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, APRIL 12, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4385 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M206), Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 4385

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. Macdonald –– 4385

Unions and volunteer work in health care facilities. Mr. R. Fraser –– 4386

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Hanson –– 4386

Unions and volunteer work in health care facilities. Mr. Reid –– 4386

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Stupich –– 4386

Consulting contracts. Mr. Stupich –– 4387

Presenting Reports –– 4387

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19)

Third reading –– 4387

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading.

Ms. Sanford –– 4388

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4391

Mr. Stupich –– 4391

Mr. Segarty –– 4396

Mr. Howard –– 4396

Mr. Skelly –– 4399

Mr. Rose –– 4402

Mr. Nicolson –– 4405

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon

we have a fine group of British athletes, the rugby football club of

the Reigate Grammar School in Surrey, which, interestingly enough, was

established over 300 years ago, in 1675. This is their fourth trip to

our province, and they are going to be playing a series of matches

against Oak Bay, Pitt Meadows, New Westminster, Semiahmoo and

Centennial secondary schools. While they are here we certainly hope

they'll be able to see as much of British Columbia as possible. They

are accompanied by their coach, Mr. Allan Keith Reid, and other faculty

members. I know that all members of this House would like to bid them a

very warm and cordial welcome to our province.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the building somewhere today

is a constituent of mine, Mr. Sam McRae from Williams Lake in the

Cariboo. I would like the House to welcome him.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are 55

students from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay. They are

accompanied by their teachers, Miss Upton, Miss Lawry and Mr. Bates. I

would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill M206, Patients Property Amendment Act,

1984, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in the

gallery today Mrs. Margo Furk, who is on the West Vancouver School

Board, and ask the House to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

EXPO 86

MR. MACDONALD: A question to the Premier of the province

about Expo 86 and the big question — will it or won't it? In view of

the private and public commitments that have been made, the commitment

of the government and the billions of dollars — well, I would think a

billion at least would be lost to the economy of B.C. If it didn't

proceed — when's he going to 'fess up and say that the decision has

been made, and that we're going through a charade here?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: This is a serious question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be a question, hon. member; it cannot be a debate or a speech.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to ask how long this "Billy and Jimmy”

show is going to go on. Has the Premier not decided that it's going

ahead anyway? That decision has been made, hasn't it?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Do you want it to go ahead?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, of course.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be improper

of any government having the responsibility to deal with a

recommendation from the chairman of Expo, the president of Expo....

This poses a very serious problem, one which this government did not

want to face but one we'll have to deal with. To deal with the report

offhand and out of hand, and not give it the due consideration nor....

The ramifications of what is implied in that report and that

recommendation obviously are of great concern to this government, who

introduced the concept of an exposition to this province some years

ago, with opposition from many quarters which now profess great

support. I think that support cuts across party lines, across work

associations and across the geography of this province, and is

therefore testimony to the wisdom of the concept of Expo. When we

introduced it a few years ago, we fought hard to get the exposition

sanctioned, and recommended to the people of this province that it

could be of great economic benefit both in its construction and its

implementation. But more far-reaching, because it deals with technology

of transportation and communication, it can focus the attention of the

decision-makers of the world — governments, corporations, technicians —

on British Columbia in a favourable light, so that when they make their

investment decisions in the future they will consider British Columbia

for investment and jobs. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry if the member feels

that we should give a glib, fast answer to this serious question, as he

indicated in his

preamble. He might deal with it that way, but I can't.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, after the speech there was an answer there.

You say that you are really concerned about the labour situation at

Expo 86. Is there not a Labour Code of B.C. in place that defines what

is and what is not a common site and that has powers of

cease-and-desist orders? The whole thing is in place. Does the Premier

not recognize that the legislation, which was begun by the NDP and is

now in place, looks after these problems? Is he not just playing a

political game and sort of spelling out the suspense? Is it not a

charade? How long is this show going to run? Is it not all in place

right now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of many of the

things that were done when the NDP were government. I remember when

they restricted large numbers of British Columbians from bidding on

government work. They brought in legislation that discriminated in the

workplace, and this government has removed that legislation.

[ Page 4386 ]

UNIONS AND VOLUNTEER WORK

IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

MR. R. FRASER: I have a question for the Minister of Labour

which does not appear to have the impact of Expo 86, but in my opinion

it does. The question was brought to me by a constituent of Vancouver

South. It concerns the use of volunteers in one particular health

society from a labour point of view. He understands that the volunteers

working for that society are being pulled into the union, and it's his

concern that if all these employees — these volunteers, if you want to

put it that way — who work for nothing are pulled into the union, the

cost of that will be driven out of sight. I can see the implications of

that being very far-reaching. I want to ask the Minister of Labour if

such a thing is possible, or can those volunteers be permitted to do

their job as they wish?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've had some representation myself in

the last few days about this very matter. I must say, having once been

the Minister of Health in this province, that the volunteer

contribution by the thousands of volunteers in this province can't be

measured in terms of dollars or social responsibility. I think everyone

in our community would agree with that, including perhaps the few union

leaders who might have a different agenda. I might just say to that

member that I have answered one couple who are concerned about this in

Kelowna — in the Premier's constituency, as a matter of fact. I said

that volunteers in our hospital system are a proud and historic

component of British Columbia's health services, and as such this

government will continue to support the tremendous contribution made by

our province's volunteers.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Premier. A moment ago

we heard the Premier professing support for free and open bidding, and

yesterday he said he was considering cancelling Expo because there must

be full competition and, he will never favour one group or one firm.

Will the Premier advise why no British Columbia firms were given the

opportunity to bid on approximately $10 million worth of government

advertising contracts, which has been awarded to the McKim Advertising

firm?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I will surely look into the allegations

contained in that question and bring an answer back to the member.

Therefore I'll take the question as notice.

MR. HANSON: I have a new question. The auditor-general, in

various reports, has referred to the Social Credit advertising firm as

"less than honest." Will the Premier advise why he continues to deny

British Columbians the opportunity to bid on the government advertising

contract, while supporting the Social Credit firm which has been caught

mismanaging public funds?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If I can respond to the member, he just

attributed words to the auditor-general, Mrs. Morrison, referring to a

Social Credit advertising firm. I read the report, and she did not make

that statement, nor is it in fact true. Advertising agencies, I'm sure,

cut across party lines in their membership according to the normal

breakdown. Like the rest of the province, most people in most things

elect Social Credit governments.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary. Will the Premier explain to the

House why he does not adopt the same approach with the firm that has

the Social Credit advertising contract, and put the contract out to

open and free bids province-wide, to allow other advertising firms with

more strict and rigorous financial controls than have been demonstrated

by McKim and Vrlak Robinson to have their crack at that $10 million

nest-egg?

HON. MR. BENNETT: This was taken as notice, Mr. Speaker, and

I don't know if I would offend against the rules by answering a

question that was already taken as notice. I can only assure the member

that there are more firms participating in government business now than

participated during the years 1972-75 when Mr. Dunsky from Toronto got

the bulk of the advertising business from the NDP government.

UNIONS AND VOLUNTEER WORK

IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the question of the

first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), following up on his

question about volunteer services for personal care homes. I'm led to

believe that the Kinsmen Club of Whalley, which sponsors Kinsmen Place

Lodge in Surrey, has volunteers who come in and perform hairdressing

services for some of the patients. I understand that the union in that

facility is pressing the volunteers to refrain from doing that so that

they can bring in union employees. That's to the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry. I was

engrossed in a human rights annual report. Would you repeat the

question, because I didn't hear it.

MR. REID: Not to eat up the time of question period, Mr.

Minister of Labour.... I have a question about volunteer assistance

provided in either health or personal care facilities. It has been

suggested that the volunteers who help the senior ladies with their

hairdos at Kinsmen Place Lodge not provide that service any longer and

that paid employees be requested to provide that service. Would you

look into that, please, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will took into it.

It's the first I've heard of it, but I think it's stupid not to allow

volunteers to come in and help the disabled and disadvantaged of this

province. If any group is promoting that kind of activity in our

province, then I would oppose it with every facility we have at our

disposal, and I'll look into the individual case and report back.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, before somebody sets up any more straw men, I'd like to ask the Premier....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

[ Page

4387 ]

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take offence at being

called a straw man and I wish that member to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, possibly we could deal with this at the conclusion of question period.

MR. STUPICH: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. He knows whether or not he's a man.

The Premier, in response to the last question put to him, said there are more

firms getting government advertising business now than when the NDP was in office.

I'd like to ask him: how many more?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Member, I'll bring the number to the House.

CONSULTING CONTRACTS

MR. STUPICH: The government awards some $300 million a year

in contracts to private consultants. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) declines to reveal a list of the contracts, thereby denying

British Columbians an opportunity to bid on these consulting contracts.

Will the Premier advise why he continues to allow secret awarding of

consulting contracts at very high prices without public competition or

bidding?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Finance advises me that

he's already answered this question for you, and that the information

is made public and is listed in due course. The public accounts

operated under the same system when that member was a member of the

government. They are a little more open now.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier again. The Minister

of Finance does reveal a list of payees, but does not in advance of

awarding contracts for consulting make public the jobs that are coming

up, thereby giving various consulting firms an opportunity to bid.

That's my concern: not who is paid for the job two years later, but

rather what jobs are coming up and what opportunities are there for

various consultants to bid on various contracts that are coming up.

That's my question. There isn't any opportunity for that. Why do you

continue this process of not allowing open bidding for $300 million

worth of consulting work that is being done by the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Consulting work has great opportunity for

all consultants. I'm surprised that the member on the one hand

questions the number of consultants who work for the government, and

then suggests that somehow there should be more. The deputies in

government administration assess in the same way you get consultants

anywhere. They do the prequalification through the qualifications for

the specific task for which they're being requested; then they go

through the various ways of the best one to do a specific job. Many

consultant firms specialize in certain areas and reduce the amount of

competition in any particular area, but all are considered. Judgments

and proposals are made taking that into account.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the honour to submit herewith a special

report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to

section 30(2) of the Ombudsman

Act. I submit special report No. 8 to the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia, Workers Compensation Board, volume one.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, if I may take a moment, this is a

very significant day for this House; it's certainly a very significant

day for our acting Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Ted Ratcliffe. Today, Mr.

Speaker and hon. members, is Mr. Ratcliffe's last day of service in

this House. He leaves on retirement effective tomorrow. Mr. Ratcliffe

has served this House and the people of British Columbia faithfully for

the last 12 years, and has been acting Sergeant-at-Arms since August of

last year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ratcliffe's life has really been

one of service. I would just like to bring one or two highlights of

that service to the attention of all members of this House.

Mr. Ted Ratcliffe enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1941.

He graduated as a navigator and flew during World War II with No. 426

bomber squadron; for his service he was awarded — and wears — the

Distinguished Flying Cross. In January 1945 Mr. Ratcliffe was seconded

to what was then known as Trans-Canada Airlines, and flew with them on

overseas service. He completed 106 crossings of the ocean, flying an

airplane which we called the North Star. Putting in 106 trips in a

North Star across that ocean was a lifetime's work in itself.

Mr. Ratcliffe returned to the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1948 and

served during the Korean airlift. He made 14 crossings of the Pacific

Ocean in service of that theatre of war, and retired from the Royal

Canadian Air Force in 1968 with the rank of wing commander. This is not

only a significant day for Mr. Ratcliffe in this way; it also just

happens to be his birthday. As far as I am concerned, it is a

significant honour to ask this House not only to wish him Godspeed and

good luck in his retirement, but a happy birthday as well.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are

delighted to join in the best wishes to Mr. Ratcliffe for the years

ahead once he leaves this place, and also to wish him many happy

returns of the day. I can't expand upon the litany of accomplishments

that the member for Dewdney laid out with respect to Mr. Ratcliffe, but

we understand that his sojourn in the air force and the position he

held at TransCanada Airlines, both very hazardous occupations,

undoubtedly prepared him well to enter and function in this place in an

unruffled way. We wish him Godspeed in his years ahead; we enjoyed

having him here very much.

I also want to add, if I might, Mr. Speaker, our words of

commendation to the fine people who have worked on the staff of the

Sergeant-at-Arms. All of them deserve to be given due credit for their

activities.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

Bill 19 read a third time and passed.

[ Page 4388 ]

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the Legislature

fail to understand the undue haste with which the government wants to

proceed with this particular piece of legislation. As late as Thursday

of last week the committee that had been established to advise the

minister about the human rights legislation was still holding hearings.

The bill was introduced on Tuesday; we had an opportunity to glance

through it on Wednesday and to consult with a few people out in the

community....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You had six months.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has made a very interesting

comment, Mr. Speaker. He says we've had six months to look at this bill

and he's quite correct, in that this bill is virtually the same as the

one introduced six months ago by that same minister, Bill 27, the Human

Rights Act. That bill was thoroughly discredited by people in this

province and right across this nation. This bill, as the minister

correctly points out, is virtually the same. I think it is because of

last summer's outcry against the moves made by this government in the

area of human rights that the government wants to proceed with such

haste today, in order to get the debate on this bill before the

Legislature and, as they hope, through the Legislature in quick time.

They want to ram it through because they know this is unpopular

legislation. They know that it's virtually the same as last year's, and

they know that it was thoroughly discredited at that time. The Minister

of Labour should be hanging his head in shame today for bringing this

kind of legislation forward in this Legislature.

One of the measures of the advances in any civilization is reflected

in the way a society treats minorities within that society, and in the

whole area of human rights and discrimination. We find that in British

Columbia we are taking a massive retrograde step in the area of human

rights. We are stepping backwards; we are not moving civilization

forward. This is second-class legislation, and it can't be termed in

any other way. The issue of human rights is one of such fundamental

importance that the government should not be trying to rush this

through at this time. It's an issue which touches all of us, and it's

an issue which measures the advance in our civilization here in this

province. With this legislation, we are taking a massive step backwards.

This piece of legislation is a flimsy excuse for any kind of

protection in the area of human rights. Anyone who takes the time to

look at it will understand that very quickly. They will understand that

it is virtually and fundamentally the same as that totally discredited

piece of legislation the government had to abandon last summer. It is,

in fact, a betrayal to all of those people who were assured and had

assumed that this new piece of legislation would protect human rights

in this province. That's not going to be the case.

The minister got up this morning and said that this bill represents

a reaffirmation of the government's commitment to human rights. All I

can say is "amen." That's very true. It's a reaffirmation of the same

kind of lousy legislation that was introduced last summer. When this

legislation, in a slightly different form, was presented to the

province of British Columbia last summer, we had people all over the

province objecting to it and voicing concern, and we had people across

Canada voicing concern about what was happening here in British

Columbia with an issue as basic as human rights.

At that time we heard from Gordon Fairweather, who is the chairman

of Canada's Human Rights Commission and a very well-respected

Conservative. He has taken an interest in human rights throughout his

entire life. I'm sure that when Mr. Fairweather has an opportunity to

read this legislation, he will say virtually the same thing. I'm

quoting from Mr. Fairweather, who attacked the Bennett government's

methods as emblematic of a police state. He also deplored the

denunciation of human rights in B.C. Here we have the person who has

been so concerned with human rights over the years that he has risen to

the position of chairman of Canada's Human Rights Commission saying

that here in British Columbia the legislation we have — and, Mr.

Speaker, virtually the same legislation is before us today — is a

denunciation of human rights in British Columbia. That's what we have

in this bill. I don't think that the comments of Gordon Fairweather,

who is probably one of Canada's most knowledgeable people in the area

of human rights, can be dismissed out of hand, as I'm sure that

minister will tend to do, and as I'm sure this government will tend to

do. Gordon Fairweather, chairman of Canada's Human Rights Commission,

is deploring the denunciation of human rights in British Columbia. They

should hang their heads in shame today. It's a disgraceful piece of

legislation which does not provide the protection in an area that to me

is absolutely essential.

When the legislation was introduced last summer, we heard also from people like Father Jim Roberts.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: All right, are you also going to laugh at Gordon Fairweather?

Father Jim Roberts spoke....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is he the co-chairman of Solidarity?

MS. SANFORD: Yes, he is one of the co-chairmen. I suppose

that if he belongs to that Solidarity organization this group is ready

to dismiss him, no matter who he is. "Father James Roberts spoke into

the microphone, condemning the Bennett government's anti-human-rights

legislation in terms the crowd would not soon forget. 'It is the moral

equivalent of the neutron bomb; it leaves the buildings unscathed, but

it savages people.'" That's true. He's echoing what Gordon Fairweather

is saying: human rights in British Columbia, as a result of the actions

of this government, have virtually been eliminated.

Then we have Charles Paris. I suppose they're all going to pooh-pooh

anything that Charles Paris had to say as well. For those who don't

remember, Dr. Charles Paris was the chairman of the Human Rights

Commission here in British Columbia. Of course he was soon dismissed.

Charles Paris attacked Bill 27 as having nothing to do with the

oft-touted reason of economic restraint, and he said: "This is a

deliberate, philosophic attack on the very concept of human rights

legislation." He said it was a basic fundamental attack. Here we have

the chairman of the Human Rights Commission in

[ Page 4389 ]

British Columbia — of course that commission is defunct, and that

chairman is gone. But I am positive, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Paris would

be saying exactly the same thing today about this piece of legislation.

The minister himself pointed out that it's virtually the same.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association last summer also

pleaded with the government to back off the legislation that it had

introduced. I'm sure that it feels the same way today. We have appeals

from the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia to

have that legislation dropped, eliminated and wiped out from the books

of British Columbia, and here we are seeing virtually the same piece of

legislation again.

As I pointed out, we had people across the country.... I would

like to read into the record what a professor of law, who is a director

of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of

Ottawa, had to say about the legislation that was introduced last

summer. Ed Ratushny was reported in the Globe and Mail on August 19, 1983, as saying:

"'We recognize that human rights are indeed fragile

freedoms, in particular when the pressures...are brought to bear on those

who are least able to protect themselves or fight back: women, the disabled,

the old and racial minorities. The Human Rights Commission has gone on record

over the past years as the spokesman for these groups, advocating the need for

the majority to respect the dignity of all British Columbians.' While recognizing

the realities of the current economic situation, the telegram" — sent to the Premier

last summer — "pleaded for prudence in making cuts, 'so as to ensure

that the impact is not felt disproportionately by those most in need of assistance

and special protection.'"

This professor also stated:

"There are few better yardsticks of the basic

integrity of a society than the degree to which it can meet these

ideals through its laws, institutions and practices."

He's talking about the ideals of protecting basic human rights.

"Progress in developing human rights legislation in

Canada represents many years of hard effort by the labour movement and

other non-governmental organizations, culminating in the situation

where every province, and the federal government, has its own human

rights commission now — in all provinces but one."

Guess which one no longer has a human rights commission, because the

government thinks that a human rights commission is simply not

important enough to include in its program?

"The earliest provincial human rights codes, such as

Ontario's, have been the subject of substantial amendment.

Discrimination is seldom upfront" — says this professor — "and, indeed,

discriminatory consequences may be generated unintentionally. That is

why conciliation and education have always played an important role in

human rights codes throughout Canada."

This human rights code — this new piece of legislation, Bill 11 —

gives no priority to education. As a matter of fact, the minister is

quoted in the press this morning as saying that it's really not the

council's job to do the educating at all; it's government's. Mr.

Speaker, help us, if that government is going to educate the people in

British Columbia in the area of human rights. We heard what one of

those ministers had to say this morning at a public accounts meeting.

We know the attitude of a lot of the people within that government on

areas related to racism and sexism. If we are to rely on the government

to educate the people of British Columbia — and I think education is an

absolutely essential part of improving human rights in this province —

then there is very little hope. They have never shown an interest in

the area of human rights, and this piece of legislation before us today

certainly is an indication that they don't intend to give human rights

much of a priority in the future.

[2:45]

I assume that one of the reasons the government wants to proceed

with such haste in debating this bill.... It was on the floor of

the House for debate only one day after it had been introduced, but we

are getting, within our caucuses, a flood of telegrams. Phone calls are

coming in from every part of the province objecting to this piece of

legislation, and it's been out for only one day. I'm sure that that's

one of the big reasons that this government wants to proceed with this

and ram it through — get the legislation in place before the people of

the province really understand what this government is attempting to do

in this piece of legislation.

We've had telegrams today from Tim Stanley of the B.C. Organization

to Fight Racism; Donna Stewart of the North Shore Women's Centre; Chris

Walmsley of the B.C. Association of Social Workers; Gurham Sangera of

the Sikh Solidarity Association, representing six Sikh temples in the

lower mainland; Charles Paris, regional director of the Canadian

Council of Christians and Jews; Timothy Ag, Vancouver Gay Community

Centre; the B.C. Human Rights Coalition; Harbans Dhillon; Jon Gates;

Alicia Lawrence; Eleanor Crow of the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre; and

the provincial Solidarity coalition. Within a day, Mr. Speaker, because

we were able to send copies of this legislation by courier to some

people who have expressed an interest in human rights in this province

in the past, because they have had a chance to read through the bill —

though I don't imagine they've had much chance to study it — already

they are flooding us with telegrams and phone calls objecting to this

piece of legislation, which is really a flimsy excuse for protection in

the field of human rights.

The minister, in introducing this bill this morning, said that the

government was committed to protecting human rights. If the government

was committed to protecting human rights, then why did they eliminate

the Human Rights Commission, leaving British Columbia as the only

province in this country without a human rights commission? Why did the

government, just after the July 7 budget last year, fire virtually all

the people working in the human rights branch, giving the message to

the province that human rights is not important enough to continue to

have a human rights commission or to continue to have human rights

workers who attempted to resolve the problems that develop all over

this province in the areas of discrimination and human rights.

That minister is quoted in the press today as saying that B.C. will

have the best human rights legislation — in Canada, I think he

said — once this bill is passed. He said exactly

[ Page 4390 ]

the same thing after they introduced Bill 27, the other human rights

piece of legislation that I spoke about earlier, which was thoroughly

discredited and was such an embarrassment that the government finally

had to abandon it. Now they've introduced a new piece — virtually the

same — and they're hoping that by ramming it through the House they

won't have the same opposition mounted towards the legislation, which

does not protect human rights in this province.

The Human Rights Commission had the job of trying to promote

understanding among people in our province. They had the job of trying

to educate people about human rights and their own tendency to

discriminate. There are many people in this province who discriminate

against racial minorities, and on all kinds of other grounds, including

sexual orientation, including sexism — they discriminate against women

for one reason or another. This bill will not give that protection any

more. The Human Rights Commission made recommendations to government

about how we could improve human rights in this province. That

commission has been eliminated.

This morning on CBC radio I head Bill Black from the University of

British Columbia making some comments on this piece of legislation, and

he said something that I really think should be brought to the

attention of government. He mentioned that preventive work in the area

of human rights is far more effective than trying to take action

against people who discriminate. It's much better to have an

educational program, much better to try to promote understanding among

our people in British Columbia. Unfortunately, we have in our society

in B.C. a situation which could easily result in open racial hostility.

As a matter of fact, it has from time to time. We have a volatile

situation in British Columbia in the area of racial discrimination;

unfortunately, when you eliminate the commission that is assigned the

task of trying to educate people in the areas of human rights, of

trying to make people understand other people and the way in which they

live — their backgrounds, religious beliefs and a language different

from ours — obviously you're not going to have the same kind of chance

to prevent the discrimination that's taking place in this province.

The commission has been eliminated, the council has not been

assigned the direct responsibility for education, and the minister

informs us: "Well, the government will take on that job." That'll be a

joke, Mr. Speaker. Never before has this government attempted to do

anything in terms of educating in the area of human rights and

discrimination. This piece of legislation eliminates the work of the

human rights branch and establishes in its place a politically

appointed council consisting of five people. That council,

unfortunately, will have the job of acting both as investigator and as

judge. No council should be given the responsibility to act as both

investigator and judge, because immediately the decisions made by that

council are going to be suspect. If you're acting as both investigator

and judge, then that's bound to be the case. Mr. Speaker, first of all,

it's politically appointed. I would much prefer to see a council

appointed by an all-party committee of this House by unanimous decision

— the same way in which the auditor-general and the ombudsman were

appointed. Surely a council — if that's the route the government is

going to take — which is charged with the responsibility of human

rights in this province should not be appointed politically by the

minister.

They've no direct mandate to educate, and unfortunately the minister

tells us that's going to become the job of the government. We know what

that will mean.

I have not heard the minister give us one solitary reason for

removing the

section "reasonable cause" from the legislation. People

could complain that they had been discriminated against, using the

section "reasonable cause," and action could be taken in cases of

discrimination. Action could be taken in areas that were not directly

and specifically named within the old Human Rights Code. But now, with

the removal of the "reasonable cause" provision, all kinds of

discrimination are going to be able to take place in this province. Mr.

Speaker, we've had a number of examples. But one particular

example....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many other provinces have it?

MS. SANFORD: I don't know how many others have it. The point

is that we had it here in this province and it was serving a useful

purpose in trying to cut down on discrimination. It's now been removed,

and the minister should hang his head in shame.

We've had examples in this province of people who were denied

employment because the employer said that the particular employee did

went to the human rights branch and pleaded that this employer was

discriminating against him without reasonable cause, because he didn't

was to be employed for. Eventually it turned out that that employee,

through the "reasonable cause" provisions of that Human Rights Code,

was established in that job.

[3:00]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On racial grounds.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It was accepted on racial grounds.

MS. SANFORD: That may well be, but the employer denied him

That was the employer's reason, and that was the issue that was taken

to the human rights branch.

Mr. Speaker, by removing the words "reasonable cause," people who

are under the age of 45.... The only provision now is 45 to 65, as

far as age discrimination is concerned. One of my constituents went to

the human rights branch because he was denied access as an apprentice —

I think it was a plumber's apprentice or a carpenter's apprentice —

because of the fact that the union said that they would not accept

apprentices above the age of 25. One of my constituents was over the

age of 25. He felt that that union was discriminating on the basis of

age. He went to the human rights branch, and even though the ages 45 to

65 are the ones named in the Code, he said: "There is no reasonable

cause to exclude me from becoming an apprentice because I happen to be

over the age of 25." He won that case, and he was accepted as an

apprentice, and accepted in that union simply because of the fact that

there was a "reasonable cause" provision within that act.

[ Page 4391 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Unions don't discriminate, do they?

MS. SANFORD: They did in this case. And the human rights

people certainly ensured that that would not happen. By removing that

"reasonable cause" section, my particular constituent would, because of

age, have been denied the right to become an apprentice and join that

union. Right now under this bill he would have no recourse whatsoever,

because it's been denied him. In the bill people will not be

discriminated against if they are mentally or physically handicapped;

they've named them specifically in this new legislation. But by

eliminating "reasonable cause" they have left out far more people. Far

more people are going to be denied the right to ensure that their human

rights are protected in this province by removing that "reasonable

cause" provision. Unless you are specifically named in the legislation

you will not be covered, because "without reasonable cause" has been

removed.

People will be discriminated against because of sexual orientation.

There was another area in which people could have some reasonable

chance of ensuring they weren't discriminated against by referring to

that "reasonable cause" provision. They're now left out; they're not

named. They have no protection whatsoever under that piece of

legislation.

As my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

mentioned this morning, pregnant women will not now have access to that

"reasonable cause" provision and could well be discriminated against on

the basis of pregnancy. The minister shakes his head. At the end of

second reading I would like him to advise me how their rights are going

to be protected. The legal people are saying they are not protected.

We can now have provisions put in by employers that talk about

people having to be of a certain height or weight in order to be

employed. That could well be used to ensure that women are not hired in

certain occupations, if the employer so decides. In other words, the

employer who does not want to hire women, for instance, would not say,

"Oh, I don't want to hire women," because he knows he would not be

allowed to do that under the legislation; but he can bring in

provisions ensuring that based on height and weight women would not

qualify. According to this legislation, Bill 11, he would not be

discriminating against women directly, only indirectly. Because the

"reasonable cause" clause has been removed, they would not have that

protection.

Another big change that has occurred in this legislation, a change

from the Human Rights Code that was on the books for a number of years

— introduced, I think, in 1973 or 1974 — is in the area of having to

prove intent. This is going to make it far more difficult to ensure

that discrimination does not take place. It is very difficult to prove

intent, that the intent to discriminate was there. Discrimination can

take place time and time again if people cannot prove intent. That's

unfortunate. That's a huge weakness in this bill. There's no doubt that

a lot of discrimination does take place. Unless the complainant can

prove that the intent to discriminate was there, then the council will

throw the complaint out, and it will not be accepted as a legitimate

complaint of discrimination.

I think it's tragic that we have to be debating a bill that is such

a second-class piece of legislation. We in this province should be

setting the pace. We should be leading the way for the rest of Canada

in terms of protecting basic minority rights and protecting people from

discrimination of all types. We should be educating our people to

ensure that discrimination does not take place. This piece of

legislation fails on all of those counts. I will be most strenuously

opposing this piece of legislation.

MR. R. FRASER: I do want to say a few words about this piece

of legislation, and I want to congratulate the government on the thrust

of the bill, which is, in fact, to encourage people to think, not

necessarily to respond to a piece of paper. It's my opinion that

irrespective of what you might write down on a piece of paper, you can

always get around things. As the member points out, intent is very

difficult to determine sometimes, no matter what kind of a dispute

you've got. It's a matter of attitude with respect to the hiring of

people, whether they be mentally or physically handicapped, tall or

short or weak or strong.

I would like to point out that in my own business, for example, we

have historically hired people who were qualified, irrespective of

race, and when it came to equal pay for equal work, we have paid men

and women the same pay for the same job. That, on our part, is an

attitudinal acceptance of the ability to get the work done, and the

whole thrust of our thinking in that respect is not to be concerned

with where that person's origins might be but with what he can do with

his other workmates to make the business work as well as possible.

So I suggest to anybody here who is worried about the bill that I'm

sure there will be failures in every piece of legislation somewhere,

because the world is not perfect and therefore the writing of a bill is

never perfect. I suggest to you, though, the approach that the minister

and the government are taking is an attitudinal approach to people:

think about what you can find in the person looking for a job; and if

they're qualified, hire them. There are lots and lots of examples of

people who are willing to accept those seeking work on the basis of

competence and ability. I suggest to everyone here that the closer we

get to recognizing the fact that we are a very small part of the global

village, that we trade around the world, and that our population makeup

has now a much more interesting flavour than it might have had at one

point, the more we will come to recognize that we will accept people

without racial discrimination and that we will find that the intent of

the bill is well placed.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not surprised that somebody on that side of

the House would have so little to say about the bill or about human

rights, but I must admit that he did catch me a bit short. I felt that

even a Social Creditor would have more than that to say on the subject

of human rights.

It's certainly no accident that it is the NDP who have a great deal

to say about the threat to human rights in the province of British

Columbia. We have a long history, as a party, of fighting for human

rights, a history that goes back through the days of the CCF to the

time the party was actually formed. It was a party at that time that

fought for the extension of the franchise to include native Indians and

orientals. Indeed, in the first election in which I campaigned as a

candidate, in 1949, the native Indians still didn't have the vote. They

did get it some time afterwards. It's no accident that the first native

Indian to sit in this Legislature sat as a CCF MLA and later an NDP MLA

— and, indeed, became a cabinet minister in the NDP administration.

Later....

Interjection.

[ Page 4392 ]

MR. STUPICH: Do you really want me to answer that? Later,

yes, there were a bunch of Liberals and Conservatives and one NDPer who

joined together in a coalition — he was one of them, that's true. But

my point was that it was no accident that the party which fought for so

long for the extension of the franchise to include our native Indians

was the party that was first represented in this Legislature by a

native Indian. He sat for many years as a CCF and then NDP MLA. It's no

accident that the only two blacks ever to be elected in the province of

British Columbia sit as members of the NDP. We have a long history of

having fought for human rights in British Columbia. We fought for the

rights of the Japanese during the war, and certainly there are many

tales of horror to be told about the way in which they were treated

during the war. I recognize there was a war, and I recognize the

problems of the time. But I went to school with some children who were

very quickly, with very little or in some cases no warning, uprooted

from their homes, and their assets somehow or other found themselves

assumed by prominent Liberals of the day. They had extensive land

holdings in the Gulf Islands and on Vancouver Island as well, and were

very good farmers and very good fishermen. It was on Vancouver Island

that I went to school with some of these children, who were treated

very badly. I think Canada is giving some recognition of that now, but

rather belatedly. So it is no accident that we're standing up in the

Legislature today and expressing our concern about the current attack

on human rights.

[3:15]

I have to associate myself with those of my colleagues who are

wondering why this legislation is being proceeded with so quickly.

There are other estimates that could have been handled. I know that the

minister's response earlier was that we've had six months to consider

this legislation. If that is the case, then the minister is saying that

the legislation is essentially the same legislation as was introduced

on July 7, 1983. That being the case, he is saying that the tremendous

protest that drew together many organizations that would never be seen

talking to each other.... One of the areas of protest was, about

the attack on human rights. That protest has not been met simply by

dropping Bill 27, which was on the order paper since July 7, 1983, the

day the session wound up; it was not met by the introduction of Bill 11

a couple of days ago. That being the case, we can simply use the same

questions, concerns and opposition that we would have to Bill 27 and,

in the appraisal of the minister, we'd be dealing with exactly the

legislation that we have today. I recognize that there have been some

changes. He did not detail those changes. Apparently he felt they were

so inconsequential that they weren't worth spending a great deal of

time on. Others of my colleagues have talked about the one feature that

is perhaps the most undesirable, the worst feature of the legislation —

whether it's Bill 27 or Bill 11 — and that is the elimination of the

reasonable cause provisions. Two members on this side of the House have

spoken in opposition to Bill 11. Both of them have dwelt at some length

with this elimination of reasonable cause.

I did accumulate a file last fall and to a great degree it's still

appropriate. I'd like to make some references to this file, which I

didn't have an opportunity to use then because the government did

abandon the legislation — let it die on the order paper. We were

encouraged then to think that there might be some substantive changes.

We recognized that the Human Rights Commission had already been fired.

Even though the legislation had not been proceeded with, they had taken

steps as though they had the legislative authority to do everything

they did. The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), when he was

speaking in the budget debate in July or August.... As a matter of

fact, we didn't finish the budget, as I recall, until September; we

abandoned the budget and started talking about legislation. In any

case, during that period the hon. member for Alberni talked about the

relatively low cost. A million dollars is a lot of money in anybody's

language, but it is a relatively low cost in terms of budget of the

Human Rights Commission. Indeed, the public accounts for the year ended

March '83 showed that while $1.6 million had been voted, the total cost

of everything done in that area — all human rights programs — came in

at less. The actual expenditures for that period were $1,251,959. It

would seem to me that in terms of an $8.6 billion budget, that's a

relatively small amount for us to be spending in the province of

British Columbia to provide human rights education and human rights

protection. There may have been excesses, there may have been some

mistakes, and it might well be that there should be some changes in

administration; but no case has been made for disposing of the program

entirely or for changing it to the extent of the legislation that we

have before us now, which really destroys the program.

An editorial in the Globe and Mail dated July 14 talks about

a number of the pieces of legislation. This is just one week after. If

I may, Mr. Speaker, question again this matter of the time, if what the

minister is telling us is that the bill is the same as it was last

fall, then of course we should all be opposing it to our utmost and the

community should be mounting the same kind of protest as they did last

fall. If indeed there have been changes to improve it — and I think the

minister did want to make some case for that — then why not give the

community time to review the new bill, to look at it and see whether

it's something with which they feel they can live? The minister and the

government appear to be anxious that the community not have the

opportunity they had last fall. There was plenty of opportunity then

because there was a whole package and there was lots of opposition to

everything the government was doing. But this time they're bringing in

this one bill and apparently hoping to sneak it through the Legislature

in a hurry before the community outside — the people who are going to

be affected by this — have any opportunity to see whether the

legislation is indeed as bad as the original Bill 27, or whether it has

been improved to the extent that they can live with it. I have to

assume that it is almost as bad, if not as bad, and draw on some of the

arguments that I would have used in the last six months of last year

when this legislation was being discussed.

One paragraph of the editorial in the Globe and Mail of July

14 states: "Why, at a period when civil rights have assumed high

priority everywhere in Canada" — particularly with that constitution

debate, and certainly civil rights were part of that debate — "does the

B.C. government decide to eliminate the human rights branch" — and

that's still being done — "and the Human Rights Commission and replace

them with a new panel far too much under the government's foot?" The

first sentence is with respect to Bill 27 then and Bill 21 now. Why,

when civil rights are being given higher recognition in the rest of

Canada, are we in B.C. doing away with the human rights branch and the

Human Rights Commission?

[ Page 4393 ]

Another story, in the July 16 Globe and Mail : "Labour Groups Join Forces to Fight B.C. Government." I can appreciate why there would be so many stories in the Globe and Mail today when we don't have other newspapers, but apparently this was then considered to be a very hot issue back east.

"The four federal ministers who signed yesterday's telex

to B.C. Labour Minister Robert McClelland were External Affairs Minister Allan

MacEachen, Secretary of State Serge Joyal, Judy Erola, minister responsible

for the status of women, and Multiculturalism Minister James Fleming, each of

whom is in some way responsible for human rights."

Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been an opportunity for these four ministers,

or any others, and perhaps six or seven leadership candidates from the Liberal

Party, to study the new bill to see whether or not they want to take as strong

a stand in opposition to it as they did in opposition to the very similar bill

that was introduced last fall. Going on with the story:

"They said it will be 'highly regrettable' if British Columbia

takes measures that undermine the protection of human rights in a bid to exercise

restraint."

There was no restraint program last fall. That was a fiction.

The budget that was introduced on July 7, 1983 — here I'm repeating something

I've said on other occasions, but I think it is appropriate to remind ourselves

of it now — showed increased expenditures of 16 percent above those of the previous

year. In a year when inflation was expected to be between 5 percent and 6 percent,

an increase of 16 percent can hardly be called a restraint budget. Wiping out

this program — and as I pointed out, the cost of the program for the year ended

March 31, 1983, was $1.25 million, in round figures — cannot be considered a

program of restraint. The government simply wanted to get rid of a few employees

who were getting publicity for the work they were doing. It was good work generally,

but they were getting publicity that the government didn't want to be associated

with, and so they had decided that among all the other things they were doing

this was one opportunity to get rid of a little burr under the saddle. It wasn't

terribly important to them, they weren't terribly concerned about human

rights education or protection, so they were using this as an opportunity to

wrap it up in the whole program of restraint, assuming that the public generally

would accept the idea that restraint was good, simply because it sounded good

and had helped them win an election. It was an excuse to proceed with that at

that time. It wasn't a restraint program at all; it was simply getting rid

of something they didn't like.

A headline from the Province of July 27, 1983: "Churchmen Slam

Bennett." "Members of the Canadian clergy are awaiting a reply from

Premier Bill Bennett after adding their names Tuesday to a list of

those who have slammed the provincial government for recent strong

restraint measures." I would disagree that it is a restraint measure.

"In a letter to Bennett, representatives of the Anglican..."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The member says Father Roberts. He's not Anglican.

"...United, Lutheran and other Christian churches criticized the government

legislation and made it clear they expected an answer." To the best of

my knowledge, they didn't get an answer until they saw Bill 11 tabled recently

in the Legislature. Again one has to wonder whether these people have had an

opportunity to review the new bill to see whether it's as bad as the one

that was there before, or to see whether it is one that would attract the kind

of attack that they, along with others, were able to mobilize in the province

of British Columbia last fall. "The clergymen are attending the World Council

of Churches assembly now being held in Vancouver." So it wasn't just

the bad publicity we got in British Columbia, or the bad publicity that attracted

the attention of the four federal cabinet members that I mentioned previously;

it was also from representatives of the World Council of Churches coming from

all countries in the world.

Here's another editorial from the Globe and Mail — I didn't realize all these were from the Globe and Mail , Mr. Speaker — which certainly can't be considered an NDP organ; I think there can be agreement on that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Have you looked in the mirror lately, Mr. Member, when you talk about holdup people?

This editorial deals with a number of the bills that were introduced

on July 7 last year. "Also suspect is Bill 27, which repeals the Human

Rights Code, dissolves the Human Rights Commission and establishes a

council of human rights which is far too closely under the government's

thumb...." This is very similar to one that I read previously.

"The original commission may at times have been overzealous, but Bill

27 sounds as though the B.C. government is not really very interested

in seeing that humans have rights." Mr. Speaker, the same can be said

of Bill 11. The minister did tell us that Bill 11 is so close to Bill

27 that no one needs time to read it in order to know what his or her

position is with respect to the legislation. The concluding paragraph

says: "These are changes that would save little money and write

'arbitrary' on Mr. Bennett's brow."

Here's an editorial from the Province , dated September 26: "The

Fight is Still Going On." If I may repeat myself, that's the point.

There was time last fall for the fight to get mobilized and to keep on.

This time the government is bringing bills in one at a time. They are

proceeding with each one through the various processes of the

Legislature and getting them out of the way before going onto the next

one, so that there's no real time for the community to know what's

happening until after the bills have had final approval in the

Legislature. That would seem to be their tactic in this instance as

well. We can only wonder and worry and anticipate what other

legislation may be coming in, as the session goes on, that will be

treated as summarily as have the several pieces so far, including the

one before us now.

This editorial is headed: "Rights Bill Veils Rights."

"B.C.'s

proposed new Human Rights Act is so long on intentions and so short on

procedures to carry out those intentions that it might just as well be

consigned to the waste-basket."

"Just as well," Mr. Speaker, except

that it does eliminate the human rights branch and the commission.

"It says all the right things about how wrong

discrimination is, but essentially it leaves it up to the individual to

fight discrimination. The machinery for investigation and remedial

action is so leaky that it's hard to see how it can function

satisfactorily in anyway. For instance, the powers given the Minister of

[ Page 4394 ]

Labour — Bob McClelland at the moment — seem themselves to be

a denial of human rights."

I had a letter from the Alma Mater Society of UBC — I suppose others

have them. I happen to be a graduate of UBC, but I think that in this

instance they sent letters out to everyone. It's dated August 9, 1983:

"On behalf of the Alma Mater Society of the University...."

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Did I hear somebody say that they're all Liberals. I didn't think there were that many Liberals in B.C.

"On behalf of the Alma Mater Society of the University

of British Columbia, I am writing to you to tell you of our concerns

dealing with the government's decision to dissolve the human rights

branch.

"The Alma Mater Society has never knowingly used

discriminating hiring or firing practices in the past and does not plan

to do so in the future. However, we're all aware that many employers do

use such practices. Many advances in interhuman relations have come

about because of the branch's work. We feel that to dissolve the human

rights branch will lead us back to the problems we have been able to

overcome in the past. Thus we feel compelled to ask that you fight to

repeal this decision."

At that point in time they should have said "to stop this decision from being made," rather than to "repeal" it.

Here's another letter from a constituent of mine. He writes not just

as a constituent but also as president of the Central Vancouver Island

Multicultural Society — Dr. J.M. Dubé. It is addressed to the Minister

of Labour. I don't seem to have a copy of the minister's reply; perhaps

he didn't in this instance. I don't know. The letter indicated that a

copy was coming to me, and usually we get copies of the replies, but in

this instance I don't seem to have one. However, this is a letter dated

August 16, 1983.

"The Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society

would like to register its protest to the provincial government over

its budget proposal which would, among other things, dismantle the

Human Rights Commission and the agencies which make the commission a

effective instrument for the protection of human rights in B.C."

Dr. Dubé has been working with this society for some time trying to

advance the cause of human rights and trying to make people in the

Nanaimo and Vancouver Island area more appreciative of the need for

this concern, so he writes with some knowledge of the need for the

protection of human rights, education and continuation of the program

established by the NDP administration during its term of office. The

letter goes on:

"Whatever the justification for economic restraint at

the present time" — at that time he couldn't have known how little it

was costing the taxpayers of British Columbia — "we see human rights as

too important and vital to the level of decency and civilized life in

our province to be jeopardized."

I think he speaks for many British Columbians when he says that. I

haven't heard from him since the new bill was introduced, just two days

ago. Even if he had put a reply in the mail immediately, I wouldn't

have it yet. The letter goes on:

"What is the point of our living together in our

society, economically viable or not, if the very reason for our

bestowing upon the government the authority to govern is to be

considered expendable? What is the point of having government at all,

if we are going to leave such fundamental rights and freedoms as human

rights to the vagaries of the marketplace?

"The philosophy of handing over the government to the

private sector can go too far. Just as the basic human right to clean

drinking water, or to security by our security forces, cannot be left

to private companies and private armies, so too human rights cannot be

left to private agencies. The private sector favours the rich and

powerful who can pay for the protection of their rights and privileges.

The poor and powerless are thrown to the wolves without any means of

redress."

Mr. Speaker, that is a fact of life. As much as we would all like to change it, we have to admit that there is truth in that.

"The history of our society should remind us how

recently it was that our fellow citizens in B.C. were prepared to

discriminate against Chinese persons, who had to pay a head tax to

enter B.C., equivalent to two years' hard labour. Furthermore, they

were not allowed to bring their wives and families. Less than 100 years

ago the black regiment in Victoria was disbanded through pressure by

whites in Victoria. Only in the last 40 years did people from the

Orient obtain the right to own land and to vote in elections. The

treatment of Japanese-Canadians in the last war was a black day in

Canadian history. No German or Italian descendants suffered such

persecution here, although Germany and Italy were our enemies then.

"Negative attitudes towards women, the handicapped and

visible minorities die hard in our population. There are many closet

KKKs stalking the land."

Mr. Speaker, we all know some examples of

visible minorities suffering at the hands of the majority in their

areas.

"The impression that this government does not consider

human rights important makes such people emerge from the closet. Since

the announcement a large landlord has given instructions to his

apartment managers that apartments are not to be let to East Indians,

native Indians and welfare recipients.

"The rights of the farmworkers in the Fraser Valley to

be organized like any other workers and benefit from Workers'

Compensation Board provisions have been delayed for yet another year.

The rights of bank clerks, domestic servants and chambermaids to

organize to secure the benefits for which our forebears struggled in

the town of Nanaimo for decades are now being further undermined."

Mr. Speaker, I certainly know of some of those struggles.

"This government is making it difficult for the poor

and powerless, the most likely victims of discrimination, to feel

confident that there is a respectable place for them as human beings in

a caring, decent and civilized society. The frustration of such groups

must lead to anger, and that is no sound basis on which to prepare for

economic recovery.

"We plead with this government not to miss the whole point of government. In the private sector....

Interjection.

[ Page 4395 ]

MR. STUPICH: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just can't hear what he's saying. If he'd wait until I stop for a breath, then....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why don't you have some ideas of your own instead of just reading letters all day?

MR. STUPICH: Had the minister answered this letter and sent

me a copy, then I would know he had read it. At this point in time I

doubt very much that he did read it. If he did read it, he certainly

paid no attention to it. So I think it's well that he should sit here

and suffer through the reading of this letter publicly, a letter that

apparently he felt was not important enough to answer; certainly a

letter he felt not important enough to give any consideration to in

drafting the new legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said you had no ideas; I didn't say the letter-writer had no ideas.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, he's suggesting

I have no ideas of my own since I'm reading this letter into the

record. My point is that this letter deserves some recognition. If the

only way I can make the minister aware of it, since up to this point in

time he hasn't been able to get anybody else to read it for him, then I

am reading it to him. I'm just about finished. The concluding paragraph

that I started.... I'll pick it up again:

"We plead with this government not to miss the whole

point of government. In the private sector the balance sheet is the

bottom line — money. In the public sector the quality of human

existence is the bottom line. That means the safeguarding of human

rights to every person regardless of sex, race, class, colour or

religion."

I think it's an excellent letter. I think it's well worth reading

into the record. I may say that in everything Dr. Dubé says I am in

complete agreement with him.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is with us today. He's been away a lot lately.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He's complaining that I have another newspaper article.

I'm trying to explain — not to him, because I know he won't listen,

and I don't expect that the Minister of Labour is really listening that

much — to these people that there is some real, genuine concern in our

community about the attack on human rights in the province of British

Columbia. If I were simply to stand up on my own and say that I am

upset about the attack on human rights.... I am one person.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There's no assurance even that I'm speaking for my constituents when

I attack the government. They might have the idea in their heads that

I'm doing it simply for political reasons, that I'm holding up this

legislation because I want to keep the minister in his seat for a

little while.

In quoting from various sources, I'm trying to demonstrate to the

government that there is indeed widespread opposition to their attack

on human rights; that there was indeed widespread support in the

province of British Columbia for the very forward steps taken by way of

human rights education and human rights protection under the NDP

administration in the province of British Columbia. While there might

have been some excesses, motivated by different people for different

reasons, nevertheless the idea of protecting human rights was important

in the province of British Columbia and was accepted.

Reference has been made by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

to the remarks by R.G.L. Fairweather, chief commissioner of the

Canadian Human Rights Commission. I don't think she had the actual

speech notes that I have in my hands right now. There's a very

interesting quotation at the start of this, so I am going to read it

too into the record. I hope the minister isn't too upset to have these

words read to him. And I hope the Minister of Forests is ready to get

on with his estimates, because certainly the opposition has been

waiting for him.

This is the opening quotation: "Twenty years ago last August, Martin

Luther King, during his famous 'I have a dream' speech in front of the

Lincoln Memorial in Washington, recalled the exhortation of the prophet

Amos: 'Let justice flow like water.' It is a timeless yet nonetheless

inspired objective for humankind to pursue."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It's a joke for the Minister of Forests. I'm not surprised at that, but to us it's important.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't mind his interjections if he were

listening and interjecting in response to some of the things I'm

saying. It's the ultimate insult to the Legislature to say he's

interjecting and not even listening to the person speaking. His

interjections are on some other topic entirely. So I'll have to ask

him....

Gordon Fairweather, chief commissioner for the Canadian Human

Rights Commission, in his speech of September 1983 said: "Just exactly

what is so special about British Columbia, aside altogether from the

glories of your geography? Let us ponder a few details." This might get

through even to the Minister of Forests...

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't count on it. He said he wouldn't

count on it; nor would I. But you never know. Someday somebody might

crack that skull a little and let something in. It's just possible.

It's worth trying.

"Forty-seven percent of the children now attending school

As I said earlier during the course of my remarks, when Canada as a

whole is expressing greater concern, and when every other Canadian

government is expressing greater concern about the attacks on human

rights and about the protection of human rights, why is it that we're

backing away from that in the province where it's most important? It's

not the cost, as I pointed out; a million and a quarter dollars a year

is not very much to pay for human rights education and protection.

[ Page 4396 ]

[3:45]

I would like to have had more opportunity to compare Bill 11 with

Bill 27. I would like to have had some opportunity to have Bill 11

examined by those who have written me and to ask Dr. Dubé, for example,

how he feels about the new form of the legislation. That opportunity

has been denied by the government's haste to have this bill discussed

and finally dealt with by the Legislature. The fact that they're in

such a hurry to get it through is reason enough for the opposition to

oppose it. We can't help but be suspicious of this inordinate haste for

a bill that was left on the order paper last year. It was introduced on

July 7, and by the time we adjourned at the end of October it had not

been called once for discussion. There was absolutely no discussion of

that bill in the House. Now a bill comes in, in a slightly redrafted

form, and we're being asked to put it through the House within three

days. We have to be suspicious of the government's motive in trying to

get it through so quickly, when they had all the time in the world last

year. If for no other reason, the opposition is opposed to this

legislation and will vote against it.

MR. SEGARTY: I would like to say a few words in support of

the legislation brought in by our minister after a lot of public input

into this legislation, going on since last year's session of the

Legislature.

I rise because I have strong feelings about this piece of

legislation. As you know, I came to Canada in 1966 and, like other

members of this assembly, such as the former member for Surrey, ran as

a member to this Legislative Assembly and won. We won because of the

warm-hearted support we received from members of our constituency

associations and from the people who voted for us in our ridings. Since

I came to Canada in 1966 I have found the people of Canada to be very

strong supporters of human rights and individual rights and freedoms.

Basically that is what brought me into the British Columbia Social

Credit Party in 1972.

During the period of time from 1972 to 1975 we saw some changes in

individual rights and freedoms in our province, such as we talked about

in question period today, where only unionized construction workers

would be allowed to participate in government projects. We talked in

question period today about other individual rights and freedoms: the

rights of volunteers to go in and work in intermediate-care facilities

and provide assistance to those people who are less fortunate than a

lot of us. People who would want to go in and do volunteer hair-styling

in intermediate-care facilities, as mentioned by the second member for

Surrey, would be denied today that basic right to go in and provide

that service. Those areas are supported in large part by members of the

New Democratic Party, who would sanction that type of situation. That's

a situation that I don't think this government can tolerate, and I hope

that this human rights legislation will address those particular areas

and concerns.

The member for Vancouver South mentioned other areas of

discrimination today, where people who volunteer their time in

hospitals throughout British Columbia today would be prevented from

volunteering their time because they are not members of a particular

association.

We also noticed, last November, schoolteachers in British Columbia

who wanted to go to work and obey the laws of the province of British

Columbia being denied the right to obey the law of the province of

British Columbia and attend to the children in their classrooms and

look after those children's educational needs. We see today where some

of those associations and unions are coming down now and fining their

members for participating in those illegal work stoppages. I wonder if

this human rights bill would prevent that from happening in the future.

Coming from a country where there were some very serious problems

with religious and individual freedoms, since 1966 I have enjoyed that

freedom that the people of Canada have awarded to me. It's a right to

go out and seek a living and live anywhere in British Columbia that you

want, to go out and work at anything you what, build your own home, go

hunting, if that is what you want to do, and live a life full in every

way. I thank the people of Canada and British Columbia for providing me

with that opportunity since 1966. Only for a short period of time since

1966 was this province governed by a party other than the British

Columbia Social Credit Party. I want to say that this party has always

been in favour of individual rights and freedoms, far more so than the

restrictive attitudes of the members of the New Democratic Party. So I

support the legislation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the recognition and acceptance of

human or civil rights in our country has been a consistent uphill

fight, all the way. The recognition of human rights didn't come as a

gift from some benevolent government; it came as a result of a struggle

by people who were subjected to discrimination for a variety of

reasons. It came as a result of their complaints, their political

action; of their awakening in the minds of politicians the idea that

their human rights should be recognized, dealt with, sanctioned in law,

preserved and protected, and that there should be some administrative

mechanism to deal with those situations where the rights of individuals

may be offended against.

For a long period of time it was a question that was debated during

election campaigns, some of them extending back, I would tend to think,

before many people in this chamber were born. But there was a

recognition of the need to convince the lawmakers of the land and of

the province to recognize and preserve human rights and human dignity.

It had to become an electoral issue, and it did. I'm sure many in this

chamber can recall the statements by political figures at the federal

level in Ottawa, as well as at the provincial level here under the

coalition government, under the premiership of the late W.A.C.

Bennett, under the prime ministership of the late Mackenzie King and

others, that there was no need to have any legislative or

constitutional recognition of human rights, because we inherit in this

country, and in this province, the British parliamentary system, and

with it the foundation of British common law, and that British common

law had sufficient aspects to it to preserve and recognize human

rights. That was the response by political figures in this province and

in this nation not too long ago.

Yes, we did have British common law, case history law, rather than

statute law that dealt with some aspects of human rights. It was under

that British common law that the people of Japanese descent in British

Columbia — Canadian-born citizens — were interned in concentration

camps. It was under British common law that native Indians were denied,

in this province and in this nation, the right to vote. British common

law preserved their human right not to vote, not to participate in

politics; it prohibited them from doing so. It was under British common

law that women were denied the franchise — all in the name of British

common law, which protected and preserved human rights and human

dignity. It

[ Page 4397 ]

is because the recognition gradually developed on the part of

political figures that there was no identifiable protection in British

common law that in various parliaments and legislative assemblies a

growing interest and desire to legislate came to pass with respect to

the preservation and recognition of human rights, the protection of

people against discrimination, or discrimination on a variety of bases.

Equality and dignity finally got some legislative sanction, not as a

result of any great generosity on the part of political figures in the

past but as a result of a struggle by people to see their legitimate,

God-given desires and rights as human beings preserved in legislation.

When the late John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada, the

first break of any significance came with the introduction in 1960, I

believe — not very long ago — of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I think

it is significant to recognize a couple of things with respect to that

Canadian Bill of Rights which the late John Diefenbaker introduced. One

was that it was just a simple piece of Canadian parliamentary

legislation. It had no constitutional capacity and wasn't a part of the

British North America Act. It would do us well in this chamber to pay

respects to that gentleman, to the Conservative Party at that time, to

the late Lester B. Pearson, who was then the leader of the Liberal

Party, and to others who were in the House. The second thing to

remember is that the government, even though it had introduced a piece

of legislation to be called the Canadian bill of rights, was prepared

to accept, and did accept, amendments to that Bill of Rights made on

the floor of Parliament. The perception then was that a Bill of Rights

is in the possession of all of the people, and as a consequence the

legislators representing all of the people should participate in the

development of that law, and they did. It truly was the development of

statute law by full participation of all members — all parties and all

ideas — without restricting amendments on the basis of their point of

origin. Amendments were looked at on the basis of their fundamental

merits.

I think that is what we should be doing here. Here we have a bill

before the House dealing with human rights that is basically the

companion of the bill introduced a year ago in July. There are some

slight cosmetic changes, but nothing of any significance. It is a bill

that is introduced with a partisan complexion to its introduction, if

not to the bill itself. I would submit that the way to go with this

particular bill would be to have it referred to a committee of this

Legislature. We have a committee with the name of Labour and Justice,

and another called Health and Education — if education is to be a

companion to this bill. Or it could be referred to a select special

committee for the purpose of listening to representations by the people

who are going to be affected by this piece of legislation — namely, the

citizens and residents of this province, as individual persons, and the

organizations in this province — corporate, union, associations or

whatever.

[4:00]

If ever a piece of legislation lent itself to representations and

input from the general public, it is this type of legislation. If the

minister could give us the commitment that that is the course of action

which the government will take — following second reading, if it wants

to.... A referral of the subject matter would be far preferable,

because then it would be done without a formal decision of the House

having been made about the principle of the bill itself — namely,

second reading. The subject matter of the bill should go to a

legislative committee — select, special, standing or any other kind —

so that the general public can say: "This is what we think about this

bill. This is how we perceive that we will be affected by it. These are

the additions that we would like to see in it. These are the changes

and deletions. Here is our support" — or whatever they may want to say

about it. This is not a possession of the Legislature alone; it

belongs to everybody and it should go in that direction.

Even the Canadian Bill of Rights, if 1960 is the correct year from

my memory, was only 23 or 24 years ago, which is not very long in the

history of mankind. Certainly it's not very long in the history of this

province or this nation where for generations and generations, for

decades and decades — more than a century in some parts of this nation

— discrimination existed, was practised and went unheeded, except by

those who were the object of the discrimination. It took a long

struggle to get to that point in 1960. Even that was a limited

recognition, of human rights. It was limited, Mr. Speaker, because

being a simple law of the Parliament of Canada, it only applied to

federal jurisdiction under

section 91 or 92 — whatever gives the

federal Parliament the exclusive jurisdiction and enumerates the

matters over which it has jurisdiction. It had no effect whatever upon

the average everyday citizen. organization, corporation or union that

functioned at other than the federal level.

Under the constitution, civil rights, as they're loosely referred

to, are in the domain of the provincial government, Even the late John

Diefenbaker's breakthrough with the Canadian Bill of Rights was very

narrow and constricted in its application. It applied to the people who

lived in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. The other

groups of people to which it applied were employees and employers, such

as in railways or shipping under federal jurisdiction, and native

Indians. But even native Indians weren't protected in any adequate way.

There was a case of a native Indian in possession of alcohol,

shortly after the Canadian Bill of Rights came into existence. Under

the Indian Act at that time — and still, insofar as the actual words in

the act are concerned, although they have been put to one side by a

formal sanctioned process — alcohol was prohibited to native people.

They couldn't possess it; they couldn't have it on the reserve; they

couldn't have it in their homes. They couldn't come into your home, Mr.

Speaker, and accept an offer of a drink from you; that was illegal for

them and for you. A native Indian person, I believe it was in

Saskatchewan, was charged under the Indian Act with being in the

possession of a case of beer. He challenged that accusation in court

under the Indian Act, claiming as his defence that the Canadian Bill of

Rights applied to all equally in this nation, and therefore he was

entitled to be treated equally with non-Indians. He lost the case —

whether it went to the supreme court or not, I don't recall — on the

grounds that the Indian Act was a specific act, which took away that

right, while the Canadian Bill of Rights was a broad, general

declaration. Therefore the specifics of the Indian Act held, and he was

convicted. So even the breakthrough under the late John Diefenbaker had

a very limited application, but it started us on the road.

Last year we moved further in the area of dealing with human rights,

and we have within the Canadian constitution a Charter of Rights. This

provincial government expressed opposition to having the Charter of

Rights in the constitution. This minister was a part of expressing

opposition to the idea that in the Canadian constitution we should

entrench a recognition of human rights. Is it any wonder that he brings

[ Page 4398 ]

forward a bill of this nature now? The argument this government put

forward was that constitutional entrenchment was not the way to go;

that if you want to deal with human rights more appropriately, do it by

ordinary legislation at the federal and at the provincial level so that

any subsequent parliament, depending on the feelings of that parliament

at the time, and depending on the political orientation of the

government at that time.... Human rights, instead of being

something constitutionally entrenched and preserved for all time, which

is what they should be, could be juggled and tossed around and fiddled

around with, taken away, adjusted, added to, changed, altered or

ignored. The government, with the introduction of Bill 27, I believe it

was, last year, and this Bill 11 now before us, has indicated the true

reason why it opposed the entrenchment of human rights in the

constitution of Canada. It's because they want to see discrimination

practised. It's true that the bill identifies areas within which

discrimination should not take place. Some of them are qualified by

age, for instance; you have to be in a certain age group to be

protected; if you are outside that age group, you're not, and you can

be discriminated against. There are a variety of qualifications in

there. We can identify these areas: you can't discriminate because of

this.... I don't want to make specific references, because I may

run afoul of the rules by talking about the details of the bill itself.

Yes, they are there.

What does this government propose to see happen if a person feels

that he or she is discriminated against contrary to this act? The first

thing we have to look at before we see what happens is the structure of

the bill on its administrative side. It's going to be administered by a

politically appointed council of five people. I know this has happened

in the past, and I also know that the Human Rights Code, which is being

repealed by this, contains a provision for appointment by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Surely we should not always hold on to

the past and look backwards in our lives, hanging on to things that are

inappropriate. Surely our obligation is to the future. The past is for

the purpose of examination, to see whether or not activities in the

past were correct or not. I submit that even though the party to which

I belong, when it was government, did in fact introduce legislation

that allowed the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint members of

certain commissions, boards and so on, that privilege should be passed

over and forgotten about. It has outlived its usefulness.

The Liberals in Ottawa, of whom the Minister of Labour is a great

supporter, and a great student of their activity.... This

legislation contains, Mr. Minister, exactly the same force that law

after law in the Parliament of Canada contains under the Liberals —

namely, the right of the government to appoint. The Liberals in Ottawa

have filled up every conceivable board, commission or council with

Liberal hacks. When they ran out of spaces in the Senate for their

worn-out, tired-old-bones, politically partisan people, they looked to

things like the Transportation Commission, and they filled them up with

Liberals. That's what's happening under this government. The minister

may smile and say: "Ho, ho! No, I don't support the Liberals." He

doesn't say that openly, but he supports their concepts, and that's

what's in this bill. They proved that with the community colleges. The

community colleges were going to be a repository for Socred

appointments; and they have been.

So the first thing to look at is that the five-member council

appointed by the government is the administrator of this act and will

deal with any complaints under it. The first thing that occurs is that

the individual who feels there is a case of discrimination against him

or her files a complaint. Then the council decides whether or not to

proceed, whether to bother with the complaint at all. It can say no,

and disregard the complaint, and not proceed with it on any one of — as

I have it — four bases.

The first foundation is that the council has no jurisdiction. They

can say: "No, we're not going to deal with that complaint because we

have no jurisdiction." It's important to remember that that decision is

a legally founded decision as to whether or not jurisdiction exists.

It's legal in foundation, not substantive with respect to the complaint.

[4:15]

Secondly, the council can refuse to proceed if the council concludes

that the complaint is better dealt with under another act. That has

with it the implication of a legal decision.

The third is whether or not it's a trivial or a minor or a vexatious

type of complaint, or one in bad faith. The council can say they're not

going to proceed. That's a value judgment, but it also has an element

of legality about it — a legal opinion as to whether something is

trivial. It's not exclusively a lay decision.

Or it can decide that it can't proceed because the situation arose more than six months ago.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Speaker. One of the fundamental

principles we have in a free society — which the member for Kootenay

(Mr. Segarty) chortled about here a while ago — is the rule of law.

Gentlemen who are Queen's Counsel would agree with that, I'm sure. Even

those learned gentlemen who don't have those letters after their name —

I was going to use another phrase to describe them — fundamentally say

that, yes, the rule of law is the foundation of our system of

relationships, dating back to Roman times. One of the fundamentals of

that rule of law is that if in law a wrong decision is presumed to have

been made, you have the right to appeal. You have the right to go to a

higher court, to somebody else, and say: "This judge didn't know what

he was talking about. It's wrong in law." You can appeal it.

But not in this bill you can't. You have a council of five Socred

hacks administering an ineffective law, making legal decisions and then

denying the complainant the ordinary opportunity under the rule of law

to challenge or question that legal decision. Is that decent and fair?

Not in my books; not in my mind. No decision of that nature should be

allowed to be made absolute, with no opportunity to proceed further.

Even in arbitration cases and grievances that arise in the

workforce, in employer-employee relationships, and even in those cases

where a person may have a grievance, launch it, proceed through the

grievance procedure and eventually get to arbitration, which is final

and binding.... Even that decision to have an arbitration board

established in labour management relations is subject to review by the

courts — not appealable, but subject to review. For if the arbitrator

or the arbitration board errs in law in making the decision about the

grievance, saying, "This is our award and we find...." Whatever

they find, that decision, if it is thought to be in error in law, can

be taken to the courts of this land and set aside, I think "quashed" is

the word. Not reversed, but put to one side, saying: "Do it all over

again; you made a mistake in law." Even in those instances where it has

always been held that the arbitration board decision is final and

binding upon the parties, it's appealable.

But not under this bill. We have a council of five people politically appointed — with no thought at this point whether

[ Page 4399 ]

any of them may be knowledgeable in the law, or whatever — making a

decision on a legal foundation, namely whether the council has

Jurisdiction to hear the complaint? If they say, "No, we don't have

jurisdiction," they are making a legal decision. Jurisdiction is a

legal question. They can make that legal decision and the complainant

is stuck with it. He has no place to go — tossed out of court, no

appeal, no right of redress, nothing — on the imagination of whoever it

might be who is on that council. If the council decides it's not going

to deal with that complaint because it should be dealt with under

another act, then obviously they are looking at this act — "What do

those words say?" — and they are looking at some other act and saying:

"What do the words in that other act say? It's our decision that this

complaint is more appropriately dealt with under another act." That's a

legal decision. They look at the act and they interpret it. When that

occurs the complainant is denied natural justice; denied the rule of

law; denied his just rights as a human being — rights that I've heard

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) talk

about in this chamber on a number of occasions, drawing into the

discussion people with odd names like "Justian" or whoever these folks

in ancient times are in the development of rights under law.

Here that same minister, with his colleague the Minister of Labour,

is going to wipe out that opportunity — no further recourse. That is

decidedly improper, decidedly unfair, decidedly discriminatory. To find

an element of that kind of discrimination in a bill which seeks to

prevent discrimination shows how deeply uncorrupted this minister and

this government are to the preservation of human rights in this

province. We only have to look to their words before, when they said

that they had reservations about entrenching a charter of rights within

the constitution because it could be better dealt with by ordinary

statute law at the federal and the provincial levels. The concept

there, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is now proving that it

doesn't have too much concern about human rights in this province.

Let me conclude with just a few brief summation remarks, Mr.

Speaker. First, the government opposed, by expressing serious

reservations, the entrenchment of human rights in the Canadian

constitution. Second, the government has imported into this bill a

provision discriminating against complainants on the basis of denying

them their ordinary rights under law. Third, it's making a political

mockery of the results of the struggle of human beings in this land

dating back more than 100 years in some parts of this nation and more

than 200 years in other parts of it, and certainly over 100 years in

this province. On the bases that I've put forward here I can't support

the bill. I would support the idea of referring the bill or the subject

matter thereof to a committee, so that the people of this province who

are going to be affected by this piece of legislation will have their

opportunity to put in their views about the type of legislation they

would like to see dealing with their human rights. On that basis we

could support it; otherwise it's not supportable.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to oppose Bill

11, the new Human Rights Act. It's very similar to the bill we saw

presented in the Legislature last year, which was introduced at that

time along with a number of other equally offensive statutes. At the

same time, the Human Rights Commission, which was set up under that

legislation, was fired, and the people who were appointed under the

Human

Rights Code to do the investigation of human rights complaints were

also fired. In essence, human rights protection in the province was

virtually wiped out, even though the Code remained on the statute

books. This province has been left without effective enforcement of

human rights legislation ever since Bill 27 was introduced in the

Legislature — in fact, ever since the Social Credit government was

re-elected on May 5, 1983.

It was a part of a combination of bills that resulted in a general

attack on the government of British Columbia coming from all over the

country and, in fact, from around the world. I'm looking at headlines

in the Victoria Times-Colonist of July 21, 1983, when British

Columbia gained its new title of "Brutish" Columbia because of the

brutish, rightwing, extremist, insensitive attitude of the government

that took office on May 5, 1983 and which presented this type of

legislation, which is only an example of that brutish and insensitive

attitude the government has taken towards the citizens of British

Columbia, especially those citizens who have the least power to protect

themselves against actions by bigots and by the government itself.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I am running for leader, Mr. Speaker, and

this is one of the reasons why I am running: to try to set up a

political organization in this province that will overthrow such a

brutish and extremist government that would present this type of

legislation.

One of the things that concerns me is that this legislation does

away with the functions of the Human Rights Commission as spelled out

in the previous Human Rights Code. I quote from the previous Code under

section 11(4):

"It is the function of the commission to (

a) promote the

principles of this act; (

b) promote an understanding of and compliance with

this Act; (

c) develop and conduct educational programs designed to eliminate

discriminatory practices; and (

d) encourage and coordinate programs and activities

promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Those are critical functions, and functions that should not be excluded under

the current act.

The previous Human Rights Code was the kind of statute that carried

within it both the carrot and the stick. The stick was, of course, the

provisions which spelled out that if you discriminated against certain

people or certain classes of people in a certain way, you would face

certain procedures and the possibility of punishment. The educational

function was the other side of the coin. This was the carrot. This was

to try to encourage the citizens of British Columbia to change their

attitudes — attitudes that were obsolete, that were based on prejudices

and misunderstandings. The major function of the Human Rights

Commission was to travel around this province and publish material

which would help the citizens of British Columbia to become more

tolerant and less prejudiced, to have a more open society and to

recognize and accept individual differences much more than they had in

the past. In fact, I suppose the last few words of the function of the

Human Rights Commission is indicative of what this government is doing

away with: that is, promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

That's our main concern about this act and the provisions that do away

with those functions of the Human Rights Commission.

[ Page 4400 ]

[4:30]

The member for Vancouver South talked a little bit about attitudinal

changes; how he and his company hire people from minority groups and

that it's only a question of attitudes. There are two ways to change

attitude. One is through education, through promotion, through

explaining to people that certain attitudes are based on prejudice and

should be changed. It's a very ineffective way of doing it. It has some

effect, but it's a very long-term effect. One thing discovered by

psychologists around the world and by experimental psychology was that

action changes attitudes. In some cases, unfortunately, behaviour

changes attitudes, and a certain element of coercion is required before

you can change attitudes. That was enunciated by the Supreme Court of

the United States way back in 1953 in the case of Brown v. the Board of

Education, when they decided that if they were going to change the

segregated school system in the United States, going to desegregate

school systems in some areas of the United States, they would have to

force, through the application of the United States constitution, the

desegregation of schools in certain states where the attitude of people

in those states was against it.

There has to be a certain element of changing behaviour through

coercive legislation. I wouldn't like to see that kind of thing

happening in British Columbia — the national guard sent to take

children to schools that they have a right to attend. It's almost

universally recognized that action and behaviour change attitudes, and

that education is a very poor substitute; it doesn't really do the job.

Or if it does the job, it takes a very long period of time. That was

also recognized by the Human Rights Commission that the minister fired

back in 1983. In their report, How To Make It Work — in other words,

how to make the Human Rights Code work — they talked about action

inducing attitudes on page 14 of that report. They talk about the

response to the challenge of "you can't legislate love."

"We are accustomed to thinking that action reflects interest

and prejudices give rise to discrimination. Another generally held belief is

that prejudices often are a result of ignorance, misconception and irrational

fear. Let us consider the possibilities if we turn things around and focus on

the educational functions of pragmatic human rights law. With vigorous enforcement,

equal opportunity measures not only articulate ideals but also commend certain

positive action. This forces new experiences on the prejudiced. The sun still

shines on a racially integrated beach. The pipe joined by a woman welder is

just as strong. The law at least creates the conditions for learning new attitudes

through practising appropriate behaviour."

What human rights law should do in this province is change the

behaviour of our citizens through legislation so that as a result of

living together with other minority groups they become more tolerant,

they experience the concerns of those minority groups and they learn to

live together as a result of that legislation. One thing that is left

out of the current Code is the action to induce changes of attitude and

more tolerant attitudes. But it also rules out education. What we

should be doing is combining education as well as legislation, and the

punishments — or the coercion — that are available under legislation

shall be to encourage a more open, free and democratic society in which

people respect each other's differences.

The other thing the commission also made sure of was that the Human

Rights Code was a vital and changing document. It made sure that the

law would change with changing circumstances in our society. As

tolerance and understanding increased through the community, and

through the commission's efforts to make more and more of our citizens

full participants in the community, then new changes would be required

in the law. New groups would be recognized who are discriminated

against, and the commission performed that function by travelling

around the province, talking to people around the province, finding out

which groups felt that they were discriminated against or that they

were suffering or left out of the current Human Rights Code. The duty

of the commission was then to recommend to the government changes in

policies and legislation which would have brought the protections of

the Code to those groups, as well as the other groups currently

included under the Code.

A number of studies were carried out. The commission travelled

around the province a number of times — I believe three times — since

the current government took office. During their travels they met with

thousands of groups around the province, with thousands of individuals,

and heard hundreds of submissions and took hundreds of briefs. They

brought down a number of recommendations. In June 1981 they published a

booklet entitled Recommendations for Changes to the Human Rights Code

of British Columbia . This was a booklet that was totally ignored by the

government and totally ignored by the minister of the day. Nothing was

done, and yet it was recognized at the time — in June 1981 — that

British Columbia was continually falling behind the other provinces in

terms of the protections granted under its human rights legislation.

This booklet recommended a number of changes to the Human Rights

Code. The minister is probably familiar with those changes, because he

is one of the ministers who ignored them. Among those changes was the

protection against discrimination to be provided to handicapped

citizens, based on physical or mental condition. We now see that that

protection is included in this new Human Rights Act, but it's only

partially included and in certain circumstances. It was surprising to

us that in spite of the fact that we had an International Year for the

Disabled, and in spite of the fact that resolutions were passed at the

United Nations to encourage additional protections for disabled

citizens, this government was one of the last to act and in fact is

only acting now to include in its Human Rights Code the protection for

disabled citizens. The United Nations resolution that was passed some

time ago stated as follows:

"Disabled persons have the inherent right to respect for

their human dignity. Disabled persons, whatever the origin, nature and seriousness

of their handicaps and disabilities, have the same fundamental rights as their

fellow citizens of the same age, which implies first and foremost the right

to enjoy a decent life as normally and as fully as possible."

That was a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly.

Only now, Mr. Speaker, under this bill, are we including disabled

citizens fully as a designated group under the Human Rights Code.

Before, they could take some advantage of the "reasonable cause"

provision under the Code. I suppose this is one of the sections of the

act that we should support, because at least it improves the act in

some measure, even though in other sections of the act the enforcement

[ Page 4401 ]

capability of the legislation is diminished. I don't know if there

is really any improvement at all, although we do agree with the

designation of physically and mentally handicapped people under this

act.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If only the act could be satisfactorily enforced,

which obviously it can't. It is designed so that it cannot be

satisfactorily enforced, so we are really doubtful as to the value of

the protection provided to that specific group.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the June 1981 report also suggested

other changes in the Human Rights Code of British Columbia that the

government has seen fit to ignore. For example, there is a

section on

sexual orientation....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is that this one?

MR. SKELLY: That's June 1981.

The commission recommended that all people, regardless of sexual

orientation, be protected by all sections of the Human Rights Code. The

new Human Rights Act does not protect citizens regardless of sexual

orientation, and I am wondering why the government has not included

those citizens as a minority group to be protected, in spite of the

recommendations given by the Human Rights Commission as far back as

1981. What does the government have to fear? Why are they so concerned

about not providing the same protection to those citizens who are

discriminated against because of sexual orientation? Under the former

Human Rights Code those citizens were entitled to a certain amount of

protection because of that "reasonable cause" provision under the old

Code. Now the reasonable cause provision is eliminated and certain

people have no protection against discrimination at all. One of those

groups is the one that is discriminated against because of their sexual

orientation, and that includes homosexuals and bisexuals according to

this human rights report of 1981. Why did the minister not make that

group a specific group to be protected under the current Human Rights

Act?

There are many other suggestions in that report of June 1981 that

the minister and the government seem to have ignored entirely. One is

the recommendation that the concept of equal pay for work of equal

value for men and women workers be incorporated into the Human Rights

Code. That was a suggestion made by the Human Rights Commission as far

back as 1981. It is included in some other human rights codes,

including, I believe, the Canadian human rights code, as well as in

some other provinces of Canada, and yet again B.C. is the most backward

province. This recommendation is not included in the legislation that

we find before us.

In 1981 the commission also recommended provisions against sexual

harassment on the job under the Human Rights Code, and that

recommendation is not included. The definition of age in

section 1 of

the Human Rights Code: in the past the Code said that it was illegal to

discriminate against a person between the ages of 45 and 65 for certain

purposes. The Saskatchewan legislation back in 1979 expanded the

coverage against discrimination on the basis of age from the age of 18

to 65. The Human Rights Commission back in 1981 suggested that it be an

open-ended prohibition against discrimination based on age, and that

there be a provision in this act preventing discrimination against

people based on age from the age of majority beyond the age of 65, and

that there be no other limit. That recommendation was also ignored. A

number of the other recommendations in that commission report of 1981

were simply tossed out the window by this minister and ignored

completely.

The one thing that the minister accepted, of course, was the right

of the Human Rights Commission to toss out frivolous complaints. It was

something the commission asked for. But in addition to giving the

commission the right to throw out frivolous complaints, the minister

threw out the commission as well, which is totally ridiculous. It does

nothing to promote human rights in this province, and as far as we're

concerned, on that basis it's a ridiculous bill. It moves us back years

and years in this province in terms of the protection of human rights.

[4:45]

In February 1983, after another series of public hearings around the

province, a new Human Rights Commission came down with additional

recommendations for changes in the Code. Many of those recommendations

were repeats of the ones made in June 1981, yet none of them was

followed up by the minister, with the exception of combining the

commission and giving it the right to prosecute cases and also the

right to throw out frivolous cases. He accepted one, single

recommendation. Unfortunately, the Human Rights Act that he's producing

now is only a bare shadow of the protections we had under the Human

Rights Code passed by the New Democratic Party back in 1973 and 1974.

None of us can really support this act. None of us on any side of

the House should support this act. Really, what it does is set us back

at least a decade, and possibly more. It destroys the rights of

minorities in the province of British Columbia who previously enjoyed

protection under the Human Rights Code because of that reasonable cause

section of the act.

Whether or not a society is free or democratic is not determined

solely on the basis of whether that society enjoys elections at the

ballot box once every four years; it's not determined solely on whether

or not we have a representative assembly such as this one. Other things

are probably even more critical, in addition to those things, in

defining a free and democratic society. One of those things is how that

society treats minority group members within that society, and the

priority which that society assigns to providing options to those

minority groups for full participation in society without fear of

prejudice or discrimination. If that society vigorously protects its

minorities through effective human rights legislation vigorously

enforced, then it can be called democratic. If it takes aggressive

action to redress historic imbalances through such activities as an

affirmative action program or requirement of equal pay for work of

equal value, then that society can be called democratic. If it takes

action to protect its citizens from literature and pronouncements which

expose minorities to hate and ridicule, then that society can be termed

democratic. If that society moves through the process of education,

promotion and consultation to encourage citizens to live together in

harmony and to respect individual differences, then that society can be

termed democratic as well.

Under this new Human Rights Act, that education and promotion

provision is taken away; that vigorous enforcement of legislation to

protect minorities is taken away. No improvements are made in the Code,

as recommended by the previous Human Rights Commission, to protect our

citizens and minorities against literature which exposes those

minorities to hate and ridicule. There's nothing in this Human

[ Page 4402 ]

Rights Act that advances citizens who have traditionally been

ghettoized and kept below the poverty line through imbalances in the

way they've been treated; nothing in the way of affirmative action

programs such as there are in the Saskatchewan legislation and in the

federal legislation. There's nothing that requires equal pay for work

of equal value, nothing that allows for the vigorous enforcement of

protection against discrimination for minorities.

This statute is completely defective. It should be withdrawn, as it

was withdrawn during the last session of the Legislature. The

government should draft a White Paper on human rights issues. It should

incorporate some of the reports made by the previous Human Rights

Commission. It should hold hearings — as the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) suggested — through the Committee on Labour and Justice so that

people can make proposed changes to this legislation to bring it up to

date not only with the Human Rights Code that we used to have in

British Columbia, but with human rights codes that are current in other

provinces of Canada and through the national government itself. This is

a defective statute. There's absolutely no way that we as New Democrats

can support it. I would call upon all members of the Legislature,

including members on the Social Credit side of the House, to vote

against it, and I intend to vote against it myself.

MR. ROSE: I hadn't intended to speak on this bill this

afternoon; however, as in many of these unplanned happenings in our

lives, I'll do what I can to express my views on a subject that I think

is probably one on which others would have a greater expertise. I'm a

little concerned — and this concern has been expressed by some of my

colleagues — about the fact that we're bringing this measure before us

with, I think, undue and unseemly haste, at a time when there is little

opportunity for public discussion of any kind, since there are no

newspapers in Vancouver. The ones that are being published in such

places as Victoria do not reach a great number of people who are going

to be affected by this new legislation. I don't see what the hurry is.

One of the reasons I want to speak is to urge the government to

delay further consideration of this bill beyond second reading until

people have had an opportunity to express their views. I suppose the

Minister of Labour could argue in a convincing way that we've had a lot

of opportunity to discuss and listen to the complaints of various

groups of people, since the bill is virtually identical to Bill 27,

which came before us about one year ago. But the minister can't have it

both ways. He can't argue on the one hand that this bill is a

substantial improvement and then turn around and say on the other hand

that we've had time to consider the legislation. The fact is that we

haven't had time to consider the legislation, and all of us are getting

wires from various interested groups, ethnic groups, groups that

reflect different social and sexual orientations, saying that they want

an opportunity to appear, or at least to organize their objections to

what some people have described as a nefarious piece of business. We're

not happy with what is in the legislation, and we're not happy with the

haste in which it's been introduced and the attempt here — while

nobody's looking, while there are no newspapers — to proceed has at

this time. There is no opportunity....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: My hon. friend, my old and distinguished colleague,

suggests that we should close the place down. I wouldn't object to

closing the place down. If we could be assured that we could go through

second reading and no further, and close the place down, I would

certainly be moved to consider that. This isn't what we're asked to do,

though.

The people in this room are seldom discriminated against. As I have

observed many times, very few losers get elected as MLAs — unless I can

provide the exception. Most of the people here are Caucasian,

reasonably well educated and come from reasonably affluent backgrounds.

Some of them have been very aggressive and have done very well for

themselves; some have inherited lots of rich farmland, like my friend

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), whose

family were once known as the squires of Dewdney — or Suicide Creek, as

it's more popularly known as in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the note.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether this note was sent to help me or not.

I would like to say that a bill against