1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 8

[ Page 7383 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

D. Jarvis: In the galleries today are two young ladies from London, Ontario. I'd like to introduce Carol Hurrell and Gloria Jarvis. Would the members make them welcome, please.

D. Mitchell: I notice in the public galleries today two of my constituents. Would the House please welcome Diane and Nancy Hartwick.

Ministerial Statement

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD INITIATIVES

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me apologize at the outset, as this may be a little longer than is normally the case. I would appreciate the indulgence of the House -- in fact, I can see I'm going to get it -- in dealing with this issue. It's a significant issue that faces many British Columbians: namely, problems at the Workers' Compensation Board and the difficulties that workers have getting justice with regard to their claims.

For too long, workers in B.C. have experienced a series of problems relating to workers' compensation claims. First, they find that immediately upon being injured at work their stream of income is interrupted, which causes hardship for their family. Second, they find themselves facing a bureaucracy that is intimidating and hard for anyone to actually figure out. Third, because their stream of income has been interrupted, they cannot afford either legal counsel or advice on how to deal with the difficulties of that bureaucracy.

And fourth, even if they find their way through the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, there are incredible and intolerable delays with regard to accessing their files, hearing their appeals and working through the system. All of us in this House, as MLAs who do ongoing constituency work, have seen both the anger and the frustration that working men and women who are injured feel when they find themselves in this kind of situation.

I am pleased to announce today that the government is taking a series of initiatives to deal with the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and I want to outline those initiatives. First, the government will be establishing a series of worker adviser offices throughout B.C. to assist workers who have claims against the Workers' Compensation Board.

The purpose of these offices is to assist workers in resolving their claims in an expeditious way: first, by allowing the worker in a local community to meet someone locally, instead of having to go down to Richmond to meet someone face to face in an advocacy office; second, by providing them with information as to how they can deal with their claim in an expeditious fashion, to prepare it properly; and third, by providing better details of their cases, which are often complex, to offer direction to the Workers' Compensation Board in terms of how best to resolve these cases.

I'm pleased to advise all hon. members that we opened the first office in December in Prince George, today we opened an office in the greater Victoria area, in Saanich, and we will be opening additional offices in Kamloops and Nanaimo during the course of this fiscal year. By providing workers who are injured with access to advocacy services within the local community, we believe we can help workers at the front end deal with their claims and have them go through the system in a more expeditious way.

I think we all acknowledge that there has been a significant backlog with regard to the processing of claims at the Workers' Compensation Board. These occur at the appeal level, the former commissioner's office, the medical review panels and at the board of review.

Let me deal first with the commissioner's office -- as it was then called. Two years ago, for example, the delivery of services at the highest adjudicative level of the workers' compensation system, the commissioner's office, was a source of anger and frustration for injured workers. The backlog of cases at that time totaled over 1,700. I am pleased to report to this House today that over the course of our first year in office, this backlog of cases has been eliminated. I am proud of the work done at the WCB in turning that situation around for the benefit of those injured workers and their families who desperately needed decisions to be made. But that is clearly not enough.

Last week I met with the medical review panel of the Workers' Compensation Board and delivered the same message to them. As all members know, the review panel deals with all matters pertaining to medical questions on claims and appeals. The board of governors of the Workers' Compensation Board initiated a major study over the past year in response to, among other things, the need for a speedier resolution of medical claims. That report developed recommendations to resolve the pace at which medical appeals are dealt with. Those recommendations have been translated into regulations, and today I am pleased to confirm for the House that those regulations will be made law later this year.

I now want to turn to the work of the review board. Last fall the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca brought to the attention of all members of this House the alarming increase in the backlog of cases at the review board. This administrative tribunal considers appeals regarding decisions made by officers of the WCB on claims by injured workers. My colleague and other members of the Legislature have pointed out that the backlog of the review board totaled 6,000 cases. The government has taken several steps to reduce that backlog.

To begin with, we have launched a new format for appeals. We have now moved to a two-stage process with regard to appeals. First, we mail a letter to workers advising them that their appeal is in the system. Secondly, we encourage them to let us know when they are ready to appear before the board to have their case heard. By doing that, we believe that we will have more hearing slots available. We also believe that we will avoid the problems we've had in the past with regard to

[ Page 7384 ]

delays in the system due to people having to seek deferral of a hearing. Consequently, as a result of these changes, we have now developed a system where, particularly in the lower mainland -- outside the lower mainland we're not quite there yet -- we will now be able to provide a hearing date within 30 to 45 days of the party being ready to proceed; in other words, when they have given us the second part of their appeal notice. We will provide a finding in the appeal within 60 days after the last submission is received. We've had delays of up to 11 months.

We are now, particularly with regard to a case in the lower mainland, in a position where we can reduce that to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90 to 105 days.

I am also pleased to report to the House today that from May 10 to June 4 this year a special effort was undertaken at the review board to further tackle the backlog. Holidays for the review board staff were cancelled and work arrangements were totally focused on the production of decisions for all those appeals where more than 90 days had elapsed from the final evidence being heard. As a result of this effort, more than 1,000 appeals will have been decided. During this same time period, two task groups were assigned to review appeals which had been waiting too long to be assigned to panels.

These have been identified as 850 appeals which would have taken until January 1994 to dispose of. Many had already been waiting 11 months without being assigned to a panel. As a result of this focused and intensified effort, it is estimated that these appeals will be dealt with by the end of this fall.

To further deal with the backlog, I am pleased to advise all hon. members that today the government has made a commitment to increase the number of panels at the review board. We will be adding four additional panels -- in other words, 12 additional people -- at the review board to further help eliminate the backlog and to provide workers with the justice they deserve. This government believes that justice delayed is justice denied. We believe that it is a matter of political will to resolve these problems at the Workers' Compensation Board.

We are pleased to say that today we are demonstrating the will necessary to provide overdue justice to those workers in British Columbia that have been injured on the job and have had to wait for these kinds of decisions to be made.

I have reported to the House some of our past achievements with regard to workers' compensation. We have developed safety regulations for 30,000 farmworkers in the province. Most recently, I noted the successful completion of public hearings to provide regulations to reduce workplace violence. Several processes for public consultation have concluded in the areas of regulations for first aid, industrial chemicals and the fishing industry. For the working men and women of the province, this government will continue to expedite fair and timely decisions and increase the level of safety at job sites throughout B.C.

We will also continue to lead in the provision of the most advanced and progressive compensation services available. The workforce in our province deserves nothing less.

[2:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: I am indeed pleased to hear many of the comments the minister made today. Taking these issues by the horns, so to speak, and dealing with them to some extent has been long overdue. I do believe that a good deal of the credit goes to the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, who has been tireless in bringing these issues to the attention of the minister and of the House. I have talked to him a number of times on this very issue. I believe the problems that have existed in the past with the WCB, and many problems that continue to exist, are a concern to all members of the Legislature.

I think the relief of the backlog at WCB, the new appeal process and the administration of it are things that all injured workers will be pleased to know are now in place. I do, however, have some concerns with the minister's comments. A number of new panels are being set up and a number of new offices are being opened up to improve access. I do hope that the increased levels of access and the additional panels to get rid of the delays will correspond with a reduction in expenses at the Richmond office.

I hope that in moving some of this access out into the areas where the workers are, we're not just doubling the bureaucracy but streamlining it and making it more effective and efficient. I would hope that that is going to be the end result of some of these changes as opposed to just a buildup.

A number of things will be required to make changes at the WCB -- not just policy changes, but a whole change in the culture of the organization in its attitude and responsiveness to the needs of injured workers; and treating them as fellow British Columbians and citizens, rather than people who are trying to scam the system or take advantage of something. That will take time, and I hope that all members of the House will continue to work towards that, providing their input and ensuring that many of the problems at the WCB that we hear about on a daily basis are cleared up in the near future.

L. Hanson: I must say to the minister that this sounds an awful like the announcement you made last year when you established the office in Prince George. From the minister's point of view, I suppose it's beneficial to announce it twice. I hope that the announcement of the new office will not stop the program where workers' advisers are travelling around the province and meeting with various claimants in their home community, because I think that that is an excellent program.

The only criticism I might have of the process is that the problem is not -- as I think the minister said in his statement -- the fact that claimants do not have the opportunity to get advice on how to thread their way through the bureaucracy; the problem is that there is far too much bureaucracy. I think the minister should put some of his energies into reducing the amount of red tape and problems....

Interjections.

[ Page 7385 ]

L. Hanson: They ask me who the Labour minister was. I might suggest that during the term of another minister the backlog at the review board was completely annihilated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Please continue, hon. member.

L. Hanson: It's amusing how the opposition will pick up on something. The intention was to say that the backlog....

Interjections.

L. Hanson: We're the opposition.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I was referring to the backlog at the review panel. We had the circumstance of that being totally eliminated.

In any case, I hope that the minister, when he referred in his statement to the 30 to 45 days to have a date for the review hearing, meant that in 30 to 45 days was when the review hearing would be held, because the frustration is due to the time between the claim and the decision actually being made. If he did mean 30 to 45 days for an actual hearing to be held, I would support that wholeheartedly. If he meant that they would tell him, two years down the road, when the date would be within 30 or 45 days, that wouldn't be quite as acceptable.

We can support wholeheartedly any initiative to get decisions more quickly and efficiently to people who have had injuries in the workplace so that they can resolve their future -- how they are going to handle it and what benefits they may or may not receive. The difficulty is the time lapse between an actual injury and a resolution of that problem. That is the problem, not access to workers' advisers. Maybe access to workers' advisers will help reduce that problem.

Through this process, I hope that the minister understands what the problem is, and that he will continue to put his efforts into reducing that time delay and the frustrations that go with it.

Oral Questions

REASONS FOR DECLINE IN GOVERNMENT POPULARITY

F. Gingell: With all due modesty, I note some interesting poll results this morning. They have comments attached to them from the Premier that his government's decline in popularity is the result of hard choices they have made. In the Premier's absence, I wonder if the Deputy Premier would let us know which of the following choices have made this difference. Was it their choice to give patronage plums to NDP backers, their choice to make sweetheart deals with the unions or their choice to impose crushing taxes?

The Speaker: Deputy Speaker. Or Deputy Premier.

Hon. A. Hagen: I do intend to speak, hon. Speaker.

The hard choices that a government has to make coming in after years of mismanagement of our economy and social programs are something that everyone in this province knows about: looking after education and health and making the necessary changes; dealing with a deficit that was left to us -- dishonestly reported -- by the third party; continuing with spending in support of our priorities, where we manage the economy and our budget in the interests of all British Columbia; and ensuring that in our term of office we will be known as a government that stood up for the people we represent, the working people of the province, and brought to our government and province the kind of management of our taxes and resources, human and fiscal, that serve the agendas that we were elected to do.

CANADA-U.S. SALMON NEGOTIATIONS

R. Chisholm: This question goes to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it is one of the hard choices you keep evading. In the past several hours the Pacific Salmon Treaty discussions have broken down. What specific plan does this minister have in place to ensure that American fishermen do not overrun our fishing industry and we do not end up with a summer of gunboat diplomacy on the high seas?

Hon. B. Barlee: I hope the member knows that negotiations between the United States and Canada are carried on between the United States and Canada. This is a negotiation by the federal government. I won't play politics on this. I will say that the federal government, led by the Hon. John Crosbie and a very brilliant negotiator, Yves Fortier, has not knuckled under on these particular negotiations; they're doing extremely well. We have drawn a line in the sand. It's extremely important, and I'll tell you why it's important.

Last year the Americans took 361,000 sockeye out of the Fraser River run that they were not entitled to. They also received benefits of $65 million per year from our fish, which they are not entitled to.

The Pacific Salmon Treaty was negotiated in 1985. It is being renegotiated now. It's an important treaty for British Columbia. I think the federal stance is correct. We stand behind them. We have a negotiator at the table, and he's an excellent negotiator: Bill Lefeaux-Valentine. Unfortunately, the Americans do not live up to the letter or the intent of the original agreement.

R. Chisholm: The minister's line in the sand is like throwing a rock into a pond: it disappears very quickly.

For the past two years the minister has denied any responsibility for this industry -- until now, after he's forced to get involved. When will this minister have the guts to stand up for the fishermen of B.C. and stop being taken in hook, line and sinker by the Americans and John Crosbie?

[ Page 7386 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll try to avoid the clich�s -- tired ones at least.

I think the hon. member should be aware of the history of this. I'll try and explain it very briefly to you. There were two....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I ask that the House to come to order. Would the minister answer the question as briefly as possible.

Hon. B. Barlee: To do that, hon. Speaker, I must very briefly outline that there were two great salmon rivers in the world, not just in North America. One was the Columbia, the other was the Fraser. Essentially, the Americans have destroyed the fish stocks on the Columbia River by building dozens of dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. On the other hand, Canada and B.C. have been extremely careful with the Fraser River. We have not dammed or fettered the Fraser River. We've taken very good care of the stocks. The run in 1992 was the highest since 1913. Our stocks on the west coast are in extremely good shape, with the exception of two species, and I think they'll remain this way.

APPOINTMENT TO B.C. HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. Can the minister confirm that the new general manager of the B.C. Housing Management Commission, Saul Schubert, worked as a deputy minister for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation under the Pawley government? Since there's no OIC for his appointment, can you tell us how Mr. Schubert was appointed? Was this position tendered in a public competition?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I can confirm that Mr. Schubert is the general manager of B.C. Housing. Mr. Schubert is one of the leading experts on housing in this country. He has joined the B.C. government, and is proud to do that. Mr. Schubert was appointed by the B.C. Housing board, which is mandated to do such.

L. Fox: I'm pleased that the minister made those comments. He's obviously unaware of the project report on the performance of Mr. Schubert's department that was submitted in 1989 by Ron Hikel -- a name that I'm sure the minister knows. Is he aware that the Manitoba housing program failed in all eight areas of the review and that Peat Marwick turned thumbs down on every facet of the program Mr. Schubert managed?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member may have a different

interpretation, but Mr. Schubert's record stands for itself. He is doing a very fine job for the people of the province, and we're very proud to have him here.

[2:30]

L. Fox: Why would this government appoint Mr. Schubert to his current position given his track record in Manitoba? Was he appointed strictly because of his NDP credentials, having worked for the Premier's office under the Schreyer government?

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is getting more and more speechless every day.

NATURAL GAS EXPLORATION AND STORAGE IN THE FRASER VALLEY

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. On July 5, 1991, during the lead-up to the election campaign, the Premier stated in a letter to the residents of the Fraser Valley: "I want a moratorium on natural gas exploration and storage in the Fraser Valley. I also want...59 recommendations brought back to Fraser Valley residents for full public consultation, so all questions can be answered about the environmental and economic impact of drilling and storage." Can the minister tell us where the Premier's promise went? Did it go the way of the Kamloops cancer clinic and a balanced budget?

Hon. A. Edwards: As you are probably aware, we had an extensive review process before we arrived at the decision last summer that we must follow the legal requirements under the previous government. A company had purchased leases, permits and licences, which they can do. Two companies were given a permit to drill two wells for natural gas. Those authorizations are still in place, and two of the companies -- there were three in the consortium -- have now found a third partner. They have given notice that they want to carry out that drilling under the authorization granted last summer, so that will happen.

The Speaker is asking me to hurry, but you will be pleased to know that there will be very stringent controls on anything that happens. Before anything happens, there will be a repeat referral of these applications to all of the governments involved.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't recall the Premier saying anything about the legal implications having to be determined by the community, but I do see that the Premier went on to say: "New Democrats believe key decisions on land use must be made with the full participation of those who must live with the results." Can the minister tell us which people in the community she consulted before allowing these permits to go ahead?

Hon. A. Edwards: Public meetings were held in the Fraser Valley last summer, as you may well recall. A council of community people was put together to monitor what would happen under a drilling process.

[ Page 7387 ]

This council will again be put in place to assure the community that there will be a number of very stringent requirements on the application. I have consistently met with members of that community, and I have also met with other people who have an interest. I will continue to do that, and hope that that will assure the community that this is going ahead with public process.

COST OF CLAYOQUOT SOUND FLYER

W. Hurd: Can the Minister of Forests confirm that the government is in the process of printing a flyer on Clayoquot Sound, and has decided to send it to every household in the province, at the standard taxpayer-issued cost of $300,000 or so?

Hon. D. Miller: I can confirm that we have printed a flyer -- and it's a very good one -- outlining all of the issues that attended the decision about Clayoquot Sound. It is quite legitimate. In fact, it's important that this government inform the citizens of this province about the details of that decision -- what it means to this province and to the citizens of this province -- and try to counter some of the misinformation that is being spread. Perhaps even the Liberals will decide that they might want to take a position on this issue, because they have not done so to date.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: My supplemental is in the form of an appeal to the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the member is asking a supplemental question.

W. Hurd: My question is for the Minister of Finance, whose government is sending out more junk mail than Publishers Clearing House. How can the Minister of Finance justify another expenditure of $300,000 on budget facts and a litany of government propaganda that has gone out through the mail after castigating the previous government for their B.C. Government News and on the whole matter of government publications?

Hon. G. Clark: I can tell the member opposite that it's not junk mail to communicate an outstanding and balanced land use decision -- it protects some 600 Stanley Parks for preservation, preserves jobs in the Alberni Valley, protects the working forest and is consistent with sustainable development criteria -- to the people of B.C. in order to counteract the misinformation spread by members of the Liberal Party, who take one position one day and the next day take another position.

It's important that we communicate the facts and the truth around important land use decisions to British Columbians so that when we move forward as a province, we move forward with sustainable development criteria, which are supported, I'm convinced, by a majority of British Columbians -- not the kind of simplistic, schizophrenic decision we see from the Liberal Party.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege that I raised with the Chair this morning -- a question of privilege related to the legislation that was tabled in the House this morning by the government, dealing with the issue of adult guardianship. At that time I reserved the right to come back to the House, pending further investigation. After examining the legislation, which did receive first reading this morning in this assembly, it is obvious that this legislation was made available to the news media prior to being made available to members of this assembly.

I believe that this shows a great contempt for this House, and it may constitute a breach of the privileges of all members of this assembly.

The issue that I refer to is contained in an

article in this morning's Vancouver Sun, which not only gives the subject matter of the legislation but also a detailed description of the contents of the bills, including the title of a bill. Clearly there was consultation on this. We don't, in this assembly, discourage the government from engaging in a process of consultation; but the actual bills that were tabled in this House -- the legislation -- were made available to the news media prior to being tabled and receiving first reading in this assembly. Clearly that's a violation of the procedures and practices of any parliament.

Hon. Speaker, if you agree that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to tender the appropriate motion, which I would now like to send to you along with the

article from the Vancouver Sun that I referred to.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

On the submission on the point of privilege raised, the Government House Leader.

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the member for alerting the House to this issue this morning and therefore giving all members some opportunity to consider the matter. Hon. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read in totality the news

article that appeared in the Sun this morning, but I am aware, generally, of its provisions. I'm fully aware of the fact that it does not contain all of the details that are found in the legislation. Therefore it would not....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, hon. Speaker, if the argument of the hon. member -- and of the opposition, which seems to support him -- is taken to its full measure, this government would not be permitted to engage in discussions with stakeholders, advise the public of its intentions or fulfil our election

[ Page 7388 ]

commitment to be an open and honest government, sharing with British Columbians....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will wait until the House comes to order, hon. member. The Chair has asked for submissions on this point of privilege, after which time the Chair will consider them. I ask members to refrain from interjecting while we are receiving those submissions. Please continue, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: In sum, the public has a right to know that these matters of broad public policy are coming before the House; and the House has the right to deal first with the details of the legislation, as it will when we get into second reading debate.

The Speaker: On the submission on the point of privilege, the Opposition House Leader.

J. Dalton: I was interested in the response from the Government House Leader, but I would point out to this House that there were six bills introduced this morning. The House Leader suggested that all the detail of each of the six bills wasn't there, but I don't think the readers of the Vancouver Sun are interested in all that detail. I would reinforce one of the comments that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi made in his point of privilege: one of the bill titles was in that article. Now you can't tell me, hon. Speaker, that someone in the news media did not see that bill. How else would they have known the title as included in the article?

The Speaker: I thank hon. members for their submissions on the point of privilege. The Chair will take them under advisement and return to the House at a later time.

Hon. D. Miller tabled the annual report for the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year 1991-92.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 33.

I did omit to inform all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be meeting today in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

(continued)

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: Continuing debate of the hoist motion on Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act, I stated earlier this morning that we emphatically agree with the intention of this bill and agree wholeheartedly that hate literature should be controlled and eradicated from the province. However, with the way this act is written, we are concerned that it will not do that job adequately and, at the same time, that it will infringe upon the freedom of speech needed to undertake the process that is the intention of the bill.

I also indicated this morning that it was important to enter into dialogue rather than debate in order to clarify with each other our intentions and the meaning of the processes in which we are engaged. As part of that clarification, I would like to refer to some presentations made by members of the government as they discussed this bill, because in my mind their clarification did anything but clarify. I raise these issues so that we may understand them together.

I would like to comment on the hon. minister's phrase, in her original presentation of the bill, that we do not want this kind of hatred to take root in British Columbia. We agree wholeheartedly, except that hate literature and this kind of activity have already taken root in British Columbia, and they have been throughout our province for some time. There have been many meetings and conferences of people in this province, striving to tackle this problem. So it is not a new concern; it is one that has been with us for some time.

[2:45]

When we brought forth our concerns about freedom of speech, members on the other side of the House indicated that the present legislation -- the Charter of Rights and the other legislation -- would meet all of our concerns. Yet at the same time, they went on to say that the Charter of Rights and the other legislation would not meet the concerns that they are bringing forward. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Charter of Rights and the other legislation are effective, or they aren't. Basically, we believe that they are. We should be working together to supplement them, not to replace them.

I was also interested in a newspaper comment attributed to the minister when these issues were raised with her. The newspaper quoted her, and I trust they did it right. They said that Ms. Hagen dismissed the suggestion that the new law deals with strong and outspoken language or symbols that go beyond the bounds. The concern that we have is: who determines what goes beyond the bounds? It's a very grave concern. Who determines the proper boundaries of free speech and what does not belong within its boundaries?

I will quote her again from her presentation: "This legislation provides for meaningful and real protection to individuals.... It provides a remedy that does not now exist within our laws, and the fair processes that are available to the citizens of our land...." On one

[ Page 7389 ]

hand she says we do not have the processes, and on the other hand we hear her say that we do have the processes. Either the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a basic process that is available to all of us, or it is not. We must operate within the intention of that Charter, which guarantees the freedom of speech and of expression. What we are attempting to do here is complement that, not replace it.

We have to be concerned about the expressions put before us in the House. Again, I find within her presentation that the court ruled that the right of equality must be balanced with the right of freedom of expression. That's exactly what we're saying, and on this we agree with her. It's that balance that we're striving to put forward in this House. We believe that with the subtraction of the right of freedom of expression from the existing bill, that balance has been thrown out altogether.

Within that same comment she also said that the Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear that courts and human rights tribunals must balance freedom of expression with the rights of the individual not to be discriminated against. It's that balance that we're arguing for. We would urge this government to reconsider their bill in order to bring that balance into place.

In that same presentation the hon. minister said that we're not dealing here with criminal proceedings involving jail sentences or heavy fines. I believe she's referring to the fact that the Council of Human Rights does not impose jail sentences or heavy fines. They do impose levies, though, and whether those levies are heavy or not is a matter of

interpretation. But in the stress that this government has put on decriminalizing the concerns of hate literature, it seems to me that they have downplayed the significance of that hate literature. They have said it's not that important. It's like a parking ticket; it really isn't significant. You get a slap on the wrist, and that's it.

On one side we say that's not good enough. But on the other side we discover that what happens in the Council of Human Rights is that this becomes a public issue. Persons who are brought before this council -- even if they are found innocent -- have had their innocence denied in the very way they have been treated in the public eye. They themselves become the victim. That kind of victimization is not recognized in the material that has been brought forward. It is assumed that everyone who is brought before the Council of Human Rights is guilty until proven innocent. That's the kind of feeling we have about this.

Everyone who is charged, reported or brought before the council has that kind of black mark against them. Even if the council says that it is an unjustified accusation and throws it out, the harm has already been done. So in the very attempt to serve the victims, we are in danger of creating more victims. That's the concern that we have to think about very seriously within this House.

I refer again to the minister's comment: "The amendments that we are looking at today provide us with one of the tools for people to take action with when we have extreme expressions...." But who decides when they're extreme expressions? There is a judgment in the public eye being presented here that we have to be concerned about. The very minority groups that we want to protect need the opportunity to be able to speak out against the people who are trying to malign them.

In the very attempt to speak out in defence of themselves, this act puts them in jeopardy of being accused of the very thing that they say has been brought against them. We are trying to bring that conflict before this House to clearly distinguish what we are accomplishing as we bring this act forward.

When the member for Vancouver-Kensington was talking about his concern about this act, he commented that you have to be able to balance the rights of the minorities and the rights that we enjoy as Canadians. It may have been a slip of his expression, but he seemed to say that the rights of the minorities are something different from the rights that we enjoy as Canadians. I want to clarify that all of us who live within Canada and who are part of the minorities of Canada -- because Canada does not have a majority any more -- have the same rights and privileges under the law within our jurisdictions.

There is no difference; all of us have those same rights. I grant that we are not all treated the same. All of us have had prejudices expressed against us, to some degree. We are concerned that some people have had to face those extremes more than others. The danger in trying to respond to that is that we need to be careful about what we are trying to do.

It seems to me that one of the realities is that we are trying to change the traditions and customs by which we live and work and respond to each other. We are trying to change the terminology we use; we're trying to change the organization we use; and we're trying to change the system in which we relate to each other. Traditions are not changed primarily by legislation; they are changed by the interaction of people who become aware of each other, get to know each other and begin to trust each other.

One of the realities in our present-day communities is that the young people who live and play and work with each other in school, and who have come to know each other, have a better understanding of the traditions as they change than we of the older generation. If we are primarily trying to change the older generation -- who have found it difficult to change their ways of speaking, thinking and acting, we do not necessarily do that through legislation. We do that through education; through bringing people together and enabling them to work with each other.

Another statement of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington was: "We want to make it easier for the people of B.C. to access the remedies available to them and to decriminalize the process of hate literature...." Is that the right direction in which to go? If we decriminalized the process of hate literature -- if it is now criminalized, as he suggests -- does that make it that much easier to obtain and to make available to people, because there is no longer the same fear or threat as there was before? Is it the intention we are actually undertaking in our action?

I am also concerned that as we talk about literature and begin to bring to the fore, in an easier way than we have before, objections to literature that we do not

[ Page 7390 ]

approve of, perhaps we will find far greater pressure to remove many more books from the bookshelves of our school libraries, which others have been trying to remove for years. Where does that start, and where does it stop? That's the kind of pressure we'll be bringing to our local school boards and school librarians. This will have a direct bearing upon them, and I'm sure that the Minister of Education is very aware of that particular fact.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington said that the courts of the land have been defining terms and words for us for a long time. He said this in reaction to questions raised about the

definitions of the many new words and phrases that have been inserted into this act. What does hatred, contempt, issue or statement mean within the

definitions in this act? Those are new expressions. What does private communication mean within this act? According to the member for Vancouver-Kensington, we will have to wait until we see the court's definition of these terms before we know what they mean. Or, as has been suggested by others, the

definitions will be put together by the Council of Human Rights. But we are not aware of how they will arrive at those

definitions or what base of reference they will use for them. So there is a concern here that we need to have clearer

definitions to clarify the meaning of the act that has been put before us.

[3:00]

The member for Vancouver-Kensington said that it is important to remember what this amendment does: it brings the matter of hate literature and propaganda under the Human Rights Act. What do we mean when we refer to propaganda? As we look at this act, it extends further and further into areas that are undefined, vague and unclear. It is important that we go to the public with a clear and balanced presentation, and that we affirm that hate literature must be overcome and that all acts of hatred directed at other people must be prevented. But we cannot do it by taking away the right of freedom of speech.

We must have a balance. We urge the government to reconsider, clarify and alter their presentation.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, I wonder if I might have permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: The member for North Island, the Attorney General, is out of the chamber today and out of the precincts. In the gallery are 14 grade 6 students from Central Elementary School in his constituency. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. S. Koebel, and I think a parent is also accompanying them. Would the House please make them welcome today.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment to Bill 33, I will now call the question. For the information of the House, the motion before you is that the second reading of Bill 33 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 19

Chisholm

Cowie

Reid

Gingell

Dalton

Farrell-Collins

Wilson

Stephens

Hanson

Mitchell

Tyabji

K. Jones

Jarvis

Anderson

Hurd

Tanner

Symons

Neufeld

De Jong

NAYS -- 31

Petter

Perry

Marzari

Boone

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Hagen

Sihota

Clark

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

Barnes

MacPhail

B. Jones

Copping

Ramsey

O'Neill

Hartley

Streifel

Randall

Garden

Kasper

Simpson

Brewin

Janssen

On the main motion.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to take my

part in this debate, because it seems to me that to this point it has been a debate very much founded upon misunderstanding and misinformation. I think perhaps I can make a small contribution in terms of correcting some of that misunderstanding and providing some better information.

I don't intend to use my time today to dwell on the fact that hate activities and hate propaganda pose a real threat to our society. In a province that prides itself on its diversity, I think it's self-evident that such activities undermine the dignity and self-worth of individuals and communities, that they erode the climate of tolerance and mutual respect that must flourish in a society committed to equality, and that they may incite further hatred and possibly violence.

I also don't intend to spend time pointing to gaps in the existing measures that seek to protect against the spread of hate literature, hate symbols and other hate material. Those gaps have been well referred to by the Minister Responsible for Human Rights and by other speakers in this debate. Similar arguments have also been made by the Canadian Bar Association, which advocates the inclusion of prohibitions against the propagation of hate in provincial human rights statutes, and by numerous community organizations that have called upon the government to enact the measures in the bill we are debating.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

My intention today is to address an issue that has been very much at the heart of the arguments we have heard from the opposition. This issue was summed up yesterday by one well-known columnist, who

[ Page 7391 ]

speculated that the government had thrown out explicit protection for freedom of expression, intending to give less weight to that fundamental right. Hon. Speaker, that suggestion is just plain wrong. This government fully supports the fundamental right of freedom of expression. We fully recognize that the Charter of Rights requires that the only tolerable limits on this right are those that can be justified in a free and democratic society as being reasonable limits. That's what the Charter says.

What, then, of questions about this bill and its impact on freedom of expression? It is misleading to attach the significance that the opposition has tried to attach to the absence of protection for an expressive activity in a human rights statute. An explicit protection of freedom of expression is not a necessary component of a provincial human rights statute. This question was specifically dealt with in an important 1989 Supreme Court of Canada case, the Taylor case. John Taylor, who was the leader of the Western Guard Party, appealed a Canadian Human Rights Commission order that he and his organization cease and desist from communicating messages denigrating the Jewish race and religion.

One of the arguments brought forward by civil liberties groups was that the Canadian Human Rights Act was flawed in that it did not contain an explicit exemption designed to protect freedom of expression. Does it sound like a familiar argument? Those making the argument referred to a number of provincial human rights statutes that contain such exemptions and argued that the absence of such a provision made the federal statute imbalanced and overly broad.

Before turning to the majority decision rendered in the Supreme Court on this issue, I think it's important for me to note that our research shows that every provincial statute containing such an exemption was enacted prior to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. This is the case with our own province's Human Rights Act, which was first enacted in 1969 with the expression provision included. This is an important point to which I will return.

[3:15]

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the cease-and-desist order made by the commission pursuant to

section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act in the Taylor case. The court upheld the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act as a reasonable and justifiable limit on freedom of expression in a free and democratic society. Most important for today's debate, on behalf of the majority of the court Chief Justice Dickson had the following to say. I really want to go through this judgment somewhat carefully, because I think it points out some of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that have been attached to this legislation. Here is what Chief Justice Brian Dickson, probably the greatest jurist in this century in Canada, said about human rights legislation generally:

"Though not wishing to disparage legislative efforts to bolster the guarantee of free expression, for several reasons I think it mistaken to place too great an emphasis upon the explicit protection of expressive activity in a human rights statute." And further: "...having decided that there exists an objective in restricting hate propaganda of sufficient importance to warrant placing some limits upon the freedom of expression, it would be incongruous to require that

section 13(1) exempt all activity falling under the rubric of `expression'."

What the Supreme Court said in the Taylor case holds for our province's Human Rights Act. A human rights statute does not require an explicit exemption on free speech for it to be balanced legislation. In fact, as Chief Justice Dickson said, such an exemption would be incongruous. It would, if anything, throw the legislation out of balance; it would be incongruous with the intent of such legislation.

The Chief Justice and the majority of the Supreme Court did not offer this opinion because they did not understand the importance of free speech. Their suggestion that a free speech exemption is incongruous with prohibitions on hate activity was not based on a belief that the tribunals should operate in an unbalanced fashion.

Chief Justice Dickson went on to explain the decision in this way: "Perhaps the so-called exemptions found in many human rights statutes are best seen as indicating to human rights tribunals the necessity of balancing the objective of eradicating discrimination with the need to protect free expression...." The court is telling us with that quote that when these laws were enacted prior to the Charter, the legislators who passed them most likely wanted to ensure that human rights councils and commissions understood the need to balance two important interests in their decisions.

What the court is also telling us is that such direction was and remains unnecessary. It was unnecessary at the time because, to quote again from the decision: "I say this with an eye to pre-Charter cases in which freedom of expression is discussed, these making it evident that an interpretive stance designed to prevent the undue infringement of freedom of expression is available to the courts...." In short, the court had already decided that the right to freedom of expression could not be unduly infringed. Human rights tribunals did not need to be explicitly told.

The Supreme Court also tells us that today an explicit exemption for freedom of expression is unnecessary because of the common law and Charter rights; and the B.C. Human Rights Act, as with any law in Canada, is subject to the Charter. I'm not sure members opposite realize this, but the Charter is, after all, the supreme law. The Charter takes priority over and governs the human rights law. The operations of the B.C. human rights council, with or without an exemption for free speech, is subject to the Charter requirements to place no limits on free speech that are unreasonable in a free and democratic society.

Members of the opposition and members of the media have argued that the Human Rights Act must contain an explicit exemption for freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court of Canada has firmly established that it need not do so and that freedom of speech is not impaired without such an exemption, and I know who I believe.

One may ask, and I think I heard a few members across the way asking: "Why should the words not simply be returned to the act? Why do we not simply revert to the previous language?" This was suggested

[ Page 7392 ]

two days ago by a Vancouver Sun editorial. If members aren't familiar with that editorial, I'll provide them with an extract entitled "A Misguided Act Against Hatred." Here's what the editorial said: "Opposition politicians claim the government wants to use amendments to muzzle right-wing newspaper columnists and that other enemies of the government could be next. Hagen says that's not so. The simplest way for her to prove her point is to retain the free speech protection. We are better off with a bit of redundancy...."

Here the minister and the government are offered what is described as a "simple option": just restore the bill to its original wording.

If these issues were as simple as some suggest, it would not have taken the Supreme Court a year to hear and deliberate in the Taylor case. Be that as it may, I want to remind members of that Supreme Court decision. It said it is a mistake to insist that the Human Rights Act have free speech exemptions; it is a mistake to say that

an act without such exemptions is imbalanced. That's what the Supreme Court said. The opposition is mistaken to insist upon such exemptions. Having observed it was a mistake, the court didn't go on to say that such exemptions are a tolerable redundancy. The court went on to say that such exemptions would be incongruous with the intent of the provisions we are placing in the human rights legislation. They would be incongruous.

The intended effect of a free speech exemption, the protection of freedom of expression, is achieved outside of the act itself through many years of jurisprudence and a constitution that says those rights are protected. If we were to bring the language of our current Human Rights Act back into the legislation, we would not simply be redundant, we would be in danger of actually undermining that act by ignoring the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada. We would be introducing language that the Supreme Court has identified as incongruous with the intent of this bill.

Deleting the exemption for freedom of expression actually brings the Human Rights Act in line with what the Supreme Court has determined is appropriate for such legislation, with no less regard for the importance of the fundamental right of freedom of expression. In fact, as has been accurately argued in this assembly, by removing the reference to the 1981 Civil Rights Protection Act, freedom of expression has been enhanced over the status quo. This is because the pre-Charter Civil Rights Protection Act presumes to limit what persons may say in private, something we know today to be suspect constitutionally.

I'm not surprised that some members of the public, and perhaps some members of the media, could be led to believe the government has somehow abandoned protection for free speech -- though it's clear that we haven't done so. I'm not surprised that this perception could exist, because that is exactly the misconception that the opposition has tried to promote. Rather than dealing with the substance of the bill, rather than looking at what the Supreme Court has said in the substance of its decisions, the opposition has chosen to try to turn this issue into a political issue that ignores the substance of both the bill and the courts.

The intent of the bill is clear. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to all Canadians the fundamental right of freedom of expression. The charter allows no limits on expression except those that are reasonable in a free and democratic society. What we do not have in B.C. is an effective recourse for citizens whose own rights are infringed by those who would go beyond the line of reasonableness and abuse their freedom of expression in order to cause harm to others. This bill provides that recourse which exists in many other Canadian provinces, and which B.C. is late in providing. This is the intent here today, and this is the issue.

The opposition may choose an easy and politically opportune route. They mouth support for the goals of the legislation, and then attack the bill by misrepresenting its impact on freedom of expression. That's the easy route. On these issues it's much easier to hide, to deliberately misunderstand and to refuse to come out and say where you stand.

The members opposite might want to read the Taylor decision. I encourage them to do so. They might try to understand the argument that they have made in light of the Taylor decision. What they'll find is that their argument does not make sense. The Supreme Court did not seek an unbalanced piece of legislation. It would not have voiced support for the deletion of a provision that would have led to any of the consequences suggested by the members opposite. If they read that decision, hopefully they will come to their senses.

And having come to their senses, I hope they will put aside these silly political arguments and share with us -- with this assembly and with the communities that we are seeking to protect -- exactly where they stand on this bill.

I am proud that our government has made its position clear. It is a position that is supported by the courts, it is one that we can all be proud of, and one that we should all support.

C. Tanner: I rise to speak on Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act. I would like to specifically address two things that have affected my business and personal life for the last 25 to 30 years: publishing or displaying material. It is not the position of this side of the House that what the government is attempting is wrong; the position is that we don't need it. It's an unneeded piece of legislation, because we are already protected.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of time for members such as yourself -- the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- the member for Abbotsford and even the member for Saanich South. I have no problem with members like yourself, Mr. Speaker, who have things to say and are speaking from the heart or from conviction, but I am offended by members such as the member for Vancouver-Hastings who stands up in her full self-righteousness and tells the rest of us on this side of the House that we're wrong because she doesn't agree with us. That's what we take offence at.

An Hon. Member: You're never wrong.

[ Page 7393 ]

C. Tanner: No, we are wrong. We make mistakes, but we're prepared to admit it. The trouble is that members on that side of the House have to tell everybody else how to think; they have to decide for everybody else what is right and what is wrong. That's what we object to.

All my business life I have walked a delicate line, because I am in the bookselling business. It's a very difficult place to be, because no matter which way you go you're bound to offend somebody. It has always been my proposition in that industry that the public will make the decision as to what they want to read, not me.

When I first went into business 25 years ago I was in an area which had a huge selection of magazines. When I looked the magazines over I made a decision -- wrongly -- that some of them shouldn't be sold. I took them away from the display, because I thought I knew better than the public. The first two people who came to my place of business were the local judge and the local librarian, and they said: "Who do you think you are to remove that material from that shelf? I think it's garbage, but I don't think you've got the right, Mr.

Tanner, to take that material off the shelf and deny the right for somebody else to read it if they want to." Ever since, that has been the premise of the business I have been in. I was wrong. The judge and the librarian were right.

An Hon. Member: We're talking about hate literature.

C. Tanner: I'm talking about literature that, in my opinion, should not have been available to the public.

I would like to refer all members of this House to three specific incidents that have happened in my place of business in the last ten years. In 1980 we had a book that was written about the Olson case. In my view, and in the view of many of my hundreds of customers, it wasn't a book that I wanted to sell, but some people asked for it. We put it in our display and we sold some. I thought it was disgusting. I thought it made more of the case than was necessary and exploited all the wrong aspects of the case. But the fact of the matter was that it wasn't my place, nor was it some nebulous committee's place, to determine if the public wanted to read it or not, in my view.

In the middle eighties Salman Rushdie wrote a book, and he is now in hiding because a particular facet of thought said that he shouldn't publish that book. A committee in a foreign country said to Mr. Rushdie: "That book is not acceptable to us, and if we find you, we're going to kill you." Bookstores across this country put that book in their window and were attacked for doing so. I proudly put that book in my window, because I thought that we have a right to read that book, and Mr. Rushdie had a right to write it.

[3:30]

In my store I presently sell -- and I'm ashamed to say it, because I don't like the book at all -- a book called Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow, which was written by a gentleman in eastern Canada. He wrote a second book called Enough. The book, in my view, is absolute nonsense. It's written by James Vernon Andrew. It's his contention that if we have a bilingual country today, eventually we will all be French. This man has a hatred for the French part of our population. But I have customers who come in and insist on getting it. We don't carry it in the store, but we'll order it for them.

I look at the people who buy this garbage and wonder what on earth they believe in. But they have a right to read it, and I do not have the right, nor has any nebulous committee, to stop them from reading it if they want it.

It might come as a surprise to some members of this House that we have censorship in the province right now. I'm not only in the book business; in the past I have been in the magazine business. There is censorship at our border right now. Nebulous customs officers make a decision about what you can read. It happens beyond our control, at our borders, by federal servants.

There is a second, unknown censorship in this province right now on magazines that are available to you. The publishers and distributors of magazines in British Columbia have an organization which looks at certain magazines and makes a decision, after they've arrived in B.C., as to whether or not they're going to be distributed. I object to that, but I can't do anything about it, because the distribution of magazines is tied up in a limited number of suppliers. In fact, it's a cartel set up on a geographic basis right across the country. In British Columbia there are about four or five suppliers, and they make the decision as to what you and I can read. I think that's wrong.

The other unfortunate circumstance of what the government is suggesting in this legislation is that if they bring it in, it's going to drive it underground. It's still going to be available to people who want to read the garbage, and it's still going to be here for people to look at it if they want to, to substantiate their beliefs, which in my opinion are wrong, but we won't even see it, because it will be underground. I believe that this legislation is unnecessary and that we have sufficient controls now. I believe that the only way we're going to change is by way of education, edification and example.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the great respect I have for you and for the speech you made two days ago, I'm afraid that I don't agree with you. The only way to go is to leave the legislation alone and let people make up their own minds. These hatemongers, who are among us and whom we of course don't approve of, have to learn, by way of illustration and education, that they're not welcome in our society. We have to try to change their minds.

There is a fine distinction to be made between the public expression of discrimination and the act of discrimination, and I think you do away with that when you bring this legislation in. Every member on every side of the House has spoken with sincerity -- with a couple of exceptions -- and I don't think either side is blaming the other or in any way promoting the use of hate literature for anybody. I think we all want the same thing. The government is approaching it in the wrong way, and we are merely defending our position. Since the government wouldn't agree to hoist this bill for six months to give it some more consideration and get some more public input, we think the government

[ Page 7394 ]

should let it die on the order paper. If the government continues to want to put this sort of legislation in place, this member and this caucus will be voting against it.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on the philosophy and principle of Bill 33. I've listened over the course of the last several days to all presentations with respect to this bill, and most of them -- and specifically the one that you yourself gave, hon. Speaker -- struck home to me. As an individual, I, like other individuals within this Legislature, have faced the kinds of situations that this legislation appears to want to deal with, and I think that's very commendable.

I don't believe there's a member in the Legislature who doesn't want to enact some type of capability for dealing with hate literature and placards that discriminate, or the many other issues, that we see daily, where one segment of society is being oppressed or discriminated against by others within the same society.

I believe it is a very noble objective, but I'm concerned. When the member for Nelson-Creston spoke, he identified violence and the kind of public mischief that turns into violence. It is his perception that this bill is going to legislate that out of existence. I'm of the firm belief that no legislation can put an end to hate. No legislation can put an end to discrimination. No legislation can teach us to love one another and accept one another's values. That's something we have to be taught. It's something we learn through a process from the home to the school system to the post-secondary education system.

It's something that has to be promoted on a regular basis by the community and the society -- by all organizations collectively.

What I see in this legislation concerns me, because it appears that somehow, magically, we're going to have selective free speech. It appears that at some point in time the government or the authority created under this act could in fact come down on me for my thoughts and my speech. I know that the government side has put forward many arguments to suggest that this is not so. I've had many phone calls from individuals who suggest that it is so. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an academic.

I'm an average British Columbian, and I have to rely on what I'm told by individuals who are knowledgeable in the civil rights area and who are extremely concerned about human rights throughout Canada and British Columbia. The support that was given by the Canadian Jewish Congress, who I believe are leaders in the field, was conditional on the fact that they wanted more consultation. They want the opportunity to peruse the bill themselves and to discuss with its proponents exactly what the results will be. Obviously they want their legal people to look at it as well and to advise them on it.

The message I'm hearing constantly is that nobody opposes the intent of the bill and what the government wants to do. Even in this Legislature I haven't heard one individual oppose what this bill wishes to do. But everyone I've talked and listened to is extremely concerned. In a way, it's sad to see the emotions that have come forward in the House, because this is an extremely difficult and extremely important piece of legislation. It deserves the concentration and consideration of all of us in this House and all British Columbians.

Let me point out a couple of concerns that I have. These are genuine concerns from an average British Columbian's perspective. The first concern I have is that it appears that this bill now puts the onus on an individual or individuals to prove that they are not liable. If a claim is made against something you -- or a corporation, perhaps -- have said or published, the onus appears to be on you to prove that that does not fall under the categories embraced within this legislation.

Those are concerns that I have, because if you read the legislation very clearly it seems to suggest that if you do anything that borders on these particular areas, you will have to prove that you did not mean to discriminate or prejudice any other individual.

I'm confused, and I look forward to the committee stage, as I think most British Columbians do. I really hope that this government will go through second reading of this bill and then allow it to sit for a considerable time, so that British Columbians can be satisfied that the intent of this bill is only what members of the government side are suggesting it is.

There's no question in my mind that something has to be strengthened in our court system. In some way, judges have to have the capabilities to deal with issues, particularly hatred, and those issues that you, hon. Speaker, spoke of two days ago. But I'm concerned that the pendulum will swing so far that we will suppress individuals. We will suppress the ability of individuals to express themselves in a way that they should be able to express themselves in today's society.

Hon. Speaker, I hope that I've been able to make a contribution from the perspective of an average British Columbian. I really hope that the government will seriously consider allowing some time before this legislation goes through third reading stage and is enacted into law, to allow all interested parties in British Columbia an adequate opportunity to have input on this legislation.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure for me to engage in this debate. Given the duties of cabinet, it's not that often that one gets an opportunity to debate legislation in this chamber; that's often restricted to cabinet. Therefore it's a special privilege for me.... I must confess I'm very keen -- in fact, I want very deeply to take my place in this debate and deal with the issues before this chamber.

As I have listened to the debate -- indeed, I've taken the occasion to read what other members have had to say, particularly on the opposition side.... The more I reflect on the comments that are made, it seems to me that there are two things that all of us agree on. We all agree, on both sides of this House, that freedom of expression and freedom of speech must flourish in a country such as ours. We also all agree, each and every one of us in this chamber, that there is no place whatsoever in society for hate literature and propaganda.

[3:45]

We have before this House legislation that tries to deal with the conflict in rights, if I can put it that way,

[ Page 7395 ]

that arises when we try to strike a balance between freedom of expression on the one hand and the right of people to be treated with dignity and respect on the other -- which is of course a basic requirement in a society such as ours. The real question is: does this legislation achieve the kind of balance we think is necessary in a free and democratic society?

I must confess, as I've listened to the speeches made by the opposition -- and I don't mean this in the big-P political sense; I mean this quite sincerely -- that I am disappointed by the extent to which they have failed to pay attention to the concerns of those who are the victims of hate literature. I want to amplify that point in a few minutes.

I want to start with a reflection on those two things that we agree on. First is freedom of expression. You know, we're very lucky to live in the kind of country we live in. When the rest of the world looks at Canada, it sees a jewel of a nation. We are among the most blessed citizens in the world because we live in a country that is not only a model of peace and coexistence but also a country that has tried to encourage other nations of the world to follow that model of peace and coexistence.

We are a leader in the world because of the kind of work we have done through the United Nations and other international organizations in trying to encourage development elsewhere of the kind of society that is the case here in Canada.

We're lucky in this country. People come to this country because they've been persecuted elsewhere and they want to come to Canada -- a magical place in their eyes. It's a place that we often take for granted. It's a magical place with the freedoms that they dream of. These freedoms exist, in part, because a lot of people in this country some time ago dedicated their lives -- indeed, sacrificed their lives -- to create a country where these kinds of freedoms would exist: freedom of expression, the freedom to peacefully assemble, the right to demonstrate.

With the military presence in my own riding of Esquimalt, I know only too well the kinds of sacrifices people have had to make so that we can enjoy the kind of nation we have. In many ways, a lot of the things we talk about in this chamber seem almost trivial in comparison to the kinds of things that those people fought for and made sure that we're able to enjoy as citizens.

I represent a political party that stood up and said that laws paying Indo-Canadians or Asians or Orientals 10 cents an hour less than everybody else to work in a mill were wrong. They did so when it was unpopular to say that and when it was unpopular to say these people should have the right to vote and the right to citizenship. It took some courage on the part of people like Mr. Winch, Mr. Strachan and Mr. Douglas, and yes, Mr. Barrett, to stand up and fight for the kinds of rights that we now take for granted.

So long as I am a New Democrat and a citizen of this country, I will stand up and speak as passionately as I can for a country where freedom of speech flourishes. There is no doubt in my mind that every member of my caucus who spoke about this legislation feels as strongly as I do about the need to maintain a society where freedom of speech flourishes. The only way a free and open society can progress and be productive is if there is open and free dialogue, without any threat of reprisal or action. That's the kind of Canada we've built; that's the kind of British Columbia we want.

It is wrong, in my view, for some to argue this debate is solely about freedom of expression; it isn't. It is a debate about justifiable limitations on freedom of expression. We cherish freedom of expression in this country. To restrict it we are only prepared to nibble at the very outside contours of that freedom. We do that through libel and slander laws when we say that people can't abuse their right of free speech in that fashion. We say inferentially that with every right comes a responsibility.

We say that in our own Charter of Rights, the supreme law of this country, which says -- if I can paraphrase the words of the Charter -- that all freedoms, including freedom of speech, are subject to reasonable limitations. We implicitly recognize in our Charter that no right is absolute, that there are limitations on rights.

The question in this debate is whether or not this legislation places an adequate or justifiable intrusion on the right to freedom of speech. I say that it does. I say that, because I believe, as do all hon. members in this House, that there is no place for hate literature in this province. There's no place for the dissemination of that kind of information.

Maybe it's political or maybe it's philosophical, I don't know, because it gets confusing when you read the speeches, but for some reason we have become fixated on the omission of certain words from the existing

section 2(2) that says: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." That's what we've become fixated on. During the course of this debate, either because of political posturing or ideological differences, we have somehow become armchair lawyers trying to determine the import of the elimination of those words.

When I look at it -- maybe from my training or my own ideological background and, if I may be honest, probably a little bit of both -- I wonder: does the omission of those words in

section 2(2) of the current legislation mean that freedom of speech is somehow denied? When you listen to the speeches, and particularly to what the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, had to say, one is left with the impression that somehow with this legislation the government is denying freedom of speech. Of course that's not the case. We believe in the Charter. We in this party have a heritage of protecting those rights and standing up for the amplification of those rights.

All of us in this chamber must recognize that the Charter exists. It is the supreme law of this country. It colours every piece of legislation in this country. This legislation is therefore coloured by the provisions in the Charter which say freedom of expression must continue to exist in this nation of ours. This legislation must be read in the context of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is what we have been arguing. You don't need those words in this legislation. They are

[ Page 7396 ]

there because the Charter exists. If you argue that that's not true, then they exist because our common law demands that they exist. Why do I say that? Because we have a common law heritage, throughout the Commonwealth, that the jurisprudence we have developed, absent of statutes in our common law, pays homage to the principle of freedom of expression. Even if it weren't stated in the Charter, even if the Charter didn't exist, the common law would demand that all legislation be read in the context of the existence of freedom of speech.

During the course of this debate some have argued that we are wrong in making those points. There might be some validity to the arguments they made, had it not been for the fact that recently there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that looked at this very issue, thank God. It looked at the issue of balancing freedom of speech and the absence of freedom of speech provisions for hate literature. My colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said:

"Though not wishing to disparage legislative efforts to bolster the guarantee of free expression, for several reasons I think it mistaken to place too great an emphasis upon the explicit protection of expressive activity in a human rights statute. First, though not necessarily damaging to the appellants' argument, it is worth noting that the Canadian, Quebec and Yukon Territory human rights statutes contain no such protective element...."

In any event, I do not think it in error to say that in the absence of such an exemption an

interpretation of

section 13(1) consistent with the minimal impairment of free speech is necessary.

The court said, if I may quote again: "Second, having decided that there exists an objective in restricting hate propaganda of sufficient importance to warrant placing some limits upon the freedom of expression, it would be incongruous to require that

section 13(1) exempt all activity falling under the rubric of `expression'." The highest court in Canada has said very clearly that you don't need a specific reference to freedom of expression in this kind of legislation. It's there because the Charter says it has to be there and our common law tradition says it has to be there. And now in the Taylor decision the courts have said it is recognized to be there. There is no need for the kind of provision that some argue has to be there. Mr. Justice Dickson has made it very clear that we don't need that provision. Let's not forget what Mr.

Justice Dickson said in trying to reconcile freedom of speech and this kind of legislation. He said: "Hate propaganda presents a serious threat to society. It undermines the dignity and self-worth of target-group members and, more generally, contributes to disharmonious relations among various racial, cultural and religious groups, as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality."

Yesterday in this chamber someone quoted Martin Luther King -- actually, they may have quoted him incorrectly, but that's beside the point -- and I want to quote him again: "Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."

[4:00]

I read what you had to say, hon. Speaker, and I must commend you for the words that you uttered in this House. I could relate when you talked about the anger that people feel, the stiff upper lip that one has to show from time to time and the strength of conviction that you need to work around certain problems. You don't, I believe -- and I know that you said as much -- fight anger with violence; you try to deal with it as a human being.

You try to go on and show people that you're just as capable as anybody else, if not more, and that not only are all of us equal but all of us should have the opportunity to achieve and maximize our potential as human beings, regardless of any barriers that may be created from time to time. I don't want to say that this has happened much to me; I'm just saying that there are occasions when one senses that people look at you and treat you differently. Something inside of me, when the Minister of Education tabled this legislation, just kind of collapsed with relief.

Something inside of me, not because of my political background or anything else, said: well done. Something inside of me said: for once, someone understands. Something inside of me said: there's someone who's speaking for the way that I've felt.

There are those who argue that referring these matters to a quasi-judicial body -- one that's politically appointed, I guess they say -- means that it will be easy for people to take inappropriate cases before the human rights council. I think those who make that argument are sometimes oblivious to the feelings of victims of this kind of material. Victims of hate propaganda in this country or this province have the recourse to proceed under the Civil Rights Protection Act. There's never been a prosecution under that act. It's ineffective legislation.

Multicultural groups and others have argued for years that the legislation is ineffective and full of loopholes and really cannot protect the victims of hate propaganda. Victims have another option: they can lay a complaint under provisions of the Criminal Code, and some have exercised that option. But too many in society have been left without options; too many have been left without a vehicle through which they can lay a complaint. This legislation provides them with that vehicle.

It may be that there are some inappropriate cases, but I don't think we should structure our legislation in such a way as to increase the legal threshold so much

[ Page 7397 ]

that it's impossible for someone to have access to these vehicles. The fear that someone's rights might be inappropriately brought before the commission should not drive us to establish legal impediments so as to totally deny the victim a remedy. To leave it only within the purview of the Civil Rights Protection Act, which is wholly ineffective legislation, or within the Criminal code, where one doesn't have access to civil action, is wrong.

Some argue that there is a plot on the part of this government to engage in selective free-speech-policing. Well, that's wrong. It would be wrong for any government to do that. The government doesn't have any intentions in that regard.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I notice the leader of the Liberal Party heckling me a bit. Yesterday he said something to the effect that social action, the action of informed and intelligent people, will rally against any unacceptable behaviour -- and he's right. Indeed, if this council was structured in a such a fashion that it would be a thought police -- as someone said -- engaging in selective free-speech-monitoring, I think the public would rise up in arms, as it appropriately should. But that's not the case here.

We are turning over the determination with regard to these issues to a quasi-judicial body. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that in the past this quasi-judicial body has operated under a political mandate. I find it abhorrent that some would suggest that it will now revert to that kind of behaviour. That's untrue. It hasn't done it in the past, and the opposition should show enough respect for the members of that quasi-judicial body to recognize that they will not succumb to political pressures.

As we said at the outset, they will make difficult decisions to try to strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the need to make sure that people are treated with dignity, that their self-respect as individuals is recognized and that they have equality of opportunity and the right to take issue against hate propaganda.

We as a government are drawing a line with this legislation. As I said at the outset, we are saying that freedom of speech exists in British Columbia and that it must flourish. But we're also saying that there is no place whatsoever in British Columbia for hate literature.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to repeat myself because the Leader of the Opposition -- I'm sorry, the Liberal Party leader; I get confused because they have so many leaders at different times -- left the room for a while and didn't hear what I had to say. I would ask him to reflect on my comments in their totality so he can understand the context within which I put this -- much as I have reflected on and referred to the speech he made in this House yesterday -- instead of engaging in modest heckling in the House today.

I support this legislation, because I don't think that any tribunal, quasi-judicial body or court -- and all of them will have a chance to take a look at this legislation -- will be able to read this legislation as reading down the rights of all citizens to freedom of expression.

I also support this legislation because I believe that any quasi-judicial body, any court, any person in British Columbia that looks at this legislation will also read it as legislation that is determined to correct a wrong, not just in terms of hate literature, but in terms of a civil rights protection statute that is wholly inadequate and which does not protect the rights of the victims of hate propaganda; and that corrects the wrong of allowing people the only avenue they have right now, that of Criminal Code actions. I have no problem with using the Criminal Code provisions, but there must be another avenue.

As I said at the outset, I believe that inasmuch as all of us in this chamber agree that freedom of speech must exist and that there must be laws against hate propaganda, this quasi-judicial body has the skills, experience, aptitude and mandate to try to reconcile those areas where the right to freedom of expression overlaps with the kinds of wrongs we are trying to correct in this type of legislation.

Surely to God, if we can agree that freedom of expression should flourish, if we can agree that there is no place for hate propaganda, if we can agree that the Civil Rights Protection Act hasn't done the job of adequately policing these things, and if we can agree that the Criminal Code ought not to be the only avenue available, then we can agree that these matters should be adjudicated in front of a quasi-judicial tribunal -- the human rights council -- and hope that it can provide the protection so deeply deserved by those who are victims of hate literature and who have for so long been denied the protection that this legislation, in all sincerity, tries to provide them.

Finally, as I said at the outset, it's not every day I get an opportunity to speak in this chamber, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to speak on this legislation. I hope that we can put aside big-P political differences, recognize the challenge that this legislation presents to the human rights council, get away from trying to make political Brownie points, and get away from trying to edge ourselves into editorial comment or into the columns written by opinion leaders. This is a difficult debate. These are challenging issues. These are conflicting principles. But I think a sober reflection on this legislation will lead one to conclude that it is the right way to go.

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to rise to speak in this debate on Bill 33, the amendments to the Human Rights Act. I am especially pleased to be following the Government House Leader, who, I think, has presented one of the most convincing attempts to rationalize these amendments to the Human Rights Act yet. Nice try, but I'm not buying, because even though the Government House Leader has made some good comments -- and I think members of the assembly will take to heart the personal comments that he made -- he still hasn't justified why an ill-thought-out piece of legislation has

[ Page 7398 ]

been able to come forward. He still hasn't justified why the legislative program of this government -- which is in disarray and in a state of complete chaos -- has produced this bill. It should never have made it past the legislative draftman's office. The Government House Leader made some very good comments that correctly identify the attitudes of all members of this assembly. I don't think this is a partisan issue by any means. Hopefully, this is not an issue where party politics will intrude into the debate. There has been some very good debate so far on this bill. But the question of why these amendments have been introduced has still not been answered.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Before I proceed any further with my comments, I'd like to take a second to highlight what this very brief bill attempts to do. It eliminates

section 2 of the existing Human Rights Act. The Government House Leader tried to explain one more time why the government has done this. It's still not an argument that holds water. The repeal of

section 2 eliminates the provincial guarantee of freedom of expression -- the right of free expression or opinion by speech or written word. Why the government proposes to eliminate that

section of the existing Human Rights Act still hasn't been adequately explained, by any means.

[4:15]

The bill goes one step further; it changes some wording. Our role as legislators is to scrutinize very closely the wording of proposed legislation in this House. Not all of us are lawyers -- I'm certainly not. But I think we need to pay very careful attention to a bill that attempts to amend the Human Rights Act. What this bill does is something very interesting. It goes well beyond the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It goes well beyond what the Criminal Code of our land seeks to do. It engages in some very interesting language changes that make the amendments to the act, stated in this bill, so broad, vague and ambiguous that their

interpretation cannot be guaranteed by any human rights tribunal -- even the excellent tribunal that we have in this province.

The Government House Leader indicates that he has faith in the tribunal which administers the Human Rights Act in our province. I think all British Columbians would like to have faith. But faith in what? What are these amendments really doing? Why is the government bringing forward these amendments at this time? What specific consultation has been engaged in that would force the government to bring forward such legislation and want to ram it through the House at this time, without further consultation?

If ever there was an argument in favour of sending a subject matter to a legislative committee of this House, this would be the one. Indeed, this legislation tries to deal with one of the classic legal and philosophical dilemmas of our time: how to balance freedom of speech, which we all enjoy and wish to continue to enjoy, with the need to discourage the propagation of hate literature, which of course we all want to do. On that point, we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the Government House Leader. On those two points, I think all members of this assembly -- and I hope all British Columbians -- would agree.

But how do you do that? How do you achieve that balance? Do you achieve it by sending to the Legislature, with very little notice, a two-page bill that seeks to change some wording in our provincial statute governing human rights? Is that going to solve this classic philosophical and legal dilemma that cannot be easily resolved? I think not. This is not the way to approach it; this is a subject that requires further study.

I personally wish that the amendment -- proposed, I believe, by the member for Richmond-Steveston -- to hoist this bill for six months would have passed. I certainly voted in favour of it. If there was ever an argument in favour of hoisting something for further study, and perhaps referring it to a legislative committee of this House, this is the one. This is not the kind of thing we should be proceeding with in haste. It's an issue of fundamental importance, and it's one on which there is significant jurisprudence.

Much has been made of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its guarantees for free expression and freedom of speech. Of course, clause 1 of the Charter states that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees those rights and freedoms, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Judicial review of Charter cases to date indicates that there may well be room for provincial legislation that might provide some reasonable limitations.

There's a very good argument that provincial legislation should address those, but there's also an argument that provincial legislation should not infringe upon those rights unduly.

I would refer members of this House to a statement on this issue made under

article 19 of the Charter by the International Centre on Censorship in London, England. They have specifically stated: "The Charter's guarantee of freedom of expression, unlike other fundamental human rights, may be infringed upon by provincial legislatures." It goes on to say: "...the protection of freedom of expression" -- should be added to -- "the list of fundamental rights that may not be infringed upon by enactments of provincial legislatures." It suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- in particular,

section 33 -- should be amended to ensure that no provincial legislation can infringe upon those rights. So while there may well be a need for provincial legislation -- and as I said, judicial review suggests that there may be a good argument in favour of that -- we have to be very careful to ensure that such legislation doesn't infringe, because the protection of freedom of expression is a very delicate thing.

When we limit freedom of expression, we must be very sensitive to what we're doing. What is in fact a justifiable limit to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of publication? Any such limitation must necessarily be very specific. If it's too broad, it's open to abuse. That must be the central point of objection to this bill: it is too ambiguous; the wording is too vague and too broad.

[ Page 7399 ]

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs made an interesting contribution to this debate earlier today. He quoted some legal cases, some very important legal precedents. In particular, he referred to the Taylor case, a very important decision in the Supreme Court of Canada by Chief Justice Dickson. He's quite right; this was an important case. It was dealing with

section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding discriminatory practices: to communicate by phone any matter that is likely discriminatory. The minister quoted at length from the Chief Justice's important decision, but he didn't refer to the dissenting opinions in that very close case in the Supreme Court. Those dissenting justices in the Taylor case claimed that the

section had failed the test of proportionality because it was too broad. That's exactly the issue we're debating here today. While this is not a court of law, this is a court; this is the Legislature. I think we have to be careful as legislators to decide whether or not the amendments to the Human Rights Act proposed by the government in this bill are too broad, because I think they need to be very specific.

There's another very important Charter case that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs failed to cite: the Oakes case. I'd like to refer to that for a second to provide some counterbalance on the record to what the minister contributed to this debate, because it deals with the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter -- in particular, the freedoms under

section 2: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. In the Oakes case, probably as well known and often cited in the judicial literature as the Taylor case, the decision stated: "The onus of proving that a limitation on any Charter right is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society rests upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation on the preponderance of probabilities based on the following criteria...." Then it goes on to list the criteria.

While I'm not going to read at length from this decision, I think it's important to note the criteria listed in the Oakes case for deciding what would be a justifiable limitation on freedom of expression.

This is the first one: "the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important, at least relating to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society, to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom...." The second one is: "the means must be reasonable and demonstrably justified, in proportion to the importance of the objective." It goes on to list further criteria, and I'll read just one of them: "the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question, and rationally connected to that objective...."

Do these amendments to the B.C. Human Rights Act meet those tests? Does this bill meet the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Oakes case? Where in this small and apparently simple bill do we see the objective? The objective is not clearly stated. Neither the Minister of Education in her comments to date, nor any of the other government members who have sought to defend this bill in the House, have really stated very clearly or succinctly what the objective is here. They stated some broad philosophical goals that I think most of us can agree to, but what is the specific objective?

What has prompted this legislation? That can't be known. Is the legislation fair and not arbitrary? I don't think it meets that test, because with the vague and broad language used here there is the risk of arbitrariness in this bill.

Let me give you an example of the broad nature of that language.

Section 319 of the existing Criminal Code of Canada, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, uses the term "promotes hatred." Clearly it's a criminal offence to promote hatred in our country. Some might go further than that and suggest that we should talk about exposing the public to hatred, and there may be a very good argument for that. But what Bill 33 does is talk about "likely to expose to hatred." What does that mean? How can that ever be defined? It's certainly not defined in this legislation. It's going to be left up to

interpretation by a tribunal. I'm not comfortable as a legislator with language that is that broad. Likewise, material that "indicates discrimination," not referring to

an act of discrimination but referring to an indication of discrimination or an "intention to discriminate" is defined as an offence under this bill. If it's likely to expose a person.... This language is so broad that it can't be supported. Unless the government is willing to reflect on this further, there is no way that we can support this legislation. It's simply too broad. There are legal precedents indicating the problems with this kind of legislation. Changes to something as fundamental as the Human Rights Act need to be very specific.

This government has brought in a very ill-prepared piece of legislation that I can only assume has made it through because the legislative process that has been established by this government is in total disarray. That's why we're here in June when members of the House would probably prefer to be back in their constituencies. And there's no end in sight, because every day in this House new legislation is tabled. It's an indication of a breakdown.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale knows what I'm talking about. Just to refer to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, he has made a statement about Bill 33, not in this House but it has been quoted in the

North Shore News , which is a publication that covers part of the riding that I represent. The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who bears some responsibility for the disarray that the legislative program of this government is in, has stated in the

North Shore News that he thinks this legislation is a step in the right direction. He thinks it's going to control hate literature. I don't know what it's going to control, but the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who I know is anxious to enter this debate, is going to have to provide some rationale for why he would make such a statement. Is it perhaps because a columnist in this particular publication has been

[ Page 7400 ]

opposed to him at some time in the past? Does he want to muzzle him?

The real fear here goes well beyond the concerns of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. What is the government trying to do? Is it trying to put the big chill into the news media to prevent them from expressing opinions that might be contrary to those that come out of the privy council of this administration? That is what we have to be concerned about. What are we trying to legislate with Bill 33? Can we actually legislate on an issue of such a fundamental philosophical nature? Can we prevent people from feeling hatred, a repugnant human emotion that has been with us from time immemorial.

I don't think we can legislate that out of existence, nor should we seek to. Does a person in B.C. have the right to be wrong? Certainly many people can be wrong on issues. We sometimes define as wrong someone who holds an opinion contrary to our own. But one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society is to preserve an individual's right to hold a contrary opinion. Sometimes ignorance can be its own punishment. We've seen many evidences of that throughout Canadian history. In recent years we've seen the Keegstra case in Alberta and the Zundel case.

These are, in my view, instances where individuals have been wrong. They probably have a right to be wrong; ignorance is its own punishment in those cases -- in many cases. They are examples of repugnant views that make individuals such as Mr. Keegstra and Mr. Zundel pitiful creatures, in my view. But do they have a right to hold their beliefs? Of course they do. They must have, in a free and democratic society.

[4:30]

The balance that this government is trying to achieve is not achieved in this legislation. It's not going to prevent Mr. Keegstra or Mr. Zundel from believing their thoughts or even from expressing them, privately or publicly. What we're trying to do, though, is to achieve some kind of balance that this bill will never achieve. A famous statement often attributed to Voltaire is that while I may disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.

That statement really embodies what we in our so-called western civilization believe to be the hallmark of freedom and democracy: the right, enshrined in law and in the constitution, of an individual to express a point of view. The point of view may be contrary to our own, but they have the right to do so. What the government seems to be doing with this legislation is engaging in doublespeak. They talk about human rights, but are they really trying to enshrine human wrongs? It's an Orwellian vision where double-speak seems to be the order of the day.

Earlier in this debate there was some reference to John Stuart Mill, one of the libertarian philosophers, who over a century ago wrote a classic treatise called On Liberty. The member for Nanaimo criticized reference to John Stuart Mill, referring to him, I think, in the context of being a dead white male. I think some dead white males are worth quoting, and John Stuart Mill certainly thought very long and hard about issues. While he is a dead white male, he can be defended on many grounds. One of the great philosophers of our civilization, he thought long and hard about issues relating to liberty.

Although he was writing more than a century ago, Mill was fairly progressive for his time, because he also spoke about the rights of women and of democratic citizens. He was very advanced; his views still hold true and ring true today.

At the start of the second

chapter of his classic treatise on liberty, Mill said something very important that I'd like to quote from briefly:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation, those who dissent from the opinion still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and liveliest impression of truth produced by its collision with error."

This was John Stuart Mill talking over a century ago about the need for people to be able to speak their beliefs. Why would we want to try to control such a fundamental act -- the act of a free individual in a free state thinking and believing and holding an opinion?

What are we trying to do with this legislation? Are we going too far? We need to ask that question. Are we going too far with this legislation, which is not well thought out and which is vague and ambiguous? Are we trying to legislate attitudes? Are we trying to legislate thoughts? Are we trying to implement a thought police approach to human rights? Is the government going to establish such a thought police? We can't know for sure where such ill-worded, vague and ambiguous legislation will lead. That's why we should be in no hurry to pass it.

B. Jones: Where do you draw the line?

D. Mitchell: The member from Burnaby who heckles me -- and not from his seat -- wants to know where I would draw the line. As an individual legislator, I would hesitate even to attempt to draw a line through one of the classic philosophical dilemmas of our age. It's impossible. While this member from Burnaby might have certainty, and while he and his colleagues might want to act in unison on such an audacious act, I believe there's the real danger that: "When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks at all." The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs knows who I'm quoting.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and others who have spoken on this have failed to really explain why this legislation is coming forward. It's impossible to know. We believe in free speech in a democratic society, and we believe that the propagation of hate literature must be discouraged. How we achieve those two ends is one of the questions we're trying to answer. But they certainly will not be achieved by this legislation, which is not well thought out. It has come to this House in a state of first-stage drafting in my opinion, and it should really be sent back to the drawing board.

Who are the great democrats who have brought forward this legislation? Who are they who claim to be democrats in defining and defending the rights of all of us in a free and democratic society? The name of their party is the New Democratic Party. But if this legislation is to be their legacy, they are certainly not

[ Page 7401 ]

democratic, and they are certainly not new, because they're subscribing to an old and tired vision. They're trying to bring forward an idea that they propose, to compel all citizens in a supposedly free society to think like them. That's what's wrong with this legislation. They're trying to legislate a tired vision, and they're a tired party; they are neither new nor democratic. They will be in power for a short while yet, so we're going to have to endure them.

Bill 33 is not going to survive. They can legislate such ambiguity and put it into law, and they can try to force the human rights tribunal in our province to enforce it. But surely all they're doing with such legislation is inviting a future administration to try to be more specific, to define these rights much more carefully, to take a more careful look at the judicial review process and to think long and hard before they eliminate sections from the Canadian Charter of Rights because of the redundancy argument. We're eliminating

section 2 of the Human Rights Act of British Columbia, supposedly -- if we are to believe what the Government House Leader and others have said -- because it's redundant, with what's already either in the Charter or in the civil law process. The redundancy argument has never before been used to take out one simple line in a Human Rights Act that enshrines a fundamental right to freedom of expression. That's no argument for deleting it. They're dealing with that because they're trying to control, they're trying to instil the big chill and they're trying to put a muzzle on freedom of expression.

I've referred to some Canadian precedents, some Canadian judicial review, in my comments. This is an issue that goes well beyond our national borders; it's an issue facing all of us on this planet. A famous case occurred just a couple of years ago in Skokie, Illinois, and many members of this assembly will be familiar with it. The American Nazi Party wanted to march in Skokie, which is a community made up largely of those of the Jewish faith. It's interesting to look at the Skokie case.

Those who sought to prohibit the Nazis from marching in Skokie, Illinois, came forward, and they met with the resistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, which was headed up by members of the Jewish faith. Those Jews defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie. That tells you how extreme these fundamental issues of freedom of expression, freedom of communication, freedom to assemble and freedom to communicate are, when you end up with Jews in the United States actually defending the right of Nazis to march.

While the Jewish leaders of the ACLU disagreed with their views, which were repugnant to everyone -- and certainly to this member of this assembly -- they defended the right of the Nazis to march.

That goes back to the core issue in Bill 33. Members of the government have not been able to satisfactorily address why they are bringing forward such legislation, and they are not prepared to satisfactorily address why they are so uncomfortable and squeamish with the idea of someone holding views contrary to their own, that they might want to limit those expressions of free speech, free communication and freedom of the media because they might disagree with others.

This is not an easy issue to resolve. It's not going to be dealt with today in debate on this bill in this House. This piece of legislation should not pass; it should never have seen the light of day. The government should be embarrassed to have tabled it in this House without further thought and consultation. I'm surprised that it made it through the process. It shows that the process is not working over there. Bills are making it to the floor of this House without all members seeing them.

That's why we have some after-the-fact rationalizations, as we have seen today by some government members who have spoken in this debate -- after the fact, trying to justify why this bill has come forward.

The bill is not well thought out. It's not the act of a democratic party. It's not the act of a party which should be proud to call itself a governing party in our province. I'm embarrassed for them that they have brought it forward. I certainly will not be supporting this legislation, hon. Speaker.

G. Farrell-Collins: I wish to commend the member who spoke before me, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and many other members of this House who have spoken on this issue.

In all the time I have spent in this House, this is probably the one single issue that I see as being really important. Some days we sit here and go through the motions of looking at trivial pieces of legislation. Sometimes I wonder why we're doing it and if our time couldn't be better spent -- and I know the Speaker certainly feels the same way sometimes. This piece of legislation, as small and thin as it is -- one page -- has immense ramifications for us.

I'm not surprised to see tempers raised in this House. I would be surprised if they weren't. I am not surprised to hear people stand up, like the Minister of Labour did, and give incredibly passionate speeches -- and like the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is a highly respected and honoured member in this House. If they did not, I would be very worried about democracy in British Columbia, because any time a group of elected representatives sets out to make changes to try and limit the rights of people to freedom of expression of any kind, they are treading on very dangerous ground.

It is important, critical and essential that that piece of legislation -- however thin and small and insignificant in appearance -- be dragged through the wringer; that it be picked apart sentence by sentence, word by word and letter by letter. If we are not looking at the possible implications of that legislation in its extreme, then we are not doing the job that we were put here to do.

I have heard people from all three parties -- including the independent members -- say things that have offended other people in this House and have offended their sensibilities, because they are pushing the limits of this legislation. They're saying: "What if? What if we put this legislation in? What are the possible implications of it?" By pushing those limits, we're doing exactly what we should be doing. We are being incredibly vigilant at looking at one of the most important things that government can do, and that is

[ Page 7402 ]

impinge on the rights of individuals in the community. When I see members heckling back and forth and getting angry, when I see faces getting red and people shaking their heads in frustration, I know we are doing our job here, because we are testing this legislation to its ultimate limit, and I know tempers have been short.

People with greater minds than those who sit in this chamber have grappled with these very issues for centuries. Greater minds than may ever wander into this hall at some time in the next two or three hundred years have grappled with this issue. They have been involved in this debate by members bringing forth such quotations as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and others have.

We have to be incredibly careful any time we try and make these types of decisions. In my own small, humble way I intend to do the same thing. I intend to ask those questions, put forth the ideas and deal with the what-ifs, because history has proven time and time again.... All any member of this House has to do is take 30 steps up to the library and look through any number of bookshelves.

You will find examples through history where the entrenchment of the rights of individuals, after having been fought for and developed in a society over decades and centuries, has been wiped clean -- not in a matter of decades, years or even in a matter of months, but in a matter of weeks, days and hours. Those rights -- individuals' ability to express, publish, think and say what they believe -- have been wiped out with a snap of fingers. It is critical that we take a hard line on this bill; it is essential that we examine its minute subclauses and phrases.

[4:45]

I must say that I am concerned by some things that I've heard here. We had the member for Vancouver-Hastings speaking yesterday. I read through her speech again because I wanted to be clear that I had it right. We had a member saying: "`The new amendment decriminalizes hate and moves it to a forum where the public interest is the paramount consideration. It will be the B.C. Council of Human Rights which will determine whether a violation of the Human Rights Act has occurred'."

Who determines what's in the public interest? Who do we set up in society to determine what's in the public interest? To some extent, we do that every day. But when it comes to governments -- people like us, who are representatives of the people as a whole -- setting the limits to those rights, we have to be extremely careful.

We have to ensure that when we deal with these tough issues -- when we have to find somebody to judge them to determine whether or not someone's right has been infringed upon -- we have a body or a group of people so remotely located and so remotely dependent upon this chamber that we have no recourse to them. We have to ensure that the people who judge those rights are dependent upon this chamber for their positions, because it is the government that steps out and limits those rights.

All we have to do is read the act and the amendments that are there now to know that the Council of Human Rights is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that the NDP is going to set up thought police, because I know the members who are there. While I disagree with their viewpoints on many issues, and I disagree with the way they approach issues, I'm not about to think that the people in this chamber are going to set out to establish a thought police. It's not them I'm worried about. It's what might come later; it's the next government that may come in. It may even be a government of which I am a part. It may not be, though. It may be another government, ten, 20 or 30 years down the road -- we don't know.

If you asked the people in Germany in 1928 if they thought that in ten years they would be dealing with what they were dealing with, they would have said: "You're crazy. Don't worry about it. That will never happen. We'll never have to deal with that." They did have to deal with it -- not just those people, but virtually the whole world had to deal with it. They had to go through the greatest contortions that this globe has ever seen to rectify a situation that got out of hand in a very short space of time.

It's like holding up a brick wall that's ready to fall over on you. You need a lot of hands to hold it up. But the second we back off, relax and allow that wall to start creeping a little is the second the momentum goes in the opposite direction. It's the second that things start to change, when people start to get carried away and fall back on emotions that are uncivilized and allow people to do those crazy things that they can do to each other.

It is important to ensure that hate literature in this province -- indeed, around the world -- is stamped out. It's important that we tell those people who write that crap and say those things that we don't agree with it, and that we don't think it's right. But you're not going to do that with this piece of paper. It doesn't mean a darned thing. We've had government members stand up time after time in this debate and tell us: "Boy, hon. Speaker, I'll tell you, I read through the legislation in preparing for the debate, and this is good stuff. Boy, you can sure be guaranteed that nobody's going to be able