1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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, MAY 3, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4479 ]

CONTENTS

Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gasoline tax relief for farmers. Ms. Sanford –– 4479

Human rights branch annual report. Mr. Gabelmann –– 4479

Pornography. Ms. Brown –– 4479

Misleading business practices. Mr. Nicolson –– 4480

Police treatment of accident victim. Ms. Brown –– 4480

School transportation funding. Mr. Rose –– 4481

Builders Lien Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1984 (Bill M205). Second reading

Mr. Pelton –– 4482

Ms. Brown –– 4483

Mr. Campbell –– 4483

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4484

Mr. Cocke –– 4484

Mr. Pelton –– 4484

Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M206). Second reading

Mr. Ree –– 4484

Mr. Cocke –– 4484

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4485

Mr. Macdonald –– 4485

Mr. Ree –– 4485

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading

On the amendment

Mr. Stupich –– 4486

Mr. Lea –– 4488

Mr. Macdonald –– 4490

Mr. Hanson –– 4491

Mr. Rose –– 4495

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4500

Mr. Nicolson –– 4500

Ms. Sanford –– 4502

Bill No 1,

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR401). Mr. Parks

Introduction and first reading –– 4503

An Act Respecting Central Trust Company And Crown Trust Company (Bill PR402). Mr. Parks

Introduction and first reading –– 4503

Bill No 2,

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Charter (Bill PR403). Mr. Parks

Introduction and first reading –– 4503

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, or at

least in the precincts, is an old friend of mine and a constituent of

the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), Mr. Albert Littler, I'd ask the

House to please welcome him.

Also in the gallery is the president of Westar Timber — formerly, I

believe, B.C. Timber Ltd. At least it is a part of BCRIC, which is soon

to become the Westar Group. Would the House please welcome John

Montgomery.

MR. GABELMANN: For the third day in a row now we have in the

public galleries representatives of the B.C. Human Rights Coalition.

I'd like the House to welcome today four people: Mr. Hugh McLeod, Miss

Sue Straatman, Josephine Adams, and Evelyn Hammond.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce three

Young Socreds who are sitting in your gallery and are here to talk to

the members of our caucus about their dinner with Alexander Haig on

Thursday, September 6, to be held at the Hyatt Regency Vancouver.

They're hoping Mayor Harcourt won't come. I'd like to welcome to this

House Robin Williams from West Vancouver-Howe Sound, Ron Finnegan from

Kamloops and Darin Nielsen from Richmond.

MR. COCKE: On behalf of my colleague the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), I'd like to introduce to the House the

following people from the Native Communications Society of B.C. My

colleague spent the morning showing them around. They are Linda

Cumming, instructor of the journalism class, Denise Brillon of the

class, Charlotte Caté, Waneeta Robertson, Bert Issac and Corale Dawson.

I wish the House would share with me in welcoming them.

MR. MOWAT: In the House today we have a very good friend of

mine, Mr. Beverly Justice. "Beans" is an architect with the firm

Downs-Archambault and Partners. They are presently doing Canada Harbour

Place, the Songhees housing development in Victoria, and the exciting

High Lesion quad housing project on False Creek. They have also just

completed the town hall in Tumbler Ridge. I'd ask the House to make him

welcome.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this afternoon we have 60

grade 10 to grade 12 students from Princess Margaret Senior Secondary

School in Surrey. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today are four people from

Vernon: Mr. Ray Worley, Mr. Ted Osborne, Alderman Ernie Palfrey from

the district of Coldstream, and Alderman Frank Paul from the city of

Vernon. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GASOLINE TAX RELIEF FOR FARMERS

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

In 1981 farmers who purchased marked gas and diesel paid no gasoline tax at

all. Today the Ministry of Finance charges 18 cents tax per gallon. I'm

wondering what representations the minister has made to his colleague the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to provide tax relief for farmers who are facing

a serious income squeeze in British Columbia.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, questions relating to what

advice a minister gives the Crown are out of order in question period.

However, I would like to advise the member that in developing an

economic plan for the province, issues such as these are being

considered.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sure that will help the farmers, Mr.

Speaker, based on what the minister is telling me. I think the minister

would agree that a tax increase from zero to 18 cents per gallon over

the past three years is a severe imposition on a very important

industry in B.C. I'm wondering if the minister has decided to undertake

a review of that particular tax, with the possible decision to make a

representation to cabinet. You don't have to tell me about your

representation, but would you consider it?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'd be happy to do that.

HUMAN RIGHTS BRANCH ANNUAL REPORT

MR. GABELMANN: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Has

the minister received the annual report from the acting director of the

human rights branch?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If I had received it, I would have filed it.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I couldn't hear that answer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If I had received the report, I would likely have filed it by now.

MR. GABELMANN: Just for clarification, do I understand the

minister to say, therefore, that he has not received a report from the

acting director?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Unless it happens to be on my desk today, which I have not yet seen.... I would have filed the report had I received it.

PORNOGRAPHY

MS. BROWN: On May 2 — that's yesterday — a group of magazine

distributors met with a number of women's groups and church groups and

decided to urge the Attorney-General to set up a panel to review

pornographic material, which is still being sold in British Columbia.

In view of the growing support for this real solution to the menacing

problem of serious pornography, is the Attorney-General now ready to

accede to their wishes?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: The initiative that Mr. Pattison has taken

with community groups to try to find a method of vetting publications

is a commendable one, and one that I hope will be supported by the

magazine industry — not just

[ Page 4480 ]

by some segments of it but by the entire industry.

I applaud him for giving leadership to that industry. I understand that

the groups that have met on this subject and wish to try a review board

are going to be making a submission to me; I certainly will be looking

closely at what they have to say, and viewing that in light of the

experience in Ontario to see how best such a review board can function.

I welcome Mr. Pattison's initiative and also the interest of the

church groups and other community groups that wish to see some action

on obscene literature. I also hope that we can have some action from

the federal government on amendments to the Criminal Code, not only in

the area of obscenity but also in the area of hate literature.

MISLEADING BUSINESS PRACTICES

MR. NICOLSON: A question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. A Toronto-based company, Intra Canada

Telecommunication, was convicted last March in an Ontario court of a

$500,000 telephone directory scam in which misleading advertising

circulars were made up to look like genuine yellow-page invoices. What

steps has the minister taken to curb this company's operations in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe the member refers to a problem

that has been in existence for a number of years, where notices come in

and they really look somewhat like an invoice, and many businessmen,

usually small businessmen, pay them without recognizing that they're

really a solicitation for an ad to be placed in a magazine. Other than

that, I have no information on the issue he raises. I would be pleased

to receive any material he has. I'll also check with my staff and

report to the House as to whether or not we've had a complaint in

British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: Since the minister disbanded the consumer

protection branch last fall and fired the staff, British Columbia has

become a haven for con artists. It's sort of like the old Knothole Gang

hideout in the bad days of the west. It has become a haven for con

artists and shady dealers who wantonly violate the Trade Practice Act.

Is the minister aware that this company I have just mentioned continues

to mail phony invoices in British Columbia, even after it has been

convicted of misleading advertising in an Ontario court?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the member that my

ministry has on a number of occasions in the past years put out

information and press releases with regard to this type of practice

that is carried on in the business community. I would advise the member

that the consumer branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs is still very much in existence and that all the legislation

dealing with consumer protection is still in existence. Where there is

a problem, all the person involved has to do is communicate with my

ministry and we will take the necessary action.

MR. NICOLSON: If the minister's branch is taking action, I

want to know how it can be that nothing has gone out about this

particular company which is doing this here in British Columbia. What

steps is the minister taking in the case of a company which has been

convicted in Ontario, where they still have some consumer protection

for small business people, honest people who pay their bills on time?

What protection is the minister giving to people here in British

Columbia, when people are allowed to carry on the practice of sending

out invoices dated April after they were convicted in March of this

year?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, methinks the member is being

political. I would chastise that member for not coming to my office and

giving me some assistance to stop this sort of thing. I appreciate the

member's concern for the public and the consumer, and I would

appreciate a copy of the material he has raised in this House. I would

be pleased to bring back information also as to what action has been

done, and if there hasn't been any action I would certainly follow it

up in my ministry.

POLICE TREATMENT OF ACCIDENT VICTIM

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this question has to do with the

Harvey Jack case. A month ago the Attorney-General told the House that

he was satisfied with the internal police investigation into the case

of Harvey Jack of Kulleet Bay, who was paralyzed as a result of not

receiving medical attention when he was placed in a drunk-tank

following an automobile accident.

In view of the fact that the Attorney-General has commented on this

case, is he willing to release the RCMP report to which he referred?

HON. MR. SMITH: As the member well knows, Mr. Speaker, those

reports are not released, and they're not released as a uniform

practice across this country, a practice that was followed by the New

Democratic Party when they were government — and a sensible practice.

It does not allow for full investigation and for people to come forward

and give full statements if all those statements later are going to be

replayed in public by all sorts of amateur sleuths and other

well-meaning people — or political headline-hunters — who want to read

them. It isn't because governments wish to act in secrecy; it's because

in gathering the information the police use a variety of sources. They

require that people will come forward voluntarily and cooperate, and

they just won't do so if a bit of their statement given voluntarily is

going to appear in a headline.

So I cannot release the report, but I can tell the member that I

personally read the report and the statements that were made by the

witness, everything that was available. I had a considerable amount of

sympathy, in reading that report, for Mr. Jack. But I also have to

understand that when the police have nothing to direct their attention

to the fact that a man is injured in the back seat of a motor vehicle

when he's found, and there are other people who are conscious in that

motor vehicle, as there were in this case, and no one draws to their

attention the possibility of injury of this man who was sitting in the

back seat, they cannot assume that he needs medical attention or take

him to the hospital. They didn't do that. They had to remove him from

the vehicle because the vehicle had stopped, having hit a tree or an

obstacle, and was on the roadway. Someone could have smashed into it

and maybe caused death to the people inside it. So they had to remove

this gentleman. He obviously has incurred some serious injuries in some

way — whether in the accident, whether aggravated later I cannot say.

But the police cannot read people's minds, and they cannot give

on-the-spot medical examinations and have surgeons present every time

they stop

[ Page 4481 ]

a car or take someone into custody. In this case

the police, the moment they were alerted by this individual to his

injuries, got him to medical attention. So I don't know how they can do

more. I sympathize with the gentleman, but what more can the police do?

Have a surgeon with them riding in every car? No, they can't.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General feels at liberty to comment

at length on a report which no one else has seen, including the family

involved in the case. He also announced that the deputy commissioner of

the RCMP was going to be meeting with the family as well as with other

native groups to discuss this, because the native groups are not

satisfied that you are sympathetic with the gentleman. That is not

enough.

Is the Attorney-General willing to answer two questions? Why have

none of the people involved been contacted by the deputy commissioner

of the RCMP? They say they haven't. Also, will you tell this House

which of the native groups have been invited to meet with the deputy

commissioner of the RCMP? None of the groups have indicated any

invitation from the deputy commissioner to this date.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll be glad to bring that information back

to the House. I did not say that the deputy commissioner was going to

meet with Mr. Jack or his family. I said that the RCMP were going to

hold meetings with representatives of native groups on Vancouver Island

to try to listen to their concerns, not just about this case but about

other matters involving the justice system that concern those groups,

and that I would receive a report. I will be glad to bring back to the

House what meetings have been arranged, or are going to be arranged,

and I assure the member that those will take place.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, what the House also needs is an

assurance that the deputy commissioner is also going to meet with the

family involved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I cannot give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

MR. ROSE: I was a little concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the

time remaining, but I would like to ask a question of the Minister of

Education that concerns the granting of an excess amount — suddenly the

transportation budget went up $256,000 in Prince George, following a

secret meeting between two senior administrators of that district and

two trustees. Since the formula for the fiscal framework for

transportation is pretty specific, I'd like to ask the minister what

cost factor was adjusted to create this windfall in this district, and

whether other districts could look forward to similar favours in the

future from the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm really surprised that the member

didn't ask that question two, three or four weeks ago. There was no

secret meeting. I met with the people in the school district, like I

met with the people from Qualicum, and there were 200 kilometres of bus

route which had not been claimed within the formula. Secondly, we found

38 kiddies who required special...

MR. ROSE: Kiddies?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right, children. Little ones.

...who needed some help, and I was going to get what help I could

for them. [Applause.] I'm not finished. I expected this call might come

in. I'd be quite prepared to read to you the letter that was sent to

the chairman of the school district reciting it. Just to give some

assurance to the member that School District 57 is having some

difficulties with the framework...,

MR. ROSE: With their MLA.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: And with their MLA.

...600 or so showed up last week

to tell me that they were somewhat concerned with the restraint package. I want

to assure you that the amount of money involved was something in the order of

$115,000, about one-third of the amount that went to Qualicum. As a matter

of fact, it works right within the formula, and all your people who have made

appropriate inquiries of the ministry have been so advised.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In making the introduction, I apologize

that because I had legislation on the floor I wasn't able to meet with

this group today. I would like the Legislature to welcome a large group

of students, along with their teachers, from Brookswood Junior

Secondary School in Langley. I would like to give a special welcome to

one of their teachers, Mr. Filuk, who has brought students here for 11

consecutive years — which is just about the same amount of time I've

been coming here.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would permit me to thank the minister for his filibuster.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: First, I ask leave of the House that the

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills be

permitted to meet this afternoon at 3 o'clock in the Hemlock Room.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills in the hands of private members.

[2:30]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the opposition would be happy to

accede to that request. Unfortunately the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) is not here to shepherd her bill. Since it is private

members' day, I would ask that motion 33 also be given an opportunity

for debate. It's a very important motion about the question of Harry

Jerome.

Interjections.

[ Page 4482 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we seem to be

straying somewhat from practice at this time. While it is in order to

ask leave, clearly a debate ensuing upon that request is not in order.

These are matters, I respectfully suggest, hon. members, that should

best be decided outside this chamber, not inside.

MR. COCKE: I would therefore ask leave....

MR. SPEAKER: We already have one leave on the floor, hon. member.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've asked leave to proceed to public bills in the hands of private members; that's the first issue.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of

Bill M201. On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I move adjournment of the

debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Bill M203. On behalf of the hon.

member for Cowichan-Malahat, I move adjournment of debate on Bill M203

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I make a similar adjournment motion on behalf of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat re Bill M204.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill M205.

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1984

MR. PELTON: I am very pleased to stand in my place this

afternoon to speak to second reading of Bill M205, Builders Lien

Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984. I won't take a great deal of the House's

time, because I know that members on both sides of the House have been

lobbied on this matter and are well aware of the implications involved.

I have just one or two words, and then I will formally move second

reading of this bill.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that legislation of this type is some of the

most enlightened legislation which has ever been passed in

jurisdictions such as this. Over the years — and when it all began — it

referred specifically to individual workers and tradesmen, and was the

only protection that they had under the law against people who would

take advantage of them from the point of view of not paying them for

their services and various other things. However, over the years there

has been other legislation which has come along, such as the Employment

Standards Act, which has done much to take care of this particular type

of individual. But also over the years times have changed, life has

become much more complicated, and we have found that others —

tradesmen, artisans and so on — were being covered under legislation

similar to a builder's or mechanic's lien act.

Over the years various changes and amendments have come along to the

act, particularly to the act which was originally enacted by the

Legislature of this province. They have changed so very many times that

it has become highly complicated; as a matter of fact, it is so highly

complicated today, I understand, that there are very few cases where

actions are brought under the act that don't result in litigation

through the courts. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I understand that

many attempts have been made to rewrite this act, but to this point in

time that has not been possible. It hasn't occurred, and so we are left

with the same act, and we are still left in the same position of

wanting to provide protection for various groups of people, which

requires further amendments to the act.

This brings me to the specific point of my being on my feet: that

is, to convince all members of this House that we should now amend this

act once again to include those people who are involved in the rental

of equipment. Members on both sides have received correspondence and

have talked to people who support this type of amendment and who have

requested this amendment. I also know that a special committee of our

caucus was struck and looked into this whole situation very carefully.

They received delegations, and they gave it a great deal of discussion.

In the end, the caucus supported the private member's bill, which I

bring forth for second reading today.

I would also like to acknowledge the fact that members opposite,

particularly the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), had intended

to bring forward an amendment to Bill 1 which was presented to the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). The hon. member has acceded to my

bringing forward this new bill, which includes the very thing which she

intended to bring forward with her amendment.

Before I get down to moving second reading. I would like to read

into the record the numerous pieces of correspondence that I have

received on this subject since it became known that I was interested in

bringing this matter before the House. I would like to quote one or two

paragraphs from one particular letter which I received, because I think

it supports in a very real and excellent way the reasons why this House

should unanimously support this bill. By the way, this letter is from a

company called Anthes Equipment Ltd., and it was written by a lady by

the name of Zuccolini.

"For several years equipment rental companies have

been trying to be added to the Builders Lien Act. Although we have had

support and many government members can appreciate our problem, we seem

to be overlooked. There is very little statistical information

available pertaining to equipment rental companies. The last study we

could find was in 1976. There were 126 equipment rental companies, with

a revenue of $24,767,000 annually. Based on the proportionate growth

rate in the construction industry, in 1981 we were approximately 200

equipment rental companies, with an approximate annual revenue of

$53,841,000.

"We in the equipment rental business are an integral

part of the construction industry — usually the first company on the

job and very often the last one off. The rental industry supplies such

items as cranes, shoring, scaffolding, washrooms, pumps, safety

[ Page 4483 ]

equipment" and so on.... The list is almost endless.

"With most of the equipment there is a great deal of

labour involved in the maintenance of this equipment. It is not just

material sitting in a yard waiting to go to a job; it must constantly

be serviced. This equipment is expensive to start with, but the

maintenance makes up 48 percent of our cost, and half our workforce is"

constantly involved in the performance of this task. "Therefore we are

in the unique position of not only supplying material, but also

extensive labour goes into maintaining equipment.

"The problem is that many general contractors and

developers are taking out as much money up front in a job as they can,

and towards the end of the job they advise us that they lost money or

ran into problems beyond their control and to claim against the 15

percent holdback" — as it stands today.

"There is seldom enough to satisfy all the lien

claimants, so they try to eliminate as many suppliers or trades as they

can, which leaves the equipment rental companies out on a limb. We are

asked to drastically negotiate downwards" — the amount they are owed —

"or receive nothing. This is directly due to the fact that we do not

have liens, but in some cases we try to claim anyway, but usually the

outcome is negative, because the lawyers involved are aware that we

have no lien rights."

In this company whose letter I am quoting from, they have an

owner-operator. They advise that they have been asked to take as low as

20 percent, or even less, of what they are owed. If there is a dispute

while the job is going on, the only recourse they have is to seek legal

counsel or get a bailiff to retrieve their equipment. The general

contractor then advises that they cannot remove their equipment

because, for example, they might be renting out forms and the concrete

hasn't cured. So they wait. Then they try to retrieve the equipment by

making other arrangements, but inevitably this does not succeed.

What is happening now is that many contractors are forming limited companies

for every job. Therefore if they have taken the funds up front, and they put

suppliers off until they get down to the holdback, there will not be ample

funds; then they bankrupt the company and the supplier and trades get hurt.

I could go on. As I've said before, I have numerous pieces of

correspondence from people who support this amendment and have waited

many years for it. So without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

move that the bill be now read a second time.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is very pleased to be

able to support Bill M205 and to thank the government back-bencher for

pulling the government's chestnuts out of the fire. I was very happy to

accede to his bill, because as he said it certainly covers one of the

very important issues which needed to be covered. I recognize that when

a government back-bencher introduces a private member's bill it

certainly has a much better chance of going through than when an

opposition member introduces the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: I would like to be proven wrong. I would like the

government to accept an opposition bill sometime. It's one of the

things that we all look forward to in this House.

I agree also with the member reading the letter from Mrs. Zuccolini

into the record. I suspect that he probably got a different letter than

the one which came to our caucus, because the letter which we received

from Anthes Equipment stated two major concerns: one for lien rights

for rental equipment companies, and the second that the holdback should

remain at 15 percent and not be reduced to 10.

I want to express some disappointment that the private member's bill

was not extended to include both of these concerns. I'm glad it

includes at least one, but I would have been ecstatic if the bill had

included the answer to both of the concerns, because as the letter goes

on to state, in many instances when the job is over, the only money

that's there for the people who haven't been paid — either the

equipment rental agencies or the workers — is the 15 percent holdback.

It should have been increased, not decreased to 10 percent. I'm sorry

that was not included in the member's bill, and I hope that we will see

another private member's bill from that very forward-looking

back-bencher from Dewdney, who is serving his one and only time in the

House, as I gather he is going to step down in favour of Mrs. Weremchuk

next time around. But while he's here, I'm certainly pleased that he

has introduced this bill, and the opposition is very happy to support

it.

[2:45]

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this

amendment to the bill. While we were investigating this in committee,

it became apparent that this act had been amended many times, and

because of this it was very difficult to implement the original

proposals of the bill. Because of the changes which the previous

speakers both spoke about, it is obvious that the Builders Lien Act we

think of today is different than that which was originally passed.

We had one group of people — builders and some financial people from

HUDAC — meet with this committee to present their side of the story,

but the problem was that they could not agree among themselves exactly

how the Builders Lien Act should read. Some of the people felt that

this bill should be scrapped entirely, because if the job gets into

financial difficulties and certain tradesmen should place liens on it,

the job then stops and the financial institutions will not advance

further funds. Then the Builders Lien Act becomes a deterrent rather

than a help. If the financial institutions will not advance further

funds, the job stops, goes into default and foreclosure, and the cost

of the interest, the courts and the legal system eats up whatever money

is left. So the builder who filed the lien receives no return and the

job perhaps stops.

There is another theory that the Builders Lien Act should be amended

so that in certain cases where jobs are bonded, or letters of credit

placed before the job commences, those jobs should be exempt from the

Builders Lien Act at that time. If further liens were advances, they

would be paid for by the bonding company and the job wouldn't stop but

would progress, as was originally intended, and it would therefore be

completed.

I have one further recommendation, Mr. Speaker. After this bill is

passed as amended, I really believe that a committee of both sides of

this House should be sent out to hold perhaps three or four general

meetings throughout the

[ Page 4484 ]

province to investigate this matter further,

because I'm not convinced that the bill we presently have in front of

us is the best that could be produced. I believe that, as this is an

absolutely non-political bill, if a committee was sent out to the

interior and perhaps to the north, as well as to Vancouver and

Victoria, and meetings were held with the building community and the

financial people, a better bill than what we have in front of us could

be forthcoming. I would therefore recommend to the member who

implemented the amendment to this bill that at a future date a

committee could perhaps be struck to do this.

HON. MR. SMITH: I congratulate the members on both sides of

the House who have spoken, particularly for the bipartisan position

which they have all taken, and I welcome on behalf of the government

the addition of this particular category to the Builders Lien Act.

There is a bill before the Legislature amending this act, but this

provision in this private member's bill can and should be incorporated

in the law. The government accepts the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I've been very impressed with the

non-partisan, bipartisan approach to this bill. As a matter of fact, I

had every intention of supporting the bill — until I found that it was

totally inadequate, as brought to our attention by the member for North

Okanagan (Mr. Campbell). Now I'm really in a quandary. I think that

maybe we should have a recess so that the government and its

backbenchers can get their act together.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I stand on my feet with a great deal

of trepidation. I would like to suggest to hon. members, particularly

the member for New Westminster, that I think my colleague was really

referring to the main bill, the Builders Lien Act, as opposed to the

secondary bill that I brought forward this afternoon.

If I may, in closing debate I would just like to say — and I am sure

that the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who obviously has

the same letter as I do, but reads from different paragraphs, will also

support this — that the equipment rental companies are not asking for

an edge on other trades or suppliers, but only to be placed on an equal

footing with everyone else. They don't expect the government to

guarantee their survival but only to have the same rules regarding

their exposure to the many problems that arise from day to day out in

that construction field so that they will not be exposed to any greater

extent than anybody else in the field.

I now move second reading of Bill M205.

Motion approved.

Bill M205,

An Act to Amend the Builders Lien Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M206, Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984, Mr. Speaker.

PATIENTS PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand here to move

second reading of Bill M206. If a person is committed under the

Patients Property Act because of mental infirmity or disease or age and

cannot, in other words, look after their own affairs, the courts can

appoint a person to look after their affairs on their behalf. That

person is called "the committee."

If nobody is appointed, Mr. Speaker, the public trustee, under the

statute, becomes the committee. But also under

section 6 (2) of the

act, anybody's appointment as a committee can be rescinded, save and

except for the appointment of the public trustee to that position.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my amendment is to empower the courts to

have the authority to also remove the appointment of the public

trustee. Unfortunately, the public trustee is a complete power unto

himself. He is the only trustee in this province, under legislation,

who is not accountable for his decisions, actions or lack of actions

and is unremovable by the supreme court of this province when he has

once been appointed as the committee under the statute.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that in a number of

instances where there have been other persons equally competent to

administer an estate to which the public trustee has been appointed as

a committee, the public trustee would not voluntarily remove himself. I

have one estate in particular, Mr. Speaker, where a daughter of the

committed mother has grown of an age, has an education and has business

administration experience. In another almost related court action, the

judge himself commented on the young lady's ability. In that particular

instance, the committee, being the public trustee, will not voluntarily

resign his appointment. The daughter, who has a more personal interest,

an emotional interest in her mother's well-being and welfare, cannot

look after her mother's affairs. The public trustee has the sole power.

Mr. Speaker, I have also had brought to my attention an instance

where a gentlemen was committed because of Alzheimer's disease. The

public trustee would not consent or in fact defend an application for

the wife of the committed gentleman to act as a committee. The wife was

perfectly capable and very competent to look after her husband's

affairs, and the husband's affairs included joint tenancy within the

house. In such circumstances the wife cannot refinance the house

without the consent of the public trustee or handle any of the joint

matters that normal married people could do. She has less say in the

family matters with her husband committed than otherwise.

It is my pleasure to submit this bill, a public bill in the hands of

a private member, in order that the public trustee, his office, his

actions or inaction, should be reviewable as any other trustee of this

province by the courts of the land.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will move second reading of the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, certainly that brings up a number of

problems that we've all faced over the years. I believe, however, that

while this bill does mitigate or modify to some extent the problem

which the member outlines, the major problem that I see is the

all-powerful situation that the public trustee has had bestowed upon

him in the first place. My feeling is that if there were some way of

amending our statutes to give the public trustee more responsibility

either to the Legislature or to the Crown or something, once having

been appointed.... You see, what this bill does is say that we can

appoint other than the public trustee as the committee. But the problem

is, once having done that, how do you get

[ Page 4485 ]

them out of the hands of the public trustee? I'm

just wondering about the power of this bill to do that. The public

trustee has, in my view, too much power, and I read this bill to

suggest that the legislation.... A court cannot now rescind the

appointment of a public trustee as committee; the amendment would give

the court that power. If it does, then I'm quite happy. I'm not at all

sure that it can, but the member says it can, and I hope it does. It

strikes me that one of our problems over the years has been that once

the public trustee is given that court order, it makes it very

difficult to come up with a change. My other problem with it is that

you have to go to court. That means lawyers and costs and so on and so

forth.

Someday we had better take a good look at the entire Public Trustee

Act and see what can be done to make things just a little bit easier. I

have seen cases exactly the same as that which the member has outlined,

where once in the hands of the public trustee, never out, under any

circumstance. I think that doesn't bode well for many of the family

situations that we've all seen. So we'll be supporting this, and maybe

we'll look at it in more depth in committee.

[3:00]

HON. MR. SMITH: The member has brought forward a proposed

amendment to the provision that allows for the cancellation by a court

of the appointment of the public trustee. For many years the law has

had embedded in it a special position for the public trustee; you could

rescind the appointment of any other trustee, but you could never

rescind his appointment. The practice has normally been, I'm advised,

that where a competent and suitably qualified member of the family

wishes to displace the public trustee, the public trustee consents to

stand aside. But there is a worry that the

section doesn't allow that

to happen even when there's a consent by the public trustee. I heard

what the member sponsoring the bill said in his argument, and I also

heard the comments of the member for New Westminster. The whole role of

the public trustee is perhaps worthy of examination.

The public trustee is really in the position of the Crown as a

parens patria, and over the years some of the powers of the Crown as

parens patria have moved by legislation from the Crown to the courts in

any event, and the courts have assumed some of the responsibilities of

the parens patria — or the parent of all people who are unable to look

after themselves, whether they're incompetent physically or mentally,

or deemed to be so by age. I really don't see anything at all

unprogressive or dangerous about allowing the court to make a decision

that perhaps the public trustee should be displaced in favour of

someone else. It may be the only way it could be brought about under

the old legislation, even with consent. So I think it's a sensible

amendment, and on behalf of the government I thank the member, and I

thank the official opposition for their helpful comments. We will

accept it.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of words. It's

partly for a social reason that the public trustee comes in. There are

all kinds of small estates which are very difficult to administer.

There is furniture and stuff lying around, and a car — but very little;

not enough to justify having all of the family, who sometimes can't be

located, found and served with notices, as they have to be, and brought

together. And then they probably need a lawyer. So really, the

government of British Columbia, through this office of the public

trustee, is performing a social service in the case of very small

estates where there are difficulties of that kind — and sometimes very

large ones too, for different reasons. I have no doubt the

Attorney-General welcomes this amendment by the hon. member, because

it's part of the downsizing of government. I don't know whether he has

looked at it philosophically. It's something that Ronald Reagan would

support, yet I support it too. I'm sure the courts will be careful in

those situations not to dump out of the hands of the public trustee one

of these things that really can't be easily wound up privately, even

with two or three lawyers representing all these people.

The public trustee has done a good job in the province of British

Columbia. It's a very vexatious and difficult job. You sell a car

that's got a mortgage or two against it, and then you have a complaint

by somebody that it was sold for too little, and all this inventory

that has to be taken. But it's a public service that some people can't

afford, and it should be available. I'm sure the courts, in exercising

this discretion to cancel out the public trustee, will do it only in

those cases where it's truly justified.

MR. REE: I'd like to associate myself with the comments of

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I do feel the

public trustee on the whole does an excellent job of service to the

people of the province. I also feel that the public trustee should be

accountable to our courts, as any other trustee is accountable. I feel

that by removing the perpetuity rights of the public trustee, allowing

someone to make an application who might have an interest in an estate

to become a committee, it may be, shall we say, one little feather on

the back of the public trustee to ensure his integrity again.

The second member for Vancouver East commented on the downsizing of

government. It certainly had crossed my mind that this amendment would

be acceptable at this time, through the privatization moves this

government has been making. It would allow people in the private sector

to be committees of estates which are now administered by the public

trustee. It may relieve us of some of that cost.

I thank the government for supporting this bill, and I thank the

opposition for likewise supporting it. I move second reading of the

bill.

Motion approved.

Bill M206, Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to continue with private members' day. I seek leave to debate Motion 33.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is some question that that

motion could even be accepted by the Chair at this time. I therefore

regret that I am unable even to put the leave request by the member.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 11, Human Rights Act.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've been in

this House for many years, and that's the first time I've ever seen

anybody speak from a desk other than his own.

[ Page 4486 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair apologizes, hon. member. The Chair

watched the proceedings as well. I concur in the observation of the

member. I'm sure the Attorney-General inadvertently walked to the wrong

microphone.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I be recognized as the speaker to follow the stranger that spoke before? I call second reading of Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: In discussing this amendment yesterday the hon.

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) urged that the government

refer Bill 11 to an all-party committee of. the House. He urged it in a

way that could only have been taken as asking for some cooperation from

the government in dealing with this legislation. I think it was a

suggestion that the government should take seriously. There has been so

much confrontation not only in the House in recent months but certainly

in the whole community in the past ten months. The confrontation

started boiling on July 7 when the government introduced the 1983-84

budget and the 26 pieces of legislation. The confrontation drew to the

attention of the world what was happening in B.C. It was not good

attention; it was attention that was very critical of what government

was doing in British Columbia. Certainly in the House the attitude was

reflected in the debates that went on in this House. Records were

broken for the length of time which the House sat day after day —

24-hours-a-day sittings — and for the introduction of closure as a

means of shutting off the opposition not just once but, I believe, 20

times. Unfortunately any offer of cooperation had to be made by the

opposition first. It would seem to me that in making that offer the

government would have been well advised, for the sake of British

Columbia, to have shown that it was willing to start talking with the

opposition, rather than talking down to it.

It would cost the government nothing now to support the amendment to

delay the bill for six months. They have discharged the Human Rights

Commission. If it's a matter of restraint, dollar-wise, it's not

costing them anything to keep the Human Rights Commission members busy,

because there aren't any anymore. They have suspended the activities of

the human rights branch to the extent that they don't even file their

reports anymore. So it would seem to me that delaying it would cost the

government nothing, but it would gain the government a great deal. As a

matter of fact, I think the government would gain a great deal more

from this than would the opposition. B.C. would gain if we could

jointly point to some example of cooperation. All it takes is for the

government to accept this amendment to postpone consideration for six

months and then to go on and actually follow through in the process of

setting up a special committee, or an appropriate select standing

committee, to hear arguments about this legislation before the

Legislature proceeds further with it.

During the course of the debate on Bill 11 we have advanced

arguments as to why we feel it should be withdrawn and alternative

legislation introduced. The proposal now is that we hoist it for six

months so that we could consider not only this legislation but

arguments that might be made by individuals in the community who are

afraid of being adversely affected and by organizations that are

worried about their ability to look after the concerns of their

members. All of these people would have an opportunity to present

themselves, their arguments and their briefs to a standing committee of

the Legislature that could sit between sessions. It could show a new

spirit of cooperation in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, someone has to

make that kind of a move.

There have been one or two attempts from the Premier's office to

meet with different people in the community. In the preparation of his

budget the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) did meet with many

people who represented many organizations and people. It was a good

move, and at the time I complimented him for it. I didn't think that

the results were particularly good. Nevertheless, there was that

openness and a spirit of cooperation, as though the government was

backing away from what it did last year and embarking on a new program.

Now it would seem that, unless the government is prepared to accept

this amendment, they were prepared to go so far and no further. The

only minister willing to take his proposals to the community as a whole

and give them some opportunity of making some input into what he

proposed to do was the Minister of Finance. The minister in charge of

this bill could do the same thing: he could recommend to his colleagues

that the government accept the opposition amendment. He could also

promise that in accepting it, the government would be quite prepared in

the six-month period to expose their ideas and arguments to the public

and let the public make known their position with respect to this

legislation.

[3:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I recently heard advertisements telling everyone how great things

are in B.C. from the point of view of human rights protection,

Apparently the government has taken to the airwaves and is spending

goodness knows how much money, telling everyone that what they are

doing is the right thing for B.C. But they are expressing their

determination not to listen. It's a one-way conversation. They're

paying out good taxpayer dollars to say to everyone: "Our human rights

legislation is the best in Canada." That's what they're telling them.

They're not prepared to listen to the people who are being affected, or

who are concerned about being affected, to listen to see whether they

might have some input into this legislation that might, indeed, make it

better legislation. Certainly I have seen no response from any

organization organized to help individuals fight for human rights in

their particular line of interest supporting the legislation before us

now. The only expressions of support that I've seen.... I've heard

precious little from the government side of the House. The minister

himself spoke and told us what a great bill it was. I would have been

very surprised if he didn't. That would apparently be the only voice of

support for this legislation. Other members on the government side who

have spoken have been very brief. It would seem that they have nothing

good to say about this legislation.

People out in the community are concerned and worried. They are

going to be affected and feel the lack of opportunity to work on behalf

of the individuals curtailed with the passage of Bill 11. They are

worried and concerned about it, and they are urging the opposition

members to do everything they can to bring to the attention of the

government the advisability of delaying passage of this bill until the

community

[ Page 4487 ]

as a whole has an opportunity to meet with government, to talk with them, to try to persuade them to make changes.

It is not surprising, I suppose, that the B.C. Federation of Labour

is one of the groups that has put out a press release urging that Bill

11 not be proceeded with. People might say: "What else might you expect

from the Federation of Labour?" It's not an organization....

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. STUPICH: I hear "right on" from one of the two government members in the House.

The B.C. Federation of Labour is not an organization that was

organized to fight for human rights. They were organized to fight for

people who really don't need the protection of human rights

legislation. They have their own organizations that are able to

negotiate on behalf of their members. Certainly they take advantage of

the legislation in some circumstances and on some occasions, but in the

main the organized trade union movement is strong enough to fight for

human rights when it's dealing with its employers in the main.

It's people who don't have the protection of the B.C. Federation of

Labour who need the kind of help that was available to them under the

NDP administration with the human rights legislation that we brought

in. The Human Rights Commission did excellent work. The human rights

branch in the Ministry of Labour did excellent work, and what was all

available and was being done previously is now being undone without any

opportunity for the public as a whole to speak to members of the

Legislature to tell them how they feel. Indeed they did speak last

fall. It was one of the reasons for operation Solidarity coming

together. Whatever else one might say about them, one can certainly say

that they were able to get the community interested in what was

happening in Victoria. The question wasn't raised then: "Is the House

sitting?" Mr. Speaker, from time to time in your experience I'm sure

you, along with all other members of the House, have found on your

return to your constituency that people wonder if the House is actually

sitting. People have wondered: "Where were you last week? Why weren't

you around? I didn't see you." When you say you were in Victoria, they

wonder what you are doing there. They weren't aware that the House was

sitting. And then when you are there they wonder why you aren't in

Victoria, because they are not aware that the House isn't sitting. But

last fall everyone all over B.C. knew the House was sitting and knew

the kind of legislation that was being passed — or being debated, at

least; not very much of it was being passed for some time.

One of the bills that the government agreed to hold back on for some

time — at least we assume it was part of the Kelowna agreement; we're

not privy to the terms of that — was the human rights legislation, Bill

27 at that time. It was the one wiping out the Human Rights Commission.

It was bad legislation. You will recall, I'm sure, the extent to which

it was attacked by people, not only residents of British Columbia and

organizations in British Columbia working on behalf of their members

but also by the United Council of Churches when it was meeting in

Vancouver and by federal ministers — four of whom, I believe, signed a

joint letter or message of some kind complaining about what was

happening in B.C.

We did get lots of attention in the fall of 1983. We haven't had nearly

as much attention this time, but neither have we had anyone saying that Bill

11 is markedly improved over Bill 27 that was introduced last year. There are

some minor improvements, but in introducing even minor improvements the government

has shown some willingness to move. Why not go a step further? There is no hurry.

The Human Rights Commission is gone. It can be reappointed. It can be brought

back. The existing legislation still calls for it, but nevertheless it's

gone. The human rights branch is inactive. Why the haste? What would it cost

the government to hold this up for six months, and what praise might they then

get from the people who are concerned about the loss of human rights? They could

stand back and say: "Yes, we are going to take another look at this. Yes,

we are going to refer it to one of the existing committees or set up a special

committee. We are going to refer this legislation to them and just see what

kind of response we get from the community." Give people an opportunity

to come in and talk about it and ask questions. Perhaps some of their fears

might be allayed. Perhaps they might offer some advice that would persuade the

minister and his staff to make further changes and improvements. There is that

possibility.

As long as there is the possibility of getting legislation that

would better serve the interests of the people of British Columbia,

then why not go that route? In his opening remarks in introducing

second reading of Bill 11, at no point did the minister make any case

for urgency in dealing with this particular legislation. As I say, Mr.

Speaker, so much could be done for his own credibility and that of his

government if they were to accept the opposition's request that it be

referred to an all-party committee, so that that committee could listen

to, meet with and hear representations, and could make recommendations

for changes in the legislation. The minister would still have the

authority to reject, accept or change the recommendations that were

made. He wouldn't have to accept them, even if an all-party committee

recommended them. He could still have his own reservations and do what

he wanted to, but at least it would show that he was willing to listen.

We are dealing here with the rights of minorities, and certainly one

of the responsibilities.... The majority has the right to govern, and

the government has the number of members that will ensure passage of

this legislation — in fairly short order if they're determined to do

it. But along with the majority right to govern is the responsibility

to consider the rights of the minorities. There is no one else to look

after the rights of the minorities other than the majority. When

minority groups such as the ones who have signed the statements

complaining about what has happened are raising the fuss that they are

in the community, are approaching members of the Legislature and are

writing to them individually and as groups, urging that there be this

consideration, unless the minister can show us that there is some

reason for haste and for not listening to people, then I would urge

that the House accept the opposition amendment in this instance and

that the bill indeed be hoisted for six months.

I had occasion recently to meet with the Human Rights Coalition. I

took a couple of hours out of my

schedule to meet with them in

Vancouver, although it was not time that I wanted to spend these days.

They were wondering if there was any way at all in which they could

bring their concerns to the attention of government by doing all sorts

of outlandish things they had thought of, none of which were practical,

in my opinion, as I so advised them. There were 11 people at the

meeting representing 11 different groups. There could have been more,

but it was a weekday morning meeting, and

[ Page 4488 ]

people just aren't that able to come to such

meetings unless they're unemployed — which many of them are — or

they're working where they can get time off.

The meeting started at 9:30 and went on until 12:30 — although it

was supposed to adjourn at 12 — with the participants seriously

considering available courses of action to persuade the government not

to proceed at this time with Bill 11. It is for that reason — because

we have been getting this pressure from people, organizations and our

constituents, who are concerned about what is happening and are

approaching us and asking us to do what we can to ensure that Bill 11

does not pass — that we moved the motion to hoist the bill for six

months and followed that yesterday with the recommendation from the

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) that not only should we postpone

consideration for six months but also that we should actively start a

discussion of human rights in our province — not just let the thing sit for six months and do nothing about it.

Let's start talking actively. We didn't talk last fall. The

government brought in legislation that it was obviously very determined

to proceed with at that time in an unchanged manner. There was no

question then of backing down and making any changes. There was no

discussion. The government wasn't ready to listen. They were persuaded

to listen about some of the legislation, and I like to think that was

one of the ones, because it was one of the ones that was not proceeded

with. So apparently they were listening a little bit and, as I say,

made some minor improvements. I believe, from what I've seen of it,

that every change that they made was a minor improvement over the

previous legislation. It still doesn't bring it anywhere near what it

was under the NDP legislation, but it was some minor improvement.

That being the case, why are they so reluctant to move forward a

little more? Why are they so reluctant to show to the people of British

Columbia that when there is no urgency or need to proceed in haste,

they are prepared to listen to them? All we're asking is that

consideration be postponed for six months. That doesn't necessarily

mean that the bill will be dead. It could very well mean that in the

interim period a parliamentary committee could consider this

legislation and invite people to appear before it, including people

from the ministry, those who were on the old Human Rights Commission

which has since been retired, those who worked in the human rights

branch, and those who were upset about some of the cases that were

taken up by the human rights branch that were supposed to have been of

nothing but nuisance value. Let's hear from those people, too, who feel

that we really don't need any protection for human rights other than

the courts themselves — which has been mentioned in connection with a

lot of legislation and is very expensive.

I urge the minister.... I see he's frowning, and I don't think I'm

getting through to him at all. He apparently has no intention of

listening to anyone about this. His mind is made up. We got the

indication last fall that he was prepared to listen. That being the

case, I wonder to whom he has listened, because there is precious

little evidence in the legislation before us now that he has listened.

That's a message that in the event the government is determined to

proceed without the hoist, without referring this bill to a special

committee where witnesses can be heard, then of course the word will

have to get around that the opposition party was the only one in the

House concerned with listening to people express their concerns about

the way in which the government is abandoning its responsibilities to

look after the minorities.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not so.

MR. STUPICH: I hear a "Not so" from someone who speaks on

such legislation only from that member's seat. If that member were

prepared to stand up and discuss this legislation, then I think it

might be worth listening to what she has to say. But until she has

something worth standing up for, I think her remarks are not worth my

comments, so I won't comment any further.

I would like some members from the government side of the House,

other than the minister responsible, to stand up and tell us something

about this legislation. I wonder what members on the government side

are telling their constituents that they're talking about here in

Victoria. On very rare occasions does one of them have the gumption or

the intestinal fortitude to stand up on his or her feet and talk about

what's going on in the House. They'll talk from their seats....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm out of order. This has nothing to do with

the hoist motion; I appreciate that. But I would invite some comment

from the government side of the House. If you're really supporting this

government, stand up and say so. If you're opposed to it, well, stand

up and say that too.

[3:30]

The hoist motion in this instance is a good one. There are times

when it's put simply as a delaying factor. In this instance the

opposition is putting forward this motion because they believe it would

be good for British Columbia to back away from the precipice that we

approached so closely last fall. We moved away, and now it would seem

that we want to go back to it. It would be good for British Columbia if

we could demonstrate some cooperation in the House — not just outside,

between the public and the government, but here — where both parties

would sit on a committee and actually deal with a piece of legislation,

listen to people put forward their positions, make some recommendations

to the minister, and between the two parties come up with some

legislation that will serve the needs of the people of British

Columbia. That is not an unreasonable position to put forward. The only

unreasonableness being displayed here today in this whole matter is

that the minister himself seems not the least bit interested in giving

the public outside of this chamber an opportunity to make their

representations in public to an all-party committee on something about

which they feel very strongly, and something which is important in

British Columbia in 1984.

1 support the hoist motion, and I particularly support the idea that

there be an all-party committee to which this bill would be referred.

MR. LEA: The opposition is asking for what's called a hoist;

in other words, a delay for six months. We're asking for that so that

people in this province can consider, in principle, what this bill is

all about. What are the rights of citizens in a free democratic

society? That really is the question. I don't like the term "human

rights;" I much prefer "civil rights." "Human rights" implies that you

have some sort of divine providence that is going to give rights to

citizens of the world no matter where they live. All you have to do is

take a look at near neighbours of ours in Latin America to find out

that human rights are not there for everyone. Civil rights can be there

for every citizen in a

[ Page 4489 ]

democratic system, but in order to do that there

has to be a law, rules set down by the citizens within any given

democratic system. So what we're really talking about is how

individuals protect themselves from either government or other citizens

within the society in which they live.

There are political philosophers who talk about living in the

natural state of nature, where there is no civil authority and each

individual has absolute freedom to do what he or she wants. Each

individual in that natural state of nature has absolute freedom. They

can kill, they can rob; it's the strongest survive and the weak perish.

But not in a civilization, not in a civilized state do we allow that to

happen. In a civilized state individuals have rights guaranteed to them

by the state, called civil rights.

When you move from that natural state of nature into a civilized

society, you do give up some individual freedoms for security, because

there's a problem with living in a state where everyone has exactly all

of the freedom they want, absolute freedom. If each individual has

absolute freedom, then everyone else does. And if that happens, you

have absolute insecurity along with absolute freedom. So for every bit

of security that you go for as a citizen, you give up a little bit of

freedom. Then you call those freedoms rights because there's a

limitation on what each citizen can do, because in a civilized society

we want to protect the weak from the strong who might exploit the weak,

whether it's another citizen, a corporate citizen or the state itself.

We are looking at a piece of legislation that should be primarily

there to protect individuals, I disagree with those who say it's there

to protect minority groups against majority groups. It should be there

to protect individuals in a society — nothing more, nothing less. Each

citizen should be protected equally in the same measure.

One of the things that I think we do when we're looking at this kind

of legislation is try to make it too specific. We try to dot too many

i's and cross too many t's, and say that this person is included and

this one isn't, when in fact each individual in society should be

included by the very essence of the act. That's what you should do.

That is what this bill does not do.

The measure of a democratic society is the amount of legislated

freedom that people have. It's called their civil rights by authority.

You can't have authority unless you have an author. And who is the

author of authority in a democratic state? The author of the authority

is the citizens themselves. Each citizen is the author of authority,

and each citizen wants the authority to protect him against absolute

freedom.

As I said earlier, absolute freedom is dog-eat-dog. Absolute freedom

is the weak always being afraid of the strong. There's no point in

having a society, there's no point in having a democracy, unless you

take away some of the absolute freedoms of people who would be living

in a so-called natural state. We don't want the insecurity of each

individual being able to bully another because of strength. The very

essence of democracy, both social and economic, is that we will protect

the weak against the strong. If it wasn't for that, there would be no

point in having democracy, none at all. And that's, I'm afraid, where

we have a problem getting through to Social Credit.

They believe, somehow, that rights are from Divine Providence and

not a civil matter. They don't believe that we have to protect

ourselves as citizens against each other by civil law. And that's a

mistake, because it's the only protection we have and it is the only

reason we move into a civil state. There is no other reason. It's to

make sure that we live in a state where we can be civil with one

another. If we are not treated as equals before the law, regardless of

sex, sexual orientation, colour, religion or creed, then we do not live

in a civilized state. We may be a little better off than we would be in

the natural state of nature, but we do not live in what democratic

theoreticians call a civilized state. That, surely, must be the object

of all of us.

I don't believe that a piece of legislation such as this should

protect minority groups from majority groups. It should protect

individual citizens against anybody or whoever in society.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I agree with my colleague from Nanaimo that this is the time for

discussion. It is up to us as legislators to lead. It is up to us to go

out into the community and talk about civil rights. It is up to us as

legislators to go out into the community and talk to them about what

democracy is all about, in a non-partisan way. This kind of legislation

is not partisan. This legislation should he of equal importance to all

of us, regardless of the political party that helped elect us. We're

talking about the society we live in and the kind of rights each

citizen should have and will have under whatever legislation we pass.

There can be no partisan-gripping in this discussion. I believe that

each one of us as citizens.... When it comes right down to it, we are

no more and no less. That we've been elected to this Legislature

doesn't make us more and doesn't make us less. As citizens we should

all be concerned about what individual rights protect citizens against

the strong and against the bully. I see that as a dangerous course that

this government is taking, not only with this legislation but with

other legislation. It's taking away the rights of individual consumers

in other legislation, so they won't be bullied by the strong. I believe

there are people who believe, somehow or other, that if you had no

guaranteed freedoms everything would work out fine, and that there are

citizens who don't need to be protected against the strong, whether

socially or economically. In fact, we as individuals are far from

perfect. We wouldn't need any kind of legislation or any kind of

authority if we were perfect, but we're not. Legislation to protect

consumers, tenants, civil rights and workers should be there because

we're not perfect. Hopefully, you never need it; then you would be

living in a truly civilized state. But until that time arrives we do

need this legislation, and we need it on a non-partisan basis. As has

been suggested, what better way to get a non-partisan piece of

legislation that each of us as a citizen needs and wants than by a

non-partisan committee of this House, going out to speak to citizens in

a non-partisan way.

In conclusion, what is going to happen in this Legislature is that

this piece of legislation is going to pass. The government

back-benchers will vote with the government. Regardless of whether they

have individual trepidation about it, they will vote with the

government. Each time I see the two parties lining up against each

other in the House, I have my trepidation about the very system that we

work with, called the British parliamentary system. When I see both

sides of the House line up on a piece of legislation like this, one

side being the New Democratic Party and the other being the Social

Credit Party, then I think it's time to worry. Sure, there are other

things we will line up on; there may be an economic theory that one

believes in and the other doesn't, and we'll

[ Page 4490 ]

line up according to philosophic beliefs party to

party. But on this kind of legislation we should not line up as a

party. I would like to hear from other members in the House, Social

Credit members who before they are Social Credit are citizens of this

province, as we are citizens before we are New Democrats. This is not a

partisan issue. We should be discussing it freely without party

interference of any kind in what we say. We are playing with freedom

itself, when we should be working at getting the best piece of

legislation that the 57 of us can possibly provide for our citizens.

It's our duty. It should be what we want, and it should be what we work

towards.

[3:45]

1 think it would behoove the minister to go for the six-month delay.

When it comes right down to it, the citizens would think more of him.

Maybe they wouldn't vote for him, but that's not the point. This piece

of legislation is not political. It's taking place in the political

sphere, but it should be more than that. What we should be doing as 57

legislators is sitting down together on a committee and saying to each

other and to the public: "How can we as citizens help each other to

bring forth legislation that guarantees civil rights so that no

individuals can be bullied socially or economically just because

they're different or weak?" That's what we should be doing, and I don't

see the process taking place. That should bother us all, Mr. Speaker. I

do support this hoist.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I spoke against this bill on

second reading, and I now rise to support the hoist for very practical

reasons. We've had a pretty good Human Rights Code, which needed some

additions in place, in the province of B.C. It has been suddenly

dismantled without legislative sanction, and a new one is being pushed

through this House which requires deliberation and consultation. Of all

the questions that have been raised by people as to this new

abbreviated form of civil rights, none have been answered in this

House. A six-month hoist would enable the minister to occupy a little

niche in history by his willingness to stand down for a while with his

legislation and have the people comment. I would like to see them

comment during that six-month period in the form of a travelling

committee of the Legislature which would go out and hear briefs and

opinions on this subject which means so much to the psychological

fabric of British Columbia, as well as the legal

interpretation of this

or that section.

There's concern and worry throughout the whole community in British

Columbia when the subject of human rights is downsized and when you

eliminate the whole commission, eliminate the human rights branch, and

then withdraw the enforcement and the investigative procedure into the

Ministry of Labour itself, as busy as so many of them are with other

jobs and being public servants directly responsible to the minister. So

there should be those hearings. There are all kinds of unanswered

questions about the present legislation which in my opinion would be

answered very negatively in terms of the bill that is proposed. For

example, we had the Dhaliwal case and Plateau Mills decided under the

old Human Rights Code. In that case the complainant — a Canadian of

Punjabi origin — did not have fluency in the language. The tribunal

held that he was nevertheless entitled to the job, because fluency in

language would not have interfered with the carrying out of his duties,

or understanding a foreman's instructions which could easily have been

relayed if they were missed by him, or living up to safety standards.

The board found for Dhaliwal, recognizing that the reason he was not

allowed to work.... Fluency of language might very well have been a

code word for racial discrimination or discrimination on account of his

immigrant status or his religion, which of course was very different

from that of the community that has been British Columbia historically.

Had this bill retained the provision that no one shall discriminate

without reasonable cause, then in certain very narrow circumstances the

Human Rights Commission could very well find that discriminating

against somebody because he wasn't fluent in the language was just a

code word for saying: "This is how we can handle this fellow and reject

his application, because we don't want a Punjabi working in that mill."

When you have that kind of a situation where that case cannot be

addressed under this legislation that has now been drafted, you have

festering feelings of ill will that spread throughout the community.

You have a large and important segment of our workforce who feel they

are being picked out for discrimination. Perhaps in many cases they are

wrong and the discrimination is not there, but there are some cases

where there is real discrimination. Unless you have a broad enough Code

to encompass a hearing for those cases, you're going to have those

feelings of ill will which soon become reciprocal. People who feel that

they have been picked out for special unfair treatment react to that,

and other people react to them, and you break down the harmony that we

expect we have a right to believe in in this province.

I know there are cases that come forward where there is doubt as to

whether there is real discrimination. Speakers in this debate have

talked about the black boy and the school. The high school principal

gave him an order that he was not to go within three feet of any of the

girls. It may be that he had behaved in a certain way. If it had been a

white Anglo-Saxon child, the principal might have said in that case:

"You can't go within six metres of any of the girls." But we don't

know. With this kind of a code that kind of a question may never be

decided, even by an investigator. Again you get a feeling that there

has been discrimination because of the colour of the skin of the young

pupil, and whether there had been or not remains a question mark. Those

kinds of question marks fester.

There's the question of a young person who is over the usual

apprenticeship age applying for an apprenticeship program. One case

came up where the applicant was aged 30. There is no protection under

the present Code, because age discrimination relates to ages 45 to 65

under the legislation that is proposed. Again it may be perfectly

legitimate to reject this 30-year-old from a particular apprenticeship

program, but if it is solely discrimination on account of age without

any other justification, then that is the kind of discrimination that a

Human Rights Commission should be able to look at and correct. That's

why the minister ought to take back this legislation and reintroduce

general provisions requiring that in cases where there may be

discrimination that isn't covered by the Code, discrimination without

any reasonable cause can be redressed.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, he was entitled to entry, as the member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) points out. There was no reasonable cause. It

had been discrimination on account of age. I'm the last one to support

that kind of discrimination.

[ Page 4491 ]

Nobody should support that kind of discrimination

whether they are young or getting on in years, because these things

fester out in the community. Why should that kind of thing be left with

no chance for the Human Rights Commission to address the problem.

There's the question of height and weight. Let's take a

fire-fighting force of a municipality. The provisions as to height and

weight might be perfectly justifiable on the grounds of safety or for

some other justifiable reason in terms of the equipment that has to be

moved. Again they also may be a code for discrimination against women

in the workforce for no justifiable reason in a particular occupation.

What can the new Human Rights Commission do about that? Nothing. They

say: "We have height and weight regulations." The commission says: "I

suspect that's discrimination against female workers." But the

commission can't do anything about that because this legislation is so

defectively drafted. There are many other kinds of cases.

Sex orientation. We have people in the province of British Columbia

who believe that those words should be one of the prohibited grounds

for discrimination. I suppose there is a legitimate debate that

discrimination against homosexuals is now prohibited under the general

language of discrimination on account of sex. I think if I were the

counsel for somebody who had been turned down for a job because of his

private sexual orientation, I would argue that that person had been

discriminated against on the grounds of sex. That's in the act. But

there's been no precedent that says discrimination because of sex

applies to the case I'm talking about. You have a lot of people who

contribute to the wealth and prosperity and happiness of the province

of British Columbia who feel that they are being picked out for lack of

protection under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it would be a very

simple matter for the minister to clear up that kind of a thing. At the

least, in the six months that we are proposing he could listen to the

concerns, which are both legalistic and moral, from groups such as that.

I notice that employment discrimination because of marital status is

in the act in

section 8, and I'm glad to see it to this extent. I

remember a case that I once took for the flight attendants in Canada —

and it was only about 20 years ago — because all the airlines

automatically fired any stewardess who got married. Even in those days

we fought grievances, and I fought a legal case to establish that

nobody should be fired just because they were getting married. We

quoted the decision of a French court which said that that kind of

discrimination, because somebody went through a marriage ceremony, was

forcing the poor things to live in sin, which was not a good outcome,

and eventually that kind of ban was lifted.

In the sections where somebody may say "you have discriminated

against me because of my marital status" — just for going through a

form of marriage — that applicant, for relief under these sections, has

to prove that it was discrimination intentionally committed by the

company. The words "because of" require you to prove intent and put the

onus on the applicant. Here you have the employer sitting back, and all

the company has to say is: "Oh, it wasn't that you were going to be

fired for getting married or that being a married person we won't

employ you. We're firing you because you're more likely to have

children." Or they may even revert, as the airlines did in the earlier

case.... It was almost as if they were Love Airlines, saying: "We want

young chicks. We want the jet jocks to feel that they're on Love

Airlines. This is a selling point for us in selling tickets." So the

act that requires the applicant to prove intent when they were

discriminated against by reason of marital status is very defective.

[4:00]

I'm not going to repeat what I said before. I dealt with the lack of

appeal to the courts — taking everything into the Ministry of Labour

and politicizing the process of the enforcement and investigation of

human rights. I deplore those aspects of this bill. I think it should

be an autonomous, strong, respected body, with its own enforcement and

investigative procedure that's out there in the community, and not part

of government. I'm not going to go on at length about that all over

again. But I say here that we have a minister who has an opportunity to

listen to the community and maintain in force during this period of

time the very excellent Human Rights Code that we have, and to come

back into this House after six months with a better bill. For that

reason I support the hoist.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I had to get out of my bed, where I

was recovering from the flu, to speak, because I gather that this

government is hell bent for leather to pass this bill with an evening

sitting tonight, which says a lot in itself. It says a lot when a

government is so insistent on pressing forward with its bad, brutal

legislation that it must sit at night on a bill such as Bill 11.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Poor baby!

MR. HANSON: The Minister of Labour over there should be hanging his head in shame, rather than calling over inconsequential little remarks.

A number of years ago in this chamber a bill was introduced and

passed, under the New Democratic Party government, called the Human

Rights Act. Here we are now ten years later faced with the situation

where the provisions of that bill, rather than being improved upon and

having other sections added according to legitimate concerns.... What

we have instead is a government rolling back achievements that were

made statutorily by the people in this chamber to benefit and protect

the people of this province. It shows that not only do you have to

fight to improve the human condition, but you have to expend an

enormous amount of energy protecting and ensuring that the protections

that are in place stay in place.

The loss of the "reasonable cause" provision has a number of massive

impacts in the workplace, in the home, and in all aspects of our life

in our community in British Columbia. I would like briefly to discuss

one that April Katz, the chief compliance officer of the human rights

branch in April 1983, quoted in "Labour Law and Practice: Human

Rights." She addressed the question of the "reasonable cause"

provision, and in that provision she applauded it as a catch-all for

group characteristics not specifically named in the legislation. She

noted that that clause was unique to British Columbia. It is obviously

impossible to plug all holes in a law. You must have a way in which the

law can adapt to new incidents and areas that were not anticipated. She

noted that the reasonable cause provision was a catch-all for group

characteristics not specifically named in the legislation, and the

provision has allowed complaints to go forward on the basis of such

group characteristics as physical or mental condition, sexual

orientation, family status, ages under 45,

[ Page 4492 ]

ages 65 and over, sexual harassment, racial harassment and pregnancy.

It has long been known that women have been harassed because they

happen to perpetuate the human race and happen to be impregnated and

bear children, and for that service to human beings they are penalized

in the workplace and the community. April Katz indicated that the

largest single category of incidence of complaint is sexual harassment.

The area of sexual harassment is no longer specifically provided for in

this legislation. Because of the loss of the "reasonable cause "

provision, women working in the workplace are going to be subjected to

sexual harassment which the previous provisions of the Code precluded

by law. It is interesting that in 1983, when April Katz was making her

submission, "Labour Law and Practice: Human Rights," she stated that in

the area of sexual harassment, "while other jurisdictions had been

plagued with questions of whether or not sexual harassment was included

under the definition of sex discrimination, British Columbia has

proceeded with complaints of sexual harassment under the catch-all

provision of 'without reasonable cause.'" That overall clause protected

women from having to endure sexual harassment in the workplace.

It should be noted, on the subject of sexual harassment cases

pursued under the reasonable cause provision, that Ms. Katz states in

another paper entitled "Human Rights Practices and Procedures, " also

of April 1983: "The reality is that in a substantiated sexual

harassment complaint we have yet to find a harasser without a past." In

other words, it is a very common complaint and something that is

practised by individuals who, unless there is a provision in a

statutory act, would persist in this practice.

Sexual harassment is the single largest-growing category of

discrimination, both alleged and proven. We are faced now with a

situation where this government, by eliminating the "without reasonable

cause" provision, is opening up the area of sexual harassment in the

workplace that, to quote April Katz, is "the single largest-growing

category of discrimination, both alleged and proven," in all of the

human rights branch. That is an incredible statement. In the public

mind, I'm sure that probably it's the public's perception that racial

discrimination, ageism and discrimination on the basis of sex would be

the most common areas of discrimination. But according to the chief

compliance officer of the human rights branch, the area of sexual

harassment is the single largest offending category. I wonder what the

Minister of Labour has to say about that particular area. Is he not

concerned about the growing number of women in the workplace, obliged

to supply the needs of their families, and the growing number of single

parents, whose responsibility to provide all aspects of support and

sustenance for their family is growing in our community? Is this

minister not concerned that those women are now vulnerable to

discrimination by sexual harassment of supervisors, of co-workers and

so on? What does he say in response to the claim of the chief

compliance officer about this category? Rather than listening to my

comments, the minister chooses to leave the chamber. I don't believe

they care about human rights. I don't believe that the area of sexual

harassment is really a concern. I think they find that.... They

probably discount that. They probably don't believe April Katz' claim

that that is the single largest-growing category of discrimination in

our community. Under Bill 11 there will be no protection against sexual

harassment in the workplace.

Let's take another look at the Indo-Canadian experience. Our party

has a long tradition of fighting for minority rights in this chamber.

Not only in other parts of Canada but also in our Legislature here in

British Columbia there have been people on this side of the House who

have fought for the rights of Indo-Canadians, for people of Asian

ancestry, for native Indian people, for as long as the recorded history

of this province.

I would like to recount to you, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the story

of a private member's bill that was introduced into this chamber by a

CCF member for Vancouver Centre in 1944 by the name of Wallis Lefeaux.

Wallis Lefeaux was concerned about the fact that Indo-Canadians were

not granted the right to vote in British Columbia. Yet they had a long

history as citizens of British Columbia, as Canadian citizens, and had

worked in the historical development of this province. He was asking

this chamber, in the form of a private member's bill, for the right of

Indo-Canadians to vote. During the heated debate on second reading of

the private member's bill, George Pearson, the Minister of Labour,

speaking in opposition to the CCF bill, accused East Indians of being

"unreliable, dishonest and deceitful." What a scandalous thing to have

been uttered in the Legislature of this House! "The experience is

clear," he said. "The Hindu is not helping us to maintain the standard

of living we seek in this province. There is no body of people who give

the Labour department more trouble than the Hindus." He said: "The

Chinese and Japanese are a source of worry to the department." These

quotes are contained in a story in the Vancouver Sun on March

9, 1944, headlined "B.C. Hindus Flayed by Pearson as Unworthy of

Receiving the Vote." This is 40 years ago; I was one year old when Mr.

Pearson was uttering these words on the floor of this House. What a

disgrace, Mr. Speaker!

Yet I had the misfortune of sitting in a committee with the Minister

of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) two weeks ago, when we

sat down and talked about native Indian people in British Columbia. I

asked the commissioner of corrections whether there was a high

incidence of Indian men and women in jails in British Columbia and how

we could account for that fact. The Minister of Transportation and

Highways addressed the commissioner of corrections and stated that it

was his view — the popular perception in his mind was — that Indian

people in his community liked to go to jail in the fall because they

preferred the clean sheets and the television and the recreation of the

jails to being at home on the reserve. What an incredible statement to

make! That was two weeks ago, and here we have George Pearson, 40 years

ago.... I classify those comments in the same category. Racism has not

diminished in this province. It is still alive and well, and it finds a

nice medium to thrive in those benches on the other side of this House,

Mr. Speaker. Here we have a government removing protection from the

citizens of this province. If anything, they should be protected from

these cabinet ministers who hold those despicable views.

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point I cannot comment

on another member's statements, but we cannot impute any improper

motive. I sincerely hope that this member is not imputing dishonourable

motives to another hon. member in this House.

[ Page 4493 ]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of public record — it is in Hansard ,

it is in the newspapers, it was carried on the radio — and we have yet

to have a public apology from the Minister of Transportation and

Highways for uttering that statement. What a travesty. Of course

there's poverty among the native Indian community, but to allege that

anyone would choose incarceration in a jail for a clean bed and a

television set is disgraceful, in my view.

Back to 1944, when the fight was being taken forward by the

antecedent to our modern party. The CCF were fighting for the vote for

the Indo-Canadian and the Asian people — citizens of this province. I'd

like to continue by stating some of Mr. Pearson's comments and to frame

the kind of debate that was taking place at that time as being very,

very little different than what is before us now.

Lest anyone think that Mr. Pearson's statements were isolated rantings of an uninformed legislator, the following quote from a Vancouver Sun editorial on the issue echoes the sentiment:

"The question of the franchise comes back, in practical

terms, to the fact that 95 percent of all oriental immigrants to Canada stop

off permanently in British Columbia. Eight percent of our population in this

province is oriental."

Again, this is the language of the Vancouver Sun in 1944. To continue:

"If they had votes, it is quite possible they could elect

three representatives to the Legislature: a Chinese, a Japanese and a Hindu.

The hon. member from Powell Street is not quite a myth, but if our 65,000 people

of oriental blood were scattered throughout Canada their electoral influence

would be spread too thin to count in any objectionable manner. Presently the

Hindus are making all the hay they can from the unguarded statements of the

Hon. George Pearson that he had found East Indians uniformly to be dishonest,

deceitful and unreliable."

Shame on the Vancouver Sun in 1944, because they carried, in that editorial,

that notion that people of Asian ancestry, people of Indo-Canadian ancestry,

were unworthy of carrying a vote and the franchise in this province. We have

not moved far from that in this province when we have a government that does

not go to the people and ask them how the Human Rights Act could be improved

and what active areas of discrimination are occurring and does not put in there

in clear terms that sexual harassment is clearly something that is not tolerated

in British Columbia; or the whole question of sexual orientation or of ageism

— being discriminated against because there happens to be an ageing process

genetically coded in human beings and we get older and we die. But the point

is — and I know it very well, Mr. Speaker, because there's a large elderly

population in my own community — that ageism is a fact of life. People are discriminated

against on the basis of age. People do not get treated the same way. The elderly

do not get the same benefits and services, because they happen to be over 65

or 70 years of age.

Mr. Speaker, to continue a little bit further on this fight that was taking

place 40 years ago, understandably the Indo-Canadian community was outraged.

Despite the arguments of Mr. Lefeaux, who put the private member's bill

forward, and other CCF members such as Grant MacNeil of Burrard, Laura Jamieson

of Vancouver Centre and G.F. Stirling of Salmon Arm, the private member's

bill died in the Legislature, and the Indo-Canadians and those of Asian ancestry

were denied the vote. They didn't get the vote until five years later, and

it wasn't until some 11 years later that native people got the vote in 1960.

The private member's bill died in the Legislature after the Speaker ruled

it out of order after listening to the arguments of the then Minister of Education,

Mr. Perry, that the bill was out of order because it involved the expenditure

of public money.

Mr. Speaker, it's a well-known fact that a private member's bill

dies because opposition members are not entitled to move a bill that

calls for the expenditure of public funds. That is a privilege that is

granted entirely to the treasury benches. At no time did the government

accept the argument that in principle people of Indo-Canadian, Asian

and native ancestry should be given the right to vote as free citizens

in our society. Those fights were carried forward by our party, to its

great credit. It has stood alone on many occasions fighting for the

rights of minority groups, for the invisible minorities and the small

minorities, as well as for the visible minorities.

In that year newspaper columnist Barry Mather — Mr. Speaker, as you

know, Mr. Mather was a CCF person, and his wife was a member of this

chamber — wrote: "In our hearts we know that to deny Indo-Canadians and

Asian people votes perverts every principle of democracy." But the

climate of distrust and discrimination against the Japanese, Chinese

and Indo-Canadian minorities continued. It was another five years

before these groups obtained the right to vote provincially. Native

Indians waited until 1960 for the franchise.

Many informed groups have put forward to the government their

concerns caused by a clause in Bill 11: how it strips away basic rights

that allow us to move in dignity in our community and that ensure that

our age, our sex or any attribute will not impede our right to move

freely in society, to work, to rent accommodation, to make application

for work, to work for the government and to speak out. Yet here we have

a stripping away of these rights. Here we have the prospect of a

government that wants to sit tonight. They want to sit at 8 o'clock and

press this issue, because they want it passed. They don't want the

community to know what it's all about. They don't want the community to

mobilize against it. They don't want the bad press across the country

again that British Columbia is making inroads into basic human rights.

Let's look at another clause: the proof of intent to discriminate.

Bill 11, like Bill 27, probably will cover only intentional

discrimination. For example, height and weight restrictions would no

longer be considered to be sex discrimination unless it could be proved

that the purpose was to exclude women or people of Asian ancestry. A

person who is excluded because of lack of wheelchair access to a

building would have to prove that the stairs were built for the purpose

of excluding the disabled. What a backward way of making laws, Mr.

Speaker. The onus is on the disabled person in a wheelchair who is

denied access to a new building — let's say a new library, a new

municipal building or something of that nature — to prove that the

stairs were built in order to deny them access, rather than on the

government to offer access to everyone. People don't choose to have MS.

People don't choose to be born without the use of their legs. Yet we

have a government now that puts the onus on them to prove they've been

denied access.

Another clause: discriminatory advertisements and application forms. Bill 27

eliminated the protection in the

[ Page 4494 ]

existing Code against discriminatory advertisements

and application forms. Bill 11 restores the prohibition against

discriminatory advertisements, but there is no

section like that in the

existing Code dealing with discriminatory application forms. Therefore

an applicant could be required to furnish information about matters

such as race, religion and political belief For some time now people in

our society have not been required to provide that kind of information

on application forms, yet we are now opening up the opportunity for

employers to ask for just that kind of thing.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Another section: enforcement agency. The Human Rights Commission, which was

dismissed in July 1983, and the human rights branch are replaced by a new council.

The council will have no responsibility for educational programs. There is no

explicit provision for staff. The minister has been reported as stating that

the council will rely on staff from other parts of the ministry. The enforcement

will be dispersed through various ministries of the Crown. There will be no

avenues, no ways of following through and doing the necessary investigation.

As explained, the council is given powers to dismiss complaints on a

variety of grounds, powers that neither the human rights branch nor the

commission have had under the existing Code. The powers of the council

in Bill 11 are even broader than the powers granted the council in Bill

27. Bill 11 contains no provisions to ensure the independence of the

council, and members can be dismissed by cabinet order at any time

without cause. Mr. Speaker, at a time when we need an independent,

impartial commission, free of political interference and of the kind of

political views held and made public by the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), rather than having an independent

council we have an appointed council. It will be headed up by Mr.

Pattison, perhaps. He seems to get all of the main jobs. There are

other people — maybe Mr. Shrum will be on there, attesting to the

clarity of toxic effluent and how it's good for.... The composition of

the council: Mr. Gaglardi will probably come out of harness for it.

There's three. Probably Mr. Williston, although he's in the

government's bad books; he has criticized the government on its forest

management, so it's unlikely that his application will be short-listed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Ralph Loffmark?

MR. HANSON: I think Ralph Loffmark won't get a chance. They

had a try at his pension; he got backed off there. But now the changes

to this act may not protect Mr. Loffmark's pension. Maybe they'll have

another run at his pension. Maybe they'll feel that's fair game.

Who else is there?

MR. REID: Is this to do with the hoist, or what?

[4:30]

MR. HANSON: Yes, it has to do with the hoist.

There may be a number of other people who could be considered for

this council, but be that as it may, we know it will be a Social

Credit–oriented council, one that will not embarrass the government,

and one that will not go forward and enforce what little protection

exists here. It will not take action against the government in the way

that it certainly could. In the whole area of complaints, complaints of

violations will be filed with the council, which will be in charge of

investigating them and will decide whether they should proceed. So you

can rest easy in your bed that Gaglardi or Mr. Bonner or, perhaps,

Leslie Peterson.... I think he would be an obvious choice for the

council. He perhaps would come forward and could then vet the

complaints to see which ones should in fact go forward.

Complaints must be filed by the person discriminated against, or by

someone else on behalf of that person and with that person's consent.

For example, a member of the public who witnessed an apparent violation

could not file a complaint without finding, and obtaining the consent

of, the victim of the discrimination. As in Bill 27, the council can

dismiss a complaint before any investigation if it is deemed frivolous,

vexatious or in bad faith or could more appropriately be dealt with

under another act. These powers existed in Bill 27 but not in the

existing Code. What the government has done.... You often hear this

government talking about cutting red tape, but what they are actually

doing is creating red tape when it has to do with access to protection

on behalf of the citizens. In other words, they create bureaucracies

and mazes and warrens of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo for the public to try

to find redress for their grievance or to achieve proper resolution of

their problem.

After investigation the council can discontinue a complaint at its

discretion. Bill 11 — like Bill 27 — provides no limits on the power of

the council to order a discontinuance. The council can choose to

appoint one of its members to conduct a hearing or it can refer a case

to the minister, who can decide whether....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, are you not possibly getting into

committee debate here in discussing some of the sections, rather than

broader debate on the bill itself and the hoist motion?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm outlining the merits of the

six-month hoist so that the government can appreciate the number of

serious flaws in the bill and the loss of protection for the public.

Clearly if the government were to set the bill aside and conduct

hearings to meet with the informed public and all of the interested

parties.... And there are many. There are many in the Human Rights

Coalition who would like to discuss clause-by-clause the provisions of

the bill. For me to outline to the minister some of these clauses....

It reinforces my argument for it to be set aside.

Protection of those with physical and mental disabilities. Bill 11

gives explicit protection to people with physical and mental

disabilities; in cases involving the sale or the rental of property,

protection is strengthened. However, in cases involving public

facilities and employment, which are central to a person's life, the

practical effect is likely to give less protection than was given by

the reasonable-cause provisions of the existing Code. Therefore,

although it looks as if these groups benefit from the bill, the net

effect may well be to lessen protection.

In terms of the provisions of the bill and its inadequacies — in

conclusion on that — if Bill 27, the precursor to this bill, had been

enacted, it would have effected ended protection for most victims of

discrimination. The same is true for Bill 11. Bill 11 makes fairly

minor improvements on Bill 27, but retains the general scheme of that

bill. The result is that a number of groups are denied protection

entirely. Even those

[ Page 4495 ]

groups that are protected are likely to succeed

only if they have the the financial resources to take a case forward on

their own. At a time of financial hardship that is being experienced by

the citizens of this province, the necessary funds available to take a

case forward, to fight their way through the council and the

enforcement provisions, certainly precludes access to protection under

this bill for the vast majority of British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to set this bill aside for six

months to give the citizens of this province a fair opportunity to make

their concerns known. I urge the government not to ramrod this bill

through this evening. There's no need to have an evening session on May

3, 1984, to push this bill through. It is absolutely horrendous that a

government at this point in time would adopt this kind of behaviour and

strategy on a bill so central to community life in British Columbia,

and be so insensitive and brutal in their legislative actions that they

feel impelled to use all of the statutory muscle of their increased

numbers in this House to push something through in the spring of the

year, when the public has not had an opportunity to digest the

implications of this bill, and to foist it for a number of years onto

people. It's going to have drastic implications for people of minority

races, for women in terms of sexual harassment, for the mentally and

physically disabled in terms of employment and physical access to

buildings and facilities, and for other individuals and groups that I

have not enumerated in my comments. I urge the government to set the

bill aside for six months.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I hope that that prolonged round of

applause is not deducted from my time, because I'll need all of my time

to express my thoughts on this particular pernicious piece of

legislation.

I speak in favour of the hoist with the full knowledge that the bill

is going to pass. That is the reality of a majority government. The

government is elected to govern and lead, and the people take the

consequences, and they have their opportunity at some subsequent time.

That does not, however, mean that those same people shouldn't be given

an opportunity to express their views forcefully, to demonstrate in a

peaceful way if necessary, and attempt, however futilely, to change the

government's mind on certain matters. Ultimately the responsibility in

a responsible government rests with the government for whatever piece

of legislation exists.

I don't know that it's that easy to convince people in an

increasingly heterogeneous society of the importance of human rights

legislation. Unless you've been a victim of discrimination of some

form, I think it is virtually impossible to convince a person that it

is of prime importance — this whole matter of civil rights. It's been

so long in coming, and it's so fragile, like the economic recovery.

What we've become in the last fifty years, in terms of our sensitivity

to those people who are different, has been a long and rocky road. I

remember very well going to school in the little town of Mission in the

Fraser Valley, which I was privileged and honoured to represent

federally for a number of years, where half my classmates were young

Japanese Canadians. It has been mentioned many times; the struggle to

have people of Oriental extraction receive the vote. I am not going to

go over the whole history of their banishment as possible enemy aliens

and the fact that they lost all their property during World War II.

That story has been told. I use it only to illustrate that it takes

time to develop these concerns for human rights, and the destruction of

those human rights or an attack on them can take a relatively little

time. I would like to tell you that those Japanese Canadians in those

days in my community were valued citizens. But they weren't. They were

a visible minority in the tough times of the thirties, a threat to

other people's incomes. The story in my town among my people, including

my own family, was that those Japs — not Japanese but Japs — are going

to have 12 kids and work for two bits an hour, and that's going to

force all of our wages down.

The fact is that the Valley did not bloom again after those people

were banished until we had another visible minority move into

agriculture: the Indo-Canadians of today. We have treated them with a

similar kind of unacceptance.

We white Caucasians don't have a monopoly on bigotry. I can name you

a lot of other groups, and I will in time, but I hope that we as a

reasonably enlightened society, and more enlightened than most.... Even

when we have this bill, we can attack it as a party, we can say it's

not good enough and it doesn't offer the protection it should and all

the rest of those things, but still when we're finished our society is

going to be better than most. But that's not good enough. All of us

have in us a learned behaviour of one kind or another, whether it's

discrimination against lesbians.... I don't particularly understand

that kind of difference in sexual orientation. I am convinced, though,

that you don't acquire it — that if you are the 1 percent of those

people who are gay, you probably are physically constructed in such a

way that you are, and I don't mean in terms of temperament, outlook and

various other matters that are far too difficult and too medical,

spiritual and psychological for me to understand. But we've all got it.

The Japanese citizens of my day — immigrants who didn't speak

indignities in the schools of Mission. We hoped, though, that we could

somehow make them all little brown WASPS, because in those days we

didn't have what was called a pluralistic society where we revelled and

were excited about our differences. In those days we wanted everybody

to be the same. God was in his heaven, and the King was on his throne —

he was until Mrs. Simpson came along, and that shook us all up. We had

a society that was orderly. It was a society of consensus. If you

happened to view something differently than the others, you were an

outcast from the mainstream of society. We didn't have the multiracial,

multicoloured view; we had a monochromatic outlook on attitudes and

lifestyles, and anything that was different we stamped out.

Those people in those days probably took it because they had no

alternatives. But when people have alternatives, then they show us the

differences between what they would like and what they are prepared to

take, if they have an option.

[4:45]

Mr. Speaker, in talking about this hoist I suggested that I wasn't

sanguine about the fact that even the six-month hoist was going to

alert a lot of people to it. I think it is pretty well recognized in

parliamentary procedure that a six-month hoist really means that we

don't want the bill. We really don't want the bill because we feel,

although it might have been fine in 1935, 1940 or 1945, that it is

inappropriate for today. We feel that we're leaving something that is

actually better. So instead of going about it in an attempt to approve

the bill that we have, we are intending to abolish it and replace it

with something that some of us feel is not as worthy, and I say that

with all the responsibility that I can muster.

[ Page 4496 ]

1 don't pretend to be an expert on the bill. I don't even pretend to

have a great feel for it particularly. All I do know is that people

come to expect certain things. Yes, education is helpful in how we look

at others and how accepting we are of people who are different than

ourselves. Education makes a great contribution, but the question is:

can you educate or legislate morality, or do you need the support of

both aspects? I put forward the thesis that education by itself is not

enough. It took a lot of people marching the streets in Alabama and

other places, accompanied by civil rights legislation, to give the

black American the opportunities that he enjoys today. He is an equal.

That is really what civil and human rights is all about: to treat

everybody, so far as possible, equally. If we determine, because

they're disadvantaged, to treat them unequally, we call that

affirmative action. If we determine that they are going to be treated

unequally because of their differences in colour, age, race, hue,

handicaps — mental, physical or whatever — we call that discrimination.

I would prefer us to be involved in the positive discrimination called

affirmative action.

I'm not convinced that you can just educate people and that will

solve the problems. If there are no penalties for transgressions of

what is good taste or what is downright cruel and discriminatory in

terms of jobs, housing or whatever, then why should anybody choose to

do anything other than ignore it? That's why I have the problem with

the lack of enforcement, persuasive attitude and that whole business

about "reasonable cause." Other people have talked about the groups who

are left out of it, but I'll come to that.

Six hundred years of religious tensions in Ireland aided and abetted

by the wool manufacturers from Britain who were looking for cheap

labour off the sins of capitalism, which amounted to playing one

religious group off against another through their clergy, has brought

bitterness for years in Ireland. I don't think the Irish are any

different genetically than we are. There might even be some Irish here.

They don't fight as much when they come over to Canada — at least they

don't anymore. The Fenians used to a hundred years ago, but they don't

anymore.

I don't think, for instance, that the Lebanese are really any

different than we are genetically. Oh, they might have enlarged

nostrils, and maybe a little tuck in the eyelids for fighting against

the sandstorms and stuff like that — physical adaptations to the

environment — but basically they are not any different, at least from

one another. But we've got a city in ruins because of hatred brought on

by a combination of different religions where the Shiites hate the

Druse, and the Druse hate the Moslems and the other kinds of Moslems,

and the Moslems hate the Christians. It seems to me that if we had some

kind of arrangement there where we could defuse that situation, it

would be helpful. But these are matters of attitudes, and that's really

the basis of racism, whether you call it racism or religionism, or

whether your hatred is brought along by ethnic considerations.

The people who are discriminated against in this country are

Indo-Canadians at the moment — many of them, especially the