Second Session, 41st Parliament

(2017) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, October 16, 2017

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 32

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

Reducing excessive vehicle noise

S. Chandra Herbert

P. Milobar

Housing

M. Hunt

M. Elmore

Protecting First Nations middens

M. Dean

D. Ashton

Transportation

J. Martin

R. Glumac

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 6 — Diversity and human rights

B. Ma

T. Wat

N. Simons

J. Yap

R. Leonard

T. Shypitka

L. Krog

E. Ross

A. Kang

L. Throness

R. Kahlon

MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2017

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

REDUCING EXCESSIVE VEHICLE NOISE

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, happy Monday morning to everybody.

[10:05 a.m.]

I rise to speak on a statement about reducing excessive vehicle

noise. It’s in the spirit of non-partisanship, which I hope we all can

get behind. After all, this issue of reducing loud motorbikes, the

exhausts of modified parts of cars and trucks, which sometimes wake

people up at night, has been an issue that has perturbed my constituents

for many, many, many, many years.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The former member, a B.C. Liberal member, worked on this issue.

The member before him, Tim Stevenson, worked on the issue as a New

Democrat for years as well. Indeed, it’s been a problem for as long as,

I guess, we’ve had tall apartment buildings, which amplify sound, and

people decide to be loud with their vehicles.

I should quantify: what am I talking with reducing excessive

vehicle noise? It’s an issue, now, that is plaguing the constituents of

many of those in this House. I look across from me, and I see folks from

Surrey, and I see folks from Kamloops; folks from Terrace; others on my

own side — the Sunshine Coast, Delta, the Kootenays; Peace River

country; the Okanagan, in a big way. Really, this is an issue that I

think should unite us and should get us moving, despite the fact that

nothing has happened on this for a long, long time.

Some people choose to modify their motorbikes so that they are

incredibly loud. They think it’s fun. They enjoy the noise. They decide

to share that noise with everybody else, who may not find that so much

fun, so much enjoyable.

I see the member for Penticton nodding in agreement. I think he’s

not the one creating the noise. He’s the one whose constituents want it

to end. Indeed, I’ve heard that from them. I’ve spoken to more than a

few from the Penticton area who want us to act.

Right now in Canada, we have a limit for motorbikes. They can be

91 decibels. The average car is allowed to be 83 decibels. This is a bit

of a throwback to the days when we couldn’t create engines on a

motorbike which were quieter. Of course, you can do that now. Indeed, in

Europe, the actual limit for motorbikes right now is 80 decibels. So in

Canada, British Columbia, we’re at 91, and in Europe, they’re at 80,

which is actually even quieter than cars in Canada, which we set at 83.

It can be done.

People modify them, but even just the driving of a motorbike right

now at 91 decibels is enough to wake up a baby. I can speak from

experience to that one. Living in the West End, as I do, we hear more

than our fair share of motorbikes coming through over that beautiful

Lions Gate. We love that Stanley Park drive, but it sure attracts a lot

of people who, some would say, are smaller in generosity to my community

by sharing their excessive noise. Some would say they have small parts,

but I’ll leave that for another time.

What can we do about it? Hearing from the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, all the cities and towns and regional districts united a

few years ago to say: “Province, step up. We need to inspect more often.

We need to enforce the laws more often.” That’s certainly one

area.

The police in a few communities have blitzes. They do one day a

year where they go out, and they ticket people. There’s very little

ticketing that goes on. They, thankfully, now have the ability to…. The

courts have ruled that if they can see somebody and if they have

experience in listening to loud noises, they can actually cite without a

ticketing device to actually test the decibel level, so it’s made it a

little easier. But really, the police are busy. They have a whole lot of

things that they’ve got to do to take care of our communities. In the

end, I think we’ve got a bit of a supply issue as well.

Right now it’s illegal to drive a bike with modified parts that

can be excessively loud — or a Honda Civic. As I saw the other day, they

had created a massive muffler so that they could be extra loud. It’s

illegal to do that now. They can get ticketed. They can have that pulled

off. But there’s just so many of them that we’re not getting at

it.

What I’d like to propose, and what I think we should look at, is

we should look at reaching out to other provincial governments across

the country and say: “Can we start to move towards Europe’s level of 80

decibels?”

Now we’re at 91, so we’re not going to get there overnight. It’s

going to take a long time. The way that Europe has done it is they said:

“For new vehicles introduced into the market, these will be the decibels

levels we’ve set.” We’ve done it for climate. We’ve done it for how much

carbon pollution. For lead, and on and on, we’ve done it. We could do it

for noise levels. For some reason, Canada and North America has not. If

Canada, as a nation, said to the suppliers that this is what we’re going

to do by this year, we’re going to have a lot more quieter bikes

introduced into the market, and that will help over time.

[10:10 a.m.]

We should probably ban the sale and the installation of

modifications for loud pipes. Right now you cannot drive with a loud

pipe, you cannot be on the roads with a loud pipe that’s been cut or

modified, but you can pay somebody to install it on your bike. Then,

once you’ve left the lot, you’re breaking the law. You can advertise it

for sale, but you can’t actually drive with it. So it’s a bit of a gap

in the law. I’d like to see us introduce legislation, potentially, to

ban the sale and the installation of these parts, just to make it harder

for people to be introducing pipes that are even louder than the

currently allowable limits.

Of course, we should enforce the existing laws and potentially

increase fines so that we show that we’re serious about this issue. It

has a health impact. It wakes the baby. It makes sitting on a patio on a

nice summer day not so much fun. You interrupt conversations. When you

talk to doctors, they will tell you that the mental health impact of the

constant stress of noise really does get felt in the body and really

does lead to shorter lives, more chronic illnesses, mental health

challenges and stress as well.

I’m hoping that these are a package of potential options that the

government might consider — indeed, that legislators across Canada could

get behind. We all should be able to sleep better at night. People

shouldn’t have to be sitting listening to the drone of noisy gnats of

people who want to show they’re bigger than all that, show off their

egos or something, just for their own potential enjoyment, when, of

course, you’re disrupting the enjoyment of thousands of people just for

your one singular pleasure.

I hope the member opposite will join me in this, that we can share

that in a bipartisan way and, hopefully, get some action in the next

couple of years.

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the statement. Yes,

I absolutely agree with many things that have been shared here today

already. I know, as the member mentioned, that the amount of complaints

that both local governments and provincial representatives hear from

people, especially in the spring and summertime, is very large. It comes

from a vast array of different noise sources. Certainly, the modified

motorcycles, the modified vehicles definitely drive a large portion of

those complaints.

I know in my past experience, with nine years as the mayor of

Kamloops, that every year this would come up, and every year we would

look into different models around North America, around Canada and also

within British Columbia. We’d see what other cities were doing to try to

combat these types of noise infractions and the impacts they can truly

have for people’s health, well-being, peace, comfort and enjoyment of

their own private spaces. Let alone even in some of the more heavily

populated hotel districts — what it means to the whole impact of tourism

and people’s ability to come to such a beautiful province, regardless of

where they may be staying around this province, and be able to enjoy

their vacation and their holidays without the incessant noise that does

come with this.

I think there is full agreement on both sides of this House around

the problem, but as was also very clearly articulated by the member

opposite so well, it’s not a problem that comes with an easy fix. As

we’ve heard, years and years…. It cuts across political lines of the

various ministers who have tried to implement and bring in new rules and

new changes.

A lot of what we’re seeing happening out there actually is already

against the law, as the member opposite has so rightly pointed out.

Therefore, layering more onto laws that we’re already having trouble

enforcing may not actually result in a change for the good. It may make

us feel a little better that we can point to a different law or a

different decibel level within the books, but I would suggest that if we

can’t get people to 91 decibels, dropping the law to 80 might not make

that work change in terms of what we’re ultimately at.

I do fully agree with the member opposite that we need to do

something. From our perspective, I think a lot of that has to do with —

and the member opposite touched on it — resources for local governments,

within their own police departments, to be able to resource and actually

make this a priority within their policing realm on any given

day.

[10:15 a.m.]

The simple reality is that, with staffing and resource shortages,

when other priorities come to the fore, unfortunately, if you’re the one

being woken up in the middle of the night or as you’re trying to get to

sleep, or even during the day if you’re a shift worker and you’re trying

to sleep during the daylight hours, this does not rate high on most

police departments’ priority lists as it relates to other crimes going

on within their community.

Although I can fully support some changes to the laws, I question

if expanding it to be a federal piece, when we’re having trouble even

keeping it under control in our provincial boundaries, will have that

same cause and effect. However, any change or any move forward, I would

hope, would come with a significant addition of provincial police

funding and resources to help make sure that municipalities can actually

enforce the laws that are on the books. The number one complaint I would

hear from people is that they would point to the laws on the books and

say: “Why are you not enforcing those laws on the books?”

I think that’s the key that every citizen expects: if we are going

to put something, enact something into law, we should have the resources

to properly make sure that we are enforcing that same law. We should

make sure that we get the end result that I think all members of this

House would like to see, which is that people can have peaceful

enjoyment of their private property on their off-hours and enjoy their

summer afternoons with their patio doors open and out on their

balconies.

S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the member from Kamloops for his remarks and thoughts on

this. In putting this forward, I’m hoping to spark a little bit of

debate and discussion. Many times we get locked in our own experiences.

We understand that motorbikes are always going to be loud because they

always have been. We understand that you’re going to have to deal with

your windows rattling because we always have had to. Sometimes we get

locked in that small experience, and I think that’s the case

here.

So many people I’ve talked to say: “Yeah, we gotta do something,

but people have been saying that forever, and nothing’s ever going to

change.” We’ve got to do something, but we never illustrate or actually

dig into what that something is.

In this case, I think the something is just admitting that our

current laws are too generous in terms of allowing noise. In the old

days, maybe there was more space between residents, you lived farther

apart, you didn’t have hundreds of people right together in communities

— small urban centres, as I know so many are trying to build now, as I

know the member from Kamloops looked to do when he was in municipal

government.

We’re asking people to live along main streets in dense centres

yet still allowing the old ways, saying that you can be as loud as you

want — 91 decibels for a motorbike, which is just two decibels lower

than a heavy commercial truck. We don’t allow some of that truck

activity in certain neighbourhood centres because they’re too loud, or

only at certain times.

I know in Delta there’s been an issue around trucks and the sound

of trucks and where they go. They’ve made certain decisions around where

trucks can be. Yet motorbikes can go everywhere, and they’re only two

decibels lower, in terms of volume, than the heavy truck.

For some reason, we’ve got locked in the small experience, that

they just will always be that way. In Europe, they’re actually working

now…. Their goal they’ve set out is that by 2026 they want to get to 68

decibels for all new vehicles, including motorbikes. Now, that I just….

We’re talking about 91 decibels and it will always be this way, that we

can’t possibly change it because we can’t even enforce the laws we’ve

got now. Well, that to me doesn’t answer the question. That’s just

ducking responsibility.

We have laws for pollution. We have laws for noise levels right

now. We’ve reduced how much pollution we can create with our vehicles,

but we continue to allow the noise we can create with our vehicles to be

much, much higher.

It doesn’t have to be that way. That is a solution. It will take

time, but unless you actually start, you’ll never get to the finish

line. And in this case, government after government after government has

refused to even start, just saying we must stay with the excessive noise

we have. I don’t agree with it, and we’re going to work to change

it.

HOUSING

M. Hunt: It’s my privilege to rise today in this House to speak about a

topic of fundamental importance to British Columbians, and that, of

course, is housing. Housing is a universal human need, and in places

where a lot of people want to live, it’s in very short

supply.

[10:20 a.m.]

It’s no secret to those of us who live here in British Columbia

that this is the best place on earth. My wife and I have lived in Surrey

for many years now, and it’s hard to imagine living anywhere else. With

the unmatched natural beauty and the countless opportunities we have,

it’s no surprise there’s a significant desire for housing here in

British Columbia. As a result, housing can be very expensive in parts of

this province, and therefore, there is a need for affordable housing in

particular.

Former governments have recognized this. We look back to 2001 and

we consider the period since then, and we see investments of $6.3

billion towards affordable housing that produced approximately 24,000

new units. Now, those are good numbers. In fact, we had one year where

there was almost $1 billion that was invested. That is wonderful and

commendable, and we want to see those things, but investments like these

ensure that housing is accessible for those most in need, like renters

with low to moderate incomes, women and children, seniors, First Nations

peoples and, of course, people with disabilities.

Aside from increasing the supply of affordable housing,

governments have also helped to ensure that rent is more affordable for

British Columbian families, providing rent assistance to more than

30,000 B.C. households. Through programs such as rental assistance and

Shelter Aid For Elderly Residents, British Columbians have gained access

to private market rentals and ensured a multifaceted approach to trying

to deal with the issue of rental affordability.

We also recognize that everyday financial pressures can make it

difficult for British Columbians to save for their first home on their

own. We’ve seen that British Columbians have been helped in owning their

own home by the B.C. home partnership that was introduced, a down

payment program that provided eligible homeowners with a loan of up to

$37,500 that was interest free. Payments weren’t required for the first

five years. It was another way of helping a particular segment of the

population to address the issues of home affordability.

So British Columbians were able to afford their own house, but we

also need a little help in getting them into it with the down payment.

We were able to do that through these programs. Not only did this

program help those individuals, but it also helped those who were

looking for housing because it got them out of the rental units and got

them into home ownership so that we had vacancies as well. I’ve also

heard that there is consideration of, in fact, removing that program and

discontinuing it, but thankfully, I have heard nothing further on that.

It seems as though that will continue, and I think that’s a worthy

project.

Like the governments before, this new government has identified

that there is a significant demand for affordable rental housing in

British Columbia. Now, we have heard, in the previous campaign, that

there was a plan and that there is a plan to create 114,000 units over

the next ten years. Simple math says that’s 11,400 units to be built

each and every year.

If we look at the numbers within the fall budget, that was 3,700

units that they’re talking about, which means that over the next three

years, we’ve got to deal with somewhere in the order of 41,900 units,

and that is a massive challenge. According to the government’s own cost

per units, that projects to about $5.6 billion, which is very ambitious.

It’s early in the days of the new government, and we recognize that, and

we recognize that they have a lot of ambitious goals that they’re

working on, and we wish them well.

Now comes the hard part, and that is carrying out those

commitments and actually ensuring that the funds are there to make it

happen. Based on the projections that were within the budget, the cost

of the 114,000 units would be about $15.2 billion.

There’s a group called the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives, and this is a progressive organization, I would advise you

— not one that would necessarily subscribe to things I would think, but

a progressive organization. They estimate there is, in fact, a higher

cost per unit for affordable housing. They suggest that the cost would

be about $250,000 per unit, which would then translate this into about

$28.5 billion for the 114,000 affordable housing units.

[10:25 a.m.]

So what we’re looking forward to is we’re looking forward to the

commitment for this being in the budget, and while budgets have been

raising taxes, we’re waiting to hear where this money is coming from.

Obviously, affordable housing is necessary. We need it, and the answer

will, of course, depend on the projections of what we’re projecting

these to be. Again, if we look particularly closely to the much higher

estimate that comes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives,

we’re looking at a very, very large number here. And we’re still waiting

for the numbers of the other details on other programs that the

government would like to put forward.

I would like to challenge the members opposite, the private

members opposite, on what their ideas are. What are their plans for

creating more affordable housing? I look forward to hearing the response

from the members opposite and hope they can shed some light on their

plans for increasing housing in the province of British

Columbia.

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to rise and respond to the member for

Surrey-Cloverdale on his statement with regards to housing, and I

appreciate the recap in terms of the previous record of the government’s

16 years with respect to housing.

I think we’ve seen, certainly in terms of the results from the

election, what the determinants of British Columbians were with respect

to their experience around housing. I agree with the member that housing

and affordable housing is integral to the success of our community and

also our economy. Certainly, the need for access to affordable housing

for British Columbians….

When we talk about housing, there’s a whole continuum to deal with

increasing numbers around homelessness, affordable rental housing and,

as well, adequate housing for families and, also, the needs for

employers to ensure that employees are able to have housing and to live

close to where they work, with respect to sustainability.

We’ve seen what the picture of housing has been in British

Columbia. We have the ratio. Typically, when you look at what the

measure of housing affordability is, you look at the ratio of income

generally to the cost of buying homes. Typically, it’s regarded that a

ratio of 3 to 1 is generally in the sphere of affordability. British

Columbia leads the country in terms of the highest housing costs and the

greatest unaffordability of housing, exceeding income to housing costs

12 to 1. We lead the country, and certainly, we’ve seen where we’ve been

taken over the last number of years.

I want to talk about what steps we have taken — this government,

the NDP government. The member mentioned we’ve been in government less

than three months, coming up to that. But that was one of our key

commitments: to address affordability, certainly to provide services and

to ensure that the economy works for British Columbia. It was clear from

our commitment and statements from the Premier and also the minister

responsible for Housing that we have taken action to address the crisis

that is right across our province with respect to housing.

When you look at housing, there are the demand and supply sides.

There are steps that need to be taken on the demand side, to really

bring into check rampant speculation that has caused housing prices to

skyrocket; as well as supply, where we see a neglect in terms of

investment for low-to-middle income around affordable rental

housing.

We have taken steps and have commitments of over 1,700 new units

of affordable rental housing as well as commitments in our budget update

for 2,000 modular housing units for people, combined with the housing

supports for the hard-to-house individuals and, recently, an

announcement for modular housing for the homeless to ensure there’s

interim housing available for people in terms of that

transition.

[10:30 a.m.]

We have taken concrete steps. There are more to take. Our minister

and the Premier have announced we will adopting a comprehensive housing

strategy to look at bringing in measures right across the continuum to

ensure that British Columbians have access to housing, which has

skyrocketed out of reach for many over the last number of

years.

Our government, with the support of the Green Party, is making

commitments to ensure that we bring on the ground not only modular

housing to address homeless issues but that we also invest in the

construction of low-cost rental units to ensure that British Columbians

have access to adequate housing. We’re also going to address the high

costs around rents in British Columbia by closing the fixed-term lease

loopholes, which have allowed landlords to bypass and increase rents.

That’s a loophole we’re going to close. As well, we’ve put investments

into the residential tenancy to ensure that landlords and renters have

access to ensure that their rights are upheld.

Our government is taking action. We are committed, and we will be

doing more in the months and years ahead.

M. Hunt: I certainly want to thank the member opposite for her comments.

Again, she brings out the emphasis on the fact that we’re dealing in a

continuum of housing. We often use the euphemism “affordable housing,”

and we actually mean subsidized housing. That’s what we actually mean.

But then, when we talk about people being in housing as

well….

It’s interesting, because over this last weekend, we saw, in the

newspapers right here in Victoria, the Burnside Gorge Community

Association saying: “We’ve had enough. We’ve got too much.” These are

the challenges with trying to put 114,000 units in.

Just walking here this morning from my condo, I walked past the

signs that say, “Stop overdevelopment, respect neighbourhoods,” from the

James Bay heritage group. We have these constant pressures. The

government is trying to go in one direction, and we find the push-back

coming back from communities. These are the challenges that this

government will be facing.

Clearly, there is a need for affordable housing units, and there’s

a lot more that goes into housing, as the member spoke, other than just

supply. Affordability goes beyond the designated…. The previous

government, for example, introduced a 15 percent property transfer tax

for foreign buyers in Metro Vancouver, a change that was made within the

provincial regulatory framework to help manage the foreign demand and

also raise money for other provincial initiatives in the housing realm.

Also, we saw the property transfer tax — the exemption being raised to

$750,000, again, to try and make housing as affordable as possible,

saving individuals about $13,000.

This new government has said that they, too, have changes in mind

— the proposals to be made around fixed-term leases, as was mentioned,

changing policies through transferring property with bare stratas. The

government, in their time in opposition, said that these were top

priorities. We look forward to seeing how they’re actually going to deal

with this. We don’t see either of these items in the budget that has

been introduced, and we look forward to them coming. The government has

also announced its intention to introduce a speculation tax — again,

another area where we’re waiting for the specifics, including when this

will come into effect.

Markets depend on stability and certainty, but there’s a lot of

uncertainty and unknowns in the province right now. I urge the members

opposite to clarify their plans so that British Columbians are able to

plan for their future in housing.

PROTECTING FIRST NATIONS MIDDENS

M. Dean: I rise today on the traditional territory of the

Lekwungen-speaking First Peoples, in particular the Songhees and

Esquimalt First Nations.

Today I’d like to speak about First Nation culture preservation

and celebration. I’d like to talk about the relationship between the

land and the importance of First Nation languages and the need to retain

traditional language and oral traditions as well.

In my constituency and throughout the whole of British Columbia,

First Nations are making connections between culture and land. Their

identity, nationhood and cultural survival are all interconnected to

their relationship with the land.

[10:35 a.m.]

Since time immemorial, First Nations have had an intricate,

respectful, spiritually and physically dependant, grateful stewardship

tie to the land. The nature of this tie is not so much one of ownership;

it’s one of guardianship and leadership. They believe they’ve been

bestowed with responsibility for the land and sea and air and all of the

creatures that inhabit the land with them. This sense of responsibility

is greater than an emotional tie. It is intrinsically tied to the

spirits of all aspects of the earth. This inextricable connection is

celebrated in oral histories, creation stories, ceremonies and cultural

practices. The stories and practices are passed down through individuals

within a family for many reasons, one being to protect the ancestral and

cultural connection to the land.

Many First Nation elders, like Shirley Alphonse of the T’Sou-ke

Nation, are leading the way with teaching younger generations about

traditional ways. For example, through the leadership and commitment of

school district 62, language programs for kindergarten children have

been thriving for over six years. The elder, Shirley for example,

teaches kindergarten in Sooke. She helps the children learn the SENĆOŦEN

language, which is spoken across many south Vancouver Island Coast

Salish peoples.

She has taught hundreds of children over the years and has offered

special programs in the community — for example, to a non-profit daycare

group for young parents in Belmont High School. As elder Shirley says:

“It is for our future.”

Shirley and so many others are passing along the traditional

knowledge, the cultural practices and oral traditions built up over the

millennia. They tell stories of a rich, vibrant history. The Coast

Salish peoples lived together in longhouses. They settled in villages of

hundreds and sometimes thousands of people. They travelled the territory

to fish and hunt and gather a bountiful variety of foods. Maps record

more than 500 Hul’qumi’num place-names blanketing the landscape.

However, many of those names have been obliterated from common

usage.

Those place-names aren’t the only loss. British Columbia is rich

with a great diversity of First Nation languages. Our province is home

to 60 percent of First Nation languages in Canada, with 34 unique

languages and 61 dialects. From a global perspective, B.C. is known as a

linguistic hot spot because of this diversity and the vitality of First

Nation languages here. However, most of these languages are critically

endangered, and we must do more to preserve and value oral histories of

First Peoples.

Language is the way a culture is transmitted. It represents the

identity of a people and holds cultural, historical, scientific and

ecological knowledge. When a language is lost, we all lose out on the

knowledge held within it and the unique way that its speakers view the

world. Language reflects values and relationships, perspectives and

history.

The United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples

states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use,

develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages,

oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures and to

designate and retain their own names for communities, places and

persons.”

Initiatives such as FirstVoices are working to preserve and

celebrate First Nation languages. It is an intentionally recognized,

on-line Indigenous language archiving and teaching resource, and it

allows indigenous communities to document their language for future

generations. FirstVoices provides state-of-the-art technologies,

training and technical support to community language champions. Teams of

fluent elders and technically savvy youth upload dictionaries,

alphabets, songs, stories, words and phrases, as well as audio and

video, to these community archives.

It’s part of the work of the First Peoples Cultural Council. The

council supports the revitalization of Aboriginal language, arts and

culture in British Columbia. Another council project is the First

Peoples Language Map of British Columbia that actually provides access

to a list of First Nations in B.C. and information about them, including

what language they speak and where they’re located.

[10:40 a.m.]

These are really important and vital initiatives that are making a

difference. It actually can help British Columbians understand the

nature of the relationship between oral histories and language, and the

value and richness of language and the connection between that language

and those oral traditions and histories, the relationship with the land

and the air and the sea, and how First Nations peoples are our stewards,

on behalf of the British Columbian province, in taking that forward.

These are really important initiatives, which make such a

difference.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the member for bringing up these comments.

It is important. I would also like to recognize the First Peoples of

this province and to thank them very much for the incredible opportunity

they’ve given us to share these wonderful lands that all of us call home

right now.

The member has brought up how important it is to ensure that these

languages and these cultures continue. I’m very fortunate; I come from

Penticton, home of the Syilx people. There’s a centre there called the

En’owkin Centre. The En’owkin Centre, run under Jeannette Armstrong, has

done an incredible job of preserving the language of the Syilx people in

our area and ensuring that generations are able to learn. That’s

incredibly important. As the member has pointed out, to preserve the

languages gives hereditary opportunities for the next generation to

ensure that they know how their forebears were able to

communicate.

Also, I know the First Peoples Cultural Council has done a very

admirable job of doing their best to ensure that many of these languages

and the diversity…. If I remember correctly, there are something like 34

dialects that are spoken in this province, different languages of the

original people. The First Peoples Cultural Council is doing an

incredible job to trying to assimilate and get this information so that

it can continue to be passed on. I know that the Royal Museum right now

has the First Peoples display — a very good display, I’ve been told.

Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to make it

there.

I’m also very cognizant of what transpires in my area about the

preservation and the knowledge that comes down. As a child growing up

right next to the reserve, the Okanagan Indian Band’s reserve, PIB, as

it was referred to, I grew up with a lot of kids. I’ve always missed the

opportunity to pick up on some of those opportunities that were given to

many of us to try and garner some of their languages.

It doesn’t just, necessarily, talk about language. It shouldn’t

just talk about languages. It’s revealing their culture and their past

heritage. We’re right now facing an issue in the Cawston area. I was

approached when this first happened, where a site was discovered. The

site appears to be family members and is being exhumed at this point in

time.

The evidence that is coming out of that is showing the diverse

culture that took place in the South Okanagan for a lot of the migratory

tribes that had come through there. These are the things that we have to

do and ensure, whether we’re in government or in elected positions like

myself, to ensure that these sites are protected and the opportunities

are presented not only to this generation but to the next

generation.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for bringing this

forward. It is an incredibly important part of our history here in

British Columbia to ensure that these languages and these cultures are

made available to everybody.

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the hon. member opposite. I would absolutely

encourage all British Columbians to come to the B.C. Museum and actually

visit the exhibit that’s called Our Living Languages. It exhibits First

Nations artwork, video, audio. There’s life engagement. There are

fantastic opportunities to learn about disrupted languages in B.C. and

their complexity, and all the work that is going on in the province to

revitalize them as well. You can actually wander through a forest of

different languages and understand, as well, the relationship in the

province to the land where they originated and the language that belongs

there as well.

Thank you again for the comments that all of us — Indigenous,

non-Indigenous, young, young at heart — have a role to play. We all have

a duty, a responsibility. First Nations history is the history of this

land and this province, for all of us, whether we were born here or we

have come here from another land.

[10:45 a.m.]

There are many opportunities for people to get involved. For

example, I run a project looking at bilingual signage at some children

and family community centres, making sure that there was actually proper

recognition for the traditional territory and land. For these centres,

where people come and go, we’re making sure that people are reminded all

the time of the history of our land.

In my constituency and around the province, First Nations leaders

are making a real difference. I’d like to take this opportunity to

especially acknowledge the Chief of Songhees First Nation, Ron Sam, and

the Chief of Esquimalt First Nation, Andy Thomas, who have both educated

me a lot — not only just in the last few months but in all the years

that I have known them. And as we move forward with reconciliation and

building new relationships with First Nations, we must look for ways to

work together and preserve and celebrate and rebuild the culture and the

traditions of First Peoples of this land.

Even in my constituency, in Colwood, on the 25th of October…. A

local First Nation woman has written a book called Trudy’s Rock

Story , and she’s launching that, published by Medicine Wheel

Education. She’s hosting a signing session at Wishart Elementary School

that will embrace the community. I look forward to putting my energy

into helping with this ongoing work and to celebrate and to revitalize

First Nations culture and traditions.

TRANSPORTATION

J. Martin: It’s good to be back. Hope everybody had a pleasant break week

from the Legislature and lots of turkey and all of those good

things.

Interjection.

J. Martin: Yes, exactly. I smoked a turkey. I always do that.

I’d like to talk about transportation for a little bit, if I may.

Throughout the province, we rely on safe, efficient and reliable systems

of transportation, whether via land, air, sea. It doesn’t matter.

British Columbians depend on these transportation systems for business,

for leisure, for recreational use and everything in between.

These systems connect British Columbia. They ensure that people

and goods can travel from Cranbrook to Terrace, from Fort St. John to

right here in Victoria and all places in between. British Columbia is

also Canada’s Pacific Gateway. It provides a vital link for

international tourism, education and trade. And just as transportation

systems connect the people in British Columbia, they themselves are also

connected. Changes in one area will undoubtedly affect other areas,

sometimes for the better. But without proper planning and study, these

changes can produce unintended consequences.

The former government recognized this and, as a result, developed

a comprehensive ten-year plan for transportation in the province. It was

called B.C. on the Move . This sought to improve the province’s

transportation network as a whole, investing in our transportation

networks in all corners of the province, whether over land, by air, by

sea, highway, transit, rail, everything in between. We recognize the

importance of making these transportation options as safe and as

efficient as possible, decreasing frustration for drivers, reducing

greenhouse gas emissions and keeping B.C.’s economy moving.

There was more in the planning. The George Massey Tunnel

replacement project was estimated at $3.5 billion when construction

began in the spring. This project would have helped alleviate congestion

on Highway 99 — the single absolute worst traffic bottleneck in our

province — saving commuters an average of 30 minutes per day, or a

combined million-plus hours each year that could be used better

elsewhere than idling.

This is one notable example of a project that would have

significantly enhanced our highway system. But all across the province,

projects that improve our highways are important. Used by commercial

drivers, commuters and travellers, our highway network is a versatile

transportation system that each and every one of us depends on, whether

we’re aware of it or not.

In my home community of Chilliwack and, indeed, throughout the

Fraser Valley, we depend on Highway 1 as our connection to the Lower

Mainland. The previous government had committed to widening the highway

between 216th and 264th streets, a $113 million provincial investment.

However, we now know that this project is on hold, pending review. And,

like many, I await to hear from the government about which previously

planned infrastructure projects will be proceeding and, unfortunately,

which ones will not.

[10:50 a.m.]

With the steadily increasing traffic along this major route and

accidents on the rise as a result, I sincerely hope that widening this

stretch of Highway 1 is in the latter category. This route sees more

than 80,000 vehicles per day, which includes approximately 6,000

commercial trucks that help keep our economy moving. But due to the

volume, this stretch also sees 1.2 million hours of traffic delays each

year. During UBCM week, I had to make two commutes from Chilliwack to

Vancouver, back to Chilliwack, to Vancouver again, and on all four

trips, there were issues on the highway. One time I had to divert

through the Lougheed Highway, one time 16th Avenue, one time 0 Avenue,

and one time I just sat there stuck for about 2¼ hours. That was an

example of what can be going on even outside of peak rush hour traffic

times.

Aside from the obvious safety risks, traffic congestion causes

British Columbians to miss important meetings, appointments and

milestones, and of course, this is not good for blood pressure either.

That’s not to mention that it simply causes people to spend more time on

the road and less time being productive or spending it with family and

loved ones.

I’m looking forward to receiving some clarity on the status of the

project soon. I know that my constituents in Chilliwack are also looking

for confirmation about the new government’s plans for this highway that

affects us all so deeply.

We’ve seen some other changes in transportation policy. Last month

the new government eliminated tolls from the Port Mann and Golden Ears

bridges, a significant move and one that is inarguably expensive for the

government. It removes this revenue stream that was previously earmarked

to repay the debts we take on to build projects. I know that the cost

factor was not a surprise, as this was a measure the government

committed to prior to the election and implemented this fall.

As I mentioned previously, changes to the transportation network

will always produce notable effects. Sometimes these effects are

positive and intentional. For example, eliminating a traffic bottleneck

will undoubtedly help free up congestion further down the line and

ensure more efficient travel. But sometimes changes to the

transportation network produce other impacts that can be seen as more

negative. In this case, the removal of tolls off the Port Mann Bridge

has caused a significant surge in traffic, seeing an additional 30,000

trips each day. This has resulted in gridlock and increasing delays as

commuters shift to using the new toll-free Port Mann Bridge rather than

other routes. First responders have reported additional crashes due to

the increase in volume.

Clearly, the congestion and ensuing accidents were unintended

consequences of the removal of the toll. When these situations occur,

it’s important to acknowledge them and to take steps to mitigate them. I

look forward to hearing from the member opposite about steps and

commitments the government is planning to help alleviate some of the

transportation concerns that we’re facing in the province. I’ve itemized

a couple of them. There are many more, depending on where in beautiful

British Columbia one is.

We can all agree that finding ways to keep people and goods moving

is vital to the future of our province.

R. Glumac: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the statement of the member

opposite today.

First, regarding Highway 1, the Minister of Transportation is

following through with the project to six-lane the highway from 202nd to

216th streets in Langley. It’s well underway, and it’s anticipated to be

completed in fall 2019. The previous government announced to continue

this six-laning through to 264th Street into Abbotsford, but this was

made prematurely as an election promise. No agreements from federal or

municipal governments have been secured for the project. Without those

agreements in place, it’s difficult to move forward with

that.

[10:55 a.m.]

Moving people efficiently and in a cost-effective manner while

trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be a priority of

government. Sometimes reducing traffic bottlenecks doesn’t always mean

building new infrastructure or widening roads. For example, the tolls

being removed on the Port Mann Bridge have already had a reduction in

the traffic through the tunnel. This is one example where changing

priorities in investments can change traffic patterns in the region

without actually creating new infrastructure.

Reducing traffic bottlenecks also means investing in adequate

public transit. If we take a little trip down memory lane and we look

back, we see a disturbing pattern of a government that has delayed

transit improvements by obstructing new revenue sources for

TransLink.

This goes back, at least, to 2007, when the government repealed

the parking stall tax, which was a funding source for TransLink, or in

2009, when the government rejected giving TransLink a share of the

carbon tax. Metro Vancouver mayors at the time said it was desperately

needed, but instead of new funding, the government ordered an audit and

for funding to be made up by cuts. It wasn’t enough, and service

upgrades had to be delayed.

In 2012, instead of new funding there was another audit, which

forced TransLink to raise fares and make more cuts. This resulted in the

first-ever decrease in ridership in TransLink. In Surrey, the government

delayed the plan for a rapid bus along Highway 1 and over the Port Mann

and shortened the King George B-line so it wouldn’t go to White

Rock.

So how does a government respond to a lack of funding, project

delays and a decrease in ridership? Does a government show leadership

and properly fund public transit? No, it calls for a referendum, where

the source of funding is the most regressive tax possible, and two years

later it fails, as expected, and more projects are delayed.

Service levels in TransLink have stayed flat over the last six or

seven years while the population keeps growing. There are more young

people today that are eager to take public transit. But instead, what

we’re seeing are buses going by full of people and people at the bus

stops waiting for a bus that has a little bit of room on it to get on.

We’re seeing many areas that have no service at all. In 2010, the

service hours were 6.4 million. In 2016, it was 6.36 million — a

reduction. Per-capita service hours in that same period went down from

2.71 in 2010 to 2.48 in 2016.

In the last provincial election, there was talk of yet another

referendum, much to the dismay of Metro Vancouver mayors and all transit

users. The Metro Vancouver chair stated that the thought of another

referendum was the epitome of frustration in trying to deliver transit

solutions.

We need to take investment in public transit seriously. This

government is committed to 40 percent funding of TransLink’s ten-year

plan. What this will result in is the replacement of the Pattullo

Bridge, Surrey light rail, a Broadway subway, more railcars, station

upgrades on the existing SkyTrain system and a lot more good stuff to

come.

J. Martin: Thank you, Member.

With a coastline in British Columbia that spans some 25,000

kilometres and a land mass of nearly one million square kilometres, an

effective transportation network is vital to the economic and the social

well-being of British Columbia.

We depend on efficient and effective transportation to keep people

and goods moving, but our transportation system is also significant for

another economic and social reason. It provides jobs. It helps keep the

economy rolling by people going to work. The transportation sector

employs people from one end of British Columbia to the other. This needs

to be considered by government when they’re making decisions about

transportation.

For instance, the Transportation Investment Corporation employed

more than 180 workers to manage tolling. On the flip side, as we renew

and improve parts of our transportation system, we are also creating

jobs throughout the province.

[11:00 a.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

For instance, improvements to the Fraser Valley corridor of

Highway 1 were expected to produce more than 700 jobs, no small number.

The Massey Tunnel replacement project would have created 9,000

construction jobs plus 4,500 to 5,000 additional permanent jobs by 2045,

stemming from increased economic growth.

It’s crucial that we see the whole picture when we’re looking at

the future of the province’s transportation network. The jobs that these

projects create, the economic growth that improvements to the

transportation networks…. They help facilitate that kind of growth that,

in turn, helps us keep making these investments in the future of British

Columbia. We need to find a way to continue to support that growth. I

think that’s something that members on both sides of the House can agree

on.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time to pass on these remarks

today.

Hon. M. Mungall: I call private member’s Motion 6 that is currently standing on the

orders of the day.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — DIVERSITY

AND HUMAN

RIGHTS

B. Ma: It is my privilege to rise today to move a motion that I believe

really needs no debate.

[Be it resolved that this House support the celebration of diversity

and recognize the importance of protecting human rights.]

May I proceed?

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

proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of the motions

preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

B. Ma: On second thought, perhaps this motion isn’t as obvious as it

really should be. After all, we were the only province in the country

without a human rights commission for nearly 16 years, and the previous

government seemed perfectly content with this, as though it was not

needed. I insist: it absolutely is needed.

I am the MLA for a beautiful, diverse riding. But like other

places in this great province, my riding is not perfect and is not

immune to the effects of intolerance, prejudice and hatred.

As the Canadian-born daughter of immigrants and a person of

colour, I have experienced intolerance firsthand as well. It is no

secret that my recent election campaign was a target for some

race-related aggressions. It was much reported on in the media that my

election campaign signs were vandalized with swastikas, as were those of

other candidates, like former MLA Naomi Yamamoto.

The truth is, there was a lot more going on than what was reported

on. My volunteers received negative feedback about my ethnic heritage on

doorsteps. My campaign office, which prominently featured my photo as

well as the photo of my West Vancouver–Capilano colleague Mr. Mehdi

Russel, who was born in Iran, would receive visitors who would shout

intolerant phrases through our doors.

I was approached with prejudicial comments on streets, and I was

given advice on how to overcome attributes I supposedly had because of

my ethnic background from people who had only known me for seconds. But

these visible and audible acts of discrimination are only one shallow

element of intolerance. Like a glacier, they represent only what has

risen to the top. Most of what emboldens this behaviour lies beneath the

surface of the water.

There are the jokes that we think are harmless. There are the

thinly veiled articles printed in papers. There are the conversations

between friends, made by people passing by my campaign office who did

not realize that the volunteers inside could hear them. There are the

private conversations around the dinner table that colour the way

children feel about their peers.

When former Premier Christy Clark was asked about the swastikas on

Ms. Yamamoto’s campaign signs, she brushed it off, saying: “People do

dumb stuff during campaigns.”

Then she went on to imply that the NDP campaign, my campaign, was

responsible for these reprehensible acts. Former Premier Clark might

have been content to dismiss the incident, but if you were monitoring

the Twittersphere, it was clear that the incident had deeply upset her

candidate Ms. Yamamoto. She had every right to be upset, because hate is

upsetting and it is unacceptable.

It was also unacceptable when hate-filled transphobic fliers

targeting NDP candidate Morgane Oger were distributed throughout

Vancouver–False Creek during the election.

[11:05 a.m.]

It was unacceptable that the newly elected leader of the federal

NDP, Jagmeet Singh, faced numerous accusations of being a terrorist

because he wears a turban.

Politics is not the only place where discrimination reveals

itself, of course. There are countless experiences that we can all point

to in this world. And then there are the many, many more acts of love,

compassion, tolerance, unity and hope that British Columbia is more than

capable of.

In North Vancouver, candidates from all parties spoke out to

denounce the hatred represented by the swastikas on our signs. In

Vancouver–False Creek, Morgane Oger’s primary rival, the current member

for Vancouver–False Creek, decried the hatred expressed against Ms.

Oger, defending her voice as an important contribution to the province’s

political discourse.

The coming together of people across party lines to defend against

discrimination and acts against the progress of human rights is

significant. It is part of our role in fighting against hatred and

intolerance and moving towards true equality. There are those out there

who will use our differences to divide us, to segregate us, to turn us

against each other, but the vast majority of us in British Columbia know

that our diversity is our strength. This House must provide the

leadership required to demonstrate and celebrate how diversity can be a

source of power that unites us.

To fight intolerance, we cannot simply react to intolerance. We

must overcome it. Our job as elected representatives of the beautiful

mosaic that forms this province, and the job of the Human Rights

Commission, is to continue the hard work of emboldening those acts of

love and tolerance so that these values speak much more loudly than

those of intolerance. This is the kind of leadership and the kind of

work that the province must provide leadership for.

T. Wat: It’s my privilege and honour to rise in the House today to support

the celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of protecting

human rights. This was an issue very dear to me in my previous capacity

as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. In that role, I was

able to witness and participate in so many celebrations of diversity

across our great province, and it’s still dear to me given that I

proudly represent Richmond North Centre, which is extremely

diverse.

Richmond itself is one of the most multicultural communities in

Canada, and this is very attractive to newcomers. The cultural diversity

and unique geography of Richmond make it a great place to live, work and

play. Those newcomers who have chosen to make Richmond their home are

among the 40,000 new immigrants that are welcomed into British Columbia

each year. Of course, we know British Columbia is the most ethnically

diverse province in the country. It is something we can all take a great

deal of pride in. I know I do.

I think that living in a diverse province like British Columbia

means that we should all take personal responsibility to ensure that

everyone around us feels understood, included and respected. If and when

they don’t, it is reassuring to know that they are protected under the

human rights code. It is against the law to discriminate against or

harass others because of their age, ancestry, colour, criminal

conviction, family status, gender expression, gender identity, marital

status, mental disability, physical disability, place of origin,

political belief, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or source of

income.

In the event that a person in British Columbia feels their human

rights are being threatened, they can turn to the B.C. Human Rights

Tribunal. It is an independent, quasi-judicial body created by the B.C.

human rights code and is recognized as a leader in the protection of

human rights. It accepts, screens, mediates and adjudicates human rights

complaints, offering parties the opportunity to try to resolve the

complaint through mediation.

Respondents can address the complaint and apply to dismiss it

without a hearing. If the parties do not resolve a complaint, and if

it’s not dismissed, the tribunal holds a hearing. More than 1,100

British Columbians receive dispute resolution services from the tribunal

each year.

[11:10 a.m.]

I want to close my remarks by focusing on some of the core values

enshrined in B.C.’s Multiculturalism Act. The act promotes racial

harmony, cross-cultural understanding, respect and peace. These are the

values we should be so proud of as British Columbians, values we should

keep at the forefront of our minds at all times. We need to look out for

one another to ensure everyone in this great province feels understood

and respected.

I believe all of us in this House understand what a privilege it

is to gather in this building to do the work that we do. This

legislative precinct welcomes visitors from around the world every

single day. When they come here and enter in the history of this place,

they learn about how we join together to try to right some of the wrongs

in B.C. history that caused deep hurt and pain, like the historical

wrongs imposed on Chinese-Canadians, the turning away of passengers from

India aboard the Komagata Maru and the removal of Japanese-Canadians

from their homes and businesses and sent to internment camps in B.C. and

across Canada during the Second World War, just to name a

few.

We must always look for ways to heal the wounds of the past and

ensure these injustices never happen again. Hatred and intolerance have

no place in our rich, multicultural society. We must be vigilant against

all discrimination as well as other forms of racism.

Racism and discrimination are not tolerated in British Columbia.

It is up to every citizen of this province to take a collaborative,

community approach to challenge and prevent racism and discrimination,

because each one of us can play a role in fighting racism and hatred by

promoting tolerance and acceptance.

Inclusiveness and diversity are cornerstones of B.C. society. It

is why the Multiculturalism Act mandates government to promote

inclusiveness in our schools, in our workplaces and throughout our

society.

N. Simons: For the information of those who are joining us in the House

today, we’re debating a motion called “Be it resolved that this House

support the celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of

protecting human rights.”

So it’s not really much of a debate as much as it is about how

much, how hard we can agree on something together. And I am glad that

that’s the reflection of the House today, because it is an important

statement to make from the people’s House, reflecting the attitudes and

beliefs and concerns of the people throughout our province.

I think that it’s important to state once in a while how

importantly we hold the protection of human rights in this place. I

think there are some examples of where we’re doing it well, and there

are, obviously, some positive moves made by the current government to

reintroduce a human rights commission.

We were the only province in the country that didn’t have a human

rights commission. So we’ve just introduced that in our first few months

in government. I’m glad to say that that’s a body that looks at the

systemic issues around discrimination. It’s important that we do that as

well as identify and address those individual cases of human rights

abuses that we can deal with at a tribunal level.

In particular, I think we need to talk about the human rights of

those without a voice in this province, and, in particular, I think

about the children, Indigenous children. Indigenous children in this

province have been found to be not benefiting from the same level of

funding for child welfare services as other children in this

province.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled, and has ruled

clearly, that the federal government is failing to adequately support

on-reserve First Nations child welfare. They’ve been issued three

compliance orders. That means three times they have been found to not be

listening or acting on the rulings of the Canadian Human Rights

Tribunal.

I think that we need to recognize that while we are all on the

same side in terms of ensuring that we protect human rights, sometimes

we need to push hard to make sure that the systems in government respond

to the desires of the members who have been elected by the people of

this province. So I urge the federal government to listen to the Human

Rights Tribunal in the federal sense and for my colleagues in this House

to ensure that we continue to push hard to ensure that adequate funding

is available to children living on reserve.

Another less common or less often spoken about is the rights of

prisoners, the rights of people who are incarcerated in this

province.

[11:15 a.m.]

We’ve seen examples of where those rights have been not offered,

where the rights of people incarcerated are not being respected. I think

one clear example of that is when we use, overuse, the system of

solitary confinement. It’s found to be harmful to human health, it’s

found to be harmful to their reintegration of people into society, and

it’s harmful for the security within those prisons, those provincial and

federal institutions.

I’m sure that members of this House agree that the rights of

prisoners need to be protected. It’s not always the most politically

profitable area in which to argue. But I believe that the rights of all

humans, all people of this province, need to be protected in order for

us to expect the same protections.

The LGBTQI2-S community has fought hard for their rights to be not

only respected but adhered to. I think our province is leading the way

in terms of ensuring that rights of all citizens are reflected not just

in law but also in practice.

So I fully and wholeheartedly support this motion, as I’m sure

everyone will. We won’t be voting on it, which is the tradition,

apparently, in this House. But we’ll all be speaking to the motion

proposed by my friend and colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale. I

look forward to the comments of others in this House.

J. Yap: I’m pleased to rise in the House to speak on this motion to

support this celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of

protecting human rights.

As British Columbians, we’re all part of the most ethnically

diverse province in this entire country, where 40,000 new immigrants

from all over the world are welcomed into our province each year. My

riding of Richmond-Steveston is just part of the incredibly

multicultural city of Richmond. I feel so blessed to live in an area

where each day represents an opportunity to learn from one another and

build a greater understanding of the various cultures that contribute to

our vibrant community.

Within Richmond, we have some wonderful organizations that reach

out to our diverse communities in meaningful ways. As I noted, we

welcome many newcomers who have realized that what we have here in

British Columbia is a great place to come to live, work and play. Many

of them decide to settle in Richmond, not only because of the great

spirit of multiculturalism but also for its unique geography and

location.

When they come, they’re often in need of services that may be

difficult to access because of various barriers that they may face.

That’s where groups like Richmond Multicultural Community Services step

in. Their workers, who speak 15 different languages, provide important

settlement services to those who are new to Canada or have immigrated

some time before.

They host a wide range of programs and community events to

facilitate and promote multiculturalism, diversity and inclusiveness in

Richmond. I know they’re great events because I, along with my fellow

Richmond MLA colleagues, have attended many of their events.

Another outstanding local group is the Richmond Chinese Community

Society. This group works tirelessly to involve Richmond’s Chinese

community in the city decision-making, which is so important. It helps

to ensure that all perspectives are heard. The society also helps with

the communication of the Chinese community’s suggestions and concerns to

local service groups and organizations. It encourages the members of the

community to participate in various local activities and not-for-profit

charities.

Indeed, groups like these are vital to the diverse communities

like what we have in Richmond. They not only help newcomers get settled

into their new neighbourhoods. They take it one step further. They help

them become full participants in our economy, in local decision-making

and in community activities. And we all hope that everyone enjoys that

full participation in daily life, without fear that they will be

discriminated against simply because of their race, religion or other

factors.

[11:20 a.m.]

If they are subject to discrimination, all British Columbians are

protected under the human rights code. In B.C., it’s against the law to

discriminate against or harass others because of their age, ancestry,

colour, criminal conviction, family status, gender expression, gender

identity, marital status, mental disability, physical disability, place

of origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation and

source of income.

The human rights code applies to all businesses, agencies and

services in B.C., except those regulated by the federal government. It

protects British Columbians from discrimination at work in a store or a

restaurant, or between a landlord and tenant, and works to ensure that

everyone can participate equally in the economic, social, political and

cultural life of our province.

Still, there are times when members of our diverse communities may

feel that their human rights have been threatened. In those cases, they

have the independent, quasi-judicial B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to turn

to, which was created by the B.C. human rights code. The tribunal, as we

heard, is responsible for accepting, screening, mediating and

adjudicating human rights complaints. It’s recognized as a leader in the

protection of human rights.

In closing, I’d like to thank important bodies like the Human

Rights Tribunal and the numerous community organizations, including the

ones in Richmond, who work tirelessly to make life better for everyone

in our diverse communities. Let us all commit ourselves to doing the

same for our friends and neighbours.

R. Leonard: As I was driving down-Island yesterday, I was struck by the beauty

of the season, the licks of red and yellow and orange amongst the

varying shades of green, the blue of the sky and the deep texture of the

clouds, where even the colour grey can be celebrated. Then I thought

about what it might look like if I were colour-blind. If all of the

colour was washed out of that great vista, I would be keen to be looking

for contrast, to excite the senses, to be alive to differences. That

reflection told me that I crave diversity; I do not wish to suppress it.

Selfishly, I suggest celebrating diversity in all of its forms is a way

to improve our own personal quality of life.

Speaking of blindness, I’d like to acknowledge Michael McLellan, a

visually impaired constituent. He’s tireless in his advocacy for better

transit service. As he said, you really wouldn’t want him behind the

wheel of a car. It’s just not a choice. He was the person who introduced

me to the language of diversability, not disability. So as we put our

efforts to supporting transit, we’re actually putting our efforts to

celebrating diversity.

Last week in Kelowna, a presenter to the Select Standing Committee

on Finance and Government Services was a father of a child with autism

and developmental challenges, a man who knows that his daughter’s

diverse abilities means a lifetime of challenges in order for her to

thrive as well as anyone. He made a powerful statement when he flipped a

common phrase on its head, saying: “My job as a parent is to prepare the

world for my child.” Putting our efforts to celebrate diversity will

help prepare us for his daughter and others of diverse abilities, and it

will also be a positive force for the protection of their human

rights.

Of course, our diversity is not limited to our physical or mental

differences. The member for Richmond North Centre listed a grand list of

ways of being diverse. Celebrating diversity in all its forms is what it

takes to make us safe and living in a peaceful world.

I am a woman, which comes with its own challenges, but I know, in

the greater scheme of things, I am a white woman of privilege. Sometimes

walking a mile in someone else’s shoes is not enough to appreciate the

lived experience of people who have been oppressed for

generations.

Rosemary Brown, my hero — the first elected black woman in the

Legislature, back in the ’70s — recognized that gap in the women’s

movement in the 1970s. As she said in her speech to the annual banquet

of the Negro Women’s Association of Ontario in 1973, and it’s still true

today: “Unless the women’s liberation movement identifies with and locks

into the liberation movement of all oppressed groups, it will never

achieve its goals…that unless it identifies with and supports the

struggles of the poor, of oppressed races, of the old and of other

disadvantaged groups in society, it will never achieve its goals.

Because not to do so would be to isolate oneself from the masses of

women, since women make up a large segment of all of these

groups.”

[11:25 a.m.]

Here’s a pretty good example. We are at a crossroads in responding

to today’s oppression of First Nations women. The REDress campaign,

Walking with Our Sisters and the orange t-shirt campaign

are all good works that mark the constant vigilance Indigenous women

have undertaken to overcome the discrimination and oppression they have

and continue to experience. In celebrating diversity, this House can go

a long way to supporting their efforts to protect their human rights and

ensure they receive the dignity, respect and equal treatment they should

come to expect.

I would like to mention the Comox Valley Community Justice

Centre’s work on countering racism, homophobia and hate activity, and

acknowledge chief administrator Bruce Curtis, who is the driver of many

strong initiatives that have grown support for the protection of human

rights and the celebration of diversity so needed in our community. One

of his efforts brought to life the critical incident response protocol,

originally signed by 43 organizations in 2009. More recently 126

organizations have signed on to the second iteration of the protocol in

This is what it takes to make a difference.

T. Shypitka: Happy belated Thanksgiving to everyone here. On behalf of my

constituents from Kootenay East, it gives me great pleasure to rise

today in this House to support the celebration of diversity and

recognize the importance of protecting human rights in British Columbia.

Before I do that, however, in the spirit and the importance of this

topic, I would like to recognize the Coast Salish territory represented

today by the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

I am proud that I was born and raised in this beautiful province.

British Columbia is as diverse with the geography of its land mass as it

is with the demographics of its people. British Columbia is the province

of choice in Canada for immigration, as it holds nearly 20 percent of

all Canada’s international citizens.

B.C. attracts, as my colleague pointed out, approximately 40,000

international immigrants per year. It’s a gateway to Canada from China,

India, the Philippines and Korea. I mention those countries because

those are the top four countries that were represented by immigration in

the past 16 years. As a matter of fact, Iran and Taiwan immigrate nearly

as much as our closest neighbour, the United States. During this time

period, British Columbians came from about 170 countries from around the

world. I mention these statistics because I don’t think a lot of British

Columbians realize how diverse this province really is. We are truly the

melting pot of cultures, races and religions in Canada and North

America.

Many of these people that come to B.C. are looking for a new life,

a life that is hopeful of being inclusive and free from persecution, a

life that sees them find real opportunity that’s based on work ethic and

not on religious beliefs, on desire to succeed and not on gender, on

entrepreneurial spirit and not on the colour of their skin. We in

British Columbia have that obligation, the fortuity to welcome all these

people from 170 countries and have them realize that their choice was a

good one.

We in this place are 87 members elected to represent the needs of

our appointed communities. We are treated with the task of creating good

policy which honours and reflects the sentiments found in the human

rights code. Under the human rights code, British Columbians are

protected from discrimination and harassment due to their race, colour,

ancestry, beliefs, sexual orientations, disabilities or age. This code

applies to all provincial agencies, services and businesses. It is out

of this desire to protect all people of British Columbia that the B.C.

Human Rights Tribunal was formed. The human rights code and the

establishment of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal make it very clear that

there is no tolerance for discrimination for any reason.

[11:30 a.m.]

Now, in my riding of Kootenay East, we are fortunate to have

groups like the Fernie Women’s Resource Centre, for their work helping

women who have been victimized; and the Community Connections building

in Cranbrook that houses numerous advocacy agencies that handle support

for many marginalized and vulnerable citizens; the Cranbrook Pride, who

stand for the support of the LGBTQI2-S community; the Ktunaxa Kinbasket

Child and Family Services Society, who work collaboratively with

Aboriginal families and communities of the Ktunaxa traditional territory

to increase their ability for caring for their children in a culturally

relevant manner.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t include the Salvation Army, led by Major

Kirk and Linda Green, who along with their staff, advocate and support

those who are disadvantaged and isolated from society. There are many

more that I don’t have time to celebrate.

In my region as well as the rest of the province, we must also

recognize and accept the need to reconcile and heal with our First

Nations people. There’s one thing that I’ve learned in my short

political career, and that’s that reconciliation is about forging and

maintaining respectful relationships. There are no shortcuts.

On the weekend, I had the distinct pleasure of listening to Col.

Chris Hadfield, the famous Canadian astronaut, and his view on human

rights. His view was from 300 kilometres away at the International Space

Station. His comments were that a lot of people here on earth aren’t

very smart. “We all share this bubble of air,” he went on to say: “on

this little blue-green rock in space.” Quite simply put, he said, “We

are all the same,” and I couldn’t agree any more.

In closing, I would like to say how refreshing it is to speak to a

non-partisan topic that has so much to offer to the people of British

Columbia. We all want to live in a humane inclusive and just society

where our strengths and our differences can be equally respected and

appreciated rather than used as leverage for hate — a sentiment that all

of us in this room can agree with.

L. Krog: The wording of the motion is important this morning. It talks

about “celebration of diversity” but also “recognize the importance of

protecting human rights.” From a legal perspective, the reality is that

as much as one can celebrate diversity, if you have no mechanism in

order to protect them, to enforce them, to sanction those who choose to

deny human rights to their fellow citizens, then the whole system breaks

down. It’s why it’s so important that we have a Human Rights

Tribunal.

If we are truly to move forward — and we have a long ways to go,

and I’ll deal with that in a minute — you need a Human Rights Commission

to promote public education to ensure that people understand that

diversity isn’t just some wonderful festival. It’s not just going to

some ethnic festival and eating ethnic food. It isn’t seeing charming

faces of a different colour than white in a room. It is something much

more fundamental. It is about understanding people’s history and their

culture and the importance that it represents for them to have that

place and sense of belonging.

I compliment the member who spoke previously this morning,

recognizing that we’re on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish

peoples. That is an important part of human rights: to understand what

it means to be a member of the Aboriginal peoples of this country,

whether First Nations or Inuit or Métis; to understand what it means in

terms of your culture and your appreciation of the society in which you

live and how you’re able to survive in it and work in it. We have a long

ways to go.

Now, this is a happy morning. The member for Powell River–Sunshine

Coast said that we’re all able to speak in agreement and with enthusiasm

and passion about this, this morning. But the reality is, and I don’t

mean this in a negative way, it was only very recently that we

celebrated the election of the first First Nations woman to this

assembly. It was a cause for great celebration.

Of course, I think that is the most recent and most outstanding

example of what we face, in terms of a society, as to how far we’ve come

but how far we have to go. The fact that a female of First Nations

origin gets elected to this assembly only a couple years ago says

something about how far we have to go.

That, I think, for me, is the important issue this morning. Yes,

to celebrate but to recognize that we have a long ways to travel down

this road to the kind of just society, which I think most members in

this place support and have a vision of exactly what that looks like in

their own minds. But we know that we are not there yet. So as much as I

celebrate this morning, I’m also conscious of the realities.

[11:35 a.m.]

I want to take one step further and talk about a little bit of

language that those of us who remember the ’60s recall. It was Janis

Joplin: “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” We

cannot promote and celebrate diversity and protect human rights, when a

large portion of our society lives in poverty.

The member from Comox talked about women, and the reality is that

the numbers haven’t changed substantially. If women have no money, then

talking to them about human rights is just a little bit silly. If you’re

a single mother with three children, struggling in a community, trying

to make a living, you’re not worried about human rights. You’re worried

about food on your table. You’re worried about economic

opportunity.

So human rights, for me, are always tied intimately to the concept

of wealth redistribution. We can talk in the high level and the glory of

it, but if you don’t have any money, if you don’t have economic

opportunity, then you really can’t exercise your human rights. To me,

they are intimately tied together.

One of the things that I’m most proud of — and it’s only a small

thing, and it’s a small step — was when this government increased social

assistance rates. With great respect, that will have, I suspect, as much

impact on the elevation and protection of human rights as much of what

we will talk about here this morning.

Until we recognize that human rights in a free enterprise society,

in a society where money is still the measure by which most of us are

compared and evaluated, and until we ensure that those at the bottom

receive more, we have a long ways to go on the human rights

issue.

E. Ross: I agree with the previous speaker to a certain extent. When you’re

in poverty, you don’t think about human rights. But the way we

approached it up in our region is we didn’t think about more welfare

payments; we thought about self-reliance and independence.

British Columbia is recognized for being a progressive society,

but we can always do better. In fact, in my short term serving as an

MLA, I’ve had one human rights complaint, and it was from a Caucasian

member who felt deprived from accessing training funds.

As a member of the Haisla First Nation and a former chief

councillor, I can attest to the difficult process of reconciling our

past and finding a path to a better future for all British

Columbians.

Earlier this month I had the opportunity in this House to announce

the birth of my grandson Parker Russell Sutherland. He’s obviously too

young to even begin to appreciate the work that we do in the Legislature

every day to make our province a better place to live, work and raise a

family. But I hope that someday his generation will take the time to

look back at what we as leaders did to make British Columbia a place of

equal opportunity for everybody, without worrying whether or not their

human rights will be violated, regardless of ethnicity, religion,

culture or sexual identity.

It is my hope that in the work that lies ahead of us we will make

this province a beacon of hope in a world where persecution is a reality

for people around the world. There are many ways to promote equality and

equal opportunity.

Coming from a northern community that is populated with a diverse

population from all walks of life, I can tell you that economic

opportunity is a great equalizer. Fourteen years ago I was very much

against development of any kind, but then a few of my fellow councillors

urged me to take a second look at my people’s social and economic

conditions before arriving at any conclusions. I began to see that high

unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse and poverty were directly linked to

lack of opportunity. In those times, nobody was thinking about human

rights. With no future in sight, everyone is equally miserable, and

worse yet, there is no hope. We can see that in the Downtown Eastside,

and we find it in the remote communities.

Most of all, the thing that discouraged me were the politicians

who promised change but never delivered anything. So as a new

councillor, I decided that we needed to take a new approach: a path to

self-reliance, independence and self-determination — and our council

changed as well.

[11:40 a.m.]

By engaging various levels of government to talk with industry and

by making partnerships, we began to see despair give away to optimism.

Complaints about human rights or even on historic social problems became

few and far between. Certainly, we had to overcome hurdles, but we began

to learn that you cannot just wish for problems like human rights to

solve themselves. You have to look for solutions, and more importantly,

you have to pursue them.

We quickly learned that if you want economic development, you have

to make investors feel welcome and support the investors. That is why

what I would like to impress upon you this morning is that if we want to

improve on human rights, we have to deliver reconciliation that doesn’t,

in turn, penalize our larger society, and reconciliation can come in

many forms.

We have seen how important it is to recognize the historical

wrongs that were committed in the past. Komagata Maru , the

internment of Japanese Canadians and Ukrainian Canadians, and the

historical wrongs committed against the Chinese community here in

British Columbia were all wrong. Without question, it is important to

recognize that of all of these issues, at the top of the list that must

be addressed, foremost, must be human rights.

But the one thing you can’t legislate is hope. That has to come

from the people. I have seen how success in one community can effect and

influence other communities, and once people see that it is possible to

succeed, then often there’s no stopping them.

It is, therefore, my hope that in the course of this Legislature —

however long we last in this minority government situation — we all do

what we can to encourage a strong economy and say yes to projects like

LNG and Site C that’ll give people hope for the future.

A. Kang: I speak with humility on the motion introduced by the member for

North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

We often take our diversity and human rights for granted.

Sometimes we hear people talk about diversity and human rights as if

there were ancient scriptures, ancient truths that existed since the

dawn of humanity. But no, the universal declaration of human rights was

not handed to us on a silver platter. The Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms was not handed to us with a bouquet of flowers. Our

predecessors have fought long and hard for what we sometimes take for

granted. We must not become victims of our success, and we must continue

to fight to protect our diversity and our human rights. We must continue

to care.

I would like to share with everyone a quote by Elie Wiesel, a

holocaust survivor. “Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is

not a response. Indifference is not a beginning. It is an end, and

therefore, indifference is always found the friend of the enemy, for it

benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when

he or she feels forgotten.”

Continuing this quote: “The political prisoner in his cell, the

hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight,

not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to

exile them from human memory, and in denying their humanity, we betray

our own.”

In this province, there are still people living on the streets.

There are still people who have been wronged by history. There are still

people whose pain has not been relieved. We must do more to rectify the

mistakes of the past so we can turn proudly towards the

future.

Now, on a brighter note, the diversity of our province is indeed

worth celebrating. British Columbia has a very diverse population with a

large number of immigrants who have moved here and settled here for a

better life and an opportunity to succeed.

The city of Burnaby — where I had the pleasure of representing as

a city councillor and continue to represent there in this House as the

member of the Legislature — is the third most populated urban centre in

British Columbia. Over the past 25 years, Burnaby has grown to be one of

the most culturally diverse communities in the region, where more than

51 percent of the residents are immigrants.

People have come from all over the world — China, South Korea,

Philippines, Taiwan, India, Iran, Russia, Afghanistan and many, many

more. The population of approximately 223,000 speaks more than 58

languages and up to 100 different dialects. Just to name a few of these

Spanish, Russian, Italian and Vietnamese. We could go from A to

[11:45 a.m.]

In 2010, 23 percent of the government-assisted refugees arriving

in B.C. first settled in Burnaby. These were people fleeing from hunger,

from imprisonment, from conflict and from war. To echo Elie Wiesel, we

have responded to their plight, relieved them from their solitude and

offer them a spark of hope. We have invited them to build a future in

B.C. with us, a future that is stronger through diversity and stronger

through unity.

With that, I would like to ask the members of this House to join

me in support of the celebration of diversity and to recognize the

importance of protecting human rights. I would like to thank the member

for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for introducing such an important

motion.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak to the notion of diversity, which is

indeed a concept to celebrate, undergirded as it is by the principle of

pluralism, in which a plurality of beliefs, lifestyles, cultures and

ethnicities live together in harmony.

Canadian society has never been perfectly monolithic, but in the

past, our province was much more uniform than it is today. I think, for

example, of Fort St. John in the 1960s, where I grew up. Anyone

different in that town was a matter of great interest and gossip. I can

remember the first African-American person I saw in the flesh. I was

perhaps ten years old at the time. But in a single generation, our

culture has completely changed. Half of Vancouverites were born outside

Canada. Today the leader of the federal NDP is a Sikh, the mayor of

Calgary a Muslim. We are more likely to hear Mandarin spoken in some

The profusion of diversity in our society also means difference,

and difference inevitably means disagreement. The challenge for

public-policy-makers is to maintain social cohesion and unity amid this

dramatic growth in diversity so that we are not torn apart by our

differences. Our province has met the challenge of diversity by

broadening public policy, particularly as it refers to ethnic and

religious accommodation, sexual mores and gender change. Unfortunately,

the term “diversity” has almost become a euphemism for the opposite of

what we once were.

At one time not long ago, we were largely Anglo-Saxon, European,

Caucasian, Christian, heterosexual and patriarchal. The temptation in

the face of change is to reject those characteristics and favour the

opposite, diversity thus becoming a code word for the rejection of

tradition. But to reject those elements of our society contradicts the

very notion of diversity.

Europeans, for example, are still very much a feature of our

diverse landscape. The millions of Canadians who believe in a

traditional concept of marriage are still here. They are good people,

and they’re part of the diversity of this great country. If we want to

preserve the unity and social cohesion of B.C., we need to recognize and

affirm that a diverse country includes everyone, social conservatives as

well as social liberals.

A specific example of the tension over diversity is the proposed

law school at Trinity Western University. This private Christian school

has been attacked for its insistence on adhering to a code of ethics

practised by billions of Christians for the past 2,000 years. The

temptation of modernists is to force that school to violate its own

conscience, to require them to adopt a moral code they disagree with,

rather than accepting that a diverse society includes the traditional

Christian ethic. But just as Vancouver’s Gay Pride Parade excluded,

without apology, those who refused to commit to its own ethical

statement, so Trinity Western has the right to its own exclusive code of

ethics, and I support the right of both private groups to live with

integrity according to their own principles.

I raise this matter because the debate is of fundamental

importance. If Trinity Western cannot live by its conscience according

to its own ethic, then other Christian institutions cannot either. This

would reduce diversity and could mark the beginning of the oppression —

and I use that word advisedly — of Christian institutions in Canada,

from colleges and independent schools to churches and parachurch

organizations, that vast network of helping organizations which does so

much for Canada every day.

Already, prospective students of Trinity Western law school have

been deprived of two years of education, which, to me, is a grievous

harm. The struggle over the right to attend a Christian law school in

today’s changing society is a spectacular demonstration of the need for

just such a school to equip Christian lawyers to advocate within the

legal structures of our society for the rights of Christians and of

others.

[11:50 a.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I very much hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will follow the

wise decision of the Appeal Court of B.C., which said, in the Trinity

case: “A society that does not admit of and accommodate differences

cannot be a free and democratic society — one in which its citizens are

free to think, to disagree, to debate and to challenge the accepted view

without fear of reprisal. This case demonstrates that a well-intentioned

majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism can, if

unchecked, impose its views on the minority in a manner that is in

itself intolerant and illiberal.”

I will end by welcoming diversity and by reminding this House that

the definition of diversity must include all British Columbians, even

those who might differ from the currents of modern thought. We need to

respect them all, the respect and recognition of which will enhance the

social cohesion and unity to which we all aspire in B.C.

R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for an

important motion but also for her moving words. I think her lived

experience, her experience through the campaign, and her sharing it

takes courage. I want to thank her. I want to thank all the members who

have spoken in the House and shared their views.

Perhaps the member that just spoke…. He and I may not agree

necessarily on his positioning on not allowing members from the LGBTQ

community to go to a law school and then claim that you’re going to

later on be a good lawyer and represent everyone. It’s a concept beyond

me. We can have a further discussion on that. I look forward to

that.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: You’re the one who brought it up. I’m looking forward to having

that discussion with you further. Perhaps you’ll bring that as a motion,

and we can have a discussion on that.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I look forward to hearing that. I look forward to speaking to it

as well. I’ve only got a few minutes, so I’ll go back to this topic.

It’s critically important.

I was reflecting yesterday, as I was heading to a Diwali event,

about the celebration of Diwali. I’m not a very religious person, but I

enjoy celebrating other people’s cultures and other people’s holidays.

Yesterday, on the way to Diwali, I was reflecting on this concept of

darkness and light and how there’s a sense that darkness is rising

around the world.

I was reflecting on the movement in the U.K. around Brexit, the

vote and this anti-immigration, anti-immigrant sentiment that is on the

rise. I saw…. Just recently the mayor of London alone said that he’s

seen a 40 percent increase in racist incidents in the last

year.

It’s not just the U.K. I think the Prime Minister of the Ukraine

has come out openly saying he didn’t want any immigrants in his country.

You’re also seeing in Australia a bit of a movement as well. Of course,

how can we not forget our friends down south?

For us to think that there’s an imaginary border and these issues

cannot come to us is, I think, naive. I think everyone in this House

would agree that we need to do much work to ensure that we can create

this inclusive but also equitable society that we all want.

That leads me to this notion of human rights and the Human Rights

Commission. I’ve heard many members speak about the tribunal and the

importance of the tribunal, but I think many have failed to mention

that…. I think it’s important to note how the tribunal became the

tribunal and why the commission was taken out.

When the commission, in 2002…. When a new government came into

this House, the commission was actually working on research on

Indigenous youth in the education system. They were looking at why it

is, in our society, that Indigenous youth were not graduating at the

same rates as everyone else. That was the project they were working

on.

Then the new government came in and said to them: “Well, we don’t

want you to do any more. We want you to scale things down.” The

commission said: “No, we’re an independent. We’re going to continue to

do the work.” The government came and said: “How much are you going to

spend on this?” I think they said it was $110,000. They cut their budget

by $110,000. Then, a few months later, they disbanded the commission. So

I think to suggest that it just kind of created itself is

wrong.

[11:55 a.m.]

It was a systematic decision to get rid of it. A human rights

commission comes in; a human rights commission gets taken out. It’s been

this way in B.C. — nowhere else.

I think it’s important to talk about why a human rights commission

is needed in addition to, say, the tribunal. A tribunal is an

independent body that looks at individual cases and adjudicates the

individual case. It does not look at systematic issues overall. In fact,

the tribunal can’t even give advice on systematic issues because they

all have to remain impartial. In case a case comes to them again, they

have to be impartial.

It’s critically important that we bring a commission in place in

B.C. I’ve had the privilege and honour to listen to community groups

across the board come forward and talk about why they believe a

commission is important. It’s been a moving and, I’d say, a

life-changing experience.

We look through the history of human rights. Yes, we’ve made

progress.

Speaking of light and darkness, the red light has come on. So I’ll

wrap up at this point.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned to 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada