and that if I didn’t keep

it to myself, she would fire me. I was 19. I was terrified. I was scared. I couldn’t

lose my job. I didn’t live with my parents anymore. I was scared that I was fired

for being homosexual. Those weren’t baseless fears because at the time, people did

get fired for being homosexual.

There have been a lot of changes over the last 32 years. We’ve fought, and we’ve earned

a place of equality in our society as women, as 2SLGBTQ people, as ethnic minorities

and as diverse British Columbians and diverse Canadians.

It takes laws like the human rights code in B.C. That’s helped us to find equal footing.

But it wasn’t the law coming into force in 1969 for the first time that resulted in

change. It didn’t result in equality. It was the application of law over time, the

ability to push back, to fight discrimination and to have legal affirmation of our

human rights protections.

The tribunal is where those who experience discrimination can be heard and where reports

of discrimination can be reviewed. It’s where we fight back against those who would

put unjust limitations on us because of who we are — those who discriminate based

on legally protected categories.

Laws are meaningless without enforcement. We have to make sure that our human rights

laws are enforced and are protected in British Columbia. The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal

offers multiple opportunities for exchange of information. It offers negotiation and

settlement, allowing both parties to access a procedure that can be built to suit

their needs.

Not every case brought before the tribunal results in finding a breach of the human

rights code. Those who disagree with the decision can ask the tribunal to reconsider,

they can revisit the decision or they can ask the court to review it. Disagreeing

with the tribunal is no reason to throw away the B.C. human rights code.

I’m keeping my remarks short today, but I want to speak with my whole heart, my whole

chest and be unequivocal in my support for the human rights code and for this motion.

I encourage all members of this House to vote in support.

Thank you for the opportunity to affirm my commitment to uphold the code and my commitment

to uphold human rights.

Jordan Kealy : This is a House where we make laws, we amend laws, we find the faults in laws and

we create laws to better our lives and the lives of British Columbians.

Right now we have a motion in front of us. It doesn’t change the law. It doesn’t change

the human rights code. It’s currently not in place. That’s not what this vote is about.

This motion that’s in front of me doesn’t include the whole human rights code. It’s

missing parts. But when we vote on it, how is it going to be portrayed?

[3:35 p.m.]

This is actually wasting time that’s critical in this Legislature. We’re not making

a law. We’re not amending a law. Right now the motion that got rejected actually had

the true intention of the B.C. rights code. It was to stop hate and discrimination

and to protect all people. That’s currently the law. That’s the way it is right now.

We should be upholding that.

But right now I have a motion in front of me. I rise today because I believe that

in this House, we need to pause and reflect on the direction we are heading in when

it comes to freedom of expression in this province.

Members opposite often speak about inclusion, tolerance and human rights. Those are

important principles, and they should matter to every member of this House. But tolerance

cannot mean that only one viewpoint is allowed to exist while others are condemned

or punished. In a free society, people will disagree. I welcome the debate. They will

hold different beliefs, different convictions and different understandings of the

world around them. That diversity of thought is not something to fear. It is something

that strengthens democracy.

What concerns many British Columbians today is the growing sense that disagreement

with certain ideas is no longer treated as part of a healthy, democratic debate but

as something that must be suppressed. When institutions begin to punish citizens simply

for expressing a sincerely held belief, we are stepping onto very dangerous ground.

There is a very well-known line from George Orwell’s book 1984 that says: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was

their final, most essential command.” That warning was written as fiction, but it

was meant to caution societies about what happens when governments begin deciding

what people are allowed to believe or say.

When citizens see people facing enormous financial penalties for expressing views

that others disagree with, it raises a very serious question. Are we protecting human

rights, or are we policing thought?

A democratic society must be strong enough to tolerate disagreement. Freedom of expression

does not exist only for comfortable or popular ideas. It exists precisely to protect

the right to say things that others may strongly oppose. The moment government institutions

begin punishing speech simply because it challenges a current ideology, we risk moving

away from open debate and towards something far more troubling.

Members opposite may disagree with certain viewpoints. That’s their right. But disagreement

should be answered with debate, with evidence and with persuasion, not punishment.

British Columbians expect their Legislature to defend the principle that all citizens

are equal before the law and that their fundamental freedoms are not conditional on

whether their views align with the government of the day.

Freedom of expression is not something that should belong only to one side of a political

argument. It belongs to everyone. If we truly believe in a free and democratic society,

we must be willing to defend that freedom, even when we disagree with what is being

said.

[3:40 p.m.]

I must also say that I disagree with this motion because it does not address the full

human rights code. Instead, it appears to selectively highlight certain elements while

leaving the broader principles unexamined.

Is there intent to that? That could raise concerns for many people across this province.

It gives the impression that the motion is less about strengthening human rights as

a whole and more about political messaging. Human rights should apply equally to every

person in British Columbia. They should not be framed in a way that elevates one group

while ignoring the broader principle that rights belong to all people.

If we are serious about human rights, then we should be discussing the entire code

and the protection it provides to everyone, not narrowing the conversation in a way

that risks dividing people instead of bringing them together.

Let me give you a real-world example of why people feel increasingly unable to raise

questions about issues that matter to them. A few years ago, here in Canada, in a

women’s regional powerlifting competition, a transgender athlete competed and won

first place. Reports about that competition noted that the winning lift was 470 pounds

heavier than the runner-up.

For many Canadians, that raised serious questions about fairness in women’s sport

— not out of hostility, not out of hatred, but out of concern that the categories

created to ensure women have fair opportunities in athletics may be changing in ways

that deserve open discussion.

It would be like if, in order for you to win a debate over me, you had to beat me

in an arm wrestle. Good luck.

Women’s sports exist because biological differences matter in athletic competitions.

Those categories were created to ensure that women have a fair chance to compete and

succeed. When people raise questions about fairness in those circumstances, those

questions should not be treated as something dangerous or unacceptable to discuss.

That leads to the broader issue before us today. If elected officials begin to fear

speaking openly about issues their constituents are concerned about, then the very

purpose of democratic debate begins to erode. What is the point of the Legislature

if those elected to represent their communities cannot raise difficult questions?

Democracy does not function by silencing disagreement. It functions through debate.

British Columbians did not elect us to repeat one approved viewpoint. They elected

us to represent them honestly, even when the conversations are uncomfortable.

As adults and as leaders in our communities, we should have the resilience to hear

opinions we may disagree with. Leadership requires the ability to listen; to debate;

and, yes, to develop a thicker skin when difficult conversations arise. Disagreement

should be met with argument and evidence, not punishment.

A healthy democracy, again, requires open debate. It requires the ability to question

ideas, to challenge assumptions and to speak honestly about issues that matter to

the people we represent. If we begin punishing speech simply because it makes someone

uncomfortable, then we are no longer encouraging democratic discussion. We are discouraging

it.

If elected representatives cannot raise concerns freely on behalf of their constituents,

then the very purpose of this Legislature begins to fade. The moment debate disappears,

democracy itself begins to disappear with it. You may as well call it what it is:

a fascist regime.

[3:45 p.m.]

When you look at this motion, it’s not changing a law. It doesn’t even represent the

full code. What are we voting on? What does it do? It’s wasting my time. That’s why

I’m against this motion.

The human rights code is in place. It’s in force. It protects people. It’s doing what

it’s meant to do. It’s not perfect. But we are here as legislators to protect people

and examine laws, pass laws, amend the laws if we have to. That’s what I’m here for.

Right now this amendment is wasting my time, and I’m against it.