British Columbia Hansard — 12 March 2026, p.m., Issue 141 (43rd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20260312pm-Hansard-n141

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 43rd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, March 12, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 141 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Wendy Cocchia, CM, OBC Second Session, 43rd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ................................................................................................... Hon. David Eby, KC Minister of State for Local Governments and Rural Communities .......................................................... Hon.

Brittny Anderson Minister of Agriculture and Food ..............................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Deputy Premier ............................................................................................................... Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Minister of Children and Family Development ......................................................................................................Hon.

Jodie Wickens Minister of Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Diana Gibson Minister of Education and Child Care ............................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness ................................................................................ Hon.

Kelly Greene Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions .................................................................................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Environment and Parks .................................................................................................... Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson Minister of Finance ......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Brenda Bailey Minister of Forests .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Parmar Minister of Health ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Josie Osborne Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Christine Boyle Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Minister of Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Bowinn Ma Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth ...................................................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies .................................................................. Hon. Rick Glumac Minister of Labour .............................................................................................................................................. Hon. Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals .....................................................................................................................Hon.

Jagrup Brar Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills ........................................................................................Hon. Jessie Sunner Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................ Hon. Nina Krieger Minister of State for Community Safety and Integrated Services ........................................................................ Hon.

Terry Yung Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction ...............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport ............................................................................................................. Hon. Anne Kang Minister of Transportation and Transit ................................................................................................................ Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship ............................................................................................... Hon. Randene Neill Minister Without Portfolio ..............................................................................................................................................Hon.

Grace Lore LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ......................................................................................................................................Trevor Halford Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................Jeremy Valeriote Deputy Speaker ......................................................................................................................................................................

Mable Elmore Assistant Deputy Speaker .................................................................................................................................................Lorne Doerkson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ......................................................................................................................George Anderson Clerk of the Legislative Assembly....................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel ......................................................................................................................Seunghee Suzie Seo Deputy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees .............................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Committee Clerk ......................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Committee Clerk .........................................................................................................................................................................Darryl Hol Senior Legal Counsel .................................................................................................................................................................Hayley Hill Sergeant-at-Arms ..................................................................................................................................................................

Ray Robitaille Director of Hansard Services .......................................................................................................................................D’ Arcy McPherson Legislative Librarian ...............................................................................................................................................................Peter Gourlay

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS BY PARTY BC NDP Anderson, Hon. Brittny ........................................... Kootenay Central Anderson, George ................................................ Nanaimo-Lantzville Arora, Rohini ....................................................................Burnaby East Bailey, Hon. Brenda ................................Vancouver–South Granville Beare, Hon.

Lisa .......................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry .................................................................Surrey-Guildford Blatherwick, Jennifer ....................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Boyle, Hon. Christine .............................Vancouver–Little Mountain Brar, Hon. Jagrup ......................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Chandra Herbert, Hon. Spencer ..................... Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie .............................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Choi, Paul ..................................................Burnaby South–Metrotown Chouhan, Hon. Raj ................................. Burnaby–New Westminster Chow, George ....................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Davidson, Hon. Tamara / Laanas ...........North Coast–Haida Gwaii Dhir, Sunita .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Dix, Hon. Adrian .................................................. Vancouver-Renfrew Eby, Hon. David, KC .......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable ................................................. Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike .................................................Port Coquitlam Gibson, Hon. Diana ........................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Glumac, Hon. Rick ...................................... Port Moody–Burquitlam Greene, Hon. Kelly ..............................................Richmond-Steveston Higginson, Stephanie ........................................Ladysmith-Oceanside Kahlon, Hon. Ravi .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne ......................................................... Burnaby Centre Krieger, Hon. Nina ...............................................Victoria–Swan Lake Lajeunesse, Dana ..............................................Juan de Fuca–Malahat Lore, Hon. Grace .................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn ................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila .........................Nanaimo–Gabriola Island Morissette, Steve ...................................................Kootenay Monashee Neill, Hon. Randene ............................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Osborne, Hon. Josie ....................................... Mid Island–Pacific Rim Parmar, Hon. Ravi ...............................................Langford-Highlands Phillip, Joan / Amshen .....................................Vancouver-Strathcona Popham, Hon. Lana ........................................................ Saanich South Rotchford, Darlene ...............................................Esquimalt-Colwood Routledge, Janet .............................................................Burnaby North Sandhu, Harwinder ......................................................

Vernon-Lumby Shah, Amna ............................................................. Surrey City Centre Sharma, Hon. Niki, KC ....................................... Vancouver-Hastings Sunner, Hon. Jessie ....................................................... Surrey-Newton Toporowski, Debra / Qwulti’stunaat .......................Cowichan Valley Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer ...................New Westminster–Coquitlam Wickens, Hon. Jodie ............................. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Yung, Hon.

Terry .................................................Vancouver-Yaletown CONSERV ATIVE PARTY OF BC Banman, Bruce .......................................................... Abbotsford South Bhangu, Harman .................................................. Langley-Abbotsford Bird, Rosalyn .............................................

Prince George–Valemount Block, Lynne ..............................................West Vancouver–Capilano Chan, Hon ..................................................................Richmond Centre Chapman, Brent .................................................................Surrey South Clare, Sheldon .................................... Prince George–North Cariboo Davis, Pete ..................................................................Kootenay Rockies Day, Brennan ...........................................................

Courtenay-Comox Dew, Gavin ..................................................................Kelowna-Mission Dhaliwal, Mandeep .......................................................... Surrey North Doerkson, Lorne .....................................................

Cariboo-Chilcotin Gasper, Reann .......................................................Abbotsford-Mission Giddens, Kiel ..............................................Prince George–Mackenzie Halford, Trevor ......................................................Surrey–White Rock Hartwell, Sharon ..............................................Bulkley Valley–Stikine Hepner, Linda ................................................Surrey–Serpentine River Kindy, Anna ........................................................................North Island Kooner, Steve ............................................Richmond-Queensborough Loewen, Kristina ..........................................................

Kelowna Centre Luck, Tony ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola Maahs, Heather ......................................................... Chilliwack North McCall, Macklin .........................................West Kelowna–Peachland McInnis, Scott ......................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke Milobar, Peter ............................................................

Kamloops Centre Mok, Lawrence ...........................................................Maple Ridge East Neufeld, Korky ............................................................Abbotsford West Neufeld, Larry ...........................................................Peace River South Paton, Ian ..............................................................................Delta South Rattée, Claire .................................................................................Skeena Rustad, John ...................................................................Nechako Lakes Stamer, Ward .........................................Kamloops–North Thompson Tepper, Br yan ............................................................

Surrey-Panorama Toor, Jody ............................................................Langley-Willowbrook Van Popta, Misty..............................................Langley–Walnut Grove Warbus, Á’a:líya ..............................................Chilliwack–Cultus Lake Wat, Teresa .........................................................Richmond-Bridgeport Williams, David ...............................................Salmon Arm–Shuswap Wilson, Donegal ............................................Boundary-Similkameen BC GREEN PARTY Botterell, Rob .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Valeriote, Jeremy .....................................

West Vancouver–Sea to Sky INDEPENDENT Armstrong, Tara .....................Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream Boultbee, Amelia .............................................Penticton-Summerland Brodie, Dallas .................................................... Vancouver-Quilchena Kealy, Jordan ............................................................. Peace River North Sturko, Elenore ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale PARTY STANDINGS Total seats – 93 BC NDP – 47 | Conservative Party of BC – 39 | BC Green Party – 2 | Independent – 5

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF RIDINGS A Abbotsford-Mission ........................................................Reann Gasper Abbotsford South ........................................................... Bruce Banman Abbotsford West .............................................................Korky Neufeld B Boundary-Similkameen .............................................Donegal Wilson Bulkley Valley–Stikine ............................................... Sharon Hartwell Burnaby Centre ...........................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Burnaby East ......................................................................Rohini Arora Burnaby–New Westminster .................................. Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby North ..............................................................Janet Routledge Burnaby South–Metrotown .................................................. Paul Choi C Cariboo-Chilcotin .......................................................Lorne Doerkson Chilliwack–Cultus Lake .............................................. Á’a:líya Warbus Chilliwack North ..........................................................

Heather Maahs Columbia River–Revelstoke ...........................................Scott McInnis Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .............................. Hon. Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville .................................... Jennifer Blatherwick Courtenay-Comox ............................................................ Brennan Day Cowichan Valley ....................... Debra Toporowski / Qwulti’stunaat D Delta North ................................................................Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ...............................................................................Ian Paton E Esquimalt-Colwood ................................................Darlene Rotchford F Fraser-Nicola .......................................................................... Tony Luck J Juan de Fuca–Malahat ...............................................Dana Lajeunesse K Kamloops Centre ............................................................. Peter Milobar Kamloops–North Thompson .........................................

Ward Stamer Kelowna Centre ........................................................... Kristina Loewen Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream ......................Tara Armstrong Kelowna-Mission ..................................................................Gavin Dew Kootenay Central ............................................ Hon. Brittny Anderson Kootenay Monashee ....................................................Steve Morissette Kootenay Rockies................................................................... Pete Davis L Ladysmith-Oceanside ........................................

Stephanie Higginson Langford-Highlands ................................................ Hon. Ravi Parmar Langley-Abbotsford ....................................................Harman Bhangu Langley–Walnut Grove ..............................................Misty Van Popta Langley-Willowbrook ............................................................ Jody Toor M Maple Ridge East ............................................................Lawrence Mok Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim ........................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne N Nanaimo–Gabriola Island ..........................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo-Lantzville ................................................. George Anderson Nechako Lakes ....................................................................John Rustad New Westminster–Coquitlam .................... Hon. Jennifer Whiteside North Coast–Haida Gwaii ............Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson North Island ........................................................................Anna Kindy North Vancouver–Lonsdale .....................................Hon.

Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ...............................................Susie Chant O Oak Bay–Gordon Head ......................................... Hon. Diana Gibson P Peace River North ..............................................................Jordan Kealy Peace River South ............................................................Larry Neufeld Penticton-Summerland .............................................. Amelia Boultbee Port Coquitlam ................................................. Hon. Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Burquitlam ........................................Hon.

Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ............................. Hon. Randene Neill Prince George–Mackenzie ...............................................Kiel Giddens Prince George–North Cariboo ......................................Sheldon Clare Prince George–Valemount ...............................................Rosalyn Bird R Richmond-Bridgeport .......................................................... Teresa Wat Richmond Centre .................................................................. Hon Chan Richmond-Queensborough ............................................

Steve Kooner Richmond-Steveston ...............................................Hon. Kelly Greene S Saanich North and the Islands ....................................... Rob Botterell Saanich South ......................................................... Hon.

Lana Popham Salmon Arm–Shuswap ................................................David Williams Skeena ..................................................................................Claire Rattée Surrey City Centre ...............................................................Amna Shah Surrey-Cloverdale .......................................................... Elenore Sturko Surrey-Fleetwood ....................................................... Hon. Jagrup Brar Surrey-Guildford .................................................................

Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ........................................................ Hon. Jessie Sunner Surrey North ............................................................Mandeep Dhaliwal Surrey-Panorama ..............................................................Br yan Tepper Surrey–Serpentine River ................................................

Linda Hepner Surrey South ..................................................................Brent Chapman Surrey–White Rock .......................................................Trevor Halford V Vancouver-Fraserview .....................................................George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ........................................ Hon. Niki Sharma, KC Vancouver-Kensington ...................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Langara .............................................................Sunita Dhir Vancouver–Little Mountain ............................. Hon.

Christine Boyle Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................Hon. David Eby, KC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Dallas Brodie Vancouver-Renfrew ................................................... Hon. Adrian Dix Vancouver–South Granville ................................ Hon. Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Strathcona ..................................... Amshen / Joan Phillip Vancouver–West End .......................Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Vancouver-Yaletown ..................................................Hon.

Terry Yung Vernon-Lumby ....................................................... Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................. Hon. Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake ................................................Hon. Nina Krieger W West Kelowna–Peachland ..........................................Macklin McCall West Vancouver–Capilano ................................................Lynne Block West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ...................................... Jeremy Valeriote

CONTENTS Thursday, March 12, 2026 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Government Motions on Notice ................................................................................................................................... 5849 Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights Code and Enforcement Hon. Mike Farnworth Hon. Niki Sharma Á ’a:líya Warbus On the amendment Á ’a:líya Warbus Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Question of Privilege ....................................................................................................................................................... 5854 Dallas Brodie Hon.

Spencer Chandra Herbert Government Motions on Notice ................................................................................................................................... 5854 Motion 13 — Support for Human Rights Code and Enforcement (continued) On the amendment (continued) Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert Kiel Giddens Hon. Grace Lore Hon Chan Jody Toor Jordan Kealy On the main motion Jody Toor Hon.

Jessie Sunner Tara Armstrong Rob Botterell Elenore Sturko Jordan Kealy Trevor Halford Second Reading of Bills .................................................................................................................................................. 5873 Bill 9 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2026 (continued) Korky Neufeld Lynne Block Tony Luck Bryan Tepper Royal Assent to Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 5881 Bill 3 — Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2026 Bill 5 — Trade Recognition Act Bill 7 — Post-Secondary International Education (Designated Institutions) Act Bill 4 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2026 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 5882 Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) Reann Gasper Hon.

Jodie Wickens

Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 5893 Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued) Hon. Ravi Parmar Ward Stamer Donegal Wilson

5849 THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2026 The House met at 1:02 p.m. [The Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Motion 13 on the order paper. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Forests. Government Motions on Notice MOTION 13 — SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AND ENFORCEMENT Hon. Mike Farnworth: I move Motion 13, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, to affirm unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the Human Rights Tribunal. [That this House affirms its unequivocal support for the B.C.

Human Rights Code and the Tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and dis - crimination based on Indigenous identity, race, colour, an - cestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, and age.] Hon. Niki Sharma: It’s my pleasure to speak in sup - port of this motion. [Mable Elmore in the chair.] I believe that this motion is an opportunity for every party, every member of this House to be clear on where they stand on human rights.

A couple of weeks ago, I have to say, I would not have imagined that this would be necessary. The human rights code is pretty simple. It protects people from discrimination based on the colour of their skin, their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age and more. The human rights code has existed in various forms since 1969. It has almost always been a matter of cross- partisan consensus. The B.C. Liberals, including some members still in this House, added “gender identity or ex - pression” to the code in 2016. It was passed unanimously. The Human Rights Tribunal enforces the code.

It in - vestigates complaints to find out if discrimination has occurred. Without it, the code essentially has no effect. Again, support for the tribunal has almost always tran - scended parties. The B.C. Liberals strengthened the tribu - nal, and they appointed the current chair. The code is different than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter protects people from the govern - ment. The code prevents organizations and people from discriminating against other people.

For example, in 2024, the tribunal ruled on a case in - volving a man who was denied service at a massage busi - ness because he was Muslim. The business demanded that he “certify you are not of the Islamic faith, which, as you know, has earned a bad reputation for raping and killing of infidels in Canada and elsewhere.” Then that business turned him away. [1:05 p.m.] The tribunal ruled that this behaviour violated the code and directed the business to compensate him.

With - out the code and tribunal, he would have had no recourse and there would be no consequences for this kind of hor - rific behaviour in our society. Unfortunately, fighting hate is as important now as it ever was. We’ve seen spikes in hate and white suprem - acy across this province. We’ve seen far-right commenta - tors and activists, including members of this House, at - tempt to co-opt the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge to advance a shameful and completely false agenda against the trans community.

Both the code and the tribunal have come under attack since a recent decision regarding the former trustee Barry Neufeld. The tribunal found that: “Contrary to his argu - ments that he was merely expressing his opinion about legitimate topics of political and social debate, his expres - sion went beyond a critique of a government program. Mr.

Neufeld’s publications are replete with negative stereo - types and pejorative assumptions about LGBTQ people, which undermine their inherent dignity and discriminate against them.” The member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Coldstream’s objections go well beyond the queer community. She has said: “Multiculturalism is anti-Canadian.” I am in this House from parents that emigrated from India, left their family to come here to build a life for us. I am so grateful that they made that decision. We are a country and a province that takes pride in people coming from all over the world to set up their home here.

Unlike many jurisdictions across the world, we welcome them. We build a good life for them. We re - spect their identity, their religion and who they are, and we call them neighbours. I am just so profoundly offended by that comment that she made about multiculturalism being anti-Canadian, and I think we all should be. She has said Canada needs “mass deportations,” and that we have to end and reverse mass migration. The member should clarify what she means by reversing immigration. Say it to the members of this House who come from families, all of us, that immi - grated here to build a life.

White supremacists advocate for what they call re-

5850 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 immigration, which means deporting legal immigrants, including Canadian citizens, based on their ethnic back - ground and skin colour. It’s racism, pure and simple. We on this side of the House will not stand for it. It’s no wonder that she wants to abolish the human rights code entirely. But she’s not the only one in this House who has at - tacked the code. The member for Chilliwack North intro - duced a motion this week that targets

section 7 of the code, which is a

section about discriminatory publications — hate speech. She has strongly defended Barry Neufeld on social media. The member for Langley-Abbotsford has said about the tribunal: “When I become Premier, it’s gone on day one.” That’s what his leadership would bring to this province — gone on day one. What would he say to that Muslim man who was de - nied access because of his religion? What would he say to women who have been fighting for pay equity for years when they are paid, because of their gender, less than their male counterparts?

What would he say to all the immi - grants who fought for equal rights in this country since the founding of this province? I would love to know. A candidate for the opposition party’s leadership, Caro- line Elliott, called the tribunal a playground for NDP ac - tivists to live out their social justice dreams. What would she say to those people that I was talking about? What would she say to women across this province who have fought for their pay equity? It’s really ironic, given that it was her own party, the B.C.

Liberals, who first appointed the current chair of the tribunal in 2016 and that all appointments to the tribunal are made in consultation with that chair. [1:10 p.m.] I know many of the opposition members dispute the meaning of their first reading votes and have been work - ing to clarify their position. Well, here’s their opportun - ity. But when prominent members of their own party are openly attacking the code and the tribunal, it’s natural for everybody in this province to wonder where they stand.

It’s also right for the public to expect them to not only vote for this motion but to ask all of their colleagues to do the same. I genuinely, genuinely hope that that’s where we get to today. Too much is at stake. For too long, we have let this far-right, racist ideology take root in this province. For too long, we’ve seen mem - bers of this House bring in bill after bill that attack people who are vulnerable, who deserve equal rights. Where is their line? There’s no reason that this motion should not be sup - ported by every other member in this House. This is about standing up against hate.

But at the heart of it, it’s about freedom, the idea that you can work to build a good life for yourself without overt discrimination. Isn’t that what we all want? That you can’t be denied a job because of your skin colour or be denied renting an apartment because of who you love. That you can go to work without being at - tacked for your identity.

My hope for today is that all of us send a strong mes - sage to those British Columbians who are watching that we will stand up for their human rights and will never give up ground to those who are seeking to compromise them. Á’a:líya Wa rbus: I want to thank the Attorney General for her comments on this topic and this motion that the government has brought forward. I want to make it very clear, as was afforded by this op - portunity to bring this debate to the House, for all of us to have the opportunity on public record to clarify positions in this conversation.

I want to start off by revisiting the very specific word - ing in the motion just to ground the conversation a lit - tle bit that we’re having here today and to allow for the public to understand, as we’ve worked really hard, what processes happen within the House and what they really mean.

There has been misunderstanding about the difference between a private member’s bill — which could be debated as legislation, which could be passed; the chances of that are very different than legislation that governments would bring forward — or the ability for members to bring for - ward motions and the difference of when government has the ability to bring forward motions that can be debated.

On this one in particular, it reads that this House af - firms its unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the tribunal’s powers to enforce it, protecting people from hate speech and discrimination based on — and this is where the list starts — Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and age. [1:15 p.m.] Again, I think the Attorney General did justice to some of the history that we know exists in this province, that we know exists in this country and around the world.

I do have to say that I’m proud to be in a province and in a country where we have debate about our differences, where that’s allowed to happen, where we have the free - dom to express ourselves and where we are not driven to the kind of violence that we’re seeing around the world today. We live in a country where that ability and freedom of expression is a very coveted and protected right. As an elected member of this House, I have a respon - sibility to my constituents. I have a responsibility to the values that I believe we all hold. Again, I really welcome the opportunity to have this debate in the House.

I wel - come the opportunity for us to be able to understand just how heavy words can weigh and how we have to inspect and understand them very carefully. And the risk of a cat -

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5851 egory, a type of person, maybe something that is missing off of that list…. One of the things that immediately comes to mind is that I’m not sure if health conditions could be defined as a physical disability. As far as I know, they’re not. A lot of people experience discrimination based on having a chronic health condition, so in a list like this, as the mo - tion is before the House and we’re debating it, then that could be misunderstood. That group of people could feel that they are not included.

But why I’m bringing the House’s attention and talking about it today is that oftentimes in this House and in pol - itics — I’m new to this, and I am learning as I go — mo - tions will pack a lot of ideas into a statement. I think that the premise of it is something that I can fully support and that I agree with. I support everyone having equal human rights, absolutely everybody, and that there is protection that is afforded and that there is a fair process that ensures that it isn’t just something that exists where there’s no way to enforce it. But when we look at the tribunal specifically….

There are other models around the world and there are models federally that have a different way to enact justice, to en - sure that there is never any blurring of lines between pol - itics and the way that that justice is enforced. I think that it’s very important to note that as a coun - try and even as a province, we’re growing. We’re young. It wasn’t too long ago that Indigenous people did not have the right to vote, and if they did, then they would have to agree to become enfranchised — not long ago, 86 years ago.

I know that there are people in my family, in my com - munity, other members’ families and communities, other members in this House that gave their lives for the rights that exist today, for the ability for me to stand in this House, to be elected without hate or discrimination. I’m not blind to that reality. But I also understand nuance, and I understand that what we do sometimes as people is we single one another out. [1:20 p.m.] As a community and, as I said, a province and a coun - try, we’re growing. When you’re growing, you have grow- ing pains. When you have diversity, you have diverse opinions.

I don’t like to see that we would be drawn into any sort of conversation, comments that might elicit hate. But I also don’t think that we should be driven by fear, because we have faced a lot together as a country, as communities. Right now there are a lot of important questions on the table in front of this House. It takes a lot of time to get into those questions and to debate them with finesse and to be very careful about how we choose our words and to be very careful about what we choose to stand on.

What I really don’t want to do today is give any impres- sion, as I said, that we can debate something as fundamen - tal and foundational as human rights. It’s non-negotiable. It’s the foundation of our relationship with one another. Where we’ve gone as a society and within politics, un - fortunately, is back to some of these conversations. But there’s a lot of noise. Some have caused statements to go out with no context, and then we’re forced to answer to those statements. Some have shown up as votes that will have no impact on the law.

We are, in my humble opinion, taking the precious time of the House and elected officials at certain times to just really test one another on our words and how we choose them, on the integrity and our commitment to the oath of office. When we do this, unfortunately, nobody’s perfect, and mistakes can happen. Mistakes can happen to anyone. My mom has taught me a lot. She’s instilled values in me that I still am learning, I’m still trying to live up to. One of those ideals and one of those teachings — and something she always says, actually, a lot — is the less that you say, the better.

At first, I could take her words and think: “This is somebody who faced far too much pun - ishment and oppression, and she had to stand in way too many rooms where the cards were stacked against her.” In my younger years, in my immaturity, I often silently thought to myself: “Mom, the times have changed. I’m meant to speak up. I’m meant to use my voice. I’m meant to stand up, unapologetically, for what I believe in and for what I believe to be true.” But here’s where the wisdom comes in, because I’ve sat back and I’ve listened and I’ve watched a lot happen in this House — a lot.

In politics and in our communities, some extremely important conversations have happened. I’ve heard a lot of things that I don’t like, that I don’t agree with, from all sides. But I sat back, and I waited patiently. I listened, be - cause listening is just as important as any opinion that I might have, that I might feel and that I might charge into debate with. So I understand her words better than I ever did before. They have way more meaning to me now than they did be- fore. What’s profound about this teaching is….

As I hear her voice in my mind saying, “The less you say, the better,” what she means is that when somebody is angry or they’re misunderstood or when there is malice or there is gossip and even in heated debate when we’re angry at somebody else, mistakes can be made. You can say words that even you don’t quite understand in the moment. [1:25 p.m.] I can learn a lot more from listening, and I have. I’ve learned from almost everybody in this House, even the people that I don’t agree with. It certainly taught me where I stand on things.

I represent constituents that elected me to come here to debate issues responsibly on their be - half. I have to put the question forward, back to govern - ment, back to everybody: are we taking that responsibility seriously?

5852 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 So before I add my voice to all of the noise…. If I choose to do so, I certainly should add more clarity and calibre to the conversation. I should choose my words wisely, or I should save them altogether. I know that’s what my mom meant. I know that’s what she means when she says: “The less you say, the better.” It comes from wisdom, not restraint. As leaders, we’re tasked with a few simple things to ac - complish. I don’t want to pare down a very complex world or a very complex job. I don’t want to make it seem easy because I know it is not.

To go back to my original point, about the question put before this House today, I stand by the fact that as leaders, we must listen to everyone. We must absorb the emotion that people may have. We must consider their opinions deeply, try to understand a great many perspectives and understand their positions with compassion and care for why that person may think or feel the way they do. Then we have to decide: what is the right thing to say, and more importantly, what is the right thing to do? It’s to honour and trust what people have placed on me. That is the duty to lead.

For some, maybe, that’s easy and the set of values that they operate on and with allows for the answers to arrive without great distress or journey. But my guess is that for most, this is a process of great precision. It takes time, introspection and calculation. Everyone has two things that drive us all: love and fear. My question to each and every one of us is really simple: what drives you? Is it love, or is it fear? I think it’s an im - portant one. I think it relates directly to the debate that we’re having today. I go back to the words, as I said, as they’re put in the motion.

It comes on to us as a technical- ity: do you agree with it wholeheartedly, every single word, yes or no? Of course, this is something that filters out to the pub - lic. The public has to understand processes. Is that a law? Is that a motion? What happens with a motion? Well, the short answer, in terms of a motion, is nothing. It’s non- binding. What it does do, and the Attorney General touched on this, is bring to light a conversation, I think, that perhaps was bubbling up because of events in this House. Those events are also tied very closely to things that we have in our power to decide on and to choose.

Between my office as the Opposition House Leader, the Third Party and the Government House Leader’s office, there are de - cisions before us all the time, every day that we’re here, about how we want to accept or change processes and what kind of pressure that puts on people’s time — and even their mental health, to be quite honest. What do we give time to? We have the power to decide that and to be responsible with the time we have to de - bate legislation that, actually, will impact and will change people’s lives. [1:30 p.m.] It is a serious question that I ask myself all the time.

When I’m coming here and I’m leaving behind respon - sibilities I have at home to my family and my community, I ask: “Is it worth my time? Am I using it wisely? Am I representing the voices of the people that elected me to be here?” These are really important questions. I go back to, again, the words and the motion as they’re put. Whether we list individual groups or not — and I understand the history; trust me, I do —

definitions can be very important. I think, at the end of the day, that we can agree all people deserve the dignity to be free of dis - crimination and hate and that it should be a very fair, transparent, accountable, arm’s-length and non-influ - enced process. If we can make that system better, I think it’s incum - bent upon this House to do that — to see how; to exam - ine those questions, whether it be through legislation or committee or further debate; to talk about: are there other systems that address this process better than we are, than we do it today?

If there are criticisms about the process — not about the premise; the process — and if anybody is feeling that they are not accepted or covered or seen under the law as it’s written, then we all should take pause, take that ser - iously and reconsider. That’s how I truly feel. With that, in today’s debate, I’d like to offer an amend- ment to the government motion. I’d like to move: [That Motion 13 be amended by deleting all the words after “Human Rights Code” and substituting therefor the following “and protecting all people from hate and discrimination. ”] Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

The amend - ment is in order, so continue to speak to it, and we’ll print it and circulate it to all the members here. On the amendment. Á’a:líya Wa rbus: I know that this opens up debate on the amendment. Again, back to the reasoning. I feel we can simplify this discussion. It is not to simplify the his - tory. It is not to diminish the importance of the discussion that we’re having. It’s truly not to take away from anyone’s ability to speak about the premise of the government mo - tion put before us today.

What this is about is being able to answer the question simply, in a straightforward manner, leaving out any at - tempt to wedge anyone and their ability to speak about how they relate to human rights. I think in this instance, less is more because we know what’s in the human rights code. I made reference to a specific question. If I have that question, that means lots of people have that question. I doubt if it’s everyday practice for people to look up the code and read it and become super familiar. Oftentimes,

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5853 people may only visit that code if their rights are being violated. [1:35 p.m.] We know through the work of the commission and their report and other systems, that has happened. Sadly, that has happened. Sometimes there is systematic discrimination. There is a need for us to have, as I said before, the abil - ity to examine any process to ensure that there is a fair ap - proach and that that approach applies to everyone equally under the law.

If we can make a system better, I urge the House and anybody who may sit on that committee, and I’ll be talk - ing to members that we have in our caucus who sit on that committee, to offer those solutions, offer those clarifica - tions and offer the adaptations that we could take to con - sider but to not be afraid of having voices on these topics. I think we have to have limits. Of course, we all do. But as I said before, and these were in my opening comments, we’re a very young province and young country and our societies are growing. So that is why I tabled the amend - ment as I did.

I don’t believe that it takes away from the premise of the debate put before us. But it simplifies and allows for people to talk truly just about one idea and to not have to try to discriminate between words, because words are very powerful. We know that. Not everybody has the ability or the quality to quantify exactly how they feel about some - thing, what they know, in an eloquent way. That’s just the difference that we have among all of us. But I think that what we’ve been afforded in the House is a chance to examine that more closely.

I truly believe that with this amendment, we have the opportunity to talk about the premise and not allow any sort of diver - gence or off-ramps from what we should be examining here today and taking the precious time of this House to do. That is to talk about this motion in the amended form as I tabled today. With that, I thank you. Thank you for the time. I look forward to further debate on this. Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: I listened closely to my colleague across the way’s words. She’s correct.

Words are important, and words are very much relevant to this debate because we’re talking about B.C.’s human rights code. She shared concerns that maybe people who had a health issue might not be covered in the code. Well, I can assure her that a quick google, a quick check on the in - ternet or a quick conversation would tell her that, indeed, they are. If that was a concern, I would hope that members would do research before coming into the debate, because these words matter. To suggest that people with health conditions aren’t covered by the code doesn’t tell the real- ity of what actually is covered.

She wanted clarity on words. The Conservatives wanted clarity on words. They said that we need to be clear about who’s covered and who’s not. Yet their amendment com - pletely eliminates who is protected by B.C.’s human rights code. It makes what was explicit invisible. So if the concern was that we don’t know who’s covered, she’s done exactly that through her amendment.

She’s de- liberately taken out those people who are covered, and she suggests that, well, maybe more people should be added to the list. [1:40 p.m.] If she supports the human rights code, I would urge her to support it, and not bring forward an amendment that would take out support for the covered grounds of dis - crimination in the human rights code, or move an amend - ment to suggest more people should be covered in the hu - man rights code. But that’s not what this is about. Of course, hate against anybody is wrong. But you know what?

We need to be specific when we’re talking about dis- crimination because people feel discrimination in differ - ent ways. I’m currently being attacked online because I’m gay and I have a family. Those are protected grounds in the human rights code. This amendment would eliminate those grounds from this motion. This amendment would suggest that race is gone, that religion is gone.

Let me go through. “Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orienta - tion, gender identity or expression and age.” All of these are currently in B.C.’s human rights code, and I don’t know why the B.C. Conservatives can’t endorse those cov- ered grounds. It doesn’t make any sense to me. Trying to get us to amend this motion to eliminate those specifically covered grounds that are in the law is sending a very clear message.

The clear message is: “We won’t stand up for each one of those protected grounds.” If they did, they would support them being in here. They would support them being in the motion. But by voting to eliminate them and trying to get the House to take out the protected grounds in the B.C. hu - man rights code on a motion specifically about supporting the B.C. human rights code, they’re being clear, I believe, that they don’t want the protected grounds to be sup - ported in the human rights code. Otherwise, they would support them. That to me is a problem. That to me is a big problem.

It’s saying we could move an amendment to say: “Why don’t we just eliminate the whole thing and say we all love each other?” We’ll move a motion to say we all love each other and we’re against people being mean to each other. That’s, basically, what this comes down to if you support this amendment. I like that idea. But the fact is that when one specific

5854 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 group, and this is something maybe some Conservatives don’t understand, is targeted for who they are, you need a targeted response. You need a response that actually stands up for that person. I think the tribunal does that. The current chair was appointed by a former govern - ment, not this one, so to suggest there’s some sort of par - tisanship going on — not correct. Again, trying to muddy the waters of human rights.

The tribunal stands up so that when you get denied a job because of your race, you have a place to go, you have an ability to stand up for yourself. Again, the Conservative motion eliminates the tribunal for consideration here. Again, why is that? Probably be - cause of a fellow named Barry Neufeld and OneBC trying to eat the Conservatives’ lunch in terms of which party is more radical. Well, Barry Neufeld targeted staff in the Chilliwack school district by calling them things like “pedophile,” by saying they were groomers trying to grab children up. This is not somebody you want to be associated with.

You don’t want to be on the cheering squad like OneBC is, but it seems this party has been dragged so far to the OneBC view that they have to try and suggest they are much the same. It’s wrong. Interjection. Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member says I’m obsessed. Well, it was her candidate who’s online right now trying to defame me. It’s her candidate, not me. It’s gross. Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Minister. Recognizing the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Question of Privilege Dallas B rodie: I’m now being repeatedly attacked per - sonally and subjected to hatred by a member on the other side of the House. It’s ironic that right now we are discuss- ing hatred directed at people when I’m engaging in my job as a legislator and representing points of view in this prov - ince that want to be represented. If you can’t catch, then don’t pitch. I would like this member to retract the personal com - ments he keeps hurling at me in the context of making — whatever he’s doing today — this defence of comments on this motion.

This is way off topic, and he’s using this as an opportunity to once again come after me. It has become an obsession. Deputy Speaker: Before we continue debate on this motion, I want to remind all members of the importance of respectful and orderly conduct in the chamber. The topic of the motion will understandably elicit strong views, and I expect all members to approach their remarks with care. [1:45 p.m.] Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: It’s unfortunate that when I talk about racism and hate, the member always feels I’m talking about her. I didn’t mention her, didn’t dis- cuss her. Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member. Member, just a minute. I have to recognize you before you speak. Member for Vancouver-Quilchena, do you have a point of order? Dallas Brodie: Yes, Madam Speaker. This member cannot have it both ways. Personally at - tacking me in the Legislature, using my name, the name of my party, pointing at me, looking at me, sneering at me, and then turn around and say that he says that he’s not directing comments at me…. It’s very obvious what he’s doing. Once again, if you can’t catch, then don’t pitch. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. That’s not a point of order.

Government Motions on Notice MOTION 13 — SUPPORT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AND ENFORCEMENT (continued) On the amendment (continued). Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Just to say that I speak against this motion, and I do it for a couple of reasons. Very specifically, if you’re going to stand up against hate and discrimination, you need to know who’s being hated and discriminated against. It says it in the code, and that’s why we have it in this motion. I don’t understand why the House Leader for the Conservatives would move an amendment to delete the protected grounds in the code. It doesn’t make sense.

When you say you stand for human rights, you’re ex - plicit on what those human rights are. You don’t say: “It’s just to everybody, but we’re not going to be clear about who we’re talking about and how.” Interjection. Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: The member wants to heckle me now? The member is heckling me now because I’m speaking

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5855 to her amendment, an amendment which eliminates the protected grounds from this motion. Very specifically, the amendment…. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Hold on, Minister. The minister has the floor. Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Thank you. Very specifically, her motion deletes all the words af - ter “human rights code.” And what are those words? The protected grounds in the human rights code.

So let’s not pretend this amendment does anything different than de - leting “Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression and age.” Those are grounds in the human rights code.

So specif - ically, if somebody is discriminated against from getting a job because of their race, their family status; if they’re discriminated against because of housing, so they can’t get a suite; or they get evicted because they have a men - tal disability; or maybe they’re transgender; or maybe they are old or young or something that somebody doesn’t like, and they make that decision based on their identity, their ancestry, their religion…. Maybe the person doesn’t want to provide them a health service because they’re married or they’re not married.

Those are the protected grounds in the human rights code, and that’s what we’re asking the House to sup - port. Right now this amendment does not support those grounds. It eliminates those grounds from this motion. I will not be supporting this motion and I urge mem - bers not to support it, because we should be explicit in what we support. This actually obfuscates. This hides. This eliminates the code so we can say: “We all support everybody. Everything’s fine. All things are all equal.” But they’re not, and the member knows that.

The member knows that there are specific people who are targeted for hate worse than others. That’s why we have protected grounds in the human rights code. That’s why we need to stand up for those grounds, not create smokescreens to hide because a party is not united on sup- porting the human rights code, because the Conservatives do not support the human rights code and do not support the tribunal. Otherwise, they would stand and support this motion. This is a basic motion, our motion, but the amendment actually eliminates the guts of this thing to replace them with: “We all just get along.

Everybody should just get along. We should all say we don’t like hate.” Well, that’s an easy thing to say; it should be. But it should also be easy to say that you don’t support hate against transgender people, you don’t support hate against Indigenous People, you don’t support hate against some - body who has got a disability, you don’t support hate against somebody because of their religion. These are all things that should be easy to stand up and support.

I don’t understand why the Conservatives would not support these grounds and why they’re voting or seeking to vote on an amendment that would eliminate them from this motion. Á’a:líya Wa rbus: I rise on a point of order, mainly for clarification.

The minister repeated many times that it’s about de - leting the human rights code, but I want to be clear and put it on the record that the amended motion would read that “this House affirms its unequivocal support for the human rights code and protecting all people from hate and discrimination.” [1:50 p.m.] So drawing the fine, fine line between what the motion says and saying, “There are some things in the code. You should do your research.” Then saying, on the other hand, that deleting those things from the motion means those people aren’t protected actually isn’t true. We’ll pull the….

Interjections. Á’a:líya Wa rbus: No, but I just…. I would like to make a point of order on the record be - cause I don’t want to be characterized as not supporting the human rights code. So that’s my point of order. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Thank you for expressing that. It’s not a point of order, but thank you. Kiel Giddens: I’m going to speak to the amendment put forward by the Opposition House Leader. I respect the words that we’ve heard from the Minister of Indigenous Relations previously. I respect the passion he has brought to this.

But I do want to turn the temperature down in the room a little bit with this discussion as well. I recognize the strong emotions, and it’s for good reason. We’re talking about, in the broader context of the gov - ernment motion, support for the B.C. human rights code and the powers under it. At its core, this motion asks us to reaffirm something very fundamental, that people in Brit - ish Columbia deserve protection from discrimination and hate and that our laws must provide meaningful mechan - isms to uphold those protections.

I also want to acknowledge the comments made by the Attorney General as well as the Opposition House Leader, in eloquently explaining how important those protections are. I am going to get into a little bit about British Colum - bia’s history and why this amendment is actually part of the DNA of the code overall.

5856 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 I think the code reflects a basic principle that I would hope would unite members of the House — that every per - son deserves dignity, fairness and equal opportunity. Of course, as we’ve said, it protects people from discrimina - tion based on race, including Indigenous identity; colour; ancestry; place of origin; religion; marital status; family status; physical or mental disability; sex; sexual orienta - tion; gender identity or expression; and age. That has been clearly talked about. To be honest, I am happy to affirm those particular views.

I have no problem with that whatsoever. But the code includes more provisions, as well, that need to be taken into account. Sections 13 and 14 of the code speak, in matters related to employment, to those who have faced a criminal con - viction or

summary conviction. It also speaks to political belief. These are other areas that need to be taken into ac - count. Another area speaks, in tenancy matters, to a law - ful source of income. These are areas that are missing. I am going to get into a little bit of the history of the code and explain in context why all of the protections in the code and support are, actually, quite important to make sure that we are, in fact, protecting all people from hate and discrimination. The history includes many moments where individuals and communities have been treated unfairly because of who they were.

I’ll just mention Chinese Canadians, for example, who played a critical role in building the Can - adian Pacific Railway and contributing to the develop - ment of British Columbia. Yet they were later subjected to discriminatory policies such as the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Japanese Canadians faced one of the most profound in - justices during World War II when thousands were for - cibly removed from their homes, had their property con - fiscated and were interned solely because of their ancestry.

Indigenous Peoples in this province experienced and continue to confront systemic discrimination and poli - cies that sought to suppress their cultures, languages and rights. Other communities, indeed, have faced barriers to em - ployment, housing and public services simply because of their race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. These injustices affect real people, real families and real communities. I hope we can agree on that. Over time, British Columbia came to recognize that preventing discrimination required more than goodwill. It actually required laws.

And that is what has led to the creation of the human rights code. But it didn’t happen overnight. The recognition led to a gradual development of human rights protections in the province. [1:55 p.m.] Beginning in the mid-20th century, B.C. started adopt - ing legislation to prohibit discrimination in certain areas of public life. In the ’50s and ’60s, laws were introduced to address discrimination in employment and public accom - modations. Those early measures represented important progress and reflected a growing understanding that dis - crimination had no place in a modern society.

Over time, those protections were brought together into what we now know as the human rights code. This code created a comprehensive framework protecting people from discrimination in all of these key areas. It cre - ated mechanisms through which individuals could seek remedies if they experienced discrimination. Later the establishment of the Human Rights Tribunal strengthened this system by providing an independent body capable of hearing complaints, evaluating evidence and making binding decisions.

I’m bringing this in be - cause the history of the human rights code and what is included in it is important here. Later, of course, with the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all of that is overlapping with our human rights code in B.C., and that goes right to the Constitution of Canada. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder. We’re speaking to the amendment, so if you can just refer your remarks to the amendment. Kiel Giddens: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment related to the history of the code is also related to what I’m going to bring into my remarks here.

A big portion of that is one of the protections that I believe matters very much, and that’s protections in the workplace. Work is more than earning a paycheque. It’s about dignity, stability and opportunity, and it’s how people support themselves and their families. The work - place is essential, and it’s something that the code also takes into account. All of the areas that we’ve already brought into the de - bate are part of what needs to be protected in the work - place, but there are other areas as well.

The human rights code ensures that employment decisions are based on merit and ability and not on prejudice in any way. It re - quires employers to provide reasonable accommodation and to maintain workplaces that are free from discrimina - tion and harassment. Imagine a young worker starting their first job. They’re eager to prove themselves. They show up early, work hard and want to contribute, but over time they hear comments in the workplace — comments about their background, their accent or their identity or, indeed, their political be - lief.

Perhaps they are passed over for opportunities while others move ahead. Perhaps they’re made to feel like they don’t quite belong. Eventually they begin to wonder whether the problem is their performance or whether it’s simply who they are.

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5857 That kind of experience can have a profound effect on a person’s confidence, their career and their sense of be - longing. The code in its entirety exists with all the protec - tions included to ensure no one in British Columbia has to accept that kind of treatment as simply part of working life. It exists so that individuals have somewhere to turn if discrimination occurs. One particular Human Rights Tribunal case, Schrenk v. British Columbia….

In that case, a construction worker alleged that he experienced repeated racist harassment while working on a jobsite. The individual responsible for the harassment was not his direct employer but an em - ployee of another company working on the same project. Eventually this reached the Supreme Court of Canada, and the court confirmed that workplace discrimination protections can apply even when the harassment comes from someone who is not the complainant’s direct em - ployer.

The court recognized that modern workplaces often involve people working side by side and what mat - ters is whether discriminatory conduct affects someone in their workplace, not simply their formal employment relationship. So I’m just saying with all this, it’s why the work of the tribunal…. Bringing all that into it, there is a legacy of precedents that have been created that are also part of the code, that need to be reflected into the totality of what we’re speaking to here. All of this ensures that the protec - tions contained in the law are not symbolic.

They’re ac - tually enforceable, and they help to ensure that workplaces across our province are governed by principles of fairness and respect. But I don’t believe human rights should ever be the sub- ject of political games. I sincerely hope that is not what is happening here. I want to turn to sections 13 and 14 of the human rights code. It differs from what the government language is in the original motion in its favour, which seems to be lim - ited to

section 7, which is specifically related to discrimin - atory publication. [2:00 p.m.]

Section 13 says…. I quote right from the human rights code. “A person must not refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person or discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condi- tion of employment because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or men- tal disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age of that person or because that per - son has been convicted of a criminal or

summary con- viction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.” I raise that because these provisions do reflect an im - portant principle, in that employment decisions should be based on a person’s ability to do their job, not on two things that are omitted from the government’s language in their original motion. They should not include any dis - crimination based on political views or on past circum - stances that have no relevance to work. I think that’s what that’s speaking to here.

These protections are part of the broader framework of fairness that the human rights code was actually designed to establish. One case…. I’ll reference another Supreme Court de - cision, and that was Fraser Health Authority v. Hospital Employees’ Union. While the case ultimately focused on labour arbitration, it arose from disciplinary action taken against employees who posted comments that were con - sidered offensive online about their employer during a political dispute in the workplace.

The broader legal discussion in the case touched on how employee expression and political viewpoints inter - sect with workplace discipline. It relates why protections related to political belief and expression in employment contexts exist within human rights law. This also is in the code but is not included in the government’s motion. In British Columbia,

section 13 of the human rights code recognizes that employees should not face discrimin - ation because of their political beliefs. These protections help to ensure employment decisions are not made on the basis of a person’s political views rather than the ability to perform their work. Whether a person votes Conservative, whether they vote NDP or Green Party or whatever, there should be no discrimination based on this, either, in the workplace, and we need to actually fundamentally protect this. That’s something that is currently missing from the government motion, and that’s what I believe the amendment would actually cover. Furthermore,

section 14 mirrors many of these provi - sions.

It says: “A trade union, employers’ organization or occupa- tional association must not exclude any person from membership, expel or suspend any member or dis - criminate against any person or member because of the Indigenous identity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sex - ual orientation, gender identity or expression or age of that person or member or because that person or member has been convicted of a criminal or sum - mary conviction offence that is unrelated to member - ship or intended membership.” I add all this because this is fundamentally within the code as well.

It has these points that are meant to pro - tect against discrimination both in the workplace and in a trade union, employers’ organization or occupational association. That’s why I think that the motion needs to be amended. The government’s motion should reflect a genuine com -

5858 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 mitment to protecting the rights and dignity of people in our province, all people, and I think it currently falls short in that. Even the motion’s use of

section 7 in the bill, related to discriminatory publication, because I think that’s where their

interpretation of the original motion is coming from, in its current form….

It says, of course, and I’ll repeat again for the House: “because of the Indigenous iden - tity, race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, mari - tal status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression or age.” But that has left out the last part of that sentence that is actually in the legislation, which reads: “of that person or that group or class of persons.” So we’re missing a very im- portant part of what is actually in the legislation itself, and we should reference the code in its entirety, not pick and choose what is convenient or preferred sections. [2:05 p.m.] That last part about “group or class of persons” is very, very important.

I’ll use a very important example that we’ve been talking about in the House. I won’t speak to other bills, but I will state that the Jewish community in B.C., for example, has expressed serious concerns regard - ing allegations of antisemitism within the public service. There were also accusations that this included the cabinet of the day as well. These are things that we’re actually excluding from the government’s motion because it is inconvenient to include “a group or class of persons.” I don’t think that’s acceptable. We need to make sure that we are keeping the true intent of the code intact.

We should be affirming our support for the entire code and really standing up for the Jewish community. They’ve faced, over centuries across the globe, discrimination for being part of a group that has faced historical discrimin - ation — many other groups as well, though. So I think that’s something that we need to take into account. That speaks to the Opposition House Leader’s amendment. I’ll mention one other area that is not reflected in the government’s motion, and it’s under

section 10. That sec - tion of the human rights code speaks to non-discrimina - tion in residential tenancy from a lawful source of income. I won’t repeat the whole list that’s in the government mo- tion, but that particular

section of the human rights code adds: “or lawful source of income of that person or class of persons or of any other person or class of persons.” What that is saying is that we don’t want to see people on income assistance discriminated against in residential tenancy when they’re trying to rent or someone who is on a fixed income, like a senior. That income source can’t be a source of discrimination, and that is actually left out of the government’s original motion.

I think what the Opposition House Leader has done is actually doing a service and making sure that those on in - come assistance, those seniors on a fixed income can’t be discriminated against when they’re trying to rent housing. I think that’s something that’s very important. That’s why it’s in the human rights code to begin with. So when we speak about human rights in this chamber, we should do so with seriousness and respect for the people whose lives are affected. Human rights protections were not created overnight. There are decades of jurisprudence, decades of work that have gone into this code.

So let’s not pick and choose what we put into the code. Let’s just say we’re respecting it in its entirety. All of this represents our collective decision in British Columbia that discrimination has no place. For that reason, I believe this House can affirm its sup - port for the human rights code and the work of what’s included in it. But let’s affirm our support for that entire code, not select provisions that are preferable.

I want to just go to something that is very important at the outset of the code — again, it’s because I want to turn down some of the temperature with what we heard from the previous speaker a little bit, what we’ve heard so far and what we’re likely still to hear in the House — and that’s the purpose of the code, and that is in

section 3.

I’m going to quote it directly because it is important for the House to recall. “The purposes of this code are as follows: to fos - ter a society in British Columbia in which there are no impediments to full and free participation in the economic, social, political and cultural life of Brit - ish Columbia; to promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect where all are equal in dignity and rights; to prevent discrimination prohibited by this code; to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality associated with discrimination prohibited by this code; and to provide a means of redress for those persons who are discriminated against contrary to this code.” In summarizing, that is the purpose of the code.

Let’s remember what this actually is and bring that into this de - bate. It’s not about politics. This is about that original pur- pose that was embedded in this code for a reason. We can’t pick and choose what is convenient from the code. [2:10 p.m.] Let’s take it for all its entirety, whether that’s making sure people aren’t discriminated against because of their political beliefs, whether that’s making sure that they’re not discriminated against if someone, for example, has had a minor offence, like a drug possession charge at the age of 19.

Are we honestly going to say that we’re going to allow discrimination from future employment because an employer can decide to say they can’t have a job down in the future? Have they not faced justice and retribu - tion? Is that not something we want to make sure is not happening? If someone has had a minor offence, if they’ve had a penalty and all that, we want to make sure…. If justice has

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5859 already been served, let’s make sure they’re not being dis - criminated against later — when the dignity of them re - joining society and having that dignity as persons includes work, I believe, and employment in the workplace. So regardless of the political context surrounding the government’s original motion, I do think the dignity and equality of people in this province should never depend on partisan considerations. Let’s just fix this motion to in - clude the code in its entirety.

For that reason, I will be supporting this amendment, and I believe that the House should do what we can to sup- port all human rights and prevention of discrimination. Hon. Grace Lore: I appreciate the chance to speak to this briefly. I rise to speak against the amendment, and I have significant concerns. My first concern is what happens to some of the most vulnerable people at this or any point in time. Trans people, queer people, people who are discriminated against based on their gender identity or expression are facing unprecedented attack.

They would not have protec - tion in the absence of this explicit recognition. Members opposite should know that. They must know that at this point in time. They should know that the rights; safety; opportunity for expression, employment, sport and joy are at stake and need to be explicitly listed as a protection. There are many others that require explicit recognition, and those needs change over time. I mentioned it today, but I’ve seen some of the worst attacks I’ve seen in politics before today against a friend in this House. It should be a reminder of the importance of explicit recognition.

Second, not only was the explicit list removed, but you’ll notice that the amendment removes the tribunal’s power to enforce. Their amendment either contains a sig - nificant error or reflects an intention to end the tribunal and its enforcement, to end the tool that keeps people safe and accountable. Finally, if the members are concerned about what is missing…. I hear criminal conviction, political belief, source of income, and I share a belief in the rights of people to be free from discrimination on these bases.

I believe that people should be able to access employment and support and housing regardless, for example, of their source of income. I ask members why the amendment did not add the pieces missing instead of removing all. The member referenced also antisemitism. The Jewish community, including my community where the syna - gogue has faced graffiti, where threats and attacks have been real…. Religion is in that direct list. If members think that that’s not sufficient, that it needs to be explicit, then I would encourage a motion to add, not take away, religion as an explicit protection.

I hear the concerns on the basis of source of income — low-income seniors, those on assistance. I agree. Those protections are important. As a believer in the rights of sex workers, I also believe that discrimination on the basis of conviction or source of income is important. Again, I ask why the motion did not add. We’ve been asked not to pick and choose among the protected rights. To me, the solution of that is not to re - move all. It is to add the ones that you are concerned about. [2:15 p.m.] Again, I just draw a note, also, once again, to the re - moval of the tribunal and its powers to enforce.

This amendment could have expanded the list, could have ad - dressed the concerns of the people that members opposite are worried about. It could have supported the enforce - ment and the power to use tools. It did not. That is why I do not support this amendment. Hon Chan: I just want to say something very clearly. On this side of the House, we support human rights. We support dignity. We support the fundamental belief that every person in Canada and British Columbia deserves to live free from discrimination and hatred and has the free - dom to express themselves without the fear of retaliation.

For the amendment, this government — the govern - ment side — keeps attacking and saying we are removing stuff. I want to be very, very clear. In the motion paper on the amendment, it clearly says that we support the hu - man rights code — not subtracting something, not delet - ing something from the human rights code. So please do not spread misinformation or false information that we’re removing anything from the code. A motion cannot remove anything from the code itself. It’s in the act. Whenever we put a motion out, do we need to…? Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members, hold on. The member has the f loor.

Continue. Hon Chan: Thank you. When we put a motion out, do we copy and paste the entire act out? I bet the government bills do not do that. Do they always copy every single word? No. In this motion paper, in this amendment, it clearly says that we accept and we respect all people. So nothing is deleted. The human rights code is still the human rights code, and nothing is deleted from the code. However, before I continue on the amendment, I also need to respond to the minister’s response to the amend - ment and also to the AG’s previous note. I will have to quote.

5860 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that all your remarks are on the amendment right now. Hon Chan: Yeah, it is, because it’s a response to their point of having this motion. We need to explain why we need to put an amendment out to respond to this motion. The AG mentioned, and I quote: “I know many mem - bers of the opposition dispute the meaning of their first reading votes and want to clarify their position. Well, this is their opportunity.” Thank you.

I will take this opportunity to stand in sup - port of human rights but also to question the AG’s pos - ition and the Minister of Indigenous Relations’ position. The AG and the minister know, all members of this House know, all the ministers should know and the Premier should know — even if the public may not — that it is a long-standing parliamentary tradition to allow the first reading to pass so that legislation can proceed to debate. All members know we do not have the bill before us before the first reading. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder again — on the amendment. Hon Chan: Yes, thank you.

Again, we need to explain the reason behind this amendment. This is what the AG mentioned about why this motion is being brought for - ward and why we have to remove some of the words in our amendment. Without the background, I cannot fully describe why we have to remove them. I would urge the Chair to let me finish the whole back - ground of this motion and why we have to put an amend - ment forward. I will continue. That is why, exactly, we need to explain to the public that nobody in this House actually knows the bill in first reading.

However, this government, this Premier, Attor - ney General and this minister have chosen to twist that very tradition to attack the opposition just mentioned be - fore. This is not a good faith debate. This is playing polit - ical games. Deputy Speaker: Member, this is comments specific - ally on the amendment. When we go back to the main mo- tion, then you’ll have an opportunity to more wide-ran - ging…. So just with respect to the amendment. Thank you. Hon Chan: Okay, I will be more specific then. The human rights code exists for a reason.

It exists to protect all people for any characteristic that makes up who we are as individuals and as communities. Those pro - tections matter. They matter deeply. As someone who represents a very diverse community in Richmond Centre, I see every day how very important those protections are for people who come from different backgrounds, cultures and life experience. [2:20 p.m.] Speaking personally, as someone who is Chinese, as someone who grew up in an immigrant family, this issue is not abstract to me. It’s part of our history.

Chinese Canadians in this country did not always enjoy the rights that many people today take for granted. Chinese workers helped build the Canadian Pacific Rail - way, one of the very most important infrastructure pro - jects in our nation’s history. They did the hardest and most dangerous work. Many of them lost their lives do - ing it, yet after helping to build the country, they were de - nied basic rights. They were denied the right to vote. They faced a head tax. They faced the Chinese Exclusion Act. For decades, Chinese Canadians were treated as second- class citizens.

It took generations of advocacy and courage for Chi - nese Canadians to gain the rights that should have existed from the beginning. In fact, statistics repeatedly showed that immigrants with comparable education, skills and experience often earned significantly less than Canadian- born workers. Some studies show that newcomers earn roughly 20 to 30 percent less, especially in their early days in Canada. I just want to share a little bit of my own story and highlight the important role that ethnic media plays in bridging these gaps.

During my years working in the news industry, there was a reason why we had an ethnic media round table. Many immigrant communities do not always have the same access to mainstream information networks. Language barriers matter. Cultural familiarity matters. And access to information matters. Ethnic news outlets help bridge the gap so that communities can stay informed, engaged and connected to public life. I understand the importance of the human rights codes because, personally, I lived it. When I was in elementary school and secondary school, English was not always easy.

Like many immigrant kids, I had an accent, and even to - day, I still have it. Anyone who grew up as an immigrant knows what that experience can be like. Sometimes you can be judged before people even know you or know who you are. Sometimes people assume things about you sim - ply because of how you speak. Those experiences also shape resilience. That reminds us of why fairness matters, why equality matters and why we ensure that every individual, regardless of their back - ground, has the opportunity to succeed and be treated with respect. That is why this amendment matters. All people need to be respected.

Let me be very clear again. The goal of the protection is for all people, protection from discrimination. That is something that we support. Supporting human rights does not mean that we should never ask the question of how the system operates. This is where this motion and this amendment become more complicated. We need to

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5861 amend it because this motion also raises another very im - portant question about priorities. At a time when British Columbians are struggling with affordability, when small businesses are closing, when families are worried about the economy and the rising cost of living, this government chose to bring forward a motion like this. We have to ask why. Interjection. Hon Chan: It is. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder: on the amendment. Hon Chan: It is relevant, because the wording in the motion has so many things behind the tribunal’s power, etc.

We have to delete it because it matters. Why do you guys bring forward such a motion? We need to amend it because we found out that the government is trying to play political games. That’s why we have to delete some of the wording, to make sure we do not support the government’s political game and we move forward in discussion and debate on the stuff that matters to British Columbians — like public safety, like housing, like private property rights. Those are the things that matter. I will just end with the words and tone, just like the AG.

I genuinely hope that’s where we will get to today, because too much is at stake. For too long, we have allowed this government to play political games, instead of actually working to solve the problem and the mess this govern - ment has created. I genuinely hope that today we can discuss and de - bate the issues that truly matter to British Columbians — the growing deficit, jobs for younger generations, senior care, long ER wait times, private property rights, grow - ing our economy, strengthening our education system and improving public safety.

These are the issues that we should be focusing on, not a motion that asks us to support the expansion of a power - ful tribunal appointed by this government. That’s why this amendment matters, and I urge the House to support this amendment. [2:25 p.m.] Jody Toor: I rise today to speak in response to the gov - ernment’s Motion 13 and the amendment that was put for- ward, which calls on the House to affirm its support for British Columbian human rights and protecting all people from hate and discrimination. Let me begin by stating something very clearly.

Hu - man rights matter, and I am in full support of all that it includes. They matter to the people of this province, they matter to the communities we represent, and they matter deeply to me. I support the amendment because it adds to the code. Human rights protections are fundamental to free and democratic society. They exist to ensure that every per - son in British Columbia can live free from discrimination, hatred and injustice. They protect individuals based on many characteristics, like race and religion, that form the diversity of this province. Those protections are not abstract principles.

They affect real people. They affect families. They affect com - munities. They affect the everyday lives of the citizens we are elected to represent. That is why debates about hu - man rights often evoke strong emotions and passionate responses. Over the past several days and weeks, that passion has been very visible, and it also has been very personal. Over the past week, I have received numerous numbers of emails, phone calls, messages from loved ones, from family, from people in my community of Langley-Willow - brook. Many of these individuals care deeply about hu - man rights and equality.

Many are people who have long supported policies that protect communities, that protect people and ensure fairness within our society. I respect that deeply. But many of these messages I received were written under the belief that my actions in this chamber somehow represented opposition to human rights. Some messages expressed disappointment, others expressed frustration, and some accused me of abandoning principles of equality. A few suggested that I even turned my back on my own community, from the South Asian community. We have historically faced discrimination.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people…. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. Just one minute. The member for Penticton-Summerland has a point of order. Point of Order Amelia Boultbee: On a point of order, I believe we’re supposed to be debating the amendment. If I’m not mis - taken, the other member is talking about a debate that happened days ago, and the other members are often de - bating the original motion, not the amendment.

In the interest of getting through this, this afternoon, my point of order is just that, if I’m not mistaken, we are supposed to only be debating the amendment at this time. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. The member from Langley-Willowbrook continues. I know you were making your case for the amendment, speaking to the amendment.

5862 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 Debate Continued Jody Toor: Thank you, Madam Speaker. When an elected representative receives messages like that from people they serve, it is not something that can be simply ignored. It must be addressed, and that’s why I’m standing up today to address that. It must be clarified and it must be examined honestly, because the citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how the chamber functions and about the intentions of those…. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. I’d like to recognize the member from Surrey-Cloverdale.

Point of Order Elenore Sturko: She just said that she was standing to address the concerns of her constituents. She’s supposed to be addressing her concerns with the amendment to the motion. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. I’m providing leeway in the debate to allow the member to make her case with respect to speaking to the amendment. Continue. Debate Continued Jody Toor: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It must be clarified. It must be explained honestly, be - cause the citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how this chamber functions and about the inten - tions of those who we serve within it.

That is why I rise today, not only to speak on the motion before us but also to explain how the events that led us to this debate have been widely misunderstood. Before discussing those events, however, I want to make something very clear. I believe deeply in human rights. [2:30 p.m.] Deputy Speaker: Member, sorry to interrupt you, but just a reminder that we’re not speaking to the motion. It’s specifically to the amendment. Jody Toor: Yep. Human rights are not a political slogan for me. They’re not a convenient phrase used to score points in debate. Human rights are fundamental to democracy.

They’re fundamental to justice and are central to my own personal journey in public life. I did not enter politics because it was easy. I did not enter politics because it was comfortable. I entered politics because I witnessed injustice. I saw individuals and fam - ilies navigating systems that felt distant from their every - day realities. I heard stories from citizens who believed their voices were not being heard within the institution. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a minute. Point of Order Hon. Grace Lore: I also rise on a point of order. I appreciate the member’s comments.

They seem very relevant and important to the motion. I don’t want to take away from her opportunity to speak to the motion, but she’s explicitly saying she’s speaking to the motion, and I haven’t heard the tie to the amendment. I would like to make sure that we’re able to discuss and vote on the motion, so that’s my point of order. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. My ruling is that I’m providing leeway to the member to speak to the amendment. Debate Continued Jody Toor: I support this amendment, Madam Speaker. Thank you. Jordan Kealy: I’ll make this very quick.

I’m in favour of this amendment with the intent of the motion that’s brought forward to this House. The intent, when it’s brought forward to the public, is that it’ll support the hu - man rights code. It gives that impression. When this House votes on it, we will be displaying that intent to the public. Right now with the way that it’s phrased, it is not worded to reflect the whole human rights code. This amendment clearly changes that and makes it represent that intent. When it is voted on this House floor, that is how it will be displayed to the public. I am in favour of this amendment.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, we will call the question. The question is the amendment to Motion 13, to de - lete all words after “human rights code” and substituting therefore the following: “and protecting all people from hate and discrimination.” Division has been called. [2:35 p.m. – 2:40 p.m.] [The Speaker in the chair.] The Speaker: Members, the question before the House is the amendment to Motion 13 moved by the Opposition House Leader. [2:45 p.m.] Amendment negatived on the following division:

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5863 YEAS — 36 Loewen Kindy Warbus Halford Wat Kooner Banman Hartwell L. Neufeld Van Popta Dew Clare Rustad Wilson McInnis Paton Day Toor Hepner Giddens Dhaliwal McCall Block Stamer Gasper Mok Davis Chan Brodie Kealy Williams Chapman Bird Doerkson Luck Tepper NAYS — 50 Lore Blatherwick Dhir Routledge Chant Toporowski B.

Anderson Neill Osborne Brar Krieger Davidson Parmar Sunner Beare Greene Wickens Kang Begg Arora Higginson Sandhu Lajeunesse Choi Rotchford Elmore Phillip Popham Dix Sharma Farnworth Eby Bailey Kahlon Chandra Herbert Whiteside Boyle Ma Yung Malcolmson Gibson Glumac Shah G. Anderson Chow Morissette Valeriote Botterell Boultbee Sturko The Speaker: The House will continue debating the main motion. [Mable Elmore in the chair.] On the main motion. Jody Toor: I rise today to speak in response to govern - ment Motion 13, which calls on this House to affirm its support for the British Columbia human rights code.

Let me begin by stating something very clearly. Human rights matter. They matter to the people of this province. They matter to the communities we represent, and they matter deeply to me. Human rights protections are fundamental to a free and democratic society. They exist to ensure that every person in British Columbia can live free from discrimina - tion, hatred and injustice. They protect individuals based on many characteristics like race and religion and that form the diversity of this province. Those protections are not abstract principles. They affect real people. They affect families.

They affect com - munities, and they affect the everyday lives of the citizens we are elected to represent. That is why debates about hu - man rights often evoke strong emotions and passionate responses. [2:50 p.m.] Over the past several days, that passion has been very visible, and it has also been very personal. Over the past week, I have received numerous emails, messages, phone calls from family, loved ones and people from my com - munity of Langley-Willowbrook. Many of these individ - uals care deeply about human rights and equality.

Many are people who have long supported policies that protect people and communities and ensure fairness within our society. I respect that deeply. But many of the messages I received were written under the belief that my actions in this chamber somehow represented opposition to human rights. Some messages express disappointment; others express frustration. My own family members, some of them, accuse me of aban - doning principles of equality that they fought really hard for. A few suggested that I even turned my back on my own loved ones.

When an elected representative receives messages like that from people they serve and their family members, it is not something that can be very simple or ignored. It must be addressed, it must be clarified, and it must be ex - plained honestly. The citizens of British Columbia deserve clarity about how this chamber functions and about the intentions of those who serve within it. That is why I rise today not only to speak to the motion before us but also to explain how the events that led to this debate have been widely misunderstood.

Before discuss - ing those events, however, I want to say something very clearly. I believe deeply in human rights. Human rights are not a political slogan for me. They are not a convenient phrase to use to score points in de - bates. They are not something I invoke only when it bene - fits a political narrative. Human rights are fundamental to democracy. They are fundamental to justice. They are central to my own personal journey into public life. I did not enter politics because it was easy. I did not enter politics because it was comfortable. I entered politics because I witnessed injustice.

I saw individuals and fam - ilies navigating systems that felt distant from their every - day realities. I heard stories from citizens who believed that their voices were not being heard within the institu - tion that governed their lives. I saw situations where trans - parency was lacking, where accountability was insuffi - cient and where decisions that affected people’s lives were made without accurate public understanding. Those experiences left a profound expression on me.

They strengthened my belief that democracy must func - tion for everyone, not just for those who have access to power, not just for those who have influence but for every citizen of British Columbia. That belief is why I chose to

5864 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 serve. It is why I chose to stand for election. It is why I con- tinue to work in this chamber on behalf of the people of Langley-Willowbrook. Much of the dispute surrounding this debate arises from a misunderstanding of the legislative process, par - ticularly the stage known as first reading. In the Legis - lative Assembly of British Columbia, bills must pass through several stages before they become law. The first stage is called first reading. At first reading, the title of a bill is read into the offi - cial record of the House.

The bill is introduced formally and becomes part of the public record. Its text is printed and made available to the public, to the members of this chamber and to the journalists who follow the work of this institution. At this stage, there is no debate. Members do not rise to argue in favour of the bill. Members do not rise to argue against the bill. Members do not yet examine the princi - ples contained within this bill. First reading is procedural. Its purpose is simple: to allow the bill to enter the public domain so that it can be examined and debated at later stages.

The real debate occurs at second reading. Second read - ing is the stage where members stand in this chamber to express their support or opposition to the principles con - tained within a bill. The bill passes second reading and moves to committee stage, where the bill is examined clause by clause and amendments may be proposed. Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member, just a minute. Recognizing the Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. Point of Order Hon. Kelly Greene: I rise on a point of order. Rel - evance. Thank you. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Allowing some leeway to allow the member to speak to the motion. So speaking to the motion…. Debate Continued Jody Toor: I will continue. Finally, if it passes third reading, it receives royal assent and becomes law. This process exists for an important reason. It ensures that the bills are examined carefully. It ensures that pro - posals are debated and transparent, and it ensures that democratic accountability is maintained. [2:55 p.m.] This structure is not unique to British Columbia.

It reflects the Westminster parliamentary tradition that guides across Canada and around the world — in Ottawa, in London and in provincial legislatures across Canada. First reading is widely understood as a procedural stage, not an endorsement of the ideas contained within a bill. That difference is important because the events that led to the debate we are having today began at that pro - cedural stage. Recently a private member’s bill was introduced. This bill proposed the repeal of the British Columbia human rights code. Let me clarify several important factors.

First, this bill was introduced by an independent mem - ber of this chamber. It was not introduced by a Conserva - tive caucus member. Second, it was introduced as a private member’s bill, meaning it was not a government bill. Third, it reached the stage of first reading, where a pro - cedural vote took place to determine whether the bill will be formally introduced and printed for public review. It is the procedural vote that sparked the public reaction we are seeing today in this House. There’s an important distinction that must be made here. That is between process and narrative.

The process is the legislative procedure that governs how this House operates. It ensures that the bills can be introduced, reviewed, debated and scrutinized before be- coming law. It protects transparency. It protects demo - cratic debate, and it protects the ability of citizens to see how their government functions. The narrative, however, is something different. The narrative suggests that a procedural vote automatically represents the personal beliefs or moral positions of the members who cast that vote. But those two things are not the same. Process allows democracy to function.

Narratives can sometimes dis - tort how that process works. Let me say something clearly. Allowing a bill to be introduced is not the same as sup - porting it. I would like to speak personally on Motion 13. I’m a South Asian woman, a woman of colour, and I’m proud to be the first Punjabi woman of colour elected to the Con - servative Party of British Columbia. My father, my mother, my father-in-law and my mother-in-law immigrated to Canada in the late 1960s. At that time, many newcomers faced barriers that we some - times forget. They experienced discrimination. They ex - perienced exclusion.

And they fought for human rights and equal opportunity for their families and for their communities. Those values shaped the environment in which I was raised. From a young age, I understood what it meant to fight for a seat at a table. I understood what it meant to sometimes be overlooked because of the colour of your skin. I understood what it meant to work harder just to be heard. Those experiences do not weaken a person’s belief in human rights. They strengthen it.

Thursday, March 12, 2026 B ritish Columbia Debates 5865 Earlier this week I spoke in the chamber about the importance of freedom of information. I described free - dom of information as the anchor of democracy, because democracy depends on citizens being able to ask ques - tions. It depends on citizens being able to access informa - tion. It depends on transparency. My purpose in politics has always been rooted in pro - tecting the rights and the freedoms of British Columbians — the right to take

part in democracy, the right to ques - tion government, the right to access information and the right to live with dignity and equality. I entered public life because I believe deeply in the integrity and the rights of every person in this province. That belief is not new to me. It is the reason I chose to serve. It is the reason I will continue working every day to defend both democratic freedoms and human rights for the people of Langley-Willowbrook and for all British Columbians.

In the end, democracy is strongest when cit - izens know their voices matter, their rights are protected and their representatives remain committed to truth and transparency. [3:00 p.m.] Hon. Jessie Sunner: I rise today in strong support of the motion to affirm our unequivocal support for the B.C. human rights code and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal’s powers to enforce it. I recognize that the member that spoke before had really powerful words and spoke to why the B.C. human rights code is so important and why we have gotten to a place where we need it and we continue to need the code.

In saying this, I have to say that it is deeply troubling that we are in a place where this affirmation is even necessary. [Lorne Doerkson in the chair.] When I was elected to this Legislature, I never im - agined that I could be standing here debating people’s hu - man rights. But here we are. Before I was elected, I spent my career as a human rights lawyer. I stood before the Human Rights Tribunal representing people who had been discriminated against because of who they are — the colour of their skin, their religion, who they love or their sex or gender identity.

These are all protected grounds under the B.C. human rights code. This means you can’t pay a woman less simply because she’s a woman. You can’t fire someone because you find out they’re gay or trans. You can’t turn someone away from housing because of the colour of their skin or be - cause they wear a turban. When these rights are violated and people have no - where else to turn, the Human Rights Tribunal hears these cases and enforces the law.

I remember standing before the Human Rights Tribu - nal and representing a woman who had been harassed for years in the workplace because she worked in a workplace that was male-dominated. She was the only woman in the workplace. Think about that. All she wanted to do was go to work every day and make an honest living for her and her family. She wasn’t able to do so without intimida - tion, without facing daily insults, jokes at her expense and safety dangers that the male co-workers thought would be funny to impose on her.

I represented people who faced racial discrimination in the workplace, people who came to work each and every day to serve in our health care systems only to feel like they did not belong, like they were less worthy than their co-workers because of the colour of their skin. We’ve seen many other historic cases also make their way through the Human Rights Tribunal, like the land - mark case of Brar v. the B.C. Veterinary Medical Asso - ciation, which spanned a decade and found that the B.C.

Veterinary Medical Association discriminated against a group of 13 South Asian veterinarians in Vancouver for over a decade, causing them to face unequal licensing bar - riers, intense scrutiny, complaints, inspections and disci - plinary actions — all because they did not look like what their co-workers expected them to look like, because they were educated in a different country or because of the lan - guage they spoke. Because of a characteristic that they had no power to control, they were discriminated against.

Each and every one of these cases, and so many more, have taught me something that every single member in this House should understand clearly. The human rights code is not theatrical. It’s not symbolic. It is a shield that protects real people when discrimination shows up in their workplaces, in their housing and in their everyday lives. This shield exists because generations before us fought for it. On this side of the House, that is not something that we forget. We remember that each and every day. We remem- ber that these rights that others may take for granted were not freely given.

They were hard-won through struggle and through persistence. Women in this country did not always have the right to vote. Many women of colour and Indigenous people were excluded even decades after women won the right to vote. South Asian people and Asian people had no right to vote and then had their rights stripped away and could not vote until 1947. Someone that looked like me could not en- ter this House, let alone speak in this House — could not even enter the building. Equality protections in workplaces, houses, housing and public services only became better because people organized.

They spoke out, and they demanded better. So when people and members opposite hesitate or fail to affirm these protections, it is and should be profoundly concerning. [3:05 p.m.] Instead, in this House, the member for Kelowna–Lake

5866 B ritish Columbia Debates T hursday, March 12, 2026 Country–Coldstream brought forward a bill to repeal the Human Rights Act after the tribunal ruled against former school trustee Barry Neufeld for his years-long campaign for publicly attacking gay and trans teachers over their identities. We struck down that bill at first reading with a prin - cipled stance that included the Greens and former Conservatives. But the member for Kelowna–Lake Country–Cold - stream isn’t the only member of this House to defend Barry Neufeld. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has. The member for Langley-Abbotsford has.

The member for Chilliwack North has. All of these members have publicly criticized the hu - man rights code and tribunal in recent weeks because they disagreed with the decision against Barry Neufeld. In fact, the member for Chilliwack North has introduced a mo - tion to try to limit and decrease the strength of the human rights code because of this decision against Mr. Neufeld. This case has triggered debate, so it’s important to be clear on the facts of what happened in this case.

The tribu - nal wrote in its decision: “People can debate the protections afforded to dif - ferent groups of people, express disapproval of sexual orientations or gender identities and opine on what the government should do. Tolerance of such speech is a pillar of our democracy which nourishes self-ful - filment and furthers the search for truth. “However, as we have said, this is not what Mr. Neufeld did. Contrary to his argument that he was merely expressing his opinion about legitimate topics of political and social debate, his expression went beyond a critique of a government program. Mr.

Neufeld’s publications are replete with negative stereotypes and pejorative assumptions about LGBTQ people which undermine their inherent dignity and discriminate against them.” Mr. Neufeld regularly accused gay and trans people of sexually abusing children. The tribunal wrote: “Mr. Neufeld says repeatedly that teaching children about sexual orientation, gender iden - tity, non-heterosexual people and non-cisgender people confuses them and grooms them to be abused by sexual offenders.” He defended anti-gay laws in other countries as at - tempts to control pedophilia.

That’s only a few of the ex - amples of what Mr. Neufeld did over these years. I’d en - courage members to read the whole ruling, if you haven’t already, rather than making assumptions based on what you read or what you hear in a 30-second clip online. I think it’s time for the members for Chilliwack North and Langley-Abbotsford to ask themselves if they really agree with those things. If they don’t, they should stand with us today and the member for Chilliwack North should withdraw her motion and the members opposite who say they stand for human rights should ask them to do exactly that.

As we speak about human rights, I cannot let pass a fla - grant comment that was made in this chamber yesterday. The member for Kelowna-Mission stood in this House and said that women in this House would sit like meek women while men in suits decide things for us. That com - ment says far more about that member than it does about any woman in this chamber. Let me be very clear. There is nothing meek about the women in this Legislature. Women here have fought their entire lives to earn a seat in these desks. They are leaders. They are advocates.

They are lawyers, businesswomen and community-builders who have fought to be here and who fight every day for the people they represent. Dismissing women as meek is not just insulting. It reveals exactly the kind of outdated thinking that human rights laws were created to challenge. So if that member wants to talk about courage and spine in this Legislature, then here is his moment. Have the courage to stand up for human rights, because it takes absolutely no courage to stand up in this chamber and throw around deranging comments like he did.

The real test of courage is whether that member for Kelowna-Mission will stand up when the vote is called and support something as basic as defending the human rights code. If he truly believes in equality and dignity for people in this province, then the choice should be easy. But if he and his colleague

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20260312pm-Hansard-n141
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20260312pm Hansard n141
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a8a51620ccf53c46fc77458c0e19363b1009532d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).