PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — ANTI-RACISM ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 23; H. Yao in the chair.

The committee met at 1:33 p.m.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, Anti-Racism Act, to order. We are currently on clause 1.

On clause 1 (continued).

T. Wat: To continue on before the member for Vancouver-Langara is coming back to continue this question, I want to…. Still on clause 1, on the public bodies. Will the minister be involved if there are changes to the list of public bodies as defined in related acts?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. The way to add public bodies is through regulation, so it would be the minister that would be in charge of that regulation.

T. Wat: I just want to get this clear. Does the minister mean that if any public bodies under any ministry…? So it would be the minister that will add the public body into the list?

Hon. N. Sharma: The definition of public body is the same that’s used in the Anti-Racism Data Act, which is the same as used under FOIPPA. That helps to keep the consistency of what the term “public body” is across legislation. That currently includes government ministries and the Premier’s office.

The way it would work in the operation of the plan is that public bodies would be accountable to coming up with the anti-racism action plan and responding to the data act data that they’re seeing. The responsibilities of publishing and the accountability of moving forward in the act would be the responsibility of that minister of that public body.

There also is a power within the act to add public bodies, just like we did with the Anti-Racism Data Act. So over time, through regulation, the minister would be under the current Attorney General’s office — to add other public bodies under that.

T. Wat: I want to get this really clear. So it will be the Attorney General’s office, the Attorney General herself, that will decide on adding what public body into the list.

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s right.

T. Wat: Are there any criteria for the minister, for the Attorney General, to decide on which public bodies be included in the list?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Okay. This answer is best explained in the context of this legislation, this bill, being in connection with the data act.

The Anti-Racism Data Act was this legislation that, for the first time, collected race-based data and that kind of information about what the population was experiencing. In that act, there is a definition of “public body” that is used in this bill, and when we sat down with the data committee there — we have a committee that advised us — they said a few things to us pretty clearly.

One was data can do harm as well, if it’s not collected or held or used appropriately. The reason that we…. When government collects data, it has been used for negative reasons before. So what they said to us was: “What we want you to do is start collecting data on government first.” The real reason before that is you have to set the right standard, collect the right data and use it appropriately.

Also, government has a huge role in removing systemic racism from all the systems that we have — health care, education, social services. We cover a whole part of the province. So that data committee said to do it first in government.

Then this legislation or this bill is accompanying the data act. So what would happen is the expansion of public bodies would be done through the data act so that the committee there or the minister responsible would say: “We’re expanding it to this class of public bodies.” The first thing would be that they have the right procedures in place to collect data, to understand how they’re collecting data, to do it in a safe way that is under the advice of the advisory committee. You can expand it to those public bodies, and they are then, if this bill passes, accountable to all the action of removing systemic racism that comes from the data that’s collected.

It’s an example of how the two pieces of legislation work together. If the public body is expanded through regulation under the data act, it’s automatically expanded to this government accountability act. You can look at them both ways. First, you collect the data on the public bodies. You do it in a safe way, and then once you have that, you make that public body, through the data act, accountable to the actions of removing systemic racism.

T. Wat: I haven’t really reviewed in detail the Anti-Racism Data Act. There’s a list of public bodies in the Anti-Racism Data Act there, right?

Hon. N. Sharma: The definition of “public body” currently includes government ministries and the Premier’s office.

T. Wat: So it’s just government ministries and the Premier’s office, not including ICBC or the others. Why is it so?

Hon. N. Sharma: It has the power within it to expand over time to public bodies, but because this is accompanying the data act, the first step is to make sure that those public bodies are collecting data about their operations in a safe way and that we don’t make mistakes on that. If they are triggered by a regulation to then say you are accountable to both pieces of legislation, because they will come together…. The data act comes with this current bill. Once that is in place, the minister responsible, who would be the Attorney General in this case, would have the ability to, by regulation, add those public bodies to this whole accountability mechanism.

Right now because of the clear need from the people we engage that said to us, “Focus on government; focus on the work of removing systemic racism from government,” because we are, like I mentioned, so widespread across this province and we covered so many things…. And you know, there’s the In Plain Sight report. There’s real harm in some of the things that we can actually think about changing.

[1:45 p.m.]

They said to us to get it right, to focus on government first but have a power in there to be able to expand to public bodies once we create the right mechanisms for data collection, and then put the accountability together with it.

T. Wat: I understand that the anti-racism data committee has already come up with the first report, so I assume that there’s already information on the ministry as well as the Premier’s office about systemic racism.

Is there any kind of recommendation from that report? Also, when are we going to see the study within the government ministry and Premier’s office of any systemic racism within our government?

Hon. N. Sharma: They are obligated under the legislation to release it by June 1. My understanding is that, by the end of May, they will release their first round of data.

I was just informed that it goes through harm screening before it’s released because, as I mentioned, data can be used against people as well, or can be harmful, so how it’s presented and the way it shows up is going through that work with the committee. That data will be released at the end of June.

This accompanying piece of legislation holds government to account to respond to that data. If there’s systemic racism showing up in the systems of whatever government ministry through that data, then how they’re going to respond is this bill.

M. Lee: I appreciate the willingness of the member for Richmond North Centre to provide me the opportunity to jump back into the discussion on clause 1.

We’ve been talking about the scope of Bill 23, and it’s appropriate to have that discussion at the outset of this bill discussion on clause 1. The Attorney General had made a couple comments before the lunch break that I just wanted to follow on with.

The Attorney General gave the example of Black Canadians and the work to be done, including in respect of the action plan. I believe…. My understanding of what she said was that there’s more work to be done, including with the Black Canadian community, and that’s part and parcel of the work to be done on the action plan.

If I could ask, to date, given the level of consultation and the buildup towards Bill 23 with the Black Canadian community in British Columbia, what has been the focus if that is not being directly addressed in the action plan? There are no specific measures or direct specific actions being taken. What are the issues that the Attorney General has been discussing with the Black Canadian community in respect of racialized discrimination, systemic or otherwise, here in this province?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m going to step back again a little bit, because I think my comments that the member is referring to were specifically about our debate on what definitions to put in the legislation and what not to. We erred on a more broad, inclusive approach rather than listing. In the context of that, I was talking about the evolving nature of understanding of “community harm,” which is defined, and which is racism, discrimination and stigmatization. That evolves over time.

Specifically with the Black community in B.C., we commissioned a report called Black in B.C. I will note that a lot of the recommendations that were in that report are actioned — one of them, not the first, being the pretty widespread government approach to collect, for the first time, I think, in North America, race-based data in a safe way that wasn’t stigmatizing. Like I mentioned, the report is being released at the end of June.

Then the next part of it is this specific piece of legislation. It delivers on the recommendations that were in that Black in B.C. report, and the community is one of the groups that was engaged in the consultation on it. The components of how you keep government accountable to the data being released and removing systemic racism are very much a part of the work we’re doing.

There’s always more work to do, and I want to be clear that the unfortunate nature of discrimination and racism is that they change over time. Not only do we have to have the tools, which I think this bill has, and the data has to expose it when it’s happening and to hold government accountable; we also need to have the flexibility of being able to hold government accountable through the changing waves and forms of racism and discrimination that exist in society in general. That’s the balance that we’re striking.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General. Just as the Attorney General refers to the Black in B.C. report, we did have a discussion before, about other racialized communities and ethnocultural communities in British Columbia. Are there other reports that also fed into the work of Bill 23 and that focus on other specific racialized communities and other ethnocultural communities?

Hon. N. Sharma: This, along with the accompanying piece of legislation, has had extensive consultations and input from communities. It started with ARDA, the Anti-Racism Data Act, where 13,000 people were engaged and fed into the construction of that work, from communities across the province.

[1:55 p.m.]

In this particular one, there were 7,000 that fed into it. I talked about the engagements that we specifically gave to community groups to help that engagement, and the open online forum where people were able to feed information on the specific Indigenous engagement.

There are actually an extensive number of reports that feed into the work that we’re doing today on systemic racism. I mean, it would be hard to list all of them, but we did an UNDRIP analysis of this, a Declaration Act plan, the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, In Plain Sight, the grandmother report, the Human Rights Commissioner’s From Hate to Hope analysis. And our policy team would have looked at other jurisdictions and their work on responding to systemic racism and how that shows up, along with various — probably many — policy reports on how to approach systemic racism in government.

It’s a pretty extensive project that led to the construction of this bill.

M. Lee: I didn’t hear the Attorney General identify any other racialized or ethnocultural communities other than Indigenous peoples. Certainly, we recognize the importance of that work, the body of work that included the In Plain Sight report, as I mentioned in my comments earlier on this bill.

But the Attorney General can clarify if there are any other racialized or ethnocultural communities, like the Black-Canadian community in British Columbia, that had a particular focus on the buildup to this bill by nature of a report.

I certainly recognize what the Attorney General referred to in terms of looking at other jurisdictions, the body of work that was done to get to the anti-racism data legislation, the work of the anti-racism data committee, of community leaders in our province that have worked to advise this government through that process, and the ongoing work, including their priorities that they’ve set out to government, for example, of having an independent review done of the government’s own approach to systemic racism. I’ll come back to that, if I get the oppor­tunity to do so.

I wanted to continue on the discussion around Black Canadians. Of course, Mr. Chair, as you well know, the former ADM Angela Cooke, who was brought in by this government to deal with the anti-racism data legislation, did tremendous work. I remember meeting her, like so many members of our Legislative Assembly, when she first joined the province of British Columbia to assume this leadership role.

The work she did under her leadership is the foundational work. We owe her a lot of credit and appreciation for the work that she did in this province of British Columbia to assist this government to progress certainly the anti-racism data legislation, which is the foundational element for Bill 23.

We know today…. Ms. Cooke, prior to coming to British Columbia, had drawn upon her leading work in the U.K. as well. Today, as I understand it, she has now returned back to the province of Ontario and is an assis­tant deputy minister, ADM, in Ontario.

We know, as well, that under former ADM Cooke’s leadership, the anti-racism secretariat and group that the current ADM now leads was also led by three other Black Canadians, as I understand it. All four of these individuals who are Black Canadians are no longer there. They didn’t get the opportunity to complete the work, the foundational pieces of work that they were doing with this government.

I would like to ask the Attorney General: is there some indication of something else that has been systemic in the way this government proceeded with the change in leadership on the anti-racism effort by this government, when we have four Black Canadians who weren’t given the opportunity to complete the work they were able to do?

Hon. N. Sharma: Frankly, I think that’s a highly irrele­vant question that deals with very personal HR issues that I’m not going to address in this House. I think there is a borderline of an accusation there that I would say is appalling to bring up during this committee stage.

I’ll just leave it at that.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: This bill is the Anti-Racism Act. It deals with systemic racism.

You know, we’re in the official opposition. All we can do is raise questions. We’re not government. We hope to be someday soon. But when we see on the surface what is happening with this government, under their leadership, under this Premier’s watch, I think we have the right to question what happened there. Why was there a change in leadership?

As I understand it, we had Angela Cooke, an ADM who is a Black Canadian. We had under her leadership three senior directors, who were all Black. None of them are there anymore. They didn’t even get to complete the project, as I mentioned. Where did they go? What happened with them? Why were they transitioned out, if that’s what happened? I think it’s important to understand exactly what is going on with this government when we see, on the surface at least, that change in leadership in the course of this work.

I appreciate that the Attorney General has given her response, but I do think that it’s an appropriate question for us to be asking. To the extent that the government is not prepared to address that question, I think it raises a question about how is this government dealing with systemic racism under their watch, within their own government, within their own secretariat, dealing with anti-racism, under the responsibility of this Attorney General and this Premier?

If the Attorney General does not want to engage in this discussion, I think it just leaves that question sitting there. I think it’s an appropriate question to be asking, and I think it’s an appropriate question for this government to address, but if the Attorney General does not want to address that question, I’ll move on to something else.

I will say that in respect of the current ADM….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, the member for Vancouver-Lan­gara has the floor.

M. Lee: I think the House Leader of the Third Party is inviting me to sit down and see if the Attorney General has any further response to what I’ve said.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Okay. Well, I’m happy to….

The Chair: Members, thank you.

Thank you, Member for Vancouver-Langara. I appre­ciate it.

Attorney General, it’s your decision now as to whether you want to answer that question.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m debating whether to even stand up at what the member opposite said, but I would invite him to look over at this table at the group of people that I’m standing beside and that are doing the work of anti-racism in this government and withdraw that question.

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, I see no need to withdraw the question.

I think if you look on this side of the table, you see the member for Richmond North Centre and myself. We are racialized British Columbians, like the three individuals that the minister is referring to. You are a racialized British Columbian as well. We don’t have…. If we’re going to play the race card, so to speak, let’s have that discussion.

This is an appropriate question to be asking this government, so I’m not withdrawing that question. I can go on to the next question if you wish.

The Chair: Member, if you don’t mind, can you move on to the next question, please?

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In respect of the current ADM, who’s sitting next to the Attorney General, we know that the former member of the cabinet, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and the former Minister of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, has referred, in her letter, to some concerns and considerations relating to the ADM herself and comments and statements that have been made. I say this also in the context of what I encountered yesterday in the House — in response, again, to safety of students, faculty and staff on university and college campuses.

I would say we’re dealing with the word “antisemitism” in this bill — seeing a lack of definition of that in this bill but the utilization of that term in clause 4, as we come to it — but I’m still focused on clause 1, for the fact that there is no definition of antisemitism, even though there is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which has been there since 2016. That work has continued over 20 years.

[2:05 p.m.]

I would ask the Attorney General…. We have an ADM here, in this process, who has been very clear in her social media messages relating to the fact, she has said, that criticizing Israel is not being anti-Jewish — I repeat, it is not antisemitism — and it’s called being critical of oppression, #bdsmovement.

This is an example. I know that others have said, including the official opposition, that basically…. I think — in these social media posts that were put out less than three years ago, in May of 2021 — that effectively, the current ADM was saying that it was the Jewish community that caused her to lose her dream job.

Interjections.

M. Lee: So I will say, when we’re talking about antisemitism in the context of this bill, Bill 23…. How is it that we have an ADM with those viewpoints advising this government to deal with antisemitism, and she has that view? Is the Attorney General not concerned that her chief adviser has those views, which are antisemitic in nature?

The Chair: Sorry, Member. If you don’t mind, just help me appreciate how your question relates to the bill itself.

Interjection.

M. Lee: In Bill 23, Mr. Chair, the term “antisemitism” is utilized. There’s an acknowledgment by government in clause 4 of the bill: “…actions to be taken by public bodies toward addressing the harms of systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism.” It’s spelled out under subclause 4(1)(b) of the bill itself. This relates to the action plan that we’ve been talking about at the committee stage here on this bill.

I am in clause 1 of the bill, and I have been asking the Attorney General: why is it that Indigenous peoples are defined but no other peoples, like Muslim peoples or Jewish peoples? She gave a response. We will have more discussion about that.

Secondly, as I’m about to come onto here, the government clearly has some focus and some acknowledgment that the systemic action plan that it has framed out in clause 4 needs to be specifically addressed to Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism.

This is a topic that I know well, as the MLA for Vancouver-Langara. I am using the opportunity now to ask about it. In the context of how this bill was developed, in the context of the work that’s been done, in the context that there is no definition of “antisemitism” in this bill…. Really, as I get further in this discussion, the point that I’m making is, how do you address something if you can’t define it? If this government is not willing to define it, how do you address it?

That’s why, in clause 1, I would continue to discuss with the Attorney General the necessity of having a definition of “antisemitism.” Before we go there, I’m questioning as to how we got here in the first place — the fact that there is no definition, in the first place, in the bill that’s being presented here.

I’m trying to understand how it is that the Attorney General can be advised by a person, who is the ADM currently and who in the past has had a very unclear understanding of antisemitism — which is the reason why we need the IHRA definition, just like I said in the House, in response to the member for Richmond-Queensborough, yesterday.

I’m using these as examples, but I’m also questioning the Attorney General because of the reliance that the Attorney General has, presumably, on the ADM. In the work that has been done, I have talked about my concerns about the status of the former ADM, Angela Cooke. We’ve gone there; we’ve had that exchange. Now I’m talking about the current ADM. That’s the reason why I think it’s important to understand, as we go further to understand Bill 23.

A. Olsen: I want to switch gears here a little bit.

I think there were questions earlier on around the definition of “systemic racism” and how it doesn’t exist in this bill. Then there were questions as to why there are definitions around Indigenous people, and why there might not be definitions for other people.

[2:10 p.m.]

I want to maybe put the conversation in a certain context, as an Indigenous person in this province that has happened to live under the Indian Act. Would the minister consider the Indian Act to be an example, and I recognize that this is from a different level of government, of systemic racism?

Hon. N. Sharma: I thank the member for the question.

I think it is a statute that over the history of Canada has been used to segregate a group of people and treat them differently. I would agree with what the member said — that there are examples of systemic racism that were vetted, that court challenges have tackled head-on about the different treatment of people. I would like nothing more than for the federal government to drastically either change that act or not use it anymore.

A. Olsen: I think there was…. I don’t know if there was a direct suggestion or maybe just sort of an insinuation that the different treatment of Indigenous people might be inappropriate or that the lack of definition elsewhere is inappropriate. However, where you have a law that very much identifies and creates Indians and then creates a whole set of rules and laws over 100-plus years, it does start to create a systemic problem that we have to address.

Would the minister maybe consider that part of the reason why we’re on this project of reconciliation in this province is because specifically when it comes to identifying the questions that were asked earlier specifically identifying Indigenous people within this, it would be part of a project of reconciliation?

I know that the Speaker, for example, earlier today…. He has been attempting to try to advance a journey of reconcil­iation. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I, the member for Skeena have met on a regular basis with the Speaker — a very thoughtful process that he’s undertaking on behalf of this Legislative Assembly to engage in reconciliation, likely due to the fact that we have, in our society, distinctly treated Indigenous people separately from everybody else.

That process actually hit a road bump also today. Surprisingly, the parties that we thought were gung-ho on having a respectful path of reconciliation decided, “No, actually, we’re going to throw a wrench in that,” and at the last minute decided to try to amend it. So we’re seeing these questions that are leading to much divisiveness.

I want to draw attention to the fact that we are engaged in a project of reconciliation in this province with Indigenous people because we have specifically identified them in a unique way for more than several decades, for more than a dozen decades — I think I got that number right — targeting. An anti-racism bill naturally would identify them, Indigenous people, uniquely in a different way.

Then the ministry, guided by the minister’s staff, would have a process that addresses the great diversity that now exists in this province. We all acknowledge and thank with gratitude the fact that we’re now here coexisting and working together. So then we would have a different treatment for the remainder of British Columbians that come from a hugely diverse set of backgrounds.

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for the question. I think he articulated my sentiment about why it’s important, our commitment to UNDRIP. I’m remarking that not only in this debate that we’re having but in the reason for this bill, racism and discrimination do real harm to people.

[2:15 p.m.]

Indigenous people have had systems of government directed at them for years in this province, in this country. When we sat down with them to say, “What would an anti-racism act look like?” or when we sat and considered what UNDRIP means that our obligation is, it was very clear that we needed an Indigenous-specific piece of legislation.

I met with a leader not long ago that said there are certain places that Indigenous people won’t go because they know they won’t be treated the same way. This is real harm to people right now, right? If you’re not going to a clinic that’s an hour away, you have to go to one that’s three hours away because of the racism that’s showing up there. There’s real harm in that. There’s real damage.

I think that what we have before us is a piece of legislation that holds government and services accountable to that. And it must do that differently with Indigenous people because of the history. I would just agree with what the member said with respect to that. The legislation is designed to take that into account.

A. Olsen: There was a question that came earlier about the choice not to define systemic racism. I don’t believe that the question was shortened. Can maybe the minister provide rationale for not defining racism or anti-racism, either of those?

Hon. N. Sharma: Like everything in this legislation, it was guided by speaking with a community of people that have experienced the harm that we were attempting to solve. So you see “community harm” is defined. It’s a broad term of racism, discrimination, stigmatization. It’s a very broad definition of what community harm would be.

Instead of defining systemic racism, what we were guided by was people that said government shouldn’t define it because it’s not up to government to define how it shows up for different people at different times. Instead, what we built into there, what was asked, was a process for doing that.

The community consultations, the community…. When you develop the action plan for government, you can actually put the definitions, or what you’re guided by, through that community work, but it can evolve over time and not be static in legislation.

That’s the reason why we considered the definitions and what to put in there and what not to put in there, because of the guidance people said to us. Instead, it sets up a process for getting there.

A. Olsen: The definition of community harm is used in the Anti-Racism Data Act. That act has now been in place for months, more than a year now, I think. How has that definition served? I’m assuming that because it shows up here in this act several months later, it served well, but perhaps the minister can highlight any spaces where this definition may have not been sufficient, as is needed, or perhaps can indicate that it has been.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: This definition that’s placed in the data act in here is actually the first of its kind, I think in the world, but somebody can prove me wrong. The reason that we landed on a community harm aspect is because when you’re thinking about systemic racism, it is about the individual rights and individual infringement, but it’s about how, when you have aggregated data that says that there’s a community harm here, it’s not just about the individual. It’s showing up in different ways.

Once you think of community harm that way, you’re elevating it to the systemic racism category. Then you have to ask yourself a lot of questions about how you’re going to use that data. So the data committee…. I guess there was an expert, Gwen Phillips, that really helped us with this to understand community harm, which is basically data can also do harm to communities. There are stereotypes and stigmas that come from, like, the model minorities category or different ways that we can look at data that can actually be stigmatizing or do the other side of it, community harm.

The definition of community harm helps guide us in almost every side of that. The committee that looks at it with the release of data coming up will say: “How do we portray that data in a way that doesn’t perpetuate community harm, doesn’t perpetuate stigmatization, and how do we understand community harm?” What is happening with this data to make this group of people have this type of differences in services or community harm associated with it?

The definition is quite unique. It’s basically trying to elevate individual harms to the collection of data to have community harms and understand how to address it at that level. It plays a role in that piece of data collection and understanding data on how to assess harm.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the Attorney General for the response.

I think, just for clarity, that an individual behaving in a racist manner toward an individual is an individual act of racism. A system responding to a group of people, defined however, in a repeated manner, in a consistent manner, is systemic racism, and that’s the reason why you would use community harm as the definition. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s right, yeah. Thank you for summarizing that in less words than I did.

M. Lee: I did ask a question to the Attorney General. I understood that you were considering something about my question. Can the question proceed, or do you want me to restate the question? What would you like me to do?

The Chair: I believe we’ll have further questions.

Attorney General, you’re being advised to answer the question, whichever part you feel relevant to the bill itself.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m going to have to ask the member to repeat the question.

The Chair: Thank you. Member for Vancouver-Lan­gara, can you repeat the question, please?

M. Lee: Okay, so I will repeat the question without giving the explanation to the Chair about why the question is related to the bill. I’ve already made that.

[2:25 p.m.]

Presumably, the direction from the Chair that I just heard is that the Attorney General can choose to address any part of my question that she feels is appropriate for her to respond to. That’s what you just said, I think.

The Chair: Whichever part she finds relevant to the bill.

M. Lee: Relevant to respond to. Okay.

The Chair: Relevant to the bill.

M. Lee: Okay. So with that in mind, I will ask my question again, for the third time.

I have said that as we look at Bill 23 and the use of the term “antisemitism” in this bill, in clause 4(1), I will be questioning, in this committee stage on Bill 23, the reason why there’s no inclusion of a definition of antisemitism.

As we know and as I’ve said many times in this Legislative Assembly, including yesterday morning in response to the member for Richmond-Queensborough, it needs to be adopted in this province. It needs to be fully implemented for the reasons that that member demonstrated: a lack of clarity around what is antisemitic.

When I look at the social media posts that the current ADM put out, less than three years ago on May 19, 2021…. I will say that of course these media posts go back in time. I do see there’s a series of posts between 2021 and 2016.

Presumably, the government is fully aware, when the ADM was accelerated in her appointment, by the Premier, up the ranks to the role that she plays now, and that she has played, in succession to the former ADM, Angela Cooke, which I’ve already had an exchange with the Attorney General about…. I’m asking the Attorney General: is she not concerned about the previous statements that the current ADM has made and her lack of clarity around what is antisemitic and what is antisemitism in our province?

I am asking, because this whole bill, which fundamentally is there to be an action plan to deal with antisemitism, is missing the definition. I would say to the Attorney General that that lack of clarity around antisemitism is demonstrated by her ADM. With that in mind, I’m asking the Attorney General to make a comment about her level of comfort on the advice she’s receiving from her ADM in the development of this Bill 23, in view of her comments that have said in the past, effectively, that Jews were responsible for her losing her dream job.

Hon. N. Sharma: Chair, I find this question highly irrelevant, and it’s an extremely sensitive HR matter to personally attack somebody who can’t stand up and say anything in this forum to defend themselves. I find that conduct really unfortunate. I could use stronger words for it. I would not respond to this, except that the person that the member over there is attacking doesn’t have a voice in this.

I will say that my ADM, Haiqa Cheema, has done exceptional work when it comes to combating racism in this province and has met with groups across this province to make sure that what we have here, not only with the data act but also with this bill, are world-leading tools to combat antisemitism, hate, racism and all of the things that all of us in this House would agree that we need to work to stop in this province.

I’ll leave it at that.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the Attorney General, in respect to that she used the term “world-leading tools.” We know that the IHRA definition, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, is a world-leading tool.

It’s just like the problem is understood relating to UNDRIP, another internationally recognized body of principles. I know that the member for Prince George–​Valemount, right now, simultaneously to this discussion, is having that discussion with my counterpart, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

[2:30 p.m.]

The reason why, Mr. Chair, these questions are relevant is because, as I explained to another person who felt the need to talk to me about comments I made yesterday in MIRR estimates, it is not personal. It’s about this government. It’s about the leadership under this Premier and this Attorney General. They are the ones who are responsible to British Columbians. It’s their government. They make the decisions about whom they put in positions of authority and leadership in their government.

That’s what happened here. There is a pattern here. There is a pattern that we’ve been questioning in the official opposition, calling for an independent investigation about the systemic antisemitic conduct, statements — threatening, bullying, intimidating, undermining, what­ever words you want to use to describe it — that we know the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville spelled out in her eight-page letter calling out various members of caucus and this ADM.

I am raising these questions because we’re dealing with the very bill that this government has been working on, which follows the anti-racism data legislation, dealing with anti-racism on a systemic basis. I’ve questioned what happened with Black Canadians in leadership under this government, in this anti-racism secretariat. The Attorney General is not prepared or willing to engage in that topic because of HR considerations. I understand that response.

Is the Attorney General here also saying the same thing? This is the current ADM, who has a leadership role, who is advising this minister in the course of our committee process where I’m about to get into the topic around antisemitism and the need for a definition in this bill. As the Attorney General turns to the people around her and gets the kind of support in addressing the architecture, the construction of Bill 23, it’s an entirely appropriate question for me to be asking the Attorney General, and, effectively, the Premier of this province.

How did we get here? How do we have a person with those views being put in this position of influence and leadership around a bill dealing with systemic racism? It is racialized. It’s not ethnocultural. We’re about to talk about amendments that I’m going to be speaking to, to clause 1, to include a definition of antisemitism, because the term is utilized in this bill.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to get up and ask a few questions in committee on Bill 23. I did listen earlier on, but I do have a couple of questions about those that were consulted in developing this bill. I have the list that the Attorney shared with us.

I noticed there is one group, the Richmond Jewish Day School PAC — parent advisory committee, I’m assum­ing — that participated. The Attorney listed it as a faith-based group. Can she explain to us why she listed this as a faith-based group?

Hon. N. Sharma: We had different categories for applications, and they applied under the faith-based category.

S. Robinson: So was there a Jewish category?

Hon. N. Sharma: There was a faith-based category that they would have fallen under.

S. Robinson: Sorry, I don’t quite understand. So there were these categories that they got to self-select. Was there a Jewish category?

Hon. N. Sharma: So with the category, faith-based, it wasn’t defined or narrowed because there were too many in there that might be included in that. So Jewish would have been included under the faith-based category, but the application didn’t differentiate every, I guess, category of background or religions that could fit in there.

[2:35 p.m.]

S. Robinson: Thank you. I appreciate the response. It would appear that the Attorney General categorizes Jews as a religious group and not an ethnoreligious group and a nation.

I think there’s already a flaw here that we see in some of the thinking, because Jews are not just a religion. It’s a nation and an ethnoreligious group. It looks like there might have been a flaw in the analysis around how to cate­gorize Jews.

Were there categories for South Asian, Asian, Black, as we see here listed in, and they got to self-select?

Hon. N. Sharma: The application had multiple categories, including “other” on there, or people or organizations could check off multiple ones related to that — so tried hard to capture all of the different diversity of the province there.

S. Robinson: It sounds like Jewish wasn’t on the list as a nation, as a group.

Hon. N. Sharma: No, it was not a separate category. But there was a category for “other” if people wanted to list something else that wasn’t in it.

S. Robinson: Did the Attorney at all consult with other Jewish organizations outside of the Richmond Jewish Day School? I have to say, as somebody who’s part of that community, it’s sort of an odd group. I understand that they self-selected, but there are 115 Jewish organizations in this province. I’m sure I’m leaving some out. I went through, and I counted.

Were other Jewish organizations consulted about how to define the Jewish community?

Hon. N. Sharma: Based on all of the ways we engaged for this act…. We had an online questionnaire with a category of people for Jewish. Of the I think 1,400 people that answered, 162 of those selected Jewish as their background. Of the online total, that was close to 10 percent of all information that we got that fed into the bill.

The way we approached the consultation for the grants was that community organizations applied. Some of them were organizations that, although they don’t represent a particular background or group, hold forums to invite community members in. So they would have had….

I don’t know exactly, because the idea was for government not to lead the engagement but for community groups to lead it. My understanding is that Richmond Jewish Day School applied for the funding, but I don’t know of any other Jewish-specific groups that applied for the funding for those grants.

We did have a category of online where we had 160 individuals or so. Close to 10 percent of the total online input that we received was from the Jewish community.

[2:40 p.m.]

S. Robinson: Does the government define Jews as an ethnoreligious group, as a nation or just as a religion?

Hon. N. Sharma: The general approach was…. It was guided by the consultations that we had.

The communities asked government not to step into the role of defining what a community and what somebody’s identity are. In the past, that was actually very harmful. We steered away from picking particular groups and giving a definition in legislation about who they are and how we would see them identifying because of that harm.

Generally throughout you’ll see that the definitions, instead, will be advised by the community input that happens about the harm and who people identify as. Generally the surveys we do ask for self-identification, right? People identify themselves in the way that they want to, which is what we’ve been told by community groups, especially ones that have experienced harm before. That was our general approach when it came to definitions.

I wanted to specifically talk about the category of ethnocultural groups. Community groups came to us and asked us to explore the use of a definition that categorizes a group of people that may not see themselves as racialized.

We really looked at that word and that identification. Unfortunately, through our analysis, through Statistics Canada…. It could include up to 450 ethnic or cultural or people from various ethnic or cultural origins. It lacks kind of a clear ability, legally, to understand what that actually means in terms of groups of people or who would be included or not included.

Instead, out of the communities that reached out to us about that concern, which was the Jewish community and the Muslim community…. We added, specifically, in there antisemitism and Islamophobia. We named the harm. We wanted to make it clear that they were included in the work of this act. But definitions like ethnocultural backgrounds were so broad as to lose meaning. It could be up to 450 different types of people from different groups.

S. Robinson: That was a lot of information. Perhaps I’ll come back with a couple of other questions.

This whole faith-based tick box that the Richmond Jewish Day School ticked off…. It was partly, I believe, because there was no Jewish category, as part of a nation group. That, I think, is by default. As somebody who has filled out many of those forms…. My own identity is never listed. It’s always “other,” which I suppose is fine, but people don’t know where to situate themselves.

[2:45 p.m.]

Where would the Doukhobors put themselves, given that they aren’t racialized either and they’re an ethnocultural group?

Hon. N. Sharma: The member has identified an issue that we’ve heard from different communities. It stems from the fact…. We are kind of in new territory when it comes to collecting race-based data from community members. I think that there’s work to do, for sure.

The racialized data standard is something that Citizens’ Services is working on right now to figure out, now that we’re stepping into the field of collecting this type of data…. How are we doing it in a way where people don’t feel othered by saying: “Oh, I’m an other”?

[2:50 p.m.]

I don’t think it’s a perfect process right now, but our commitment, because we’re kind of in a new space, is to have engagement. I think Citizens’ Services is doing engagement to develop a racialized…. I don’t know what they’re calling it, sorry — some kind of data standard for the data we’re collecting that takes a look at how we categorize people.

Definitely the approach we’ve taken as we step into this new space was relying on how census or bigger agencies that are used to collecting data have worked. We’re in a different space because we’re collecting data that’s specific to groups of people, and that’s what we want. We want those specifics, so we can figure out how to action it through government. With the specific focus on how we’re doing and where we can improve, we’re hoping to hear from communities about how we should be identifying them.

One of the ways we’ve done it and it will help us improve is…. In the data act, the first demographic survey, we tried to list as many things as we could. And then we did put an “other” category because it would help us, say, learn that: “Okay, I look to this whole list as a person, and I don’t see myself on this list. I’m going to write in what I would see, where I would put myself.”

It’s basically an evolving, I guess, not really a science, but an evolving process that we need to go through to understand, through Citizens’ Services collection of data, how we’re doing it appropriately. I think we need to have opportunities for communities to give their feedback on how that shows up.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the response.

I have a letter in my hands dated June 14, 2022. It’s from the former Premier, John Horgan, and it says that that he’s writing basically to most of the Jewish community but for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, “in response to a number of inquiries received by our government regarding the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism.”

It goes on to say that “in its 2019 publication Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019-2022, the government of Canada included definitions of many terms, including anti-Asian racism, anti-Black racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism. The province of British Columbia fully supports the federal government’s adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and rejects all forms of discrimination as outlined in Canada’s anti-racism strategy.” Can the Attorney General please confirm if that position is still current with government?

Hon. N. Sharma: This is definitely something we hear from the Jewish community, the way antisemitism is defined and how it shows up for people. The way we’ve approached this bill is, again, not to put any definitions within this bill. And that’s very clearly because if we were going to do that for all of the ways racism and discrimination and stigmatization is experienced by different communities, we would have to have an unending number of definitions. Honestly, the problem with that is they wouldn’t evolve over time because you can’t change legislation the same way.

The way that would show up in this bill is through the action plans of government. So if a government issues an action plan and they’ve consulted with the community that’s experiencing a harm, then we would expect that in that action plan, they would define what that form of hate is or discrimination is and what actions they’re taking to remove it.

S. Robinson: I didn’t quite hear if government con­tinues to support the IHRA definition. I recognize it’s not in legislation. I understand the rationale, but theoretically, as a policy, as a place to start, does government continue to support the IHRA definition? I might add…. I can read it into the record:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish communities institutions and religious facilities.”

[2:55 p.m.]

For example:

“Calling for or aiding or justifying the killing or harming Jews in the name of radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews, as such, or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government” — or perhaps a job that you wanted.

“Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group.

“Denying the facts, scope, mechanisms or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of the National Socialist” government.

“Accusing the Jews, as a people, or Israel, as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

“Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.

“Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

“Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.

“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of Nazis.

“Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

Hon. N. Sharma: You know, I think IHRA is an impor­tant tool, although not legally binding, to help us understand from the Jewish community’s perspective where antisemitism is showing up and not showing up. And that’s important for us to hear and listen to understand.

I think we, like everything I said, were guided by the communities that are experiencing the harm, for us to understand where and how it’s showing up. I think when I met with the Jewish community just over the last few days, we’re hearing about some of the lists that the members showed of how they’re experiencing and hearing it. For this tool, when it comes to government action or inaction, it’s going to be really key to understand if it’s showing up in the systems and to again talk to the Jewish community, particularly about we’re going to do to respond to it.

That will be one of the checks and balances we build in through this legislation.

S. Robinson: I just want to confirm that government recognizes its value and will be using it on a go-forward basis.

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ll always be guided by what the communities are telling us is an important tool to understand the hate that they’re feeling, and I’ve heard from the Jewish community that this is one of them.

S. Robinson: My understanding is that pretty much most of the Jewish community wants government to adopt this definition. Given certainly what I’ve been hearing from most of the community, most of those 115 Jewish organizations, I’m sure that that is what the Attorney General is hearing from the community. Is that what’s going to guide her in this work, going forward?

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, we’ll always be guided by what the community is telling us in terms of the hate or the harm that they’re experiencing. And I think that holds for every community that we meet with, because our approach has been to set up bodies and consultation to listen and hear and understand how we respond.

M. Lee: I’m going to look to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, because I had to step out for a minute there. But the Attorney General did confirm that on a go-forward basis…. Okay.

[3:00 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

I wanted to comment on two quick things that the Attorney General said before or during when the member stood up. One is, of course, an acknowledgment of the government’s desire to use world-leading standards. The second one, in response to a previous question from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the Attorney General characterized…. I want her to clarify her response when she said she recognizes that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is something that the Jewish community sees.

Of course I know the Attorney General will recognize that the development of this international standard began under a former leader of Sweden back in 1998 as an international standard, that there are 35 nations, including Canada, that have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism and that this is an international standard. This is not just something that the Jewish community says: “Well, it’d be really nice to have this clarified as to what antisemitism is in British Columbia.” It’s an international standard.

Could I ask the Attorney General, if she can clarify that she does appreciate that this is an international, world-leading standard?

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, although I recognize that this discussion is focused on one community, it’s been our approach in general that we listen and are guided by the community members that are in our province experiencing the harm, asking for us to change. I understand that there are the legal tools that the Jewish community is asking us to apply to get to that. Where is antisemitism? How is it showing up? And we’ll always be guided by that work first.

That will be true of every community that comes to us that says they’re experiencing harm. Or if they’re experiencing a certain type of systemic racism or systemic harm, we’ll do the same thing.

M. Lee: The Attorney General’s response actually does go back into another point that I wanted to raise.

In her responses, again, to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, she referred to how if we put in one definition, we’ll have to put in definitions for other racialized and ethnocultural communities. The thing is there’s a reason why we’re focused. Apart from the obvious reasons that we’ve been speaking to for months, if not years, it’s that the bill itself, Bill 23, specifically addresses Indigenous people, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism. That’s it. Three — three types of systemic racism of specific concern to this government as they define this bill under clause 4 of this bill.

Yes, Madam Chair, as I’ve been saying to successive Chairs, the reason why I’m raising this point is because if you look at clause 1 of the bill, which is what we’re on, it’s the definition section of the bill. I’m saying, in the lead-up to all of this discussion, when the government uses the term “antisemitism” in Bill 23 in clause 4, there’s no definition of it. Of course, where does the definition belong? In clause 1 of the bill, which is the reason why we’re having this discussion on clause 1.

I will say again: will the Attorney General not at least acknowledge that there are three types of systemic racism that the action plan specifically speaks to in clause 4? This is the reason why, despite the Attorney General saying that it would be an open exercise in terms of defining other forms of systemic racism….

I share the consideration that there are other forms of systemic racism, certainly beyond the three that are named, but the government names them in this bill. There ought to be, I would have thought, a specific focus on antisemitism, because the government is bringing that in this bill. Certainly, myself and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville share that recognition.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’re asking the Attorney General, can she please clarify her previous comment, in response, that there are other forms we should be addressing and that’s the reason why we’re not defining antisemitism? I fail to see that as a reasonable response. Can the Attorney General clarify her response?

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to make this clear that this is not just about three groups that are targeted by hate or racism. It’s about every group, racialized people that are experiencing racism in this province. It’s very clear throughout this bill.

Now, just to be specific, the reason that we added Islamophobia and antisemitism, specifically, in this act was because we heard from community members that they didn’t want to have that lack of clarity, when it came to the term “racialized,” that they were included or not included in it. We wanted to make it clear that they are. So that was the addition, and the reason for the addition, of Islamophobia and antisemitism.

Surely the member can’t be saying that other groups in the province don’t experience racism or have not experienced racism. The reason that we didn’t put definitions in this act is because the individual experiences and the collective experiences of those groups are different for each one of those groups.

I don’t think it’s government’s role to put in legislation what the harm is experienced by those communities. In fact, that has done more harm than good over the years of the government and racialized people in this province.

This is the reason that we’ve stood by the process that’s outlined in this bill, where we are constantly guided by the communities that are experiencing the hate or racism through government services, and that we hold government accountable to responding, in the broadest possible sense.

In fact, the accountability measures that are in this bill are groundbreaking in a lot of ways when it comes to holding government to account, and actually having the tools to do that, while being guided by community and not crossing that line of thinking that government knows best what a community is experiencing or facing in this province.

M. Lee: I struggle with the Attorney General’s response, particularly the last part of it.

This is exactly what we’re talking about, which is when government is trying to be…. In the official opposition, we’re trying to hold government accountable for its failure to address antisemitism in our province.

Government — because of its lack of clarity and understanding of what antisemitism is, because they don’t deploy and utilize and adopt a clear definition of antisemitism, including in this bill — is challenged. This is the very reason why we’re questioning this bill in this manner.

It’s interesting that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville pulls out this letter of June 14, 2022, by the former Premier, John Horgan, of our province, ad­dressed to the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, for a couple of reasons.

One is the Premier chose to specifically refer to the 2019 Canada anti-racism strategy for 2019 to 2022 — it had already been in place for three years at the time the Premier was writing this letter — and the fact that it includes definitions, as the member just said, including anti-Asian racism, anti-Black racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism.

Here we have the same two categories: antisemitism and Islamophobia. But we also have two other categories that I’ve questioned before, and I know the member for Richmond North Centre will continue to question, in terms of other forms of racism, including anti-Asian racism and anti-Black racism. Those definitions aren’t in this bill either.

This government has brought forward a focus on Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism, which is consistent, I would say, with the fourth-to-last paragraph in this letter on page 2, where the Premier, John Horgan, said: “We will also be determining the application to public bodies, including those entities prioritized by First Nations, Indigenous peoples” — okay, fine, Indigenous peoples is referred to here, defined; “racialized peoples” — not defined; “and the Jewish community in British Columbia” — not defined.

[3:10 p.m.]

We’ve had that running conversation, but I would just point out that there clearly has been a focus, at least under the previous Premier of this province, for which the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville had been the Finance Minister at one point, under that leadership. I would say that there clearly was a focus, and something has changed here. Something has changed. I would say that the leadership of our province has changed, certainly, from Premier Horgan to our current Premier. So something has changed, and there is a pattern here.

I’ll just say this. When we look at the definitions in clause 1 of the bill again, Indigenous peoples under DRIPA…. We spent 4½ years at length addressing the implementation of DRIPA and the ongoing nature of the work. As the House Leader for the Third Party said, there’s a reason for that. Indigenous peoples were totally isolated under that federal government structure of the Indian reserves, and we continue to address the harms of that structure.

I will also say to the member and this Attorney General, as I said before, when I point out the head tax, which was in place in our country from 1885 to 1923, and then the Chinese Exclusion Act from 1923 to 1943, ten years before my father came from Hong Kong in 1953, five years after Canadians of Chinese descent had the right to vote in our country, that there was certainly systemic discrimination of people of Chinese descent in our country for 62 years.

I appreciate what the House Leader has said about what has happened to Indigenous peoples in our country for hundreds of years, 150 years plus. But certainly people of Chinese descent have suffered the same consequence in some ways, similar but different consequence in some ways, under those discriminatory instruments.

There is no anti-Asian hate here. We know what hap­pened during the pandemic. The member for Richmond North Centre will, I’m sure, have opportunity to speak to that as well in this bill.

As we come back to antisemitism, we recognize again the lack of clarity by this government relating to antisemitism. I’ve got to say that there’s a real need, for the same reasons the Attorney General is seeking to hold government to a greater, higher standard of accountability through this bill.

You need to be able to define it, though. Otherwise, how does government equip itself to develop the action plan in the coming years? If it can’t even acknowledge a clear acknowledgment through the incorporation of the definition of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in this bill in clause 1, how can it possibly proceed with that work?

Given that the Premier of our province, back in 2022, had acknowledged the importance of that definition, what are we doing here? We are wasting a lot of focus. I’ve said this in the House, right? I’ve said that in terms of civil society, the reason why we put a focus on this is that we can’t afford to see any person targeted in the way people of Jewish descent have been targeted in this province.

Now, I know that Indigenous peoples, people of Chinese descent, Black Canadians and Muslims have all been targeted at certain points of time and currently still are. That’s not to dismiss or ignore that. I did actually say, in my previous question to the Attorney General, that I recognize that there are so many other forms of systemic discrimination in our province, in our country, historically and otherwise, that need to be addressed.

Again, when the government chooses to use the words “antisemitism” and “Islamophobia” in this bill, they ought to have a definition, particularly when there is an international definition right there that has been acknowledged by this province before. Or are we just wasting efforts here?

I will say to you again that the reason why I believe this definition should be put in place is because there have been repeated examples of confusion. We saw that confusion yesterday from the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

[3:15 p.m.]

I read back, in response…. I think it was appropriate that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville read the various parts of the working definition of antisemitism as defined by IHRA, and the various examples. Those are important examples to understand — that it’s not about criticizing the state of Israel as a government. People, Jewish people themselves, of course, can be critical of their own government, and Israelis are critical of the state of Israel’s government today. That occurred before October 7 as well.

But to deny the existence of the state of Israel, to deny the right of self-determination of Jewish people through the state of Israel, to call for “From the river to the sea,” as we are seeing in the encampments, and as we see the member for Richmond-Queensborough, effectively, say that the concerns are inflated….

This is the challenge. This is the challenge that we need clarity on. This is the reason why, when I read parts of the previous social media posts by the ADM, these are concerns that I have as we are attempting now to have further discussion.

With that in mind, I will just invite the Attorney General one more time, before I introduce an amendment to this bill, to at least address the points that I’ve made relating to the need for a definition of “antisemitism” in this bill, the recognition that it is an international standard and the need for clarity when we’re talking about what Jewish people are experiencing, including in this chamber, including in this committee room. I’m asking the Attorney General to be clear on the need for why we need the IHRA definition of “antisemitism” in this bill.

Hon. N. Sharma: The letter that the member read from the federal government talks about a definition in a strategy.

Now, I want to clearly separate that for anybody lis­ten­ing and for the member’s question. There’s a difference between putting a definition in legislation and a definition that is evolving in a strategy, which has community input and has those checks and balances of us understanding what’s happening with that community. Those are two different approaches. That’s two different tools to be used. The federal government took that approach with their strategy, and we are taking a similar approach with our bill right now.

We have not included definitions related to specific harms or types of racism for different communities, because the bill would be 700 — I don’t know how many — sections. Instead, what we have done is similar to the federal government, in the letter that the member read: to say the legislation sets up a process and a framework for government accountability through the action plan and the opportunities for government to work with community members to understand how to define the harm and address the harm through the action plan.

The Chair: I’d just like to remind members to be relevant in the debate, according to Standing Order 40(3). Thank you.

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I’ve indicated before, we’re talking about the use of the term “antisemitism” in Bill 23, as is referred to in clause 4. The reason why I’m referring to the definition of “antisemitism” in this bill is because on clause 1, that is the definitions section. This is where, typically, you would find, as we find in this bill, definitions.

I would say back to the Attorney General, to respond to her points…. Of course, to clarify, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and I myself are reading from a letter dated June 14, 2022, by the Premier, John Horgan, of this province — not the country, not the Prime Minister — to the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

If I take the Attorney General’s comment, I think it is illuminating. It is actually the position that I thought we were on, despite the responses I’ve heard from government in the past, about what this letter meant. The Attorney General is saying that what the Premier, previously, of this province is describing is a strategy. It’s a strategy to address systemic racism, dismantling systemic racism in our province.

He refers in the last paragraph to the Anti-Racism Data Act, for example, with the feedback of over 13,000 British Columbians, talking about how the government would stand with British Columbia’s Jewish community in the fight against antisemitism, as we always have and always will. That’s the challenge of today, of course, as we see, because it doesn’t seem like it.

[3:20 p.m.]

I will say this. If this is a strategy document, a strategy indication…. I totally appreciate…. The Attorney General knows this. I’ve written to her, including in December, to encourage her to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the HAT 1 hate crime policy. Didn’t happen.

There was an update for subsection 319(2.1) of the Criminal Code, which I did point out. That was changed.

Again, the Attorney General and I have had a running dialogue a bit in Attorney General estimates about the nature of the change and how effective it is. We still have not seen any prosecutions in this province based on that new policy. We know that the consent of the Attorney General needs to be provided and that I’ve encouraged her to ensure that she does provide that, and in the case of public incitement of hate on our streets, utilize that definition, the IHRA definition. I’ve heard her response on that in the past.

My point is that in terms of adopting the IHRA definition in this bill, which is dealing with anti-racism of the nature that refers to antisemitism in clause 4, this would seem to be the appropriate place to do so. I think the Attorney General has confirmed what I’ve heard in the past. When I asked in the Attorney General estimates, “Can you point to one clear action this government has taken to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism our province?” the Attorney General could not point to anything. She’s still not pointing to anything, including this bill.

On that basis, if the Attorney General is suggesting there needs to be more process, we know that CJA, the Jewish Federation, other leading organizations of the Jewish community in British Columbia have been advocating for the adoption of the IHRA definition that we’ve seen in Canada, Ontario, other provinces, the city of Vancouver, the city of Richmond. We’ve seen this over years. This government and this province…. Yet what the community hangs on to is this one letter from the former Premier John Horgan, which this Attorney General just described as a strategy. It was a process. It wasn’t actually adopting it. That’s been my view.

In any event, we’re asking for the adoption today in this bill, and also recognizing…. I would ask the Attorney General to clarify. The reason why I understand the Premier wrote this letter in response was because he was hearing from the community that this definition needed to be adopted and implemented, certainly before 2022. What more does this government and this Attorney General need to hear from the Jewish community in order to adopt and implement the IHRA definition of antisemitism?

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, I think I’ve answered this question already, which is that our approach to the legislation is to not define specific ways that…. Antisemitism is in there, but we chose not to define it, just like we didn’t choose to define anti-Asian racism, anti-Black racism, Islamophobia and all of the other terrible forms of racism that communities face out there.

The reason is because we know it’s not government’s place not only to define what’s showing up for people in legislation, but it needs to evolve over time. So we’ve given the tools to do it. We will do it through our action plans, and we’ll do it in consultation with community members.

The Chair: Member, the minister has indicated that she has asked and answered this question, so if you can pursue another line of questioning, that would be helpful to moving forward on this.

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in response to the Attorney General…. Now the Attorney General, of course, is turning back into reference to other categories, which proves the point. There is no specific call to action in the action plan under clause 4 to address anti-Asian racism or anti-Black racism.

I appreciate, Madam Chair, that we have done several rounds on this topic, and I think it is appropriate at this juncture to move a proposed amendment to Bill 23. I will hand that amendment up to you. I’m happy to move that amendment, and then we can have the discussion on the amendment.

The Chair: Yes. Please read your motion, and then you may speak to it.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: I move in this Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, initial Anti-Racism Act to amend as follows:

[CLAUSE 1, by adding the following definition:

“antisemitism” has the same meaning as the Working Definition of Antisemitism as defined and adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016.]

The Chair: Would the member like to speak further to this motion?

On the amendment.

M. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have made reference previously to this international Holocaust remembrance definition. I made reference to the fact that a former Prime Minister of Sweden, Göran Persson, initiated this work back in 1998. This membership of IHRA consists of 35 member countries.

This alliance, the purpose of which was to coordinate, internationally, those nations that were of the view that it was imperative, back in 1998, to strengthen the moral commitment of societies to combat the growing Holocaust denial and antisemitism…. That network of 35 member countries included Canada, France, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Poland, the United States and the United Kingdom. The work that they’ve done over many years led to the adoption by the alliance in Budapest, in May of 2016, of this definition.

The definition…. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has read from it, at length, including the actual illustrative examples. But I will say that the initial part of the definition says that “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

It goes on to say that “manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong.’ It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action and employs sinister stereotypes and negative” words.”

Then it goes on to list the various examples of antisemitism. But I do think that there is a clear understanding of what antisemitism is in this definition that has been utilized. I have repeatedly utilized the examples that we see on our streets, on our college campuses and universities. We see it in the government caucus and the public service. We’ve seen examples of this.

The two particular examples that I’ve been particularly focused on is denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour and calling for, aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or extremist view of religion. These are two of the examples that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has already read into the record at length.

This is the reason why. We’ve seen repeated examples, including the experiences that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville detailed in her letter of resignation from the government caucus back in early March of this year.

[3:30 p.m.]

There are numerous examples, even from the government’s own caucus and, as I’ve read into the record in part, the current ADM to this Attorney General. There is a lack of clarity and understanding about what antisemitism is in our province. This is the reason why, for the government to come forward with a bill that addresses racism and antisemitism in this province, it needs to define it.

It needs to have the definition that has been recognized all over this world, that the community itself here in British Columbia and across Canada has been calling on governments…. The federal government of Canada heard that call and adopted it in 2019. The province of Ontario has done the same; the government of New Brunswick, in March of 2021; the government of Quebec, in June of 2021; and other provinces of our country and various municipalities in both Ontario and Quebec, as well as in British Columbia here.

We have the federal government doing this. We have the city of Vancouver doing this. But we don’t have the province of British Columbia.

And when we’re talking about the importance of addressing antisemitism in the ways we’ve been discussing, including in K to 12; ethno-cultural institutions, like the Jewish Community Centre in the riding I represent, Vancouver-Langara; King David High School; Talmud Torah; places where there are extracurricular activities occurring in facilities in the community; multi-faith gathering places….

We need to have this definition. There is an opportunity for this government to demonstrate the leadership that it says it wants to make yet has never actually taken a step to have direct action…. Even this action plan, of course, as we will get to in clause 4, is a plan to make a plan. But in the absence of a definition, how is this government going to step forward? Why is this government not hearing the calls of the community, over many years, as the former Premier, John Horgan, had heard, to ensure that the IHRA definition on antisemitism is utilized?

I urge the Attorney General and members of this committee to consider this amendment for the reasons that I have been raising with the Attorney General and the reasons that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has been raising, in the context of the discussions we’ve been having — even in the context of the challenge that we addressed yesterday with the member for Richmond-Queensborough.

There is that ongoing challenge, even on the very day that members of the Jewish community from Vancouver, Victoria and other parts of our province gathered in the Hall of Honour to commemorate Yom HaShoah, the Holocaust. Even on that day, within ten minutes of walking into that chamber, the member for Richmond-Queensborough would make references that certainly demonstrate a real lack of understanding of what antisemitism is in our province, whether it’s on a university or college campus or otherwise.

This is the reason why this government needs to take a step back. It needs to do an independent review of its own self. This is what we’ve been calling for. In the absence of this government actually doing that, if the Attorney General says that this bill will raise standards to hold any government of our province accountable going forward, not just this current government, we need to have this definition.

We need to ensure there’s clarity amongst the Premier, the Attorney General, the members of the executive council, the members of the government caucus, the members of the public service. We’ve seen so many instances, over the course of the last number of months in particular, that we’ve been identifying and as identified by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

These are just demonstrations as to why this definition, at a minimum, needs to be incorporated as part of this bill in the manner in which I moved that amendment. I certainly hope that other members of this committee will support this amendment.

The Chair: We’ll take a brief recess. Won’t be long. We need to get an electronic copy to the member who is virtually attending.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. We are on the amendment to clause 1 of Bill 23, moved by the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Hon. N. Sharma: I appreciate the effort and the reason behind this amendment, but I can’t support it. I’ll give you the reasons why. One is that 7,000 people in this province gave us feedback on the forming of this bill — huge, extensive engagement. And the very clear message from them is do not define things in legislation. It’s not the place to define it. Government should not be defining it. Let the community members have an evolving definition, and consult with them on it. This is what we heard loud and clear, and that’s why this is not the place for a definition. I’ll start by saying that.

The second thing is that this is also a very, as you can imagine, traumatic, painful thing for communities to talk about — racism, discrimination, how it shows up and how government can take action for it. Everybody needs to see themselves reflected in this legislation and this bill, and everybody needs to see the pathway to their harm being reduced through this bill and the tools that are there to see it. That’s why everything about the construction of this is broad in scope and broad in nature, to cover everybody feeling like they’re included.

The specific reason why we didn’t take the approach of listing definitions of specific harms to specific groups, and I mentioned it in the debate earlier, is that we would then need to take the care of consulting with each community that was experiencing that harm to understand that we got the definition right and that we’re covering it correctly so they could see themselves reflected in it.

[3:45 p.m.]

Instead, the approach was in that balancing act of making sure everybody feels reflected, not including definitions in the legislation — instead having it evolve over time through the action plan and the strategies to address that specific harm for that specific community.

For those very particular reasons, I won’t be supporting the amendment.

S. Robinson: Well, I didn’t think that I would have to stand and support an amendment like this, because I have, actually, from question period times, stood on my feet to defend the position that the Attorney General is now taking. But government has continued to fail in this regard, and that’s why I am supporting the amendment, because I think the Jewish community has defined what antisemi­tism is.

They’ve already done that work. The Jewish community does want government to recognize and use the IHRA definition for its work on antisemitism. I think that’s been really well established. And what we continue to find is that that’s actually not being used. Government is not using that definition to help them while they are under attack.

Now the member for Vancouver-Langara read into the record tweets from the ADM that are antisemitic according to the IHRA definition.

Yesterday in the chamber we heard from the member for Richmond-Queensborough. It was terribly antisemitic. To suggest somehow that because he’s heard from 17 people who work on faculty at UBC…. He kept emphasizing that they’re Jewish. Therefore, the experience of the rest of the Jews doesn’t count. That was terrible. It was terrible.

Today there’s a letter from 207 mostly Jewish faculty who are saying what’s happening on campus is outrageous. They’re saying:

“We, faculty and staff of University of British Columbia, are writing out of deep concern about the current encampment at MacInnes Field on UBC’s Vancouver campus. We realize these are challenging circumstances with no simple solution and that the UBC leadership is in an unenviable position as our community wrestles with the ongoing terror and suffering of both Israel and Gaza. We are profoundly troubled by the recent escalation of violence on North American campuses, which undermines the integrity of academic institutions and risks eroding public trust in higher education.

“We also strongly object to protesters taking over public spaces at UBC and physically barring other people from using that space unless they renounce the right of Israel to exist. We recognize that there is a tradition of campus protests that involves the temporary occupation of a public space, and we deplore cases in which this escalates into violence, either by protesters, counter-protesters or police.

“However, the current encampment goes beyond this tradition by celebrating and encouraging violence and restricting access to the vast majority of Canadian and world Jewry who accept and embrace the existence of Israel, often as a core part of their identity. This is manifested, for example, by its signage and messaging, both on site and online, including statements such as, ‘There is only one solution: intifada, revolution.’”

I don’t know what that means to anybody else in that room, but what that means is that Jews should die. And it’s highly offensive language against Zionists.

“In addition, the protesters’ list of demands includes ending UBC partnerships with Israeli universities and boycotting a UBC course, an archaeological field school in Israel. We believe that these demands violate the UBC student code of conduct, as they interfere with legitimate teaching and research activities and would place severe limitations on academic freedom.

“These calls for violence, acts of exclusion, and demands for disassociation and divestment combine to create an atmosphere of intimidation, stigmatization and exclusion for Jewish and Israeli students, faculty and staff. We also understand that the encampment includes many who are not affiliated with UBC, despite perceptions to the contrary, and we do not believe that they should have influence over UBC’s policies as if they were UBC affiliates.

“In light of the above, we call on UBC to: publicly affirm that any call for violence is unacceptable and should not be normalized in any way; publicly affirm that it is inconsistent with university policies and academic and civic values to restrict access to public spaces to members of the community unless they renounce core parts of their Jewish identity; publicly affirm the continued value of academic freedom, including UBC’s partnerships with Israeli universities and programs in Israel, including study-abroad programs such as the archaeological field school.”

[3:50 p.m.]

Clearly, our government, my government, isn’t taking any action, isn’t using the IHRA definition to help under­stand what constitutes antisemitism. When I spoke up in the House, when that member from Langara stood up or when the Leader of the Opposition stood up to challenge our government, my government, about using the IHRA definition, everyone looked at me. The Premier looked at me. The House Leader looked at me. Everyone in cabinet looked at me to get up on my feet to answer and defend our position. I defended it because it made sense, because I believed that our government would do the right thing.

Well, that hasn’t been the case, and it’s for that reason that I’m supporting this amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is on the amendment to clause 1 of Bill 23.

Division has been called.

[3:55 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

M. Lee: Madam Chair, I’m on borrowed time. I understand that the Attorney General and myself, actually, are expected up in the main chamber shortly on Bill 21.

I heard from my House Leader that both the Attorney General and myself will be called into that chamber, and there’ll be another minister of this government coming in to address the continued questions on Bill 23. I’m sure the Attorney General will hear from her own Government House Leader on this point.

While I’m still here, before I get pulled, I wanted to now discuss…. With the failure of the amendment by this government, to Bill 23 to incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism, I will now turn to another important component, for the same reasons that I’ve been talking about on clause 4.

Apart from antisemitism, the other specific area of harm this government has decided to name — not anti-Asian racism or anti-Black racism, for example, as the federal government identified in their own strategy…. This government doesn’t recognize those other types of systemic racism but chooses to focus on Indigenous peoples, Islam­ophobia and antisemitism.

[4:05 p.m.]

We’ve talked about Indigenous peoples. We’ve talked about antisemitism. I’d like to now talk about Islam­ophobia.

We know, of course, particularly since 9/11 and 10/7, there have been challenges for members of the Muslim community. Members of the Jewish community and members of other communities have joined with members of the Muslim community to support members of the Muslim community in facing the same level of challenge in the sense that fears and concerns are being targeted for who you are.

I remember meeting, for example, recently with the head of the B.C. Muslim Association about what his own son, in grade 9, experienced after 9/11. He was being bullied in the classroom. He was called a terrorist. The school called in the police, and the police actually pulled him aside, out of his class, to interrogate him. It’s unbelievable what that child experienced in the context of 9/11, in the aftermath of that. It took that young person ten years to recover from that challenging incident.

Of course, we hear from so many other members of the Muslim community, including their leaders, about their children, about what they experience on the streets and elsewhere. We know that there’s a concern that continues, certainly since 9/11 and also since 10/7.

When this government brings forward a specific focus on Islamophobia, there ought to be a definition. I’ve heard this from members of the Muslim community. The Leader of the Official Opposition, myself, the House Leader, other members of the official opposition met with leaders recently. I know this from before, as well, in my discussions with members of the Muslim community.

Again I will ask the Attorney General: why is there not a specific definition of Islamophobia in this bill, recognizing that there ought to be a focus on addressing that, as well, under the action plan in this bill?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think I’ve said this. The clear approach for every community was not to put in a definition. In order to even arrive at definitions that are accepted by a community group — that is a process in itself.

Once you’ve done that, if you put a definition within legislation, it doesn’t evolve. It doesn’t change with time the same way. Again, the approach that we’ve taken is, instead of definitions within the legislation, to have an approach where we’re engaged with the community to under­stand.

I want to correct something the member…. There may be confusion about section 4. Section 4 mentions that the action plan must include…. It’s not exclusive. It talks about racism generally. The definition of community harm is very broad. So nobody is excluded from it.

We went over in a lot of detail the reason that we named Indigenous people. The reason that we said Islamophobia and antisemitism was because of concerns from those communities. They came to us to say that on the spectrum of racialized…. They wanted to make sure it was clear, under the term “racism,” that they were included in the work of government to combat it.

The reason for the specific addition of Islamophobia and antisemitism is to make sure that they know that they’re included in the work of this project and this government on removing systemic racism. But it includes all groups.

M. Lee: For the importance of understanding the definition section of clause 1 and why there is not a definition of antisemitism and now a definition of Islamophobia….

The Attorney General and I and the member for Coquit­lam-Maillardville have been discussing the nature of clause 4. Of course, we will get there, or at least the member from Richmond north and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville will get there.

I would say, though, that regardless of the explanations that the Attorney General is giving, the fact of the matter is…. In clause 4(1)(b), specifically, it’s called out. There are no other forms of systemic racism that are called out, other than against Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism. So there is some higher level of concern where they are specific.

[4:10 p.m.]

I appreciate that the words say, in 4(1), that the “action plan must include,” but it then goes on to say specific actions. It doesn’t say actions taken by public bodies toward addressing the harms of systemic racism, specific racism, including in respect of Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism. It doesn’t say that. It says specific to these three types of systemic racism against peoples of our province.

Again, the reason why I’m about to move an another amendment to this bill is to include an actual definition that needs to be done in the way that the minister has said. The minister has said that the reason why antisemitism isn’t included in this bill is because this government continues not to recognize that definition.

It feels like it needs to have more discussion with the community, even though the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, someone who has represented the community, both in government and outside of government now, has certainly conveyed the views of the Jewish community in this province to the best of her abilities.

But here, hearing the Attorney General’s considerations as well and recognizing, of course, that as I understand it, and perhaps the Attorney General has greater awareness of this, there is no similar definition of Islamophobia as there is in that international standard of antisemitism. If there was, I certainly would like to hear from the Attorney General, and that’s something we should consider here.

I haven’t heard that specifically from the Muslim community, and we have invited them to provide a definition for consideration to this committee. That work, I think, is still ongoing, as the Attorney General has referred to, that there is a need to continue to have discussion.

My amendment, which I will move in a moment, considers the fact that there needs to be further consultation with the Muslim community. But let me ask the Attorney General: is she aware of a specific definition of Islamophobia that could be incorporated in this bill?

Hon. N. Sharma: No, I’m not, and I’m going to suggest that we’re embarking upon the type of harm that community members spoke to us very clearly about government not doing. That’s the reason there are no definitions. It’s because of the 7,000 people that we engaged with on this project, and 13,000 people before, that are probably listening and watching the comments that are made in this debate.

I would say that those people that are listening and watching told us specifically that government does more harm when they embark on defining what a type of hate or racism is in legislation without community involvement, without there being a way to evolve it. That was a clear direction from not us, but the community members that engaged with us.

I’ve said repeatedly that the reason we approached not including definitions was precisely for that reason. I would say maybe some people this room, or most people in this room, wouldn’t be able to understand what Islamophobia is and how it shows up and how it affects people.

I would say that that’s not government’s job to define what that is for people. It’s for us to engage with the community and understand, in that way, how we can respond to the acts and the systemic racism that they’re experiencing throughout government systems.

M. Lee: Just before moving the amendment, I want to clarify one point. The Attorney General is saying, though, that in the course of the action plan development, definitions will be derived in consultation with these communities that have these harms against them. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. As I’ve said, the way we define how the harm is happening to community has to be done with the community. Once that the data is obtained — and it’s viewed as being their differential, I guess, impact of services or outcomes on different communities — then we’ll engage with the community to understand the harm, how they want to address the harm and how any definition that’s applicable would apply to that.

M. Lee: With that in mind, for reasons that I can speak to on the amendment, I would like to, at this point, move another amendment to clause 1 of Bill 23. I can read out that amendment and then hand it to you as I re-sign it.

I move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, intituled Anti-Racism Act, to amend as follows:

[CLAUSE 1, by adding the following definition:

“Islamophobia” has the prescribed meaning, determined in consultation with the Muslim community by or before February 28, 2025;]

The Chair: Would the member like to speak to the amendment now?

On the amendment.

[4:15 p.m.]

M. Lee: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I can re-sign it if it matters here, at this point. But I’ll just give you one copy, and there are multiple copies there. I will just keep one, though.

For reasons that we’ve been having this discussion, the Attorney General has indicated that in the course of the action plan, there will be a further development of definitions relating to Islamophobia and antisemitism — that it needs to be done in consultation with the communities that are affected, that are harmed. This proposed amendment actually does take that into account for other reasons, too.

There isn’t a well-defined definition at this particular time, at least in this committee room. There may be a definition out there somewhere, but I appreciate that if there is, then that’s something that the government can certainly consider in a faster manner.

As it has the period of time in which it has to develop an action plan under this bill, which I had understood to be a two-year period…. At the front end of that development of the action plan, you would think that the government of the day will need to have a clear definition, as defined with the communities, whether it’s the Jewish community or the Muslim community here in British Columbia.

That work, the further consultation beyond the 7,000 conversations, the 13,000 number that the Attorney General has referred to and even some of the questions that have been raised by the member for Richmond North Centre and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville as to who this government actually met with….

Putting that aside, in the level of consultation and what that was, you’d think that you’d be able to build on that and get to a point where a definition of Islamophobia for the purpose of the bill, which calls for an action plan, could be derived by, say, February 28, 2025. That should not be an unreasonable time frame for this government to actually set a deadline, a target, to actually have a definition. The work of the action plan, of course, will continue from there, presumably in parallel. But you’d like to think that there should be a confirmation of what everyone’s working on to address under an action plan.

Sitting here on May 7, we’re talking about close to seven months to go before this definition needs to be concluded. That’s what this amendment calls for, for the reasons of definition and clarity and to assist this government to put in place the action plan that’s called upon or called for under Bill 23.

I hope to have more discussions with leaders of the Mus­lim community, as does the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of our official opposition caucus, the B.C. United. We will continue in this dialogue in parallel to what the government is currently doing and addressing.

It’s important work, but we do believe that this definition should actually be defined and at least a mandate given to government to develop this definition and to have a hard deadline put in this bill so that we have that definition derived. In the case of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, that should be a relatively short process, we believe, because there is a recognized definition, internationally, and the community itself has been asking for it.

In this case, I can appreciate that it might take some time. There needs to be more time, further time, involved, and that’s the reason why we’ve set a date of February 28, 2025. For those reasons, I would urge members of this committee to vote in support of what is a reasonable amendment to Bill 23.

The Chair: Members, we’ll just take a brief recess to distribute the…. Before I say this, I note on the written form that there are some words in red. Is there a particular reason for that?

M. Lee: No particular reason other than the printing on the sheet. For the purpose of the amendment, that colour should be seen to be black.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. We’re just taking a brief recess to make sure that we get an electronic copy to the member who is attending virtually.

The committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order. We are speaking to the amendment to clause 1 of Bill 23.

Hon. N. Sharma: I won’t be supporting this amendment, and it’s for some pretty clear reasons. The first question I would pose to the member is: did the Muslim community ask for this? Everything that we’ve put in this legislation, including the 13,000 people that engaged in the first data act and the 7,000 people that engaged in this act…. We’ve never heard them say that we would specifically want a clause that puts a deadline upon them to come up with a definition of Islamophobia.

I’m sure we have members that participated in the consultation listening today, so I guess that would be a question to the member, if they asked for this type of thing. We haven’t heard it.

We have a policy through this bill to move at the speed of trust. It’s built into everything in our legislation, including a process that the member has in the amendment, which is to work with the communities under section 3 to come up with plans and specific work directly with them.

As far as I can tell, this amendment only serves to put a deadline on the Muslim community of when they will have to come up with a definition of Islamophobia. I think I talked about, at length, how harmful it is for a government to step into communities and either come up with a definition that’s enforced upon them through legislation or also require a process that could potentially be painful under a deadline.

So I don’t support this amendment.

M. Lee: To respond to the Attorney General’s question, when we met with the leaders of the Muslim community — which included the National Council of Canadian Muslims, NCCM, as well as the B.C. Muslim Association — we did discuss the need to have a definition in Bill 23. That’s something that I understood at the meeting that they were certainly seeing the importance of. I don’t want to speak on their behalf, of course.

I would have thought, with the 7,000 conversations that the Attorney General has had, that there would be some clear understanding of that. Perhaps there isn’t. I’m not trying to do the work of government, nor am I trying to speak on behalf of the Muslim community. I would never purport to do that. I do think that that’s an important question to be asking of the Muslim community.

I can say to the Attorney General that there was recognition of the importance of having a definition. But it’s in the spirit of trying to encourage government to move forward and not to just have a plan to have a plan. That’s what we see in clause 4 of this bill. So to have clarity and definition up front, recognizing that there has been significant work that’s been done on the anti-racism data legislation and the lead-up to this bill, in the last seven days of this legislative session, when we’re finally being able to have this discussion.

I think it’s appropriate to at least ensure, whether it’s this government that is in power after this next election or another government that’s in power after the next election, that we hold each other accountable to ensure that we move forward with what is contemplated under Bill 23 and that that meaningful work continues with definition and clarity at the beginning of that next process.

That’s what I’m proposing in this amendment, and that’s the reason why I encourage, again, all members of the committee to vote in favour of this amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, the question is on the amendment to clause 1 as put forward by the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Division has been called.

[4:30 p.m. - 4:35 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is on the amendment to clause 1 of Bill 23.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

[4:40 p.m.]

S. Robinson: Clause 2 looks at what must be considered in terms of implementing this act. It lists what needs to be considered. I’m wondering if the Attorney can just walk us through a little bit about what the intent is and what the outcome would be just on this clause.

Hon. N. Sharma: The principles, just in a general sense, are meant to guide the act, but the process of getting to these principles was based on co-development with the First Nations, which is part of our process with all legislation. What we set out to do very early on, before we constructed the content of the act, was to test these principles with communities and in our engagement: “Are we hitting the right mark? Does it include what we think we need to include?”

I guess just to go through it, of course, of the first two, one is about Indigenous people, and one is specific to Indigenous people. The third one, (c), is about intersectionality — the principle that people show up in the world with many different identities, that each of them may have an impact on how they experience the world and that that was an important part of the consideration and the principles of the act.

The co-development really shows up through the principles of how we were doing it. Then it’s the clear message of “nothing about us without us,” that idea that we would include people in the work as it unfolds. That’s another principle.

Another one that was pretty key from a lot of the community groups — I heard this a lot in the engagement — was that there has to be some sort of commitment to investing in healing and community services that have to be a part of the work. That was something that we clearly heard, and built into the legislation.

S. Robinson: Thank you very much. That’s helpful.

I’m wondering if the Attorney could speak to (e) and (f) a little bit because I think those two are a little bit different, and I’m wondering if she could explain to us how those fit in with the other principles.

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: So (e) is specifically about what I men­tioned about centring the voices of the people that are experiencing the harm. It is including that, and it’s built into the act. And (f) is very specifically about what I mentioned before, the discussion that people raised over and over again: that it has to be about healing and supporting community groups to do that. That’s the reason for (f).

S. Robinson: I appreciate “nothing about us without us” hasn’t always been the case, so it’s good to hear it here.

Can the Attorney please explain to us what “engagement with racialized communities” in B.C. means?

Hon. N. Sharma: Racialized communities is something we’ve used even throughout ARDA, and we actually added further clarity in this piece of legislation to ensure that antisemitism and Islamophobia were named, because of potential confusion between groups about whether racialized or racism captured that. So we made that parti­cular adjustment.

The term racialized communities, I guess in the broader sense, is for groups of people that have been racialized and have experienced racism, discrimination — every­thing about the community harm, inclusion of those ideas. That’s basically what we’ve been guided by through­out the work.

S. Robinson: So am I a part of a racialized community?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah, you can be included, in the sense of your faith interacting with racism and discrimination. Yeah, it’s meant to be broadly applied to groups of people that are experiencing disadvantage because of their identity.

S. Robinson: I’d like to correct the member that I’m not Jewish by religion; I’m Jewish by nationhood. Again, I think understanding what it means is really important, and clearly, that hasn’t saturated just yet.

What about Doukhobors or Muslims? Are they considered racialized?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We definitely tried to take the approach of inclusion when it comes to this, but I understand that as society evolves or society changes, there’s going to be some need to be flexible in terms of who’s experiencing that form of racism and how it’s showing up.

I think the Doukhobors are an example of that — right? — where there was a particular time period where they were showing up in society, and they were being discriminated against as a result. There was systemic racism targeted against them.

Yeah. I mean Muslim people, Doukhobor…. It’s all about what’s happening to people, through the data and systemic racism that shows up, that would identify that it’s happening and that we should take action on it.

S. Robinson: What’s really interesting is that I don’t consider myself a racialized person. I just don’t. My skin is white, so I don’t see myself in here. I know that a good chunk of the Jewish community…. When they read through this bill, they say: “Well, where am I? When does my community get to be engaged?” because it says “engagement with racialized communities is essential.” It only says racialized communities.

I appear white. Doukhobors appear white. Many Muslims appear white. I don’t see how it is that my people, most who appear white, those who live in North America…. If you go to Israel, it’s actually the most diverse community, like 60 percent dark skin, Black, but here in North America, Jews tend to have white skin. So I know that my community…. When they read this, they were outraged.

We don’t get to be consulted, because throughout this document, it talks about: “We will consult with ‘racialized communities.’” Racialized communities are people of colour, typically. That’s how we understand it. But if you’re not a person of colour, if your community isn’t of colour, then you don’t get to be included.

It’s throughout the document. We see it again in clause 5. This is the provincial committee on anti-racism. “All members must be individuals who are racialized.” Well, I guess that would exclude me. I don’t see myself as racialized. I don’t see anyone in my community as necessarily racialized. We see this throughout the document, where it’s only racialized folks who get to participate in doing this work.

I’m going to ask the Attorney again. Because “racialized” isn’t in the definitions, how are we to understand what it means, who’s included in this work, when she uses the word racialized?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah, this is a very complicated topic, and I think that we should start by saying that we tried in our language and our actions to be as inclusive as possible. The whole point is to remove systemic racism from systems of government.

I’ll point to the member’s question, in a few ways, of how people know that they’re included. First of all, since ARDA, we have been continually using the same definitions but deliberately knowing to Jewish people that they are included in it. That’s through funding that we’ve given directly to them. That’s through engagement that we’ve had, where they’re feeding into the ways things are showing up, including in this bill. That’s been a continual thing.

We’ve also taken feedback. That’s why we specifically named antisemitism, so if there was any lack of clarity that racialized includes that, from our perspective, the racialization of a group can be based on skin colour, origin, religion or language.

[4:55 p.m.]

It’s about a system of harm that government puts on those people, which is the…. It’s, unfortunately, probably going to change over time with groups who are targeted, but that’s the general idea of how we’ve operated.

There’s also a very clear idea of intersectionality and the principles that we talked about, because we know that intersectional identities can cause greater harm or put you in categories that experience different harm based on one identity over another or another identity. It’s a very fluid and sometimes complicated topic of the intersectional ways that people experience harm. That will show up in the data, right? We’ll have some data that’s released that says women that are South Asian, for example, with a Muslim identity experience this differently — right? — than other people.

So it’s going to have to be fluid in terms of our understanding of how to act. But the point being that if government sees data that shows that there’s a disproportionate impact on a group of people, then their requirement is to take action on that to make that better.

S. Robinson: I just want to move on to (f) for a moment. “Investment in programs and services is needed to support healing for individuals and communities harmed by systemic racism….”

Does this anticipate budgetary impacts?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah, the point of building it into the act was to make sure that it was clear that it was a part of the commitment. We’ve done that with multiculturalism. It’s similar in our Multiculturalism Act, where it obligated government to providing funding and support. The specific ask was for healing and community grants to support that in this legislation. I hope to be going to Treasury Board at some point, once this becomes royal assent, to understand that component of it.

S. Robinson: What if the work to do the healing is deemed too political by the Premier and by government?

Hon. N. Sharma: As with all of our granting processes, and it exists under the Multiculturalism Act, it’s free from political interference, in the sense where the granting team would be separate than the politician, whoever that minister is that heads that. They would have criteria that screened out the applicants. What guideline we’re giving in the legislation for that screening is that it would go to support healing. That’s a key one.

The money should be directed towards that, healing to support individuals and communities that are harmed by systemic racism and racial inequity. That would be the overall view of the grant, and then it would be up to the team, not political, to administer the grant.

T. Wat: On section 2(b), considering the emphasis on data-informed action, what kind of safeguards will the minister be proposing to protect the privacy and security of individuals when you are collecting sensitive data on race and identity?

[5:00 p.m.]

[R. Parmar in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We’ve done a very extensive process through ARDA to understand not only our privacy obligations but also the safety and respect that need to be given through the process of collecting disaggregated data, so race-based data, to use it appropriately.

We have quite a rigorous process when it comes to not only the use of data but the release of it. That not only checks all the legal requirements but also checks in with the data committee that we have, that’s made of experts but also racialized people that can help us decide what’s safe and what’s not in terms of its release.

T. Wat: The minister earlier on, talking about the intersecting identities…. Given the complex nature of this intersecting identity mentioned in section 2(c), how will the government ensure the policy of separating the new ones to address these varied experiences without generating or marginalizing certain groups even further?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yeah, I think that’s a very good question. You have to be careful every time you’re diving into collecting data, especially as a government that is collecting not only sensitive and personal information but information that could be used against somebody in terms of stigmatization and all of those. The way the data was collected was respectful of that, and the way the data was held.

When the data came in…. We learned a lot about collecting data through this process, and I’m not a data person. But when it was collected, the identity of the individual to the data was separated. So you can have the idea of whose data that is and collect it in the database, but in terms of what the output is, it’s not based on the individuals’ characters. It becomes the collection of data.

For example, 45 percent of them were women. It’s not identified to that actual woman or their name, but it’s a way for us to understand the population on a statistical level, so we separated it from the individuals to protect them.

Also, once that data was collected, we had a lot of data experts that understood data sovereignty and data use in government that sat with us and are on the committee that figured out with us how you use that data in a way that doesn’t further stigmatize.

When you talk about data or what questions you ask, even, about the data can actually lead to further harm, because you’re saying…. If you ask a targeted question at data, it might show something that actually is more harmful to communities. Through that committee, we understand the right questions to ask about the data, the right way to release it so it doesn’t further stigmatize it.

The benefit of that is…. Right now as policymakers, we’re largely blind to individual impacts of communities. The In Plain Sight report was a good example, where you finally looked at the disproportionate impact that services were having on Indigenous people. What that does is obligate government to act, because what was invisible before is now visible.

So you do want that to happen. You want the data to show the disproportionate impact on a community, but you want to do it in a way that doesn’t cause harm.

It’s a very detailed and complicated process, and the way we’ve landed is to rely on the experts to tell us how to do it. So when we release it, like we will at the end of June, it’ll have gone through this committee to understand it. Then, hopefully, it will be a useful tool for government to say: in this service, these people are experiencing it differently, or these people are having different health outcomes. But not on an individual basis; on a population level.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the detailed explanation.

When the minister said it’s the experts, that means it’s the experts in the data committee, not the government civil servants, right?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We have a director of statistics in Citizens’ Services that is our internal expert in government and understands how to collect government data and how to store it safely in accordance with all of the privacy policies and usage that we have.

Then we have the data committee, that’s external to government, that will not see individual data. They won’t see somebody’s individual stats or what they’ve given us, but they are there to guide us on, kind of, the bigger questions of all of the data once we have it, how we release it, what questions we ask. They do a harm analysis of the data before it’s released.

That’s kind of how it’s set up.

T. Wat: Thank you for the minister’s further explanation.

I also want to talk about section 2(f), the investment, as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville just talked about. According to this section, investment in programs and services is essential for healing the affected communities.

How will the government secure and allocate funding specifically for these purposes, and what measures will be taken to ensure sustained financial support over time?

Hon. N. Sharma: As in what we’ve seen in the Multiculturalism Act, one way to ensure that it’s an ongoing financial commitment of government is to build it in the legislation. So you’ll see in this bill that it obligates government to invest in healing of the communities that are experiencing systemic racism. We’ve seen those yearly grants under the Multiculturalism Act because of that legislative obligation.

Also, so far we’ve invested $1.2 million into the implementation of this act and our engagement with community as a way to move it forward. I think if this legislation passes, we will have that ability to then finance that part of it on an ongoing basis.

The Chair: Thank you, Attorney and Members. We’re just going to take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:07 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.

[R. Parmar in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23 back to order. We’re on clause 2.

S. Robinson: I want to go back to the question about racialized communities. I see throughout the document there’s consistent language being used.

[5:10 p.m.]

I know that the Attorney General had mentioned over and over again that, from her perspec­tive or the perspective of government, it was broader than that. But we don’t see a definition of racialized in the act in the front section.

The Attorney kept talking about doing what community asks for, and I can say with tremendous confidence that the Jewish community was very upset when they saw this language, because the Jewish community does not see itself as a racialized community.

I have a proposed amendment to the bill.

I move in this committee on Bill 23 to amend as follows:

[In CLAUSE 2 (e), by striking out “racialized communities” and substituting “ethnocultural/racialized communities” wherever it appears.]

I’m happy to speak to it.

The Chair: Please go ahead, Member.

On the amendment.

S. Robinson: The reason I did this was because…. Again, I appreciate that the Attorney General is committed to being inclusive and wanting to see anybody who might come from a different kind of community, who might experience what we generally call racism or hatred or exclusion in any way shape or form through any of our public bodies — that that gets identified and that those groups see themselves as being part of the solution. I really appreciate that.

I think there’s a real misstep here in the language that’s used in this bill. When I read about engagement with racialized communities, I don’t see how the Doukhobors are engaged. I don’t see how Jews are engaged. I don’t see how Muslims are engaged. Those are ethnocultural or religious communities. They’re not racialized communities. So I continue to stumble around as I read through this document.

All members on the provincial committee on anti-racism must be individuals who are racialized. So does that mean if you’re white, you’re not included? To me, if you’re white, if your skin is white, that doesn’t speak to you, so you’re not included. It follows right through this entire document.

We see it again when we move on to part 5. “The committee must develop the framework and set the standards, targets and indicators referred to in subsection (1)…through collaboration with racialized communities.” To me, that leaves out all these other communities. A public body must engage with racialized communities in complying with this part.

Again, it’s racialized communities. Jews don’t see themselves as racialized. I don’t think Muslims do either, especially if their skin is white. Doukhobors, I don’t think, would consider themselves racialized.

Again, when we move on to section 17, “information respecting systemic racism and racial inequity provided by racialized communities,” well, there are religious and ethno­cultural communities, too, but it only deals with race.

We see it again in section 20, recruitment, retention and advancement. “A public body must establish…the recruitment, retention and advancement of racialized individuals within the public body.” So only racialized people. Again, that’s how I’m reading this, and it goes on and on.

I’m proposing in my amendmentto use broader language. How can that hurt? You might as well go big or go home. If you’re going to stick with racialized communities, then you’re stuck with racialized communities, and you’re leaving a whole whack of people out of this document.

The Attorney General says she wants people to see them­selves in this document, but there’s a whole group of people that won’t see themselves in this document. So the very act of just using that language, exclusive language, does the exact opposite of what the intent is here.

Now, the minister, on behalf of the Attorney, might just say: “Well, that’s what we use in other legislation.” Well, if that’s what they use in other legislation, then I think that was a big oops, because I think that’s a problem. When people who come from a different background, different ethnocultural group can’t see themselves in the document and you want them to see themselves, want them to be seen….

[5:15 p.m.]

Now, it might be possible…. They squeezed in Islamophobia and antisemitism in 4(1)(b) in response to that, but that doesn’t help the rest of the document. It doesn’t help the rest of the document because in 4(1)(b) where it talks about “systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism” — which is a funny sentence, and I’ll get to that when we get to section 4 — it then goes on to talk about being on the committee, but it doesn’t talk about Jews or Muslims being on the committee. It just talks about racialized people.

They make this little exception here about how they have to address the harms of systemic racism towards Muslims and Jews, frankly. That’s how I read that. It’s a funny sentence. But the rest of the document completely ignores those two groups, because it’s just racialized people.

That’s why I’m proposing this amendment. I think it broadens the scope, as the Attorney General has been speaking about for the last couple of hours, and I think it does justice to the bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Member. The amendment is in order. We’re just going to take a short recess to distribute the amendment to those participating virtually.

The committee recessed from 5:16 p.m. to 5:19 p.m.

[R. Parmar in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole back to order on the amendment.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s comments. There are a couple things I’ll say.

[5:20 p.m.]

First, the federal government has reviewed the term “ethnocultural and religious diversity” and found there are more than 450 ethnic and cultural origins — German, Scottish…. Although I appreciate what the member is trying to get at, broadening it, I think, goes away from what the bill is trying to get at.

I also appreciate, and I was listening to the debate before I got to step in, the member’s point that there are some in the Jewish community who would consider themselves racialized. The member says she doesn’t consider herself racialized, and I appreciate that point. I think the core point the member is trying to make is: how do folks within the Jewish community see themselves reflected and ensure that they understand that this is about them?

I would say that…. I know we’re only in section 2, but as we move forward and as we get to section 4(1), it says, “The action plan must include,” and it goes through, if you go to section 4(1)(b), “actions to be taken by public bodies toward addressing the harms of systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism.”

Although I really respect the member’s point…. I see where the member is going, but what I’m saying is that we believe the legislation calls it out, and there’s a call for government to take action on that.

I can’t support the amendment, but I do appreciate the premise that the member has brought forward.

The Chair: Member, on the amendment.

S. Robinson: Thank you. I’d like to speak again.

Given there are…. Yes, there are many different ethno­cultural groups, and it is possible that at some point in the future, people of Scottish descent could become a target of hate. It’s possible. German people could be a target of hate. It’s not out of the realm of possibility.

I would imagine that we would be prepared for that, and there would be an ethnocultural group. I don’t know why we wouldn’t at least acknowledge that hate moves around. It doesn’t seem to…. It always hangs on to us, but it can move around to just about anybody. I think we need to be prepared for that.

Then when you move on to section 5, it says that all members who are going to be on the provincial committee on anti-racism must be individuals who are racialized, which means that they’re people of colour. That’s how I read that. That means no Jews, no Muslims and no Doukhobors are invited to be on this committee, because they must be racialized. That’s why I’m bringing this amendment forward, because there’s no definition of “racialized” for us to understand that it’s broad-based.

It could be that in the future another government comes in, picks up this bill and says: “Oh, well, your skin is white. Therefore, you can’t be on here.” It’s not really clear, from this legislation, who gets to be on the committee. That’s why I’m proposing an amendment that speaks more broadly, because it specifically excludes people who are targeted, who we know are targeted for hate, and they don’t get to be on the committee.

The Chair: Seeing no further debate, the question is the amendment to clause 2.

Division has been called.

[5:25 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind all members that only the members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

The question is the amendment to clause 2 moved by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville.

[5:35 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: We’ll move back to clause 2.

S. Robinson: Given that the government didn’t see fit to include the amendment, I think it would be really important to get on record…. If I’m to understand how government sees the language that isn’t defined, perhaps we can get on record, so at least we have it on Hansard, that where it says racialized communities or racialized persons or racialized groups…. Wherever we see the word “racialized,” is that to mean that that includes people of various ethnocultural groups, religions? So those folks can at least go back to Hansard to understand what it is that government meant when crafting this bill.

Hon. R. Kahlon: So just for the record, ethnocultures can be racialized. That’s one thing. Second, I think it’s important to note that you can be racialized as a result of your faith that interacts with racism. For example, a person who wears a kippah is racialized by operation of his faith in a visible way.

Then lastly, we point directly to section 4(b) in the bill where it says: “actions to be taken by public bodies toward addressing the harms of systemic racism, systemic racism specific to Indigenous peoples, Islamophobia and antisemitism.”

So the member wants on the record that, of course, this means making sure that there’s engagement with folks from the Jewish community as this work proceeds.

S. Robinson: Although I do need to point out that the minister talked about if someone’s wearing a kippah, they’re then racialized. That’s almost ridiculous, because I don’t know how someone by what they wear gets defined “racialized.” I wear a Jewish star. It doesn’t make me racialized suddenly. It’s not how I think the world understands the word “racialized.”

But if that’s how government sees it, what I worry about is anyone who picks up this bill won’t see what government intends. And our bills are supposed to be clear. It’s supposed to have good definitions, and it’s lacking definitions.

Now, the minister also said ethnocultural can be racialized. Of course it can be racialized. That’s the advantage of that word. But racialized excludes a whole bunch of other people. And I promise the minister if he were to go out and actually talk to groups of Jews…. If you ask them, “Do you consider yourself racialized?” unless they were a Mizrahi Jew who came from the Middle East or they came from Ethiopia and were a Black Jew or they came from Morocco as an African Jew, they would say that they’re not racialized because their skin is white.

No one in my family considered ourselves racialized because we’re eastern European Jews. Now, my son-in-law is Mizrahi. He’s very dark-skinned. He’s racialized. So this is part of the problem we have with this definition, so I just wanted on record that you’re also including people of different faiths as part of the definition of “racialized.”

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s correct. We are.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

T. Wat: Given the detailed requirements in sections 3 and 4 of this bill for developing a provincial anti-racism action plan by June 1, 2026, could the minister elaborate on the specific measures the government intends to implement to prevent any delays and ensure timely and effective completion of the plan?

Already this plan, the time for transition…. It’s already quite late, because the anti-racism incidents flared up during COVID, and it’s already so many years after COVID.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. I know that it’s troubling for all of us when we hear about individual acts of racism.

We’ve launched the hotline. I know the member was an advocate of that as well. Obviously, it’s troubling for all of our communities. Certainly, the member will have had that experience in her life. I have had that experience in my life. Many of my colleagues have had that experience.

But it’s important to note that this legislation is not about individual acts of racism. It’s more about systemic racism. Those actions are happening to address individual acts of racism. We have to move at the speed of trust. We have to make sure we build trust with communities and move with communities.

Now, the date isn’t just a random date that was chosen. It’s tied to a couple of things. It’s tied to the previous work around data. It has informed the next round of research priorities, which was scheduled to be released on or before June 1, 2025. So the date ties in the work that’s happening there with the work that’s happening here and brings them together.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for the explanation.

We can see that the first action plan will publish after the election in October. Will the work on the formation of the action plan happen throughout the election time by ministry staff, or do they anticipate a potential delay in this formation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question. Yes, the work will continue. We all will be busy in an election, but the work within government will continue on this.

T. Wat: Thanks for the minister’s response.

How will the government ensure transparency and accountability during the development and implementation phases of this anti-racism action plan, expressly in terms of meeting the deadline and providing public progress updates?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think there are two parts. One is that the engagement will be very public. We want communities engaging in this, so it’s not something that will be happening in private. It’ll be a very public engagement. We’ve got yearly reporting so that every year, there’s progress being reported and communities being able to give feedback on the reporting, as well, that will inform the work as we go forward.

T. Wat: Understanding that under DRIPA, there’s a duty and mechanism to consult with the Indigenous community, what is the bar for engagement as outlined in clause 3(2)(b) of this act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s very aligned with the work that we’ve been doing across government. Consultation and cooperation are how the province works with Indigenous peoples in all aspects and all respects involving the alignment of laws with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

T. Wat: Could the minister explain what qualifies as action expected of public bodies in identifying and eliminating systemic racism, including that specific to Indigenous people, Islamophobia and antisemitism?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the actions aren’t defined yet. That’s the work that will have to happen as we go forward. It’ll be informed by data. Now we’re able to collect data to identify systemic racism within institutions. All of those things, and engagement, will help inform what those actions will be.

T. Wat: When will this action be expected?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Well, the date for the action plan is June 1, 2026.

There are a couple things to note. If there are things that get identified through engagement that require urgency, there’s ability to move. And this plan isn’t the entirety of everything to address racism. There are a lot of things that are happening outside of this to address racism, providing grants to communities, a whole host of things, the hotline. I think we have to find multiple ways to get at it.

In order to address systemic racism, the data is going to be important and help inform the decisions. So this will have the date of June 1, 2026, but there’ll be work outside of this happening as well.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister.

I heard earlier on that the data report will be released by June, so when we receive this data, what kind of action are we going to do?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Some preliminary data will be available June 1. From that data, there’s going to be a requirement for government to engage, so that process will happen.

As I highlighted earlier, we will be in that period where we will be off doing something else, but the folks that work within government will do that work. From that data will be some actions. Preliminary actions will be defined. That will require communities to be engaged.

What’s core to this work is trying to build that trust, build those relationships, and that takes time. That’s why we’ve got the date that we’ve got. It doesn’t mean that it has to go on that date. If work proceeds quicker, then it could come earlier as well. But it’s important that we follow this process.

This is what we’ve heard. This is what the ministry heard when the process was being developed — that you need to move at the speed of trust, and you need to ensure that communities have the opportunity to fully engage in the work as we move forward.

T. Wat: What targets are being set for public bodies regarding the identification and elimination of systemic racism, including that specific to Indigenous people, Islamo­phobia and antisemitism? What outcomes are expected in advancing racial equity?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I’ll start with the outcome we’re hoping for. The ultimate outcome is people seeing themselves reflected in government, ensuring that people get better services from government. It could be hiring, making sure there is good representation in hiring. It could be in advancement within government.

Data can inform many things. An example of data helping address systemic racism could be…. Let’s say, for example, you’ve got data that comes that Indigenous communities have a certain medical procedure or…. Let’s say diabetes, a higher case of diabetes. Then you know, from a health perspective, that you need to ensure that there are specific types of services available for communities that are being disproportionately impacted by that particular element.

It helps improve the services. It helps improve health care. That could be in many, many situations. That’s what the data will help inform as we go forward.

T. Wat: What considerations were made for the explicit mention of Islamophobia and antisemitism, and how does the minister view these forms of hate as different from other forms of systemic racism?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s question on this. I think the data will help inform the needs within the broader community. But because we’re specifically naming, in this section, Indigenous people, Islamophobia and antisemitism, it will require specific actions to address these three communities. That’s why they’re being named. There’ll be actions specific to them.

Hopefully, the member is not asking what the actions will be. That’s going to require some time and some work with communities. But our expectation or understanding with this work by naming these communities is that there are specific sections or specific areas identified and actions identified specifically for these communities. Then, as well, the report and the work will also have an impact on communities broader than that.

T. Wat: What I was asking the minister is: how does the minister view these forms of hate in these two groups, Islamophobia and antisemitism, different from other forms of systemic racism? I would like to hear the minister’s view on this.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Sorry. The member said last time: how will we define actions? If I can clarify, is the member asking why, specifically, these two communities were named in this section with Indigenous people? Just for clarity, then I’ll try to get the answer for the member.

T. Wat: What I was asking the minister is: how does the minister view the forms of hate within these two groups, Islamophobia and antisemitism, different from other general forms of systemic racism?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the answer is rooted in something the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville was asking in the previous questions.

It was important to ensure that these communities saw themselves reflected in the work, because it’s important to address the work and the challenges that communities are feeling. This work allows us to reflect the needs of the community at the time but also ensure that we’re able to adjust as we go forward. As time changes, the needs and the actions may change as well.

It goes back to the answer that the Attorney General was giving earlier, as well, around definitions, giving the ability for those to change over time as the communities feel that that is needed.

T. Wat: Now I would really like to go back to the letter raised by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville about the former Premier, John Horgan, who wrote the letter to the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs way back in 2022. The former Premier was referring to the federal government’s publication, in 2019, entitled Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019-2022.

In particular, the former Premier cited the following. The government of Canada included definitions of many terms, including “anti-Asian racism,” “anti-Black racism,” “antisemitism,” “Islamophobia” and “racism.” This is a publication from 2019. It was even before COVID hit all of us. As the minister is well aware, during COVID, the anti-Asian racism incidents had surged.

In Vancouver alone, there was an increase of 700 percent, and in 2021, Bloomberg labelled Vancouver as the anti-Asian hate crime capital in North America. I’m sure none of us here is proud that we have this description.

Even before COVID hit, the federal government, in this anti-racism strategy, singled out anti-Asian racism and anti-Black racism before antisemitism, Islamophobia and other racism. I fail to understand why we just mention antisemitism and Islamophobia. I understand Indigenous, definitely, because of DRIPA. But how come we…? There’s no mention of anti-Asian racism or anti-Black racism at all for this document. It only mentions the three groups.

As a member of the Asian-Canadian community, I can speak more on that, but I totally also can empathize with how Black Canadians have been undergoing so much racism in our province as well, particularly after COVID — and Asian Canadians in particular. That’s why I’ve been urging this government to come up with an anti-racism education day. I’m glad that the Premier, who at that time was the Attorney General, has listened to me and declared an Anti-Racism Awareness Week, instead of one day. That’s good.

[6:05 p.m.]

I also pushed for, together with my caucus in 2020…. I also requested a hotline, which the minister referenced just now. After we’d made the call for an anti-racism reporting hotline, in 2021, the government issued a news release saying that it’s necessary to have such a hotline for people who experience racism to report. The whole news release sounds very supportive of our request to have this hotline.

Year after year, after the news release in 2022-23, I have been asking the Attorney General, who is responsible for the anti-racism file, about this hotline. Every single time I asked the same question, the response I got was: it will be in operation soon. Even though this hotline has nothing to do with this bill, it’s important to raise this issue — that the government hasn’t even come up with a hotline that they promised almost three years ago.

Now we are talking about introducing this bill to tackle the systemic racism. How can the community trust that this government is really committed to eliminating systemic racism when the promise, the commitment to have this racism hotline…? It’s not even in operation, almost three years.

As a Chinese Canadian, actually, I want to put on record that Chinese Canadians came to this province in 1788, 79 years before Canada was founded. Chinese Canadians came here before Canada was even founded.

In 1858, Chinese migrants came to B.C. after gold was discovered. Then, between 1881 and 1884, 15,000 Chinese labourers were brought to B.C. to help us build the CPR, Canadian Pacific Railway. That was one of the conditions, that B.C. had to link the railroad to Alberta before we could be part of Canada. Chinese Canadians contributed to this requirement. No other ethnic groups were willing to build the railway because it was so dangerous. Every single mile of this railroad, at least one Chinese railroad worker died.

Then even after they had contributed so much to our province, the government imposed, in 1885, a Chinese head tax, initially $50. But the government felt that it could not deter Chinese from coming to British Columbia, and in 1900, it increased to $100. Again, the government of that time saw the Chinese still coming, and then, in 1903, it increased to $500, equivalent to their two-year salary.

According to the United Nations report, between 1885 and 1923, the Canadian government collected about $23 million through the head tax, which amounts to an estimated $1.2 billion now. This represented a large source of revenue for the British Columbian and federal governments over a four-decade period.

The tax was only applied to Chinese, causing financial difficulty for many new immigrants. Yet we have the 1923 Chinese immigration exclusion act that excluded Chinese from immigrating to Canada, except diplomats, foreign students and those who were admitted under special circumstances.

Eventually, after so many years, in 1947, the exclusion act was repealed. For the first time in British Columbia, Chinese and South Asian Canadians, and the minister is part of a South Asian ethnicity, were able to vote.

[6:10 p.m.]

We can see there’s so much discrimination against Chinese Canadians. During COVID, it just triggered off another wave of anti-Asian racism incidents, yet this government has been slow in coming with this racism act. I could tell that all this anti-racism data and the act that we are now debating are the result of what happened during COVID. I don’t see any mention of anti-Asian racism throughout the document, nor the anti-Black.

As I said, the federal government’s document in 2019 already put forward anti-Asian racism, anti-Black racism before it. And the order of the description is these two, anti-Asian racism and anti-Black racism, before antisemitism and Islamophobia, which are now quite a serious issue. I just fail to understand why it’s not mentioned in this bill.

Hon. R. Kahlon: First, I want to acknowledge my friend across the way’s comments about the racism faced by our early immigrants to this country — Asian, South Asian. I think that we all know the stories very well. Growing up on the Island, I know a lot of families that have been here for three or four generations, and the conversation we always have is: because of our skin, when do we become Canadian? Too often we’re still dealing with racism when we’re four generations here. It’s a real challenge, so I appreciate the member’s taking us back on the history of this.

I would say a few things. One, again, it’s going from individual cases of racism to systemic racism. This bill is not about individual racism cases. This is about systemic racism as a whole. I think that’s important to note.

Second, here we name Islamophobia and antisemitism. It goes to the point the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville made, which is that you could have light skin, and you could be Jewish. You could have light skin, and you could be Muslim. We wanted to make sure those communities saw that in here.

The member and I — the issues that our communities face are different. I’m not saying one is more important. We still face racism. Our communities face systemic racism. We need to deal with it, and that’s in this bill. Racialized communities, the language we were debating for some time, include us, as well, in that conversation.

Now, if we start adding…. We can go anti-Asian; we can go anti-Black; we can go anti–South Asian. The question would be: why is one more? Why is not another one, right? We can continue to do that. I think what I’m trying to emphasize here is that the work the member is talking about is included in this bill already. It’s already included in this bill. I appreciate that the member may say: “Well, I want to add an amendment, adding this one, and I want to add an amendment to another one.” I mean, the member could, of course. But it’s already reflected in the work.

Now, I think the member will also know that part of the mandate letter of the Attorney General is to have specific work for anti-Black and anti-Asian hate. I can commit to the member…. I know the team has shared that work will be public and also reflected in the document.

The member is correct. There were some specific challenges being faced. The South Asian community faced lots of challenges coming out after 9/11. It was very difficult to be a person wearing a turban in any community. Coming out of the pandemic — I agree with the member — there were real challenges for folks within the Asian community, in my community, in communities throughout the province. So it’s in the mandate letter. The work is going to happen.

Now, I appreciate that the member is not going to like my answer on the hotline, because it’s coming soon. The member said: “When is it coming?” It’s coming soon. I can’t make that announcement today, but it is coming very soon.

I’ll also say that the member mentioned the federal government and where the federal government had it. I think it’s very important to note this. The federal government had the language that the member referred to, but it wasn’t in legislation. The language they referred to was in the strategy. There is a distinction between the two things, and there is a separation between the two things. I think it’s important just to put all those things on the record.

Like I said, I do appreciate my friend from Richmond raising these issues. I’m in agreement with her experiences and her perspective, and I can certainly relate to it. I appreciate this dialogue that we’ve been able to have today.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:15 p.m.