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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 1

[ Page 7051 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

F. Gingell: It is my pleasure today to introduce an old friend who was a member of this House from 1974-1979. He's here to look at the furniture on that side of the House, not on this side. He has already sat on this side of the House, and he wants to do something different next time. I would ask the House to please welcome Gordon Gibson, who was the MLA for North Vancouver-Capilano from 1974-1979.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like the House to give a very warm welcome to 33 grade 5 students from St. Michaels University Junior School who are in the Speaker's gallery. You should be aware that they have been writing exams all morning -- successfully, too, I would take it. They are here as part of their studies on parliamentary democracy. They are accompanied by the school director and social studies teacher, Gaye Stone; the assistant director and computer sciences teacher, Cliff Yorath; and assistant teacher, Ms. Cook. I understand they are also accompanied by some parents. Could you give these students a very warm parliamentary welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'd ask the House to welcome Mr. Paul Keenleyside, a good friend from Burnaby-Edmonds, who is in the chamber with a business associate of his, Mr. Kellan Newsam. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Barnes: I understand that attending with the group of students just introduced by the hon. Premier is a son of a former long-sitting MLA, Frank Calder. I'd like to ask the House to welcome Frank's son Erik, to whom I would like to designate Frank's former name, "Little Chief Junior." Wherever you are, Erik, we are pleased to see you here. Your dad did a good job. Let's make him welcome.

L. Reid: I'd like the House to please welcome 50 students from the Thomas Kidd Elementary School in the riding of Richmond East. They are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Patti Carpenter, Mrs. Marylou Topp, Mrs. Leslie Brown and Mrs. Stephanie Chessa. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

A. Warnke: In the gallery today visiting from Chilliwack is my mother, Mary Warnke, as well as my aunt and uncle, Margaret and Helmuth Warnke, and my cousin Wilfred from Wetaskiwin, Alberta. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I see in the gallery today a good friend of many of us in the government. She is a community activist from Surrey and now a member of the investment business community. Would you please welcome Susan Sanderson.

R. Chisholm: Today in the gallery we have Mr. Scott Wallace from Robertson Annex School in Chilliwack, with approximately 60 students from grades 5 and 6. They are here to observe how parliament works. Would you make them most welcome.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to add to the welcome of Susan Sanderson, one of my constituents. I would also like to welcome to the House two additional friends, Fred Storey and Hazel Peters.

Introduction of Bills

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Notaries Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this act today. The proposed amendments will allow notaries to provide their services through companies incorporated under the Company Act. The existing professional responsibilities and liabilities of individual notaries to their clients will in no way be diminished by practising through a notary corporation. These amendments will provide notaries with the same advantage of incorporation available to other professions such as lawyers, dentists and architects. An additional minor amendment to the act will rectify a past error by increasing the number of members permitted to practise in the Quesnel notarial district from two to three.

Bill 41 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.

[2:15]

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 40, the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993, implements certain changes to the corporation capital tax announced in the budget speech on March 30 of this year. In moving first reading, I'll state the primary purpose of the bill.

This bill increases the exemption threshold for the corporation capital tax to $1.25 million of paid-up capital from $1 million of paid-up capital. It also implements numerous technical changes to the capital tax. Many of these changes were recommended by the corporation capital tax technical committee, an industry-government group convened to provide the government with advice on technical improvements to the capital tax. These changes will improve the fairness of the tax and reduce its compliance burden, particularly on small businesses.

[ Page 7052 ]

Bill 40 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.

Oral Questions

PROPOSED GUARANTEE OF LOAN TO NATIVE BROTHERHOOD

R. Chisholm: My question goes to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Does the minister have a policy on providing loan guarantees; and if so, could he please disclose it to the House?

Hon. A. Petter: My ministry does not provide loan guarantees.

R. Chisholm: To the same minister. The federal government approved a $5 million loan subject to private sector participation. The Penfund in Ontario authorized $10 million if the provincial government would guarantee a 75 percent loan to the Native Brotherhood of B.C. They are requesting it for the fisheries. To date, they claim that they have heard nothing from this minister. Is it the policy of this government to disregard the public's needs and prevent viable economic development?

Hon. A. Petter: On the contrary, I have met with the proponents of this proposal, as has the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. That proposal has been considered by the government and will continue to be considered by government. If the guarantee is provided, it will be done in the normal course of approvals -- through Treasury Board, etc.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: If that is the case, would the minister commit a time line so that this native brotherhood can start making plans about how their economic development is going to go ahead?

Hon. A. Petter: This proposal has been given very searching inquiry by the government. It's one I'm well aware of. We will continue to evaluate it. An answer, with respect to their request, will be forthcoming in due course, but the member can be assured that we as a government take the proposal seriously and will act on it in due course.

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Minister of Transportation and Highways has indicated that he doesn't believe the privatization of Highways maintenance has been cost-effective. How does the Premier expect British Columbians to believe that the review that has been ordered will be impartial and fair, given the prejudice that the minister has already shown toward the review?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll take that question on notice.

CANADA-U.S. SALMON NEGOTIATIONS

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This summer is expected to bring a record run of salmon back to harvest. To date, we have yet to sign an accord with the United States over allocations, while the United States is trying to grab an extra 28 percent of British Columbia salmon. To the minister, what is the ministry going to do to help the British Columbia fishing industry run smoothly this summer and see that British Columbia gets its fair share of fish?

Hon. B. Barlee: For the first time in history, British Columbia has an individual at the table. His name is Bill Lefeaux-Valentine, and he's very knowledgable about the fishing industry. The Americans, unfortunately, are being very hard on this initiative of ours. They took approximately 361,000 sockeye last year. They receive an average of about $65 million of extra fish every year. We're addressing this at the international table. We have a representative there. He represents us extremely well.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: To the same minister, I'm wondering what the time frame is. Is it a fact that the whole summer will go by and we will essentially lose our fair share of fish? What's the time frame?

Hon. B. Barlee: Of course the time frame is under the aegis of the federal Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. John Crosbie. We are players at the table. We have one representative out of eight. There are eight American representatives as well. We have been in a stalemate position for approximately eight weeks. We are not budging from our position and do not intend to. We think we should receive our fair share, and I think in the end we will.

POACHING OF CONTAMINATED SHELLFISH

K. Jones: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We've been informed that there is a large operation poaching contaminated shellfish on the east coast of Vancouver Island. What is your ministry doing to assist federal Fisheries to correct this situation?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the hon. member knows that this is under the aegis of the federal Fisheries, DFO, and not under our aegis. We were reading about it the other day. Fisheries officers are checking the situation, as they have been for the past two decades.

K. Jones: Federal Fisheries already laid charges in the last two days in that case. If you were thinking that they're ongoing, they have advanced. They've indicated

[ Page 7053 ]

that they need the help of the provincial Fisheries people in order to make this effective.

INSPECTION OF SEAFOOD PROCESSING PLANTS

K. Jones: Your ministry is in charge of food inspections. We've been informed of a case in the Cowichan-Ladysmith area where red tide was found in 9 percent of the clams. When was the last time that seafood processed in plants on the east coast of Vancouver Island has been inspected for this life-threatening disease?

Hon. B. Barlee: Unfortunately, the member has it a little mixed up. We are not in charge of inspection of foods of Fisheries.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

K. Jones: If the Minister of Fisheries is unwilling to take responsibility for the health of the seafood coming from this coast, who is responsible?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm not unwilling to take charge of it, but unfortunately the federal government won't let us. I'd love to be able to answer your question, but we can't do it.

FOREST SERVICE SUMMER JOBS

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Social Services minister. Tuesday's announcement on the forest worker development program promised 850 jobs in the Prince George area. Can the minister advise us what procedure will be used to fill these positions, and how an applicant goes about obtaining one of those jobs?

Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member may know, this program is an enhancement of a considerable amount of work that has gone on in the past. Through our income assistance offices we've targetted the program to people most in need, so our office has been assessing people in preparation for this announcement. We have a number of people ready to go into the program. Indeed, we have a waiting list not only in Prince George but in some other parts of the province as well.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: Can the minister then confirm that every one of these jobs was in fact filled as much as a week in advance of the program being announced and that new applicants need not apply?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm tempted to say that this is what's called hitting the ground running. It's a very good program, and we're pleased to be part of it. It provides training and support for people on income assistance and is a considerable investment by our government for the people of B.C. As the member indicated, we have been able to fill many of those positions, and it will provide opportunities for those folks. As we announce further initiatives through B.C. 21, we intend not only to ensure that those jobs are filled but that this program is a success.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: Can the minister tell us how many of the 3,300 jobs announced for all of B.C. were filled before the program even started? Can she confirm that these people will only be employed long enough to collect UIC -- or will they be employed for the full term of the project?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This extensive program is a partnership with the Ministry of Forests. It has three different levels. The entry level will be filled 75 percent by income assistance recipients and 25 percent by additional target groups, and it will be supported by and through the Ministry of Forests. Our involvement with that project supports income assistance clients in training to ensure they can successfully be attached to the work force and can take the next two steps in the program toward the possibility of actually running their own companies in every community this project has been targeted for.

This not only invests in people on income assistance but provides a future for communities in general. I would hope this member would get on side and support the program.

JOB ASSISTANCE

A. Cowie: To the Minister of Social Services on the UIC question. The leader of the NDP in Prince Edward Island is stepping down for a few months to go on UIC in order to save the party a few dollars. Does the minister have the leader on her list for one of these new UIC jobs?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This gives me another opportunity to talk not only about the investment that our government is providing to people getting back to work in British Columbia but also about the strength of our economy. At a time in Canada when there is such phenomenal restructuring underway, when all provinces are pressured by caseload growth, we are best positioned with this initiative to support people in that transition.

A. Cowie: I take it the answer is yes. Will the leader of the NDP in Prince Edward Island be getting travel costs?

COMPENSATION FOR HEMOPHILIACS

L. Reid: A leadership question to the Premier. Since we last spoke, four provinces have reached a decision to compensate victims of HIV-contaminated blood. What

[ Page 7054 ]

is this province doing? What are you prepared to do today in terms of demonstrating some leadership on this question?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I think that question was asked previously, and I took the question on notice for the Minister of Health.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, that question has been taken on notice.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I find it difficult to...

The Speaker: Unfortunately, there's no supplemental on a question taken on notice, hon. member.

FAIR WAGE POLICY AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

G. Farrell-Collins: I won't direct my question to the Premier, because I know he won't have an answer. I will direct my question instead to the Minister of Government Services. Will she commit today to table all of the pre-tender cost analyses that were done for all government contracts that fall under the fair wage policy in this province since this government took office?

Hon. L. Boone: All of the tenders that have been taken by this government come under the Freedom of Information Act. If the member would apply through the processes of freedom of information, we would be happy to supply you with as many as we can, but really, hon. member, I don't think tabling everything in this House is the way to address this problem. The Freedom of Information Act was put in place to address situations such as this and give members such as yourself and other members of the public access to government information. We in this government have nothing to hide from the public.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Freedom of Information Act is

an act in name but certainly not in practice by this government, because the independent contractors in this province have been trying to get that information for some time. Will the Minister of Government Services table in this House, so that all British Columbians can look at it, what these pre-tender documents are and how much the fair wage policy is costing the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess the member has difficulty hearing. I've indicated to you that those documents will be provided under the Freedom of Information Act when you request them, but I do not intend to stand in this House and table every document that is a tender for this province.

[2:30]

B.C. TRADE DEVELOPMENT FINDER'S FEE

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to answer a question I took on notice from the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday. The member suggested that the B.C. Trade Development Corporation charges a non-refundable fee to broker bank loans to small business. If the hon. member had done his homework, he would have known that B.C. Trade does not broker loans. B.C. Trade guarantees loans of small and medium-sized exporters who might otherwise not qualify for financing and would not be able to compete for, and therefore fill, export contracts.

He asked what kind of incentive a small business would have for even bothering with B.C. Trade. The incentive is considerable. During the past four years, the corporation has provided over 89 export loan guarantees worth $50 million. This program has helped generate over $300 million in export sales and saved or created 2,300 direct person-years of employment. Small and medium-sized exporters benefit from the program and are asking taxpayers to backstop their borrowing following a risk assessment conducted by B.C. Trade. We think that it's appropriate that a fee be charged to help recover the cost of administering the program.

Ministerial Statement

JERICHO HILL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF

Hon. A. Hagen: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Assisting me this afternoon is Caroline Ashby, who will be interpreting for me. She will also be joining members of the opposition who respond to the statement.

Former students of Jericho Hill School for the Deaf in Vancouver have come forward and told of their experiences there. Some of these former students have told of wrongdoing and have talked about the distress that has resulted from events at the school. The provincial government recognizes and acknowledges this distress. We are deeply concerned about the issues that have been raised, and we are committed to ensuring that they are fully reviewed and properly resolved. I want to tell the House what actions we have taken in response to this issue and to announce several new initiatives that we will extend into the future.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

In February 1992 two processes were initiated to review historical complaints about Jericho Hill School. First, the Jericho Hill intervention team was established, which includes child protection workers, mental health workers, members of the Vancouver police sexual offence squad and interpreters. This team has been carrying out an investigation of allegations of criminal wrongdoing at the school. It is also coordinating ongoing therapy and support services to complainants and their families. As the investigation is still in progress, I am precluded from making further comment on it at this time.

[ Page 7055 ]

Secondly, early last year the ombudsman's office agreed to our request to investigate complaints that the government did not properly respond to reports that some children were abused while attending Jericho Hill School. The ombudsman has indicated her intention to release her final report on this matter regarding the wrongdoing at Jericho Hill School to the public in the next short while.

We have taken a number of other steps in the last year to address the issues regarding Jericho Hill and to plan effectively for present and future operations. We are ensuring that parents and students are kept fully informed about all initiatives relating to the school. They are also encouraged to be involved in decisions affecting the school, and they were, along with other members of the deaf community, involved in public meetings that resulted in valuable input into future living arrangements for Jericho students who must live away from home.

The Education ministry has initiated a program to loan TTY machines to parents of children currently living in the Jericho Hill residence so that they can communicate with their children by phone. The Ministry of Education has also initiated an external review to examine policies, procedures and practices of the residential program, with input from students, parents, staff, the ombudsman and the intervention team. The report will be completed and acted upon within the next few weeks.

As planned, the original school facility has been closed. The new South Slope Elementary, which opened in September 1992, and Burnaby South 2000, which opened this year, have facilities and programs designed to address deaf students' needs in a school setting for both deaf and hearing students. From both physical and program perspectives, these schools offer the broadest possible range of quality education options for deaf students, whether they live at home or in the Jericho Hill residence.

Finally, Jericho Hill School students are eligible for the residential historical abuse program, which was created in July of last year to provide counselling support to B.C. residents who state that they were sexually abused as children while living in provincially operated or funded facilities. We also recognize that we need to continue to provide additional services and assistance to the students and former students of Jericho Hill School.

I want now to tell the House about several new initiatives we're undertaking to help us achieve that goal. Today the government is opening a new deaf access office for Jericho Hill respondents. This independent office for deaf people and their families will provide information on the government's response to allegations of wrongdoing at Jericho Hill. It will also provide referrals for follow-up counselling, a 24-hour help line for the deaf and health and vocational services. This office, as I said, is open today and is taking inquiries.

As well, the government is committed to investigating and resolving issues arising from civil claims of former students of the school. We are pleased to confirm the appointment of Tom Berger to provide legal advice to the province on these issues. Mr. Berger is a senior lawyer in private practice and a former justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He has provided notable service to both the provincial and federal governments on the commission on family and children's law, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry and the commission on aboriginal and Inuit health care.

Mr. Berger will review the civil claims of former Jericho students, and he will also provide recommendations and advice to government on how these claims can be resolved. Mr. Berger will begin his work as special counsel at the beginning of July. Additional support for former and present students is being provided through the well-being program, jointly funded by the Ministries of Health and Education. This program provides mental health services to current students at the school and residents' and coordinates' counselling for any former students requesting services.

This year the well-being program will expand its community outreach and operate a mental health services program for the deaf. Priority will also be given to the following services: counselling for deaf children, youth and adults who allege they were sexually abused; individual and family counselling for deaf clients with multiple or severe adjustment problems and disorders; school mental health services for children currently attending the Provincial School for the Deaf and their families.

I want to reaffirm this government's commitment to helping former students of Jericho Hill resolve the issues they have raised with us. We respect their views, and we understand their concerns over the past as well as their hopes for their own futures and the future of Jericho Hill School. We are working, and will continue to work, to help students and former students move forward with their lives and to ensure that Jericho Hill School provides a positive educational experience for students and their families.

Deputy Speaker: The Opposition House Leader responds for the official opposition.

J. Dalton: I am pleased to respond to the statement of the Minister of Education. I would first like to thank the minister both for the briefing that the Third Party House Leader and myself received this afternoon and for a copy of the statement in advance. It was certainly helpful.

This topic, unfortunately, is one that is becoming far too common in our society. It's unfortunate that this type of issue has to be addressed. I want to assure the government that we certainly applaud the efforts they have undertaken to date and the efforts that are being initiated from this time forward. We -- and the public in general -- certainly look forward to receiving the ombudsperson's report on the Jericho Hill situation. We also look forward, as the minister commented in her statement, to the external review report that will be forthcoming soon.

In addition, I would like to compliment the minister and the government for the opening, as of today, of the deaf access office. That will certainly be helpful for both former students and their parents in the ongoing

[ Page 7056 ]

support, which is certainly needed in an issue like this. We also are encouraged to see the appointment of an excellent person by the name of Tom Berger to deal with the civil claims. Everyone in this province knows well the credentials of Mr. Berger. We have every confidence that his assistance will go a long way toward alleviating at least part of these very difficult times for the affected people.

I would comment in particular about this well-being program that the minister has announced, because I'm very pleased to see a joint effort between the Ministries of Health and Education on this topic. I think that is certainly to be applauded. I'm hoping it is evidence that ministries, more and more, are collectively coordinating their efforts on issues such as this one. The counselling and other services that will be provided by the well-being program certainly are to be applauded.

[2:45]

Again, we in the opposition are supportive of the efforts of the government. I do thank the minister for the information she provided today, both before and in the House itself. We are assured, and I can assure the minister, that we will be kept up to date on the ongoing issues. We will certainly cooperate in any way we can to ensure that these types of difficulties are addressed in an objective and meaningful manner, so the people affected are assured there is support out there. Again, I thank the minister. I know all members of the opposition are very concerned about the issues that have been raised.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to respond to the ministerial statement with respect to the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. It's not often that we on this side of the House can stand united and even deliver a verbal bouquet and have a sense of pride in an initiative of this government. I'm particularly grateful for the opportunity to be present at the minister's briefing session and also for the sensitive and realistic actions the ministry is taking in a very difficult and unpleasant situation.

The actions and ongoing support that the government is providing to students who were at the Jericho Hill School and their families is indeed very positive. I feel a strong sense of pride in this most meaningful initiative that the government is undertaking, which is very important not only for the students and parents involved but also for all British Columbians.

A great deal has been stated on the details by the minister and the official opposition critic, and I won't dwell too long on it other than to applaud the initiative, especially the one to put deaf and hearing-challenged students into a traditional school environment. Through that type of integrated facility, they can mix with other students and perhaps have a greater opportunity. I heartily applaud that. I think many of us yearn for the day that we are able to do even better than that.

Hopefully that day will come, where, for example, the children will not be displaced from their homes and have to travel to and from Vancouver for the school week. On the whole, this is certainly one of the most positive initiatives the government has taken. I applaud the Minister of Education and the government, indeed.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In Committee of Supply A, we will have the estimates of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

I call second reading of Bill 33.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. A. Hagen: I rise in second reading debate on the amendment to the human rights bill, first of all, to put this amendment in a context -- a very important context for us in British Columbia and Canada.

Hon. Speaker, racial violence and racially motivated attacks are on the rise around the world. Acts of discrimination, distribution of hate propaganda and racial violence appear to also be increasing in our own province. In the past two years alone we have witnessed cross-burnings, organized hate fests, hate hotlines and the targeting of young students as potential recruits by white supremacist organizations.

Groups which perpetrate organized hate activities in communities and schools are also sometimes connected to sophisticated worldwide networks. In Canada, more than 50 organizations are known to promote white supremacy and hatred against identifiable cultural and racial groups. We do not want this kind of hatred to take root in British Columbia, a province whose long history is one of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. Hate activities and propaganda present a very real threat to our society and its values.

They undermine the dignity and self-worth of all of us, but especially those who are often the most vulnerable in our communities. Hate activities and propaganda contribute to disharmony; they erode the tolerance and open-mindeness that must flourish in a democratic society. Our Canadian courts have recognized that hate literature victimizes and brutalizes people.

People subjected to hatred or contempt because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics suffer fear, humiliation and a loss of self-esteem. Hate propaganda depersonalizes people. It can even cause people to renounce personal differences that mark their diversity. Regrettably, it can operate to convince listeners -- sometimes subtly, sometimes loudly -- that members of particular groups or classes should be despised.

The result may be an increase in acts of discrimination; and we all know how some of them manifest themselves in our society as a denial of equal opportunity in the provision of employment, housing, goods and services, and the feeling of being able to move freely, confidently and with dignity in our society and in our communities. In its extreeemist form, hate propaganda may even result in incidents of violence.

It is not enough for government merely to speak out against discrimination and hate propaganda. Government must take a lead through legislation, sending a strong message to those who promote or advocate racism and acts of hatred -- a message which says that these organizations and activities are not welcome in British Columbia.

[ Page 7057 ]

This legislation provides for meaningful and real protection to individuals and groups that are victims of hate propaganda and hate activity. It provides a remedy that does not now exist within our laws, and the fair processes that are available to the citizens of our land who emanated from very diverse realms.

In bringing forward this amendment, I want to emphasize that similar legislation exists in other jurisdictions. It is legislation that the international community considers to be an important tool against racial and religious intolerance wherever such legislation is in place.

Legislation such as this amendment brings to our debate has been used to curb hate activities, including the operation of white power telephone messaging services that promote such things as Jewish conspiracy theories. It has been used to curb the holding of hatefests by supremacist organizations, and it has been used to curb the display and distribution of hate propaganda and symbols used by those who would undermine our fundamental commitment to equality and the dignity of all persons.

This legislation that we begin to debate this afternoon in second reading, on the in principle of the bill, is an important tool against hatred and intolerance. I want to state also, because there has been some suggestion that this bill does something other than that, that this bill is not a law which suppresses the freedom of expression. There have been concerns that this amendment will impede such expression. It will not. The free and vigorous debate on policies and issues of importance to us as a democratic people is one of our most important and highly cherished traditions.

The debate that we have in this House is a reflection of that vigorous debate, where we can have widely ranging and strongly held views and conduct those discussions within the bounds of fair comment and free expression of ideas.

Let me state further, hon. Speaker, that this amendment expands the individual's freedom of expression, compared to the current human rights legislation. There is a

section of the Human Rights Act,

section 2 as it currently exists, that I want to describe briefly.

Section 2 is subject to the provincial Civil Rights Protection Act. This punitive act, which relates to criminal law, prohibits any conduct or communication which promotes hatred or contempt of a person or group, and does not expressly make a distinction between public and private conduct or communication. The amendment that we have put forward replaces this

section with wording that expressly protects private communication between individuals or between individuals who are part of groups. The amendment states very clearly that the prohibition against hate propaganda does not apply to a private communication or a communication intended to be private.

Let me take this opportunity to emphasize that this amendment -- indeed, any legislation in Canada -- is subject not only to its own framework but also to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including very specifically, and at the very heart of that Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the freedom of opinion and expression. Although the Charter is relatively new in our laws, going back only a matter of around ten years, it supersedes all laws. It's the framework in which our laws are cast, and it guarantees freedom of expression.

Let me read one of the clauses -- the framework statement -- that is particularly significant as we debate this legislation.

Section 2(

b) of the Charter recognizes "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" as fundamental freedoms.

Let me state again, then, that the free and open debate we are having on this amendment is a reflection of the freedoms that we enjoy. As we look at the ways in which human rights and the rights of minority groups in parts of the world are being harmed, damaged and violated, we come to recognize how important the freedom for us to have this vigorous debate is. Fair comment and public debate of issues important to our society continue, and will continue. But as a free and democratic province, we draw a line at allowing people to be attacked by hatred and contempt.

I want to just take a moment to speak to those words, because they are not words we normally use in this House. I believe that they refer to strongly held emotions that are often expressed in vilifying words that are harmful to those to whom they are addressed. All of us have seen those words, depictions and signs. I believe that all of us agree that when that language, those symbols and those signs express the strong emotions of hate, contempt and vilification of an extreme nature, we do not tolerate that, and we would not want to have that as part of a free and diverse democracy.

There is also strong jurisprudence dealing with these issues. For example, in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a case involving John Ross Taylor and the Western Guard. It was a federal case tried under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Western Guard produced telephone messages that exposed Jewish people to hatred and contempt. The court ruled that the right of equality must be balanced with the right of freedom of expression.

This case provides us with one of our most recent and significant rulings in jurisprudence on this important issue of drawing the line with respect to extremes of behaviour through speech, writing, symbols and signs, which this amendment addresses. The Supreme Court of Canada made it very clear that courts and human rights tribunals must balance freedom of expression with the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against nor to be objects of hatred or contempt. It is up to our courts and tribunals to determine that balance on the merits of each case.

[3:00]

I want to put this in the context of our tribunal, the B.C. Council of Human Rights, and its responsibility for our human rights legislation. I would like to say -- and I know I say this with the support of many, because I have heard it spoken about in the discussions about this amendment over the last few days -- that our B.C. Council of Human Rights has an excellent reputation for fairness not only in Canada but also internationally.

[ Page 7058 ]

I want to take just a moment to describe the process that would take place if a person or group believed that they had been exposed to extreme hatred and contempt and wanted to seek the remedy available to them through the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Act. First of all, there's a very careful procedure for filing a complaint. The very first test is that the complaint must fall under the council's jurisdiction. Complaints are only accepted when they have passed those good and thoughtful threshold tests in the context of jurisprudence: the rulings of human rights tribunals and courts across the country and, as I said earlier, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is not a place for frivolous complaints; those are not accepted by the council. The complaint process is fair. We deal here not only with the person who is making the complaint but also with the respondent -- the person or group against whom the complaint is laid. If the council finds that the complaint is within its jurisdiction, it will first inform the parties and ensure that they are fully advised about the nature of the complaint and that the respondent has all of the information.

Its first approach is to mediate the complaint, because in many instances there are people who do not recognize the effect of their action, and through a process of discussion and mediation very often there is a means of resolution. It may then pursue the complaint further to deal with verification and refuting of the allegations. Following that investigation, both sides are provided with a report and have an opportunity to offer any additional information. Again, discussions can occur between the complainant and the respondent with the assistance of the council and its staff.

Only then does the council refer the complaint to a hearing or dismiss it for insufficient evidence.

If the complaint is upheld through a hearing, then the council has certain remedies available to it. I want to emphasize that we're not dealing here with criminal proceedings involving jail sentences or heavy fines. The council can assign damages; it can provide compensation. Most importantly, I think, in respect to this amendment, the council has the power to issue a cease-and-desist order. It has the power to say: "You must stop this behaviour that is of such a nature that it offends the dignity and basic equality of the person or group against which actions in words or signs or symbols have been taken."

As you can see, if a person makes a complaint about hate literature to the council, the complaint process is fair. It's a process that is exercised in the context of our jurisprudence and the supremacy of the Charter in respect to the freedom of expression around fair comment. Finally, if the complaint goes its full course through a hearing and a decision of a member of the council, the legislation provides for remediation remedies rather than punishment. As a further protection and procedural safeguard, all or any of the council's rulings are subject to judicial review by the courts.

Going back to my comments when I began to describe this process, the council's decisions have a record of being fair and balanced. There are very few occasions when its judgments have gone to judicial review. The amendment that we are debating this afternoon does not change this fair and democratic process. And it certainly does not eliminate freedom of expression; far from it. It celebrates that freedom around the vigorous debate that we need to be able to have on any and all policy and key issues of the day. But it does strengthen the ability of individuals and communities to deal with hatemongering by providing them with a fair and balanced course for seeking a remedy.

The other day in this House the Premier spoke about the balance of free and fair comment and expression, and he used an old example -- it's a very simple and graphic example, and one that we've all heard -- when he said that freedom of expression does not allow a person to stand up in a crowded building and yell "Fire!" In the debate on this amendment we are talking about a very significant number of people in our province who, with the rise of hate activity, feel personally vulnerable and may be personally affected by hate activity and hate literature.

This amendment is a way for us as government to take leadership in saying that we as a society do not tolerate such activity, and we take that leadership to a fair and due process of law.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I want to conclude by saying that legislation -- no matter how careful and well thought out, no matter how fair the process is -- will not eradicate the kinds of activities that we are talking about. We have had debate in this House before about what we, as legislators and as leaders, need to do to support communities in making our society a place where messages of hatred are not tolerated; ones where people are able to take action on their own to deal with those issues. Those kinds of efforts on the part of our communities need to continue.

I believe we all, through our lifelong learning, seek to educate ourselves to become more knowledgable and more understanding of people in our global community, many of whom are a part of the diversity of our province. We want to teach our children to value their classmates as friends, learners with them, people with whom they will work and with whom they will have citizenship responsibilities.

As a fundamental value, we want recognition that every human being has dignity and potential, and that our society is designed to support every person, regardless of race, colour, ancestry, sexual orientation or group characteristic. We are a part of community-based, worker-based, business-based action groups who speak out and act against hate groups.

I particularly want to speak about the work that goes on -- and must go on -- in our schools in that regard, because that's the place where children, in their own inimitable way, learn how to deal with these issues. Very often they teach us; they teach the older people about living with diversity, recognizing and celebrating that diversity, and embracing it as part of the health and potential of our society. Our ministry, teachers' organizations, schools and communities do a lot of work in support of that initiative.

[ Page 7059 ]

I particularly want to pay tribute to some of our schools who have taken the leadership and said: "Our tolerance of hatred expressed in our school community is zero. Our tolerance is that where we find those expressions, we will act." That is where we take this into the wider arena of our communities and institutions, and we live the kinds of things that we are speaking out against; we live the acceptance of every person as a full and participating member of our society.

I say this again because it needs to be emphasized: we are a province of enormous diversity and richness. Our future lies in our ability to embrace that diversity. As a province, we need to provide -- with our laws, our leadership and our education -- the opportunity for men and women, young and old, of all beliefs, cultures and lifestyles, to be welcome and a part of the fabric of our society.

The amendments that we are looking at today provide us with one of the tools for people to take action with when we have extreme expressions, and the tool to say that those expressions will not be tolerated and must be eradicated. They also provide a remedy for individuals and groups who may be the victims of such expressions.

[3:15]

Hon. Speaker, the amendment that we are debating here values the traditions of our freedoms, diversity and respect for humankind, and is a celebration of our children. To people who may be innocent victims, it says that we will provide a fair and due process for them to be protected against activities that we all deplore and abhor.

F. Jackson: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Jackson: On behalf of my friend and colleague the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways, I'd like to welcome to the House today a group of students from Kay Bingham Elementary School, accompanied by their teachers Miss Sharpe and Mr. McGarry. They have come here to get a closer look at our history and our government. In order to show them that they've come to the right place, I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act. Let me say at the very beginning that the official opposition supports the principle of controlling hate literature, but we are strongly opposed to this bill, for it seeks to control much more than hate literature and jeopardizes the freedom of expression.

I find it interesting to enter into this particular discussion, because I have spent most of my working life concerned about exactly what this bill is intended to address. I have been concerned about hate literature, hate comments and hate expressions whereby one group in a society attempts to downgrade others, attempts to control others, suggests that others are not worthy of being full members of a society and, in one way or another, tries to elevate themselves as being superior.

So I am particularly concerned, as is our caucus, that whatever can be done fairly, legally and in an open way should be undertaken to suppress hatred and hate organizations, as we tend to call them, within our communities.

As we approach this topic, one of the difficulties that we come to very quickly is the realization that a hate organization is a group that we classified as such from our particular point of view. The point of view of that group may be quite different. That's where we come into disagreement. We come into disagreement particularly since we have become a multicultural society and are becoming increasingly more so. What has been regarded as hateful or inappropriate in one society is not necessarily regarded as hateful or inappropriate in another society. So our multicultural awareness puts us into a bind to be able to come to common agreements with the people within our community.

Particularly since we are a multicultural society, we also are in the position of having words that we use in common but that have quite different meanings. Therefore, to be able to understand each other, we have to be very clear -- and clear with each other -- about the meanings of the words that we use. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not make those meanings as clear as we believe are needed.

In her statement, the minister indicated that there are groups within our society that we regard as expressing hatred unto others. Quite properly, we would like to control those groups and defend those people who are being unjustly hurt and whose dignity is being taken away -- if not, in the end result, their lives -- because of those actions. Those groups need to be controlled, but this is not new in our society. This has been true in Canada ever since we impinged ourselves upon the aboriginal community here. They, no doubt, can express the many times that these things have happened to them over the generations.

The minister has indicated on one hand that the remedies for this are not now available. On the other hand she has indicated that we have a number of means in our Canadian context by which even the bill that she is now putting forward is to be judged. I think we need to be aware of and reflect on those, as the minister herself has mentioned. One of the clauses the minister has taken from this bill in order to make it stronger, according to her, is that which refers to the Civil Rights Protection Act: the guarantee within the bill we presently have that "a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his [or her] opinions on a subject."

I would like to refer to the Civil Rights Protection Act so that we can be reminded exactly what it says:

"In this Act, 'prohibited act' means any conduct or communication by a person that has as its purpose interference with the civil rights of a person or class of persons by promoting (

a) hatred or contempt of a person or class of persons, or (

b) the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons in comparison with another or others, on the basis of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin."

[ Page 7060 ]

We already have this in the Civil Rights Protection Act. This protection and description are what the present bill attempts to remove from the Human Rights Act. If I heard the minister properly, she said that this was inadequate and did not suit the particular needs of our B.C. community. One of my concerns is that wherever we go in Canada, we should have similar protections and the guidelines by which we live should be the same. So I think we have properly said in our Canadian scene that there are particular areas of civil rights that should be equal across Canada, and equality should take precedence over what might be done in any particular province or part of the country.

The minister also referred to the Charter of Rights and Freedom in this regard, and she properly indicated that it takes precedence over the legislation we are now presenting. It is our concern that in amending the Human Rights Act, as presented today, this bill will be challenged, and the challenge will be won under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I quote again what the minister quoted herself in the second section.

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (

a) freedom of conscience and religion; (

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (

d) freedom of association."

This particular act not only talks about publication, but it also refers to groups of persons and -- probably without planning to do so -- begins to infringe upon that latter freedom of association. It's quite true that we do not always agree with how other people gather and associate in like manner. Still, that's one of the freedoms we respect in our Canadian scene. Unfortunately, our freedoms also bring with them difficulties in our relations with one another.

I would like to bring our attention to the Canadian Human Rights Act; it also has guidance for us. Within that act it states clearly:

"It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public, any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (

a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (

b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of..." --

and then it goes on to list a number of the sections of that particular act.

What we have suggested, even in the hon. minister's own words, is that none of these protections in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Civil Rights Protection Act are adequate for our circumstances in British Columbia. If the hon. minister is implying that these are inadequate acts, we have to be careful if we are superseding those acts in this bill and writing legislation which goes beyond them and tries to fill in where those acts are inadequate because she has also indicated that we will need, in fact, to have this very act she is bringing forth judged within the context of those others I mentioned.

Again, I refer to the Criminal Code. In the

section about public incitement of hatred, it states that: "Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (

a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (

b) an offence punishable on

summary conviction." It goes on to state that no proceeding shall be undertaken for an offence under this subsection (2) without the consent of the Attorney General of the province in which that offence is said to have taken place.

I would affirm that as we look at this bill we need to look clearly at how this particular act relates to the federal acts which are before us. Previously, in the last amendment to the Human Rights Act in this Legislature, amendments were put within these other portions of the act that we are dealing with today, many of which we in the opposition did affirm and agree with. But in this particular section, which deals with publications, we are in quite a different realm, one which has been very difficult for courts across Canada to come to any clear agreement on.

We are very clear that in this particular amendment we are treading on very sensitive ground and could, without intending to, very easily go over the bounds of proper discretion as we live and work with each other in our free society.

[3:30]

If this bill should continue further, we will have to discuss the particular clauses within this act. There are

definitions that are not in the act, leaving it open to

interpretation by a non-judicial body, even as the minister has indicated, in a way that is difficult to comprehend and to protect against. As the minister also mentioned, it puts private communication into a different context than which the original bill placed it. It takes it out of the context of the protection that was there in the preceding bill and into a very untried and uncertain possibility of

interpretation. I suggest very strongly that this bill needs to be retracted and reconsidered in light of the comments that are coming from those people in the community who have read it and studied it and are now responding to it. They have suggested to us on quite a number of occasions that it would not survive a Charter of Rights test.

One of the difficulties we have is that putting it forward in an uncertain manner gives the very groups that the minister is trying to contain the opportunity to come forward to challenge it before the courts, and in the process of so doing, put even more of their concerns, statements and material before the public. The act may end up promoting the very thing that it is trying to counteract. We would not like to see that happen.

With the same intention as the minister, that there be a way to control hatred that is aimed against other people, falsely and untrue, we would respectfully suggest that this particular bill, as it is currently written, is not the way to go about it. So we would encourage the minister to hear what the people from the community are saying and hold the bill back to have a chance to rework and reconstruct it so that it may be more definite.

The danger with this bill, as it is written now, is that it is too broad. It's too comprehensive, and because of that it will include in its scope far more than the

[ Page 7061 ]

minister has intended. The innocent parties probably will be hurt far more than the ones that she is trying to prove are guilty in their actions. Hon. Speaker, we would encourage that this be withdrawn.

One of the things that the hon. minister has said repeatedly is that we are here in free and open discussion in order to share with one another a variety of opinions freely and without prejudice.

Interjections.

V. Anderson: Now, as the members opposite begin to call "nonsense," I hear that they are not even agreeing with their own minister in suggesting that there should be free and open discussion. I would suggest and urge the minister to take this seriously: there are better ways to do this than what we have undertaken at the moment in this act. It is wise discretion to take a second look.

U. Dosanjh: The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara has made his remarks. Let me first say with respect to the so-called protection in the Civil Rights Protection Act that it came into effect in 1981, perhaps because we in Canada did not have the Charter of Rights at that time.

In the minds of the legislators, perhaps it was necessary to reiterate the fundamental right of free speech at that time. At this time, there is an explicit, overriding guarantee in the Charter that protects the freedom of expression and all the other fundamental freedoms that make Canadians and British Columbians what we are. It defines our society -- the fabric of our community that is Canada.

Whether or not this present amendment restricts the freedom of expression is the larger issue. Let me go right to the bone rather than talk about generalities. The wide-open wording of the Civil Rights Protection Act prevents both public and private communications of the prohibited kind within that act.

This amendment the hon. minister introduced explicitly and expressly reserves, guarantees and protects the right of private communications. To take that protection to its logical -- perhaps absurd -- conclusion means that members of a so-called hate group, members of a group that promotes supremacy of one group over the other, members of a racist group, can share among themselves, and mail their own newsletter to each other. That is my reading of that particular expressed protection for private communications,

whereas under the Civil Rights Protection Act public communications as well as private communications were in fact prohibited. In my view, therefore, the Civil Rights Protection Act, although never challenged in the court, was wide open to challenge under the Charter, which is not the case with the amendment that is before this House today.

It's important to look at a couple of arguments made by the member for Vancouver-Langara. In reading certain wording from the Canadian Human Rights Act, he said that it's a wording we should perhaps look at for all of Canada. The Criminal Code obviously is not sufficient for our needs in B.C. and Canada. The Criminal Code has not been able to do what we as Canadians and British Columbians want done, which is to prevent the communications of hateful literature to the public by these groups.

The Canadian Human Rights Act wording that was read by the member for Vancouver-Langara is, however, almost the same as the wording contained in the amendment before this House. The member for Vancouver-Langara obviously has not done his homework. He has not looked at the fact that Saskatchewan has a much wider and stronger protection on these issues than Alberta. In fact, our wording is almost the same as the Alberta wording, which has been there for some time and has not been challenged under the Charter.

When we come to this House, do we look at the issues that we want to deal with and then bring our wisdom and knowledge to bear upon them, or do we take partisan positions? No one in his or her right mind would say or support any legislation in this House that would have the slightest possible impact upon or infringement of freedom of expression. You have to be able to balance the rights of the minorities and the rights that we enjoy as Canadians, which are fundamentally enshrined in the Charter. Those rights have been protected -- and protected forever -- in the Charter of Rights of Canada.

We don't need to repeat those guarantees everywhere, because we know that they exist. Anyone who has studied the Charter for any length of time knows that those guarantees are explicitly and expressly present in the Charter.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada is the constitutional law of this country. What we are talking about today is the Human Rights Act of this province, which is not the constitutional law of the country. Constitutional law overrides any other law of the country. That's a very simple and easy thing to understand. Once we understand that, then we get into whether or not what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to prohibit are worth doing.

The Civil Rights Protection Act, where these prohibitions with respect to hate literature sit at present, is a quasi-criminal legislation. It is a legislation that could send people to jail. It is also a legislation that provides a remedy of civil damages in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

We want to make it easier for the people of B.C. to access the remedies available to them and to decriminalize the process of hate literature so that we as a community of like-minded individuals who want to protect our minorities, who also want to promote and guarantee fundamental rights to everyone, can access those remedies in a simpler, less intimidating and less expensive fashion. When you deal with the Charter of Rights, it is obviously important that

section 1 limits those fundamental freedoms. Let me read from it very briefly: our fundamental rights and freedoms are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." That limit has been placed on our fundamental freedoms. From my reading, hon. Speaker, this amendment does not detract in any way, shape or form from the guarantees provided in the Charter of Rights, subject to those reasonable limits.

[3:45]

[ Page 7062 ]

The other issue that some members have raised and that the member for Vancouver-Langara has raised in this House is that we have left certain words without definition. Courts of this land have been defining terms and words for us for a long time. There is a large body of legal literature on the issues of discrimination, hate and hateful propaganda, as in the Keegstra case and other cases that the Supreme Court of Canada has considered. For the comfort of my friend from Vancouver-Langara, let me quote from the annotations to

section 15 of the Charter in the Martin's Criminal Code. I'm just quoting three lines: "Discrimination is a distinction based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed on others."

In this particular amendment we are talking about disadvantages that are imposed on some groups, but are not imposed on the rest of society. As a consequence of their actions, the groups that promote hateful literature and the hatred of other groups or individuals impose disadvantages on the groups or persons that they target. There is no question in my mind, nor could there be any question in the mind of anyone in this House, that that is the consequence of the actions taken by groups that promote hatred.

If as a society we are not going to protect those groups that are now at a disadvantage as a result of the actions of the groups that we are targeting, then we are not doing our job, and we as a community and we as legislators aren't providing the kind of protection needed in the community around us.

It is important to note that in this amendment private communications are expressly protected in

section 2(2). That is more than one could say for the previous act, the Civil Rights Protection Act, which actually attacked both public and private communications on the basis of the prohibited grounds.

It is important to remember what this amendment does. It takes the matter of hate literature and propaganda into the Human Rights Act. It decriminalizes the process. Anyone who has been to the criminal courts in this province or this country knows that the court process -- and I can say this as a lawyer -- is rather intimidating. The court process can be very difficult to follow for people who have never been through the courts. Lawyers make bundles of money out of that; as a lawyer, I can tell you that.

One objective of this amendment is to make that process less intimidating and less expensive for the people of the province -- for the disadvantaged of the province, for those who may have been the victims of hateful literature or propaganda or other discrimination that is indicated in this amendment.

This

section obviously has been well crafted by those who know the law of the land and who know that the Charter guarantees do not necessarily bear repeating. Charter guarantees exist over and above anything that we are able to do in this House, and we could not override those guarantees. We could not detract from the fundamental freedoms that have been enshrined in the Charter.

Let me go to the debate about the Civil Rights Protection Act for a moment, and read -- for the comfort of some members of the opposition and others -- a quotation from the Hon. Mr. Williams, the Attorney General of this province at that time. Participating in the debate on the Civil Rights Protection Act on June 29, 1981, he said:

"One day we must achieve -- but always strive to achieve in the interim -- the goal that whatever you may be -- whatever colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin -- you, your children and your children's children can walk down the streets of this land and participate in all the opportunities that we have without fear."

That is the crux of the issue. Does this amendment do what the legislators attempted to do in the Civil Rights Protection Act? One might ask why there is a need for this amendment to the Human Rights Act. As a lawyer -- and I could be wrong; there might be an exception that I don't remember -- I don't remember the Civil Rights Protection Act being used in the last 12 years in British Columbia, because in the form it was brought to this House it was unusable. It was a laudable piece of legislation, but unusable. It was impractical because it criminalized the process, which meant you had a higher onus of proof.

In the civil aspect of it, it also took the matter into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court rather than to the lower courts, which are much simpler for people to deal with. But those were the words of the Attorney General of that time -- that that was the objective of that act. That is still the objective of the amendments that are being introduced by the hon. minister.

The Attorney General of the day quoted Lord Lindley, and I would repeat that quote from his speech. Lord Lindley made this statement in the 1900s in the Privy Council: "Every person has a right under the law, as between himself and his fellow subjects, to full freedom." He was speaking of a matter which dealt with trade and other issues. He goes on:

"It follows that every other person is subject to the correlative duty arising therefrom and is prohibited from any obstruction to the fullest exercise of this right which can be made compatible with the exercise of similar rights by others. I am not aware that the rights thus stated have ever been seriously questioned."

If you have the freedom to enjoy certain rights, you have the obligation to allow others to enjoy those very rights. This amendment imposes that minimal obligation on individuals, under threat of being faced with an inquiry before the B.C. Council of Human Rights. You have an obligation to allow others to enjoy the very rights that you enjoy. In the words of the Attorney General of the day, walk the streets of this province in this land without fear.

Let me conclude by simply saying that freedom is not something that I, you or anyone else could enjoy in the abstract. Freedom is a very concrete concept; it is a concept that sometimes is really difficult to understand, although easy to enjoy. In the culture that I come from, the freedom to enjoy some of the fundamental rights and the obligation to create a decent society where everyone is treated with respect and dignity co-exist. If those two matters did not co-exist we wouldn't have a

[ Page 7063 ]

society where freedom could be enjoyed at all. But in the culture that I come from -- if I can use the words from my culture -- the freedom to enjoy those rights and the obligation to let others enjoy the same rights are like two guests in your home. Knowing the hospitality of that culture, if you have two guests in your home, you could not discriminate against one guest in favour of the other; you would have to treat both of those guests equally in every respect.

In that sense, when we are engaged in this debate of whether or not this bill limits the freedom of expression -- in my humble submission, it doesn't -- we have to look at whether or not we as legislators are treating these two important issues of freedoms and rights, on the one hand, and the obligations, on the other, in a balanced, wise, enlightened and fair fashion.

I must submit to you that it is important, if we really want to build a British Columbia, in view of what's happening across the world, across the seas, in countries like Germany.... It happened in Spain last year. It was happening a couple of years ago with David Duke in the States -- the chap who ran for the governorship of a particular state.

If you keep all of those civil and fundamental rights issues in mind -- and what happened in Ontario, particularly in Toronto, and in Halifax, actually, some time ago -- and if you remember all of those sad chapters in our own history and in the history of the world, and the sad chapters that are being written today in places like Germany, and if we know and remember the lessons of our history as an increasingly smaller world.... We are an increasingly smaller world because the moment something happens in one part of the world, satellite television can spark whatever it does spark in another part.

[4:00]

If we are aware of that -- and the minister alluded to this -- we, as British Columbians and leaders of communities that have placed their trust and faith in us, have an obligation to move forward to provide the protection that this particular amendment seeks to provide to those British Columbians who, looking around themselves, might have some apprehension as to this province's future. We want to take all British Columbians within our embrace. We want to assure them that freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and that the obligation to treat each other in a decent and dignified fashion is guaranteed by these amendments.

B. Copping: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Copping: I am very pleased to welcome in the gallery today approximately 30 students from Burquitlam Elementary School in Coquitlam. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Robertson, and several adult chaperons. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the Human Rights Amendment Act. It's with great interest that I've listened to the minister's introduction and to the comments by members with regard to this legislation.

It must be obvious to everyone in British Columbia that all but a very small minority in this province abhor the kinds of hate literature and demonstrations that are evident from time to time. We know they are hurtful to the people to whom they are directed and are not consistent with the values of British Columbians, Canadians or indeed western society. I think we would all applaud any move that would help to reduce and stamp out that kind of activity -- to do away with hate literature, hateful demonstrations, hateful talk or hateful, discriminatory signs. Everyone in this province, or almost everyone, would want to see that accomplished.

But as the minister indicated in her remarks, you can't legislate that kind of action; you can't ensure that those kinds of results are achieved through legislation. So one has to say: if the minister recognizes that she can't legislate those kinds of achievements, why have these amendments been brought forward? Knowing that she can't achieve them by legislation, why has the minister set out to use legislation as the tool to achieve her goals? The goals are laudable ones that most people would stand up and support.

But you have to ask yourself: recognizing that we can't achieve the elimination of these things by legislation, why would the government risk trampling the freedoms that are the counterbalance? Why would the government eliminate the

section that deals with freedom of speech? Why would the government say that we must depend on the Charter? Why would the drafters of this legislation not simply, then, take the words from the Charter and insert them, as a balance, within the legislation?

The minister also said that it will be up to the courts to determine the balance between protection of rights and freedom of speech. I think that is an abrogation of our duty. If we are to be legislators then let's bring in legislation that defines our will. Let's not bring in a piece of legislation that simply removes one side of the equation and we throw it over to the courts. As elected representatives of the people of B.C., we are not going to try to establish that balance. We're not even going to recognize that balance. We are simply, by amendment, going to create a void and then force the courts to make a decision that we (

a) are unwilling to make, or (

b) are unable to make. I believe it is the wrong direction for us as legislators to look more and more to the courts, and I think it is particularly unfortunate when legislation is crafted in such a way as to call on the courts to make a decision because the legislation is deliberately silent on one-half of an equation. Surely that's the difficulty.

I happen to believe that the Human Rights Act was balanced.

Section 2(1) dealt with discrimination, and

section 2(2) dealt with freedom of speech. The bill recognized both of the competing interests. The government has simply taken out one competing interest -- freedom of information -- in an attempt, perhaps, to deliberately throw out the balance and throw this issue onto the courts, hoping to find a resolution that the minister, by her own words, doesn't believe can be achieved in legislation.

[ Page 7064 ]

I was interested to hear the minister's comments that she believed the decisions of the Council of Human Rights were sound and had served the people well. The question I have to ask is: why, then, is the legislation being amended? If in fact the council has been effective and is doing a good job, why would you amend the legislation? At the very least I would have expected the minister to provide us with an example of where the existing legislation inhibited the actions of the council and had failed. So far we've heard not one word or sentence or bit of evidence from either the minister or the government member who spoke to indicate that

section 2(2) has somehow interfered with the actions of the Council of Human Rights or in some way inhibited the intent of the Human Rights Act. I certainly hope that as other members, on the government side particularly, get up to speak they will address that shortcoming.

What experience or evidence is there with this act, which has been in place for eight or nine years now, to indicate that

section 2(2) should come out or that we should risk trampling freedom of speech because this

section has been such a difficulty in the legislation? I've seen or heard nothing to suggest that there have been difficulties with

section 2(2) under the Human Rights Act, nor have I heard from groups that it has been a difficulty. I believe that the legislation is well-intentioned and was brought forward with the best possible motives. But we knew even before the legislation was tabled, or certainly as soon as it was tabled, that it was going to be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the legislation was seen by groups, we knew almost immediately that the bill would indeed be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of the lack of balance it exhibited.

In fact, instead of dealing with the two competing interests -- the sincere need and desire to curtail and hopefully eliminate hate literature and material, whether it be spoken or written, and the challenge to balance that with the freedom of speech.... I appreciate that that's difficult. But we've heard no evidence, and there has been no reason given, for us to accept that subsection 2(2) has caused difficulties and that it should be eliminated from the act.

If we're going to ignore and take away the right to freedom of speech and the right to freely express oneself from this legislation.... The simple act of taking that out of the legislation makes a statement. Clearly, whether or not sections in other legislation cover the issue, the act of taking it out makes a statement. I would be sincerely interested in knowing why the government found it necessary to remove that section. I don't know whether I will hear about that or not. I don't know what experience the minister and the government have had, but I believe that the government and, in particular, the minister have an obligation to clarify why this

section is being taken out. Why has the government decided, after eight or nine years of the legislation being in place, that subsection 2(2) can no longer stand, even though it recognizes a balance?

Nothing else in this amendment is very new. It simply repeats the groups and identifies, and perhaps extends to some degree, the new groups that should be protected under the act. But it really makes no fundamental changes or remedies. I don't see where the existing act was not satisfactory. Until I am convinced that the existing act is not satisfactory, and until I am convinced that there was a sound reason for taking out the protection of freedom of speech, I will find it very difficult to support this legislation.

B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Copping: In the gallery today we have approximately 35 grade 5 students from Glenayre Elementary School in Port Moody, accompanied by their teacher, M. Atnikov, and several parent chaperons. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I listened carefully to the latter part of statement by the Leader of the Third Party. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to hear all that he said, because I certainly would have liked to have responded to his expressed and, I think, genuine and sincere concerns about whether this is the right legislation and whether it goes too far, or whatever. I think the answer to the question he posed will, indeed, be provided mainly in committee stage, but perhaps some of my comments will also address it. I hope they will.

I am pleased to participate in this debate and to support this measure. However, I say that -- to be quite candid with everybody here -- after suffering some anxiety. When I saw the statement of Leader of the Official Opposition in the press, when I read a couple of the accounts in the newspaper, when I listened to old friends like the spokespersons on behalf of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, with whom I have had some connection, I was worried. I thought perhaps we had done something we ought not to have, because of good intentions.

After some anxiety and some reflection and reconsideration, my conclusion is that we are doing the appropriate and the right thing, and that the measure before us is entirely defensible. I would go further and argue that this legislation, properly understood, cannot fairly be regarded as an infringement on freedom of speech.

[4:15]

To begin with, let me establish that I have a background that in this particular instance gives me a little bit of...I won't say authority, but perhaps a greater right to offer an opinion. This is the tradition I come from. Frequently in this chamber, as an academic, one feels almost apologetic. Earlier today, for example, a spokesperson for the third party was suggesting that those of us who come from the university or college community haven't been in the real world and therefore shouldn't speak about certain things. On this particular measure I think I do speak with some authority and some knowledge.

I come from that great and grand tradition of literature, thought, philosophy and understanding. I am one of those people who cut his teeth -- or one of those other individuals who cut her teeth -- on the grand tradition of reading Milton's Areopagitica when I was about 19 years old and learning

[ Page 7065 ]

it very well. For the benefit of members opposite who haven't had the good fortune -- or maybe misfortune -- to be subjected to that....

Interjection.

D. Lovick: The member opposite says: "Is that called holier-than-thou?" I hope not. I certainly don't mean to be, believe me. I am merely saying that about this stuff -- to put it in colloquial parlance -- I do know something. I suggest that what I have to say has some validity -- more than is accorded to me for other opinions I might venture in this House.

In any event, I have read, embraced, cherished and believed in those grand and noble ideas about freedom of assembly, thought, discussion and religion -- all of those things. About ten or 12 years ago, however, I had to struggle with some of my cherished convictions about freedom of expression and freedom of speech when I saw the epidemic being foisted on the public of pornographic literature that wasn't erotic. It was purely pornographic, hateful and capable of inciting violence -- in effect, of inciting violence against women.

The conclusion I came to was that yes, indeed, we cannot treat any liberty within our society as absolute freedom. Some of you will recall that when we spoke on the matter of the labour legislation whereby teachers were forced back to work, some of us on this side -- but I note apparently not on that side -- did struggle, because we recognized that what we were doing, in effect, was interfering with people's right to assembly and freedom of association, and we accepted that case.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: The former Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, says he voted against it. My apologies. Yes, indeed he did. I admire his conviction.

The point I'm making is that we grappled with that. We struggled with it, and we made the case that indeed there are no absolute rights in society. We need to recognize that. We need to treat rights with reverence and care, but we also need to recognize that circumstances will dictate how those rights ought to be regarded. I would suggest that the great ringing arguments put forward by John Milton, and by John Stuart Mill writing a couple of hundred years after Milton, don't obtain or apply very well, frankly, when we talk about current reality. That's part of the predicament.

I won't talk more about Milton. That's 330 years ago, which is obviously too long ago to pretend. Let's take John Stuart Mill, though. His classic defence of liberty, as we all know, was written in about 1863, 200 years after Milton.

L. Fox: Great lecture.

D. Lovick: I'm sorry if I appear to be condescending. I don't mean to. But by God, I give you an opportunity that maybe you haven't had before to actually learn something, so why don't you take it? Give me one and I will, so why don't you try it? Don't be embarrassed to actually admit you don't know something.

Sorry, hon. Speaker, I should be going through you. My apologies.

Let me just remind people that when Mill talked about the absolute necessity of freedom of thought and expression, he was writing at a very particular time. He was writing at a time when we didn't have universal suffrage and when less than 40 percent of the population voted. Women didn't have equal rights, for example. He was also writing before mass literacy. He was therefore talking about elites. When Mill talked about freedom of speech, he was talking about an exchange of ideas between some very privileged, unique and special individuals. He wasn't talking about mass communication, by any stretch of the imagination.

It's interesting to note, by the way, that one of the points Mill made, which members opposite will love, is that the problem with the England of his day was that all the work was collective -- all the genius was collective and there was no longer any room for individuals. Imagine; he said that in 1863. What about today?

In any event, Mill's examples of the threats to freedom of speech are about stuff like freedom of religion. He talks about Socrates. He takes us to the heights of debate, to the two great ideas, to the interchange of ideas and actions. He doesn't talk about inciting people to hatred, the lowest common denominator of speech. That's what this measure is addressing; that's what it's about.

[ Page 7066 ]

What this bill is trying to do, and what we are talking about today, is something other than what Mill had to say.

Look at what the bill does: its entire raison d'�tre is to prevent the publication of discriminatory material based on "race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or that group of persons." There is nothing about ideas, nothing about what people believe in, but rather the fact that they should not be incited to hate others on the basis of those characteristics over which people have no control -- in other words, who they are. That's what the bill is designed to deal with.

I want to reiterate a point. We can have the debate when we pose questions in committee stage and hear arguments from others who think that, yes, indeed, this has gone too far. I'm certainly going to participate in committee stage if I can. Let's emphasize again that Bill 33 is not a law aimed at suppressing individual freedom of expression. It simply isn't. In fact, you can just as readily articulate a case that this bill expands individual freedom of expression beyond the current law.

I think you'll discover that if you look at the Civil Rights Protection Act -- because, remember, that particular measure prohibits any conduct or communication, whether public or private, which promotes hatred or contempt of a person or group. This measure specifically and expressly protects private communication.

Interjection.

D. Lovick: Somebody opposite says: "Yes, but we took out the reference to freedom of expression." Yes, but remember that we live in a country that has a federal system. Every law in this province is subject to federal law: the Charter of Rights. And guess what? The fundamental rights in the Charter are there to protect you.

Frankly, I don't know what the rule is. I'm not going to draw the same conclusion I did earlier today, in talking about another measure, to suggest that members opposite are simply engaging in what appears to be a little cheap politics. I suspect this one is real, and therefore I'm trying to respond in a serious way too. But, quite frankly, I want to emphasize that I do not think one can support an argument that says: "This is a denial of freedom of expression." It simply doesn't hold up.

I also think that there are demonstrable needs for this legislation. The member for Peace River South asked not very long ago: "Why are we doing this? What's here?" He hasn't seen any evidence of problems. The obvious question one wants to pose is: "Where has he been?" Because what has been happening in this province is pretty scary. We are seeing acts of discrimination, systematic distribution of hate propaganda and racial violence on the rise. We are witnessing cross burnings, hate fests and the proliferation of telephone hotlines, where you go and vent your spleen about minority groups.

All of those are happening. The evidence on record is overwhelming. More than 50 organizations in Canada today are known to promote white supremacy -- and thereby to promote hatred against identifiable cultural and racial groups.

Members are quite right; we have measures in law to deal with it. The trouble is that what they do is involve the punitive approach and criminal prosecution. The question I want to pose to members opposite is: "What about the victims?" That's what is wrong with the law we have today. It doesn't do anything for victims; it punishes those who perpetrate the hatred. We need something that deals with those who are victimized, and that's what Bill 33 is about. That's what we're looking at in terms of a remedy.

I'm going to focus now, if I might, on one particular target, one objective....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members. You all have an opportunity to speak, if you wish, on this issue. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

[4:30]

D. Lovick: I almost wish I had an old status that I used to take sometimes in this chamber -- namely, to be the designated speaker and be allowed two hours to debate so I could, in fact, deal at length with questions. But I shan't.

I want to focus very briefly on one target, one area that explains why we had the measure, if I may. Certainly one purpose of this bill is to discourage racism as much as one can. Just a couple of points, if I might. Let's recognize and acknowledge very clearly that we are a multicultural society. We open our doors, invite people into this community and say: "We want you to be full participants; we want you to contribute to the best of your abilities. Your doing so enriches, enobles and makes life better for all of us." We say that.

I'll bet you every member in this House has said that when they go to a Canada Day celebration or citizenship court. At the same time, however, we also allow, and stand mutely by as it happens, the systemic and systematic promotion of hatred against minority groups. What this province, through this legislation, is saying -- and, by God, I'm proud we are -- is that we are not going to tolerate that; we won't.

The problem, very simply, is that if you invite people to participate and be equal partners and you say all those things to them, the sine qua non, the resulting obligation, is that you've got a duty to do something to ensure they are treated fairly, equitably and reasonably. That's what this is about; that's what we are trying to do.

So many of us, sadly, take racism for granted. We assume it's some kind of natural human attribute, condition, propensity or whatever you want to call it. Let me put it in terms that my friend for Prince George-Omineca will appreciate better than my enunciations of Mill or something. Remember the musical South Pacific? Remember that wonderful music? It appeared about 1946 or '47 -- somewhere in there.

An Hon. Member: You're not going to sing, are you?

[ Page 7067 ]

D. Lovick: I won't sing today. It's the wrong range. I'll save my singing pour ces soir -- tonight's the night. Instead, I just want to tell you what the words were. There was a wonderful interaction in that play, and in the movie, between a white American of middle-class, Presbyterian upbringing and a young woman who was Tonkinese. In the course of the movie, or the play, he sang a song that went: "You've got to be carefully taught." You've got to be carefully taught to be suspicious and fear people whose eyes are a different shape or whose colour is a different shade.

Not that you're brought up with that understanding, but you've got to be carefully taught. That is the simple reality: hatred of people who are different from ourselves isn't an intrinsic characteristic; it's taught, learned behaviour and part of a socialization process. In this measure, we are saying that we want to reverse the process, so we teach the right, better and humane values, rather than the negative, ugly and discriminatory.

I know that a number of my colleagues want to participate in this debate as well, and, as I say....

Interjection.

D. Lovick: Somebody says I lost my notes. No, that is not a problem, I can assure you.

Let it suffice to say that there are demonstrable grounds for doing this, that existing legislation doesn't protect us adequately and that clearly we as a province want to send a signal that the kind of behaviour elucidated in this bill, the kind of discrimination talked about, is not acceptable in the civilized society called British Columbia. It's a good measure, members opposite. I hope you'll think about it and get over the cliches a little bit. Take a hard look at it, and you'll discover that it is indeed worthy of your support.

E. Barnes: I first want to congratulate the hon. minister for giving us this rare opportunity to really look at a matter in our society today that gets nowhere near the amount of attention it deserves. I'm actually delighted to be standing here trying to make a contribution to this debate. I'm not sure how receptive the hon. members are, because clearly this is an issue that is unresolved. I know pretty well what the arguments are because I've been arguing them for years myself.

From the first day I came into this House, I was demanding that we come up with something that was going to reflect the goals and aspirations of our democratic society, so that all people could have a chance to live their lives with decency and respect, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion or what have you. We're still trying to find a resolution that we can all agree with.

Clearly it's not going to serve us well to be in combat over this matter. I believe that when each member thinks about it, very few of us do not agree that we've got to do much better than we've been doing. The unfortunate problem is that not everybody is affected in the same way by the complaints of those who are being victimized in our system because of a lack of sufficient means to defend themselves.

As a 235-pound, tall guy from down south, who was once a puny little guy who used to get beaten up all the time, I can tell you that what I had to do to survive I don't wish upon anybody, because I had to become quite an aggressive person in order to defend myself. Many times I wished there were some option other than what I had to do. It's no compliment to me when someone comes up and says: "I sure don't want to pick a fight with you -- look at your size." But that's what they do. What that tells me is that might is right, that power is right.

But there is no right for the guy who is disabled or for the person who happens to be of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. That somebody who is uneducated or lacking in capacity to defend themselves because they are fundamentally and essentially a human being doesn't seem to rate. That's the problem.

The language that we try to use in legislation is very complex, and we're not used to it. That's why I'm taking the time to congratulate the minister for showing the courage to come forward on something that clearly is like going into a hornets' nest. Clearly she's going to run into a lot of trouble, and we all know it. I'm not suggesting that any answer is an absolute answer. But how can any of us resist an opportunity to try to do better? Why not take on the challenge? That's all we're asking.

If the civil libertarians out there feel that their freedom of speech is impinged upon or denied in any way, come and give us an example of just what is being denied. What kind of verbalization, printed material or broadcasts do you feel that you can't do because we are trying to protect human rights? What are they?

I can tell you that it is no pleasure having to defend yourself because someone doesn't like the way you look, the way you think, the way you dress or the unfortunate things that happen to you in your life. The tragedy of it is that rather than encouraging those people, you discourage them. That's where we're missing the point. If we were to encourage the people that we don't like, show them the positive aspects of their personalities and their characteristics, and celebrate their existence no matter what its capacity, then we could include them.

We could begin to tell those people: "Hey, you count, too, and you matter. No matter how much I disagree with you, I respect you, sisters and brothers. I respect you because you're here on this earth. You have an opportunity to make a contribution and to do something on the globe, rather than being suppressed and denied, and made to feel irrelevant." How do you put that into law? As

[ Page 7068 ]

legislators, we're trying to find solutions to complex problems, and indeed we have some very serious and complex problems.

I recall my first speech, fighting against the KKK. I didn't know that the KKK had been in this province for so long. When they were sitting here, I used to demand of Allan Williams and Bud Smith, both former Attorneys General, that they do something to stop people from putting out hate literature. The Aryan Nation was one group, and there were racist pens being sold all over the place. All kinds of things were going on, and it was said: "Well, you just have to live with it. You don't want to infringe on anyone's rights." Why would anyone be playing these games with people's minds and souls and sense of respect? Why do we think that's necessary? Do we need that?

I was looking at something in the paper the other day. There is a corporation called Sega Corp. Some of you may have heard of it. They have a game they call "Night Trap." It is a video game that allows kids to push buttons and stalk women and, I gather, molest them or abuse them in some way. Now this is called "freedom of creative entrepeneurship." It's exploitation of the human soul and of our problems.

The difficulty that we have as a people is being exploited in a so-called free and democratic society, a society where you can walk the streets and do whatever you want without responsibility for the consequences of what you create. We're trying to pick up the pieces. The Attorney General is trying to find ways to deal with the problems in family court and so forth. The thing is, the freedoms are creating the problems.

Why can't we have more discipline and understanding, and more responsibility for what's wrong? We all know what's wrong. We can't go around with more and more police trying to chase people who are doing wrong things. Why don't we do the right thing? Why don't we take a stand for something and teach our kids that the world can be better? Look, we're losing ground. The world is going much faster than we can keep up with. Everything that we create compounds our problems on this earth. We talk about the family falling apart, and then we have the gall to demand that we stop this attempt to protect ourselves from something that is killing us.

There's obviously something wrong -- tragically wrong -- with irresponsible free speech. I mean, your young children are being exposed to this crap. Enough is enough; we've got to stop it. We've got to tell people: "You can evolve into a better race of people on this earth. You can be better; you don't need to carry on the status quo. Forget it; it's a lost cause."

These kids are protesting for a reason. We don't need that. We need to begin to see more value in ourselves. We need to make the dreams and virtues we talk about in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a reality, instead of demanding that we prove in black and white how we can protect fundamental rights -- fundamental freedoms to speak, to print and to broadcast. I would like those people who are going to do the printing, broadcasting and speaking to come and tell me what they are afraid of, if they are going to do the right thing.

If they're really trying to do legitimate business, if they are trying to represent their thoughts fairly and if they care about other people, what is the problem? We can't write that; that's just common sense. I would recommend that we keep trying to get the message out and that we do not blame each other. Let's start looking for our common ground. It's costing all of us.

The tax revolters don't want to spend any more money on education. They think that too many people in jail are freeloading. They don't want people on welfare. They think that we've got to have more freedom to create industry and so forth, and that we should not be too hard on the environment. They don't want to have too much sustainability, but just enough. We've got to have jobs. We've got all these problems, but we're going to have to readjust and rethink what we're doing. The way we're going, there's no leadership, no direction and no sense of what we're going to achieve.

How do we sustain ourselves when we're so free? Freedom is a two-edged sword. People are free to do all kinds of things. They get good, sharp lawyers who play games, and they just keep on going. We just keep on creating more and more problems for ourselves. As far as I'm concerned, it's absolutely putrid, frankly.

[4:45]

I'm very thankful to be in this country, to still be alive and to have survived. I have four wonderful children and three grandchildren, and I want to have a sense of hope for them and for myself. I don't want them to repeat what I've gone through or what I'm seeing. All I see is madness and hysteria. People are too hyperactive, too anxious and too insecure. They're popping too many pills and trying to escape. To where? No one is slowing down to smell the roses. No one knows what the colour green looks like -- or The Colour Purple, I guess it was called.

Friends, hon. members and hon. Speaker, we're not here to spin our wheels; we're here to try to make a difference. The people put 75 men and women here to represent over three million people in this province who have serious concerns about their future and about trying to enjoy their lives and the promises of our society. This is one of the best places in the world to live, yet we have as many problems as some countries where they are killing each other every day. We do it differently.

Stop and think about it. I feel very deeply about this, and I get angry about it. But I'm not angry at a soul. It's just that I can see that we have a problem -- and I'm sure every other member can -- but because of our partisan political system and the way we gang up on each other, we obscure reality. We don't want to stop and say: "Look, this game has carried us far enough." We need to get serious. We need to do something about our students who are not able to afford to go to school because it costs too much. People are demanding more and more money to keep up with the cost of living, and the situation has gone crazy.

People are going to have to start making different demands on themselves and standing for something that is really going to sustain us. We need personal discipline, a sense of duty and responsibility and the will to sacrifice on behalf of communities and society.

[ Page 7069 ]

We don't have that. It's no good to point fingers, because when I look at myself, I certainly haven't done my best. I'm just learning that I could do better. I have tried to do my best, but the more I learn and the more introspective I become, I realize that it's amazing that I'm doing as well I have in light of the problems that we all have to go through and the decisions we have to make and the things we have to do to survive, because there are not many people who are going to pat you on the back for playing the game straight.

You have to get in the back door and make some connections and have some friends; you don't want to relinquish any power for the benefit of the common good. These things have to change.

This bill, while contentious, and the amendment, while questionable in the eyes of some with respect to the Human Rights Council, is an attempt to give the council a better chance to meet the complaints of people who come before it. We all know that the council hasn't addressed some of the issues with respect to criminal behaviour, because it's out of their jurisdiction and there's no real mandate within the law as it now stands to deal them.

We all know that the Criminal Code of Canada is only accessible to those who have tremendous finances or economic resources behind them in order to fight and insist on having a day in court. It is not easily accessible. You usually have to go through the government of the day and get them to go through the federal government in order to make your case. You know that when lawyers start to look at whether the case is worthy of their efforts, they're looking to see whether they can win or lose, regardless of the principle. Quite often, if they don't think they've got an ironclad case, they forget it.

They say you're just going to waste your time; we can't win this.

I recall arguing with one of the Attorneys General when I was on that side of the House: "I don't care whether I can win or whether I can lose; I want my day in court. I want to argue. I want to make my point. You people seem to think that sticks and stones are the only things that matter, because they break bones and words don't hurt. You're wrong. Words do more than hurt; they have an insidious effect on you. They cripple for life. They work on you psychologically.

They demean you emotionally and inside." I can tell you, no matter how I may appear on the outside, I feel very deeply inside that I was shafted from day one down south, because of apartheid, racial separation and the humiliating and disgraceful things that I had to go through. I have never forgotten. But I don't like being a victim, and no matter how far I go, I'm never going to forget that nobody likes to be a victim.

People adjust; they learn to live up to it. It's like saying: "Have a stiff upper lip. You can make it, hang in there." People hang in there, but they don't forget, and they sometimes suppress emotions to the point that they come out in anger. It comes out in a get-even attitude. That's what we're dealing with, people who are saying: "Look, give me access. Let me know that I have some rights. Give me a means to protect myself. Let me challenge those people who would freely offend me as a human being. At least then I can believe that the system is equitable and fair.

Otherwise, I'm going to get even my own way." We all know what that's like: taking the law into your own hands. People are doing it all the time.

But we can do better; we must do better. The minister is attempting to do better by bringing this bill in, despite what the people are saying out there. I've talked to them; I've been talking to them, and I've been accused of being a softie, having the wrong attitude and not understanding how the system must work. But I don't have a vested interest in any institution out there ahead of human beings. That's number one to me; that's what I think about first.

If we are more concerned about so-called freedoms their about this person who is being offended by somebody, and we don't want to give that person an option, what do we expect them to do? Really, think about it. What are they supposed to do? I don't see any issue here other than our refusal to accept responsibility and get on with trying to care for each other.

It's a heck of a lot cheaper than higher taxes and finding more and more abstract ways of dealing with people, when all you've got to do is deal with them directly and fairly and give them an opportunity to commit themselves to something other than defending themselves in a system that is supposed to be friendly, not hostile.

We all know what I'm talking about. I don't like to talk too much, because the more I talk, the more I realize that this isn't news; it's just that we have anaesthetized ourselves to everything. People have blocked things off. People don't want to face anything, because it's too complicated, it can't be done, it's too unwieldy. "Impossible," they say. "Forget it. What are you, a dreamer?" Well, the youngsters out there are asking us to begin to dream. The youths who were out in front of the Legislature the other day -- the GRYFIN group, I think -- were asking us to begin to dream.

On Friday, in front of the Legislature, I will be meeting with some young people who are going to have a peace walk. They are asking us to begin to dream and to care about each other. I think we can afford to do that. We don't have to be so uptight about our emotions. It's all right every now and then to say: "We've gone as far as we can, academically and intellectually. Let's start talking about ourselves as people. How do we really feel?"

We have been told in school that we can't do that; we've got to be totally objective. Subjectivity has no place in your thinking. That means you're weak; you're wishy-washy. The more we are trained that way, the more we lose our sense of humanity. It seems to me that everywhere I go, the five billion people on the face of this earth are all talking about humanity. So why don't we get in on it? We're politicians; it's a good deal. We should get out there and lead the crowd that's asking for something. That's something else we know a lot about. Let's do it. There's plenty of room to play party politics, but let's get on board and try to do something.

This isn't the time to divide; this is the time to show some courage. This is the time to begin to say to the people that we know there are a lot of issues, but we're going to debate this. We're going to debate it together and we're going to find better ways. That's what we need, and I believe that every one of us understands that, despite our rather minute differences in terms of

[ Page 7070 ]

black and white on this kind of thing. In the general picture, we all must be on the same road.

I want to close by thanking the minister for bringing this amendment forward. This is a good debate. It's an important one. I expect members to make hard points. But remember, at the end of the day we are the ones that people are counting on to show some courage and change old habits and show that we can have

an act of faith for some things that are going to help us in the future. [Applause.]

A. Warnke: This is not the first time I've followed the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, and it's not the first time I've followed the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on a bill discussing human rights. It's almost d�j� vu all over again, because I recall that a year ago we heard a very eloquent statement by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, one for which I believe I complimented him at the time. As a matter of fact, if I were to recall my remarks, I said that if Bill 50 passes -- and it did -- it would probably be because of the contribution of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.

At the outset, I find myself probably saying the same thing again: if this particular amendment to the human rights bill is passed, it will be because of the contribution of someone such as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Indeed, the applause that was extended by members of the opposition illustrates full well the respect that is given to the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I say that at the outset, because all members on all sides of this House are very genuine in dealing with this extremely important issue. I agree with the member for Vancouver-Burrard. It is an important issue, and an important debate is taking place here.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

At the same time, it must also be stated that when we take a look at the content of the debate taking place.... I really want to draw certain aspects to the attention of all members of this Legislature. If we are all genuine -- and I believe we are all genuine and honourable -- then we have to look carefully at the content of the debate before us.

I couldn't agree more with the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who said all you have to do is get some big-shot lawyers who just get around the rules. As a matter of fact, I have some real concerns about that aspect. It is very easy to set up laws in such a way that all you have to do is hire some big-shot lawyers to try and get around the rules. Compare that statement with one I heard earlier from the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who I often agree with on subjects of this nature. But in his opening remarks he criticized the official opposition view that what we need in this legislation are precise

definitions of some terms, because the mere vagueness of those terms in law could stimulate all sorts of problems. That position was put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara, and I think it was sound. The reaction to that by the member for Vancouver-Kensington was: "Don't worry about it, because you just leave it to the courts, as the courts have been doing this all along."

[5:00]

That is part of the problem. On the one hand, we leave it to the courts to look at terms and argue about

definitions, especially when they are vague; on the other hand, the member for Vancouver-Burrard quite correctly puts forward the view that, unfortunately, all you need are some big-shot lawyers to get around the rules. In a sense, the statements made by the members for Vancouver-Kensington and Vancouver-Burrard hit at one core of the problem that the member for Vancouver-Langara was getting at. We have a fundamental problem here, especially when one

section of the old act is replaced by another

section that is new and simple but that does not address the original problem.

What is being deleted is the reference in

section 2: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." The Civil Rights Protection Act outlines in crystal-clear terms how one can violate fundamental principles of our democratic society and government. In some ways, the human rights legislation, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Rights Protection Act all put together have some strength. But what did we do? We deleted a

section that gives the legislation strength so that we can combat hate literature, hate propaganda and groups mobilizing for purposes of inciting hatred. We got rid of that, and replaced it with: "Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private." That is all that's in that second section.

It's no wonder that organizations that are extremely sensitive to problems of human rights -- especially to subjects such as hate propaganda and how it is applied against certain minority and ethnic groups; indeed, in some cases perhaps against a majority group -- such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which in the past has certainly not been castigated as some sort of right-wing think tank.... As a matter of fact, I was a member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and I have a lot of respect for it.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has always tried to be balanced and fair, but it has often taken a lot of flak for upholding and enhancing the rights of various minorities in Canada. I say this to preface the following point: that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association also finds the move here unacceptable. I think I can say that, quoting some sort of authority. This is an authority that can suggest that we have some serious problems here.

It's true that the B.C. Human Rights Coalition has expressed some support for this bill because it adds groups to the protection list. We of the official opposition support that as well, but we do have to have some precise definition. Admittedly, we could take this up at committee stage. We could ask the minister what is meant by "groups." What kind of group is included? We could simply accept on faith, prima facie, what is being affirmed here by the minister and leave the discussion to committee stage. On the other hand, it is well worth pointing out that there is a problem. Some

[ Page 7071 ]

very well-meaning Canadians and British Columbians with a long history of protecting, enhancing and supporting various minority groups have some serious concerns here. That's well worth expressing, alerting the government that somewhere in here is a bit of a problem.

If I listened to some members on the government side who have essentially been putting forth their support of this bill, you might think that addressing hate propaganda and hate literature is something brand-new in the province of B.C. It isn't. As a matter of fact, I would like to draw members' attention to work that was done many years ago in the 1960s, when the federal Minister of Justice appointed a special committee specifically on hate propaganda. It was headed by Dean Maxwell Cohen, one of the most respected law experts and law professors in this country.

Indeed, having met him on several occasions many years ago, I would have to add that Dean Maxwell Cohen is a person I certainly revere.

The particular study conducted by Dean Cohen was fairly exhaustive, especially for its time, but it's still applicable to the present age. Essentially, it looked at the dilemma of what to do with hate literature and hate propaganda, and with people who want to incite hate. Dean Cowan concluded that the Canadian community has a very serious problem in dealing with this kind of question. Indeed, if it is not met properly and carefully, one of the ironies about this is that an improperly worded law and legislation can actually do the very things that you want to avoid: stimulate, encourage and even abet those wh