Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

BENEFITS OF ROUNDABOUTS FOR B.C.

L. Throness: I’m going to talk about a way to ease traffic congestion and increase safety in B.C. This morning I’m talking about roundabouts.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Of course, when we talk about roundabouts, we have to refer to the U.K., which first developed them in the 1960s and has the highest proportion of roundabouts in the world. There are 25,000 of them in all. They also have one of the safest traffic systems. In 2015, the U.K. had the fourth-lowest traffic fatalities in the OECD, but Canada was No. 17 on that list.

Well, let’s compare B.C. specifically with the U.K. In 2016, there were 181,000 injuries from accidents on all of Britain’s roads. In B.C., we had 69,000 injuries from accidents at intersections alone, in just this province, even though the population of the U.K. is 11 times greater than B.C.’s population. In all of B.C., there are 3.7 million vehicles, but there are 39 million vehicles in the U.K. — over ten times more — and the U.K. is a much smaller place. Their 39 million vehicles are crammed into an area one-quarter the size of B.C. That means that the U.K. is 40 times more crowded with vehicles than our province, yet it’s much safer.

Roads are narrow, cars are small, traffic is fast, and 92 percent of Brits do not use public transit. They use good old cars and trucks to get around. There needs to be a way to move very large numbers of people quickly from place to place. The roundabout is one way the U.K. has chosen to do that, and they’re very successful.

This summer I had the occasion to drive in the U.K., which took some getting used to, I can tell you. I drove a total of 3,300 kilometres. Even though traffic was always heavy, I spent very little time waiting in lineups, and I did not encounter one single accident, which was a real surprise.

There are different types of roundabouts in the U.K. There are large ones with three lanes and traffic lights to control them. There are large and clear markings right on the roadway in front of the driver that help to navigate them. There are smaller roundabouts with two lanes or one lane. They even have what is called a mini-roundabout, which is a big white dot painted in the middle of smaller intersections. You treat that just like you treat a roundabout. It means that you can effectively do a U-turn in the middle of an intersection if you need to.

I think it’s a wonderful improvement over the four-way stops and the signals that we have here. You don’t have to stop at the average intersection, it’s quicker, and it’s safer. In fact, there are few stop signs or yield signs at all in the U.K. There are far fewer traffic lights as well, except perhaps in dense urban areas.

The U.S. is building more and more roundabouts. They’ve doubled their number to 5,000 over the past decade, and they’re encouraging them. Why are they doing that? There are three main reasons.

The first is that they are safer. In a regular four-way intersection, there are 32 possible points of collision, but in a roundabout, there are only eight. Studies show that crashes resulting in an injury are reduced by 75 percent at intersections where stop signs or signals were previously used. They’ve also found a 37 percent reduction in overall collisions, a 90 percent reduction in fatalities and a 40 percent reduction in pedestrian collisions. This is because everybody has to slow down to enter a roundabout. In B.C., everyone accelerates on a green light, or they often speed up to try and beat a red light or a yellow one. So they’re speeding up as they go through the intersection, which is more dangerous.

Second, if you hit someone in a roundabout, it can’t be a head-on collision because the flow of traffic is one way. It’s not even possible to T-bone someone or have a head-on collision, so there are fewer accidents, and when they do happen, they are less severe.

The second big reason to choose roundabouts is that they improve traffic flows. That’s because they promote a continuous flow of traffic. In most roundabouts, you don’t have to wait for a green light at a roundabout. You don’t even have to stop. You just yield. So the intersection can handle more traffic in the same amount of time.

We in B.C. waste a lot of time waiting at red lights where there is no other traffic at all and it would be otherwise safe to go. This cannot happen with a roundabout. I think they lead to less driver frustration as well, because you’re not sitting for minutes at a time fuming at a red light or waiting for the next person in line to finally pay attention and start out when the light turns.

[10:10 a.m.]

Studies by Kansas State University measured traffic flow at intersections before and after conversion to roundabouts. In each case, installing a roundabout led to a 20 percent reduction in delays. In Washington, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studied intersections in three states and found that roundabouts contributed to an 89 percent reduction in delays and a 56 percent reduction in vehicle stops.

The third big reason to choose roundabouts is that they are less expensive. While it may be slightly more expensive to build a roundabout than a signaled intersection, when it comes to long-term costs, roundabouts don’t need the hardware and the maintenance and the electricity costs associated with traffic signals. Over the years, the cost of light bulbs blinking four ways every hour of every day on a permanent basis really adds up. And there is the added bonus that roundabouts work just fine during power outages. Because vehicles spend less time stopping at roundabouts, fuel is saved for an environmental benefit, and there are savings in cost and time for drivers as well.

While roundabouts may need more property within the actual intersection, they often take up less space on the approaching streets. For example, you don’t need left-hand turn lanes. Roundabouts usually require fewer lanes approaching the intersection.

Finally, a roundabout can be aesthetically appealing. You can put a garden in the centre instead of a forest of traffic lights and wires and poles. You could put artwork in the centre, as we have done in Chilliwack, which also serves a practical purpose of blocking the view of the other side of the roundabout as a safety measure.

Roundabouts, of course, aren’t appropriate for all intersections. For example, Robson and Burrard in Vancouver, with all of its heavy pedestrian traffic, wouldn’t be a good place to put one. But there are so many other opportunities in B.C. to improve safety and traffic circulation with roundabouts.

I’ve had great experience with roundabouts. I drove a long way in the U.K. It was a little tough getting used to at first, but once you get used to them, they really work wonderfully. And I’m looking forward to the government side announcing its plans to build more roundabouts in B.C.

D. Routley: Before I start, on behalf of the Agriculture Minister, I would like to welcome students and adults from Pacific Christian School from her riding.

I really appreciate the member bringing forward this conversation on traffic circles, roundabouts. They are considered to be safer, definitely, but as a cyclist, I’d bring one caution to mind. I’ll get to that in a moment.

The reason that they’re considered safer is that they encourage lower speeds. Situations change more slowly because of that slower speed. It’s a very forgiving environment where people can make decisions more slowly, and they have more time to respond. There’s no demand for accurately judging the closing speeds of fast vehicles because cars are, essentially, at a much lower speed. When there are crashes, they are lower-energy crashes. They’re at a lower-impact angle and create fewer injuries and less damage. And they create these uncomplicated situations where decision-making at least ought to be more simple as we get used to using traffic signals.

That points to a little bit of a problem in B.C. in that the Ministry of Transportation versus the Road Sense manual is confusing. There’s a difference in how they recommend you enter a roundabout. Essentially, one says signal left if you’re turning left, no signal if you’re going straight and signal right if you’re leaving to the right. The other says no signals except right leaving the circle, which is what I adhere to — just signal your way out of the roundabout. That is where most of the problems happen, and misunderstandings.

There is a problem for cyclists, and that is that although there are fewer collisions with cars generally, there are more collisions with cyclists. There are more collisions in roundabouts with cyclists than there are in regular intersections. But cyclists make that trade-off, I suppose, because the accidents are at slower speed and have a much lower impact and less severity of injury.

Pedestrians do fairly well with traffic circles and roundabouts. They only have to cross one lane at a time, and there’s a refuge in the centre. They only have to make decisions to the right, never to the left. So there are a number of reasons that it’s actually safer for pedestrians. And speed, of course, is a major factor in the degree of severity of accidents and injury.

[10:15 a.m.]

Of pedestrians, the percent who are fatally injured when they’re hit at 32 kilometres per hour is only 5 percent. I mean, that’s a terrible number, but 5 percent are fatally injured at 32 kilometres per hour. At 48 kilometres per hour, which would be the speed a car would likely go through or blast a stop sign at a regular intersection, it goes up to a 45 percent fatality rate. And then at 64 kilometres per hour, which we see commonly in 50 kilometres-per-hour zones, the fatality rate is 85 percent. So you can see this kind of hockey-stick curve, where severity goes up at a very rapid rate along with speed.

Traffic circles in that way are definitely a benefit. But having been hit five times on my bike by cars and motorhomes and having hit two pedestrians myself, I know that speed is an important factor. And I know very well that speed is an important factor when you hit the ground.

Anything that slows down traffic — in simpler situations, where people can respond more intuitively and without the haste of a faster pace around the intersections and more confusing in-and-out traffic — the better. It’s always better to simplify traffic situations and to slow down traffic. So traffic circles do that. You get a few more cyclists hit but a lot fewer severely injured. That’s a trade-off that as a cyclist, I’m willing make.

Take the lane if you’re a cyclist. Take the lane. Don’t let them pass you in the roundabout. And to all drivers: never pass a cyclist in a roundabout. They’re going 20 to 30 kilometres per hour. You wait for 20 minutes behind farm equipment going that speed. So please — as a cyclist, I ask every driver — never pass a cyclist in a roundabout.

L. Throness: The member opposite said some good things about bikes in roundabouts. In the U.K., they are, more and more often, providing a special lane for them.

I’m proud to say that Chilliwack has led the way in roundabouts. In Chilliwack, we were one of the first cities in B.C. to install them. We now have five single-lane roundabouts and two multi-lane ones. Feedback from our residents has been very positive, although some are confused by them. So the city holds a couple of information sessions every year on how to navigate them.

From personal experience, I can tell you that they have been very effective. There was a very dangerous intersection at the junction between Yale Road and Highway 9 in Rosedale. And 30 years ago when I would drive there, I remember approaching that intersection with great trepidation, because traffic would whiz by at highway speeds and there were fatalities there. But Popkum roundabout, as it is known, has been in place since 2004. Although some people might say it’s too small, no one says it shouldn’t be there. As an added benefit, there have been some successful retail businesses that have popped up on three corners near that roundabout, so it has not been a hindrance to commerce at all.

Our newest roundabout recently opened on Lickman Road. I travel that road regularly, and I used to wait in long lineups with long lines of big trucks. Those lineups have been virtually eliminated.

In the past two years, we’ve installed two roundabouts near each other at the Vedder Bridge — one at the bridge and the other at the turnoff to Cultus Lake. There were enormous delays at various times, particularly during the summer, when the entire province, it seemed, wanted to get up to Cultus Lake. You could easily sit for an hour on the road, waiting for that light to turn over and over and over. With the new bridge, thanks to an infrastructure grant and two new roundabouts to move the traffic, those delays have been hugely reduced. Everyone in Chilliwack is very happy about that.

How are we doing provincially? ICBC is currently studying the effectiveness of roundabouts around the province, but their review won’t be until next March. I would have thought that ICBC would have been on this much earlier, given the positive experience with roundabouts in B.C. and in the U.K. and the huge number of accidents we have in B.C. In B.C., we have 350,000 accidents every year, and 120,000 of them occur at intersections. Three-quarters of those intersections are in the Lower Mainland, and over half of the accidents at intersections result in injuries.

The costs of personal injuries have been literally bankrupting ICBC, so it is in the interests of the corporation, as well as all drivers, to address this. ICBC has a program in place to assist with the cost of making roads safer, particularly in certain high-accident intersections. A little bit of investment from that program now will save accidents and injuries and, ultimately, be reflected in lower auto premiums.

My message to the government, to ICBC and to the rest of B.C. is: let’s get going with this. Why not catch up to Chilliwack? Look to Chilliwack as a provincial leader, and see what we’re doing in the Fraser Valley.

[10:20 a.m.]

Let’s build more roundabouts — the safer, quicker and cheaper way to drive.

PARTNERSHIP WITH
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

N. Simons: My topic this morning is partnerships with Indigenous communities. As I thought about this issue over the last week that we’ve been back in our constituencies, I wondered exactly how it would be that we would talk about partnerships without implying that there are power differentials and what the relationships are in those partnerships.

First, I’d like to just say that I’m really pleased with the fact that our relationship with Indigenous communities is evolving in the right way. It’s happening because of dedicated people who are interested in healing some of the injustices of the past, not solely for the purpose of simply remembering our history but from learning about that history and learning to incorporate the lessons that we have learned from that history as we all continue our path in British Columbia here.

We have over 200 First Nations communities in British Columbia. There are Indigenous communities that are living, as they say, off reserve, outside of the traditional territories of those nations, and they are, indeed, communities as well. We have urban Indigenous communities and rural Indigenous communities, and the goal is to improve our partnerships with those communities, wherever they are and however they’re manifested.

We have economic relationships that require partnerships, that are helped by having partnerships, that all sides are…. Conditions are improved by those partnerships. There are economic relationships with how we deal with our natural resources. We have partnerships with Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities have partnerships with the province. We have partnerships with each other. We have partnerships with local governments, with Indigenous communities. In Powell River, for example, the community accord is well known throughout Canada — a relationship of mutual understanding, of recognition of the past, of acknowledgment of future challenges that go with relationships.

Anyone who’s been in a relationship knows that it’s not always exactly the same day to day. I think when we talk about our partnerships that we create and foster with each other, Indigenous communities or not, we’re always striving to improve those relationships and those partnerships.

For partnerships, we sometimes have this idea that they are always based on equality. I think that’s the goal. The effort that we have when we develop partnerships is that they are of mutual trust, mutual respect and of some sort of sense of equality. I hope that as our government continues, I think, in this very historic time in terms of our relationships, we do so with humility and we do so recognizing that it is not up to us to request or demand partnerships. But it is to be open to finding ways of going forward that are not repeating the mistakes of our past.

I see economic relationships, economic partnerships, in the forest industry with the foundation agreement with the shíshálh Nation, which is the lower Sunshine Coast and territories around, that show that these partnerships could have positive impacts on all our communities. Whether they are to provide some economic security for Indigenous communities or if they’re to provide some certainty and predictability in the wider economy, I think that those show that partnerships are a structural urgency for our future relationships.

Social relationships and partnerships are also important. I think about our cultural tours, the Aboriginal cultural tourism sector where community members from the many First Nations in our province offer cultural tours for non-Indigenous communities. Those tours, I think, create partnerships on a human level.

[10:25 a.m.]

They are not government-to-government partnerships. They’re not industry-to-industry partnerships. They’re hu­man relationships that become partnerships, community members who are aware of the history of their community and who have seen and have learned from communities. That creates, I believe, a relationship that is long-standing, based on mutual respect. And from that foundation, other partnerships can be developed.

Now, Eric Blaney up in the Powell River area, in Tla’amin territory, and Candace Campo from the shíshálh Nation on the lower Sunshine Coast both offer tours to tourists to see wildlife and to experience the geography and the natural beauty of the territories that those communities have existed in since time immemorial — and before that. I think that those partnerships and culture are essential to the strengthening of our community bonds. We know that as a province, we’re at a place where relationships are being defined — that the old ways have been seen as inappropriate for our modern understanding of our history.

I think that, fundamentally, the partnerships that we create, the partnerships that we encourage and support and nurture, are the partnerships that we can be proud of. We all understand that the history that has landed us in a situation where reconciliation is necessary also has lessons on how we can become a stronger, more cohesive community, recognizing that past. So I believe that, with some of the steps that our government has taken, in partnership, in cooperation, with the hope of building relationships with Indigenous communities, we’re on the right path.

It’s not up to me or to my colleagues to say that this is a success or not a success. These are efforts being made by, I believe we can say, the province to reconcile the past and to establish a good, strong foothold for the future. I believe that is necessary and only possible if we create partnerships with communities, with individuals, with different sectors — that it isn’t just government to government; it’s community to community.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to provide some comments around partnerships with Indigenous communities as well. As I was, like the member opposite, contemplating what to say over the last week, it struck me that being from Kamloops, it’s a little symbolic, I guess, when you consider that back in 1910, the Laurier memorial document was signed in Kamloops with Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the time — and in conjunction with, now, today being federal election day.

Unfortunately, that document never did get enacted. There was a federal election from the time that Wilfrid Laurier went back to Ottawa from Kamloops and signed with area Chiefs. And area First Nations have been waiting now 100-plus years for some of those principles to be acted upon by the federal government and the provincial government. I think it’s important that we do reflect on where we have come, though, in spite of that document not being enacted and acted upon.

It is important to recognize, just as anyone would, feeling that perhaps your government is not working always with the best interest at heart, when document after document does not get enacted or followed up on in a meaningful way. It’s certainly understandable why Indigenous leaders in the province will continue to challenge all of us to make sure that we are participating in a fair and equitable way and treating agreements with Indigenous nations in such a way that they will actually be followed through upon. It is a long process. I note that over the last several years….

In fact, since 2014, there have been more than 200 agreements signed by the province and Indigenous communities across this province — more than 500, if you take a slightly longer window of a few extra years. Final treaties, five treaties with nine First Nations. Agreements-in-principle, eight are current with 12 First Nations. Incremental treaty agreements, 23 agreements with 27 First Nations. Clean energy revenue-sharing agreements, 50 agreements with 37 First Nations. Clean energy equity investment funding, 15 agreements with 15 First Nations.

[10:30 a.m.]

Mining agreements, single- and multi-project economic and community development and revenue-sharing agreements, 32 of those with 44 First Nations. Forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements, 262 agreements with 156 nations; in total, 120 active agreements with 140 First Nations. Reconciliation agreements, 17 agreements with 35 First Nations. Strategic engagement agreements, seven agreements with 37 First Nations.

Pipeline benefit agreements, 64 agreements with 29 First Nations, and 48 of those agreements have been publicly announced. Economic benefits agreements and interim economic benefits agreements — three of those with four First Nations, as well as a resource-revenue-sharing agreement with five First Nations.

Again, I know from the Kamloops area, we have resource-revenue-sharing agreements with our local area Indigenous communities, as mines were brought back into production, and those agreements were worked with cooperatively. As the member opposite said, it is important to make sure…. Those local connections and local agreements are a good starting place.

I’m proud to think of the agreements the city of Kamloops has with our area bands. We have an agreement where sewer connections are made. The sewer system is used for the whole valley, and everyone pays their fair share. We have fire service agreements so that there’s professional firefighting protection for the band lands as well as city of Kamloops lands, again at an equal rate of pay, making sure that everyone is participating in the local economy in an equal and equitable way, to make sure that all in our communities can strive and move forward.

It’s those smaller agreements — that look to be smaller on the surface — that I think can guide us into our future with some of these larger agreements. But we should not lose sight of the fact that a lot of work has been done in the past; a lot of work still needs to be done. I think all sides of this House recognize that the work needs to continue to be undertaken and to move forward in a way that will actually provide stability both for Indigenous communities and for others in our province and our communities, so that everyone knows where we can head together as one community, in a broader sense, on a provincial level.

I thank you for the time to be able to address the more than 500 agreements that have already been signed with First Nations — more than 200 of those since 2014. I look forward to hearing the member opposite’s closing remarks.

N. Simons: I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson. I think he has outlined quite clearly the number of agreements that have been reached between governments and Indigenous communities, whether they’re governments or local agreements with subgovernment offices.

He does speak about the fact that, in reality, our relationships have evolved, and governments are, I think, improving over time how those relationships and those partnerships get codified. I would just like to say that it’s a reflection of the efforts of individuals to make these partnerships take place, to have these partnerships go forward.

What I like to think of is that community-to-community partnerships are essential in order to address what still exists in our communities — some mistrust and some lack of understanding and, definitely, ignorance as well. I was just reading….

A friend of mine who’s a shíshálh member who does cultural tours was talking to some tourists, some visitors, about the impact of colonial approaches — the role of the church, the role of the government — in what was catastrophic to Indigenous communities. She heard feedback. She was told that the person had heard many good things about the previous education system, the residential schools. That was quite troubling because ultimately, when you think about the ignorance that comes with those kinds of statements…. Perhaps it’s a form of racism, but it’s definitely ignorance.

I think that as we increase our partnerships, as we improve our relationships, that kind of ignorance will disappear. That ignorance will be replaced by an understanding and a knowledge, not a defensiveness as much as a reassurance that we are on a better track now. We haven’t fixed everything, but we’re working towards it. Ultimately, partnership means that as we go across these bumpy roads together, we will recognize our mutual history, and we’ll recognize that it’s not always going to be easy.

[10:35 a.m.]

I am looking forward to the incorporation of the United Nations declaration in our legislation. I think we’ve been quite clear that that’s an important part of our mandate. As a province we can lead the way. We can show other jurisdictions how partnerships and how relationship-building can be put into legislation. It’s not as the be-all and end-all of our building of relationships, but it’s a strong step towards that. I think that together, as a province and as a legislative body, we can encourage that ongoing, improved relationship.

ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION

S. Cadieux: How would you feel if you went out for dinner with friends, and you couldn’t get a table because you couldn’t negotiate stairs? How would you feel if you were the keynote speaker at an event, you arrived, and you couldn’t get on the stage? What if you couldn’t speak, and you were refused medical services unless you allowed someone else to speak for you?

What if you booked a vacation of a lifetime and arrived at your destination to be told they didn’t have a room after all? What if you applied for a job, but they called to book the interview, and when they learned you had a disability, they hung up? What if you wanted to attend a sporting event or a concert with friends but were told you couldn’t sit with them because you were limited to sitting in accessible seating with only one of your two friends, or if you tried to sit elsewhere, you were told you were a fire hazard?

What if you took your three-year-old to the park to play but couldn’t get to the playground equipment because the surface was bark mulch? Worse, what if you were a child with a disability and the playground at your school wasn’t accessible? What if you were six years old, and you couldn’t go to the birthday party all the kids were going to because the friend’s house was inaccessible?

What if you were to buy a condo in a building with basic accessibility, which has elevators and a power door, but where the parking was designated limited common property under the Strata Act, so there’s no accessible parking available to residents? What if you needed accessible housing, and you called B.C. Housing and were told that if you wanted accessible housing, you should quit your job and go on assistance, because that’s the only way you’d be eligible? Have you ever had to decline an invitation to go somewhere, to an event or an activity with friends, because there was no accessible washroom?

Accessible parking spaces may not seem like a big deal, but if you don’t have adequate space to open your door to get your chair out or to lower a lift, or if the snow is piled up there on a snow day, it may as well be a brick wall.

What if you were a voter, you wanted to attend a debate of the local electoral candidates, but you were deaf, and there was no sign language interpreter present? What you were if blind or had limited vision, you went to a restaurant for lunch alone, and they didn’t have large-print and Braille menus? What if you had a cognitive impairment, and you couldn’t understand the form you needed to fill out to receive a service? Would you feel sad, frustrated, angry, disillusioned, left out?

The barriers are real. They still exist in 2019; they still exist in B.C. It’s not a sob story. I’m not telling it to make you feel sorry for me or for the others that it affects. It’s quite the opposite. I’m telling you this to emphasize the opportunity and the obligation we have to eliminate these barriers, because they’re real but unnecessary.

There are more than 926,000 British Columbians over the age of 15 who have some sort of disability, some sort of barrier to full and equitable participation. That’s nearly 25 percent of the population, and it’s only going to increase as the population ages. It’s 25 percent that may not, because of these very real barriers, be able to access their community, employment or even government services like health care.

We can change that, but we have to be honest. We have to acknowledge that the biggest barrier of all is ourselves. It’s our own biases. In fact, attitudinal barriers are the most pervasive, because they contribute to all of the other barriers. For example, some people may not be aware of the challenges that exist in getting into a place and that can limit a person with a disability from participating. Some just don’t take the time to think. Others just don’t think it’s their problem.

Sometimes we stereotype, and we’re all guilty of this in some capacity. We often stereotype people with disabilities by assuming that their quality of life is poor or that they are unhealthy or unwell because of their disability. Others think that disability is a personal tragedy and something that needs to be cured or prevented. Some think it’s an indication of the lack of ability to behave as expected or the lack of a willingness to overcome.

[10:40 a.m.]

Thankfully, broader society’s understanding of disability is improving as we’re shifting the definition of “disability” from personal deficit to something that occurs because a person’s needs aren’t addressed by the physical or social environment. Some of those imposed barriers are things like communication barriers, physical barriers that are structural obstacles or in man-made or natural environments that block mobility. Some are policy barriers that are related to a lack of awareness or enforcement, that require programs and activities to be accessible to people with disabilities. Transportation barriers are often a lack of adequate transportation, which can interfere with a person’s ability to be independent and function. But there are others.

Why do these barriers persist? Because they can. They can. As I was recently told by a business when I suggested some improvements to their accessibility: “I’ve done what I’m required to by law.” I certainly would have hoped that people’s thinking would have evolved by now, thirty years after my injury first thrust me into this reality, but it hasn’t, at least not enough.

Now, I’ve always been a believer that education and positive reinforcement was the answer. More carrot, less stick. But 30 years later, I’ve evolved my thinking, and more stick is required. That’s why I introduced the new housing amendment act last year, because we need to be designing and building housing that works for everyone. It’s why, a few years ago, we moved forward with Accessibility 2024. It’s why the government of Canada has passed Bill C-81, the Accessible Canada Act. It’s why all parties here in B.C. have committed to B.C. accessibility legislation.

I’ve followed with interest and anticipation the progress of Bill C-81 federally since it was first proposed. Like others, my initial response was hopeful for an all-encompassing law that solved all of my barriers. So I understand the angst of the community. I live it. I also understand the jurisdictional issues and the framework that’s been established and, while there are very inclusive goals, the confines within which they will be realized.

I believe that with Bill C-81, our country is taking a very bold and necessary step to ensure foundational change that will profoundly advance the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities. And now we are on the path to provincial legislation.

I understand and applaud the fervour of the disability community, their perseverance over decades and their sense of urgency for the completeness of the removal of barriers. I also understand, with the deepest of experience, the realities and limitations of legislating this change. There is much to do.

A. Kang: Firstly, I want to thank the member for Surrey South for her passion and her advocacy on this topic. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak about the importance of accessibility and inclusion and to recognize all of the great work that the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is doing to improve access and inclusion for all British Columbians.

This discussion also comes up at a perfect time to highlight that October is Community Inclusion Month. In this month, we take the opportunity to recognize people with developmental disabilities and celebrate the importance of all people being able to contribute and to be included at home, at school, at work and in the community.

This year the theme for Community Inclusion Month is “The future is accessible.” Through October, Community Living B.C., service providers and community groups will host events and initiatives to build awareness about inclusion for adults with developmental disabilities. The month also recognizes the important role families, friends, caregivers, volunteers, community groups and employers play in ensuring the full participation of those living with developmental disabilities in our community.

According to the “Canadian Survey on Disability, 2017,” conducted by Statistics Canada, more than 926,000 British Columbians aged 15 or older are identified as having at least one disability. That’s 25 percent of our population. As many as 70 percent of people with disabilities report that they have more than one disability. The different abilities noted in the report involve seeing, hearing, mobility, flexibility, dexterity, pain-related, learning, developmental, mental health–related, memory and much more.

[10:45 a.m.]

Under the leadership of the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, as well as our Parliamentary Secretary for Poverty Reduction, our provincial government is helping differently abled British Columbians overcome certain disadvantages by implementing the province’s first-ever poverty reduction strategy. By increasing the assistance rates by $1,800 a year and increasing the earning exemptions, provincial programs are relieving more and more British Columbians. Coupled with other policies, this government is helping break the poverty trap and opening up more opportunities for all British Columbians to succeed.

Of course, making our province more accessible and inclusive goes beyond financial assistance. It also requires us to be involved in our community, in the conversations, and to invest in our physical environments. To create an inclusive society that welcomes everyone, all three orders of government must work together.

Taking, for example, my community in Burnaby, I am extremely proud to say that the city of Burnaby has made tremendous and thoughtful efforts to ensure that city bylaws, policy programs and services appropriately consider gender equity concerns and the needs of various subsections of the general population and to include children and youth, the elderly, persons with mental and physical disabilities, persons of diverse ethnic or cultural backgrounds, persons who are functionally illiterate, persons of low socioeconomic status and other relevant groups.

Burnaby facilities are undergoing improvements to include more accessibility features. For example, new swimming pools would include a portable pool lift or an accessible ramp. Some people may not want to ask for help, and a lack of independence would create a barrier to enjoying opportunities to swim. Such accessibility features would enable people who have trouble navigating the pool ladder to be more independent.

The Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction is leading work across government to improve access and inclusion for all British Columbians. The ministry is working on a new accessibility legislation that will bring about a culture shift toward greater inclusion and accessibility in B.C. workplaces and our communities. Accessibility legislation for B.C. will be guided by the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the principle of “Nothing about us without us.” I strongly include everyone to participate in the provincewide consultation process between September 16 and November 29. For more information, please visit the ministry’s website.

Together we can work toward building a community for everyone, with input from everyone. Integrating accessibility in every area of life is essential to creating liveable communities, including workplaces, buildings, neighbourhoods and businesses. Building a better B.C. is the job of all of us.

S. Cadieux: Well, my own disability provides me a perspective. My work with the disability community broadly, as a board member of Disability Alliance B.C., my work with SCIBC and other disability groups and my work as former minister responsible for social programs in B.C. — all of those experiences have broadened my views and exposed me to the vast and varied disability experience.

It has taught me the importance of the challenges associated with bringing those diverse experiences to a common goal. Be it the built environment, employment, communication, service delivery, transportation or procurement, the reality is that barriers continue to exist, continue to be erected. We now have the express intent to proactively confront those barriers and break them down. So let’s get it right.

We do need to learn, though, from those who have gone before us. We do need to attempt to move to a national standard and away from creating yet another different standard. There are good examples of work already done. We need to recognize that an act, apart from other standards like the building code, will be ineffective unless there is a requirement within the existing processes, like building permits that have to be adhered to.

For example, in Ontario, despite great efforts to provide built environment standards that would ensure access and inclusion, it was deemed unworkable and not included in the building code. So the lesser minimum standard is still how buildings are built, leaving businesses in a very difficult position — a building built to a code that doesn’t conform to the requirements to meet the human rights code or the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Confusion still rules. People with disabilities are still paying the price.

[10:50 a.m.]

In the case of service delivery, a move to things like kiosks and self-serve on iPads and the like…. While standards may very well state that they must be accessible, without a clear definition of what that means, there’s no consistency or assurance that those kiosks have Braille or an earphone jack or a help button.

Just like a situation in Vancouver I experienced recently where a new elevator was installed — no buttons, just a kiosk in the front lobby. No audible signals. No Braille signage. Someone who was blind would just have to stand around and wait and hope that a stranger would arrive and ask if they needed assistance. A very high-tech and, no doubt, expensive renovation that is an absolute access failure.

What about our public schools today? Do they meet everybody’s needs? A constituent of mine, Jacquelyn Perry, shared a very frustrating story with me. She was asked to do a presentation at her little sister’s high school. The classroom was not wheelchair-accessible, so they had to book a special room at a special time to be able to have her present. It made her feel like an inconvenience and a problem instead of a welcome guest like everyone else.

There are good examples, too, on display, like at YVR where they have made very intentional decisions. And just last week I had the opportunity to test out a prototype wheelchair lift that could provide wheelchair access to seaplanes, proving that almost anything is possible with commitment and ingenuity.

The advocates in the disability community, in its broadest sense, will be looking for the act, both federally and provincially, to bring about systemic and societal change. It’s a big expectation, but it’s the right thing to do. It makes economic and, most importantly, social sense.

PAID LEAVE FOR WORKERS
FACING DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE

J. Routledge: Earlier this year this government made some important amendments to the Employment Standards Act. One such amendment was the inclusion of new, unpaid, job-protected leave for workers who have experienced, or are the parents of a child who has experienced, domestic or sexual violence. Let me tell you why I think this amendment is so important and why I think we need to do more.

When I was a young woman, I volunteered at a shelter for women and children who were escaping domestic violence. It was called Interval House, and it still exists today. It opened in the 1970s in an old house in an old residential neighbourhood of Ottawa. It looked like all the other houses on the street, but its location was fiercely kept secret to protect residents from the very husbands from whom they were escaping, sometimes with only the clothes on their backs. They often arrived traumatized, disoriented and humiliated.

My main role as a volunteer was to facilitate weekly house meetings. Meetings were organized purposefully in such a way as to help women regain their self-esteem, promote a sense of mutual support and give them agency over their own lives. Together they planned weekly menus, resolved interpersonal friction, made and remade house rules.

Sometimes there were cultural clashes, and the women worked hard to understand and appreciate each other’s cuisine and customs. I remember a particularly tense debate about what to do with leftover potatoes. Of course, the argument wasn’t really about potatoes. It was more about asserting what feels normal and familiar in an environment that is anything but normal and familiar.

I also volunteered, on occasion, to staff the crisis line on the night shift. I remember taking a call from a woman who was being abused by her husband. She wanted reassurance that it wasn’t her fault that she was getting beaten up regularly, and she wanted to find out what options were available to her. Her husband was a doctor.

I recall that two topics dominated the administration of Interval House in those days. One was a severe lack of funding, and we operated under a constant threat of closure. Two was how to get the police and justice system to take domestic violence seriously. We knew that a part of our job at Interval House was to change the widespread belief that what happened in one’s home was none of anyone else’s business, that it was acceptable for men to come home from a hard day at work and take it out on their wives and, if he was triggered by something his wife did or didn’t do, that it was somehow her fault.

[10:55 a.m.]

Attitudes have changed a lot since then. Once we as a society started paying more attention to domestic and sexual violence, we made some shocking discoveries. For example, we found out that while it can happen to anyone, women and girls are seven times more likely to face this type of violence. When we looked even closer, we found out that Indigenous women are three and a half times more likely to be impacted than non-Indigenous women. We found out that LGBTQ+ people are more than twice as likely as hetero people to face it. And three to five children in every classroom have been exposed to domestic violence.

While domestic and sexual violence may no longer be socially acceptable, the facts are clear. We as a society haven’t done enough to protect people from it.

Here’s something else that has changed since I was volunteering at Interval House in Ottawa. Then, only about 40 percent of women in domestic relationships were employed outside the home. Today, 80 percent of married women have jobs.

The good news is that paid employment can provide victims of domestic violence with a measure of economic security. They don’t have to stay in an abusive relationship in order to put a roof over their heads and food on the table for their kids. But it can make them vulnerable in other ways. For example, the most dangerous period of time for someone experiencing domestic violence is when they are escaping. That’s why it’s so important that the address of the safe house remain secret. But if the survivor is employed, their abuser can track them down at their place of work, sabotage their work relationships and even follow them back to the safe house, putting others in danger.

Survivors of domestic and sexual violence need to rebuild their lives, and having a job is a big part of that. But so are medical appointments, counselling, meetings with lawyers, going to court, finding new schools for their kids and finding a new place to live. But an employed survivor can’t attend those needs without taking time off work, and that’s why this government amended the Employment Standards Act to ensure that when a survivor comes back from court with a restraining order, they have a job to come back to. But unpaid leave results in loss of income, and for anyone starting over, living close to the edge, that loss of income can be catastrophic. It can drive them back into an abusive, dangerous relationship.

This government wants to take the next step. We have already taken steps to protect the jobs of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Now we need to look at ways to protect their income. That’s why we launched a public consultation program. We want to hear from survivors. We want to hear from those who provide support to survivors. We want to hear from those who employ survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Domestic and sexual violence has been society’s dirty little secret. We need to start talking about it. People have a right to feel safe in their own homes. Together, we can find more ways to protect them.

M. Morris: This has been a topic, of domestic violence and sexual violence with children and women and others…. There are all kinds of examples of sexual violence against men as well. It has been the scourge of society for thousands of years.

I recall, back in my early days as a police constable, the majority of my files as a young general duty constable were dealing with domestic disputes on a daily basis and, all too often, sexual disputes as well, or sexual assaults involving young children and young women. Particularly in the small communities back in the early ’70s, there weren’t too many resources available to police officers to try and find the help that was necessary to help these people find a safe spot.

The previous speaker talked about a safe home in Ottawa. We do have dozens of safe homes in British Columbia, right across the province here, and there are more being added all the time. But that’s only come in the last, probably, 20 years or so, particularly in the small communities.

[11:00 a.m.]

As a young constable, as an example — and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one — we used to go around the community ourselves and find places where we could place people who were in those kinds of situations where they needed to get away and hide for a bit and wait until things settled down.

The other part of it was that because there were no resources available, the police themselves acted as a counsellor, acted as a mediator, acted as a source for alternate dispute resolutions to try and figure out whether they can get back together in a safe way or not. Charges were laid in many of those cases that went forward to Crown counsel. Policies changed with Crown counsel, as well, so that charges had to be laid in the majority of those cases.

In every respect, the police officers in the small communities and large communities were following up often. If we’d see the victim on the street with her children, we would stop and talk to them, find out how things were going and ensure that they were safe and had the opportunity and knew where they could go in order to maintain a safe environment to stay in.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

A lot of our missing and murdered women, unfortunately, started off in rural British Columbia, in small First Nations communities up and down the coast and were subjected to all kinds of sexual and domestic violence. They migrated into the centres to try and get away from that and to try and find the support services that would be available in the larger centres and, unfortunately, succumbed to alcohol and drugs and prostitution and some of those other scourges that affect victims of domestic violence in small communities.

I think we’ve come a significant way forward over the last 30 years in this province in providing the resources necessary for the victims of these types of offences to recoup from — and for the police to follow through with charges on individuals and put them through the court system. The law has changed quite significantly there too.

One of the things that I was very happy to see when we were in government: the proceeds-of-crime office seized a lot of money involved in crime in British Columbia, and we offered it to the different groups throughout the province on an annual basis. Any group that would be dealing with violence against women, sexual assaults and those types of things, would be eligible to apply for a lot of the grants that were available to provide the services and the counselling to support the victims of these kinds of crimes.

There are over 240 violence-against-women counselling and outreach services across the province here, and I think that’s significant. And there are over 160 police-based, community-based and victim services programs throughout the province, as well, offering a host of different support services for victims within that milieu.

One of the things, though, that is disturbing…. The Northern John Howard Society of B.C. brought together a program here about 20 years ago or so. It’s the STOP program, Stop Taking It Out on your Partner program, which was very effective. For some reason, they lost funding for this particular program for this year, and they haven’t been able to offer it. But this is one of the most effective programs that we’ve had in northern British Columbia, and it was copied throughout other jurisdictions, as well, in order to reduce the amount of recidivism of men abusing and assaulting their spouses.

This is something that needs to be taken a look at again, but everything helps.

J. Routledge: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for engaging in this important topic. I really appreciate him drawing on his experience as a police officer in being part of a support network for people who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. He adds an important perspective and an important sense of history of this issue. And I really appreciate that this is something that, essentially, we can agree upon, on both sides of the aisle, about how far we’ve come but how far we have yet to go.

[11:05 a.m.]

Turning to unpaid leave, the question of turning it into paid leave is a big step, and it’s a big question. I expect that there will be some controversy about that. So I would like to take a moment and talk about what some of the arguments against paid domestic- and sexual-violence leave might be.

One that comes to mind, that we’re likely to hear, is the issue of: how do we know for sure that an employee has actually been a victim of domestic or sexual violence? I am so glad that the member opposite didn’t raise that question themselves, because, you know, to question whether or not someone has been a victim of that kind of violence in a sense re-victimizes the person. In this age of Me Too, we know just how devastating it is to always to have to explain oneself and always have to make the case that they were victims.

Now, I firmly believe that one should not have to be airing one’s very private, very devastating experiences to the employer in order to get that kind of leave. But I also…. In talking to some of the people in my community who are advocates for people who have experienced domestic and sexual violence, they would be open to an advocate or a counsellor from a safe house to speak on the person’s behalf and basically verify that they have in fact come there and that they are in fact in the system.

We can’t wait until it’s been heard in court because that’s the whole point of the leave — to be able to go to court. But I also think that if the employer is entitled to that kind of information, the employer also needs to be obligated to maintain strict confidentiality.

I see the red light is on.

I want to conclude by thanking the people who have come forward to make a case. I want to thank those who have supported them, and I want to thank everyone here for listening so carefully to this. Together, we can make a change.

Hon. C. James: I ask leave to make a quick introduction before I put the motion forward.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. James: Thank you very much, Members.

The group just left, but I wanted to make sure that we introduced a group of students who were here from Central Middle School, my old high school, just down the road from the Legislature. Teacher Jessica Bambrough, 26 grade 6s and four adults were with them. I thank the House for the opportunity to introduce them.

With that, I’d like to ask the House to please consider proceeding with Motion 15, standing in the name of the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 15 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 15 — RIGHT TO WEAR RELIGIOUS
AND CULTURAL SYMBOLS IN WORKPLACE

J. Johal: I’d first like to say that it’s a privilege to rise in the House today to put this motion forward.

In light of recent actions by other Legislative Assemblies in Canada, I feel it’s important that we solidify our commitment to inclusion, acceptance and the freedom of expression that has been granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and extended….

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you be able to make the move?

J. Johal: Sorry. My apologies. I would like to move the motion:

[Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.]

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

J. Johal: As I was saying, I feel it’s important that we solidify our commitment to inclusion, acceptance and the freedom of expression that is granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and extended to all Canadians.

Here in this country, we’re rooted in heritage, culture, family and community, regardless of our background or placement in society. A part of that sense of community, for many, comes from associations with religion and with that traditional iconography and attire. A turban is a symbol of pride. A hijab is a symbol of pride. First Nations dress is a symbol of pride. A cross is a symbol of pride, as are all other religious or cultural symbols that honour and celebrate one’s connection to community.

[11:10 a.m.]

You can ask any member of this chamber about their monthly schedule, and there’s not one member who has not visited a place of worship or attended cultural festivals or cultural institutions. Each of these visits is a reminder of the incredible diversity of our province and its people. This diversity and sense of inclusion should not be taken for granted.

On Thursday, I was invited by Richmond Jewish School during a community celebration. It was heartwarming to see so many children immersed in their faith and in their culture. Many of them wore a kippah, the traditional cap worn by many practising Jews. It was a day of celebration. There were many people of different faiths attending that day. This, at the core, is what makes our community and country strong. We are collectively saying, “You belong,” and that’s what’s important here.

It’s important that this House affirms the right of individuals to wear religious symbols. I think back to the events on Thursday that I attended, and I wonder: what messages do we send to our children when we talk about Bill 21? You know, at its core, we want to tell people: “You are a part of our community.”

I look back to my own parents’ history here in this country. Both are orthodox Sikhs. It was a different time. We should know better today, and that, I think, is the conversation we need to be having.

Legislation like Bill 21 in Quebec serves as an affront to these symbols of pride, fosters the flames of difference and prevents us from rejoicing in our similarities and common connections. The notion of the bill is clear, and it overwhelmingly discriminates against minorities and people of colour. Bill 21 bans public employees, including teachers, judges and police officers, from wearing symbols of faith.

It is not only a violation of freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights; it also takes Canadians backward in terms of women’s rights and the rights of minorities, undermining the very purpose of the Charter.

In a statement regarding Bill 21, the United Church says the law “sows division instead of weaving a stronger social fabric.” It goes on to state: “After more than 50 years as a clearly secular state, we wonder why the Quebec government now fears the personal religious expression of individuals who represent the state. Why would someone receiving services from our public institutions consider an employee wearing a religious symbol to be promoting their religion and therefore unable to carry out their duties in a professional manner?”

Expression of one’s culture in the workplace, as long as it’s not rooted in hate and prejudice, should be supported, not suppressed. We don’t celebrate sameness in this country; we celebrate diversity.

Given the political climate in the United States and the simmering tensions being stoked during our own federal election, as we’ve seen in the last six weeks or so, there’s no better time to cement our resolve in this House. We may differ in our political leanings and personal choice, but I know in my heart that in this room we have a common goal, which is creating the best B.C. that we can, and a part of that is nurturing acceptance and diversity.

Ultimately, the motion today speaks about belonging, and I hope that in the spirit of that, you will give us support to this motion.

I thank you for my time.

R. Kahlon: It’s my privilege and honour to stand today in the House and speak in favour of this motion: “Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.” I want to thank the member for Richmond-Queensborough for bringing this motion forward.

I can’t believe we’re in 2019 and we’re still talking about this topic. I think we should take a moment and reflect on the progress that we’ve made as a society. Today is election day, and people are, hopefully, getting to polling stations, voting and having their democratic rights, a franchised vote, be made so they can have their elected officials represent them in this place.

We think about the right of just the vote. In 1940, South Asian people, Japanese people or Canadians of Japanese descent, Doukhobor, Mennonites were told they could not vote. Yet over time, we saw progress in our society, and people came to realize that that’s not right. We made progress. First Nations were able to get their votes, unbelievably in the ’50s.

[11:15 a.m.]

I reflected this morning, when I was thinking of this motion, on Baltej Dhillon, a South Asian Sikh man who was the first to wear a turban in the RCMP, and all the trials and tribulations he had to go through to have that right. When he first joined the force, there were people within the RCMP that told him they would not want to be his partners. There were people within the RCMP that were starting petitions to say: “We don’t want him to serve.” There was a Calgary businessman who started a petition in the community and had pins made of a person with a turban in an RCMP uniform and a cross across it. These are the things that he had to go through.

When I see what’s happening in Quebec, when I see Bill 21 presented, I think of all those historical wrongs that we in this Legislature have seen people apologize for and that we’ve seen, in the federal parliament, people apologizing for. It is my belief, and it is my hope, that one day my child or my grandchild will be able to see an apology in the Quebec chamber on Bill 21, where people will recognize that this is historically wrong. Given the context of our society, the things that we’ve done and the progress we’ve made, for us to go backwards in a province in Canada…. I want them to one day be able to say that the chamber here stood unanimously together to oppose the moves of Bill 21.

I think it’ll be a moment of pride for everyone here to be able to say that. I appreciate there are lots of conversations happening about jurisdictions. And yes, Quebec can do their thing. But here we’re unanimous in our support. You know, change comes from within. We must continue to make progress. We must continue to do things.

I’m really grateful to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for identifying changes that we need to make within our own rules to make this place more inclusive. I know that the Speaker would allow someone wearing a turban or others to speak in this place, but the rules still preclude it. So to see that change is an important step. To see this motion brought together and supported by members of both sides of the House is a very important step.

I’ll just say, in closing, that we have a lot of work to do, as a society, to move this conversation along, to make sure that we provide a more inclusive and more welcoming Legislature. We make it more welcoming in our politics. We make it more welcoming in every opportunity of representation. Whether it be boards, whether it be positions of power, we must make that space.

My hope is that this motion sends a message to everyone in B.C. that we stand united here in opposing Bill 21, and we stand here united in wanting a better place for ourselves, for our families, for our kids and for the next generation.

M. Hunt: It’s my privilege to be able to stand and speak to the resolution: “Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.”

I’m grateful to be able to speak to this motion because we’re debating a fundamental right of Canadians and the interpretation of one of the very freedoms that defines this as our nation. We’re talking about the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression, values that bring many people to Canada in the first place.

My ancestors left England 400 years ago seeking religious freedom. First they went to the Netherlands and eventually found their way to North America in the 1620s. Now, the advance party arrived on the Mayflower in 1620, but half of them died that first winter. The First Nations taught us how to live off the land and how to survive in this area. My ancestors left their homes, braved the new land for the freedoms — freedoms like religious expression.

It’s disappointing to see Canadians today being denied these freedoms — freedoms that make Canada the best country in the world to live. When the Coalition Avenir Québec passed Bill 21, they targeted judges, police officers, teachers and those working in the public sector — those who often are the very face of our national identity.

By removing their freedom of religious expression while performing their duties as public servants, the National Assembly of Quebec has sent a message to the rest of Canada and to the world that there is no place for freedom of expression in our national identity. But we know that this is not the case.

[11:20 a.m.]

Freedom of religion and expression are grounded in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 2, which includes the freedom of conscience and religion; the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. This is not the freedom from religion nor the freedom of one religious belief to dominate the others. If my family, which arrived 400 years ago…. Countless families since then have immigrated to Canada to enjoy that religious freedom. How can we deny that same freedom to those who come today?

We’re beginning to see cases like Amrit Kaur, a Sikh teacher in Quebec, who recently moved to British Columbia just so that she can wear her turban. Amrit felt that in order for her to pursue her passion for her career and to enjoy her religious freedom, she needed to leave her home in Quebec and work in schools here in British Columbia. How can a teacher teach inclusion to our children when they have to hide their religious identity? How can police officers promote justice when they feel discriminated against?

It is our job, as elected representatives here in British Columbia, to use our voices to speak up for our fellow Canadians who are facing discrimination and oppression here in our own country. All of us here in the House can certainly exercise our differences of opinion, and we do it regularly. We can also celebrate the differences we have — differences of religion, culture and identity.

I’m proud to be from Surrey. As the member for Richmond-Queensborough who put forward this resolution, yes, I go to many cultural events in my city where many individuals wear their religious symbols each and every day. Some wear crosses; some wear turbans and kirpans. We all celebrate where we’ve come from and who we are. I strongly support the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace, and I encourage every member of this House to do the same.

M. Dean: Thank you to the member for this motion. Of course, we must affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace. No one deserves to be discriminated against in the workplace due to their religion or their culture, and we must stand up to protect diversity throughout our province.

For example, our government was the first to notice the discriminatory nature of Standing Order 36. We took action to ensure that the rights of MLAs to wear religious and cultural head wear in the House are clear and indisputable, because we know that the Legislature must be a welcoming place for all people. We thank the Speaker and other parties represented in this House for helping to pass this motion unanimously.

The concern was initially voiced by my colleague the member representing Surrey–Green Timbers that if a Member of the Legislative Assembly wore a turban, a kippah, a head scarf, Indigenous headdress or any other traditional or spiritual symbol, it wasn’t certain that they would be permitted to speak in chambers. Leaving issues of personal identity to interpretation or popular precedents makes those protections by definition precarious. That wasn’t good enough, so she made a motion to change the standing order.

Making this change ensures that the Legislature remains a safe and a welcoming space for all Canadians. This is especially important at a time when we are seeing alarmingly frequent expressions of hate and racism. Our Legislature must be a reflection of the great diversity of our wonderful province. As legislators, we’re in a position to ensure that our systems are supportive of everyone in our province. This includes modernizing our own procedures to break down barriers, like this amendment to the standing orders.

Our government is working hard to get results for all people. Part of that is making sure that our public institutions and workplaces are just and non-discriminatory and that people are defended if their human rights are threatened. That’s why we’ve done a number of things to combat religious and racial oppression in B.C., including re-establishing the Human Rights Commission. We believe that every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. The UN’s universal declaration of human rights was ratified over 70 years ago, yet B.C.’s Human Rights Commission was disbanded in 2003.

[11:25 a.m.]

In 2017, our government consulted with British Columbians on human rights, and we got a very clear response from our communities. Now B.C. is no longer the only province without a human rights commission. By re-establishing a human rights commission, we are creating a more inclusive and just society for us all.

The commissioner is responsible for promoting and protecting human rights in British Columbia, with the key function to educate people on human rights and to reduce and eliminate discriminatory practices, particularly issues of systemic discrimination — systemic discrimination like the potential of Standing Order 36, systemic discrimination like we’ve seen as a result of colonization that needs to be addressed through implementing the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Our government is making reconciliation a cross-government priority by mandating all ministries to fully adopt and implement the United Nations declaration and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We’re co-developing legislation with B.C. First Nations to establish the United Nations declaration as the framework for reconciliation in B.C.

The missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls are also a priority. I attended the final workshop, held by Elaine Alec. I felt the power of the work that she guided. That’s going to provide a foundation for our work moving forward.

This is important work. We must break down the systemic barriers and call out the hate and racism in our communities. We all have a role to play. If we’re not taking action, then we are part of the systemic collusion.

Again, I thank my colleagues for all of their work in tackling discrimination and oppression and call everybody to action.

B. Stewart: I know it’s a little far forgotten place in British Columbia, but anyways, we’re very proud of the diversity that we have in our community, and that’s what I’m here to address today. I just want to make certain that this House knows that I unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.

The idea of denying one’s freedom to manifest their religion and culture is toxic. This motion needs to serve as a reminder that multiculturalism is a way of life in British Columbia and in Canada. We often talk about respecting other people. How about we start with tolerance, the willingness to accept that something different has the right to exist. By something different, I mean behaviours and beliefs different from your own and whether you agree with them or not.

As a former Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism in 2009 and 2010 — that was during the Olympic period — I had the wonderful experience of not only meeting with hundreds of ethnic groups that were here in British Columbia from all around the world, but the reality is that I discovered how diverse British Columbia was. Even I was surprised by the things that were taking place in British Columbia.

We’re all fortunate to live in British Columbia, the most ethnically diverse province in Canada and one that has attracted newcomers from around the world. About 25 percent of British Columbia’s population are visible minorities, and another 5 percent are Indigenous.

Multiculturalism is also what makes our province unique and strong. Because of Canada’s Pacific gateway strategy, we face many different cultures.

In October of 2013, I had the privilege of being appointed as British Columbia’s special representative in Asia to further strengthen British Columbia’s government-to-government relations in China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia. My goodness, a huge marketplace, divergent ethnicities, and the reality is that we need to make certain that we understand those and be tolerant.

During the 3½ years of this assignment, I had the opportunity to meet with many local officials to promote and attract investment to British Columbia and to witness trade being an important driver of economic growth in British Columbia. Our strength, therefore, lies in acceptance and cooperation between the many people who call this province home.

[11:30 a.m.]

That is why it is all the more important to talk about affirming the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace. Dress codes are a reflection of the work culture, and they change with time. The Legislative Assembly here in British Columbia recently reviewed its 40-year-old dress code to bring it up to date.

When we think about today’s world of increasing populism and its potential impact on minorities and religious rights, discrimination demeans us all. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Everyone has the right of religion. Everyone has the freedom and belief and expression of wearing religious and cultural symbols as one of the ways that we express ourselves. That’s the foundation of Canada’s free and democratic society. The government has the responsibility to ensure that individuals are able to observe their religion.

You might remember the controversy that several Euro­pean countries — including France, Belgium and Denmark — restricted religious symbols in public, such as face veils worn by Muslim women. Canada is not immune to this intolerance. Just in this last June, Quebec passed Bill 21, banning public servants from wearing religious symbols. That was a dark day in this country’s history. It sends the wrong message to students when their teachers are not allowed to exercise their religious rights and freedoms. It does not unite us. It divides us in the form of a cultural war.

It’s up to every one of us to uphold Canadian values and guard against hatred based on race and place of origin. Here in British Columbia, it has not always been the multicultural land that it is today. Discriminatory policies towards the Japanese, Chinese, Irish, First Nations, Punjabis, are just a few examples of how minorities were treated in this province. We as a province have apologized for historical wrongdoings, but that’s far from enough.

Every British Columbian deserves the right to honour their heritage and celebrate who they are. We legislators should not legitimize discrimination against people based on religion or culture. It’s okay for people to look different. It’s okay for people to speak differently. It’s also okay for people to dress differently.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak in favour of the motion, “Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace,” moved by the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

I’m very pleased to rise and hear remarks from all members of the House in favour of this motion. I think it shows a united front and a real commitment that we have as legislators in British Columbia to stand and uphold human rights for all British Columbians. So I’m very pleased to rise and speak.

We’ve seen, across the globe, the rise of nationalist, far-right, racist movements really sweeping Europe, even in terms of seeing acceptance with respect to citizens of those countries electing representatives in their legislatures. We’ve seen, as well, the rise in the United States of the alt-right, the alternative right, movement, characterized by white supremacy, anti-Semitism and a severe restriction on immigration, with just terrible stories of children being detained at the border.

While that was happening, Canadians, I think, felt a little bit removed from that. But certainly, in terms of the global context, we are also seeing that in our country and in our province. It’s expressed, as well, electorally, in our election, around really giving mainstream voice to these issues — not explicitly, but certainly around severe immigration restriction. In Vancouver-Kensington, as well, I’ve heard instances around racism and criticism against refugees. So certainly, racism is alive and well, and there’s a need for our government and all elected representatives to take a strong stand against this.

I think we need to go beyond the issue of tolerance. It’s not a matter of tolerating somebody’s difference. I think we have to look deeply and really value and respect folks. That also talks to a real change in attitude and a real transformation of our system.

[11:35 a.m.]

Our government has recognized the need to take steps to address religious freedom and also respect different cultures here. Certainly, no one deserves to be discriminated in the workplace due to their religion or culture, and we must stand up to protect diversity throughout our province. Our government was the first to notice the discriminatory nature of Standing Order 36 and took action to ensure that the rights of MLAs to wear religious and cultural headgear in the House are clear and indisputable, of course, because we know that Legislature and government must be a welcoming place for people.

I also thank all parties in the House as well as the Speaker for helping to pass this motion unanimously. It was led by an initiative from the MLA for Surrey–Green Timbers, who wrote a letter to the Speaker and also moved a motion that was approved unanimously to Standing Order 36. It now states: “Every member desiring to speak shall do so from their assigned place and address the Speaker.” The change removes a former reference that required members to be uncovered when addressing the Chair.

As well, our government has undertaken…. It’s not only changing laws; it’s changing attitudes, engaging folks in that process. A key component of that, which really contributed, was publicly engaging British Columbians on needed changes for human rights protection in our province. The parliamentary secretary from North Delta tabled a report in 2017, A Human Rights Commission for the 21st Century: British Columbians Talk About Human Rights, about needed changes in human rights protection. We also re-established a new human rights commission. We’re making reconciliation across government a priority, and we are also to implement UNDRIP throughout all ministries, so a comprehensive, systemic approach.

A number of the initiatives and tools that we have in the Legislature with respect to our human rights code, our Human Rights Tribunal, re-establishing the Human Rights Commission…. My former colleagues have mentioned that it was disbanded in 2003. We’re taking a proactive effort to ensure that education is an important component of addressing human rights and discrimination and, really, be forward-looking to engage British Columbians.

The new Human Rights Commissioner mandate is to promote and protect human rights in British Columbia. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

J. Tegart: I’d like to thank the member for Richmond-Queensborough for bringing this forward today and giving members of our Legislative Assembly the chance to clearly and unanimously support this motion and to speak to our commitment to accepting expression and inclusion. I would also like to speak out against the decisions made by the legislators in Quebec.

All of us in here know how much work goes into passing legislation from concept to implementation. It’s a hands-on exercise that promotes conversation and reflection with a variety of inputs from staff and stakeholders. Dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of policy work goes into a bill before it gets to the floor of the House. In light of Quebec’s Bill 21, I find it unbelievable that policy-makers would spend their time discussing, debating and eventually passing legislation that only serves to degrade society and, by its own nature, primarily impacts minorities. There is no inherent upside to this type of legislation, so I don’t understand how it can be supported.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear about the freedoms that we all share. The most connected to this motion is the right to the freedom of expression. Religious symbolism is expression — expression that, devoid of hate and exclusion, of course, should always be free. Turbans, hijabs, crucifixes or any other religious symbol, for that matter, do not pose a threat to our society or to our personal safety.

[11:40 a.m.]

How one chooses to express themselves should not be an issue for the policy-makers of Quebec to regulate and pass judgment on. To me, the message of Bill 21 is: “If you express your religious beliefs, you are wrong. Your beliefs are wrong. Your heritage is wrong. Your expression is wrong.”

Bill 21 will be damaging to Quebec. It will create rifts and erode relationships. I’m saddened that the residents of that province have to bear the weight of that decision, and I implore this House to reaffirm our commitment to tolerance.

Diversity is a blessing in all of our lives. It excites and challenges and creates community. Diversity also brings life to our democratic institutions and to this room. This motion helps reinforce that. In all things that we work on in this House, I agree that inclusion and acceptance are the path forward. Celebrating how we are different is the only way to reflect how we are all so similar.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this motion today. It is an important issue throughout the country as we go to vote today.

G. Begg: Thank you to this House for this motion: “Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.”

It is, I believe, a basic tenet of human rights that all persons have the inherent right to be treated with dignity and respect. That is a universal declaration: all persons have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. It follows, therefore, I believe, that no one should be discriminated against in the workplace due to their religion or culture, because to do so would not be dignified and respectful treatment.

I’m reminded today of the terrible attack just about exactly a year ago at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh — a unique house of worship where three separate and distinct Jewish congregations meet in three separate sanctuaries all under one common roof. A gunman opened fire, and 11 congregants from all three congregations were killed.

Today in the United States, the Anti-Defamation League will release new figures indicating that the number of incidents against Jews and Jewish targets in the United States reached 780 just in the first half of this year. At least a dozen white supremacists have been arrested for such shootings, plots and threats since the deadliest anti-Semitic attack in U.S. history at the Tree of Life.

We all now live in perilous times. The ugly face of bigotry is appearing more frequently every day, and minority groups are becoming increasingly targeted. So what does all of that have to do with us in this House? We are in the people’s House. We are leaders, and leaders must lead. That is why it’s so important for all of us to do all we can to promote diversity and inclusiveness at every level.

I am pleased that our government was the first to notice the discriminatory nature of Standing Order 36 and took action to ensure that the rights of MLAs to wear religious and cultural headgear in the House are indisputable because we know that this House must be a welcoming place for all people. We thank the other parties represented here, as well as the Speaker, for helping this motion pass unanimously. I salute and applaud the member from Green Timbers for bringing this to the attention of the House.

I am pleased, as well, that our government is working hard to get results for all people. Part of that is simply making sure that our public institutions and workplaces are just, non-discriminatory and that people are defended if their human rights are threatened. That’s why we’ve done a number of things to combat religious and racial oppression in this province, including engaging British Columbians on needed changes for human rights protection in our province and to re-establish a new human rights commission.

[11:45 a.m.]

We’re making reconciliation an across-government priority by mandating all ministries fully adopt and implement UNDRIP and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We’re also co-developing legislation with B.C. First Nations to establish UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation in all of B.C.

Proudly, B.C. is no longer the only province without a human rights commission. By re-establishing that, we’re doing our best to create a more inclusive and just society. I’m very proud to be a part of a government, here in B.C., that is at the forefront of all of Canada in ensuring that all persons are treated with dignity and respect.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of the motion to this House, unanimously affirming the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.

I believe that it is vital for all members of this House to take a united stance against intolerance and discrimination. On a national scale, Canada is known as a cultural mosaic, and I’m privileged enough to see evidence of that every day, both in my riding and throughout British Columbia. Unfortunately, though, there are still persistent dissenting voices that try to disrupt the peaceful coexistence of our cultural mosaic. These voices strive to divide people based on difference, rather than unity.

It is saddening to see that even in this modern age of technology, where the world is getting smaller, and we’re all able to see glimpses of other people’s lives and cultures, there still are people who choose to stand divided.

We all love. We all hurt. We all laugh. And we all feel pain. We are more the same than we are different. In these times of uncertainty, we need to stand together, not apart.

Somehow history is repeating itself though, allowing intolerance in our society to remain prevalent. An alarming amount of hate speech is firing out of the mouths of public figures, off of an anonymous keyboard or a phone and being spat in people’s faces. Equally troubling is the sheer volume of personal insults, bullying and threats spouted over social media by so-called partisan trolls, often paid for directly or indirectly by those who profess to want to represent you, and I say that in reference to the election today.

As the critic for Mental Health and Addictions, I feel that it is important to also highlight the toll bullying and divisiveness can take on a person’s mental health. Bullying of any kind, especially when pertaining to one’s livelihood, is incredibly stressful and can result in serious mental health ramifications. When anxiety becomes crippling for someone, it can be very difficult to navigate a path towards mental wellness.

It’s Anti-Bullying Week and Bullying Prevention Month. Tad Milmine, an anti-bullying advocate who founded Bullying Ends Here, started his Canada-wide Kindness Tour last week, bringing this Kindness Tour to schools and parents. “Where are the adults monitoring their children’s behaviour online?” he asks. Kids don’t start out as bullies — and I might add, as racists. They learn it from somewhere, and sometimes they learn it at home.

We all deserve to feel well and to thrive and have positive mental health. One strategy recommended by the Canadian Mental Health Association is to help you to succeed and to embrace your culture, reflect on your heritage, embrace your uniqueness and your history.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That’s what makes it essential for our schools, communities and our workplaces to be welcoming to all religions and cultures. It not only embraces Canada’s true multicultural nature, but also improves our mental well-being. We need to stand together, person to person, neighbour to neighbour, and start making changes to ensure that we create a world in which everyone feels safe, a world where people are proud of their heritage and not afraid to showcase aspects of their culture and their religion, and that they’re proud of it.

British Columbia is made up of a diverse fabric of cultures and ethnicities which must be supported by all elected officials. It is critical to work together to ensure workplaces around this province, including the one we are standing in today, reflect the values and cultures of all who call B.C. home. I’m proud today to stand against bullying, against discrimination and against racism and to support British Columbia’s rights in the workplace.

[11:50 a.m.]

R. Singh: I feel really privileged to be standing today and talking to this motion. I really would like to thank the member for Richmond-Queensborough for bringing it up.

We all know that diversity is our biggest strength. Especially as a British Columbian, living here, being an immigrant, I know the importance and how I feel privileged to be living in a place that is so diverse.

That was the reason, Mr. Speaker, that when I first saw Standing Order 36, looking at the language, I was quite surprised that it was somehow creating barriers for the people who are representing at the people’s House. That’s why I wrote the letter and also brought the motion. I’m so thankful to you, and also to my colleagues for passing that motion unanimously.

Completely, I really want to thank everybody who spoke today, bringing the importance that we are living in a free society. We have to keep it like that. We know we are being challenged by people who want to distract us, who want to create divisions. It is important, especially sitting here in the Legislature, in the people’s House, to uphold those rights for people who are working — for them to wear their religious or cultural symbols. It is extremely important.

Personally, I would like to just recount about my father, who wears a turban. He was a professor in India. Although he never taught here, if he was teaching in any of the universities or colleges here, I would be very, very disappointed if somebody told him that he cannot work just because of what he looks like. I want those kinds of rights for everybody, for those rights to prevail, whether they’re wearing a hijab, a turban or a kippah.

We, as legislators, have to uphold that. Thank you to all of the members. Thank you to the member who brought this motion. Really, it is an honour to support it.

S. Gibson: I welcome the motion proposed by the member for Richmond-Queensborough: “Be it resolved that this House unanimously affirm the rights of an individual to wear religious and cultural symbols in the workplace.”

It’s tragic, in many ways, that we have to even speak to this here today, but it’s important that we do so in light of our heritage and who we are as British Columbians and, indeed, Canadians.

A new party elected in Quebec — their goal is to completely enforce secularity. The dark side to this bill, of course, is that it’s, in many ways, discriminatory. This is ironic because, I suppose, in the hearts of these individuals, their aspiration is to create some kind of secular state which is tolerant to the extreme, but actually, the opposite is taking place.

I think my colleagues, in particular, have spoken very well. I don’t want to repeat what they’ve said. I think it’s clear that you can’t regulate faith like this. One of the tragedies is that they want to do it in the face of government. The list, of course, is well known — teachers, police officers, judges, many others. They’re denied the opportunity to wear any kind of religious symbols at all. So we’re effectively in the situation where we’ve got a whole two-tiered system in the province of Quebec.

I would suppose that people coming to our country because of our heritage and legacy of freedoms and the fact that we’re one of the most highly regarded countries in the world…. I believe that people are going to be fearful moving to Quebec with religious beliefs. It’s tragic. I find it almost overwhelming when I think about it.

Now, I come from the Abbotsford-Mission area, and Abbotsford is well known with the nomenclature of the “Bible Belt.” But we have many other places of worship in our community, and people get along very well. They serve on committees together, on boards. There’s a great, healthy dialogue in our community.

[11:55 a.m.]

As a matter of fact, my wife and I attend a church in Abbotsford which has a history of being persecuted, a history of its members being persecuted and run out of a country as well. I count it as a privilege to be able to attend that church — my wife and my family.

There’s no doubt that this legislation in Quebec is dark. In many ways, it could be characterized as evil. It’s totally out of context with who we are as a nation. I’m so thankful that this is something that has provided a mutuality of agreement on the floor of this Legislature. Indeed, I’m very encouraged by all of the remarks made by both sides of the House from the members.

S. Gibson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.