Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 1, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 226

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Child care prototype sites

B. D’Eith

L. Throness

Making life more affordable

J. Martin

R. Kahlon

Shipbuilding

B. Ma

R. Sultan

More transportation options

P. Milobar

R. Leonard

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 5 — Opposition to white supremacy

J. Routledge

J. Thornthwaite

J. Brar

J. Yap

R. Singh

M. Lee

M. Dean

D. Davies

N. Simons

T. Wat

A. Kang

MONDAY, APRIL 1, 2019

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

CHILD CARE PROTOTYPE SITES

B. D’Eith: Today I’m bringing a statement on Childcare B.C. universal

prototype sites. Just to start off, one of the key pieces of our

platform was to move the province towards universal child care over a

ten-year period, and that’s exactly what we’ve been doing — investing $1

billion in child care, the biggest investment in B.C.

history.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This will deliver relief to tens of thousands of families and help

us lay the foundation for our universal, affordable child care plan that

will benefit British Columbians for decades to come. Too many of our

families with young kids are struggling to make ends meet because of the

high cost and the low availability of child care.

Childcare B.C. will give families access to quality child care at

a price they can afford so that parents have the peace of mind when they

want to pursue work in the workforce.

I’ve actually met many young families who are caught in the trap.

One partner’s entire salary goes to child care, so often the other

partner will choose to stay home, even though the family desperately

needs that second income because of the cost of living. We all know how

tough it is to live in our beautiful province these days.

[10:05 a.m.]

The partner gets a double whammy, because returning back to work

often means the loss of seniority or lower pay. They have to start all

over again, and disproportionately, these partners are women.

Now, on the employer side, many employers spend a great deal of

time and money training employees. They develop trust with their workers

and systems that become efficient and stable. Then when employees leave

because of the child care trap, that’s tough on employers.

In fact, if we’re going to meet the demand that we need for our

workforce over the next decade — and that is tens of thousands of jobs —

women are going to have to work and have that choice to work. Universal

child care is good for families, and it’s good for the

economy.

Of course, tackling universal child care is no small feat. The

government started helping tens of thousands of individuals and

families, starting with a $300-per-child fee per month, the child care

fee reduction program. Then in the fall of last year, it launched the

affordable child care benefit for parents, reducing fees with an

additional $900 per month. These programs are already making a huge

difference. But of course, the goal is universal child care.

How do we get there? The first thing was to look at ways to make

child care more affordable. The ministry looked at a number of lessons

learned in other jurisdictions, both in Canada and internationally, and

found a few things. Providing tax credits would have required a change

to the federal tax processes, so that’s difficult. Also, experience in

other jurisdictions has shown that providing funding directly to parents

actually resulted in an increase in child care fees, which actually

dilutes the intended benefit for families.

Of course, affordability is one of the government’s top

priorities. As I said earlier, that’s demonstrated by the child care fee

reduction program and the affordable child care benefit program. But we

need to test a new child care model that supports parents and providers

and has the necessary mechanisms in place to ensure that there’s an

accountability for this public funding.

The prototype sites program initiative allows the ministry to

partner with providers to look at different ways to provide child care

within a universal model and to inform future expansion into universal

child care. These sites are on the leading edge of one of the largest

social policy changes in British Columbia history.

Now, the Childcare B.C. universal prototype sites are located all

over British Columbia, in rural and urban centres, and represent the

diversity of British Columbia geography as well as community and

parents’ needs. In order to get a strong sense of what will be needed to

expand to universal child care, the government has chosen sites that

represented all age groups and licensed child care types.

The application criteria for prototype sites indicate a preference

for sites that offer specific population program models. As well, a full

range of service models have been selected, including ones operated by

non-profits, public, band or tribal councils and large and small private

organizations — so a whole range of providers.

What’s happened with the prototype site plan? There are 50 sites

in British Columbia right now that are becoming these prototype sites.

What that will mean is that parents’ fees will be capped at $200 per

month for full-time enrolment during regular business hours. Under this

initiative, around 2,500 licensed child care spaces will be converted to

these low-cost spaces for families. Some parents with children at these

sites may pay less, or nothing at all, if they’re eligible for the other

programs.

This initiative will run from November 1, 2018, to March 31, 2020.

The province will use this feedback from parents and child care

providers to shape the future expansion of universal child care over the

next ten years.

I was actually very pleased that two of these prototype sites….

One is in Maple Ridge, and one is in Mission. Maple Ridge’s Albion Good

Beginnings Daycare is wonderful, and in Mission, there is the Heritage

Park Childcare Centre. It’s a non-profit run by the Mission child care

society. This will involve 12 children under 36 months and 25 between

the ages of three to five.

I had the chance to visit the site recently and a chance to talk

with the director, Lorraine Trulsen, who is absolutely ecstatic about

the program. She said that they are full and they have a waiting list.

In fact, the waiting list is big enough that they could open another

child care facility in the same model. She has said how transformative

the pilot program is already with families.

[10:10 a.m.]

I mean, imagine a family that’s paying $1,400 a month for child

care for two children and now paying $400. That’s $1,000 a month. For a

family living paycheque to paycheque, that is transformative. That means

savings for a university education. That means, perhaps, being able to

afford sports for the children when they couldn’t afford it before. Or

it just could simply mean not living beyond their means, which is

transformative for these families.

I wanted to thank the hon. Speaker for the chance to speak, and I

will say some more in the back half of this.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to talk about prototype sites, which are the

government’s attempt to put into practice their promise of $10-a-day

child care. Allow me to share seven concerns I have with prototype

sites.

First, there are now about 109,000 child care spaces in B.C. The

current government has added 3,000 to the 106,000 left to them by the

former government. And 2,500 of these spaces are prototype spaces. So we

can consider the provincial promise of $10-a-day daycare to be 2 percent

fulfilled. I’m not sure that parents would be very happy to hear

that.

Second, every penny of funding for prototype sites is federal

money, through the Canada-B.C. early learning and child care agreement.

The province has spent nothing on them. You’d think that the government

would want to provide some provincial dollars toward one of their

signature policies, but there is no provincial financial commitment to

prototype sites.

Third, prototype sites are not new child care spaces. The

government simply converted existing spaces into $10-a-day spaces. The

prototype spaces have made no impact whatsoever on the shortage of child

care spaces that exist across the province. In fact, they may have

worsened it. Since the sites are generously funded, they can afford to

hire early childhood educators at higher wages, and educators will

naturally migrate toward them. It will be interesting to know if in the

coming evaluation of prototype sites, the government looks at the impact

of the sites on smaller child care providers in the same

communities.

Fourth, what about the costs of prototype sites? While we know

that they will cost $60 million over 17 months or $17,000 per space per

year, if you extrapolate that cost to the 60,000 spaces right now funded

by the child care operating fund and add the 24,000 new spaces the

government promised within two years from now, the cost of 84,000 spaces

would be $1.4 billion per year.

This is just the beginning, because the government wants a

universal system. We don’t know how many spaces that means, because the

minister refused to reveal any details during estimates, but Quebec’s

universal system funds about 300,000 child care spaces. If it were

adopted in B.C., with our smaller population, we would fund 180,000

spaces here, which would cost, according to the current funding for

prototype sites, $3 billion per year. But that’s not all. You have to

add the cost to society of each family also paying $10 a day, privately,

for every space. This would amount to another $475 million per

year.

These estimates are all conservative, because the government has

promised anyone making less than $40,000 per year free child care, with

the taxpayer bearing the entire cost. We don’t know how many of these

spaces there would be. All of this, of course, doesn’t include

after-school spaces for older children, the cost of all-day kindergarten

and early years programming. So we can be assured that the total cost of

child care to our society, on the basis of prototype sites, would be

well over $3½ billion per year. Can we afford to devote 5 percent of our

provincial budget to child care, plus the private cost? That will be a

hard decision to make.

Fifth, even the minuscule accomplishment of 2 percent of our

system now being $10 a day is time limited, because prototype sites are

temporary. They will all be closed for evaluation on March 31, 2020, a

year from now, and the parents who felt like they won the lottery in

being chosen for a prototype site will receive instead hefty increases

in fees.

Sixth, what will happen to $10-a-day care after the evaluation?

Well, the daily amount might increase, as it has in Quebec. It might

become $12 or $15 a day or perhaps disappear entirely. Those parents who

are lucky enough to fall into $10-a-day care will feel just like April

fools, as their fees shoot upward on this day, exactly one year from

now. I wonder how the government will explain that one.

Seventh, prototype sites send an ominous message to the 80 percent

of providers in B.C. who are market-based, because 75 percent of the

prototype spaces are non-profit. Clearly, in its prototype, its pattern,

its mould, its template for child care, the government heavily favours

the non-profit sector, just like the scheme of the Coalition of Child

Care Advocates of B.C., whose entirely non-profit platform the

government endorsed without qualification in 2017.

[10:15 a.m.]

To sum up, given the pattern prototype sites are setting, we can

look forward to an enormously expensive non-profit system, one that may

not create new spaces — a system that poaches from market-based care —

and, finally, a $10-a-day promise that may only be temporary and

short-lived, a mirage for parents more than a reality.

It’s April Fools’ Day today, and unfortunately, the joke is on the

parents and families of B.C.

B. D’Eith: While I appreciate the comments from the other side, they did

nothing about this issue while they were in government. I’m not going to

listen to them for advice on child care when this government has

invested over $1 billion in child care in this province. Tens of

thousands of families are so excited and thrilled to have transformative

child care options in this province.

Our commitment is to bring universal child care to British

Columbia. This has never wavered. Our goal is to give B.C. families

access to the affordable, quality child care they need. We’re making

this progress right now, and that’s the point of the prototype sites.

The introduction of the prototype sites will allow the minister, allow

the government, to gather that valuable information they need about the

impact on families, but also the impact on child care providers and the

government, and that will help inform the plan to transition to

universal child care.

It’s very important to note that we can benefit from learning from

other jurisdictions. But at the same time, we can see how a made-in-B.C.

universal child care program will work. So I’m very excited about the

prototype program. I’m very excited about the tens of thousands of

families that are already benefiting from a significant savings in child

care from the operators who have opted into the program, and it’s

working extremely well.

As I said, when I went to the prototype site in Mission, I can

tell you that talking to the providers, talking to the parents, seeing

the kids and how happy they are there and the fact that it’s already

double oversubscribed in terms of a waiting list…. There’s clearly a

demand for quality, affordable child care in this province. We’re

committed to universal child care. We’re going to deliver that, and the

right way to do that is to do prototype sites so that we can learn about

how it works, how to work with our operators and do the best system that

we can for our parents.

MAKING LIFE MORE AFFORDABLE

J. Martin: Somewhat with a sense of irony, here we are, the start of the

fiscal year, and we’re going to be talking about taxes and

affordability, just as life becomes considerably less affordable in

beautiful British Columbia.

There’s a host of new taxes. Some kick in today. Some have already

kicked in. Some are coming in the near future. Some are new. Some are

increases to existing ones. We’ve got the employer health tax, for

instance, a new tax that pretty well is going to impact every single

person as a consumer of any type of goods and services. I’m not really

sure how that is going to make life more affordable.

There is a local Victoria gas tax — 2 cents a litre. How is that

going to make life more affordable? A Vancouver gas tax of 1.5 cents per

litre. Again, how is that making life more affordable? What about the

new Airbnb tax that is expected to generate another $16 million of

revenue for British Columbians that may want to holiday in their

province?

We’ve got the PTT surcharge — an increase. The foreign buyer tax —

an increase. We’ve got the additional school tax, which has absolutely

nothing to do with schools. That’s increasing by 0.2 percent and 0.4

percent, depending on the assessed value of one’s property. Again, none

of that is going to schools whatsoever. You could have called it a bagel

tax. You could have called it a lawnmower tax, or anything else for that

matter, because it’s irrelevant to schools.

[10:20 a.m.]

Of course, there’s a speculation tax, which has absolutely nothing

to do with speculation. That is just making life less affordable for

British Columbians that may have a cottage, may have a cabin in some

remote part of the province to share with family and their

grandchildren. It might have been in the family for generations. But

that’s just become less affordable as well.

We’re not sure exactly when it’s coming in, but something akin to

photo radar will be kicking in — another tax. It won’t be called photo

radar. It’ll be disguised under a different type of

reference.

What about the carbon tax? That kicked in today. Gasoline just

went up all across the province, and we are, by no stretch of the

imagination, done hiking the carbon tax, which really has nothing to do

with clean air or the environment. Eighty-five percent of the revenue

collected by the carbon tax is just going into general revenue. It has

absolutely nothing to do with environmental enhancement.

What else? Oh, parking sales tax. That’s been increased 3 percent

or 15 percent, 15 cents an hour.

We’ve got a whole host of developmental cost charges for

single-family dwelling units, duplex, townhouse dwelling units,

apartment dwelling units, retail service, institutional, industrial,

office and many, many more. Those are all going up.

Of course, because of everything else, particularly with the

employers health tax, the typical homeowner is going to see a

significant property tax increase, regardless of where in the province

they happen to reside.

And never one to miss an opportunity, the government will be

collecting a cannabis tax to add to their coffers.

Income tax has gone up, depending on one’s income

threshold.

Corporate tax is going up, making things less competitive in

British Columbia. Depending on the results on April 16 next door, things

may be an awful lot less competitive, as British Columbia continues to

be a more expensive place to do business, scaring away entrepreneurs,

investment and capital. These are all very, very mobile.

We’ve got the ICBC unlisted driver premium, another $50 per year.

I’m not exactly sure how that’s going to make life more affordable. We

also have the ICBC learner premium. It’s going up, from $130 up to $230

a year, for young people. They’ll have to dig deeper, and they’ll just

have to basically suck it up. Life is going to be a little less

affordable for them as well.

What about the B.C. Hydro crisis fund? Each and every one of us,

every single month, is obligated to finance….

Interjection.

J. Martin: We’ve got Powell River–Sunshine Coast with his singular skill set:

interrupting, disruptive, making noise. Basically a kazoo with

hair.

We’ve got the crisis fund: 25 cents a month on hydro.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Martin: I’m happy to provide the information to my colleague for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast.

We’re already looking ahead. This one may never come to pass. The

per-trip ride-share fee. That’ll be a new one coming down the pike.

Basically, 19, 20 or so new taxes or enhanced taxes, and we’re just

getting started.

Right now, by the government’s own concession, British Columbians

are working multiple jobs — at an all-time high. Almost 170,000 British

Columbians have to work multiple jobs, and 36,400 jobs in the goods

sector have been lost. Those jobs are gone, and they’re not coming back.

Some of these have been offset by increases in the public sector, as we

would expect.

We’ve lost 15,000 jobs in manufacturing. We’ve lost 13,000 jobs in

real estate, rental and leasing. We’ve lost 9,600 jobs in construction.

We’ve lost 8,700 jobs in retail. We’ve lost 8,300 jobs in motion picture

and sound recording. We’ve lost 7,200 jobs in agriculture; 5,200 jobs in

transportation and warehousing; 3,800 jobs gone in mining, coring, oil

and gas extraction; 2,400 jobs long gone in accommodation and food

service.

[10:25 a.m.]

Essentially, the GDP growth has slowed under the present

administration: only 2.2 percent in 2019, compared to growth of well

over 3 percent in years previous. The growth rate of GDP per capita will

fall.

I will be happy to hear my friend across the aisle and look

forward to his comments.

R. Kahlon: Well, I want to thank the member for Chilliwack for his opening

comments on this motion.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Yeah, I did think it was a bit of an April Fool’s joke that he was

talking about housing affordability the way he was. I woke up a little

bit more optimistic than he did. And you know, I hope my optimism will

rub off on him a little bit here.

We’re talking about affordability. Let’s talk about affordability.

I know the member raised a lot of things. A lot of taxes, he says, are

going up — by the way, a lot of them that they created. Carbon tax — I

hate to remind him that it was their government that brought that in.

And it was never revenue-neutral. People paid it, and they rarely saw

anything come back. They did not even see a benefit for the environment.

We’ll have that conversation. I’m sure that’s a motion for next week

that we would love to have.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Kahlon: I can’t believe that ICBC was even mentioned, because a $1.2

billion debt…. But again, we’re talking about affordability, so let’s

talk about affordability. The elimination of the MSP premium — the

single largest tax reduction in a generation.

A recent study just came out. Here’s a quote from a recent

newspaper article: “To understand the effect of recent changes, we

examined total provincial taxes paid by households at different income

levels, including income tax, PST, MSP, tobacco and the carbon tax. The

total share of household income is called the effective tax

rate.”

What this study found was that most of the drop for the vast

majority of households is due to the NDP government’s decision on

elimination of MSP premiums. Now, this is the single largest tax cut in

a generation for middle-class-income families. And this

article happened

to point out that for the last 16 years…. I won’t say which government

was in power, because it’s supposed to be non-partisan. With the

previous government, I’ll just say, the greatest benefit from their tax

changes went to the richest 1 percent — the richest 1

percent.

When we’re having the debate in the House, I think it’s important

to recognize: who are you fighting for? That’s a fundamental question.

Who are we fighting for? Who is the opposition fighting for? MSP cuts

for middle-class single families.

I spoke, at length, about the seniors couple in my community. When

I knocked on their door, they invited me in to talk about how much MSP

was hurting them when they had a fixed income. They had a thriving

business. They just retired, and they were struggling with this, with a

fixed income. They will see a great benefit for themselves.

You can’t talk about affordability without talking about housing.

We have a housing crisis. It just didn’t happen overnight. It’s been

happening from years of people saying: “Oh, well. You know, people will

figure it out themselves. It’s a free market. If they don’t like it,

they can go to wherever they’ve got to go to.” Well, that’s not good

enough.

We’ve taken steps to address that. Just last week we heard from a

member of this House saying we shouldn’t even have limits on how much

rent increases can go up. “Free market,” he said. “Just let it go up as

high as it can. People will sort it out.” That’s not

affordability.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: You know what? If the member from Kamloops has things to say, I

hope he stands up and speaks on behalf of the things they’ve been

doing.

The member spoke about child care, and he did it very eloquently.

I won’t go too far into that. Again, the member for Chilliwack will know

that many of his constituents have taken the bridge, now that it’s

toll-free — a huge benefit for them; a huge benefit, in fact, for

everybody that’s coming from south of Fraser, heading across the

bridges. Because you know what? We’ve seen a huge decrease in congestion

in all the bridges, around the way infrastructure is needed.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: Again, the member from Kamloops woke up on the wrong side of the

bed this morning, and he’s decided to heckle me. I think the comment for

the member for Chilliwack was appropriate for that member as

well.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Kahlon: Not to mention, when we’re talking about affordability, it’s about

wages, as well, for workers. Wages have been stagnant in this province

for almost a decade. Finally, people are starting to see wages go up to

match the costs that have been going up in this province, to match the

living costs that are increasing. So $15.10-an-hour minimum wage by

2021, helping 400,000 workers in this province — that is what makes life

more affordable, an increase in wages.

[10:30 a.m.]

I know the member will talk about that 1 percent increase in

carbon tax today as the thing that will drive prices, make more things

unaffordable, but….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Kahlon: I look forward to hearing the member across the way.

J. Martin: I thank my colleague. I always enjoy our Monday morning witty

banter back and forth. It’s a good way to start the week.

However, the province has some troubling times ahead. The recent

budget brought in by the government is planning for revenue and spending

increases of roughly $6 billion over the next three years. This ends up

being a per-capita tax increase of $1,100 or, basically, $2,500 per

family over the next three years. I do not believe that’s an example of

making life more affordable.

We’re going to be seeing a 26 percent increase in spending over

the life of this government. This is money that hard-working British

Columbians are going to have to turn over to the present administration.

We’re adding $14½ billion in debt over the next three years — $14.5

billion, and $10 billion of this is taxpayer-supported. This will reach

$82.4 billion by 2021. This is approaching a 90 percent debt-to-revenue

ratio. This is risking our triple-A credit rating. This puts every

British Columbian at risk in the very near future.

They’re talking about the increases to ICBC. What’s it going to

cost to insure your vehicle in the coming months and years?

Carbon tax just increased to $50 a tonne. Anybody that hasn’t

noticed yet will be well aware of it as soon as they go to gas up here

in Victoria or when they get back to their riding. It’s worth noting

that because this carbon tax is no longer revenue-neutral, British

Columbians are being asked just to simply pay more at the pump, simply

as a tax for government. We’re looking at $6 billion in revenue but just

$900 million of it for CleanBC over three years — literally the

proverbial drop in the bucket. The remaining 85 percent goes to general

revenue. That is not making life more affordable.

Now, yes, the MSP elimination process is underway, something that

the previous government initiated and the present government followed

through with. Hats off to them for doing that. However, the phase-out is

going to be incredibly expensive as the government goes through a

12-month experience of double-dipping, where they collect both the new

tax and the MSP from employers as well. They are struggling with how to

get through this. One of the things we’ve seen automatically is hikes to

residential property taxes as city governments struggle to pay this

double tax.

I thank you very much for my opportunity and look forward to next

time.

SHIPBUILDING

B. Ma: I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of B.C.’s growing

industrial marine sector, which includes over 900 companies that range

in size from one-person owner-operators to businesses with over 2,000

employees. The industrial marine sector includes six subsectors:

shipbuilding, refit and repair; small craft marine; marine products;

ocean science and technology; marine industrial services; and marine

professional services. These six subsectors together contributed

approximately $1.16 billion to provincial GDP in 2016 and employed over

20,000 workers.

One of the most exciting subsectors is the one involved in

shipbuilding, including refit and repair. There are 17 companies

involved in this work in B.C., contributing nearly $100 million to

provincial GDP and employing approximately 3,800 people. Growth in

shipbuilding, refit and repair is expected to be approximately 18

percent over the next ten years.

The largest shipbuilder in B.C., and the biggest manufacturer in

the Lower Mainland, is a company that operates in my riding of North

Vancouver–Lonsdale. It’s called Seaspan. Tucked away at the end of

Pemberton Avenue in North Vancouver, North Vancouver’s Seaspan shipyards

is one of the sites of B.C.’s growing shipbuilding industry.

[10:35 a.m.]

As I hope the members of this House would know, shipbuilding is an

industry that requires enormous investment to create. The skills,

training, expertise, equipment and entire supply chains are unique to

the industry, and it is not an industry that Canada is known

for.

Now, I know members opposite are fond of poking fun at the fast

ferries of the 1990s — problematic implementation and hull design or

whatever it is that you might want to say about it. With all that aside,

the concept of encouraging the creation of a local shipbuilding

industry, rather than spending the money on offshore manufacturing, is a

very good one. A recent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, comparing the

economic benefit to Canadians of building Canada’s next generation of

combat ships at home versus building them abroad, found that for every

$1 billion that Canadian governments spend buying ships, there is $800

million to $1.3 billion more benefit to the Canadian economy if the

ships are built in Canada.

Pedro Antunes, who is the deputy chief economist with the

Conference Board of Canada, said:

“The results are intuitive. Shipbuilding is big and

labour-intensive. Building combat ships in Halifax rather than abroad

will directly employ Nova Scotians and Canadians. Shipbuilding

activities will drive demand across the supply chains — helping to lift

employment and profits across a wide range of local and national

industries. The direct and indirect lift to employment will bolster

household income and spending and result in a subsequent round of

economic activity — referred to as induced effects.”

The same can be said, of course, for ships being built in B.C.,

and the benefits are intuitive. I cannot keep count of how many times

constituents have asked me why we can’t build our ferries or other large

ships here. For now, the answer is largely that we don’t have the

domestic shipbuilding capacity to be able to build them competitively

here, though that is, hopefully, changing.

national shipbuilding strategy, a long-term project to renew Canada’s

federal fleet of combat and non-combat vessels while providing economic

benefits to Canadians and rebuilding our country’s shipbuilding

industry. Canada formed two partnerships with two Canadian shipyards to

deliver much-needed vessels to the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian

Coast Guard. One of these partnerships was with Irving Shipbuilding in

Nova Scotia for a $25 billion combat work project. The other was with

Seaspan Marine Corp. in British Columbia for the $8 billion non-combat

work project.

Under the promise of the federal government’s national

shipbuilding strategy, Seaspan set to work to revitalize the

shipbuilding industry on the west coast, investing $200 million of their

own money in preparation for the task of building science vessels,

support ships and patrol vessels. Today 2,300 British Columbians have

jobs at Seaspan, directly and indirectly, because of the national

shipbuilding strategy and its 20- to 30-year-long program, which was

anticipated to bring in the much-needed stability and predictability of

investment that an industry as specialized as shipbuilding needs to

create the long-term capacity required to thrive.

Unfortunately, in recent years, concerns about the federal

government’s commitment to the national shipbuilding strategy have

started to bubble up. A shipyard in Quebec has been lobbying the federal

government to break away from the original intent of the national

shipbuilding strategy, potentially opening the door to taking away work

that was promised to British Columbia’s and Nova Scotia’s burgeoning

industries during critical stages of its development.

Now, I should pause and make one thing clear. The national

shipbuilding strategy is a federal program; it is not a provincial

program. However, as a local MLA whose riding currently hosts many of

the jobs and apprenticeships that may be at risk if the national

shipbuilding strategy is not adhered to, this is an issue that is

important to me.

I am not an expert in shipbuilding, nor am I a federal Member of

Parliament, who might have better insight into what is happening with

the national shipbuilding strategy. As a local MLA, I can say that I am

hearing from my community that people are concerned that the federal

government will not follow through on their commitment to award

non-combat ships to B.C., which may spell disaster for the ability of

British Columbia’s shipbuilding industry to continue to mature and

stabilize.

[10:40 a.m.]

It is my sincere hope that the federal government will help ease

the concerns that have been growing over the last several years by

reaffirming their intention to honour the national shipbuilding strategy

and ensuring that the work to build Canadian non-combat ships that were

supposed to come to British Columbia do, in fact, come here.

R. Sultan: We have a lot of history in shipbuilding. Between ’42 and ’44 —

that’s a long time ago — British Columbia yards produced 230 oceangoing

merchant vessels of 1½ million gross tonnage. That works out to one

deep-water freighter being launched every week and a half, three years

in succession.

We built well over half of Canada’s merchant fleet of the day.

That boom collapsed, of course. But today, as my colleague from North

Vancouver–Lonsdale has emphasized, shipbuilding and repair are going

strong. Vancouver and Rupert are now major, major North American ports,

and after a long nap, Canada is slowly beginning to realize its global

defence, security and ocean research obligations, which means rebuilding

our worn-out fleets.

Seaspan shipyards is, indeed, a good case in point. In Victoria

and North America, Seaspan employs approximately 2,300 people. It’s one

of our largest manufacturing employers. These are good, high-paying

union jobs. Seaspan has invested, as again my colleague has confirmed, a

number approaching a quarter of a billion dollars — a quarter of a

billion, almost, of its own money to modernize its shipbuilding capacity

in North Vancouver and Victoria. Its British Columbia supply base

includes over 400 companies working for Seaspan under the national

shipbuilding strategy alone, on subcontracts worth in excess of $375

million.

In 2018, Seaspan facilities were the training ground for 225

apprentices and 75 interns. Seaspan has invested over $6 million in

trades-training schools, colleges and universities to attract and train

the needed generation of shipbuilding tradespeople and

professionals.

The rebirth of this industry on the west coast and Seaspan’s

investments in it are, indeed, a direct result of the federal

government’s selection of Seaspan as its long-term strategic partner to

recapitalize the Canadian Coast Guard’s larger vessels and build

non-combat supply vessels for the Canadian navy.

Seaspan is invested in and committed to the federal government’s

shipbuilding program. It’s good for Canada, it’s good for British

Columbia, it’s good for the industry’s workforce, and it’s certainly

good for the future generations of shipbuilders coming along.

New welding technologies, new modular ways to assemble our ships

and new control and communications technologies must be incorporated.

One shipbuilder told me that building a new navy vessel resembles more

assembling a Swiss watch, not the metal-bashing and riveting I

personally witnessed in my neighbourhood many, many decades

ago.

It takes time and money to train the required expertise. Yet

Canada’s initial west coast program of work includes only seven vessels,

of which four are prototypes, not the 20 to 30 years’ worth of work

originally envisaged under the national program and on the basis of

which Seaspan invested so much money.

Furthermore, there is no clarity from the federal government of

what future work can be expected for the west coast. We must communicate

more clearly to Ottawa British Columbia’s need to remove the uncertainty

surrounding this important source of technology and jobs. Ottawa should

announce a long-term program of work for the west coast, as originally

envisaged under the national shipbuilding strategy.

I believe this Legislative Assembly and this government should

mend its federal fences and send a clear and urgent message to Ottawa

that shipbuilding is very important to British Columbia, and we expect

our national government to honour the promises made to North Vancouver

and to Victoria.

[10:45 a.m.]

Finally, let’s not be so naive as to believe that fighting Ottawa

in the courts, using all available tools, doesn’t have

consequences.

B. Ma: I’m very grateful for the words expressed by my colleague across

the way from West Vancouver–Capilano. The value of having a major

manufacturing industry like shipbuilding in British Columbia is clearly

appreciated by both sides of the B.C. Legislature. I think that it would

be fair of me to say that we all hope the federal government hears us

and responds in a way that adequately eases the concerns that we have

been hearing about the reports that we’re getting from our communities

and ensures that the federal government carries out its commitment so

that B.C. can continue to build its burgeoning shipbuilding

industry.

MORE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the availability of more

transportation options in British Columbia. I think we can all recognize

— and this House, certainly, I think, acknowledges — that as British

Columbia continues to grow — and there’s no dispute about our future

growth patterns that we are seeing — we’re going to need more and more

transportation options, especially in our more urbanized

areas.

The road networks, the core fundamental lanes of travel — when you

look in a downtown Vancouver, downtown Victoria, or even downtown

Kamloops, Kelowna or Prince George setting — are pretty much set in

stone in terms of their width because of the built environment around

them. So we really do need to encourage the most robust transportation

options possible in our province.

I think back to projects that, fortunately, the majority in this

House obviously supported. Unfortunately, a great many in this House, at

the time, didn’t support projects like the Coquihalla; projects like the

Sea to Sky Highway; projects like the Massey Tunnel replacement, which

we’ve now seen put on hold; projects like the Port Mann Bridge and the

widening of Highway 1 out into the valley; projects like the Perimeter

Road, which definitely makes a big difference as you’re heading east and

west trying to get across, down in the Lower Mainland, between Surrey

and down all the way to the Delta and Tsawwassen areas.

Of course, who can forget the Canada Line? People definitely did

not have a unified view in this House around the Canada Line. A great

many, actually, spoke very strongly against many of these projects. I

guess for a short time, for four years, there were only two members

speaking out against this. But certainly, over the life of all of these

projects, there’s no doubt that there’s at least been the majority that

supported them and, thankfully, got them started and well underway, I

guess except for the Massey Bridge, where we now just see piles of sand

stacked up at the side of the road instead of construction

happening.

We need to recognize that the times have changed. This is not the

1950s anymore. Certainly, the public demand and want transportation

options. They want to make sure that they can get around their

communities in the most effective way possible — recognizing that, with

technology, with advancements, things have changed. We now have electric

bikes. No one would have dreamed of that back in the 1950s, yet you can

see people easily….

In my community of Kamloops, where it’s quite hilly, one of the

impediments to more bike riding was the fact that going down was great

fun, but coming back home, not so much. Now with electric bikes, that’s

made it much simpler for people to still be able to get the health

benefits of biking and be able to move around. Yet they want to do it

safely, and they want to do it in an environment that’s safe.

Then you start looking at what actually keeps people safe. What

keeps people safe are safety advancements around real, tangible things —

things like seatbelt laws, which, back in the ’50s, didn’t exist.

Certainly, they’ve gone a long way to keeping people safe. The reason I

keep referencing the ’50s is because that’s essentially what we’re

dealing with when we look at things around transportation companies —

companies that, for a fee, will provide you with transportation, be it

buses….

[10:50 a.m.]

We’re seeing a great change with Greyhound leaving and great gaps

in service. We need to figure that out. We need to make sure that people

in the rural areas, especially on the north-south corridors, are

actually seeing a chance and an opportunity to be able to take

transportation options that don’t require their private car. We also see

that reflecting in legislation around taxi services and provision of

for-hire rides. Certainly, people want to make sure those are safe.

Certainly, people want to make sure that they feel secure in

those.

I think the average travelling public member would agree that

there need to be criminal record checks — I think everyone on this side

of House certainly agrees with that — and that there need to be regular

safety checks on the vehicle to make sure that those vehicles are

operating in a safe fashion and that they’re mechanically

sound.

When you say public safety for a fee-for-hire ride, that’s what

people are talking about. Those are the types of checks that they’re

wanting to see in place. Those are the types of checks that I think

everyone in this House totally agrees with. But when you start looking

at the difference between a class 4 and a class 5 driver’s licence, that

doesn’t actually come into play. That’s not part of the class 4 and the

class 5, when we’re talking safety.

With class 4, when you look at the old, old legislation that is

there — yes, it allows you to drive a taxi and limos. I think people can

understand that if a car the size of a limo, a stretch limo, needed to

get through crowded streets, of course there needs to be a little extra

training with that. That’s not a usual car that people would usually be

driving. Between turning radiuses and blind spots and those types of

things, of course you would want some extra training for someone driving

a longer limo. But a taxi is typically the size of a compact car that

all of us drive with a class 5 licence.

None of us, unless you’re a paramedic, drive ambulances, yet you

need a class 4 licence for that. So essentially, we’re saying that if

you want to get a for-hire vehicle, you need to make sure that person

can drive an ambulance. You need to make sure that person can drive a

vehicle with not more than ten persons in it.

Again, the interesting part, though, is that class 4 actually says

you can drive any vehicle in class 5. So, by virtue…. We’ve already

admitted that a class 5 vehicle is a smaller vehicle. It’s easier to

handle. The person driving a class 4 ambulance can easily hop into their

personal vehicle and drive around. There should be no greater safety to

the public, because that person is now driving their private vehicle,

whether or not someone’s in that vehicle.

In the interest of public safety, around Christmastime we have

this thing called Operation Red Nose around the province. A great

success in Kamloops. People driving those vehicles have class 5

licences. They’re picking people up. They’re driving them home in their

private vehicle. They’re driving them with class 5, because people know

they have proper insurance.

Again, with safety, we want to make sure there’s a proper

insurance regime. We want to make sure there are criminal record checks.

We want to make sure that the vehicle is mechanically sound. None of

those are required for class 4. None of those are actually required for

class 5. That’s why that would be wanting to make sure that the public

understands that when they hire a driver for a vehicle, the company has

had to go through those regulatory hurdles…. That is absolutely

understandable. Having an arbitrary class of licence which requires a

much longer time frame does not make sense.

I’ll finish up with my last three minutes after I hear from the

members opposite.

R. Leonard: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson for

presenting an opportunity to talk about more transportation options.

Transportation covers a diversity of options for getting from point A to

point B and covering a wide variety of circumstances, and sometimes

options devolve into necessity.

I’m only one of thousands of people who really have no

transportation option but to drive great distances for their work. But

even when travelling the ribbons of highways, there are options to be

considered. Whether moving goods or people, we all have a responsibility

to do our part to reduce our carbon footprint. The biggest chunk of our

day-to-day contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is from our travel.

There are options like filling your tank with cleaner renewable fuels or

buying a vehicle that runs cleaner or even purchasing a zero-emission

vehicle.

Thankfully, CleanBC programs are on the horizon to help us make a

big difference with our choices, reducing greenhouse gases by a third of

our overall reduction targets in British Columbia with programs to

increase the supply of cleaner renewable fuels and make those fuels even

cleaner by doubling the amount of low-carbon, locally sourced biofuels.

Then there’s requiring automakers to reduce tailpipe emissions and to

offer more zero-emission vehicles.

[10:55 a.m.]

Beginning with this incentive program, setting milestones for

ever-increasing greenhouse gas reduction targets means that automakers

will have the room to offer a greater choice of vehicles at competitive

prices to serve the diverse driving needs in B.C.

Vehicular travel is one of our transportation options, and it is

an expensive option. On top of capital and operations, there are added

costs for parking and other hidden costs. For some people, it means that

they simply can’t afford a vehicle. But people still need to move

around. Thankfully, there are a number of options.

There are more affordable options that also include vehicles.

There’s the old standby, car-pooling, which helps defray costs of

vehicle ownership and has the by-product of reducing greenhouse gases by

reducing the number of vehicles on the road. An interesting innovation

has been cooperative car-sharing. That’s successful where there’s a

population threshold to support it, again reducing the number of

vehicles on the road.

Then, avoiding the capital cost of buying a car, there are taxis.

As more people ditch the idea of owning a car or want to avoid certain

trips, soon there will be ride-hailing provincewide. App-based

ride-hailing jumped into a void in many cities throughout the world, and

after the fact, jurisdictions are trying to wrangle this private service

into something that better serves the public.

Our government is being praised for working to get it right going

in, regulating this new transportation service. The Minister of

Transportation will be working to promote flexibility around key issues

of supply, boundaries and pricing to prepare for the introduction of

ride-hailing this fall while maintaining her commitment to a safe new

transportation sector.

But there’s even more impactful transportation beyond cars. Public

transit can move people around more affordably, and it means less

congestion on the roads. This government is working to green the

province’s fleets of buses, switching more buses to electricity and

compressed natural gas.

To get more people out of their cars, transit services need to be

regular, frequent and easily accessible. Our government is funding more

bus service, with $6 million over three years for 40,000 more hours in

20 communities. In large urban centres, people can look forward to

greater transit options that get people to where they need to go,

faster.

Our government has also stepped up to make sure the needs of

people travelling across rural and remote communities are served by

buses, since communities across B.C. were abandoned by Greyhound. And as

of today, we’ve restored ferry service on the majority of ferry routes

cut in 2014 to meet the needs of island communities up and down the

coast.

Active transportation — walking, scooter users, cyclists and all

the myriad of other alternatives — are getting attention too, with $6

million for initiatives to grow this transportation sector as well as a

myriad of infrastructure improvements to roads and bridges for vehicular

traffic. You can see that people everywhere are getting the attention

they deserve to have more access to more safe, reliable and affordable

transportation options.

P. Milobar: I thank the member for her comments. I look forward to seeing the

report of the study of the impact of the 2,700 round-trip ferry sailings

on the orca population in the area.

The member mentioned cooperative ride-sharing. That’s a great way

to see friends, neighbours and community members, making sure they’re

sharing a vehicle and getting around. I would note that none of those

people require a class 4 driver’s licence to do that in a safe and

efficient manner to make sure that people are getting from point A to

point B.

Again, times have changed, and we need to recognize that. A lot of

times we hear Alberta held up as an example because of class 4 licensing

requirements for things like transportation network companies. I would

point out that Alberta was one of the first provinces to bring the rules

in, so that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s working very well.

I would point out that in this day and age, when we’re looking at

equal employment opportunities, trying to get equal pay for female

employees in every walk of life and every form of employment, with the

class 4 licence, Alberta actually sees the lowest percentage of female

drivers of any province. In fact, only 5 percent of the drivers in

Alberta are female. That ties in to public safety around more

transportation options.

Public safety cuts across a wide swath of things. We’ve covered

off criminal record checks and maintenance of vehicles and insurance

being in place. But what about the travelling public’s need to feel

safe? That requires timely service. So a young female….

[11:00 a.m.]

I have mid-20-year-old daughters. I would not like them standing

around waiting at two o’clock in the morning for hours on end to wait

for taxis.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

I’ve experienced this firsthand as a former bar and nightclub

operator. There are a very long waits. That’s a part of public safety

that doesn’t get talked about too much by this government, and it’s

unfortunate, because it really should. It’s critical to that.

The member also mentioned scooters. There is an explosion of

medical scooters happening. In fact, in Kamloops, we had to start

dealing with this in terms of transportation corridors around seniors

homes because as we see more and more medical scooters on the road, it

is a problem. It’s a problem with respect to the width of the travel

area.

Not that seniors want to try to get around…. I think it’s great

that seniors are finding ways to be more mobile and get around in their

community. Unfortunately, with this government, I can see them thinking

that’s a safety risk, and we’re probably going to require drivers of

medical scooters to start getting a class 4 driver’s licence to make

sure they’re not a risk to the travelling public because they are

interacting with cars. They are interacting on the sidewalks, and

they’re interacting on the shoulder lanes around bike lanes and

whatnot.

Really, what we need to see here is a more comprehensive look at

what actually is public safety — not clinging to this antiquated view

that you need to be able to drive an ambulance to be able to drive an

Uber car or a Lyft car.

Thank you for this time today, Madam Speaker.

Hon. J. Sims: I would like that the House consider proceeding with Motion 5

standing in the name of the member for Burnaby North.

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

proceed with Motion 5 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 5 — OPPOSITION

TO WHITE

SUPREMACY

J. Routledge: It’s with a heavy weight of responsibility that I rise to move the

motion:

[Be it resolved that this House stand united in its opposition to

white supremacy.]

This is not an easy topic, and I thank the members on both sides

of the House who are participating this morning.

Let me begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the

traditional territory of the Lkwungen-speaking people. While I embrace

this acknowledgement as protocol, I also say it to remind myself that my

people, white people of British heritage, did not in fact get here first

and that our culture is not the standard by which all others are

judged.

Now, you may be thinking: “Well, that’s just common sense.” But in

fact, it has not always been the common sense. In fact, my sense of self

and place has been woven into place with many threads — threads like the

mostly pink map of the world on display in classrooms when I was growing

up. Why pink? To identify the Commonwealth countries that were former

British colonies.

In Sunday school, we learned that European missionaries came to

this continent to civilize the people who were here already. My high

school textbooks were full of stereotypes of brave, hard-working

pioneers who carved a nation out of the wilderness. And at home, I was

taught to be proud that some of those pioneers were my

ancestors.

There wasn’t much in my lived, day-to-day experiences to counter

this common sense. The community where I grew up was entirely white. And

my point is this: ethnocentricity, or the dog-whistle notion that one’s

culture is the centre of the universe, is the root from which white

supremacy grows. And grow it has done.

In 2017, there were 100 white nationalist groups in the United

States. By 2018, there were 148. According to Stats Canada, hate crimes

are on the rise in this country too. More than 2,000 were reported in

2017 — almost double the number that was reported three years

earlier.

We know that white supremacists are becoming bolder here in B.C.

They are rallying against immigration, and they are running candidates

in elections. If we’ve been oblivious to it — and apparently, only two

out of five Canadians think white supremacy has become worse in the last

two years — then the recent massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a

self-proclaimed white supremacist, should have been a wake-up call. It

was certainly what compelled me to move this motion.

What does it mean to say we stand united against white supremacy?

For me, it means we politicians need to acknowledge its

existence.

Yes, Andrew Scheer and Maxime Bernier, I’m talking about

you.

[11:05 a.m.]

We need to acknowledge that white supremacist terrorism is every

bit the twin of jihadist terrorism and that it, too, can radicalize. It,

too, can inspire murderous hate — maybe even more so — because it

continues to benefit from the denial of opinion-makers who refuse to see

it as a global threat.

We need to be mindful of how our words and actions may feed and

validate someone else’s hate. We need to ask ourselves: whose role

models are we? The Christchurch shooter used the words “invasion” and

“invader” 53 times in his manifesto.

Too many politicians around the world are cashing in on

intolerance, so let us agree not to appeal to that base in our race for

political power. Speaking of agreeing, the speed with which the members

on both sides of this aisle came together last week to expose an

outdated dress code for women was truly remarkable. Can we agree to at

least have a discussion about how the tone of discourse in this chamber

may influence what is considered acceptable discourse by the

public?

Finally, we need to face the fact that there is a direct line

between declining expectations and the rise of white supremacy. Have we

learned nothing from the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany when people

turned on each other to explain why 30 percent of them were unemployed?

Isn’t that what Trump’s wall is all about today?

I’d like to think we’re choosing a different path in B.C. Our

poverty reduction plan, our defence of public health care, our

commitment to affordable child care and housing and to accessible

education — all represent a commitment to social and economic stability.

Therefore, it denies hate-based politics the opportunity to establish a

foothold.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to show my unwavering

support for this motion. I know that all members of this House take a

united stance against discrimination and intolerance based on race,

religion or gender. It is an unfortunate truth that so many of us have

come face to face with bigotry or discrimination.

On a national scale, Canada is known as a cultural mosaic, and I

am privileged enough to see evidence of that here in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, though, there are still persistent dissenting voices that

try to disrupt the peaceful coexistence of our cultural mosaic. These

voices strive to divide people based on difference rather than unity. It

is saddening to see that even in this modern age of technology, where

the world is getting smaller and we are all able to see glimpses of

other people’s lives and cultures, there still are people who choose to

stand divided.

Hate sites like 8chan have renewed the debate over the power of

the Internet and whether sites that harbour white supremacist violence

should face the same depth of government scrutiny that Islamic terrorist

chat rooms do.

There was an

article in the Vancouver Sun : “Terrorism

experts say U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been

reluctant to treat white supremacists and right-wing groups as terrorist

organizations because they typically include Americans among their

ranks, creating complex legal and political issues.” It’s a thorny topic

for Facebook and Twitter. When they “blocked white supremacist content

after the Charlottesville riots in 2017,” it was “a watershed moment

that sparked debate about censorship.”

In spite of all this interconnectedness, there has been a tendency

to forget that we are all human. We all have the same DNA. We all love,

hurt, laugh and feel pain, and we are more the same than we are

different. In these times of uncertainty, we need to stand together, not

apart.

Somehow history is repeating itself, allowing intolerance in our

society to remain prevalent. An alarming amount of hate speech is firing

out of the mouths of public figures, being rapidly fired off of an

anonymous keyboard and being spat in people’s faces. We need to do a

better job because of these senseless tragedies that started the

horrific one in Christchurch, New Zealand. This unspeakable act resulted

in the deaths of at least 48 people in a place where they should be safe

and free to practise their religion. And for what? For a different

religious view, or because someone is different?

[11:10 a.m.]

This senseless tragedy has truly shaken me to the core, and I

cannot fathom the pain that the victims’ loved ones must be feeling.

Condolences are not enough. We need to make a change. We need to stand

together, person to person and neighbour to neighbour, and start making

changes to ensure that we create a world in which everyone feels safe, a

world where people are proud of their heritage and not afraid to

showcase aspects of their culture and their religion and that they’re

proud of it.

In the words of Jacinda Ardern, who is the Prime Minister of New

Zealand: “Racism exists, but it is not welcome here. An assault on the

freedom of any one of us who practises their faith or religion is not

welcome here. Violence, and extremism in all its forms, is not welcome

here.”

I know that both sides of the House can be united in the pursuit

of tolerance and acceptance. Let’s continue to work together to make the

world a better place.

J. Brar: I fully support the motion introduced by the member for Burnaby

North. The motion reads: “Be it resolved that this House stand united in

its opposition to white supremacy.” We are one human family, and in a

perfect world, people of different religions and cultures should live in

complete peace and harmony. Sadly, that is not the case.

When the flames of hatred are fanned, when people are targeted

because of their faith, when people’s fears are played on rather than

addressed, the consequences are deadly, as we have seen, so sadly, in

New Zealand.

The recent terror attack in New Zealand has left some of us

thinking about hate crime in B.C. and questioning what can be done to

help prevent its rise here. A recent

article in the Vancouver

Sun says that a police report indicates that “hate crime in

Canada had been on the rise for a few years before taking a sharp

upswing in 2017.” There were 2,073 reported incidents in 2017, “up from

1,295 in 2014, 1,362 in 2015 and 1,409 in 2016. The biggest increases in

2017 were in crimes related to race, ethnicity and religion.”

Clearly, hate crime is on the rise. More has to be done to promote

the coexistence of different religions and cultures. We, the members of

this House, are the leaders, and we must take this very seriously. We

must stand together with the people around the world for the elimination

of racial discrimination and honour the strength and courage of people

of B.C., Canada and around the world who experience and confront racism

everyday.

The devastating acts of terrorism in New Zealand remind us that

all members of this House must stand together against racism, white

supremacy, Islamophobia that are being used by cowardly people as tools

for political gains. While we celebrate the value of diversity,

inclusion and mutual respect, we must strongly condemn the deeply

troubling rise of hatred, nationalist populism and extreme racist

ideology around the globe.

We must learn from our past mistakes as well. There were times

when groups of people were systematically excluded in this country as

well. The Chinese head tax, the internment of Japanese Canadians,

attempts to forcibly assimilate Indigenous people and sending back the

Komagata Maru ship to India are some of the

examples.

I must say that we have made real progress in this province and in

this country, but more needs to be done. Therefore, today and every day

we must use our voices and platforms to speak out against racism,

prejudice and intolerance.

Our government is taking action to make sure everyone in B.C. is

treated with dignity and respect. We are in the process of appointing a

new human rights commissioner to protect and to promote human rights and

create a more inclusive and just society for all British

Columbians.

[11:15 a.m.]

We are proud of the diverse and inclusive province we are so lucky

to live in, a province built by our ancestors on the fundamental

principles of justice, fairness and equal opportunity for all British

Columbians and a province blessed by our diverse people who made this

province a model of freedom, peace and democracy. Every day is a day to

celebrate how far we have come, but it also an opportunity to remember

how far we have to go.

We need to continue to fight racism and discrimination and ensure

our communities are welcoming for everyone. We have to work together to

build a more fair, more just and more equal society. Only with love can

we stop hate. Only with compassion can we understand that we are all the

same. Our government will always stand up for equality, defend human

rights and work every day to make B.C. a better place for everyone who

lives in our beautiful province.

J. Yap: I am pleased to address the motion to stand united against white

supremacy today, but honestly, this is deeply saddening to me. We’re in

2019, and there is no place for such a toxic ideology in our cities, in

our province, in our country. This motion needs to serve as a furious

condemnation of the ideas that this ideology pushes and the misery that

it has caused throughout history.

Before going any further, I want to offer my sincerest condolences

to the people of New Zealand, especially those who lost family members

in the recent act of terrorism that took place at two mosques in

Christchurch. Places of worship are supposed to be sanctuaries for

communities. To see that shattered is painful. It’s especially hard to

see such violence in a peaceful, prosperous and diverse country like New

Zealand. It reminds me of my own community, Richmond, the most diverse

in British Columbia, and it shows us that we need to stay vigilant, no

matter where we are.

Richmond is a fast-growing community that attracts people from all

around the world. Every year 40,000 new immigrants arrive in British

Columbia, with Richmond having the highest proportion of immigrants

nation-wide. It also makes Richmond a very ethnically diverse community

where more than 76 percent of the population is a visible minority. This

is why it is all the more important to talk about standing together

against the scourge of white supremacy.

On March 21, we just celebrated the International Day for the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The theme in 2019 is “Mitigation

and countering rising nationalist populism and extreme supremacist

ideologies.” This is a time we should all work together “to repair the

fissures and polarizations that are so prevalent in our society today.”

So said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Indeed, it is a timely

reflection of the challenges and dangers we are facing today.

For us, multiculturalism is integral to the prosperity, culture

and identity of British Columbia. Nonetheless, as we have heard from

other members, white supremacy is part of our history. I don’t think

it’s controversial to say that B.C. has not always been the vibrant,

multicultural land of opportunity that it is today. Policies like the

head tax on Chinese immigrants, the refusal to allow the Punjabi

immigrants aboard the Komagata Maru to land in Vancouver, and

the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II are but a few

of the examples of how this province used to treat its minority

populations. This is to say nothing of the experiences of Indigenous

people with the residential schools.

Many of B.C.’s heroes are people who broke through these barriers.

Last week I rose in the House to honour the life of the first Chinese

Canadian accepted into the Royal Canadian Air Force, Thomas Wong.

Thomas’s service and the contributions of his Chinese-Canadian

contemporaries were instrumental in securing equal rights for Asian

Canadians. When we are faced with the spectre of hatred, it can be

comforting to think about how people like Thomas were able to stare it

down and come out on top.

I want to conclude by speaking on a more hopeful note. There are

so many great multicultural initiatives happening in Richmond and all

around B.C.

[11:20 a.m.]

We have organizations such as SUCCESS, which has done great work

in immigrant settlement and community development and contributed to

promoting multiculturalism and social integration. We should keep those

services in the back of our minds as intolerance shows us how important

these institutions are.

We need to take this moment both to decry hatred in all its forms

and to strengthen the organizations and institutions that help us guard

against it. These organizations are the great bulwark against

intolerance. There’s a lot more to do to stamp out the conduct of

violent white supremacists. It’s up to each of us, every one of us, to

uphold our commitment to equality and mutual respect.

R. Singh: I would like to thank the member for Burnaby North for bringing

this motion. As my colleagues have already talked about, it is so

timely, and it is very important to talk about this issue. In light of

the 15th of March shootings in the Christchurch mosques that left 50

people dead, we must be more vigilant to deal with the growing threat of

white supremacy.

We all know that the man who did it was a white supremacist whose

connection with alt-right movements in Austria and in Canada must now be

taken seriously. It is worth mentioning that these things are not just

happening in other parts of the world. We in Canada have also witnessed

this menace. Not too long ago, in 2017, six worshippers were killed in

Quebec City, and the man who committed this crime had influenced the

individual involved in the Christchurch shootings. In 1998, neo-Nazis

killed a temple-keeper in a gurdwara in my own community of

Surrey.

White supremacy, therefore, continues to exist and poses a threat

to peace everywhere in the world. It is rather unfortunate that several

politicians all over the world continue to give legitimacy to white

extremism by scapegoating the minorities and the immigrants. This has

obviously emboldened these elements.

We, as leaders, must provide strong leadership to deal with this

crisis. I really want to applaud the Prime Minister of New Zealand for

displaying extraordinary leadership under these circumstances. We need

to learn from her how to stand up for the communities that are being

victimized today because of their religion and ethnicity and also how to

stand against bigotry.

By acknowledging that racism does exist in her country, although

the Christchurch shooting suspect is of Australian origin, she has shown

how important it is to look into the mirror and find fault among

ourselves rather than conveniently putting the blame elsewhere. That’s

why it is important for all of us to get down to work and start working

to keep our communities safe.

As has already been mentioned, Statistics Canada shows that hate

crimes are on the rise, not just in Canada but also in our province.

This is really, really disheartening.

I made Canada my home. I came here as an immigrant in 2001. One of

the reasons that I did so, that I chose Canada, was because of

multiculturalism and how people were being accepted in Canada. I would

say that since coming here, I have felt very safe. I have been accepted

in the community, and I have achieved a lot in this country.

When we hear about these incidents of hate, when we come to know

about them, we should take them seriously. Just thinking that it is

Canada, a multicultural country, and that we are all safe here…. It is

time to take some action. Our multiculturalism — we cannot take it for

granted. We have to work, as we know, as the member for Surrey-Fleetwood

mentioned.

We have seen the history of racism here in Canada also. Our

pioneers who came here, our elders, have worked towards creating the

country, creating the nation that is so tolerant, that accepts people

for what they are. But what we have achieved — we cannot just let it go.

We have to be very, very cognizant of what is happening around us. As

leaders and as members of this Legislature, we should be taking steps to

protect this multiculturalism and to take strong actions against any

kind of hate.

[11:25 a.m.]

I really feel that the steps our government is taking are the

steps to, in fact, encourage more multiculturalism and integration and

more connections between communities.

One thing that has already been mentioned is that we are bringing

back the Human Rights Commission. I was very sad to see that in a

province like B.C…. We were the only province that did not have it.

Bringing it back is very important for our younger generation — to

educate them, to tell them about what creates these differences and,

with the fears that the younger generation or the communities have, to

abate those fears and to create the scenario and the education so that

they get to learn and know about other communities. I think the Human

Rights Commission will go a long way in that.

I will take my seat.

M. Lee: I also rise today to speak in favour of the motion that this House

stand united in its opposition to white supremacy. All members of this

House must stand united in opposition to all forms of hate, violence and

bigotry. It is truly regrettable that we would even need such a motion

in this House, but last month the world was rocked yet again by another

senseless massacre motivated by hatred, ignorance and fear of

others.

The day following the horrific murders of Muslims in Christchurch,

New Zealand, I joined with Muslims and other members of our community to

attend a vigil at the Al Jamia mosque in Vancouver. The tremendous

outpouring of love and support that I saw and experienced there for

Muslims — and everyone, really — was nothing short of humbling. Members

of our community from all walks of life showed up to condemn the hatred

and to offer whatever support they could have. In a time of tragedy and

mourning, it was a tangible and real display of support.

Sending thoughts and prayers or sharing a hashtag is a

well-intentioned show of support. But unfortunately, it’s not enough.

Time and time again when confronted with the horrors that people are

able to inflict on others, we jump to condemn it. We share our genuine

sympathies with those suffering and with all who knew the victims. Then

after a few weeks, the world moves on.

In spite of the abject terror so universally condemned, we return

to our normal lives without addressing the causes that lead to such

tragedies, until, in a few months or weeks, it happens all over again —

another city, another country, another senseless series of deaths. We

are so quick to distance ourselves from the perpetrators of hate crimes

by labelling them monsters, inhuman. But they are human — human beings

who, whether through mental illness, goading or radicalization, commit

the most vile acts of hatred, ignorance and fear.

Because they are human, all members of this House have a

collective responsibility to address this. We all have a role to play in

combatting violence and bigotry — to counter it when we see it in person

and on line; to encourage the sharing of different cultures, religions

and views; to teach compassion, respect and understanding; and to not

return the hate.

Hate crimes are on the rise in Europe and North America. Part of

that increase is because hatred has platforms where fear and convoluted

politics of division, are breeding grounds for hatred. As elected

representatives and politicians, every one of us in this House has an

even greater responsibility not to fall into the traps of the politics

of division. We need to focus on the common good and on what unites

us.

Scapegoating certain groups helps no one and sends a message that

such things are acceptable. It stokes the coals of ignorance, resentment

and hatred. Sadly, we see that all the time, both here in Canada and

south of the border: the blaming of refugees, immigrants or foreigners

for our domestic problems.

[11:30 a.m.]

We are better than this. As elected representatives and

politicians, we are given a greater platform than most. Therefore, we

must be accountable for our rhetoric. It is only through education and

respect that we can truly move forward.

There is still so much work to be done. It’s easy to take out the

responsibility and shift blame to others, targeting individuals because

of their last name, what they own or the colour of their skin. I’ve seen

it firsthand in personal conflicts and political conflicts. But if we

temper and balance our tone and call out all forms of discrimination,

focus on fostering greater understanding and respect and work together,

then we can make some progress on this front, and perhaps someday a

motion such as this will be wholly unnecessary.

That’s a society I want my children and everyone’s children to

inherit and live in, and we each have a responsibility to help us all

get there.

M. Dean: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this

motion.

People have been tragically and unnecessarily killed and harmed

because of white supremacy. It is a major issue globally and here in

B.C.

Police reported that hate crime in Canada has been steadily

increasing over recent years, with a noticeable increase in 2017 and

with the biggest rises being crimes related to race, ethnicity and

religion. This is a dangerous issue that needs to be addressed, and

having people in positions of leadership speak out and name the issue of

white supremacy is action that we can take here in this House. While

here in B.C., we can celebrate the values of diversity, inclusion and

mutual respect, we also strongly condemn the deeply troubling rise of

hatred, nationalist populism and extreme racist ideologies around the

globe and in our neighbourhoods. We must take action and eradicate

it.

White supremacy is the assumed superiority of people defined and

perceived as white. It is a fundamental premise that points white as the

standard and everything else as deviant. As Robin DiAngelo says: “This

system rests on the historical and current accumulation of structural

power that privileges, centralizes and elevates white people as a

group.”

Let us recognize that white populations built and dominate current

significant institutions, often at the expense of and on the backs of

other exploited groups. Yet we need to integrate the experiences and

perspectives of all British Columbians, whatever racial, ethnic or

religious identity and status we have. We must call out white supremacy,

halt the hate, stop the violence.

I was deeply honoured to be asked to speak at the Inclusion

Project at the weekend. This wonderful conference engaged a truly

diverse group of stakeholders in critical conversations about the issues

of diversity, equity and inclusiveness across civil society, public and

private sectors.

We were privileged to hear from young individuals such as

Fillette, a Camosun psychology student who was born and raised in a

refugee camp in Malawi, and Dansowaa, a Ghanaian student at Pearson

College. They both challenged the crowd to recognize how white is seen

as prime and default and black and other are devalued. Dansowaa

highlighted how the room held more black people in one place than she

had seen in her whole two years in British Columbia.

One key message we took away is that we can and we must all act,

personally and collectively. In B.C., we must recognize that this is

also particularly true in relation to Indigenous peoples. Taking, for

example, violence against women and people who identify as women as an

indicator, Indigenous women are three times more likely to be victims of

violence, and those violent situations are eight times more likely to

end in homicide. This deplorable trend arises from patriarchal and

discriminatory legislation that led to historical and ongoing oppression

in residential schools and systemic racism and sexism.

[11:35 a.m.]

I hear regularly from Indigenous women of their stories of being

abused and exploited and not being believed. Indigenous women of all

ages get propositioned for sexually exploiting acts any time of any day.

So we need to take action, and we need to be led by the people who are

directly impacted by white supremacy.

In June, I’m delighted to have been invited by the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs women’s representative to join the Indigenous women’s

innovation planning session, which will also include women leaders from

other Indigenous leadership groups.

We’ll identify more actions that can be taken, and we’ll add to

the actions that have been taken to date, including our government’s

commitment to reconciliation and implementing the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action

of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; working with the Minister’s

Advisory Council on Indigenous Women; implementing GBA+, which will help

government better understand the impacts of government policy and

programs for marginalized, racialized and Indigenous groups across the

province; and appointing a new Human Rights Commissioner.

Individually and collectively, we must act, eradicate white

supremacy and build a province of acceptance and peace.

D. Davies: I appreciate the opportunity here to speak in favour of today’s

motion. In the aftermath of the horrendous act of terrorism in New

Zealand which killed 50 innocent people from ages three to 77, it is

important that British Columbia take a unified stand on condemning white

supremacy and hatred in all forms.

Before I came to the Legislature, I was a public school teacher.

Part of being a teacher is doing your best to make sure that every

student can succeed. The other part of being a school teacher is

educating the next generation to be as great as they can be, which

teachers would like to think is better than ourselves. We, as parents,

hope the same. If this tragedy and the not-so-long-ago attack on the

mosque in Quebec City do not show us one area where we need our children

to be better than ourselves, I don’t know what does.

Education is absolutely critical in keeping racism at bay.

Instilling values of tolerance while people are young and introducing

them to the ways of other cultures without the use of stereotypes or

negative depictions is absolutely necessary in changing the way of

thinking. This includes education in the conventional sense, in which we

learn about the atrocities committed in the name of bigoted ideals

throughout our history. This can range from slavery in the southern

United States to the genocide committed by the Nazis to the

frighteningly recent system of apartheid that existed in South Africa

until 1994. Unfortunately, there are many other examples.

We need to teach our children and remind ourselves about the

mistakes of our past and why these horrors can never happen again. In

the face of such tragedies, though, it is hard to be an optimist at

times, but I think we are lucky in British Columbia that all parties in

this chamber have come to recognize the importance of having a vibrant

multicultural society. We have worked hard to provide people of

different races, faiths and nationalities with the necessary tools to

share their cultures with us. When discrimination raises its ugly head,

we uniformly condemn it.

I want to take a moment to reflect on where we once were with an

example. In 1914, British Columbia denied the right of a ship full of

South Asian immigrants to dock on our coast, even going so far as to

shoot at these people who had hopes to come to Canada to better

themselves and their families. The Premier of the day refused to allow

these people to land, and it was likely that the population of British

Columbia at that time would have stood beside him.

This would be unthinkable today, and we can thank the fact that we

grew up with a value system that instils such actions as hateful and

immoral. Back in 2008, the member for Abbotsford West introduced a

motion in this place to formally apologize for the intolerance shown for

these prospective Canadians. Of course, and happily, it passed

unanimously.

[11:40 a.m.]

While racism remains a very real threat to British Columbians, I

think we should also take stock of where changes and education can take

us in moving away from this toxic ideology. My hope is that we, as

legislators — whether it be B.C. Liberal, B.C. NDP or Green — continue

to push for policies that celebrate and enable multiculturalism and

diversity in British Columbia. We can hope that our children, that my

children, will come to cherish these ideas and will instil them in their

own children.

Through these efforts, we can further inoculate our children, our

people and our culture from the virus of racism that, unfortunately,

often shows its face.

N. Simons: It’s a pleasure to be able to offer my words on this important

motion and to thank members from both this side and the other side for

their really thoughtful comments on a subject that is, in varying

degrees, close to our own hearts.

As citizens of a peaceful country, we sometimes think our

institutions are so strong that we can overcome these incidents of

hatred and that we are strong and resilient against them, but it’s

important to remember that our democratic institutions shouldn’t be

taken for granted. In fact, we need to be very conscious of the fact

that not just the democratic institutions like legislatures but our

judicial system is one that has integrity. Because if we look at the

history of what happened in Germany, we see that signs were there that

things were going badly.

I just think of my father, who was eight years old when he left

Germany for Holland, and he was 12 years old when he left Holland for

Canada. I didn’t even know this as a child growing up, but my father had

Jewish parents. He was a Jew. I only found that out later on in my life,

and I realize that so much of the impact of that place where he was born

had an impact on him. He married my mom, who comes from Nova Scotia and

seventh-generation United Empire Loyalists. I saw the contrast. But it

also gave me an idea to sort of recognize how it is that people

throughout history can change the way they think, and sometimes outside

influences have an impact on that.

The member who spoke before me talked about education. I think we

really need to talk about education. We need to talk about programs that

bring people together. It’s not specifically just for the purposes of

mixed people of different cultures coming together. For example, a

Powell River choir festival won an anti-racism award. It didn’t actively

talk about anti-racism. It brought choirs from around the world, from

different continents, to the little mill town in Powell River, and

everybody sang. Everybody sang the same kind of music. They sang the

same way. They sang with each other.

I just think that sporting events, cultural interactions, ways to

promote societal understanding are our best antidotes against the growth

of hatred and ensure that young people in our society are looked after.

We need to realize that resentment is not always legitimate resentment,

and when resentment is fueled by hatred and ignorance, it becomes

dangerous.

I think our job here is to ensure that we have a society that’s

based on the rule of law, and that law is the way we resolve our

disputes with each other. We have the ability to participate in a

democratic system. That should be the way we try to figure out how to

make changes in our society. We don’t shut people up and hope they go

away. We ensure that people are given the opportunity to

learn.

I think that the words from my colleagues in this House should be

reassuring and they should be hopeful. We should continue to work

together to ensure that our communities are welcoming to

everybody.

T. Wat: I want to be clear from the start that I fully support this motion

and feel it’s incredibly important that all British Columbians take a

unified stand in condemning racism and bigotry in all its

forms.

[11:45 a.m.]

I’m an immigrant from Hong Kong and have been living in British

Columbia for over 30 years. I’m proud of who I am, where I came from,

the impact I have been able to have on my community and the inspiration

I can provide to immigrants. I’m proud to be living in a multicultural

British Columbia, where we can celebrate our diversity and acknowledge

that every member of our community is valued, respected and

appreciated.

My riding of Richmond North Centre is over 70 percent Chinese

Canadians. Unfortunately, three years ago our city was blanketed with

anti-Chinese, pro-white flyers that sent a shock through our community.

This is not the Richmond I know. I see a multicultural city in a

multicultural country, a place that welcomes, values and respects

diversity, not a place that rejects it.

Many ethnic groups have been the target of systemic racism here in

B.C. for over a century. This ranges from the countless lives lost

building the CPR railroad, the head tax on Chinese immigrants, a

prolonged lack of voting rights and, in some cases, the inability to

even risk one’s own life in spite of this legislated bigotry, as the

case of recently deceased war hero Tommy Wong illustrates. To put it

mildly, we have come a long way, but still, we must persevere, even

through the arduous times.

I also want to mention that it’s not just white supremacy that we

should rally against but all forms of bigoted hatred, all extremist

behaviours and ideology. We all want a multicultural society that builds

bridges, not walls, between communities. We want a province where we can

celebrate our different cultural traditions but not at the expense of

sharing common Canadian traditions. We want a province where new

traditions and perspectives are deeply respected but where we can also

share basic values, like a belief in human rights, a belief in gender

equity, a belief in equality of opportunity and a belief in the rule of

law.

Racism and the notion that any one person, be it the colour of

their skin, their religion or something as seemingly inconsequential as

where on a map they were born…. It’s born out of fear — a fear of

understanding, a fear of love, a fear of acceptance. Strength in

character comes out of the respect and admiration of your fellow person.

Hatred comes from weakness.

However, we live in a complicated world now, a world where

far-right politicians can go on prime-time news and spout,

irresponsibly, malicious talking points that are rarely challenged or

shut down. How do you even begin to combat the prevalence of evil that

and women radicalized by rhetoric on line to a point that a divisive,

fear-based narrative tragically results in mass murder? This presents a

new problem for our society.

I do not have answers to these questions, but I do have a solution

that anyone sitting in this House or that sees this today can start

right away. Read history. Educate yourself. Talk. Have a discussion, an

open dialogue with someone of a different cultural-religious background

and help build close cultural understanding. Promote inclusion, and

celebrate integration between our communities and our shared

values.

Understand that we all are here together and have the right to go

through this life alongside each other in our multitude of differences.

Life is beautiful because of the colours, because of the smells and

textures and tastes that make it unique. A life steeped in dark grey is

not a life I want. I want a rainbow, a Jackson Pollock painting. That is

the goal. Marginalization, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance are the

problem. Openness, acceptance, love, an appreciation of differences and

building on our shared values are the solution. So alongside my

colleagues, I ask that we all focus on solutions and cohesion, not fear,

hatred and division.

Madam Speaker, I support this motion.

[11:50 a.m.]

A. Kang: Today’s private member’s motion is: “Be it resolved that this

House stand united in its opposition to white supremacy.” I stand in

solidarity with all my colleagues of all cultural and heritage

backgrounds to speak on this statement.

Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “Our lives begin to end the

day we become silent about things that matter.” I want to thank all

members from all sides of the House in standing united this morning to

voice the support of today’s statement.

With the turning of each century, we see new challenges being

addressed. With great leaders and great, courageous heroes, a new

victory takes us forward to a better future. We must learn from our past

mistakes, mistakes that our predecessors made due to ignorance, fear and

lack of understanding for people who looked, acted and spoke

differently.

Government has recognized a historical wrongdoing from the

mistreatment of Indigenous people to the prejudice towards new

immigrants, from the Komagata Maru incident to the Chinese head

tax to Japanese internment, and many more. We must continue to move

forward together to build a future where we celebrate diversity and

inclusion, to build a future where everyone is treated with dignity and

respect.

Most recently we have seen two consecutive horrific acts of

terrorism at the mosque in New Zealand. The attacks reportedly killed 50

people and wounded 50 others. There has been a rise in the recent decade

in white supremacy and alt-right extremism globally. We must stand

together against racism, against white supremacy and against

Islamophobia. Violence and hate propaganda are being used by cowardly

people as tools for political gain.

These racist acts are also happening close to home. In 2017, New

Westminster was subjected to extremist hate propaganda, where posters

appeared at a bus stop. In the months to follow, more hate propaganda

appeared in Abbotsford and Chilliwack. Anti-Chinese posters were

distributed widely in Richmond. In Burnaby, white pride flyers were

found at the Metrotown Burnaby Public Library.

It breaks my heart and angers me that in this day and age, in the

21st century, there still remains a lot of work to do. As Canadians, we

have abolished slavery. We fought against discrimination and gender

inequity. We fought for the rights of Indigenous people. We fought for

the right of all Canadians — of all genders, of all heritage descent —

to vote. We fought for human rights through reinstating the B.C. Human

Rights Tribunal so that people can participate equally in the economic,

social, political and cultural life of British Columbia.

We will continue to fight for social justice for people of all

race, ancestry, religion, age, marital status, family status, physical

or mental disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

We will stand up for everyone.

I implore everyone to speak out and speak loudly for social

justice, for equality of human rights, for peace around the world.

Everyone in our community, in any community around the world, has the

right to be free from coercion, intimidation and violence.

Today’s private member statement is a platform for all of us to

speak out against racism, prejudice and intolerance. Our government

strongly condemns the deeply troubling rise of hatred, nationalist

populism and extreme racist ideologies around the globe. Only love can

stop hate. Only with compassion can we understand that we are all the

same.

In March, B.C. celebrated the International Day for the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Our government spoke out against

discrimination. We honour the strength, courage and perseverance of

those around the world who experience and confront racism every

day.

Our government will be appointing a new Human Rights Commissioner.

We have updated the multiculturalism grants program to support

organizations that are working to improve intercultural interactions,

reduce barriers and eliminate discrimination alongside our Organizing

Against Racism and Hate program. But lots more remains to be

done.

Let me be loud and let me be clear. Violence of any type against

anyone will not be tolerated in British Columbia. I quote Dr. Martin

Luther King Jr.: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do

that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Let us all stand in unity. Take on this challenge with action,

courage and love.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House is now adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada