Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

STANDING UP AGAINST ISLAMOPHOBIA

R. Singh: Today I’ll be speaking to stand up against Islamophobia. Islamophobia refers to a set of discourses, behaviours and structures which express feelings of anxiety, fear, hostility and rejection toward Islam and/or Muslims, persons perceived to be Muslims — for example, Sikhs, Middle Eastern Christians, etc.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Islamophobia is a new phase of racism that continues to grow in our society, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Our Muslim brothers and sisters have come under a microscope. Innocent Muslims who have nothing do with the ideology of religious extremists often become victims of hate crimes.

Canada is known as a nation of tolerance and hope, but unfortunately, it has also seen a rise in Islamophobia. Statistics show that there has been a significant spike in hate crimes against Muslims in Canada after the September 11 attacks, including verbal attacks, physical attacks, attacks on property and institutions, hate propaganda and demonstrations and threats. While hate crimes against people of other faith backgrounds have decreased over the years, hate crimes against Muslim Canadians have more than doubled in three years. In 2012, police forces from across Canada recorded 45 hate crimes against Muslims that were deemed to be religiously motivated. By 2014, this number had more than doubled to 99.

A 2015 Angus Reid poll found that 45 percent of Canadians disliked Muslims, who were the most disliked group, compared with 35 percent who disliked Sikhs, the next most disliked religion. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation documented a worsening of public opinion between 2012 and 2016. The 2003 ethnic diversity survey conducted by Statistics Canada found that only 0.54 percent of Muslims reported being a victim of hate crime, based on religion, between 1998 and 2003. A 2016 survey found that 35 percent of Muslims in Canada reported experiencing discrimination.

It is extremely unfortunate that the Canadian values of diversity, acceptance and inclusion were challenged by some political parties as well. In 2013, the Parti Québécois proposed a charter of Quebec values to ban certain religious symbols in the workplace. The announcement was followed by a string of attacks against Muslims, particularly Muslim women who wore hijabs.

In 2015, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper, while answering questions about terrorism suspects, said: “It doesn’t matter what the age of the person is or whether they are in a basement or whether they are in a mosque or somewhere else.” The remarks were seen as casting mosques as venues of terrorism by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, who expressed concerns about increased attacks on mosques as a result of this perception.

A study from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Simon Fraser University suggests a correlation between the enabling climate of hard-line political rhetoric and the rise of far-right groups in Quebec. In January 2017, a gunman opened fire upon worshippers in the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec, killing six and wounding 19 others. The media reported that the attacker was a university student who had right-wing and anti-Muslim political tendencies. Many Muslims and non-Muslims blame the attack on the rise in Islamophobic rhetoric in Canada.

[10:10 a.m.]

There have been a number of Islamophobic incidents reported in B.C. as well. On December 31, 2013, a bomb threat was made against Al-Ghadir Masjid in North Vancouver, and the mosque was evacuated by the RCMP. An ultra-right organization, Soldiers of Odin, held a racist and Islamophobic rally in front of Surrey’s Jamea Masjid on June 22, 2017. Lawyers with the Islamophobia Legal Assistance Hotline in B.C. say they have received a number of calls in recent days about discrimination towards Muslims.

We can no longer afford to be smug about such ugly realities in Canada, pretending that they only happen in other places. Just as we are on the verge of confronting the colonial legacy of ongoing violence against our First Nations, so, too, must we acknowledge the alarming rise in hate crimes against Muslims.

Islam is one of the biggest faiths in the world that preaches love and equality. As stats show, many people conveniently blame Islam for terrorism, whereas such a handful of extremists exist in all communities. It is time to take a proactive approach in educating people. Our government’s commitment to bring back the Human Rights Commission is a step towards that.

M. Polak: I want to thank the member opposite for raising this very important issue in this House.

I want to begin by sharing a poem that I’m sure will be familiar to most in this House. I have to admit that while I used to hear it more frequently when I was younger, I haven’t heard it in some time. I thought, perhaps, it would bear repeating today. It was written, first, by a German Lutheran pastor named Martin Niemöller. It began circulating in various forms in the 1950s, but this is probably the most well-known form. It goes like this:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

For anyone who is watching this debate today and who is thinking, “Islamophobia means nothing to me. I’m not a Muslim. I don’t have Muslim friends. I don’t need to pay attention to this,” this poem brings home the reason why we all need to pay attention to things like Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. It’s not just about being anti-Islam. It’s about being the kind of society where we create others and say that someone else is different from me. They are other than I am, and they don’t deserve to have the kind of respect and equality that I would expect for myself and my own family.

We, as human beings, unfortunately, revert very quickly to our tribalism when we feel threatened, and it is the humanity within us that needs to rise up and say: “No, that’s wrong. I must speak out on behalf of my brother and my sister no matter what their faith, their creed, their sexual orientation. Whatever is other about them is something that I need to protect. It is that protection that I offer others that provides me protection in a civil society.” But it is easy for us to lose.

My colleague raised some very good examples of what has been happening recently in Canada, things that are very frightening not just for those who are of the Muslim community in Canada but should be frightening for all of us. Today we see the increasing attacks against those who are Muslim in our communities, but they could be any one of us at any given time. It is up to all of us to speak out against these things whenever they occur, but I think we need to start thinking, as well, about how we create the kinds of policies and efforts within government and within our institutions to ensure that it is never acceptable.

One of the things that concerns me, going beyond the rise in incidents in communities that we’ve seen in Canada, is what we’re seeing happen in Europe. Now, if we think back to the history of European governments post Second World War, which is when this poem really first came to light as a reaction to what had taken place in Germany and in other countries in Europe….

[10:15 a.m.]

For many decades, the fringe groups, the far-right groups, the pro-Nazi groups had really been pushed to the sidelines. One didn’t see them, although they were there. I mean, let’s face it. They never went away entirely. They were pushed to the edges. Now we look at, in the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom, in Germany, the Alternative for Germany party and in Austria, the Freedom Party, where legitimacy has been given to these parties in the electoral system. In the case of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, they hold 20 of 150 seats.

We have to be paying attention to the potential for us, if we were to move to the kind of electoral system that we see in Europe, to provide — ironically, in a system that is proportional representation — a disproportionate voice to those who have many of these fringe views. One example. Mr. Strache, who’s the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party, was arrested in Germany in 1989 for taking part in a Hitler Youth–style, torch-lit, neo-Nazi rally.

If the discussions to form a government in Austria succeed — I hate to use the word “succeed” — he’s in line to be the vice-chancellor. Why? Because under their system, they don’t elect, anymore, firm majorities, and fringe parties get seats in the Legislature. They end up with a disproportionate amount of voices in the Legislature, and they use that to put forward these hateful views. Incidents with the Freedom Party involve one politician who called for a concentration camp to be put back into operation. Another posted a picture of SS troops on Facebook with the caption: “Our grandfathers were not criminals.”

We have to remember to always speak up for the others in our society.

R. Singh: It is so good to hear from my colleague from the other side, your stand and what you said about standing up against Islamophobia. Thank you so much. I totally agree that our society, Canadian society, has a value system that does not allow for such things.

I moved to Canada in 2001 with my young family, and I decided to make Canada my home. The reason was for its human rights values and the kind of environment that we have over here. So it is very saddening to see the incidents that have been happening since 9/11 and what is happening to our society. This is not what Canada stands for. This is not what our value system is.

I’m really glad that in spite of all that is happening, there are people who are standing up against Islamophobia. Especially, you see the youth coming up against it. Recently, after the Quebec massacre, there was a very big rally that was organized to stand up against Islamophobia. It was organized by youth at Al Jamia Masjid in partnership with youth from the Sikh, Christian, Jewish and black communities to unite people, in light of the Quebec Masjid shooting. Over 5,000 people showed up at the Jack Poole Plaza in Vancouver on February 8, 2017, in the middle of a blizzard, to show solidarity with the Muslim community.

Also, I’m hearing about universities, the students organizations in our universities. They are also standing up against Islamophobia. They are organizing a lot of forums to address this issue to educate people. I think education is the key to fight this.

It is unfortunate that B.C. is the only province without a human rights commission. We know what kinds of gaps it has created, not having a human rights commission here. But our government’s commitment to create a human rights commission and also their commitment to put more funding into anti-racism education staff.... I think that is a really positive sign that B.C., the government, is showing and that the people of B.C. are showing.

We all have to come together to fight Islamophobia. I think we are going in the right direction, but much more needs to be done in that case.

AQUACULTURE

E. Ross: In 2016, British Columbia set new export records in terms of our agricultural and seafood products for the fourth year in a row. Of the top five seafood products that B.C. exports, farmed salmon was No. 1, at $545 million.

[10:20 a.m.]

This year an independent economic analysis of the salmon aquaculture industry in B.C. showed an increase of 37 percent over the past three years in its value to the province. This resulted in the creation of over 1,600 jobs. Most of these jobs are in remote communities, coastal communities, giving scarce employment opportunities to First Nations.

Despite all these benefits of our aquaculture industry, the provincial government has declared war on fish farms. It’s a matter of record in this House that the Minister of Agriculture has had to defend an eviction-like letter to a major fish farm operative that threatened to take away their land tenure. The minister has even called into question the integrity of provincial scientists under her own ministry. Both the minister and the Premier have gone on record….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, let’s keep it non-partisan, please.

E. Ross: I would like to, therefore, offer my perspective. When I was a chief councillor of Haisla, I, like many other First Nations, was — and still am — concerned about the health of wild salmon stocks. Even though there are no fish farms in Douglas Channel, on Haisla territory, we see inconsistent runs in different years. The Skeena River sockeye run has been declining too — again, with no fish farms in sight. So we have to ask ourselves a simple question: what is really affecting wild salmon?

The answers I found back then, and today, have little to do with fish farms. There are certain factors raised by scientists in the Cohen Commission and other credible reports that point to the real culprits. These include ocean warming, habitat damage to streams and rivers, and overfishing.

Wild salmon are anadromous. These fish are born in fresh water, then migrate to salt water as juveniles, where they grow into adults before migrating back to fresh water to spawn. This means salmon are, therefore, subject to quite a few potential threats along any part of their life cycle. Human activity and intervention may be just one of them. At the beginning of their life, some salmon smolts in my territory have to find their way down hundreds of kilometres of the Skeena River. They go all the way out to the Bering Sea, only to somehow find their way back up the Skeena just to spawn for the next generation.

It’s a life cycle that has sustained First Nations for over 10,000 years. In some habitats, rotting salmon carcasses represent the only source of carbon nutrients in highly sensitive ecosystems. Salmon are also a source of food for other fish, whales, bears, eagles and, yes, people.

We all know that salmon is one of the healthiest things we can eat, and global consumption of salmon is growing by 3 percent a year. Three-quarters of that demand is met through salmon aquaculture. It has made salmon affordable and available to families in B.C. and around the world.

As I mentioned earlier, farmed salmon is now the biggest aquaculture export from B.C. Everyone in this House wants to ensure that our wild salmon not only survive but thrive for the enjoyment of generations to come. To do that, surely we need to start with the real problems that are causing our salmon population to dwindle. And, yes, it’s easy to point fingers all in one direction.

As chief councillor of a small band on the west coast of British Columbia, I couldn’t get anyone interested in my viewpoint on wild salmon in relation to fish farms. Hopefully, as an elected MLA, I can convince some, if not all, members of this House to start an open, non-partisan dialogue about the survival of wild salmon in B.C. and around the world. To do that, I believe we have to change the conversation.

D. Routley: Thank you to the member for bringing this important subject to the House today.

The B.C. government places the health of all wild fisheries as the most paramount value, and that is the principle and the objective of all policy-driven decisions of this government. We are committed to protecting wild salmon fisheries, which provide 10,000 good jobs in this province. We want to ensure that wild salmon continue to be an economic driver in coastal communities today, tomorrow and into future generations.

[10:25 a.m.]

Our government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cohen Commission, aimed at protecting sockeye salmon in the Fraser River. At the same time, we are committed to working with industry and ensuring that B.C.’s aquaculture sector is environmentally sustainable and respects First Nations rights while continuing to provide good jobs for British Columbians. The B.C. government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries.

B.C.’s aquaculture industry, as the member pointed out, provides British Columbians and global consumers alike with 100 species of fish, shellfish and marine plants, equalling $1.2 billion in sales in 2016. This industry added $415 million to our provincial GDP in 2016.

Now, I have to register my disappointment with the member. The member came to this House with a commitment to doing things differently. This is a province that has had to fight so many proposals that they have felt are in the public’s disinterest. They have been driven upon communities, and they have felt that those things have not been in their interest. So this province has developed the habit of needing to fight us-versus-them battles.

The member came here saying he would employ a different kind of politics. We need to move on. The politics of division are over. We need to bring people together in the public interest of British Columbia. That’s our job as legislators. The member came here with strong words of unity, and there’s a wide gap, from his engagement here today. The tired politics of division are over.

The real, progressive leaders in this province are embracing the idea that we will work together, and there is no more important issue that we have to approach with that principle than this. We need to balance things. We need to bring people together for scientific, for social and for environmental consideration. We need to work with people, work with rural communities, the distant communities that the member spoke about, and educate people in big urban centres about what is at stake.

What is at stake are 10,000 jobs and $1.2 billion in sales, just in 2016. This is an important industry. There are people who rely on it, and they do it in a sustainable way, like the Klassen family, who own Road 17 Arctic Char, a land-based fishery in Oliver, B.C. They also grow apples in their orchard and sell off the fish waste as fertilizers to local orchardists and grape growers.

They’re doing it the right way. They’re getting along. They are walking past the politics of division that we saw here today with that member directing that attack on the government. The member came with words of commitment to unity….

Deputy Speaker: Member, as a reminder to all members, these statements must be non-partisan, please.

D. Routley: Thank you.

The member ended his comments asking for non-partisanship despite declaring that the government had declared war on an industry. We need to move past words like that, Mr. Speaker. We need to move past any person who would take, to this province, that kind of divisive politics of any sensitive nature in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Members, again, please keep in mind that these statements must be non-partisan. Thank you.

E. Ross: I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. It is my sincere hope that we do start a new conversation about the survival of wild salmon stocks.

I know there have been many campaigns on a promise to transition the province’s fish-farming industry from open-sea pens to land-based sites. This is known as closed containment. Unfortunately, the technology is not there to make closed containment viable, let alone profitable. There has also been a lot of pressure put on the government to shut down fish farms. There is also opposition to quite a few industries in British Columbia, and aquaculture is just one of them.

Even if closed containment could work, rural and remote communities would be the first ones to suffer. These future facilities would naturally locate themselves as close as they could to the supply chain in the Lower Mainland, close to the port of Vancouver and as near to YVR as possible.

There doesn’t seem to be any real solution to these real problems, like wild salmon depletion. There is only pointing fingers at a single industry, which is aquaculture.

[10:30 a.m.]

Some of you may have read an article in the Financial Post this past weekend. I was one of several First Nations leaders who expressed frustration. Every time we try to attract an industry that will help our people out of poverty into self-sufficiency, our voices get drowned out by activists.

I realize that movie stars and pop icons bring a high profile to issues, but responsible development should be science-based and not funded by interest groups from the United States. I’m sure that California wouldn’t appreciate salmon biologists telling them what’s wrong with Hollywood and how they should fix it.

I want my people to benefit from wild salmon, just as generations have for thousands of years. It was said in this House that the spirit of wild salmon is in all of us. If that is true, then we should begin an open dialogue before shutting down an entire industry. Without farmed salmon, we would be going after already depleted stocks of wild salmon.

The solution ultimately lies with us, and we should be more concerned by factors identified by the Cohen Commission and others who suggest that ocean warming, habitat damage to streams and rivers, and overfishing are the real threats. So let’s begin the conversation where it starts.

SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESS

J. Brar: I’m very pleased to rise in this House today to make a private member’s statement regarding the urgent need to support our small businesses in British Columbia. Small business forms the backbone of our economy, and we need to do all we can to support its continued growth and encourage innovation.

British Columbia’s small businesses generate around 34 percent of the provincial GDP. That is above the Canadian average of 31 percent. Small businesses are also the source of 32 percent of all wages paid to the workers in our province. Without our small businesses, tens of thousands of British Columbians would be without jobs, and so many community and charity organizations serving the poor would be without constant support. They are the lifeblood of our communities and our local economy.

I served as the executive director of Surrey Self-Employment and Entrepreneur Development Society for many years before running for political office. I appreciate the hard work, dedication and optimism that it takes to start and run a small business, and I understand the challenges small businesses face every day.

In B.C., small businesses account for 98 percent of all businesses, and over one million people work for our small businesses sector. In addition to jobs, they make a huge contribution to local charities to help the most vulnerable people of our province. B.C. is really blessed with countless innovators whose efforts and vision are vital to our prosperity and local economy.

Therefore, it is really important for our government to do all we can to support the growth of small businesses. I hope members on the other side of the House will support my statement. Our government values new and established entrepreneurs and supports their ambitions. I’m really pleased to see that our government has taken important steps to support the growth of our small business sector. This includes the following programs.

First, it is important that we continue to reduce the tax burden on the small business sector, making them competitive in the country and the global economy. I am pleased to note that our government has taken action to reduce the small business corporate income tax by 20 percent just recently. This reduction makes the B.C. small business corporate income tax rate the second lowest in Canada, tied with Alberta and Saskatchewan. With this tax break, B.C. small business owners can keep more of their hard-earned revenue and reinvest it back into their communities.

[10:35 a.m.]

Secondly, our government has responded in a timely manner to provide Canadian Red Cross small business emergency financial grants to help small businesses resume operations during a difficult wildfire season. That was the right thing to do at the right time.

Thirdly, our government has also provided the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association, CCCTA, with financial support of up to $200,000 to help with tourism-related impacts from the B.C. wildfires.

Fourth, we are also launching several projects to help business thrive and to stimulate the B.C. economy well into the future, such as the small business task force, the emerging economy task force and the innovation commission.

Fifth, our government is also offering a rural dividends grant program to support entrepreneurs in the rural community. The rural dividend program provides grants of up to $100,000 each for a single application and up to half a million dollars for partnerships to help rural communities stabilize their economies and create long-term local employment.

Sixth, our government also supports the one-stop business registry known as BizPaL and the mobile business licence program, with streamlined permitting and licensing processes for small businesses.

Seventh, our government has eliminated the unfair tolls on the Port Mann Bridge and the Golden Ears Bridge. A commercial driver who makes one round trip a day will save over $4,500.

Eighth, we have also taken the important step to cut MSP by 50 percent. This initiative will result in lots of savings to lots of small business people. A friend of mine, who is a small business owner, told me that it could save him $4,000 per month.

Last but not least, affordability is the key for the success of the small business sector. Small businesses thrive if their customers are able to afford the goods and services provided by small businesses. Our government is taking steps to improve affordability so that families have the money to afford the goods and services provided by small businesses. We have frozen B.C. Hydro rates. We have committed to providing affordable housing. Our government has put the Fair Wages Commission in place to pave the path to raising the B.C. minimum wage to $15 an hour.

To conclude, small business remains the key priority of our government. We continue to take all the necessary steps to support the growth of small businesses in B.C. to ensure they continue providing stable jobs and adding to sustainable long-term economic growth throughout the province.

C. Oakes: I do want to thank the member opposite for his comments today. I think everyone in this House agrees on the significant importance that small businesses play in all of our communities. They support families in every region of this province, and they are key supporters in whatever initiatives that you see.

We certainly saw it this past summer with the tremendous impacts that we’ve had with wildfires. Small businesses stepped up and made sure that our communities were supported, and I want to thank the member opposite for raising the importance of that work.

I do want to register my disappointment with the member opposite. One of the things that was critically important for us as a government, when we look at supporting small business and the work that we have done over a number of years, was to make sure that, in October, we worked with chambers of commerce and with organizations across the province, CFIB, to look at how we could celebrate Small Business Month.

We recognize and we heard today the vital importance that the new government places on small business. So the question we have is: why was there the change in moving from a Small Business Month to a Small Business Week? We feel that small businesses are so critically important we should be recognizing them for an entire month.

Interjection.

C. Oakes: And not only an entire month. We should be celebrating them, as the member opposite said, for the entire year. Those are important things.

[10:40 a.m.]

I also want to talk about an important initiative that we looked at. I think it’s critically important that when we look at small businesses and we look at families and we look at even the conversation that we’ve had here in the House today, the importance of…. How do we support Aboriginal communities to develop entrepreneurship? What kinds of tools and skills and supports can we put in place to help Aboriginal small businesses succeed in the province of British Columbia?

I also think it’s critically important that we look at how we support women’s entrepreneurship. I was incredibly proud of the work that we did with the Women’s Enterprise Society and other important organizations in the province of British Columbia to support women to go into entrepreneurship. I think it’s an incredible opportunity in this province to support women in small business. It is my hope that the new government will continue the types of supports that we put in place for both supporting aboriginal entrepreneurship and women’s entrepreneurship, which is critically important to that.

It is also critically important to measure success. One of the foundations of our government, as a government that supports free enterprise, is to look at a couple of variables. The first thing is that we began the conversation many years ago with how we could be the most tax-competitive small business jurisdiction in Canada.

Well, we had to achieve significant targets. One of the things we said is: “Why don’t we look at how we in British Columbia can be the most business-friendly jurisdiction in North America?” How do we drive those standards? How do we make sure that we have those measurable objectives and the tools and the supports in place to make sure that that happens?

I and the government welcomed the small business reduction in business tax from 2.5 percent to 2 percent in the current government’s budget. It was welcomed by small businesses, of course, because it had already been announced by the province of B.C.’s Liberal government in the 2017 budget. The same applies to the 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums. Small businesses operate on very slim margins. This 20 percent tax reduction had been calculated in their books for a very long time before the current government assumed this in their budget.

However, it did contain quite a few tax increases that have shocked the small business sector. In addition to raising corporate taxes and personal income taxes, small businesses will be forced to shoulder an increase of carbon tax. I want to talk a little bit about the impact of this increase in carbon tax. Small businesses, British Columbians, will feel this tax hike each year for the next four years.

When we talk about affordability of housing, one of the critical factors you need in affordable housing is the need to ensure that you’ve got lumber, and you need to ensure that you’ve got building products. When you look at the small business sector…. I heard earlier that there’s support for rural economies. I heard that there’s support for making sure that we are reaching out.

How do you imagine the increase in carbon tax is going to affect small businesses when you look at logging contractors, when you look at anyone involved in an industry that produces wood that this House is going to require to meet the needs of affordability, that’s going to meet the needs of ensuring that you’re building housing?

Small businesses are critically important to the economy of B.C.

J. Brar: Thanks to the member for her thoughtful response to my private member’s statement on the small business sector in B.C. Clearly, members on the other side.... I thought they would support my statement, but they clearly have a different perspective, and that’s okay. In democracy, that happens that way. Somehow, they believe that they are the only ones who really have the magic lamp policy for small business and the economy. That’s a complete mistake.

The member is going to list her disappointments. I have my own disappointments. I’m going to list my disappointments on the basis of the comments made by the member on the other side. The reality is completely different if you look back at the 16-year record of the previous government.

The member made the comment, just a few seconds ago, about the carbon tax. They have big problems with the carbon tax. But who introduced the carbon tax first in this province? That was their government. It was everything fine at that time. When they introduce it, it’s okay. When we introduce something the same, then it’s not okay. In this House, we need to be at least honest with the people of British Columbia, and we have to be that way.

[10:45 a.m.]

The previous government failed small business, and we are taking steps to fix their mismanagement during the last 16 years. The previous government repeatedly hiked B.C. Hydro rates, hurting both small business people and their customers. We are delivering on that commitment by freezing hydro rates. That’s going to make, of course, small business more viable in this province.

The previous government introduced HST, if you remember, a long time ago, when they promised before the election that they were not going to introduce HST. But after the election, they did introduce HST, creating complete uncertainty in the province. We campaigned to stop the HST in the referendum, and we did that to support the small business community in the province of British Columbia.

The previous government's mismanaging cost small business owners precious time, as there was a backlog in the permitting process. They talked about the permitting process, the fast-tracking, all that. This government supports taking steps to streamline the process so that the small business people can have licences in a timely manner. We support that.

Instead of supporting small businesses owned by the people of British Columbia, the previous administration chose to give foreign corporations large tax breaks in the failed LNG project.

Deputy Speaker: Again, a reminder to all members. Please keep all the statements non-partisan.

LNG

M. Bernier: I can assure you that my comments on this particular topic will be non-partisan. As we heard last week from the actual minister, we find now, all of a sudden, under LNG in the province of British Columbia, that all parties — the government party and the opposition party, at least ours — actually support LNG now. So that’s actually an exciting opportunity.

I just want the House to know that the LNG boat has not gone past British Columbia. We have huge opportunities in B.C. still, and we have the opportunities to help globally. I want to thank the member from Surrey for finishing his comments talking about LNG. It was a great segue into the important topic that I bring forward today in private members’ time.

Why do we look at opportunities around LNG? There are 3,000 trillion cubic feet of gas that we have here. Let me put that into perspective. That’s enough gas to help power every house, energize every house in Canada, for 8,000 years. I think everybody in this House can agree that 8,000 years from now there are going to be alternative fuels and alternative energy sources, and we won’t need natural gas. But in the short term, we have opportunities to help the global markets. We have opportunities to help Asia. We have opportunities.

The member opposite saying there’s a market…. Absolutely, there’s a market. When you look at every single other country in the world, they’re fighting for the opportunities to have LNG and for the opportunities to have contracts with places like India, places like China. In fact, China just signed a contract not long ago with Russia, about a $30 billion contract. Why? It’s because they need those opportunities for energy as well. That’s why global companies are looking at British Columbia. We have some of the cleanest gas in the world that can help places like China transfer off of fossil-fuel power generation like coal to something cleaner like natural gas.

The opportunities that that brings to the province of British Columbia are not just to the province. We have to remember it’s about the families, it’s about the opportunities, and it’s about the jobs.

We were talking about small business. Let me tell you. I see firsthand in northeastern British Columbia how small businesses can thrive because of the natural gas industry. We have tens of thousands of people right now working in this industry. It’s exciting to hear that now the NDP government supports that industry as well because this is important for all of B.C. It’s important for the jobs. It’s important for communities.

When you look at my colleague from Skeena when he was with Haisla First Nations and the contracts that they were working with — impact-and-benefits agreements, working locally with LNG companies…. They saw firsthand that they wanted to be part of opportunities to help First Nations. This is right across British Columbia.

LNG companies, natural gas companies, have been coming to British Columbia and saying: “We need to be working with you. We know that the opportunity is here to help globally, but we know that that won’t happen unless we actually work with local First Nations and local communities.”

[10:50 a.m.]

When I was the mayor in Dawson Creek, again, I saw firsthand how a community can thrive and a community can boom when you open up your doors and welcome companies in and work with them for the opportunities. That’s what we need to be doing in government, not standing back and being hypocritical and saying, “We don’t want this,” or trying to put roadblocks in the way of trying to stop business and companies from wanting to invest in British Columbia. We should actually be opening up our arms and saying: “Please invest here.”

We have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. Does it take longer in British Columbia? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, you have a project and a product that you can be proud of that’s meeting environmental regulations, that’s meeting all of our strict policies that we have to adhere to. But the most important side is that we then have the spinoff benefits that help local First Nations, local communities and families in the province of British Columbia.

We need to be putting this, still, front and centre. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. We are seeing our neighbours to the south — I’ll even say to the north, when we say Alaska in the United States — who are understanding the opportunities to work with their global markets and global partners in energy production. We can’t let them take all of this.

We are the ones in British Columbia that have the resources. We are the ones that have the opportunities. We are the ones that have the ability to work with companies because of our stable environment that we have here, and companies want to invest here.

The last thing we need is this House standing up and saying: “We don’t want your investment. We’re going to put roadblocks in the way. We’re going to actually try to make sure that you go invest in some other markets in some other countries around the world.” We need to make this an opportunity for all of us, which means I’m excited to have this discussion here today.

I’m sure the member opposite will stand up and also be supporting, now, the opportunities that LNG has for British Columbia. Now that the NDP are in government, they should have read and seen firsthand what this will mean for our economy, what it will mean for families and what it means for building our province for the next generations to ensure that we have opportunities for everyone.

We need to, as a House, support LNG and, again, remember what LNG means to the natural gas industry as a whole, which already supports tens of thousands of families in the province of British Columbia.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to thank the member opposite for the opportunity to speak about LNG, to speak about my great joy in visiting his constituency, and the constituency of Peace River North as well, to meet with folks in the industry when I had the Environment advocate, critic, spokesperson portfolio on the opposition side. I don’t hold that now, but I still have an interest in how the industry could and does impact so many peoples’ lives.

Visiting Mayor Bumstead, having an opportunity to understand what’s going on in Dawson Creek; travelling north and visiting with Mayor Streeper…. In fact, the entire council of Fort Nelson opened their doors and had me in for a visit to what I think they called the bear pit. Those who’ve visited the council will know they have a rather large polar bear in the lobby of the council. I don’t know how it found its way down to Fort Nelson, but that bear was a little lost, I think. Anyway, that aside, I also enjoyed meeting with Treaty 8 and their local governments in terms of the impacts, the opportunities and the challenges.

I think what would do the conversation about LNG a lot of good is if we dropped some of the hyperbole and just looked at the evidence, looked at the facts. I think, in the past, politicians, as we do, sometimes exaggerate things. Sometimes we get a little overexcited and exuberant about….

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: "Say it’s not so," says my colleague opposite.

Sometimes creating a “with us or against us” kind of an opportunity, because they see that can drive votes….

I think in this case, what we have to consider is there are people working in the industry now. There could be a lot more. I think that the challenge, as always, has been global market prices. Can you sell the good at a rate that is competitive, where the companies that want to sell the product actually can make profit? I think that’s been the challenge.

I know there had been great hopes and promises at one point that we’d have a new LNG plant created and running by 2015. That didn’t happen. I think, in part, some could say: “Oh, boo, boo. It’s the horrible former government.” Or you could say: “Well, there are actually challenges.”

[10:55 a.m.]

There are global prices. There are challenges to get to development. I think that would be the more honest approach, just as, right now, the more honest approach is to look and understand that LNG companies still are considering investing in B.C.

I’ll just read one of the quotes I found rather interesting. The CEO of LNG Canada recently said: “I actually believe that B.C. will have an LNG industry and that there is societal support for an LNG industry…. I believe, specifically, the LNG project can and will happen in B.C.” Now, LNG Canada is looking at a project in Kitimat which they see as an opportunity. They went on to say: “The combination of the NDP and Liberal MLAs who support an LNG project and a new mega-industry for B.C. is good enough for me to move forward in British Columbia.”

I think that’s interesting, because of course, those that have watched elections, those that have watched some of the more hyperbole-istic, if there’s even such a term, politicians would never have understood that that was possible. They would never have understood, prior to the election — when New Democrat MLAs said we support LNG as long as it provides good jobs; actually helps us reduce climate emissions, not increasing them; fair return for B.C., protecting our air, water and land; and respecting First Nations rights and titles — that that can be a road map to success, not a roadblock, as some have suggested.

I think that’s an important thing to consider. We do have real challenges. Climate is one of the principal ones for all of us to deal with. We could pretend that climate change doesn’t exist, as some have chosen to do. We could pretend that we don’t actually have an impact on it, as others want to do. But we do. The burning of fossil fuels has heated many of our homes for many, many, many years, has provided many really good jobs and will continue to do so in the future. But we do have to remember that we have to transition off of fossil fuels, as soon as possible, in a way that is fair to people and that gives them a good life as well.

I think we have that opportunity. That, to me, is important when I think of my own children, my own great-grandchildren, should they come down the road — should I have more than one child, I should I say. I think it is our duty to them to work not only for a prosperous future and a prosperous present but also for one that respects the caring capacity of this planet that we live on, as well as, of course, respects rights and title and makes sure that B.C. citizens get a good return on their investment.

M. Bernier: I’ll just start by thanking my colleague across, Vancouver–West End. I appreciate his comments. As always, I have a lot of respect for that member, and I’m glad to see he was the one that stood up to talk about this because, of course, from his location geographically within the province, it’s almost about as far away as possible from where the natural gas in the province is actually coming out of the ground and is generated.

It actually leads to the point of a good piece that we need to talk about. This is not about one part of the province. This is about all of British Columbia, not only from the jobs that can be created but from the resources and how they’re consumed and how they’re used. The member talked about how, with natural gas, we have to be looking at transition to alternative power sources or energy sources. That’s why, globally, almost every jurisdiction is actually looking at natural gas as a transition fuel.

When you look at jurisdictions right now that are burning coal for power generation, when they’re actually doing things like that, I think this whole House can agree that there are huge benefits to using natural gas in those jurisdictions where they don’t have the ability to have clean hydro power or other sources of power generation.

I think when we talk about transitional times, though, that doesn’t happen overnight. It does take a little bit of time, and I think we need to be open to that. When you look at the companies right now that are operating not only in British Columbia but globally, they understand transition is going to take place.

That’s why, when you look at northeast British Columbia right now, the amount of natural gas extraction that’s taken place, it’s actually…. Now they have solar power, wind power — alternative energies that are actually helping generate. They’re having natural gas compressor sites being converted to hydro to reduce their carbon emissions. They understand as well. But we also understand that while we’re doing our part here in British Columbia, we can also do a greater good globally if we work together.

I appreciate the member opposite referencing my corner of the world. He’ll also, when he talked about Fort Nelson, recognize why this is so important. Places like Fort Nelson right now are just shy of being devastated because of the fact that they rely so heavily on natural gas extraction. Because of global prices, and even national prices right now, it’s not economical to get the gas out of the ground in that area.

[11:00 a.m.]

LNG will actually have those opportunities. It will boost what we need to do here in British Columbia. It will help communities like Fort Nelson, so they can be vibrant once again like they once were.

I’m sure that when the member was up there, he probably got a bit of a polite earful from the mayor, Bill Streeper, who never lets an opportunity pass him by to remind people that we need to be working collectively. This is not a partisan issue. This is a provincial issue that we all need to be working towards.

On that, again, thank you to the member opposite for his comments.

Hon. S. Robinson: I call Motion 13.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 13 without disturbing the priorities of the motion preceding it on the order paper. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 13 — WOMEN IN SOCIETY

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to move and speak to the motion.

[Be it resolved that this House recognize that many women continue to face socio-economic barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential in society.]

When we look at the context in terms of the reality for women workers here in British Columbia — well, let’s appreciate the global context — we have a global inequality crisis.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

In 2015, the shocking number…. The 62 wealthiest people in the world actually had the same wealth as the poorest half of humanity. Just a shocking amount. In Canada, as well as the world, the richest 1 percent now has more wealth than the rest of the world combined. Just shocking.

We also see the same pattern of growing inequality here in Canada over the past several decades, as well as British Columbia, where we see a growing inequality gap characterized by our very high rates of poverty. So, certainly, there is a need to close these gaps.

Now, what is the definition of precarious employment, or who are those who are most disproportionately impacted by this growing inequality gap, growing wage gap? Who are these folks that find themselves in this situation here in British Columbia?

We know that the nature of employment is evolving. We used to have a majority of full-time employment. Now we see greater numbers of part-time employment. Certainly, the numbers in British Columbia.... Since 2008, a third of the new jobs have been part-time work. This precarious work is characterized as part-time, temporary and casual forms of employment with less job security; few, if any, benefits; and minimal control over working conditions.

This precarious work may be contract or part-time, self-employment or temporary work. The rise of this precarious employment, we see, impacts women disproportionately. There is a greater representation of women in low-wage work, and they have a greater wage gap compared to men working.

When you factor in, as well, racialized women, women with disabilities, again, we see higher numbers of them in precarious employment and also earning less. We see that women of colour, immigrant women, in particular, receive lower wages, and they’re more marginalized. So they really are more impacted.

When we look at what the reasons are behind that, we see that there is an undervaluing of women’s work, a systemic discrimination. Women take on more labour in the home. That’s a characteristic as well. Women’s wages are behind those of men. Now we’re still seeing that women earn an average of 30 percent less in terms of wages compared to men, and this gap is higher for racialized women, Aboriginal women, women with disabilities and immigrant women.

Now, when we look at the steps that we need to take to address this inequality, it’s not only a matter of individual…. You know, saying to the women: “Work harder, go upgrade your skills, and get better-paying jobs.” We see that there needs to be a systemic approach, and that’s why our government has implemented the increased minimum wage, is looking to increase that with the Fair Wages Commission.

[11:05 a.m.]

We’re implementing universal child care to address that unpaid labour. We’re also implementing a poverty reduction plan to really address those 40 percent of people that fall below the poverty line who are the working poor. A bigger proportion are women and also racialized women who fall under that line, despite working.

We are also making adult basic education and English language courses free to ensure that more individuals, particularly women, have access to that and can upgrade their skills, and we need to strengthen public services.

Another key feature is the need to enforce employment standards. Particularly vulnerable, of these workers who face marginalization and more exploitation, are temporary foreign workers, who are also vulnerable to labour trafficking.

These measures, taken together across the field, will ensure that we close those wage gaps, that we ensure that women have more access and, particularly, that racialized women have more opportunity to fulfil their potential. It’s a very important issue. As long as we have inequality, we are all impacted, and supporting those most marginalized women will lift all of us up.

D. Barnett: I’m very pleased today to be here to speak to the motion: ”Be it resolved that this House recognize that many women continue to face socio-economic barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential in society.”

When we go back in history and we see when women in Canada first had the right to the vote, which was 1917.... It wasn’t until 1960 that, actually, in Canada, women of all sectors had the right to vote. So in 1960, Canada made history. But since 1960, we, as women, have come a long way.

I’m from the old school. I was born a long time ago. We were taught, in my family, that equality — there was no differential between men, women — did not matter. Whether you came from any country of the world, whether you were First Nations, you were all equal. We worked together, side by side. We had the same. Nobody had more than anybody else, and nobody identified that they were better than anybody else.

This is my personal opinion. We have created, in this society, some of the equality. We have created it as a society. As a woman, I’m proud of what I have been able to accomplish, proud of what my colleagues, my friends have been able to accomplish. Yes, we all do different jobs. We do different things. We have different wages.

Where I come from, in rural B.C., women drive the skidders, the logging trucks. Women do the same as our partners do. And you know what, ladies? We do it better. We don’t break the equipment.

We have to take a look at sometimes what we’re saying in this House and what we’re striving for. Are we striving to create a bridge, a gap? Or are we striving to be closer together? To me, it’s what you believe in. To me, it’s what you, as a human being, as a woman, as a partner, as anybody, decide where you want your life to go. You can make yourself or break yourself. We’ve proven that, especially in rural British Columbia where we do have struggles.

Education is different. Travel is different. Jobs are different. So you have to look at: “As a woman, what do I want? How do I want to look after my children?” When I was a young person, we moved to rural British Columbia. I was married. I had two babies. There was no such thing as daycare. We went to work. We looked after our children. We found a way to do it. We were happy. Our children were happy.

Society has changed, and in some ways, I don’t think it’s always changed for the better. I think that we need to take a good look at our inner selves and say: “What do we really want? How do we want society to move forward?”

[11:10 a.m.]

Let’s be sure that what we’re looking for and what we’re striving for is what all want, not just a certain lobby group. We’ve got to the state where we have lots of lobby groups. We have to look at each other — our neighbours, our partners, our children, our grandchildren. What do we, as women, really want? I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished. I think, as individuals.... Take a look inside before we ask for more.

J. Routledge: I would like to thank the member opposite for calling on us to look at our inner selves. That’s the very issue that I’d like to be addressing in this debate as well.

Next Saturday I’m going to be celebrating the opening of my community office in Burnaby North with members of my constituency, with my friends and with my family. My 12-year-old grandson will be part of that celebration, but my nine-year-old granddaughter will not be there. That’s because she’ll be attending a workshop on girl empowerment, where she will get some tips on how to build her self-confidence, be treated with respect, develop a positive body image, develop healthy relationships and use the Internet safely. In other words, she will learn how to cope with being born female in the 21st century.

That such a workshop even exists demonstrates that girls today face risks to their physical safety, their dignity and their economic security. These risks are all too real and frightening.

According to the United Nations, the leading cause of death amongst teenaged girls is suicide. One in three women will experience sexual violence at some point in her life, and here in beautiful British Columbia, where we have a world-class education system, a triple-A bond rating and an enlightened citizenry, the stats are grim.

Girls in B.C. have a significantly greater risk of growing up to be poor than do boys. For every dollar a man earns in B.C., a woman earns less than 80 cents — even less if that woman is Indigenous, racialized or disabled. And 70 percent of minimum-wage earners are women. More than 80 percent of women-led, single-parent families live below the poverty line. One-third of seniors who are women who live alone are poor.

Now, I’m pretty sure that not one of us in this House thinks it’s okay that women should be so vulnerable in the midst of such abundance. So what are we going to do about it?

We are lucky that we live in an age when our Prime Minister can proudly proclaim himself to be a feminist and when 50 percent of the cabinets in Ottawa and in Victoria are women. It does give me hope. But let’s be realistic. Let’s remember that sexism is built upon centuries of beliefs and systems and time-honoured traditions.

We have all been socialized through foundational institutions to view our place in society through a gendered lens. Institutions like the family, where we first learned to distinguish between the roles of fathers and mothers; institutions like the media and entertainment and advertising, where gender roles have been idealized and glamorized. We’ve been socialized through play — the games that we played as kids and who we got to play those games with.

We’ve been socialized by the laws that govern us and by who we have seen making those laws. In short, most of us have internalized a common sense of who is in charge and who, by nature and convention, should be in charge. I call that a barrier.

[11:15 a.m.]

Even those of us who have worked hard to challenge received wisdom and to break stereotypes can’t always escape the internalized messages that are buried deep and are often subconscious. There’s a saying in the women’s movement that inside the head of every woman lives at least three other women. To put it another way, sometimes I open my mouth, and my mother comes out. Sometimes it may be our grandmother, although I never actually met mine.

Men are products of their socialization as well. It will take work to overcome the subtle, pervasive and seemingly innocuous biases that we harbour and that reinforce the barriers to women’s equality. We will need to challenge ourselves and each other, respectfully and with compassion.

Sometimes it will make us uncomfortable. I know I’ve felt uncomfortable many times when I’ve been confronted with my own white privilege and ethnocentricity.

T. Wat: It’s my great honour to rise in the House today to speak to this motion that recognizes that many women continue to face socioeconomic barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential in society.

Women who are newcomers to this province face unique obstacles, and many years ago I was one of them. Like many immigrants, my husband and I chose to leave our home of Hong Kong to pursue a better life in Canada. Our daughter was young, and we wanted to give her the very best upbringing, education and opportunity for success that we could. It was a difficult decision to move to B.C. but the right one for us.

Although we were welcomed with open arms by our chosen province and country, we faced difficulties that are common to many immigrants. We didn’t know many people here, which felt isolating at times. It also made it difficult to know where to turn when we needed certain services or goods. We sometimes encountered challenges around language as well as social customs that were unfamiliar to us. But we were well educated and determined to succeed. We eventually made friends, got to know our community and carved out a great life for our family.

Around the same time that we emigrated, two great multicultural organizations got their start in Richmond, helping newcomers adjust to their new surroundings. One of them is Richmond Multicultural Community Services, which provides important settlement services in 15 languages. They also have a special group tailored specifically to newcomer women called the multicultural women support group. It meets once a month and helps these women gain self-confidence, learn more about Canadian society, become more involved in the community, discuss common concerns, make new friends, explore and celebrate their different cultures, and improve their English skills.

The Richmond Chinese Community Society, RCCS, also does great work, helping the Richmond Chinese community to get involved in city decision-making and local activities. Groups like these help immigrants build a new life and home in their chosen community of Richmond and give them a leg up to succeed. I’m proud to recognize three women with ties to Richmond who have achieved great things in their new home of British Columbia.

Alice Chung is the owner of Alive Health Centre, a company that owns about 28 health food stores across Canada. The company’s head office is in Richmond. She was one of the 25 immigrants of the year for 2015, and the Royal Bank entrepreneur of that year. Alice is a philanthropist and was a two-term chair of the TTS gala event for the Vancouver General Hospital UBC Foundation. She also sits on the board of directors of the VGH and UBC Hospital Foundation and Canadian Health Food Association.

Julie Liu started her own business, Transpacific Custom Brokers, in Richmond in 1996. She started it as a one-woman show, and now Transpacific is a company of eight people. She emigrated to B.C. in 1970.

Peggy Wong, owner of Apets, has been a pet groomer for more than two decades in Richmond. Peggy emigrated to B.C. in 1987.

They are shining examples of newcomer women who have overcome many obstacles and have become great contributors to our economy and community. We know there are so many other women making their positive contributions. That was reflected in our former Premier’s creation of the Premier’s Women’s Economic Council.

[11:20 a.m.]

The former Premier’s vision was to give women every opportunity to thrive as entrepreneurs and business leaders in B.C. Members were invited to bring fresh ideas on how we could expand women’s business opportunities in key sectors and grow and develop economic opportunities to benefit the entire province. The council also brought attention to relevant barriers facing women in business in B.C. and provided advice on how to minimize or eliminate them.

I hope we will continue to create these types of opportunities for women to bring their voices and ideas to the table and think about the ways we can eliminate any barriers in their path to success.

A. Kang: Today, as a mother, as a contributing member to society, as a voice of Burnaby–Deer Lake and as a proud woman, I am pleased to rise to speak about the socioeconomic barriers that women continue to face today. It shows that we cannot take what we have for granted and that we must continue to fight for the progress of this province.

We can all agree that Canada is a pretty good place to live in, which is why we are all here today. But according to the Canadian Women’s Foundation, 1.5 million women in Canada live on a low income. Some groups have higher rates of poverty than others — for example, First Nations women, women with disabilities, visible minority women, immigrant women, single mothers and single senior women. This is where we stand on gender equity today. If this makes you angry, as it should, then let’s change it.

The higher rates of women in poverty are due to many reasons — the fact that women are less likely than men to occupy positions of power and the gender wage gap in which women, on average, earn less than men for doing the exact same job. Thankfully, the gender gap does not exist in the Legislative Assembly, but it does certainly exist across almost all sectors. We, the members of this House, have the voice and the obligation to fix the inequality and the injustice. We also need to make a few improvements ourselves. Women’s representation in this House is approximately 39 percent. Although the number is higher than in other provinces and territories, we can do better, and we must do better.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Conference Board of Canada released a report earlier this year that gave our province a letter grade of D in the gender wage gap. Only two other provinces have a larger gender wage gap than ours.

Part of the gender wage gap can be explained by the fact that women often work fewer hours than men because they typically take on a greater role in domestic responsibilities, particularly child care. Accessible child care is a barrier to women working full time. I recognize the current government’s effort to narrow the gender wage gap, and I would like to personally thank the Minister of State for Child Care for her hard work in removing barriers for women by making child care more affordable and more accessible.

It’s now 2017, and women do not just belong at home. We belong in boardrooms, we belong in conference halls, and we belong in the Legislative Assembly. McKinsey, a management consulting firm, released a report suggesting that if more women worked in the Canadian economy, the Canadian economy could grow by $150 million in ten years and B.C. would be among the four provinces with the greatest potential to benefit from the economic growth. When the gap closes, more doors open.

Even with these obstacles in life, we have some incredible women who are not only influential but also inspirational. Chief Kim Baird, for example, became the youngest Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation, elected at the age of 28. She played an important role in negotiating and implementing British Columbia’s first urban, modern land treaty.

There’s also Cindy Lee, an immigrant from Taiwan with English as a third language and with no business or industry experience. Against all odds, she overcame all the disadvantages and turned a grocery store into a national household name. You probably might know the name of the store that I’m talking about and have even maybe shopped there a few times. The store is indeed called T&T Supermarket. I’m very proud to say that Cindy opened her first T&T Supermarket in Metrotown, Burnaby.

Even with so many obstacles in life, these inspirational women show us that success is possible around all sectors. Now, imagine the potential of all women when socioeconomic barriers are removed.

[11:25 a.m.]

I can go on to more details about our First Nations women, our women with disabilities, our visible minority women, our growing population of senior single women and our growing population of immigrant women and how these women can be the drivers of our economy. But given the time constraint, I would like to end by saying that recognizing the challenges that women face every day is a first step. We should also explore our options in removing these barriers because that is what we are all here elected to do.

J. Thornthwaite: It’s with great pleasure that I’m afforded the opportunity to rise today to speak to the motion which recognizes that many women continue to face socioeconomic barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential in society. While we’ve already heard rather eloquently from the previous members about how socioeconomic barriers impact the lives of women and negatively affect our society, I’d like to take my time today to discuss two initiatives that are lifting women up.

First, I’d like to talk about the single-parent employment initiative program. Conceived by our B.C. Liberal government in 2015, the single-parent employment initiative program was introduced in an effort to remove barriers to employment for single parents on income and disability assistance. The thinking was that by providing single parents with funded training in in-demand jobs and covering transit costs to and from school, as well as child care costs during their training and their first year of employment, single parents and their families would be given a leg up to help better reach their full potential in society.

Well, two years later we’ve been able to see the results of the program, and it’s a resounding success. As of April 2017, over 4,700 people have participated in the program, leading to 740 single parents in training programs and 969 finding employment, the top training and employment areas being nurse’s aide, social and community service worker, administrative assistant, early childhood educator and medical secretary.

While these numbers are impressive, the most eye-catching statistic is that 92 percent of the participants were female. While it’s encouraging to know that this program is making a significant difference in the lives of hundreds of women as they chart their future career paths, the fact that women were in need of a program like the single-parent employment initiative at a rate of almost 9 to 1 when compared to men speaks volumes to the systemic disadvantages that women face.

The other initiative I’d like to comment on is the work being done by Girls Fly Too, an organization that addresses the barrier to women that I often think is discounted: the prevalence of gender stereotyping messaging in male-dominated industries. Out of the more than 25,000 professional pilots in Canada, only 5.8 percent are women. Out of the more than 17,000 aircraft engineers in Canada, only 2.3 percent are women.

It may be tempting to conclude that women are uninterested in or unsuited for these fields. However, there’s strong evidence to support that this perception is owed more to the erroneous belief that the aviation, aerospace, marine and defence industries are reserved for men. This stereotype is further reinforced through our media and advertising. As a result, the gender diversity in these fields remains tragically low.

B.C. pilot and Girls Fly Too founder Capt. Kirsten Brazier has made it her mission to challenge this stereotype. Since 2012, she has been providing free outreach events and coordinating other initiatives that aim to expose and introduce girls of all ages to science, technology, engineering and math-based fields and industries. Through their work, over 7,000 females have experienced the magic of flight for the first time. Hopefully, this will lead to many more young women being inspired to discover industries that have, to this time, seemed out of reach.

Although there is no shortage of work to be done and attitudes to be changed as we endeavour to address the socioeconomic barriers that negatively impact the lives of women in this province, I’m extremely encouraged by the initiatives in place that I’ve mentioned, and I applaud all the women that are challenging the status quo.

M. Dean: More than half of all women in B.C. have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. That’s more than one million women in our province. Every year in B.C. there are more than 60,000 physical or sexual assaults against women. That’s more than 1,000 every week, on average, and almost all of them are committed by men.

[11:30 a.m.]

Domestic violence in our society costs us in so many ways. The effects of domestic violence rip through the social fabric of our communities. Domestic violence adds a significant additional burden to our health care and our criminal justice systems. The health costs of domestic violence are so significant, individually and socially.

Many women are affected by physical injuries caused by violence. They’re at much greater risk of mental health issues, brought by depression, anxiety, suicidal inclination, PTSD, substance abuse and low self-esteem, among others. Then there are the economic costs to society in lost wages, lost time on the job, lost time to families, lost opportunities and lost potential.

Domestic violence can interfere directly with women’s ability to work. It ultimately impacts their career path and overall economic outcomes. Indeed, being in employment is a risk factor associated with a greater likelihood of women experiencing domestic violence — that is, women who work are more likely to be abused in this way.

Domestic violence directly impacts the ability of women to perform effectively in the workplace, like when an abuser attempts to contact, stalk, harass, threaten or injure a woman at work. Then there are other more indirect impacts, such as absenteeism and inability to function optimally due to the stress as well as the injuries of living with domestic violence.

Studies have shown that women not only lose paid work time; they also lose their jobs due to the impact of living with domestic violence. Domestic violence affects women’s long-term career paths. They’re less likely to take up training opportunities, and they’re at a disadvantage for career promotion opportunities. They don’t achieve the success that they could at work, so in the longer term, they don’t achieve their potential. As a result, women living with domestic violence are left further impoverished, with lower social status and fewer opportunities. Women living with domestic violence have a greater incidence of homelessness and housing-related issues, so this is a social and an economic problem for our society.

It will take all of us in this place, in our towns, in our cities, in our rural communities, in our province and in our country to be agents of change. We must build systemic solutions to create the changes and the supports for women to be able to reach their full potential in society. We are making progress, and we have much to do.

My predecessor in this chamber, the former member for Esquimalt-Royal Roads, introduced a bill that would have protected women’s employment rights when leaving situations of domestic violence. Women would have been able to take paid and unpaid leave without penalty to be able to address immediate needs of safety, moving, child care, school support, etc. As my predecessor said: “No woman should have to be in a position where she faces further abuse or threats to her life simply because she cannot get the day off from work in order to move herself and her family to safety.”

S. Bond: I’m very pleased to be able join my colleagues in the House today to speak to this motion. I do want to thank the member for Vancouver-Kensington for being the proponent. I know how passionate she is about gender and wage equity and, certainly, things we’ve discussed in the House previously.

I do think, though, that we should also note, unless it’s going to happen in the next two speakers, that there is a significant irony here, that the people speaking to this motion are all women. We’ve talked a lot about stereotypes and looking at how we actually advance the role of women. I think that we recognize there’s some work to be done from a man’s perspective in this Legislature as well, so I just thought it was very ironic that today all of the speakers — at least, certainly, on our side of the House — are women.

We also know that today women and girls enjoy greater rights and opportunities than they ever have in the history of the world, probably. But we’ve also, one by one, articulated that significant challenges remain. We’ve identified some of the key barriers.

[11:35 a.m.]

There’s no doubt about the fact that we need to look at improved child care opportunities. We need to look at wage equity, workplace conditions and training. When I think about one of the things that many women face — young women, in particular — it’s the fact that many women simply do not see themselves in leadership roles, in particular careers or particular jobs. They simply do not see themselves there.

I very much believe in the principle: if you can see it, you can be it. One of the things that we need to do…. I would agree with all of my colleagues in this place that, yes, we need to enhance resources and supports, but it begins before that. We actually have to…. And I appreciated hearing the comments about the empowering girls session. It’s unfortunate we have to have those circumstances, but we simply do.

I think that one of the things that we have to work harder at is celebrating role models, whether it’s in this place or whether it’s in places where there are non-traditional careers. I want to reference a couple of programs, for example, in the trades, where we see women significantly underrepresented. But it’s not just in trades. One of the things that I learned, previously as a minister, is the tech sector, for example — a place you would assume that there would be far more gender equity. That is not the case.

I think much of this is about celebrating success using role models, talking about women in a different way, valuing their contributions and debunking the myth that there is appropriate work. You think about that concept. People still think that there are appropriate places for women to be and to work. I believe that wherever there’s work, wherever there’s a role, women are capable of doing that particular job or that role.

I do want to…. I may differ, in some ways. I think we talk about using a gender lens. One of the things that I have always believed passionately is that I don’t want to have a role or a job because I’m a woman. I want to have that role or job because I am capable of doing it.

I think there are very different avenues in which to encourage, avenues for women to participate. But from my perspective, it has never been a case of women who are not capable. It’s a matter of lack of opportunity, so we have to work with employers through programs like the women-in-trades training program that’s offered, where we are starting to see increased numbers of women in non-traditional trades. I think that we have to….

We can celebrate the numerical fact that in Ottawa and here we have a cabinet that is gender-balanced. I don’t want to celebrate the numerical fact. I want to celebrate the fact that capable, exceptional women are being given the opportunity to provide leadership, whether it’s in cabinet or whether it’s being a plumber or whether it’s being a tech sector executive. From my perspective, it’s less about 50-50 than it is about recognizing the value that women bring to whatever workplace, to whatever circumstance they’re in, and to make sure that employers recognize that value.

Also, as has been stated by many of my colleagues this morning, we have to provide wraparound supports for many vulnerable women who simply cannot see themselves moving beyond their current position without extraordinary help. Those are the kinds of things that I think we as legislators, we as policymakers and we certainly…. You’ll hear from my colleague shortly about her incredible work with the single-parent initiative.

There are important steps being made, but fundamentally, from my perspective, it goes back to the point that if women cannot see themselves in those positions, it will be very difficult to actually find them in those positions.

R. Leonard: In support of the member for Vancouver-Kensington’s motion, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to my late mother. I don’t think she saw herself as a feminist. In my youth, I certainly didn’t see her that way, but her story, which I only learned later in life, reminded me that whether big and grandiose or small but meaningful, every victory of a woman standing up for her rightful place in the world has slowly but surely changed that world.

[11:40 a.m.]

My mother was trained as a psychiatric nurse. On her own, she would have been able to lead a full and independent life, but it turned out that after she married my father, she had to work hard to convince him that it wasn’t a bad reflection on him if she continued in the work that she was trained to do, that she loved and that she got great satisfaction from. In her victory over her right to work, my mother joined the multitudes of heroines over the decades who have pushed past social barriers as they have strived to reach their full potential.

Of course, it is not just about achieving social equality. Economic equality is inextricably interwoven into the challenge. I support the motion of this House to particularly recognize the economic barriers that have prevented many older women from reaching their full potential in society.

Women are more likely to interrupt their careers, work part-time or change jobs more frequently because they continue to bear the primary responsibility for children. When a woman earns less during her most productive earning years, it means a lower pension later. Women, regardless of family obligations or not, have simply been slow to see that wage parity.

Much work has been done over the decades to foster and to advance women’s equality, especially when there was a dedicated provincial ministry to the subject. By 2001, within the public service, the gender wage gap was closing. All that changed as the Ministry of Women’s Equality was ended. This province saw a drastic cut in the women’s workforce and, along with that, a significant loss of economic security that comes with wage parity. Such economic impacts accumulate, and 16 years later many are facing their retirement years, after years of lower wages or intermittent work, with smaller pensions in a province where life has gotten progressively unaffordable.

With grace under fire and on short notice, our legislative librarians have very kindly provided me with some Statistics Canada figures and charts to look at the history of the last 16 years in the workforce when it comes to men and women, particularly older men and women, in the full-time and in the part-time workforce. They were also able to provide some comparatives on wages. What do the simple numbers add up to?

Older women are working more part-time jobs than ever before. In 2016, they made up 8 percent more of the entire part-time workforce than in 2001 and about 8.3 percent more of the part-time workforce than older men. Comparing that to full-time workers, there are more women in full-time jobs. But — and it is a big but — there are proportionately less women than men in the full-time workforce in 2016 than in 2001. The face of 55-and-older women in the full-time workforce represented a smaller piece of the workforce in 2016 — going the wrong way, with a decrease of 1 percent.

Women still have less of a presence in the world of work. When they do work, they represent significantly more of the part-time workforce and significantly less of the full-time workforce, and still they take home consistently lower hourly wages than men. Men in part-time work have maintained the progression of an increasing wage as they age, but women bring home less than women aged 25 to 54 — at least, in the part-time world. The long-time effects are obvious.

All this is just numbers. There are real-life stories behind the numbers. In Courtenay-Comox, I heard the story of a retired woman who can’t afford to live on her meagre pension and is working two part-time jobs to supplement it. Another retired woman has moved to another community to find affordable housing on her tiny pension. Another wife is worried about how she will make ends meet if her husband has to go into care.

M. Stilwell: It really is a pleasure for me to be here today to speak to the motion that was brought forward, from the members opposite, to talk about the socioeconomic barriers that prevent women from reaching their full potential. Listening this morning, we’ve heard a wide variety of perspectives and stories from the different women who have shared.

I echo my colleague from Prince George–Valemount — the fact that it has been all women who have been speaking today. I doubt that anyone in this House thinks that women today don’t continue to face barriers, in that there are things that we need to continue to work to overcome.

[11:45 a.m.]

As a woman, as a mother and as someone who is still in an industry…. As a politician who sees more men dominating this work world than the women, there are definitely struggles that we see every day.

We’ve seen women in the past few weeks who have been making their views heard — with the recent events, with the Me Too going across globally, where women are standing up and sharing their stories about various issues of where they felt harassed by a colleague or felt unsafe at work or were unable to advance their career because of their inability to stand up for themselves.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Those things take an incredible amount of courage for women. Sadly, we are in a position at this point in time where we are still fighting for those things and trying to find the bravery for women to step up with their stories and speak.

I think that when we look at what we have opportunities to do here as elected officials, we have that opportunity to talk about various things in meaningful ways so that women can have their voices heard. We have opportunities to ensure that we are putting forward programs and designing things for the general public and society to ensure that we are creating those opportunities so that they can reach their full potential.

My colleague from Prince George–Valemount also mentioned the facts that she doesn’t want to see quotas and she doesn’t want to receive a job just because she is a female. I echo those comments. It is about our capabilities. It is about what we are able to accomplish, not about our gender — while still acknowledging that women sacrifice so much more in order to raise their families, in order to take part in society the same way as men have over the years.

I am so proud of the ability to be here, in this position as an elected official, to have been able to create the single-parent employment initiative — something that is changing lives, that is making a difference for women in communities across this province.

It is enabling them to get into the workforce by giving them the training, by paying for their training and covering their daycare expenses, their transportation to school. They can break down those barriers and create better opportunities for themselves and their families, their children, so that they can become those mentors and we can see them change their lives and the future path of their children’s lives.

I know, certainly as a woman, that there are definitely times where it’s easier to end up in that financial distress, where we end up in situations where things aren’t equal and it’s not balanced. We have to continue, on this side of the fence, as elected officials, to use our voice to move things forward, to ensure that we are creating those changes to enable and to make it possible for all women to thrive based on their ability, not on their gender. They cannot thrive with their ability if there are those barriers that are there just because of their gender.

We here on this side of the House and on the opposite side of the House, I think, can work together in many ways to ensure that we are creating those programs and those systems and putting things in place that will enable women to move forward and to generate possibilities and help them reach their full potential.

I look forward to that work that we can continue to do. I look forward to the members on both sides of the House always having those open discussions and dialogues and sharing the stories that affect them on a daily basis so that we can create those opportunities.

B. Ma: We were called candy girls. That’s what my first job was colloquially called. I was a candy girl. It was a part-time seasonal job. I worked in a doughnut stand at Playland.

One day into the job, I had already learned that in the candy department, girls were hired to be in the stands, and boys were hired as what were called runners. Well, that might be all well and good if you were a girl who preferred to be in the doughnut stand or cotton candy stand, but I wasn’t one of them. I wanted to be a runner.

[11:50 a.m.]

Runners worked in the industrial kitchen preparing goods for the candy attendants to sell. Unlike candy attendants, runners got to roam the park grounds, drive golf carts carrying 22-pound sacks of sugar, 53-pound boxes of Coke syrup. They didn’t have to deal with customers, with respect, and they got to work in teams. They were always covered in sweat and flour and had a lot of fun.

That’s the job that I wanted. But when I tried to convince the running team and management to let me transfer over, they told me I couldn’t because girls can’t be runners.

It took two summer seasons for me to convince them to let me onto their team, but when they finally did, I felt like I had found my part-time calling. It was my dream job. I was awesome at it, and I absolutely loved it. I loved it so much that I went back to it for many years, perhaps too many years, until it started to get a little weird. I was getting a little bit old to still be working at Playland. Then again, I was not the only one. “Once a runner, always a runner,” they would say. It was, after all, really the best job ever.

It’s interesting looking back at the times I’ve had to overcome gender biases in my life, not realizing at the time what it was. At the time, I didn’t see my fight to enter a boys-only club of a part-time job as a battle against sexism or injustice. It was simply what we were conditioned to accept as the way things were. Because I was conditioned to believe that my default place was to be a candy girl, I actually felt extremely privileged to be a runner for all of those years.

It really did not occur to me, until I started writing this statement, that if you think about it, it essentially had taken me two years to get a job that a boy would have gotten right off the bat for absolutely no other reason than the fact that I was a girl.

Everyone here knows that this is not a unique story, and when you extrapolate the experience to all other male-dominated careers out there, it actually becomes a very harrowing tale. From discouraging language in job postings, gender biases during interviews, company attitudes towards women and maternity leave and unconscious differences in the way that the performance of men and women are evaluated, there are countless factors that lead to women being left out of certain industries.

There was an experiment run at Columbia Business School that involved inviting managers to hire participants to perform a mathematical task. The results showed that both male and female managers were twice as likely to hire a man as a woman, even when the managers had absolutely no information beyond a candidate’s appearance and, therefore, gender.

There was another study that considered the way that gender bias plays out in software development communities. It found that for every one of the top ten programming languages, code languages, written by women, women had far higher approval ratings for code than those written by men but only when it wasn’t apparent that a woman was the coder.

Sure, there are definitely women-dominated occupations, just like there are male-dominated occupations, but women-dominated occupations consistently pay less than male-dominated ones. Before you suggest that women simply choose professions that are of less value, consider the study from Cornell University that found that as more women enter a male-dominated field, the pay in that field actually starts to decline, even for the very same jobs that more men were doing before.

It appears that without a concerted effort to ensure equal pay, even as women make gains in male-dominated fields, they still end up losing. In fact, at least in the United States, out of about 350 U.S. professions tracked by the U.S. census, only nine pay women more than men for the exact same work.

We have a long, long, long way to go on this road to gender equality, my friends. We can all start by recognizing that many women continue to face socioeconomic barriers that prevent them from reaching their full potential in society.

Wow. I really sped up my talking. Sorry about that.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

B. Ma moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Mungall: Noting the hour, it brings me…. After listening to the debate, which actually felt more like a very productive conversation, I sadly move adjournment of the House.

Hon. M. Mungall moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.