Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

REDUCING EXCESSIVE VEHICLE NOISE

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

[10:05 a.m.]

I rise to speak on a statement about reducing excessive vehicle noise. It’s in the spirit of non-partisanship, which I hope we all can get behind. After all, this issue of reducing loud motorbikes, the exhausts of modified parts of cars and trucks, which sometimes wake people up at night, has been an issue that has perturbed my constituents for many, many, many, many years.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The former member, a B.C. Liberal member, worked on this issue. The member before him, Tim Stevenson, worked on the issue as a New Democrat for years as well. Indeed, it’s been a problem for as long as, I guess, we’ve had tall apartment buildings, which amplify sound, and people decide to be loud with their vehicles.

I should quantify: what am I talking with reducing excessive vehicle noise? It’s an issue, now, that is plaguing the constituents of many of those in this House. I look across from me, and I see folks from Surrey, and I see folks from Kamloops; folks from Terrace; others on my own side — the Sunshine Coast, Delta, the Kootenays; Peace River country; the Okanagan, in a big way. Really, this is an issue that I think should unite us and should get us moving, despite the fact that nothing has happened on this for a long, long time.

Some people choose to modify their motorbikes so that they are incredibly loud. They think it’s fun. They enjoy the noise. They decide to share that noise with everybody else, who may not find that so much fun, so much enjoyable.

I see the member for Penticton nodding in agreement. I think he’s not the one creating the noise. He’s the one whose constituents want it to end. Indeed, I’ve heard that from them. I’ve spoken to more than a few from the Penticton area who want us to act.

Right now in Canada, we have a limit for motorbikes. They can be 91 decibels. The average car is allowed to be 83 decibels. This is a bit of a throwback to the days when we couldn’t create engines on a motorbike which were quieter. Of course, you can do that now. Indeed, in Europe, the actual limit for motorbikes right now is 80 decibels. So in Canada, British Columbia, we’re at 91, and in Europe, they’re at 80, which is actually even quieter than cars in Canada, which we set at 83. It can be done.

People modify them, but even just the driving of a motorbike right now at 91 decibels is enough to wake up a baby. I can speak from experience to that one. Living in the West End, as I do, we hear more than our fair share of motorbikes coming through over that beautiful Lions Gate. We love that Stanley Park drive, but it sure attracts a lot of people who, some would say, are smaller in generosity to my community by sharing their excessive noise. Some would say they have small parts, but I’ll leave that for another time.

What can we do about it? Hearing from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, all the cities and towns and regional districts united a few years ago to say: “Province, step up. We need to inspect more often. We need to enforce the laws more often.” That’s certainly one area.

The police in a few communities have blitzes. They do one day a year where they go out, and they ticket people. There’s very little ticketing that goes on. They, thankfully, now have the ability to…. The courts have ruled that if they can see somebody and if they have experience in listening to loud noises, they can actually cite without a ticketing device to actually test the decibel level, so it’s made it a little easier. But really, the police are busy. They have a whole lot of things that they’ve got to do to take care of our communities. In the end, I think we’ve got a bit of a supply issue as well.

Right now it’s illegal to drive a bike with modified parts that can be excessively loud — or a Honda Civic. As I saw the other day, they had created a massive muffler so that they could be extra loud. It’s illegal to do that now. They can get ticketed. They can have that pulled off. But there’s just so many of them that we’re not getting at it.

What I’d like to propose, and what I think we should look at, is we should look at reaching out to other provincial governments across the country and say: “Can we start to move towards Europe’s level of 80 decibels?”

Now we’re at 91, so we’re not going to get there overnight. It’s going to take a long time. The way that Europe has done it is they said: “For new vehicles introduced into the market, these will be the decibels levels we’ve set.” We’ve done it for climate. We’ve done it for how much carbon pollution. For lead, and on and on, we’ve done it. We could do it for noise levels. For some reason, Canada and North America has not. If Canada, as a nation, said to the suppliers that this is what we’re going to do by this year, we’re going to have a lot more quieter bikes introduced into the market, and that will help over time.

[10:10 a.m.]

We should probably ban the sale and the installation of modifications for loud pipes. Right now you cannot drive with a loud pipe, you cannot be on the roads with a loud pipe that’s been cut or modified, but you can pay somebody to install it on your bike. Then, once you’ve left the lot, you’re breaking the law. You can advertise it for sale, but you can’t actually drive with it. So it’s a bit of a gap in the law. I’d like to see us introduce legislation, potentially, to ban the sale and the installation of these parts, just to make it harder for people to be introducing pipes that are even louder than the currently allowable limits.

Of course, we should enforce the existing laws and potentially increase fines so that we show that we’re serious about this issue. It has a health impact. It wakes the baby. It makes sitting on a patio on a nice summer day not so much fun. You interrupt conversations. When you talk to doctors, they will tell you that the mental health impact of the constant stress of noise really does get felt in the body and really does lead to shorter lives, more chronic illnesses, mental health challenges and stress as well.

I’m hoping that these are a package of potential options that the government might consider — indeed, that legislators across Canada could get behind. We all should be able to sleep better at night. People shouldn’t have to be sitting listening to the drone of noisy gnats of people who want to show they’re bigger than all that, show off their egos or something, just for their own potential enjoyment, when, of course, you’re disrupting the enjoyment of thousands of people just for your one singular pleasure.

I hope the member opposite will join me in this, that we can share that in a bipartisan way and, hopefully, get some action in the next couple of years.

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the statement. Yes, I absolutely agree with many things that have been shared here today already. I know, as the member mentioned, that the amount of complaints that both local governments and provincial representatives hear from people, especially in the spring and summertime, is very large. It comes from a vast array of different noise sources. Certainly, the modified motorcycles, the modified vehicles definitely drive a large portion of those complaints.

I know in my past experience, with nine years as the mayor of Kamloops, that every year this would come up, and every year we would look into different models around North America, around Canada and also within British Columbia. We’d see what other cities were doing to try to combat these types of noise infractions and the impacts they can truly have for people’s health, well-being, peace, comfort and enjoyment of their own private spaces. Let alone even in some of the more heavily populated hotel districts — what it means to the whole impact of tourism and people’s ability to come to such a beautiful province, regardless of where they may be staying around this province, and be able to enjoy their vacation and their holidays without the incessant noise that does come with this.

I think there is full agreement on both sides of this House around the problem, but as was also very clearly articulated by the member opposite so well, it’s not a problem that comes with an easy fix. As we’ve heard, years and years…. It cuts across political lines of the various ministers who have tried to implement and bring in new rules and new changes.

A lot of what we’re seeing happening out there actually is already against the law, as the member opposite has so rightly pointed out. Therefore, layering more onto laws that we’re already having trouble enforcing may not actually result in a change for the good. It may make us feel a little better that we can point to a different law or a different decibel level within the books, but I would suggest that if we can’t get people to 91 decibels, dropping the law to 80 might not make that work change in terms of what we’re ultimately at.

I do fully agree with the member opposite that we need to do something. From our perspective, I think a lot of that has to do with — and the member opposite touched on it — resources for local governments, within their own police departments, to be able to resource and actually make this a priority within their policing realm on any given day.

[10:15 a.m.]

The simple reality is that, with staffing and resource shortages, when other priorities come to the fore, unfortunately, if you’re the one being woken up in the middle of the night or as you’re trying to get to sleep, or even during the day if you’re a shift worker and you’re trying to sleep during the daylight hours, this does not rate high on most police departments’ priority lists as it relates to other crimes going on within their community.

Although I can fully support some changes to the laws, I question if expanding it to be a federal piece, when we’re having trouble even keeping it under control in our provincial boundaries, will have that same cause and effect. However, any change or any move forward, I would hope, would come with a significant addition of provincial police funding and resources to help make sure that municipalities can actually enforce the laws that are on the books. The number one complaint I would hear from people is that they would point to the laws on the books and say: “Why are you not enforcing those laws on the books?”

I think that’s the key that every citizen expects: if we are going to put something, enact something into law, we should have the resources to properly make sure that we are enforcing that same law. We should make sure that we get the end result that I think all members of this House would like to see, which is that people can have peaceful enjoyment of their private property on their off-hours and enjoy their summer afternoons with their patio doors open and out on their balconies.

S. Chandra Herbert: I thank the member from Kamloops for his remarks and thoughts on this. In putting this forward, I’m hoping to spark a little bit of debate and discussion. Many times we get locked in our own experiences. We understand that motorbikes are always going to be loud because they always have been. We understand that you’re going to have to deal with your windows rattling because we always have had to. Sometimes we get locked in that small experience, and I think that’s the case here.

So many people I’ve talked to say: “Yeah, we gotta do something, but people have been saying that forever, and nothing’s ever going to change.” We’ve got to do something, but we never illustrate or actually dig into what that something is.

In this case, I think the something is just admitting that our current laws are too generous in terms of allowing noise. In the old days, maybe there was more space between residents, you lived farther apart, you didn’t have hundreds of people right together in communities — small urban centres, as I know so many are trying to build now, as I know the member from Kamloops looked to do when he was in municipal government.

We’re asking people to live along main streets in dense centres yet still allowing the old ways, saying that you can be as loud as you want — 91 decibels for a motorbike, which is just two decibels lower than a heavy commercial truck. We don’t allow some of that truck activity in certain neighbourhood centres because they’re too loud, or only at certain times.

I know in Delta there’s been an issue around trucks and the sound of trucks and where they go. They’ve made certain decisions around where trucks can be. Yet motorbikes can go everywhere, and they’re only two decibels lower, in terms of volume, than the heavy truck.

For some reason, we’ve got locked in the small experience, that they just will always be that way. In Europe, they’re actually working now…. Their goal they’ve set out is that by 2026 they want to get to 68 decibels for all new vehicles, including motorbikes. Now, that I just…. We’re talking about 91 decibels and it will always be this way, that we can’t possibly change it because we can’t even enforce the laws we’ve got now. Well, that to me doesn’t answer the question. That’s just ducking responsibility.

We have laws for pollution. We have laws for noise levels right now. We’ve reduced how much pollution we can create with our vehicles, but we continue to allow the noise we can create with our vehicles to be much, much higher.

It doesn’t have to be that way. That is a solution. It will take time, but unless you actually start, you’ll never get to the finish line. And in this case, government after government after government has refused to even start, just saying we must stay with the excessive noise we have. I don’t agree with it, and we’re going to work to change it.

HOUSING

M. Hunt: It’s my privilege to rise today in this House to speak about a topic of fundamental importance to British Columbians, and that, of course, is housing. Housing is a universal human need, and in places where a lot of people want to live, it’s in very short supply.

[10:20 a.m.]

It’s no secret to those of us who live here in British Columbia that this is the best place on earth. My wife and I have lived in Surrey for many years now, and it’s hard to imagine living anywhere else. With the unmatched natural beauty and the countless opportunities we have, it’s no surprise there’s a significant desire for housing here in British Columbia. As a result, housing can be very expensive in parts of this province, and therefore, there is a need for affordable housing in particular.

Former governments have recognized this. We look back to 2001 and we consider the period since then, and we see investments of $6.3 billion towards affordable housing that produced approximately 24,000 new units. Now, those are good numbers. In fact, we had one year where there was almost $1 billion that was invested. That is wonderful and commendable, and we want to see those things, but investments like these ensure that housing is accessible for those most in need, like renters with low to moderate incomes, women and children, seniors, First Nations peoples and, of course, people with disabilities.

Aside from increasing the supply of affordable housing, governments have also helped to ensure that rent is more affordable for British Columbian families, providing rent assistance to more than 30,000 B.C. households. Through programs such as rental assistance and Shelter Aid For Elderly Residents, British Columbians have gained access to private market rentals and ensured a multifaceted approach to trying to deal with the issue of rental affordability.

We also recognize that everyday financial pressures can make it difficult for British Columbians to save for their first home on their own. We’ve seen that British Columbians have been helped in owning their own home by the B.C. home partnership that was introduced, a down payment program that provided eligible homeowners with a loan of up to $37,500 that was interest free. Payments weren’t required for the first five years. It was another way of helping a particular segment of the population to address the issues of home affordability.

So British Columbians were able to afford their own house, but we also need a little help in getting them into it with the down payment. We were able to do that through these programs. Not only did this program help those individuals, but it also helped those who were looking for housing because it got them out of the rental units and got them into home ownership so that we had vacancies as well. I’ve also heard that there is consideration of, in fact, removing that program and discontinuing it, but thankfully, I have heard nothing further on that. It seems as though that will continue, and I think that’s a worthy project.

Like the governments before, this new government has identified that there is a significant demand for affordable rental housing in British Columbia. Now, we have heard, in the previous campaign, that there was a plan and that there is a plan to create 114,000 units over the next ten years. Simple math says that’s 11,400 units to be built each and every year.

If we look at the numbers within the fall budget, that was 3,700 units that they’re talking about, which means that over the next three years, we’ve got to deal with somewhere in the order of 41,900 units, and that is a massive challenge. According to the government’s own cost per units, that projects to about $5.6 billion, which is very ambitious. It’s early in the days of the new government, and we recognize that, and we recognize that they have a lot of ambitious goals that they’re working on, and we wish them well.

Now comes the hard part, and that is carrying out those commitments and actually ensuring that the funds are there to make it happen. Based on the projections that were within the budget, the cost of the 114,000 units would be about $15.2 billion.

There’s a group called the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and this is a progressive organization, I would advise you — not one that would necessarily subscribe to things I would think, but a progressive organization. They estimate there is, in fact, a higher cost per unit for affordable housing. They suggest that the cost would be about $250,000 per unit, which would then translate this into about $28.5 billion for the 114,000 affordable housing units.

[10:25 a.m.]

So what we’re looking forward to is we’re looking forward to the commitment for this being in the budget, and while budgets have been raising taxes, we’re waiting to hear where this money is coming from. Obviously, affordable housing is necessary. We need it, and the answer will, of course, depend on the projections of what we’re projecting these to be. Again, if we look particularly closely to the much higher estimate that comes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, we’re looking at a very, very large number here. And we’re still waiting for the numbers of the other details on other programs that the government would like to put forward.

I would like to challenge the members opposite, the private members opposite, on what their ideas are. What are their plans for creating more affordable housing? I look forward to hearing the response from the members opposite and hope they can shed some light on their plans for increasing housing in the province of British Columbia.

M. Elmore: I am very pleased to rise and respond to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale on his statement with regards to housing, and I appreciate the recap in terms of the previous record of the government’s 16 years with respect to housing.

I think we’ve seen, certainly in terms of the results from the election, what the determinants of British Columbians were with respect to their experience around housing. I agree with the member that housing and affordable housing is integral to the success of our community and also our economy. Certainly, the need for access to affordable housing for British Columbians….

When we talk about housing, there’s a whole continuum to deal with increasing numbers around homelessness, affordable rental housing and, as well, adequate housing for families and, also, the needs for employers to ensure that employees are able to have housing and to live close to where they work, with respect to sustainability.

We’ve seen what the picture of housing has been in British Columbia. We have the ratio. Typically, when you look at what the measure of housing affordability is, you look at the ratio of income generally to the cost of buying homes. Typically, it’s regarded that a ratio of 3 to 1 is generally in the sphere of affordability. British Columbia leads the country in terms of the highest housing costs and the greatest unaffordability of housing, exceeding income to housing costs 12 to 1. We lead the country, and certainly, we’ve seen where we’ve been taken over the last number of years.

I want to talk about what steps we have taken — this government, the NDP government. The member mentioned we’ve been in government less than three months, coming up to that. But that was one of our key commitments: to address affordability, certainly to provide services and to ensure that the economy works for British Columbia. It was clear from our commitment and statements from the Premier and also the minister responsible for Housing that we have taken action to address the crisis that is right across our province with respect to housing.

When you look at housing, there are the demand and supply sides. There are steps that need to be taken on the demand side, to really bring into check rampant speculation that has caused housing prices to skyrocket; as well as supply, where we see a neglect in terms of investment for low-to-middle income around affordable rental housing.

We have taken steps and have commitments of over 1,700 new units of affordable rental housing as well as commitments in our budget update for 2,000 modular housing units for people, combined with the housing supports for the hard-to-house individuals and, recently, an announcement for modular housing for the homeless to ensure there’s interim housing available for people in terms of that transition.

[10:30 a.m.]

We have taken concrete steps. There are more to take. Our minister and the Premier have announced we will adopting a comprehensive housing strategy to look at bringing in measures right across the continuum to ensure that British Columbians have access to housing, which has skyrocketed out of reach for many over the last number of years.

Our government, with the support of the Green Party, is making commitments to ensure that we bring on the ground not only modular housing to address homeless issues but that we also invest in the construction of low-cost rental units to ensure that British Columbians have access to adequate housing. We’re also going to address the high costs around rents in British Columbia by closing the fixed-term lease loopholes, which have allowed landlords to bypass and increase rents. That’s a loophole we’re going to close. As well, we’ve put investments into the residential tenancy to ensure that landlords and renters have access to ensure that their rights are upheld.

Our government is taking action. We are committed, and we will be doing more in the months and years ahead.

M. Hunt: I certainly want to thank the member opposite for her comments. Again, she brings out the emphasis on the fact that we’re dealing in a continuum of housing. We often use the euphemism “affordable housing,” and we actually mean subsidized housing. That’s what we actually mean. But then, when we talk about people being in housing as well….

It’s interesting, because over this last weekend, we saw, in the newspapers right here in Victoria, the Burnside Gorge Community Association saying: “We’ve had enough. We’ve got too much.” These are the challenges with trying to put 114,000 units in.

Just walking here this morning from my condo, I walked past the signs that say, “Stop overdevelopment, respect neighbourhoods,” from the James Bay heritage group. We have these constant pressures. The government is trying to go in one direction, and we find the push-back coming back from communities. These are the challenges that this government will be facing.

Clearly, there is a need for affordable housing units, and there’s a lot more that goes into housing, as the member spoke, other than just supply. Affordability goes beyond the designated…. The previous government, for example, introduced a 15 percent property transfer tax for foreign buyers in Metro Vancouver, a change that was made within the provincial regulatory framework to help manage the foreign demand and also raise money for other provincial initiatives in the housing realm. Also, we saw the property transfer tax — the exemption being raised to $750,000, again, to try and make housing as affordable as possible, saving individuals about $13,000.

This new government has said that they, too, have changes in mind — the proposals to be made around fixed-term leases, as was mentioned, changing policies through transferring property with bare stratas. The government, in their time in opposition, said that these were top priorities. We look forward to seeing how they’re actually going to deal with this. We don’t see either of these items in the budget that has been introduced, and we look forward to them coming. The government has also announced its intention to introduce a speculation tax — again, another area where we’re waiting for the specifics, including when this will come into effect.

Markets depend on stability and certainty, but there’s a lot of uncertainty and unknowns in the province right now. I urge the members opposite to clarify their plans so that British Columbians are able to plan for their future in housing.

PROTECTING FIRST NATIONS MIDDENS

M. Dean: I rise today on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen-speaking First Peoples, in particular the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

Today I’d like to speak about First Nation culture preservation and celebration. I’d like to talk about the relationship between the land and the importance of First Nation languages and the need to retain traditional language and oral traditions as well.

In my constituency and throughout the whole of British Columbia, First Nations are making connections between culture and land. Their identity, nationhood and cultural survival are all interconnected to their relationship with the land.

[10:35 a.m.]

Since time immemorial, First Nations have had an intricate, respectful, spiritually and physically dependant, grateful stewardship tie to the land. The nature of this tie is not so much one of ownership; it’s one of guardianship and leadership. They believe they’ve been bestowed with responsibility for the land and sea and air and all of the creatures that inhabit the land with them. This sense of responsibility is greater than an emotional tie. It is intrinsically tied to the spirits of all aspects of the earth. This inextricable connection is celebrated in oral histories, creation stories, ceremonies and cultural practices. The stories and practices are passed down through individuals within a family for many reasons, one being to protect the ancestral and cultural connection to the land.

Many First Nation elders, like Shirley Alphonse of the T’Sou-ke Nation, are leading the way with teaching younger generations about traditional ways. For example, through the leadership and commitment of school district 62, language programs for kindergarten children have been thriving for over six years. The elder, Shirley for example, teaches kindergarten in Sooke. She helps the children learn the SENĆOŦEN language, which is spoken across many south Vancouver Island Coast Salish peoples.

She has taught hundreds of children over the years and has offered special programs in the community — for example, to a non-profit daycare group for young parents in Belmont High School. As elder Shirley says: “It is for our future.”

Shirley and so many others are passing along the traditional knowledge, the cultural practices and oral traditions built up over the millennia. They tell stories of a rich, vibrant history. The Coast Salish peoples lived together in longhouses. They settled in villages of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people. They travelled the territory to fish and hunt and gather a bountiful variety of foods. Maps record more than 500 Hul’qumi’num place-names blanketing the landscape. However, many of those names have been obliterated from common usage.

Those place-names aren’t the only loss. British Columbia is rich with a great diversity of First Nation languages. Our province is home to 60 percent of First Nation languages in Canada, with 34 unique languages and 61 dialects. From a global perspective, B.C. is known as a linguistic hot spot because of this diversity and the vitality of First Nation languages here. However, most of these languages are critically endangered, and we must do more to preserve and value oral histories of First Peoples.

Language is the way a culture is transmitted. It represents the identity of a people and holds cultural, historical, scientific and ecological knowledge. When a language is lost, we all lose out on the knowledge held within it and the unique way that its speakers view the world. Language reflects values and relationships, perspectives and history.

The United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.”

Initiatives such as FirstVoices are working to preserve and celebrate First Nation languages. It is an intentionally recognized, on-line Indigenous language archiving and teaching resource, and it allows indigenous communities to document their language for future generations. FirstVoices provides state-of-the-art technologies, training and technical support to community language champions. Teams of fluent elders and technically savvy youth upload dictionaries, alphabets, songs, stories, words and phrases, as well as audio and video, to these community archives.

It’s part of the work of the First Peoples Cultural Council. The council supports the revitalization of Aboriginal language, arts and culture in British Columbia. Another council project is the First Peoples Language Map of British Columbia that actually provides access to a list of First Nations in B.C. and information about them, including what language they speak and where they’re located.

[10:40 a.m.]

These are really important and vital initiatives that are making a difference. It actually can help British Columbians understand the nature of the relationship between oral histories and language, and the value and richness of language and the connection between that language and those oral traditions and histories, the relationship with the land and the air and the sea, and how First Nations peoples are our stewards, on behalf of the British Columbian province, in taking that forward. These are really important initiatives, which make such a difference.

D. Ashton: I would like to thank the member for bringing up these comments. It is important. I would also like to recognize the First Peoples of this province and to thank them very much for the incredible opportunity they’ve given us to share these wonderful lands that all of us call home right now.

The member has brought up how important it is to ensure that these languages and these cultures continue. I’m very fortunate; I come from Penticton, home of the Syilx people. There’s a centre there called the En’owkin Centre. The En’owkin Centre, run under Jeannette Armstrong, has done an incredible job of preserving the language of the Syilx people in our area and ensuring that generations are able to learn. That’s incredibly important. As the member has pointed out, to preserve the languages gives hereditary opportunities for the next generation to ensure that they know how their forebears were able to communicate.

Also, I know the First Peoples Cultural Council has done a very admirable job of doing their best to ensure that many of these languages and the diversity…. If I remember correctly, there are something like 34 dialects that are spoken in this province, different languages of the original people. The First Peoples Cultural Council is doing an incredible job to trying to assimilate and get this information so that it can continue to be passed on. I know that the Royal Museum right now has the First Peoples display — a very good display, I’ve been told. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to make it there.

I’m also very cognizant of what transpires in my area about the preservation and the knowledge that comes down. As a child growing up right next to the reserve, the Okanagan Indian Band’s reserve, PIB, as it was referred to, I grew up with a lot of kids. I’ve always missed the opportunity to pick up on some of those opportunities that were given to many of us to try and garner some of their languages.

It doesn’t just, necessarily, talk about language. It shouldn’t just talk about languages. It’s revealing their culture and their past heritage. We’re right now facing an issue in the Cawston area. I was approached when this first happened, where a site was discovered. The site appears to be family members and is being exhumed at this point in time.

The evidence that is coming out of that is showing the diverse culture that took place in the South Okanagan for a lot of the migratory tribes that had come through there. These are the things that we have to do and ensure, whether we’re in government or in elected positions like myself, to ensure that these sites are protected and the opportunities are presented not only to this generation but to the next generation.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for bringing this forward. It is an incredibly important part of our history here in British Columbia to ensure that these languages and these cultures are made available to everybody.

M. Dean: Thank you so much to the hon. member opposite. I would absolutely encourage all British Columbians to come to the B.C. Museum and actually visit the exhibit that’s called Our Living Languages. It exhibits First Nations artwork, video, audio. There’s life engagement. There are fantastic opportunities to learn about disrupted languages in B.C. and their complexity, and all the work that is going on in the province to revitalize them as well. You can actually wander through a forest of different languages and understand, as well, the relationship in the province to the land where they originated and the language that belongs there as well.

Thank you again for the comments that all of us — Indigenous, non-Indigenous, young, young at heart — have a role to play. We all have a duty, a responsibility. First Nations history is the history of this land and this province, for all of us, whether we were born here or we have come here from another land.

[10:45 a.m.]

There are many opportunities for people to get involved. For example, I run a project looking at bilingual signage at some children and family community centres, making sure that there was actually proper recognition for the traditional territory and land. For these centres, where people come and go, we’re making sure that people are reminded all the time of the history of our land.

In my constituency and around the province, First Nations leaders are making a real difference. I’d like to take this opportunity to especially acknowledge the Chief of Songhees First Nation, Ron Sam, and the Chief of Esquimalt First Nation, Andy Thomas, who have both educated me a lot — not only just in the last few months but in all the years that I have known them. And as we move forward with reconciliation and building new relationships with First Nations, we must look for ways to work together and preserve and celebrate and rebuild the culture and the traditions of First Peoples of this land.

Even in my constituency, in Colwood, on the 25th of October…. A local First Nation woman has written a book called Trudy’s Rock Story, and she’s launching that, published by Medicine Wheel Education. She’s hosting a signing session at Wishart Elementary School that will embrace the community. I look forward to putting my energy into helping with this ongoing work and to celebrate and to revitalize First Nations culture and traditions.

TRANSPORTATION

J. Martin: It’s good to be back. Hope everybody had a pleasant break week from the Legislature and lots of turkey and all of those good things.

Interjection.

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

I’d like to talk about transportation for a little bit, if I may. Throughout the province, we rely on safe, efficient and reliable systems of transportation, whether via land, air, sea. It doesn’t matter. British Columbians depend on these transportation systems for business, for leisure, for recreational use and everything in between.

These systems connect British Columbia. They ensure that people and goods can travel from Cranbrook to Terrace, from Fort St. John to right here in Victoria and all places in between. British Columbia is also Canada’s Pacific Gateway. It provides a vital link for international tourism, education and trade. And just as transportation systems connect the people in British Columbia, they themselves are also connected. Changes in one area will undoubtedly affect other areas, sometimes for the better. But without proper planning and study, these changes can produce unintended consequences.

The former government recognized this and, as a result, developed a comprehensive ten-year plan for transportation in the province. It was called B.C. on the Move. This sought to improve the province’s transportation network as a whole, investing in our transportation networks in all corners of the province, whether over land, by air, by sea, highway, transit, rail, everything in between. We recognize the importance of making these transportation options as safe and as efficient as possible, decreasing frustration for drivers, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping B.C.’s economy moving.

There was more in the planning. The George Massey Tunnel replacement project was estimated at $3.5 billion when construction began in the spring. This project would have helped alleviate congestion on Highway 99 — the single absolute worst traffic bottleneck in our province — saving commuters an average of 30 minutes per day, or a combined million-plus hours each year that could be used better elsewhere than idling.

This is one notable example of a project that would have significantly enhanced our highway system. But all across the province, projects that improve our highways are important. Used by commercial drivers, commuters and travellers, our highway network is a versatile transportation system that each and every one of us depends on, whether we’re aware of it or not.

In my home community of Chilliwack and, indeed, throughout the Fraser Valley, we depend on Highway 1 as our connection to the Lower Mainland. The previous government had committed to widening the highway between 216th and 264th streets, a $113 million provincial investment. However, we now know that this project is on hold, pending review. And, like many, I await to hear from the government about which previously planned infrastructure projects will be proceeding and, unfortunately, which ones will not.

[10:50 a.m.]

With the steadily increasing traffic along this major route and accidents on the rise as a result, I sincerely hope that widening this stretch of Highway 1 is in the latter category. This route sees more than 80,000 vehicles per day, which includes approximately 6,000 commercial trucks that help keep our economy moving. But due to the volume, this stretch also sees 1.2 million hours of traffic delays each year. During UBCM week, I had to make two commutes from Chilliwack to Vancouver, back to Chilliwack, to Vancouver again, and on all four trips, there were issues on the highway. One time I had to divert through the Lougheed Highway, one time 16th Avenue, one time 0 Avenue, and one time I just sat there stuck for about 2¼ hours. That was an example of what can be going on even outside of peak rush hour traffic times.

Aside from the obvious safety risks, traffic congestion causes British Columbians to miss important meetings, appointments and milestones, and of course, this is not good for blood pressure either. That’s not to mention that it simply causes people to spend more time on the road and less time being productive or spending it with family and loved ones.

I’m looking forward to receiving some clarity on the status of the project soon. I know that my constituents in Chilliwack are also looking for confirmation about the new government’s plans for this highway that affects us all so deeply.

We’ve seen some other changes in transportation policy. Last month the new government eliminated tolls from the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, a significant move and one that is inarguably expensive for the government. It removes this revenue stream that was previously earmarked to repay the debts we take on to build projects. I know that the cost factor was not a surprise, as this was a measure the government committed to prior to the election and implemented this fall.

As I mentioned previously, changes to the transportation network will always produce notable effects. Sometimes these effects are positive and intentional. For example, eliminating a traffic bottleneck will undoubtedly help free up congestion further down the line and ensure more efficient travel. But sometimes changes to the transportation network produce other impacts that can be seen as more negative. In this case, the removal of tolls off the Port Mann Bridge has caused a significant surge in traffic, seeing an additional 30,000 trips each day. This has resulted in gridlock and increasing delays as commuters shift to using the new toll-free Port Mann Bridge rather than other routes. First responders have reported additional crashes due to the increase in volume.

Clearly, the congestion and ensuing accidents were unintended consequences of the removal of the toll. When these situations occur, it’s important to acknowledge them and to take steps to mitigate them. I look forward to hearing from the member opposite about steps and commitments the government is planning to help alleviate some of the transportation concerns that we’re facing in the province. I’ve itemized a couple of them. There are many more, depending on where in beautiful British Columbia one is.

We can all agree that finding ways to keep people and goods moving is vital to the future of our province.

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

First, regarding Highway 1, the Minister of Transportation is following through with the project to six-lane the highway from 202nd to 216th streets in Langley. It’s well underway, and it’s anticipated to be completed in fall 2019. The previous government announced to continue this six-laning through to 264th Street into Abbotsford, but this was made prematurely as an election promise. No agreements from federal or municipal governments have been secured for the project. Without those agreements in place, it’s difficult to move forward with that.

[10:55 a.m.]

Moving people efficiently and in a cost-effective manner while trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be a priority of government. Sometimes reducing traffic bottlenecks doesn’t always mean building new infrastructure or widening roads. For example, the tolls being removed on the Port Mann Bridge have already had a reduction in the traffic through the tunnel. This is one example where changing priorities in investments can change traffic patterns in the region without actually creating new infrastructure.

Reducing traffic bottlenecks also means investing in adequate public transit. If we take a little trip down memory lane and we look back, we see a disturbing pattern of a government that has delayed transit improvements by obstructing new revenue sources for TransLink.

This goes back, at least, to 2007, when the government repealed the parking stall tax, which was a funding source for TransLink, or in 2009, when the government rejected giving TransLink a share of the carbon tax. Metro Vancouver mayors at the time said it was desperately needed, but instead of new funding, the government ordered an audit and for funding to be made up by cuts. It wasn’t enough, and service upgrades had to be delayed.

In 2012, instead of new funding there was another audit, which forced TransLink to raise fares and make more cuts. This resulted in the first-ever decrease in ridership in TransLink. In Surrey, the government delayed the plan for a rapid bus along Highway 1 and over the Port Mann and shortened the King George B-line so it wouldn’t go to White Rock.

So how does a government respond to a lack of funding, project delays and a decrease in ridership? Does a government show leadership and properly fund public transit? No, it calls for a referendum, where the source of funding is the most regressive tax possible, and two years later it fails, as expected, and more projects are delayed.

Service levels in TransLink have stayed flat over the last six or seven years while the population keeps growing. There are more young people today that are eager to take public transit. But instead, what we’re seeing are buses going by full of people and people at the bus stops waiting for a bus that has a little bit of room on it to get on. We’re seeing many areas that have no service at all. In 2010, the service hours were 6.4 million. In 2016, it was 6.36 million — a reduction. Per-capita service hours in that same period went down from 2.71 in 2010 to 2.48 in 2016.

In the last provincial election, there was talk of yet another referendum, much to the dismay of Metro Vancouver mayors and all transit users. The Metro Vancouver chair stated that the thought of another referendum was the epitome of frustration in trying to deliver transit solutions.

We need to take investment in public transit seriously. This government is committed to 40 percent funding of TransLink’s ten-year plan. What this will result in is the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge, Surrey light rail, a Broadway subway, more railcars, station upgrades on the existing SkyTrain system and a lot more good stuff to come.

J. Martin: Thank you, Member.

With a coastline in British Columbia that spans some 25,000 kilometres and a land mass of nearly one million square kilometres, an effective transportation network is vital to the economic and the social well-being of British Columbia.

We depend on efficient and effective transportation to keep people and goods moving, but our transportation system is also significant for another economic and social reason. It provides jobs. It helps keep the economy rolling by people going to work. The transportation sector employs people from one end of British Columbia to the other. This needs to be considered by government when they’re making decisions about transportation.

For instance, the Transportation Investment Corporation employed more than 180 workers to manage tolling. On the flip side, as we renew and improve parts of our transportation system, we are also creating jobs throughout the province.

[11:00 a.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

For instance, improvements to the Fraser Valley corridor of Highway 1 were expected to produce more than 700 jobs, no small number. The Massey Tunnel replacement project would have created 9,000 construction jobs plus 4,500 to 5,000 additional permanent jobs by 2045, stemming from increased economic growth.

It’s crucial that we see the whole picture when we’re looking at the future of the province’s transportation network. The jobs that these projects create, the economic growth that improvements to the transportation networks…. They help facilitate that kind of growth that, in turn, helps us keep making these investments in the future of British Columbia. We need to find a way to continue to support that growth. I think that’s something that members on both sides of the House can agree on.

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

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

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 6 — DIVERSITY
AND HUMAN RIGHTS

B. Ma: It is my privilege to rise today to move a motion that I believe really needs no debate.

[Be it resolved that this House support the celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of protecting human rights.]

May I proceed?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 6 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

B. Ma: On second thought, perhaps this motion isn’t as obvious as it really should be. After all, we were the only province in the country without a human rights commission for nearly 16 years, and the previous government seemed perfectly content with this, as though it was not needed. I insist: it absolutely is needed.

I am the MLA for a beautiful, diverse riding. But like other places in this great province, my riding is not perfect and is not immune to the effects of intolerance, prejudice and hatred.

As the Canadian-born daughter of immigrants and a person of colour, I have experienced intolerance firsthand as well. It is no secret that my recent election campaign was a target for some race-related aggressions. It was much reported on in the media that my election campaign signs were vandalized with swastikas, as were those of other candidates, like former MLA Naomi Yamamoto.

The truth is, there was a lot more going on than what was reported on. My volunteers received negative feedback about my ethnic heritage on doorsteps. My campaign office, which prominently featured my photo as well as the photo of my West Vancouver–Capilano colleague Mr. Mehdi Russel, who was born in Iran, would receive visitors who would shout intolerant phrases through our doors.

I was approached with prejudicial comments on streets, and I was given advice on how to overcome attributes I supposedly had because of my ethnic background from people who had only known me for seconds. But these visible and audible acts of discrimination are only one shallow element of intolerance. Like a glacier, they represent only what has risen to the top. Most of what emboldens this behaviour lies beneath the surface of the water.

There are the jokes that we think are harmless. There are the thinly veiled articles printed in papers. There are the conversations between friends, made by people passing by my campaign office who did not realize that the volunteers inside could hear them. There are the private conversations around the dinner table that colour the way children feel about their peers.

When former Premier Christy Clark was asked about the swastikas on Ms. Yamamoto’s campaign signs, she brushed it off, saying: “People do dumb stuff during campaigns.”

Then she went on to imply that the NDP campaign, my campaign, was responsible for these reprehensible acts. Former Premier Clark might have been content to dismiss the incident, but if you were monitoring the Twittersphere, it was clear that the incident had deeply upset her candidate Ms. Yamamoto. She had every right to be upset, because hate is upsetting and it is unacceptable.

It was also unacceptable when hate-filled transphobic fliers targeting NDP candidate Morgane Oger were distributed throughout Vancouver–False Creek during the election.

[11:05 a.m.]

It was unacceptable that the newly elected leader of the federal NDP, Jagmeet Singh, faced numerous accusations of being a terrorist because he wears a turban.

Politics is not the only place where discrimination reveals itself, of course. There are countless experiences that we can all point to in this world. And then there are the many, many more acts of love, compassion, tolerance, unity and hope that British Columbia is more than capable of.

In North Vancouver, candidates from all parties spoke out to denounce the hatred represented by the swastikas on our signs. In Vancouver–False Creek, Morgane Oger’s primary rival, the current member for Vancouver–False Creek, decried the hatred expressed against Ms. Oger, defending her voice as an important contribution to the province’s political discourse.

The coming together of people across party lines to defend against discrimination and acts against the progress of human rights is significant. It is part of our role in fighting against hatred and intolerance and moving towards true equality. There are those out there who will use our differences to divide us, to segregate us, to turn us against each other, but the vast majority of us in British Columbia know that our diversity is our strength. This House must provide the leadership required to demonstrate and celebrate how diversity can be a source of power that unites us.

To fight intolerance, we cannot simply react to intolerance. We must overcome it. Our job as elected representatives of the beautiful mosaic that forms this province, and the job of the Human Rights Commission, is to continue the hard work of emboldening those acts of love and tolerance so that these values speak much more loudly than those of intolerance. This is the kind of leadership and the kind of work that the province must provide leadership for.

T. Wat: It’s my privilege and honour to rise in the House today to support the celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of protecting human rights. This was an issue very dear to me in my previous capacity as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. In that role, I was able to witness and participate in so many celebrations of diversity across our great province, and it’s still dear to me given that I proudly represent Richmond North Centre, which is extremely diverse.

Richmond itself is one of the most multicultural communities in Canada, and this is very attractive to newcomers. The cultural diversity and unique geography of Richmond make it a great place to live, work and play. Those newcomers who have chosen to make Richmond their home are among the 40,000 new immigrants that are welcomed into British Columbia each year. Of course, we know British Columbia is the most ethnically diverse province in the country. It is something we can all take a great deal of pride in. I know I do.

I think that living in a diverse province like British Columbia means that we should all take personal responsibility to ensure that everyone around us feels understood, included and respected. If and when they don’t, it is reassuring to know that they are protected under the human rights code. It is against the law to discriminate against or harass others because of their age, ancestry, colour, criminal conviction, family status, gender expression, gender identity, marital status, mental disability, physical disability, place of origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or source of income.

In the event that a person in British Columbia feels their human rights are being threatened, they can turn to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. It is an independent, quasi-judicial body created by the B.C. human rights code and is recognized as a leader in the protection of human rights. It accepts, screens, mediates and adjudicates human rights complaints, offering parties the opportunity to try to resolve the complaint through mediation.

Respondents can address the complaint and apply to dismiss it without a hearing. If the parties do not resolve a complaint, and if it’s not dismissed, the tribunal holds a hearing. More than 1,100 British Columbians receive dispute resolution services from the tribunal each year.

[11:10 a.m.]

I want to close my remarks by focusing on some of the core values enshrined in B.C.’s Multiculturalism Act. The act promotes racial harmony, cross-cultural understanding, respect and peace. These are the values we should be so proud of as British Columbians, values we should keep at the forefront of our minds at all times. We need to look out for one another to ensure everyone in this great province feels understood and respected.

I believe all of us in this House understand what a privilege it is to gather in this building to do the work that we do. This legislative precinct welcomes visitors from around the world every single day. When they come here and enter in the history of this place, they learn about how we join together to try to right some of the wrongs in B.C. history that caused deep hurt and pain, like the historical wrongs imposed on Chinese-Canadians, the turning away of passengers from India aboard the Komagata Maru and the removal of Japanese-Canadians from their homes and businesses and sent to internment camps in B.C. and across Canada during the Second World War, just to name a few.

We must always look for ways to heal the wounds of the past and ensure these injustices never happen again. Hatred and intolerance have no place in our rich, multicultural society. We must be vigilant against all discrimination as well as other forms of racism.

Racism and discrimination are not tolerated in British Columbia. It is up to every citizen of this province to take a collaborative, community approach to challenge and prevent racism and discrimination, because each one of us can play a role in fighting racism and hatred by promoting tolerance and acceptance.

Inclusiveness and diversity are cornerstones of B.C. society. It is why the Multiculturalism Act mandates government to promote inclusiveness in our schools, in our workplaces and throughout our society.

N. Simons: For the information of those who are joining us in the House today, we’re debating a motion called “Be it resolved that this House support the celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of protecting human rights.”

So it’s not really much of a debate as much as it is about how much, how hard we can agree on something together. And I am glad that that’s the reflection of the House today, because it is an important statement to make from the people’s House, reflecting the attitudes and beliefs and concerns of the people throughout our province.

I think that it’s important to state once in a while how importantly we hold the protection of human rights in this place. I think there are some examples of where we’re doing it well, and there are, obviously, some positive moves made by the current government to reintroduce a human rights commission.

We were the only province in the country that didn’t have a human rights commission. So we’ve just introduced that in our first few months in government. I’m glad to say that that’s a body that looks at the systemic issues around discrimination. It’s important that we do that as well as identify and address those individual cases of human rights abuses that we can deal with at a tribunal level.

In particular, I think we need to talk about the human rights of those without a voice in this province, and, in particular, I think about the children, Indigenous children. Indigenous children in this province have been found to be not benefiting from the same level of funding for child welfare services as other children in this province.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled, and has ruled clearly, that the federal government is failing to adequately support on-reserve First Nations child welfare. They’ve been issued three compliance orders. That means three times they have been found to not be listening or acting on the rulings of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

I think that we need to recognize that while we are all on the same side in terms of ensuring that we protect human rights, sometimes we need to push hard to make sure that the systems in government respond to the desires of the members who have been elected by the people of this province. So I urge the federal government to listen to the Human Rights Tribunal in the federal sense and for my colleagues in this House to ensure that we continue to push hard to ensure that adequate funding is available to children living on reserve.

Another less common or less often spoken about is the rights of prisoners, the rights of people who are incarcerated in this province.

[11:15 a.m.]

We’ve seen examples of where those rights have been not offered, where the rights of people incarcerated are not being respected. I think one clear example of that is when we use, overuse, the system of solitary confinement. It’s found to be harmful to human health, it’s found to be harmful to their reintegration of people into society, and it’s harmful for the security within those prisons, those provincial and federal institutions.

I’m sure that members of this House agree that the rights of prisoners need to be protected. It’s not always the most politically profitable area in which to argue. But I believe that the rights of all humans, all people of this province, need to be protected in order for us to expect the same protections.

The LGBTQI2-S community has fought hard for their rights to be not only respected but adhered to. I think our province is leading the way in terms of ensuring that rights of all citizens are reflected not just in law but also in practice.

So I fully and wholeheartedly support this motion, as I’m sure everyone will. We won’t be voting on it, which is the tradition, apparently, in this House. But we’ll all be speaking to the motion proposed by my friend and colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale. I look forward to the comments of others in this House.

J. Yap: I’m pleased to rise in the House to speak on this motion to support this celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of protecting human rights.

As British Columbians, we’re all part of the most ethnically diverse province in this entire country, where 40,000 new immigrants from all over the world are welcomed into our province each year. My riding of Richmond-Steveston is just part of the incredibly multicultural city of Richmond. I feel so blessed to live in an area where each day represents an opportunity to learn from one another and build a greater understanding of the various cultures that contribute to our vibrant community.

Within Richmond, we have some wonderful organizations that reach out to our diverse communities in meaningful ways. As I noted, we welcome many newcomers who have realized that what we have here in British Columbia is a great place to come to live, work and play. Many of them decide to settle in Richmond, not only because of the great spirit of multiculturalism but also for its unique geography and location.

When they come, they’re often in need of services that may be difficult to access because of various barriers that they may face. That’s where groups like Richmond Multicultural Community Services step in. Their workers, who speak 15 different languages, provide important settlement services to those who are new to Canada or have immigrated some time before.

They host a wide range of programs and community events to facilitate and promote multiculturalism, diversity and inclusiveness in Richmond. I know they’re great events because I, along with my fellow Richmond MLA colleagues, have attended many of their events.

Another outstanding local group is the Richmond Chinese Community Society. This group works tirelessly to involve Richmond’s Chinese community in the city decision-making, which is so important. It helps to ensure that all perspectives are heard. The society also helps with the communication of the Chinese community’s suggestions and concerns to local service groups and organizations. It encourages the members of the community to participate in various local activities and not-for-profit charities.

Indeed, groups like these are vital to the diverse communities like what we have in Richmond. They not only help newcomers get settled into their new neighbourhoods. They take it one step further. They help them become full participants in our economy, in local decision-making and in community activities. And we all hope that everyone enjoys that full participation in daily life, without fear that they will be discriminated against simply because of their race, religion or other factors.

[11:20 a.m.]

If they are subject to discrimination, all British Columbians are protected under the human rights code. In B.C., it’s against the law to discriminate against or harass others because of their age, ancestry, colour, criminal conviction, family status, gender expression, gender identity, marital status, mental disability, physical disability, place of origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation and source of income.

The human rights code applies to all businesses, agencies and services in B.C., except those regulated by the federal government. It protects British Columbians from discrimination at work in a store or a restaurant, or between a landlord and tenant, and works to ensure that everyone can participate equally in the economic, social, political and cultural life of our province.

Still, there are times when members of our diverse communities may feel that their human rights have been threatened. In those cases, they have the independent, quasi-judicial B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to turn to, which was created by the B.C. human rights code. The tribunal, as we heard, is responsible for accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicating human rights complaints. It’s recognized as a leader in the protection of human rights.

In closing, I’d like to thank important bodies like the Human Rights Tribunal and the numerous community organizations, including the ones in Richmond, who work tirelessly to make life better for everyone in our diverse communities. Let us all commit ourselves to doing the same for our friends and neighbours.

R. Leonard: As I was driving down-Island yesterday, I was struck by the beauty of the season, the licks of red and yellow and orange amongst the varying shades of green, the blue of the sky and the deep texture of the clouds, where even the colour grey can be celebrated. Then I thought about what it might look like if I were colour-blind. If all of the colour was washed out of that great vista, I would be keen to be looking for contrast, to excite the senses, to be alive to differences. That reflection told me that I crave diversity; I do not wish to suppress it. Selfishly, I suggest celebrating diversity in all of its forms is a way to improve our own personal quality of life.

Speaking of blindness, I’d like to acknowledge Michael McLellan, a visually impaired constituent. He’s tireless in his advocacy for better transit service. As he said, you really wouldn’t want him behind the wheel of a car. It’s just not a choice. He was the person who introduced me to the language of diversability, not disability. So as we put our efforts to supporting transit, we’re actually putting our efforts to celebrating diversity.

Last week in Kelowna, a presenter to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services was a father of a child with autism and developmental challenges, a man who knows that his daughter’s diverse abilities means a lifetime of challenges in order for her to thrive as well as anyone. He made a powerful statement when he flipped a common phrase on its head, saying: “My job as a parent is to prepare the world for my child.” Putting our efforts to celebrate diversity will help prepare us for his daughter and others of diverse abilities, and it will also be a positive force for the protection of their human rights.

Of course, our diversity is not limited to our physical or mental differences. The member for Richmond North Centre listed a grand list of ways of being diverse. Celebrating diversity in all its forms is what it takes to make us safe and living in a peaceful world.

I am a woman, which comes with its own challenges, but I know, in the greater scheme of things, I am a white woman of privilege. Sometimes walking a mile in someone else’s shoes is not enough to appreciate the lived experience of people who have been oppressed for generations.

Rosemary Brown, my hero — the first elected black woman in the Legislature, back in the ’70s — recognized that gap in the women’s movement in the 1970s. As she said in her speech to the annual banquet of the Negro Women’s Association of Ontario in 1973, and it’s still true today: “Unless the women’s liberation movement identifies with and locks into the liberation movement of all oppressed groups, it will never achieve its goals…that unless it identifies with and supports the struggles of the poor, of oppressed races, of the old and of other disadvantaged groups in society, it will never achieve its goals. Because not to do so would be to isolate oneself from the masses of women, since women make up a large segment of all of these groups.”

[11:25 a.m.]

Here’s a pretty good example. We are at a crossroads in responding to today’s oppression of First Nations women. The REDress campaign, Walking with Our Sisters and the orange t-shirt campaign are all good works that mark the constant vigilance Indigenous women have undertaken to overcome the discrimination and oppression they have and continue to experience. In celebrating diversity, this House can go a long way to supporting their efforts to protect their human rights and ensure they receive the dignity, respect and equal treatment they should come to expect.

I would like to mention the Comox Valley Community Justice Centre’s work on countering racism, homophobia and hate activity, and acknowledge chief administrator Bruce Curtis, who is the driver of many strong initiatives that have grown support for the protection of human rights and the celebration of diversity so needed in our community. One of his efforts brought to life the critical incident response protocol, originally signed by 43 organizations in 2009. More recently 126 organizations have signed on to the second iteration of the protocol in 2016.

This is what it takes to make a difference.

T. Shypitka: Happy belated Thanksgiving to everyone here. On behalf of my constituents from Kootenay East, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in this House to support the celebration of diversity and recognize the importance of protecting human rights in British Columbia. Before I do that, however, in the spirit and the importance of this topic, I would like to recognize the Coast Salish territory represented today by the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations.

I am proud that I was born and raised in this beautiful province. British Columbia is as diverse with the geography of its land mass as it is with the demographics of its people. British Columbia is the province of choice in Canada for immigration, as it holds nearly 20 percent of all Canada’s international citizens.

B.C. attracts, as my colleague pointed out, approximately 40,000 international immigrants per year. It’s a gateway to Canada from China, India, the Philippines and Korea. I mention those countries because those are the top four countries that were represented by immigration in the past 16 years. As a matter of fact, Iran and Taiwan immigrate nearly as much as our closest neighbour, the United States. During this time period, British Columbians came from about 170 countries from around the world. I mention these statistics because I don’t think a lot of British Columbians realize how diverse this province really is. We are truly the melting pot of cultures, races and religions in Canada and North America.

Many of these people that come to B.C. are looking for a new life, a life that is hopeful of being inclusive and free from persecution, a life that sees them find real opportunity that’s based on work ethic and not on religious beliefs, on desire to succeed and not on gender, on entrepreneurial spirit and not on the colour of their skin. We in British Columbia have that obligation, the fortuity to welcome all these people from 170 countries and have them realize that their choice was a good one.

We in this place are 87 members elected to represent the needs of our appointed communities. We are treated with the task of creating good policy which honours and reflects the sentiments found in the human rights code. Under the human rights code, British Columbians are protected from discrimination and harassment due to their race, colour, ancestry, beliefs, sexual orientations, disabilities or age. This code applies to all provincial agencies, services and businesses. It is out of this desire to protect all people of British Columbia that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal was formed. The human rights code and the establishment of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal make it very clear that there is no tolerance for discrimination for any reason.

[11:30 a.m.]

Now, in my riding of Kootenay East, we are fortunate to have groups like the Fernie Women’s Resource Centre, for their work helping women who have been victimized; and the Community Connections building in Cranbrook that houses numerous advocacy agencies that handle support for many marginalized and vulnerable citizens; the Cranbrook Pride, who stand for the support of the LGBTQI2-S community; the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Child and Family Services Society, who work collaboratively with Aboriginal families and communities of the Ktunaxa traditional territory to increase their ability for caring for their children in a culturally relevant manner.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t include the Salvation Army, led by Major Kirk and Linda Green, who along with their staff, advocate and support those who are disadvantaged and isolated from society. There are many more that I don’t have time to celebrate.

In my region as well as the rest of the province, we must also recognize and accept the need to reconcile and heal with our First Nations people. There’s one thing that I’ve learned in my short political career, and that’s that reconciliation is about forging and maintaining respectful relationships. There are no shortcuts.

On the weekend, I had the distinct pleasure of listening to Col. Chris Hadfield, the famous Canadian astronaut, and his view on human rights. His view was from 300 kilometres away at the International Space Station. His comments were that a lot of people here on earth aren’t very smart. “We all share this bubble of air,” he went on to say: “on this little blue-green rock in space.” Quite simply put, he said, “We are all the same,” and I couldn’t agree any more.

In closing, I would like to say how refreshing it is to speak to a non-partisan topic that has so much to offer to the people of British Columbia. We all want to live in a humane inclusive and just society where our strengths and our differences can be equally respected and appreciated rather than used as leverage for hate — a sentiment that all of us in this room can agree with.

L. Krog: The wording of the motion is important this morning. It talks about “celebration of diversity” but also “recognize the importance of protecting human rights.” From a legal perspective, the reality is that as much as one can celebrate diversity, if you have no mechanism in order to protect them, to enforce them, to sanction those who choose to deny human rights to their fellow citizens, then the whole system breaks down. It’s why it’s so important that we have a Human Rights Tribunal.

If we are truly to move forward — and we have a long ways to go, and I’ll deal with that in a minute — you need a Human Rights Commission to promote public education to ensure that people understand that diversity isn’t just some wonderful festival. It’s not just going to some ethnic festival and eating ethnic food. It isn’t seeing charming faces of a different colour than white in a room. It is something much more fundamental. It is about understanding people’s history and their culture and the importance that it represents for them to have that place and sense of belonging.

I compliment the member who spoke previously this morning, recognizing that we’re on the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples. That is an important part of human rights: to understand what it means to be a member of the Aboriginal peoples of this country, whether First Nations or Inuit or Métis; to understand what it means in terms of your culture and your appreciation of the society in which you live and how you’re able to survive in it and work in it. We have a long ways to go.

Now, this is a happy morning. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said that we’re all able to speak in agreement and with enthusiasm and passion about this, this morning. But the reality is, and I don’t mean this in a negative way, it was only very recently that we celebrated the election of the first First Nations woman to this assembly. It was a cause for great celebration.

Of course, I think that is the most recent and most outstanding example of what we face, in terms of a society, as to how far we’ve come but how far we have to go. The fact that a female of First Nations origin gets elected to this assembly only a couple years ago says something about how far we have to go.

That, I think, for me, is the important issue this morning. Yes, to celebrate but to recognize that we have a long ways to travel down this road to the kind of just society, which I think most members in this place support and have a vision of exactly what that looks like in their own minds. But we know that we are not there yet. So as much as I celebrate this morning, I’m also conscious of the realities.

[11:35 a.m.]

I want to take one step further and talk about a little bit of language that those of us who remember the ’60s recall. It was Janis Joplin: “Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” We cannot promote and celebrate diversity and protect human rights, when a large portion of our society lives in poverty.

The member from Comox talked about women, and the reality is that the numbers haven’t changed substantially. If women have no money, then talking to them about human rights is just a little bit silly. If you’re a single mother with three children, struggling in a community, trying to make a living, you’re not worried about human rights. You’re worried about food on your table. You’re worried about economic opportunity.

So human rights, for me, are always tied intimately to the concept of wealth redistribution. We can talk in the high level and the glory of it, but if you don’t have any money, if you don’t have economic opportunity, then you really can’t exercise your human rights. To me, they are intimately tied together.

One of the things that I’m most proud of — and it’s only a small thing, and it’s a small step — was when this government increased social assistance rates. With great respect, that will have, I suspect, as much impact on the elevation and protection of human rights as much of what we will talk about here this morning.

Until we recognize that human rights in a free enterprise society, in a society where money is still the measure by which most of us are compared and evaluated, and until we ensure that those at the bottom receive more, we have a long ways to go on the human rights issue.

E. Ross: I agree with the previous speaker to a certain extent. When you’re in poverty, you don’t think about human rights. But the way we approached it up in our region is we didn’t think about more welfare payments; we thought about self-reliance and independence.

British Columbia is recognized for being a progressive society, but we can always do better. In fact, in my short term serving as an MLA, I’ve had one human rights complaint, and it was from a Caucasian member who felt deprived from accessing training funds.

As a member of the Haisla First Nation and a former chief councillor, I can attest to the difficult process of reconciling our past and finding a path to a better future for all British Columbians.

Earlier this month I had the opportunity in this House to announce the birth of my grandson Parker Russell Sutherland. He’s obviously too young to even begin to appreciate the work that we do in the Legislature every day to make our province a better place to live, work and raise a family. But I hope that someday his generation will take the time to look back at what we as leaders did to make British Columbia a place of equal opportunity for everybody, without worrying whether or not their human rights will be violated, regardless of ethnicity, religion, culture or sexual identity.

It is my hope that in the work that lies ahead of us we will make this province a beacon of hope in a world where persecution is a reality for people around the world. There are many ways to promote equality and equal opportunity.

Coming from a northern community that is populated with a diverse population from all walks of life, I can tell you that economic opportunity is a great equalizer. Fourteen years ago I was very much against development of any kind, but then a few of my fellow councillors urged me to take a second look at my people’s social and economic conditions before arriving at any conclusions. I began to see that high unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse and poverty were directly linked to lack of opportunity. In those times, nobody was thinking about human rights. With no future in sight, everyone is equally miserable, and worse yet, there is no hope. We can see that in the Downtown Eastside, and we find it in the remote communities.

Most of all, the thing that discouraged me were the politicians who promised change but never delivered anything. So as a new councillor, I decided that we needed to take a new approach: a path to self-reliance, independence and self-determination — and our council changed as well.

[11:40 a.m.]

By engaging various levels of government to talk with industry and by making partnerships, we began to see despair give away to optimism. Complaints about human rights or even on historic social problems became few and far between. Certainly, we had to overcome hurdles, but we began to learn that you cannot just wish for problems like human rights to solve themselves. You have to look for solutions, and more importantly, you have to pursue them.

We quickly learned that if you want economic development, you have to make investors feel welcome and support the investors. That is why what I would like to impress upon you this morning is that if we want to improve on human rights, we have to deliver reconciliation that doesn’t, in turn, penalize our larger society, and reconciliation can come in many forms.

We have seen how important it is to recognize the historical wrongs that were committed in the past. Komagata Maru, the internment of Japanese Canadians and Ukrainian Canadians, and the historical wrongs committed against the Chinese community here in British Columbia were all wrong. Without question, it is important to recognize that of all of these issues, at the top of the list that must be addressed, foremost, must be human rights.

But the one thing you can’t legislate is hope. That has to come from the people. I have seen how success in one community can effect and influence other communities, and once people see that it is possible to succeed, then often there’s no stopping them.

It is, therefore, my hope that in the course of this Legislature — however long we last in this minority government situation — we all do what we can to encourage a strong economy and say yes to projects like LNG and Site C that’ll give people hope for the future.

A. Kang: I speak with humility on the motion introduced by the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale.

We often take our diversity and human rights for granted. Sometimes we hear people talk about diversity and human rights as if there were ancient scriptures, ancient truths that existed since the dawn of humanity. But no, the universal declaration of human rights was not handed to us on a silver platter. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not handed to us with a bouquet of flowers. Our predecessors have fought long and hard for what we sometimes take for granted. We must not become victims of our success, and we must continue to fight to protect our diversity and our human rights. We must continue to care.

I would like to share with everyone a quote by Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor. “Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning. It is an end, and therefore, indifference is always found the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor — never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten.”

Continuing this quote: “The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees — not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory, and in denying their humanity, we betray our own.”

In this province, there are still people living on the streets. There are still people who have been wronged by history. There are still people whose pain has not been relieved. We must do more to rectify the mistakes of the past so we can turn proudly towards the future.

Now, on a brighter note, the diversity of our province is indeed worth celebrating. British Columbia has a very diverse population with a large number of immigrants who have moved here and settled here for a better life and an opportunity to succeed.

The city of Burnaby — where I had the pleasure of representing as a city councillor and continue to represent there in this House as the member of the Legislature — is the third most populated urban centre in British Columbia. Over the past 25 years, Burnaby has grown to be one of the most culturally diverse communities in the region, where more than 51 percent of the residents are immigrants.

People have come from all over the world — China, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, India, Iran, Russia, Afghanistan and many, many more. The population of approximately 223,000 speaks more than 58 languages and up to 100 different dialects. Just to name a few of these languages, we have English, Mandarin, Korean, Punjabi, Tagalog, Farsi, Spanish, Russian, Italian and Vietnamese. We could go from A to Z.

[11:45 a.m.]

In 2010, 23 percent of the government-assisted refugees arriving in B.C. first settled in Burnaby. These were people fleeing from hunger, from imprisonment, from conflict and from war. To echo Elie Wiesel, we have responded to their plight, relieved them from their solitude and offer them a spark of hope. We have invited them to build a future in B.C. with us, a future that is stronger through diversity and stronger through unity.

With that, I would like to ask the members of this House to join me in support of the celebration of diversity and to recognize the importance of protecting human rights. I would like to thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for introducing such an important motion.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure to speak to the notion of diversity, which is indeed a concept to celebrate, undergirded as it is by the principle of pluralism, in which a plurality of beliefs, lifestyles, cultures and ethnicities live together in harmony.

Canadian society has never been perfectly monolithic, but in the past, our province was much more uniform than it is today. I think, for example, of Fort St. John in the 1960s, where I grew up. Anyone different in that town was a matter of great interest and gossip. I can remember the first African-American person I saw in the flesh. I was perhaps ten years old at the time. But in a single generation, our culture has completely changed. Half of Vancouverites were born outside Canada. Today the leader of the federal NDP is a Sikh, the mayor of Calgary a Muslim. We are more likely to hear Mandarin spoken in some parts of Vancouver than English.

The profusion of diversity in our society also means difference, and difference inevitably means disagreement. The challenge for public-policy-makers is to maintain social cohesion and unity amid this dramatic growth in diversity so that we are not torn apart by our differences. Our province has met the challenge of diversity by broadening public policy, particularly as it refers to ethnic and religious accommodation, sexual mores and gender change. Unfortunately, the term “diversity” has almost become a euphemism for the opposite of what we once were.

At one time not long ago, we were largely Anglo-Saxon, European, Caucasian, Christian, heterosexual and patriarchal. The temptation in the face of change is to reject those characteristics and favour the opposite, diversity thus becoming a code word for the rejection of tradition. But to reject those elements of our society contradicts the very notion of diversity.

Europeans, for example, are still very much a feature of our diverse landscape. The millions of Canadians who believe in a traditional concept of marriage are still here. They are good people, and they’re part of the diversity of this great country. If we want to preserve the unity and social cohesion of B.C., we need to recognize and affirm that a diverse country includes everyone, social conservatives as well as social liberals.

A specific example of the tension over diversity is the proposed law school at Trinity Western University. This private Christian school has been attacked for its insistence on adhering to a code of ethics practised by billions of Christians for the past 2,000 years. The temptation of modernists is to force that school to violate its own conscience, to require them to adopt a moral code they disagree with, rather than accepting that a diverse society includes the traditional Christian ethic. But just as Vancouver’s Gay Pride Parade excluded, without apology, those who refused to commit to its own ethical statement, so Trinity Western has the right to its own exclusive code of ethics, and I support the right of both private groups to live with integrity according to their own principles.

I raise this matter because the debate is of fundamental importance. If Trinity Western cannot live by its conscience according to its own ethic, then other Christian institutions cannot either. This would reduce diversity and could mark the beginning of the oppression — and I use that word advisedly — of Christian institutions in Canada, from colleges and independent schools to churches and parachurch organizations, that vast network of helping organizations which does so much for Canada every day.

Already, prospective students of Trinity Western law school have been deprived of two years of education, which, to me, is a grievous harm. The struggle over the right to attend a Christian law school in today’s changing society is a spectacular demonstration of the need for just such a school to equip Christian lawyers to advocate within the legal structures of our society for the rights of Christians and of others.

[11:50 a.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I very much hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will follow the wise decision of the Appeal Court of B.C., which said, in the Trinity case: “A society that does not admit of and accommodate differences cannot be a free and democratic society — one in which its citizens are free to think, to disagree, to debate and to challenge the accepted view without fear of reprisal. This case demonstrates that a well-intentioned majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism can, if unchecked, impose its views on the minority in a manner that is in itself intolerant and illiberal.”

I will end by welcoming diversity and by reminding this House that the definition of diversity must include all British Columbians, even those who might differ from the currents of modern thought. We need to respect them all, the respect and recognition of which will enhance the social cohesion and unity to which we all aspire in B.C.

R. Kahlon: I want to thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for an important motion but also for her moving words. I think her lived experience, her experience through the campaign, and her sharing it takes courage. I want to thank her. I want to thank all the members who have spoken in the House and shared their views.

Perhaps the member that just spoke…. He and I may not agree necessarily on his positioning on not allowing members from the LGBTQ community to go to a law school and then claim that you’re going to later on be a good lawyer and represent everyone. It’s a concept beyond me. We can have a further discussion on that. I look forward to that.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: You’re the one who brought it up. I’m looking forward to having that discussion with you further. Perhaps you’ll bring that as a motion, and we can have a discussion on that.

Interjection.

R. Kahlon: I look forward to hearing that. I look forward to speaking to it as well. I’ve only got a few minutes, so I’ll go back to this topic. It’s critically important.

I was reflecting yesterday, as I was heading to a Diwali event, about the celebration of Diwali. I’m not a very religious person, but I enjoy celebrating other people’s cultures and other people’s holidays. Yesterday, on the way to Diwali, I was reflecting on this concept of darkness and light and how there’s a sense that darkness is rising around the world.

I was reflecting on the movement in the U.K. around Brexit, the vote and this anti-immigration, anti-immigrant sentiment that is on the rise. I saw…. Just recently the mayor of London alone said that he’s seen a 40 percent increase in racist incidents in the last year.

It’s not just the U.K. I think the Prime Minister of the Ukraine has come out openly saying he didn’t want any immigrants in his country. You’re also seeing in Australia a bit of a movement as well. Of course, how can we not forget our friends down south?

For us to think that there’s an imaginary border and these issues cannot come to us is, I think, naive. I think everyone in this House would agree that we need to do much work to ensure that we can create this inclusive but also equitable society that we all want.

That leads me to this notion of human rights and the Human Rights Commission. I’ve heard many members speak about the tribunal and the importance of the tribunal, but I think many have failed to mention that…. I think it’s important to note how the tribunal became the tribunal and why the commission was taken out.

When the commission, in 2002…. When a new government came into this House, the commission was actually working on research on Indigenous youth in the education system. They were looking at why it is, in our society, that Indigenous youth were not graduating at the same rates as everyone else. That was the project they were working on.

Then the new government came in and said to them: “Well, we don’t want you to do any more. We want you to scale things down.” The commission said: “No, we’re an independent. We’re going to continue to do the work.” The government came and said: “How much are you going to spend on this?” I think they said it was $110,000. They cut their budget by $110,000. Then, a few months later, they disbanded the commission. So I think to suggest that it just kind of created itself is wrong.

[11:55 a.m.]

It was a systematic decision to get rid of it. A human rights commission comes in; a human rights commission gets taken out. It’s been this way in B.C. — nowhere else.

I think it’s important to talk about why a human rights commission is needed in addition to, say, the tribunal. A tribunal is an independent body that looks at individual cases and adjudicates the individual case. It does not look at systematic issues overall. In fact, the tribunal can’t even give advice on systematic issues because they all have to remain impartial. In case a case comes to them again, they have to be impartial.

It’s critically important that we bring a commission in place in B.C. I’ve had the privilege and honour to listen to community groups across the board come forward and talk about why they believe a commission is important. It’s been a moving and, I’d say, a life-changing experience.

We look through the history of human rights. Yes, we’ve made progress.

Speaking of light and darkness, the red light has come on. So I’ll wrap up at this point.

R. Kahlon moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned to 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.