Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 181

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas

R. Singh

B.C. Youth Parliament

L. Reid

Delta Sports Hall of Fame

R. Kahlon

Movember fundraising campaign

G. Kyllo

Mike Fleming

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Government recordkeeping policies and use of email by communications contractor

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Sims

S. Bond

Use of glyphosate in forest management

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Donaldson

Government recordkeeping policies

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Sims

J. Johal

Coverage of expenses for Advanced Education Minister

M. Stilwell

Hon. M. Mark

Parliamentary secretary per-diem allowance claim during Welfare Food Challenge

M. Hunt

Hon. S. Simpson

Government recordkeeping policies

M. Polak

Hon. J. Sims

Orders of the Day

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 31 — Referral of proposed amendments to Bill 45 to Committee of the House

Hon. C. James

A. Weaver

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

A. Weaver

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

A. Weaver

S. Cadieux

Hon. J. Sims

R. Kahlon

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 46 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 50 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018 (continued)

Hon. J. Darcy

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 51 — Environmental Assessment Act

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

E. Ross

R. Glumac

S. Furstenau

D. Barnett

S. Gibson

R. Leonard

T. Shypitka

Reporting of Bills

Bill 48 — Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 41 — Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act

S. Gibson

A. Weaver

Hon. M. Mark

Bill 46 — South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018

Hon. S. Robinson

T. Stone

Bill 48 — Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

A. Weaver

S. Thomson

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2018

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d like to welcome 30 representatives from the Canadian Home Builders

Association of B.C. to this House for their very first Legislature day here

in Victoria. CHBABC has 2,000 members building residential housing in

British Columbia. They employ 200,000 people and pay $11.9 billion in wages.

The members that are here are from communities right across the province.

They’re from the Island, from the north, from the Interior and from the

Lower Mainland. I’d invite all the members here to join me in welcoming them

here to the Legislature.

Hon. C. James: It’s my real pleasure to be able to introduce, on behalf of

government, a very important group that is here today with us in the

gallery.

As we do our work here in the Legislature, we know that the people who

do the hard work are at home in our communities serving all the members of

our community, providing that face, providing the day-to-day support for

people who are looking for services, who need that little bit of

assistance.

Today in the gallery, we have 75 constituency assistants from the NDP

MLA offices. They’re in Victoria for a couple of days for their conference.

They’ve come from all over the province to be able to share their ideas, to

be able to learn how to better serve our constituents.

On behalf of all of us, I would like to not only give them a warm

welcome but give them our huge gratitude and appreciation for making sure

that our communities are well represented because of their hard work that

they do each and every day on our behalf.

Thank you, all of you.

B. Stewart: It gives me great pleasure today to make an introduction of my sister

Andrea McFadden and her husband, David, who are in the precinct, in the

House today. Andrea and David are local pioneers in the herb industry,

creating Okanagan Lavender some years ago. Andrea has become, I think, one

of North America’s most respected experts in that particular area. Anyways,

they reside in the great riding of Kelowna-Mission, and I’d like the House

to welcome them.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure — it must be family day — to

introduce a member of our family. We all know how much we are away from our

families, so it’s great to be able to introduce our youngest son, who’s in

the gallery today — Ben Conroy, who is from Alberta but is slowly

transitioning his way home. We look forward to when he will be joining us

back in the Kootenays again very soon. Please join me in welcoming

him.

S. Sullivan: From this side of the House, we’d also like to welcome the Canadian

Home Builders of B.C. They’re on the front lines of the housing

affordability crisis. I’d just like to acknowledge them for their

work.

Thank you.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 16 grade 11 and 12 students

from Maria Montessori school in my riding. They’re accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Aaron Gillatly. Would the House please make them feel very

welcome here today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I see Chuck Keeling from Great Canadian Gaming up in the gallery.

Would the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to rise today and actually introduce to the House a

very close friend of mine, Bob De Wit, who’s the president of the Greater

Vancouver Home Builders Association. Bob is a great friend who hails from

the metropolis of Sicamous, B.C. We graduated together back in 1986. I can

hardly believe that.

Anyhow, would the House please make my friend Bob very

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DIWALI AND BANDI CHHOR DIVAS

R. Singh: I want to take a moment to wish the members of this House and the

residents of B.C. a very happy Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas. While

Diwali is a festival of lights and symbolizes victory of the good over

evil and hope over despair, Bandi Chhor Divas celebrates the fight

against political injustice.

Both these festivals are celebrated every year across the world

with enthusiasm by the Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities.

Canada, being a diverse nation, has also embraced these festivals, and

today both these occasions are being observed from coast to coast by

Canadians.

Today, for the first time, Diwali was celebrated in the B.C.

Legislature. A large number of members of the community joined the

members of the House in the celebrations. This was a reflection of our

province’s rich multicultural heritage and a celebration of our vast

diversity.

I hope that the glow of Diwali diyas brings enlightenment and

happiness in everyone’s lives. Wishing you all a very nice

Diwali.

B.C. YOUTH PARLIAMENT

L. Reid: The British Columbia Youth Parliament is an organization that

recognizes every young person’s potential to lead and serve in the

community. Since 1924, BCYP has provided a forum for young people to

develop skills in leadership, organization, public speaking and the

parliamentary process and to put these skills into practice through

parliamentary debate. BCYP is not affiliated with any political party

and is a non-profit organization.

BCYP’s year begins with a parliamentary session from December 21

to 31 in this Legislature, sitting in this very assembly. They use

parliamentary style of debate to plan educational and service projects,

establish BCYP’s financial commitments and amend BCYP’s governing

legislation.

At session, members, who are aged 16 to 21 years of age, meet

young people from all over the province; debate cabinet’s legislation,

which sets up BCYP activities; debate current local and national issues;

learn about debating and the rules of parliamentary procedure; and elect

BCYP’s Premier, Deputy Speaker and Leader of the Opposition for the 91st

parliament.

After session, members put into action the plans made at session,

which usually include volunteer service projects in their home

communities — special projects which vary depending on annual

legislation but have included summer festivals, children’s day camps and

Camp Phoenix.

Each year 97 youth are elected to BCYP as representatives of their

communities. Each applicant must be nominated by an organization

committed to youth. Each of these 97 applicants accepted as a member of

BCYP must pay a $395 registration fee. MLAs and MPs are encouraged to

provide funding to support this worthwhile organization.

Members will sit and debate in this legislative chamber for five

days and will be accommodated for four nights in Victoria. During that

time, participants are supervised by members of the board of directors

of the Youth Parliament of B.C. Alumni Society. In addition,

transportation to and from Victoria will be provided for all

members.

This organization holds a special place in my heart. It was my

pleasure to serve this parliament as Premier in the 1980s.

I believe that public service is the rent we pay for our time on

this earth. As MLAs, we have a tremendous responsibility to safeguard

democracy. Supporting these amazing, articulate parliamentarians is

absolutely the way to proceed.

Happy 90th session, British Columbia Youth Parliament.

DELTA SPORTS HALL OF FAME

R. Kahlon: Last week Delta Sports Hall of Fame honoured the class of 2018

inductees. What an impressive class it was.

The six inductees. Laurel Crosby, a true sport builder, served 39

years on the board of directors of B.C. Wheelchair Sports and two years

as the president of the Canadian Paralympic Committee.

[1:45 p.m.]

Chuck Westgard was an outstanding two-sport athlete who grew up in

North Delta. After a successful season in ice hockey with the Portland

Winterhawks, he signed in baseball with the New York Yankees, where he

spent two years in the farm system.

John Coflin started playing football with Delta Rams. After a

successful university career at SFU, he was drafted by the Edmonton

Eskimos. He played seven seasons in the NFL. A major highlight: winning

the Grey Cup with Toronto in 1991.

Ed Anderson is one of Delta’s most decorated softball coaches.

Anderson had a hand in developing players who went on to play at the

national team level and earn scholarships in U.S. universities. One of

the teams inducted was the 1979 North Delta Colt All-Stars baseball

team. This team represented B.C. at the All-Canadian Midget

Championships — amazing result, considering that more than half the team

lived two blocks from each other.

Jill Proctor was one of the special speakers at the event. She was

a true pioneer and a trail-blazer. In 1993, Proctor began a journey as a

referee that led her to becoming the first woman to work a professional

match in B.C. and first female FIFA-accredited referee in

B.C.

Special thank you to Delta Sports Hall of Fame board of directors

— Rick Lewall, Carlene Lewall, Len Stroh, Judi Stene, Marion McNeill,

Steve Fera, Landon Kitigawa, Dallas Pretty and Karen Kilpatrick — for

all their work to ensure that sport is highlighted in our wonderful

community of Delta. We are very grateful for your service to our

community.

MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to announce yet another new addition to

the Kyllo household. No, it’s not a grandchild. It’s this breathtaking

handlebar moustache that I’ve been growing for the past week. You can

imagine the reception that it’s received from my beautiful wife,

Georgina.

Seriously, the reason I’m subjecting myself to growing this

’stache is to support an incredibly worthy cause called Movember. When

this international campaign began back in 2003, its focus was prostate

cancer, a cause that touched my own family and was a force behind my

initial involvement. Then the campaign tackled testicular cancer, which,

like prostrate cancer, was another tough subject for men to talk

about.

In recent years, Movember has embraced mental health — again,

another difficult topic for men. Many men were taught from an early age

that it’s not manly to cry or to share our feelings. Sometimes we bottle

things up until we can’t hold them in any longer. That is behind an

alarming statistic that shows that three out of every four suicides are

men.

Luckily, Movember is shining a light on these important topics and

raising funds for resources to support those in need. I’m proud that a

number of my fellow MLAs have joined my Movember fundraising crusades

over the last number of years, with incredible support from our B.C.

Liberal Party. In fact, we’re the only political party in Canada

fundraising for Movember.

Bear with us as we face these difficult issues with these stunning

mustaches and beards. I would like to thank my seven mo-bros and two

mo-sisters — colleagues who are joining me in this crusade — plus seven

staff and our religious representative, Pastor Jason

Goertzen.

Please support Movember.

MIKE FLEMING

A. Olsen: Today I stand in this House and pay our collective respects to a

constituent of Saanich North and the Islands and a friend of this

Legislative Assembly. For the past 48 years, the Christmas tree that has

lit the main rotunda of this House has been donated by Mike Fleming. On

October 27, Mike passed away suddenly of a heart attack while harvesting

Christmas trees in the Kootenays.

Mike grew up on the Saanich Peninsula on a ten-acre farm near Elk

Lake. He’s a graduate of Claremont Secondary School. He worked for more

than two decades in Haida Gwaii as a log scaler. In 1968, Mike

established Woodstock Evergreens, his first Christmas tree

enterprise.

Following his retirement from log-scaling, he partnered with his

sister Joan, and they established the Saanichton Christmas Tree Farm in

1981. You can’t miss their farm on the Saanich Peninsula if you’ve taken

a drive down East Saanich Road. Mike and Joan grew more than Christmas

trees. You can stop by their roadside stand and purchase fruits,

vegetables, flowers and even ostrich eggs.

[1:50 p.m.]

But Mike’s reputation was built on Christmas trees. He was even

the past president of the British Columbia Christmas Tree Council. Mike

was a long-standing member of the Saanich Fair and a proud supporter of

the local 4-H Club. He has a deep love of animals — the ducks, chickens,

pheasants, sheep, pigs, cows and turkeys were all an important part of

Mike’s life, but no more than that of his beloved black Lab,

Lucy.

I’m honoured to be asked to stand today and recognize and

celebrate the life of Mike Fleming on behalf of all of us. He will be

missed on the Saanich Peninsula and in this House. When we see the

Christmas tree this year, perhaps we’ll take another moment to be

thankful for the generosity of people like Mike that make our province

an amazing place.

Thank you, Mike Fleming.

HÍSW̱ḴE , and may you

rest in peace.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

AND USE OF EMAIL BY

COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTOR

P. Milobar: On March 2 of this year, Marie Della Mattia used her private Gmail

account to create what she called a group email for her issues

management team. Members of that group include four GCPE employees with

government email addresses, as well as Matt Hannah. To be specific, the

group message includes matt.hannah@bcndp.ca.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, what justifies a government

issues management team communicating through private Gmail and @bcndp

email accounts?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to take this opportunity to wish my colleagues on that side

of the House, this side of the House and all British Columbians a happy

Diwali.

Let me say that when it comes to this particular case, this

individual was in employment for a very short time. Her employment role

was to communicate with our senior communications officer, and it did

not involve lengthy emails or sending emails. It was to provide advice.

Further to that, this particular employee ceased being a member of

government or employee on the 15th of January.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: We’re talking about March, not January. We have a different

definition, I guess, of what constitutes a lengthy email.

The March 2 email from Della Mattia reads: “Hey, issues management

team, I’ve created a group email.” The main body of the message, nearly

a full page, has been redacted under

section 13 of the act “citing

policy advice or recommendations to government.”

Let’s be clear about what this is. This is a parallel

communications network which uses personal Gmail and B.C. NDP email

accounts to circumvent the rules.

Will the Minister of Citizens’ Services confirm that this is

entirely inappropriate and order a full review?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question. I want to remind

him that when they were sitting on this side of the House, they were in

very clear violation of freedom of information and had a very

embarrassing record of breaking records management rules.

In clear violation of the rules, they got caught deleting emails

after an FOI request came in. That was wrong. On top of that, they were

triple-deleting to cover it up. That’s also wrong. Even when someone

blew the whistle on them, guess what. They tried to cover it

up.

[1:55 p.m.]

The members on the other side of the House have asked this

question again, and let me repeat my answer. In this specific example,

the employee stopped being an employee on January 15. After that time,

she no longer had government email. She was no longer an employee. She

continued to provide occasional consultation work as a private

contractor for GCPE, providing high-level communications advice but was

not a government employee.

Contractors typically don’t use government-issued email addresses.

This is the norm across government, as it was, I want to remind my

colleagues, under the old government. Records prepared by contractors in

carrying out government work are under the control of government and are

responsive to FOI requests. As a contractor….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Thank you.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a second

supplemental.

P. Milobar: Hopefully, the minister will stick to worrying about what’s under

her purview in her time frame as minister, because we’re talking about

March of 2018.

Della Mattia is no ordinary contractor. The Globe and

Mail describes her as “one of the NDP’s top operatives.”

Taxpayers are paying this NDP operative $150 per hour to oversee GCPE

employees. They’re public servants that she’s overseeing. She’s in clear

violation of the rules and the law when she uses private Gmail and B.C.

NDP email accounts to communicate with the government issues management

team.

There have to be consequences when people break the rules. How

will the Minister of Citizens’ Services take care of this

behaviour?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question.

As I said, this person was not an employee at the time, and

contractors typically don’t use government-issued email addresses. This

is the norm across government, as it was when they were in

government.

Records prepared by contractors in carrying out government work

are under the control of government and are responsive to FOI requests.

As a contractor, she has provided many pages of records in response to

FOI requests from her non-government email account.

S. Bond: Well, the minister can try to duck, dodge and minimize, but let’s

listen to the business that was conducted by Della Mattia and see if she

has a different answer. In a November 2, 2017, email, Della Mattia

describes political tactics that she wanted to implement with the NDP

government. She writes: “It can go to all MLAs and all political staff.

And by the way, I’d include CAs and LAs in that too. Maybe some of those

GCPE folks that are doing political stuff — Karl and Matt’s

team.”

Two months later Della Mattia joined the very GCPE teams that were

“doing political stuff” and began conducting government business through

her personal Gmail account with a B.C. NDP account.

Duck; dodge, Minister. Let’s answer the question. This is a very

serious issue. What is the Minister of Citizens’ Services going to do

about an obvious violation of the rules?

Hon. J. Sims: When I get that line of questioning, I’m always amazed that it’s

coming from that side of the House.

Let me quote from the OIPC news release, October 22, 2015: “In the

course of this investigation, we uncovered negligent searches for

records, a failure to keep adequate email records, a failure to document

searches and the wilful destruction of records responsive to an access

request. Taken together, these practices threaten the integrity of

access to information in British Columbia.”

[2:00 p.m.]

This individual was no longer an employee, was a contractor, and

the emails available have been provided.

Mr. Speaker: Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: November 10, 2017 — let’s take a look at another Della Mattia

email on political tactics. “If we’re thinking of it as selling our

agenda and helping others to do the same, we can send it to the wider,

I’m thinking, people in the chattering classes of the left, party

leadership and all political staff — CAs, MAs and EAs.” It brings a

whole new definition to the word “political staff.”

This is someone who apparently, and under the watch of this

minister, is prepared to cross any line between B.C. NDP staff —

political staff — and legislative staff and the government.

As a contract employee, she rejected her assigned government

account and used her own Gmail account to set up group messages with the

B.C. NDP email address of a government communications executive

director, none other than Matt Hannah.

Enough is enough. The minister can keep answering the question off

her piece of paper. But let’s be clear, it is time to find

out…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: …when this minister will stand up and terminate Della Mattia’s

contract.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s the same question, and let me repeat the same answer. This

person was no longer an employee as of January 15.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.

Hon. J. Sims: This particular person was a contractor. Like other contractors,

many of them, they do not have government emails. Those emails that were

available from their account have been made available. This individual

did high-level advice for our communications people.

Let me tell you that we’re not going to take any lessons from that

side of the House, because they are a government of “triple-deletes” and

“win at all costs.”

USE OF GLYPHOSATE IN

FOREST

MANAGEMENT

A. Weaver: Every year in B.C., 16,000 hectares of forests are sprayed with an

herbicide known as glyphosate. It’s sprayed over forests that have

recently been logged and replanted to kill broadleaf plant species that

might inhibit the growth of lodgepole pine seedlings. The result is

reduced plant diversity, leading to monocropped forests that are

vulnerable to more frequent and destructive wildfires and beetle

infestations.

The World Health Organization has warned that glyphosate is likely

carcinogenic. It also has genotoxic, cytotoxic and endocrine-disrupting

properties. For decades, researchers have been reporting reduced numbers

of rodents, moose, insects and birds in forests that have been

sprayed.

To the Minister of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations,

if our forests exist for their monetary value once felled, glyphosate is

an efficient tool. If we consider the value of our wildlife ecosystems

and human health, it is a veritable threat. What are the values that

inform our ongoing use of glyphosate in B.C. forests?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you very much to the Leader of the Third Party for the

question on glyphosate. It’s a topic that I’ve been following closely

since 1990. It’s of great interest to people around B.C.

Glyphosate is broadleaf herbicide. Many members in the House might

recognize it as the active ingredient in Roundup. I want to say that our

government is committed to protecting the important biodiversity of

forests while ensuring a continued vibrant forestry sector.

The herbicide glyphosate is approved by Health Canada for use in

forest management and is used selectively to improve survival and growth

of trees. In B.C., any users must follow the Integrated Pest Management

Act and take steps to minimize impacts on the environment, including

fish-bearing streams — a very important consideration.

[2:05 p.m.]

B.C.’s reforestation practices are continually updated based on

new scientific research and information, and recently the ministry

started to allow increased levels of aspen and broadleaves in managed

stands throughout B.C., which will lead to a further decline in the use

of herbicides.

I know the member quoted a figure of 16,000 hectares where

glyphosate was applied. That was a number from 2015. I’m happy to report

that in 2017, that number went down to 10,000 hectares, so a decrease of

almost 40 percent.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Numerous jurisdictions have banned or restricted the use of

glyphosate. These include the Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, El

Salvador, Argentina and Denmark, to name but a few. Meanwhile, in

British Columbia, we continue to spray tens of thousands, or at least

10,000 hectares of forests annually with glyphosate. We are contributing

to the severity of wildfires, harming wildlife and watching the chemical

work its way through our food supply, all without any sound

justification.

We should be thinking about the precautionary principle here, not

waiting until it’s too late. As Rachel Carson once wrote: “The right to

make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged. It is the public

that is being asked to assume the risks.”

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and

Rural Development, we are risking a lot for questionable benefit. How

can the minister continue to justify the ongoing use of glyphosates in

our provincial forests?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to acknowledge that we’re looking for ways to do better in

the forests, especially around the application of herbicides so that

other forestry innovations such as the use of superior orchard seed,

improved nursery techniques, fast-growing seedlings and well-timed

planting are also reducing the amount of herbicide being

required.

We continue to investigate other silviculture strategies that take

into account climate change and managing for resilient forest

ecosystems. I’m very excited about the work of re-establishing forests

after they’ve been disturbed by wildfires and recreating a forest mosaic

so that deciduous as well as conifer stands are part of that mosaic,

leading to more resilient forest ecotypes.

We’ve also been doing work on the impacts of glyphosate on

wildlife, specifically with moose. That’s a huge concern to many people

in rural areas — moose populations. We want to make sure we’re

responding to scientific evidence, so we have a program where we’ve

initiated a two-year study to look at the impacts of herbicide spraying

on feed and moose forage and nutritional quality of moose

forage.

We anticipate the preliminary results will be available in 2019,

and we look forward to implementing that research, based on scientific

evidence.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

J. Thornthwaite: Yesterday the Minister of Citizens’ Services could not explain why

18 individuals deleted every single email and text message that they

created for months at a time. Perhaps she can explain why her colleague,

the Minister of Education, deleted all but one single email for the

entire month of May, the very same month the Premier declared he was

profoundly disappointed.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, can she explain this near

complete lack of records produced by her colleague?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question.

We all know about record management and, as the Premier committed

and we carried out, on this side of the House, we know that if we have

erred, we do take corrective steps.

The Premier stood in this House and said that we would be

reviewing all of the accounts, the seven accounts, when no responses

came in. That was done. The FOI responses were applied again, and those

have been posted on the website.

[2:10 p.m.]

We all know that good record management requires that we go

through our emails. We delete the transitory emails that gunk up the

system, and we keep emails that are to do with government business that

are related to the decisions we make and the work we do. That is what

our ministers are doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Almost a dozen education news releases were released in May, each

requiring decisions to approve quotes and content. But the Minister of

Education kept just one email, a CKNW news

article he forwarded about

transporting baby chickens. He didn’t keep emails with information about

a decision, like approving a briefing agenda or giving instructions to

staff — nothing but a chicken story.

My question is to the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Did the

Minister of Education really not produce any useful information for the

entire month of May except for a chicken story?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the minister will respond when it’s quiet.

Hon. J. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure to be able to answer that question. You know what?

We take record management very seriously. We provided extra training in

the month of June, and we make sure that the training is ongoing —

unlike the people sitting on the other side of the House. They have an

abysmal record of keeping their emails and tracking the business of

government. Not only were they a government of quick wins, a government

of triple deletes, but they were also denying things even after they got

caught.

I’m so proud that I am part of a government led by a Premier who

says we are going to take corrective steps and we’re going to do things

right. And we’ll never apologize for working towards

perfection.

J. Johal: We’ve been listening to this minister now for three days. It’s

clear she has absolutely no credibility on this issue. NDP operatives

paid by taxpayers continue to decide every single email they produce is

transitory — so no emails with instructions or advice or any emails that

contain information about a decision. The public just doesn’t buy

it.

Will the minister reinstitute the practice of ministers and staff

retaining all sent emails?

Hon. J. Sims: When I hear the member across the way stand up and speak about

credibility and speak about integrity, I have to remind him that he’s

now sitting on the side of the House with colleagues who displayed very

little of that when it came to record management, when it came to

responding to serious issues around the Highway of Tears, when it came

to responding to questions that had to do with child safety.

I will say in this House, once again, that we pride ourselves on

taking the right steps to make sure that we get record management right.

Extra training was given in June, and we plan to keep giving training

because we know we want to get this right. The public expects their

government to make sure that records are kept properly. Unlike that

side, we’re going to get it right.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: Last spring this Premier said he was profoundly disappointed that

his government broke the rules. But the fact is, listening to this

minister and the evidence that we have provided on this side, you’re

still doing it. The government is still doing it. Now we know that NDP

political operatives like Della Mattia and Matt Hannah use personal and

party email accounts for government business.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, why is there no

accountability?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Sims: The accountability is that the emails that were available have

been forwarded. This person was a contractor. Contractors don’t normally

get access to have a government email. The other side has the

information they were looking for. There is no other story

here.

COVERAGE OF EXPENSES FOR

ADVANCED EDUCATION

MINISTER

M. Stilwell: The Core Policy and Procedures Manual for travel expenses

for ministers states: “A per diem includes allowances for incidentals,

such as gratuities, porterage, personal phone calls, laundry and dry

cleaning.”

Is the Minister of Advanced Education aware of this policy, and

does she follow these rules?

Hon. M. Mark: I thank the member for the question, and yes, I’m aware of the

policies around travel expenses and policy.

Mr. Speaker: Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: I’m glad to hear that the member is aware of the policy, but I’m

wondering, then. Over an 11-month period, the Minister of Advanced

Education claimed almost $500 in dry-cleaning bills — expenses that are

already covered by per diems.

How does the Minister of Advanced Education justify her

expenses?

Hon. M. Mark: I will take the question on notice and provide the document that I

read as we got orientation when we came into cabinet and produce it to

the official opposition.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY PER-DIEM

ALLOWANCE CLAIM DURING

WELFARE FOOD CHALLENGE

M. Hunt: A year ago the Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction

participated in the $19-a-week Welfare Food Challenge, with pictures on

records show that she claimed full per diems for four out of the seven

days that week, including the very day of her posting, pocketing an

extra $225.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain why she claimed full per

diems?

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. The parliamentary secretary…. Let us have the

Government House Leader respond.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Questions should be directed to the

appropriate minister, not to parliamentary secretaries.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. Member, might you redirect your question to the appropriate

minister.

M. Hunt: The person who participated was the Parliamentary Secretary for

Poverty Reduction, so that would be to the Minister of Social

Development and Poverty Reduction.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll consider that your first question.

Hon. S. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m happy to take that question on

notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale, new question.

M. Hunt: Mr. Speaker, just making sure. All of my questions must be to

ministers?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

M. Hunt: Okay, very good.

Then a further….

Mr. Speaker: You will be reminded that the minister took it under notice, so

you will be asking a new question.

M. Hunt: That’s correct. I am asking a subsequent question. The subsequent

question is this.

The guidelines for the Welfare Food Challenge read….

Interjection.

M. Hunt: It is a new question.

“Participants will be asked not to accept any kind of charity or

other food not coming out of their $19 budget…. If you cheat — have

extra food — please own up.”

The question to the minister is: has the parliamentary secretary

owned up?

Hon. S. Simpson: The Welfare Food Challenge is an interesting initiative by the

community to shine a light on issues of poverty.

[2:20 p.m.]

What I’m pleased with is that after more than a decade of not

raising rates for income assistance, we raised those rates in the first

three months. After 16 years of that side ignoring issues of poverty in

this province, we passed poverty reduction legislation this week. When

they were pulling back the bus pass, we put a transportation supplement

in place for persons with disabilities. Maybe that member should ask his

colleagues why they, when they were government, turned their backs on

people living poor and abandoned them for 16 years.

GOVERNMENT RECORDKEEPING POLICIES

M. Polak: Whether it has to do with freedom of information and the handling

of records or, indeed, the handling of expenses, what we’re witnessing

here is a clear pattern of not adhering to the rules.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the House Leader for the official opposition has the

floor.

M. Polak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s clear that what’s happening here is a pattern, and it’s a

pattern of thinking that they are above the rules and don’t need to

follow them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Polak: Maybe we’ve struck a nerve here, but all the bluster in the world

doesn’t cover it up. Whether it happens to be expenses or records, there

is a responsibility. There is an onus upon those who have claimed that

they wish to be transparent and open and work with integrity. There’s an

onus on them to actually deal with these matters and not laugh about

them, not poke fun and certainly not poke back to somebody else’s

issues.

There are some very clear ways in which these things could be

fixed, but the first, the beginning of this, has to be people being held

accountable.

My question to the Minister of Citizens’ Services is: when is

accountability going to take place for freedom-of-information requests,

for documentation, for handling of documents, and when are we going to

see this government insist that ministers and staff retain their sent

email items?

Hon. J. Sims: I want to thank my colleague for that question that came at the

end of something. Let me tell you that I and my ministry and my staff

are very proud of the work that we have done on freedom of information.

We have been gathering information and having consultations, and we’re

going to be working on legislation that will come before the

House.

But talk about transparency and getting things done. Under our

government, the FOI on-time rate increased to 90 percent, up from the

previous 80 percent, despite receiving 13 percent more requests. Under

our government, the time it takes to respond to general FOI requests has

decreased by an average of five days, despite the increase in request

volume. Under our government, British Columbians requesting their own

records now receive their files, on average, seven days sooner, despite

the increase in volume.

We are undertaking FOI changes in a methodical and judicious

manner because we want to make sure we get this right, and we are

committed to accountability and transparency and will take no lessons

from people sitting on that side.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill

41, the Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act. In this chamber, I call

government Motion 31.

[2:25 p.m.]

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 31 — REFERRAL OF PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO BILL 45

COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE

Hon. C. James: I move:

[Be it resolved that the Message and the Amendments accompanying the

same be referred to the Committee of the House having in charge Bill

(No. 45) intituled Budget Measures Implementation (Speculation and

Vacancy Tax) Act, 2018 .]

Speaking to the motion, the amendment that is enclosed in the

motion creates a requirement for the Minister of Finance to conduct an

annual consultation with the mayors in the affected areas to review the

speculation and vacancy tax.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The amendment directs that revenues that are raised by the

speculation and vacancy tax will be spent on affordable housing projects

in the region that the revenues are raised in. And it also sets the tax

rate for Canadian citizens and permanent residents who reside outside

British Columbia and who are not members of a satellite family at 0.5

percent. This, obviously, is a part of the affordability measures that

we are taking.

A. Weaver: Just a few words, briefly, on this motion. I’m pleased, obviously,

to rise and take my place in the debate on this. The motion to move the

amendments to the speculation and vacancy tax act.

For procedural reasons, government had to table these amendments.

You’ll see some amendments I put in on the order paper as well. But the

amendments that government is tabling reflect the agreement that we were

able to reach with government on this tax a few weeks ago. I’m pleased

to be supporting moving them to committee today. These amendments do

three things — the three things as promised. Again, on the order paper,

you will see three amendments that I put in that are virtually

identical. But for procedural reasons, government is introducing these

amendments.

The first is that mayors from affected municipalities will be

consulted annually by the Minister of Finance on how the tax is

affecting their communities, with metrics that are being developed. Over

the past number of months, I’ve consistently raised the need for local

governments to have a more significant role in determining what happens

in their communities. The annual review of the tax with mayors will give

communities a clear channel to making the case, based on evidence, for

how the tax should apply to their communities and whether they should be

excluded.

The minister will also be required to report the results of the

annual review to cabinet to make a decision on whether the tax should

continue to be applied in each of the specified areas. While I would

have preferred for local governments to have the ability to opt out

automatically, this is a compromise position that I feel I can support

and my colleagues can support as well.

The second amendment requires that revenue raised by the tax will

be used for housing initiatives within the region it came from. This is

also important — that local communities directly benefit from the tax

raised so that it is not viewed as a tax grab by government that rolls

the moneys into provincial coffers to be lost thereafter. There needs to

be a clear impact on the communities because the justification for the

speculation tax is, of course, that there’s an externality, a social

cost, that we’re asking people in British Columbia and elsewhere to

internalize through the application of the speculation and vacancy

tax.

[2:30 p.m.]

The third amendment equalizes rates for Canadians and British

Columbians. It brings the rate for Canadians down from 1 percent to half

a percent. Now, this is a very big change. Back in the spring when this

tax first came out, it was 2 percent for other Canadians. Here, after

many, many months of working with government to come to razor-focus this

tax to exactly its intended purposes, it’s very reassuring to see the

rate has come down to 0.5 percent.

I believe fundamentally that from a fairness perspective, we

should not be penalizing Canadians by making them pay higher rates just

because they happen to live in another province. We are one country. I

feel that as one country, we need to treat our citizens equally across

that country.

In addition to these amendments, government has made a number of

small changes in the legislation that go a long way to limiting the

unfair impacts of this tax on Canadian homeowners who aren’t

speculators.

Since it was first introduced in the budget, I’ve been hearing

scores of cases that I’ve been bringing to government over the past

eight months from people who are not speculators and who should not be

facing the tax, as well as other examples where the speculation tax

shouldn’t apply.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

A. Weaver: My understanding, hon. Speaker, is that on a motion, I am able to

deliver a full 30 minutes.

Deputy Speaker: Member, this is purely a procedural motion. This allows the

amendments to be placed before the House for debate. Not at this

time.

A. Weaver: Is this not a debatable motion, hon. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Not at this time. This is a motion to refer.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill now be read a second time.

The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018, amends the human rights

code to re-establish the Human Rights Commission for British Columbia.

This task is part of government’s agenda to build a better British

Columbia for everyone, which includes fostering a society in which

everyone is treated with respect and dignity, regardless of where they

came from, who they are, who they love, their ability, and to ensure

that rights and opportunities are provided without

discrimination.

One of the obvious issues that came forward once we were tasked

with this work was how to establish a modern human rights commission for

British Columbia. We didn’t simply want to re-establish the old model.

Instead, we wanted to make sure that the model introduced for British

Columbia was built from the ground up, addressing modern concerns and

structured for success.

In order for us to understand what those concerns truly were and

to hear what British Columbians wanted to see in a human rights

commission, we needed to ask British Columbians, particularly the

affected groups. To that end, the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and

Multiculturalism, Ravi Kahlon, led an intensive eight-week public

engagement last fall which provided us with a range of diverse

perspectives to help shape a new human rights commission and, more

broadly, a new era of human rights protections in British

Columbia.

After the conclusion of the public engagement, Parliamentary

Secretary Kahlon presented me with his report, providing 25

recommendations for the purpose and functions of a new human rights

commission, the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and the Human Rights Clinic

and suggested priority issues for the new human rights

commissioner.

Following the receipt of this report, we collaborated with other

jurisdictions and with human rights experts, involving the sharing of

best practices, learning from challenges faced by the previous B.C.

Human Rights Commission and aligning them with the recommendations in

the report. This has been at the centre of developing this new proposed

legislation.

Since 2002, B.C. has been without a human rights commission. The

turbulent history of human rights commissions in B.C. speaks to the

negative impact of partisanship on services that are basic to civil

society.

Throughout the public engagement, we found that the need to create

a stable, independent human rights commission was a common theme amongst

stakeholders. That is why the bill creates a human rights commissioner

who will be an independent officer of the Legislature. This model is

meant to ensure the longevity of the commissioner and to ensure that the

commissioner is able to proactively promote, advocate for, protect and

advance respect for human rights in B.C.

The commissioner will have a key function of educating British

Columbians on the full range of human rights to prevent and eliminate

discriminatory practices, including systemic discrimination.

[2:35 p.m.]

The commissioner will promote and strengthen the human rights

culture in British Columbia in order to foster social change in a

positive way to respect all people in our province and will have the

power to develop educational policies and guidelines to promote human

rights.

It is envisioned that by giving the commissioner the appropriate

tools to promote as well as protect human rights, that discriminatory

practices, policies and programs will be reduced and eventually — we all

hope, I’m sure — eliminated.

The commissioner will have the power to initiate inquiries into

human rights issues and issues of systemic discrimination, in order to

hold governments, institutions and the private sector to account. At the

conclusion of an inquiry, the commissioner may make a report with

recommendations in order to reduce, prevent and eliminate issues of

discrimination.

These inquiry powers will come into force at a future date, once

the commissioner’s mandate is underway. This will allow the commissioner

to focus the commissioner’s early mandate on engaging with British

Columbians to hear about what systemic discrimination issues and

patterns are most critically in need of attention and to allow the

commissioner to develop education and training programs, policies and

guidelines to begin to address, reduce and eliminate these widespread

patterns of discrimination in our society.

Educating the public — in particular, employers, service

providers, members of disadvantaged groups as well as those who are

advantaged — about their human rights and obligations can foster a

culture of respect. It can be a useful preventative tool in reducing the

likelihood of human rights violations.

This bill does not change the mandate of the B.C. Human Rights

Tribunal. B.C. will continue to have a direct-access tribunal. That is,

the tribunal will continue to directly accept discrimination complaints

and continue its screening practices to determine if complaints should

be formally accepted for filing.

This means the commissioner will not have a gatekeeper role. It’s

a key change from B.C.’s previous human rights commission model, which

acted in a gatekeeper role to investigate and screen human rights

complaints before they could be resolved by the tribunal. Retaining the

direct-access tribunal model will avoid what was often criticized as a

lengthy investigative process at the former commission.

For the human rights commissioner to be effective, the

commissioner must have the public’s trust. Trust can be earned by

understanding the lived experiences of people facing human rights

issues. That is why the amendments establish a human rights advisory

council: to represent the province’s diverse regions and populations, to

provide the commissioner with a sounding board for its ideas and to

highlight public interest concerns.

The amendments will also extend the time limit for filing

complaints at the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal from six months to one

year, while maintaining the tribunal’s discretion to accept late-filed

complaints in certain circumstances. This is in direct response to

hearing from British Columbians that our tribunal time limits were out

of step with other Canadian jurisdictions and that having a very short

six-month period to file a discrimination complaint compounded their

feelings of being marginalized.

Enthusiastic stakeholders urged us to be bold with our new human

rights commission, building from the ground up to face modern challenges

and deliver new services in new ways. With this bill, there is certainly

a new

chapter being opened in the history of human rights in B.C. The

Human Rights Commission will work to challenge us all and to end

widespread structures and systems of discrimination that may be facing

people in our province.

An independent commissioner reporting to the Legislative Assembly

will allow for open and candid human rights promotion, discussion and

protection in British Columbia.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to Bill 50, the human rights code

amendment.

First, let me start out by saying that I know that all of us in

this House recognize, no matter which side of the House we sit on, that

we all believe and share in the importance of protecting human rights

and that it is an important role that we play to ensure that that is the

case in this province. Of course, it’s important to continue and ensure

that we have places of dialogue to increase the understanding to promote

equality and to prevent discrimination.

I certainly am mindful of the diversity that we have in our

province. I’ve talked before about the history of my family. In the

mid-1980s, as a university student, when I first got involved in the

community in Chinatown, I served as a member of a local community

organization under the human rights committee for the Chinese Benevolent

Association. For some time in the mid-1986 period, I spent time working

on issues around head tax redress — one example of what is racial

discrimination through the history of our country and our

province.

[2:40 p.m.]

More recently the leader of our opposition has spoken in so many

different ways about the importance of the equality of women in the

workplace and in leadership roles, including in our government. It’s for

the importance of these issues that we continue to work to eliminate

discrimination in our province — in our workplaces, in our schools, in

our communities — and it’s the reason why I support this bill, with the

establishment of a new Human Rights Commission.

As we speak about Bill 50 and the establishment of this new

commission, I think it’s important to reflect on the history of human

rights legislation in our province. The first piece of human rights

legislation in British Columbia was introduced in 1953, which actually

was the year my father came to this country from Hong Kong. It was an

act to ensure fair remuneration to female employees,

an act designed to

fight wage discrimination against women. This act was designed to

investigate and adjudicate claims.

This is an example of where the history of human rights had

started. Yet I know that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale has talked

about the issues that continue to arise in terms of wage discrimination

amongst women. It’s still an issue that is very critical to address in

our workplaces and in our companies, in the corporate

environment.

There were various revisions and changes and additions to human

rights law in British Columbia over the next 15 years. In 1969, the

government of the day passed a more complete Human Rights Act. This act

continued the existing wage discrimination provisions and detailed other

types of prohibited employment discrimination. A director was appointed

under the act, who had the power to investigate claims and to try to

effect a settlement. Failing that, the case went to the Human Rights

Commission, an organization that followed an investigative model set out

in 1953.

In 1973 in this province, a new and enhanced human rights code was

enacted by the Dave Barrett government — under first-past-the-post. It

contained a list of response mechanisms to complaints.

[The bells were rung.]

I dare say, in memory of the Hon. Dave Barrett, the bells

ring.

Let me just say that that new enhanced human rights code enacted

by the Dave Barrett government contained a list of response mechanisms

to complaints. Most significantly, the 1973 code established the

original Human Rights Commission, which was aimed at promoting the act

and the provisions that it contained.

The next major revision of human rights legislation occurred in

1984. This revised act continued to prohibit other forms of

discrimination but was designed to narrow the legislation and restrict

enforcement powers. As well, the onus for the complaint was transferred

from the commission to the complainant.

In 1984, the government also created a five-person Human Rights

Council. Following the investigation of a complaint, the council could

submit a report to the minister, although this power was never

exercised. Instead, when a decision was made to refer a complaint, it

was done so by a council member.

A further overhaul of human rights legislation in this province

was made in 1992, when the remedial powers of the council were expanded

to allow it to deal with allegations of systemic discrimination. The

revised act also allowed the council to set up special programs,

including employment equity programs.

Further amendments to the human rights legislation occurred in

this province four years later, in 1996. Those changes were based on a

report done in 1993 by UBC law professor Bill Black. They resulted in

the government passing another set of amendments to the human rights

code and the administrative system that supported it. That was, of

course, on the provincial scene in this province.

Most importantly during this period, we had the federal Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, which came into force in 1982 — and with it,

section 15 of the Charter, the equality provisions, which came into

force in 1985. The Charter and the judicial decisions interpreting it

have had a significant impact on the development of our understanding of

human rights, including in this province.

[2:45 p.m.]

With that as a backdrop, I wish to speak to the previous changes

that were made by the government in 2002. That previous government

looked at the then existing commission, which had wait times in the

years, and determined that it wasn’t doing its job properly.

That commission was ineffective and contained redundant and

competing bodies. As many have said, instead of working to solve

problems, the previous commission often made things worse due to delays

in finding resolutions, which all too frequently led to long-drawn-out

litigation that forced respondents to pay expensive legal bills and wait

for years for resolution, while complainants were equally frustrated in

their desire and wish to get on with their lives.

At the time, the previous government insisted on putting in place

a system that brought, as the Attorney General just spoke to, direct

access to the tribunal. That is a system of direct access that is being

maintained under this Bill 50.

Following that change back in 2003, there was an incredible

increase in the cases heard at the tribunal, with the removal of the

commission. In 2003, with this direct access — the first year after the

previous government had made that change — the tribunal heard more than

four times as many cases. The following year, it tripled

again.

The number of cases increased almost exponentially and wait times

decreased from years to months. This change to a direct-access tribunal

was made to have a system that could be efficient, effective and restore

confidence in human rights protections in our province.

We are pleased that under Bill 50 this government is maintaining

that direct-access role of the tribunal that the previous government

established back in 2003. In fact, as the Attorney General mentioned, as

a result of the consultation process the member for Delta North

conducted, in his report he lauded this direct-access model. “The

general consensus I heard during the consultation process is that

British Columbians want to keep the current ‘direct-access’ tribunal

model. Many said that it would be a mistake to turn back the clock by

creating a commission with a ‘gatekeeper’ function to investigate

particular complaints that should be resolved speedily by the tribunal.

Wait times for access to early resolutions and adjudications were

reduced from years to months in British Columbia through the

implementation of the direct-access tribunal.”

Well, I must say that a workable system for bringing complaints

forward for resolution is certainly an important condition and

requirement for a successful human rights system, but it is not the only

foundation. Under the current human rights code, a focus on education

and information about human rights being provided to the public is a

responsibility there for the Attorney General and the human rights

tribunal.

Under the current human rights code, the Attorney General is

responsible under

section 5. “The minister,” being the Attorney General,

“is responsible for developing and conducting a program of public

education and information designed to promote an understanding of this

code.” Furthermore, under

section 6 of that human rights code, the

Attorney General “may conduct or encourage research into matters

relevant to this code and carry out consultations relevant to this

code.”

In Bill 50, the responsibilities will be shifted from the Attorney

General to the commissioner with a new commission. When the move was

made to move away from the commission model….

Interjection.

M. Lee: I would like to hold my place and adjourn the debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I apologize to my colleague for the interruption of his

remarks.

I would call committee on Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Amendment Act in the Douglas Fir Room, known as

Committee A. In this chamber, I will call continued second reading

debate on Bill 50, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member.

The Minister of Transportation seeks leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Trevena: I appreciate that. As we speak, there is a school group coming in from

the Campbell River Christian School. I’ve just been talking to them down in

the rotunda, and they’re very excited about coming here. They are with their

teacher, Cheryl Hocking, and a number of parents are with them. There are 19

grade 5 students.

So far, their best experience of their trip to Victoria has been,

variously, a visit to the B.C. museum, the hot chocolate that some had and

the car ride down. I’m hoping that as they sit down and listen to the debate

about the amendment to the B.C. human rights code that we’re having at the

moment, they will be completely engaged in the political system, they’ll see

that we observe the decorum of the Legislature, and they will learn good

things and enjoy the rest of their visit.

With that, I hope that the House will make all these students from the

Campbell River Christian School very welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

(continued)

M. Lee: I will just bring greetings, as well, from myself as the MLA for

Vancouver-Langara and the Attorney General critic. What I’m about to do

is continue my comments, for the benefit of our guests in the gallery,

on this bill.

I was talking about the shift of responsibilities under Bill 50

for the purpose of public education, information, conducting research

and consultation — that those responsibilities are being shifted under

this Bill 50 to the commissioner. I will note that when the move was

made back in 2003 to a more focused direct-access tribunal model and

away from a commission model, many not-for-profit and civil

organizations were doing excellent work in our province to advance human

rights. They continue that work today.

In fact, as many in this House recognize and acknowledge, both the

Attorney General and the Leader of the Opposition, at one point in time

in the history, have led one of those key organizations. That is the

B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

As I said earlier, the protection of human rights is one of the

primary duties of any democratic government. It’s what all of us in this

House clearly recognize and support. British Columbia has been a leader

when it comes to access to justice resources and alternative resources

to do that, as well as building out digital access to the justice

system. We need to continue to support and ensure that work, including

by the Human Rights Clinic.

I, myself, was previously on the board of the Justice Education

Society, which is an example of an organization, one of these

not-for-profit organizations, that wants to promote a better

understanding of our judicial system through public education —

certainly, tours and schoolhouse visits by schools to our court system

and, like members of our gallery today, here to this Legislative

Assembly.

The key here is that we need to ensure that what has been enhanced

are the kinds of resources to promote greater access to our justice

system. Certainly, as we look forward to further discussion on other

matters with the government, we’ll want to continue to ensure that in

protecting and standing for human rights in the province of British

Columbia, we continue to ensure that there are good supports for access

to justice in our province.

[2:55 p.m.]

I must also say that under the previous government…. In

section 37

of the human rights code, there is the responsibility and ability of the

tribunal to continue to “take steps…to ameliorate the effects of the

discriminatory practice” and to order the adoption or implementation of

“an employment equity program or other special program to ameliorate the

conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups” if there’s been

evidence that has been lodged at the tribunal hearing that there is a

person, which could be a corporate or other organization, “engaged in a

pattern or practice that contravenes this Code.”

That

section of the code continues and is not being amended by

this bill. That’s just another avenue through which systemic

discrimination in our province has been addressed by our Human Rights

Tribunal over the last many years.

Having said that, I just want to comment that when we get to the

Bill 50 stage, there will be a number of areas that we would like to

seek clarity on. One will be looking at the broad degree of latitude

provided to the commission, specifically the inquiry powers of the

commissioner, himself or herself. Currently, in this country, in Canada,

Ontario is the only province where a human rights commissioner has been

given that sort of power. Not even under the federal government Human

Rights Commission is that power provided.

As we look at Bill 50, we’ll want to have that discussion about

the nature of that power and the purpose. We’ll also want to have

further discussion about the ability of the commissioner, as proposed

under Bill 50, to intervene in certain proceedings, as well as the

determination, which, again, has been there, under the tribunal’s

authority, for special programs. As I mentioned earlier, many of these

special programs are designed to ameliorate the conditions of any

disadvantage to individuals or groups from a systemic point of view.

We’ll also want to look at the composition of the advisory council and

look at how that will be determined by the commissioner.

I’m sure, as every British Columbian would recognize, that…. We

have a role to ensure that our human rights are protected in this

province and preserved. As we look at the initiatives of the previous

government, which continue to build on human rights legislation in the

history of this province…. This province has been a leader in respect of

ensuring and promoting human rights, and Bill 50 will be another

initiative to further ourselves as a province down that road.

I look forward to supporting this bill on second reading and in

the committee stage to follow.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in the second reading debate on Bill 50,

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2018. This bill re-establishes the

British Columbia Human Rights Commission after it was disbanded by the

B.C. Liberals in 2002.

This is yet another example of what happens when we have pendulum

swings in government. When we move from one ideology to another, we

find….

Deputy Speaker: Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I’m going to ask your indulgence.

Would you be so kind as to adjourn the debate so the committee can

report out and then return to debate?

A. Weaver: Well, of course. I would love to move adjournment of this debate.

Of course, I do reserve my right to continue the debate in just a few

moments.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that very much.

A. Weaver moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — ADVANCED EDUCATION

STATUTE REPEAL

ACT

Bill 41, Advanced Education Statute Repeal Act, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I call Bill 46, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation

Authority Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2018, in Committee A; in this chamber,

continued second reading on the B.C. Human Rights Code Amendment

Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

(continued)

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in this second reading debate on Bill 50,

Human Rights Code Amendment Act. As I’ve mentioned, this bill

re-establishes the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, after it

was disbanded by the B.C. Liberals in 2002. It does this by amending the

human rights code to establish an independent Human Rights Commission

office.

As I mentioned, this is another example of pendulum swings that

have plagued our first-past-the-post system here in the province of

British Columbia. When governments come in, we see broad policy sweeps,

very costly at times — as, for example, the labour code and others —

where policies come in and are taken back as governments switch with the

different ideologies.

I’m looking forward to these kinds of changes, more draconian

pendulum swings, no longer really taking place here in British Columbia

with a successful referendum on proportional representation. One of the

things we know is that with policies like this, you don’t establish

something, then tear it down and then re-establish it and tear it down.

That tends to get mitigated, and we wouldn’t have to be debating this

today were we to have a government that was required to listen to

broader elements of our society than, perhaps, was required in 2002,

when there were but two NDP MLAs sitting in opposition and every other

MLA was a member of the B.C. Liberal Party, despite just getting

slightly over 50 percent of the vote.

The new office is going to be similar to other independent offices

like, for example, the Representative for Children and Youth. Obviously,

I’m delighted that this is being introduced into this House. Both the

B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens campaigned on bringing back a human rights

commission to actually look at human rights issues proactively instead

of just reactively, as is done now.

This bill is finally bringing B.C. in line with other

jurisdictions in the country. We are the only province that has not had

a human rights commission these past 16 years. It’s yet another

noteworthy aspect of British Columbia that we are not so proud of: not

having a human rights commission for the last 16 years. The new bill and

the new provisions in the bill that will be enacted will not take us

back to the pre-2002 model but will instead set up a similar model to

what exists presently in Ontario. In that respect, it’s less of a

pendulum swing than we might otherwise have expected.

The bill follows the 25 recommendations that were outlined in the

report brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and

Multiculturalism. This report was based on eight weeks of public

consultation on this subject. Of course, as well, the UN Paris

principles had been used as a guide for drafting of this

bill.

This bill is needed for a number of reasons. It’s needed to fight

systemic injustices across our province, to protect against patterns of

discrimination proactively and to be able to champion education

campaigns on human rights and inequality across the province,

particularly in areas where there are systemic issues. It’s important to

allow the commissioner the power to create guidelines in education

programs for other institutions in our province to use as well. This

bill is, therefore, putting back the Human Rights Tribunal into the

rightful place as the arbitrator of specific complaints regarding human

rights contraventions.

There are many things in British Columbia affecting British

Columbians that that need an office like this with a mandate like this

to look into. The number one issue referred to the current Human Rights

Tribunal is disability non-accommodation. I would anticipate that this

is an area that the new commissioner will work on proactively, as well,

to explore systemic issues of disability and

non-accommodation.

To give a bit of history on this, we’ve gone back and forth in

B.C., as I mentioned, on having a human rights commissioner and

commission. We had one, for example, that the Socred government

eliminated in 1983. Then we didn’t have one, and then the B.C. NDP

government of the 1990s brought it back in, and the B.C. Liberals, in

2002, brought it out.

[3:05 p.m.]

Now it’s coming back in again — a beautiful example of the

pendulum swing that has mired B.C. politics for such a long time, where

we’ve had dynasties of domination by a single party which, after many

years, forgets to actually remind itself that it is there to represent

the people and not its vested interests or its donors. Hopefully, this

is the last time that the pendulum will swing and it will settle in the

middle, along the lines of what every other province in our country has

— a human rights commission that not only reacts to human rights issues

that are brought to it but is proactive in terms of dealing with

systemic issues of human rights contraventions in our

province.

We like to think that there are none, but we all know cases where

there are. In 2002 — giving some more history here — the human rights

commission was eliminated, for political reasons, I would argue. It was

forced to cut its budget, to cut its staff. To add insult to injury, the

commissioner and the acting chief commissioner were fired in the morning

before legislation to get rid of the commission was introduced — fired

in the morning before the legislation was introduced to eliminate the

commission.

It was somewhat spiteful, if you ask me, and not a type of signal,

really, that we should be sending the province of British Columbia. This

decision was widely condemned by human rights groups across the

province. One of the only MLAs that raised the voices of the human

rights groups that were affronted by the B.C. Liberals’ removing this

commission was Jenny Kwan, one of but two NDP MLAs serving in the B.C.

Legislature in 2002.

She said that by abolishing the commission, B.C. would fail to

meet the criteria of the Paris principles, which require that human

rights agencies have independence guaranteed by statute or constitution,

autonomy from government, diverse membership, a broad mandate based on

universal human rights standards, adequate powers of investigation and

sufficient resources.”

Government shut down the previous human rights commission to save

$3.1 million, but at what cost? At what cost to broader society did this

saving of $3.1 million lead? Perhaps the government knew that further

cuts were coming when it did it. It was consistent with the government

of the day, in essence, disadvantaging those who were already

disadvantaged and not raising rates — disability rates, welfare rates,

housing assistance rates — for a decade. It was consistent with the kind

of mean-spirited approach to government that prevailed at that

time.

B.C. has not had a body that could look at systemic patterns of

discrimination and recommend changes for almost two decades. That, of

course, is all changing now with this legislation. The systemic

discrimination facing Indigenous communities, women, people of colour,

LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities is real, severe and

completely unacceptable. The uphill battle faced by British Columbians

who are at the intersection of more than one of these communities is

even steeper.

Government had a hand in creating these discriminatory systems, so

we need to dismantle them and rebuild a more fair and just province.

This is what Bill 50, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, takes us on a

journey and pathway towards creating. I and my colleagues in the B.C.

Green caucus are very supportive of this legislation and are delighted

with the changes proposed — long overdue, long called for. I thank

government for introducing them, and we’re proud to stand in support at

second reading.

S. Cadieux: I am honoured to take my place in the debate today on Bill 50.

Just before I get started on my own remarks related directly to the

human rights tribunal, I will just reference some of the remarks made by

the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, preceding me, in his comments, which

focused much less on the need or purpose of this act or support for it

and much more on partisan attacks of things that happened long before I

ever came to sit in this place.

[3:10 p.m.]

I wonder if the member would feel the same way or, frankly, if

members of his future party will feel the same way when they are brought

to remember the things that he has said in this House, when they are

forced to look back in time to a time when the leader of their party

sold out their principles in pursuit of proportional

representation.

The reality is that things happen over time for all sorts of

reasons that may or may not be clearly articulated in this House through

partisan debate and that the history books will choose to remember in

one way or in another. But the reality is that today I’m very proud to

be here as a member of this Legislature, elected by the people of my

constituency, and here to speak in support of Bill 50.

I personally have never felt discriminated against in a way so

egregious that would require me to seek out the services of a human

rights commission, and I feel very fortunate for that. We see regularly

on the news, and I think more regularly on the news, examples of human

rights violations from other countries around the world that none of us

can stomach, can understand. Thankfully, for the most part, we can say

those things don’t happen here.

I’m proud to be a member of this party. I’m proud that on the

weekend, our leader made very specific mention, in his first remarks as

leader to our convention and our members, of his personal — and

therefore, frankly, now our party’s — comments on the rights and

equality for women; on the rights of women in the workplace; on the

rights of women everywhere to feel safe, not just in their workplace but

in our society; on the rights for everyone in British Columbia, all

citizens, to have a right to opportunity.

I think that generally, as Canadians, we have come to know the

protection of human rights as a part of our identity as Canadians.

Sometimes, though, even here situations arise that need to be brought to

light where those rights are not being understood or respected.

Sometimes intervention is, unfortunately, required.

I appreciate that this bill speaks to the importance of the

education of the public on both sides of the human rights equation. The

rights themselves matter, and our understanding of those as citizens but

also as employers, service providers, legislators, but also the

understanding of how those are interpreted and what constitutes a

violation, what constitutes a need to raise awareness or to raise an

issue for resolution. That education is important, and the role of this

commission in that education of the public is important. I’m pleased to

see that it’s recognized.

Many years ago now, a close friend of mine finished her university

education and applied for a job as a teacher, a pretty noble profession.

She was very well trained and very competent, but she was denied a job.

She was denied a job not because she was unqualified or incapable or

even that she didn’t interview well. She was denied because she used a

wheelchair.

[3:15 p.m.]

She was going to need to be available, as a teacher on call, to go

to any school, any classroom. Unfortunately, because of a lack of

access, that wouldn’t be possible. It wouldn’t be because she wasn’t

willing; it would be because she was physically prevented from

attending. Unfortunately, at that time, the employer didn’t understand

their duty, didn’t understand that it was her right to teach and that an

impediment to her work environment wasn’t her problem.

She took that case forward to the Human Rights Commission or

Tribunal — I’m honestly not sure at which point in time this was exactly

— and she won. Since that time, she has been teaching a kindergarten

class in Vancouver, and she is beloved. She shouldn’t have had to raise

that issue, but the reality was that she did.

As I had mentioned, I personally haven’t ever felt a need to raise

an issue as far as a tribunal or a commission. But I certainly, as a

user of a mobility device, have found many occasions where people, where

businesses, where the built environment have excluded me. It’s not

right, and we keep fighting for change in that regard.

It is my belief that most of the time, it’s a lack of

understanding that is the cause of that, and quite often it doesn’t take

much more than a good old-fashioned conversation to move things ahead.

But sometimes it does, and that’s the purpose, I think, of this

commission. That’s why I’m in support of the bill. Thank you very much

for my time today.

Hon. J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to stand up in here and speak in support of

this legislation that reinstitutes the Human Rights

Commission.

First, before I get going, I do want to acknowledge and thank my

colleague the Attorney General and also the member for Delta North, who

did an incredible job of going out and listening to British Columbians

in every corner of the province. They heard from advocates, heard from

individuals who absolutely wanted to see the Human Rights Commission

reinstated. I also want to thank my other colleague from Surrey for her

words of support for this piece of legislation.

I can still remember today, as if it was yesterday, when in 2002

the Human Rights Commission was disbanded. I can remember many things

from that year and the year before that, but I can remember how impacted

people were that something as fundamental to rights and democracy as a

human rights commissioner — that that position could just disappear.

People just were shell-shocked, I would say, and often

speechless.

We know there were lots of other things happening at that time,

like teachers having their collective agreements rolled back, students

losing their learning conditions — the protections they had — and

students with special needs losing the protection they had for supports.

That was something else that was going on, as well as other contracts

being ripped, so to speak.

This particular action, to take away the Human Rights Commission

at the very time that the government was carrying out such distasteful

and damaging pieces of legislation that were impacting so many people,

whether it was in the health care sector or education…. We’ve got to

remember that all of this impacts every British Columbian, that at that

very time when the Human Rights Commission, the office, was needed, it

was disbanded. So I’m really, really glad to see that it’s come

back.

[3:20 p.m.]

I’m also pleased that it’s come back in a slightly new iteration.

The tribunal is still going to stay around. It’s still going to listen

to individual complaints. Nothing is changing with that. But the new

commissioner will not be screening or investigating individual human

rights complaints; instead, they will be promoting and protecting human

rights with a focus on education about human rights.

Being a teacher and, Madame Speaker, as you’re a teacher as well,

we know — I’m sure everybody in this House does — the value of education

if we’re going to bring about systemic change. When we talk about

democracy and the rights of individuals in our very diverse community

and the right to protect those, we have a lot of education to do about

that in our schools, in our communities, in our workplaces and, I would

say, all over British Columbia.

The model we’re using here is going to be very similar to the

Ontario model. As I said earlier, I am so delighted that as a society….

Our government has recognized that governments play a critical role in

education, specifically in teaching people about their rights, about

human rights, to ensure that we prevent discrimination from happening

and to address instances of systemic abuse not addressed by individuals

alone.

When I think of the isms that exist and the kind of persecutions

that our LGBTQ community has faced, the levels of racism that different

communities have faced over the last number of years…. We always think:

“Well, this is now 2018. Surely we’ve finished with issues like racism.

Surely we’ve finished with issues like sexism.” But as we know, isms

don’t just go away, and they have a way of resurfacing.

In light of what we’re seeing to the south of us, the fear of

politics in other parts of the country as well, I am so delighted that

in British Columbia, we are taking a progressive step. That progressive

step is to reinstate the human rights commission and to focus on

education, on raising awareness.

Racism and other isms are not going to go away simply because we

stop talking about them. Pedagogy of oppression has been around for a

long time. I often think that I would like to see it as part of the core

curriculum. Through education and in relation to the work that’s going

to be done by the new human rights commissioner, we can begin to address

some of these isms.

When I visit schools in my riding, they tell me about the kinds of

challenges they face. They tell me the name-calling that goes on. It

doesn’t mean that this is happening all over. I would say that we’ve

made a lot of progress. But at the same time, we still have a lot more

work to do in our multicultural and diverse communities to teach each

other about different cultures, about different practices, and also to

talk about issues as a human right.

In the 21st century — as we’re in 2018 — people from diverse

communities don’t just want to be tolerated. Today, it is about

celebration. It is about acceptance. That’s what the human rights

commission will get a chance to focus on when we do education

throughout. We’re not talking about, “Oh yeah, let’s just put up with

this group” or: “Let’s just deny that group their rights, and they won’t

complain.” It is about each and every one of us in British Columbia

taking responsibility to make sure that human rights are

protected.

[3:25 p.m.]

Somebody told me a long time ago that when somebody raises a hand

against you or gets abusive towards you, it’s very easy to raise your

arms to defend yourself. But to me, a sign of a truly progressive

society is where we — as individuals, as citizens, as a government —

raise our hands together to make sure everybody’s human rights are

protected. And that is what we can get to when we have a human rights

commission whose focus is on education.

There will still be the tribunal to deal with individual cases and

complaints. But what we’re dealing with in our communities and across

society are systemic issues. If we’re going to address those systemic

issues, that is going to require education.

As I said earlier, I was so pleased to see that my colleague

across the way from Surrey South also supports the reinstitution, the

reinstatement of the human rights commission. I’m hoping that every

member on the other side of the House will be supporting this and will

have realized that when it was taken away in 2002, it damaged our social

fabric. It made some people feel less.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It took away an avenue of education that needs to occur and will

occur, once we have the new commission in place.

Now, I’m not saying that just because we have a human rights

commission, all the isms are going to disappear overnight, whether it’s

racism, sexism, persecution because of gender or sexual orientation. No,

that is not what’s going to happen overnight.

What’s going to happen is we’re going to have a focused education

to make sure that we address those systemic issues, that we celebrate

our diversity and we celebrate our differences and those things we share

in common, because sometimes it’s those differences that make us

unique.

We want to make sure that every single child — whether they’re

born here, whether they’ve come from another country, whether they are

culturally from a diverse community, whether they are ethnically

different from the mainstream — feels that, in British Columbia, they

are home, they are included, and they know that their rights are going

to be addressed by the commission.

Once again, I want to finish off by thanking and congratulating

our Attorney General and my colleague from Delta North for having the

courage and commitment to bring this forward at this time. They didn’t

say: “Well, let’s just leave it. We’ll do it later.”

They did it. They did the groundwork. I’m so proud to be part of a

government that recognizes that human rights are concerns for each and

every one of us.

R. Kahlon: It’s my privilege and honour to stand and speak in favour of this

piece of legislation. I wanted to do a couple thank-yous before I open

up my remarks.

I would like to, obviously, thank the Premier and the Attorney

General for not only prioritizing this and making sure the work started

getting on right in the beginning, but also, I want to acknowledge them

and thank them for giving me the privilege and the honour of consulting

with British Columbians on what it is that they feel is needed in the

human rights commission, as well as giving me the opportunity to hear

from so many people.

As a new MLA, it was a phenomenal experience to be sent out to

communities that you don’t represent and hear from people who, quite

frankly, aren’t heard from very often. Many people were shocked to see

me show up. So I want to thank them for that opportunity.

I want to thank the member for Surrey South for her remarks. I

have got a great deal of respect for her, and I know she meant every

word she said. And you know, hearing the story of her friend who had to

go to the tribunal — it’s a difficult process to go to. Nobody wants to

go to a tribunal. The idea of a tribunal, when you feel your rights have

been infringed on, is a scary thing. I’m glad her friend got

justice.

The reason why we need a commission is that we don’t want other

people to go through that. So the power of a commission is to address

systematic discrimination so that it’s not just the individual that gets

remedied. It’s how we can better ourselves as a society. But I want to

thank her for sharing her story.

[3:30 p.m.]

I want to thank the member for Surrey-Panorama. Obviously, she’s

been a longtime advocate for human rights. She spoke quite passionately

about that, and I want to thank her.

And I want to thank you, hon. Speaker. I know you’ve been fighting

the fight for many years, and this is a file that’s close to your heart.

I want to thank you for your years of service to the community, for

never wavering on this important topic of human rights and for having it

front and centre in your mind in every decision you make. So I want to

thank you for all your work, hon. Speaker.

I think it’s important to start from the beginning. I note there

were some comments about the commission being gone. We can talk about

the politics of that. People have already done that, so I won’t go

there. But I do want to touch on something important, which is something

that I heard from people, especially from the First Nations education

council. They reminded me that the very last thing that the Human Rights

Commission was working on in 2001, before they were disbanded, was….

They were going to do a report on educational outcomes and systematic

racism within our education system.

When the government came in at the time, someone from the

government side said to them: “We’re going to start winding your work

down, and we don’t want you to do that.” The commission said: “We’re

independent. We’re going to do this.” The conversation got heated. They

came back and said: “How much are you going to spend on it?” The budget,

I think, was $180,000. They got their budget cut by $180,000.

That was the first step. The second step was to get rid of the

commission. So it wasn’t just a clean cut overnight. It was sending a

strong message that this important social audit of our society was no

longer required. I want to make sure that is on the record because it’s

an important piece of history for us to recognize — that that is what

happened when this commission was disbanded.

I want to talk briefly about what I heard through this process. It

was a moving process. We had various engagements. I think the part that

I enjoyed the most from it was the very beginning, when we had a

discussion about: how is it that we’re going to talk to people? How is

it that we’re going to listen to people? The most fascinating piece for

me, as a new MLA, was the conversation about First Nations and

Indigenous communities. How is it that we’re going to engage them on

this topic?

Through my little bit of learning, I wanted to take a different

approach. It was a little unorthodox, but we gathered a group of leaders

and folks together who were passionate about this topic. We went to them

and said: “How would you like this commission to look?” We didn’t take

any ideas to them. We didn’t take any frames of what it should look

like. We just said: “Listen. We want to bring back the commission. What

is it that you would like to do?”

It was a different way of having that conversation, which really

blew my mind. One of the first things that jumped out at me…. This woman

said to me: “I’m really grateful that you’re having these conversations.

I’m really grateful that you come to this with an empty cup and that

you’ve come to us with an open book on how we’re going to get at this.”

She said: “Are you talking about human rights in your context, or are

you talking to us about human rights in our Indigenous and First Nations

context?”

She went on to talk about how in communities they had human rights

— those rights were passed through, through stories and through oral

traditions — and how, over time, over colonization, that history was

taken away, and those laws were taken away. She spoke about how

important it was for them to capture their oral history, keep those

lessons in place and then re-enact those laws.

I was so grateful near the end of this process. I think it was two

months after I had concluded that we announced $50 million towards the

revitalization of language, to capture language so that we can keep

those important stories and history and so that we can put together some

of these laws in these communities. Or the community can do

that.

We also saw the opening of the first Indigenous law program at

UVic — again, with all this work, quite timely. I was quite grateful to

see that.

One of the elders in my third meeting, the second one he was

attending, said: “This process…. I’m grateful that you’ve come. You’ve

come to listen.” He gave me great advice. He said his uncle had told him

many, many years ago simple advice. He said: “Listen, learn and then

lead, in that order.” That was his advice to me in this process. He

said, “When you put this report together and you give it to the

Attorney,” as he said it: “Make sure that you follow that advice.

Listen, learn and then lead.”

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m grateful that we took that advice. His words are very early on

in the report. For those members or those people watching who haven’t

had a chance to read the report, I really recommend they do. The voices

of people are directly in there. We didn’t filter people’s comments. The

comments, sometimes, are hard to hear, but we didn’t filter them. We let

them have their voice, and we made sure that the report was about their

voice.

One of the stories…. There are so many that jump out at me, but

there were two stories that jump out at me in particular. I got a letter

in the mail from a young woman who is a student. I’m not going to say

which community, but she’s a student.

She talked about how she was in grade 9 and how she felt when a

rainbow crosswalk had come to her community and talked about how she

hadn’t come out to her parents yet and how difficult of a process that

was. Seeing this rainbow crosswalk in her community and what that

symbolized to her — it didn’t mean everything was going to be okay, but

it was a symbol of hope.

She sent me this nice letter, written out. I have it in my office

still. It’s quite moving. She spoke about human rights and what it

meant. Here’s someone who’s in grade 9 who knows more about human rights

and the fight for human rights and why it matters than most

adults.

It stuck with me, because it gives you hope for the future that

this next generation…. We think that they’re not engaged. We think they

don’t care about politics. That’s not true, and I saw that through this

process.

I saw university students sending me full graph sheets that they

used when they went to their professor and said: “We heard this

commission was happening. We want to be part of it. So how can we do

that?” The professor from Capilano University came together and had a

whole class facilitation about human rights and what it is that they

would like to see in the Human Rights Commission. Those things jumped

out at me.

I had this lawyer. She’s in a wheelchair. She spoke to me about

how she’d been fighting for human rights her whole life — obviously,

lived challenges throughout her entire life — and felt, obviously,

privileged, because she was a lawyer. She knew that her condition was

better than many others.

She broke down in tears when she said that the year before I had

met her, she was representing a client and couldn’t get into the

courtroom to see her client. So it was a reminder for her that there’s

discrimination within our legal system, within our society, within the

way our social infrastructure is built. Her words really stuck with me.

If she is watching, I wanted to say: “I heard you, and your words are in

the report.”

I want to briefly touch on some of the recommendations that I made

to the Attorney General. Again, I’m grateful that the Attorney General

took almost essentially word for word from my report into this

legislation. I want to, again, say to him that I’m quite grateful for

him to do that, for giving me the opportunity to go out and hear from

people, putting those words on paper, and then him actually taking that

and enacting it.

I remember one of the people asking me: “Is this going to be one

of these reports that collects dust in government?” I looked her in the

face, and I said, “I don’t think so,” because this is the way that

government sometimes works. She said: “Well, that was with a lot of

confidence.” We had a good chuckle about it. I said: “No, no. I’m pretty

confident that what we recommend is going to go through.” Then they

unloaded their ideas.

Some of those things that they shared with me were around access

to justice. We heard from a lot of new immigrant groups, groups that

provide supports to new immigrants especially. They shared stories about

how, especially, new immigrants were most vulnerable to human rights

violations and the fear they to go to this tribunal to be heard.

Tribunal means many things in different countries to different people.

So this fear of going to this tribunal often made them not want to go

forward.

What I also heard from them was that even when they wanted to get

them legal aid, even when they wanted to get them supports, it was

difficult to do so, because they couldn’t provide it in-house. They had

a respect and a comfort level built with this person.

[3:40 p.m.]

When they went to pass them on to someone else, they found that

those people would never go to those appointments, because they didn’t

trust. They were afraid. A lot of these folks were afraid of police

because of where they’ve come from. So for them to go to another entity

to get those supports was quite the scary thing. They basically said:

“We have so many of these cases, but we can’t take them anywhere,

because when we take them, we lose them.”

We heard the same thing in the friendship centres. A lot of

different groups that have friendship centres came and said: “We have so

many people that have complaints, but when we take them outside of the

friendship centre to get them support, they don’t show up.” I think we

are fortunate because the people that we have with the Human Rights

Clinic do a fantastic job. Man, were they passionate about advancing

human rights. If they’re watching, I want to say thank you. Thank you

for the work you do.

They also acknowledge they have challenges. They’re based in

Vancouver, and they have a lot of people coming from Metro Vancouver to

access their services. They’re pretty close to capacity. Once you leave

Metro Vancouver, the numbers start dropping off. Once you go into the

Interior, into Prince George and Kelowna, the numbers drastically drop

off. So that was something I heard, especially when I was travelling in

Prince George and Kelowna. I heard from folks saying….

I remember this gentleman saying: “When you’re just trying to

survive, human rights and fighting for your rights is the furthest from

your mind.” They talked about poverty. They talked about deep poverty.

They talked about their challenges to get justice. Again, I heard you.

That’s also in the report as comments from what people heard. It wasn’t

part of my mandate, but I put it in there anyways as feedback for us in

government.

Four important recommendations I made. Obviously, the most

important part of this report, and the biggest piece for me, is that

this commission is going to be independent. We heard that from

Indigenous communities and First Nations leaders. They were quite clear.

This has got to be completely independent of government. In order for us

to feel comfortable to get…. We know that this body will address our

issues. It needs to be completely independent of government.

People were tired of this back and forth. The NDP came in, and

they brought it in. The Socreds got rid of it. Then the NDP comes back

in. They bring the commission back. B.C. Liberals came in. They got rid

of it. They were tired of this. You know, 16 years of not having that

service there was too long. So what was critical is having an

independent body so that it would be less politics. It would be toned

down. It would still be a social audit of society, still have a critical

voice but not be at the pulling of strings of government

officials.

Again, I think that’s something for all of us in this House to be

proud of. We are leading the way. We’re leading the way in Canada. We’re

leading the way in North America on this critical topic.

Three other pieces of information that I want to raise. These were

just recommendations. I knew I wouldn’t be in a position to tell the

commissioner what to do. But what we tried to do was we tried to lay out

three key issues that I heard over and over again for the commission to

address.

First was around First Nations. In order for the new commission to

be fully functional and to fulfil its mandate, they’re going to spend

time to build the relationships and establish relationships with

Indigenous and First Nations communities throughout the province. That

was my first recommendation.

The second was around gender and IDs. I know the Minister of

Health has just made some moves. Now there is ability for an X on health

records. But they also raise concerns. Then I heard concerns around the

concept of an X on a passport and what that means for someone who

travels to another country. When they travel to another country and they

see an X on their passport, how vulnerable that might make them feel.

Again, that’s something I recommended for the commission.

Then the last one was a Canadian experience. Too many new

immigrants are coming to this country as doctors, engineers and lawyers

and are not able to fulfil their dreams of coming to Canada and living a

prosperous life because all their education — all that stuff that we

were inviting them to bring to our country to add to our strength of our

country — they were not able to use it. Too often, they would go to the

doors, apply for a place at the table, and they would hear: “Well, I’m

sorry. You don’t have Canadian experience.”

[3:45 p.m.]

This idea of Canadian experience became a roadblock for too many

people. It’s a story you hear over and over again. Again, I don’t have

the solution. But I did recommend that the new commissioner consider

looking at this and consider potential solutions for us.

The last piece I’ll touch on — I know that others might want to

speak to this — is something important that I heard from the business

community around why they felt this was important as well. We talk about

education and how critical education is to the public. But we heard, too

often, from small business and medium-sized businesses: “We want to do

the right thing. We want to address human rights concerns.” But it’s

hard for a small business to afford legal opinions and getting together

all the proper protocols to address these things.

I heard clearly from them, as well, that they want a place at the

table with this new Human Rights Commission, and they want to see tools

and educational opportunities. They want to see partnerships between

businesses, non-profits and government to build these tools so that they

become available for the business community, as well, so they don’t have

to re-create them, and it becomes accessible and easy for them to make

their work environments more inclusive and safe.

I wasn’t on the speaking order, but I felt passionately to speak

to this. I’ll just end with a big thank-you to the Attorney General, a

big thank-you to the Premier. It was a special day for this province,

for us to have this commission back.

It’s going to be truly independent. It will be leading North

America. It’ll lead in education. My hope is that they will be tough,

not only on us and on the non-profit community, but also on the private

sector to make sure that this province continues to be the best place to

live and raise a family. With that, I’ll take my seat, and I’m proud to

support this legislation.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — SOUTH COAST BRITISH

COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2),

Bill 46, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 42

Chouhan

Kahlon

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 38

Cadieux

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Thomson

Foster

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill

50, and in Committee A, I call committee stage on Bill 48, the temporary

foreign workers legislation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, I just want to welcome a couple of guests into the

Legislature today before we reconvene.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Simons: I’d like to introduce my constituency assistants, who are skipping out

from their convention meetings and who have come to the House today. Rob

Hill and Michelle Morton are my constituency assistants for the upper and

lower Sunshine Coast respectively.

I want to also add that Rob and his wife, Delyth, have welcomed their

third child, Nia, to join Holden and Theo — a lovely family — and returned

to Powell River.

I would like the House to please make them both welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2018

(continued)

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m very honoured to stand in my place and speak to this bill

regarding the reinstating of the human rights commission. I want to

begin by acknowledging my colleague the Attorney General and my

colleague from Delta North, who is Parliamentary Secretary for

Multiculturalism, for their leadership in bringing this

forward.

I’ve been sitting here in the House for the last hour and a half

on House duty, listening to other people who have risen to speak on this

issue before me. Listening to members on both sides of the House led me

to rise to my feet and take my place in this discussion. This is a day

in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia that I think brings out

the best in all of us. It shows some of those issues that today we stand

together and speak with one voice on.

It has been very moving sitting here listening to members on the

government side of the House but also listening to the member for Surrey

South and the member for Vancouver-Langara speaking about their own

personal experiences and about their own family experiences. I think

what this debate does is really unite us in our humanity that we want a

better province, we want a better country, and we want a better world,

where the human rights of all citizens are recognized and are

respected.

[4:00 p.m.]

I think what is so important about the human rights commission

being reinstated is its focus on systemic discrimination and on

education. We do have mechanisms, sometimes imperfect, for dealing with

individual acts of discrimination. But it is so important, and we must

never forget how prevalent in our society, despite our best efforts,

issues of systemic discrimination and racism continue to be.

We can reflect back on the day that we made an

an­nounce­ment in the Hall of Honour about the reinstatement

of the human rights commission, and the speakers who were gathered

there. One of those speakers talked about the shootings in a synagogue

in Pittsburgh, the most violent act of anti-Semitism in American

history. It reminds us that anti-Semitism is alive and well in our

society, not just south of the border, but on this side of the border as

well.

I remember very well a year ago January in New Westminster, a

welcoming community that embraces diversity and has welcomed people from

all around the world. I woke up on a Sunday morning to find out that the

night before, on a United Church in my community, anti-Semitic,

anti-Muslim posters, pro-Nazi posters had been posted — on a local

church. I’m very, very proud that our community rallied together. Within

four days, in the name of New West United, we gathered on the steps of

city hall, and we spoke with one voice to say: “No, not in my backyard.

We stand united. We stand together to celebrate diversity. We stand

together in unity, in democracy and in welcoming people to our

community.”

That was when we were dealing with the worst aftermath of the

refugee crisis in Syria. Just a few days after that, we had a shooting

in a mosque in Quebec City, where several worshippers were shot dead.

Why? It’s because of their faith, for the same reason that people were

shot in a synagogue in Pittsburgh.

My colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville just shared

with me that in her community this past weekend, there were Nazi symbols

that appeared outside schools.

In this House, we are speaking today as one, and I think that’s

very important. We haven’t always spoken as one on this issue. I wish

that there were more people who actually could observe what was

happening today in this House because this is, I believe, one of our

finer moments as a Legislature, as we support the reintroduction of a

human rights commission, focusing on education and on systemic

discrimination in the province of British Columbia.

We know that systemic discrimination affects so many groups in our

society. We know that Indigenous people still face systemic

discrimination in our legal system, as was referred to already. We know

that they experience it in housing. We know that they also experience it

often in our health care system and in our mental health system. I’ve

heard those stories — individual stories, over and over again — about

stereotyping of Indigenous people and the treatment that means they

sometimes receive.

We have a long way to go in order to ensure that all of our

programs and services are culturally safe and culturally appropriate.

But having a human rights commission reinforces the need for us to take

up that challenge in every single aspect of the work of our government

and in every single aspect of life in civil society.

We know, and I’ve certainly heard these stories over and over

again in my work and my engagement and consultation around the issue of

mental health and substance use…. We have one in five British Columbians

who is living with mental health issues today. One in four British

Columbians will deal with a substance use issue in their

lifetime.

We know that people living with mental health and addictions

experience discrimination in the workplace. They experience

discrimination in housing. They experience discrimination in many

aspects of their lives because they are people struggling with a

disability. They are people struggling with a chronic health condition,

that being a mental illness or an addiction.

[4:05 p.m.]

We have a lot of work to do in so many domains. I also heard, in

the engagement that our ministry did in developing a mental health and

addiction strategy…. We met with members of the LGBTQ community, and

they spoke to us with great passion and with great anger and

frustration, frankly, about the discrimination that they still

experience throughout our society, including in our health care system.

That was most pronounced for members of the trans community.

We can feel proud of the progress that we’ve made as a province

and as a Legislature in being more representative — and as a society.

But we also know there is a tremendous, tremendous amount of work to do.

This human rights commission is a very, very important step forward,

because it will be addressing systemic discrimination and addressing

education of the public.

We want to ensure that wherever people live in our prov­ince

and wherever they work and whatever it is they do, they feel that it is

a safe community and a safe province. As I listen to the debate and as I

heard other people share their family’s stories, I am reminded of what

brought my family to this country in the 1950s.

My father was a Jew, a Russian Jew who lived in France for 25

years, fought in the French Army. He managed to keep his Jewishness a

secret while he was a prisoner of war but subsequently lost several

family members in the Holocaust. He brought his young family to this

country in order that they would be safe. He was worried there might be

another war, another outbreak of anti-Semitism in Europe.

He brought our young family to Canada, and he kept his Jewishness

a secret, including from his own family, until a few years before he

died, when he began, with his faulty memory at that time, to share his

history with us.

We want to ensure that our country is safe in every respect for

people who have lived here for generations and who practise many

different faiths or for people who come here from many different

countries and who may speak different languages and who come from many

different backgrounds.

Today, with the introduction of this bill, and when we pass this

bill — and it appears that it will be unanimous in this Legislature — it

will be us saying together and speaking with one voice as the

Legislative Assembly, saying: “We celebrate diversity, but we do more

than celebrate diversity. We will do everything in our power to

eradicate discrimination in all of its forms throughout British

Columbia, in all walks of life, in every place, in every

community.”

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the Attorney General; the member for Delta North, who

led the consultation on this process; of course, the Premier; yourself,

hon. Speaker; and the Minister of Labour as well, who, I know, for many

years, as a private member when we were in opposition, worked very hard

to keep the idea, the dream, the necessity of a human rights commission

alive in public discourse in this Legislature.

Through moving private member’s legislation, through speaking out,

through organizing meetings, through advocating internally amongst the

opposition, we would continue to put forward the idea and dream and

necessity for a human rights commission, as the New Democratic Party,

given that the whole concept of it was demolished back in 2002 under the

former B.C. Liberal government.

Sixteen years is a long time, and I know a number of people have

grown up without even knowing what a human rights commission was or

could do. They’d say to me — in going to my local high school and

speaking to young people: “What are we doing about racism? What are we

doing about sexism, homophobia?” The list would go on.

“Why don’t you as a government take this seriously?” they would

say to me. “Why don’t we see further action?” I would always talk about

the fight and struggle that some of us were pushing within our caucus

and our now government to address these issues.

[4:10 p.m.]

They would take hope that something could be done — that a

government could, at some day forward, take these issues more seriously

and bring in a human rights commission, bring in a body to educate, to

advocate, to point out systemic issues that need addressing. They would

take hope that that could happen. Well, it’s so great to be here today

to see this happening.

My constituency of Vancouver–West End has certainly been one of

the hotbeds, the capitals — whatever you want to call it — leading

voices, leading communities in the fight for human rights. Of course,

the LGBT civil rights movement largely found a centre and a home there,

on Davie Street, with some of the early pride parades and unity parades

and activism happening in my community.

So it was appropriate that when our government decided to publicly

launch that we were going to do this, that we did it in my community. I

just want to say how much it meant to members of my neighbourhood that

we did it in Deva Plaza.

Jim Deva, as many will remember, was a strong, strong voice for

human rights, for equality, not just for gay men but for LGBT people

writ large — two-spirit people, queer people, non-binary people,

transgender people. He worked very hard to bring a broader voice against

censorship and for human rights and for schools that looked out for

people.

Jim would always remind us, and I know many have said this: “You

can change laws.” I know he was here in this House when I