1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th 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)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1247 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Management survey for

B.C. ferry system. Mr. McClelland — 1247

Privilege Use of unparliamentary language. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1249

Mr. Speaker — 1249

Mr. McClelland — 1249

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1249

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1250

Mr. McClelland — 1250

Mr. Smith — 1251

Mr. McClelland — 1251

Mr. Speaker — 1251

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1251

Mr. Schroeder — 1252

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1252

Mr. Speaker — 1252

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

New ferry tender specifications. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 1252

B.C. structural steel shortage. Mr. Curtis — 1253

Trading of bankrupt stock on Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Gardom — 1253

Lack of hospital space for Oakalla detainees. Mr. Wallace — 1254

Availability of auto insurance for absent British Columbians. Mr. Morrison

— 1254

Claim-free premium benefits. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1254

Capital expenditures of ICBC. Mr. Gardom — 1255

Conference on national energy policy. Mr. Wallace — 1255

Community Recreational Facilities Fund Appropriation Act

(Bill 117).

Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 1255

Public Service Act (Bill 116). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1255

An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act (Bill 113). Hon.

Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 1255

An Act to Amend the Companies Act (Bill 115). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 1255

Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 100).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 1256

Mr. Gardom — 1257

Mr. Richter — 1259

Mr. Wallace — 1259

Ms. Brown — 1260

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1262

Mr. Barnes — 1264

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1265

Mr. Williams — 1266

Mrs. Webster — 1267

Hon. Mr. King — 1268

An Act to Amend the Mineral Land Tax Act (Bill 107). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1270

Mr. Richter — 1271

Mr. McGeer — 1271

Mr. Gardom — 1271

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 1272

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill 105). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1272

Mr. Richter — 1273

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 114). Second

reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1273

Mr. Schroeder — 1274

Mr. McGeer — 1276

Weather Modification Activity Act (Bill 118). Hon. Mr.

Williams.

Introduction and first reading — 1279

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

MANAGEMENT SURVEY

FOR B.C. FERRY SYSTEM

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. On October 11, 1973, Mr. Speaker, I asked the

Minister the following question: "Has the Minister given any

consideration, because of the unrest in the ferry system among

the employees, to implementing a management survey of the

entire system as quickly as possible, as has been suggested by

some of the employees?"

His answer was, "I have no objection of any kind to having

such a survey — none at all. I intend to have one.

My question is: Does the Minister still intend to have that

kind of a study? And if so, when?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer

is yes. And I have already written to the suitable people regarding it.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Isn't it true

that when I asked that question on October 11 a management

survey had already been underway and had been underway for

seven days at that time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have authorized no management survey.

There is no management survey taking place.

MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't ask if there was a management

survey being taken at this time. I asked if there was a

management survey being taken on October 11, Mr. Speaker. Isn't

it true that there was in fact a management survey underway at

that time, and had been for seven days? Isn't it true that on

November 1 you ordered the operations manager of the ferry

system to tell the firm of Frank Machin, management

consultants, to stop its survey at that time and to pull out of

a very extensive operation which had already been started?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me say that it's about an

eight-barrelled question there.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's a very simple question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, yes it is. There has been no survey

authorized; I made that statement. When I was asked to

authorize it I said, "no." Now that's as far as it's gone.

There's been no management survey authorized. The information I

was given… I was asked to authorize it — November 1, you

say? It was about that time, and I said no. That's the

information I have.

MR. McCLELLAND: Now, Mr. Speaker, we must get the truth

here. We're not getting the truth at this time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're getting the whole truth, friend.

You're getting the whole truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! This is not a period for debate or

argument. It's for asking questions on matters of present

policy. I point out to the Hon. Member that on this point, if

he looks at Beauchesne , he is actually asking about a matter of

past history. And that is not the purpose of question period.

If you look in Beauchesne at page 147 it clearly states that a

matter of this kind should not be raised again. You're not here

to keep reviving the corpse of a question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this matter has never been

raised. It can't be raised again if it's never been raised in

the House before. I would ask the question: on October 4 did

the Minister confirm this study, or did any of the ferry

personnel confirm a study? And will you answer the question:

had a study been going on for seven days on the date of October

11?

Mr. Minister, I say that you lied to this House when you

said there was no study, and that you should resign right

now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. McCLELLAND: Lied to the House. I'm prepared to document

that and to give this House documentary proof.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My friend, you table the documents. I

challenge you…. You must table the documents. You table

those documents right now. Right now.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm prepared to table those documents in my….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll tell you what happened; sit down.

Sit down.

MR. McCLELLAND: As soon as you start telling the truth, I'll

table the documents.

[ Page 1248 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You table those documents right now!

Right now!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, please!

When a Member refers in the manner that the Hon. Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) did, it doesn't stop there. Either you

withdraw that statement immediately or you file a substantive

motion — one or the other. It depends on the House and it

depends on the Member who has been impugned. This is so

regardless of where it comes from in this House.

You either withdraw a statement where you say another Member

is guilty of lying or you have to follow it up — one or the

other. But it doesn't rest as it is now.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll do anything that's

necessary. I will not withdraw the statement, because I believe

this House was lied to on October 12. I believe that it was

lied to again today in the matter of a ferry study. There was a

ferry study going on. This Minister says that he never

authorized such a study, and that there never was such a study

going on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think we're talking about two different

things.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, we're not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute, just a minute. You

referred to a telegram that I sent the day before the strike

took place.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What else are you

hiding?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, he asked a question some weeks ago

about a telegram that was sent. I said it was being considered.

You just raised the matter when you opened up this afternoon;

isn't that right?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, that isn't right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I thought that that was what you were

referring to.

MR. McCLELLAND: You told me there was a telegram.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, but you were referring to that particular

project. Yes, you came up later with a question about the telegram; the very

next day you came back with a question about the telegram.

Now that particular study I authorized related to that

telegram I sent and the question you asked me about an

agreement with the union to make a survey, and appoint somebody

to do this.

Now when I answered this afternoon, that's what I was

referring to. Then you switched to another thing as of November

1. What you were talking about was a proposal for an internal

survey.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, that's right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: An internal survey.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you said in your remarks.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On November 1 it came to me that

management was anxious to have this done. My answer was, "no."

These are two entirely separate things.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of clarifying

this matter: the Minister is the one who is confused, because I

referred to no telegram today. I referred to a question that I

asked the Minister as to whether he was prepared to have an

internal survey done. My question is very simple today, very

simple.

I refer to the date of October 4. A study — an internal

study — of the ferry system and its management and its

employees was approved by the operations manager of the ferry

system. On October 12, the day after I asked my question, the

management survey team was told to stop interviewing either

employees or management personnel in the ferries, after there

was a statement that they could no longer maintain

confidentiality.

On November 1, following a period of almost two weeks in

which nothing was done, they were told to call off that study — not that there would be no study authorized, but they were told

to call it off. Now we are faced with a study which went on for

several weeks and for which the Province of British Columbia is

going to have to pay and which….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: …and for which nothing was done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member…?

MR. McCLELLAND: But there was a study going

[ Page 1249 ]

on at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Would all Members be seated? I point out to the

Hon. Members that the reason the rules of this House and of the

British House are as they are is because misunderstandings take

place.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's no misunderstanding.

MR. SPEAKER: Now if there is no misunderstanding between the

parties, I am prepared to say right now that this constitutes a

prima facie question of privilege between these two Members. It

is up to this House or anyone in this House to decide the

matter whether this should be investigated by a committee of

the House.

I don't think the House should be used as the place for each

Member trying to find out what the other said or what he

believed the other said. I want to point out that this is

question period, not a time for raising matters of attack on

another Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's a time for finding out the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a time for ascertaining what you said

or what you thought the other person said. I put it to the

House that it is not going any further at this time. This is

question period. If any Member wants to raise it as a matter of

privilege, I say it's a matter of a breach of privilege.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the Member

withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I also state that at no time has there

been any internal study authorized by any private company. I

demand that Member table the documents referred to. Right

now!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw his

statement regarding whether the Minister was telling the truth

or not?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister has

just repeated the same.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Table your document.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll table it in due course, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

AN HON. MEMBER: Put up or shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the House rules are

fairly clear. If a Member says to another Member an offensive

word and is asked for withdrawal, either there is a withdrawal

or an immediate tabling of documents backing up that statement.

Now we cannot have an exchange of opinions in this House on a

hit-and-run basis without a production of evidence to back up a

Member's accusations or a withdrawal. The matter cannot rest

here, Mr. Speaker — either there is a withdrawal or an

immediate tabling of documents.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Member that he has the

duty either to withdraw that statement or leave the House, one

or the other.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to do anything

which would leave this matter incomplete. I don't have all of

the documents in my possession at this time. I have no

intention of withdrawing because I know very well that I am on

firm ground and the Minister isn't. I will table those

documents as soon as they are in my possession.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have never authorized any….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You're just getting

into deeper water.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want the documents showing that I

authorized it right on the table.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member at what time he can

give an undertaking to table his documents.

MR. McCLELLAND: As early as possible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Come off it!

MR. McCLELLAND: Tomorrow afternoon then, Mr. Speaker, at 2

p.m.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Under

our standing orders, when the Member is asked to withdraw and

he has not withdrawn, there is no time of 2 p.m. or 4 p.m. or

anything else. The Member is asked to withdraw that statement

and, if he can't prove it, he must withdraw at this very time,

Mr. Speaker; otherwise abroad in the province goes the

unabashed, unsupported statement that a Member called a

Minister a liar. The rules of this House forbid

[ Page 1250 ]

that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no other course open under our rules

than to ask you either to withdraw the statement or leave the

House. Which do you prefer to do?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for a ruling on

that and the source from which that ruling comes?

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest a short recess. This will not

count in question time. I think it is a serious enough matter.

If the Hon. Member will not withdraw this statement, there

should be a recess so that we can confer on this question of

what happens in regard to the rules. I'll ask for a short

recess.

The House took recess.

The House resumed at 2:35 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: During the intermission we have had on this

question the opportunity to examine the authorities. I draw to

your attention May , 17th edition, pp. 465 and 466:

"Where any disorderly or unparliamentary words are

used, whether by a Member who is addressing the House or by a Member

who is present during debate, the Speaker intervenes and calls upon the

offending Member to withdraw the words. If the Member does not explain

the sense in which he used the words…or retract the offensive

expressions, " — and that's the word we are dealing with here —

"and make a sufficient apology for using them, the Speaker repeats the

call for an explanation, and informs the Member that if he does not

immediately respond to it, it will become the duty of the Chair to take

one or other of the steps which are about to be described."

Then it goes on to describe those two steps. Page 467:

"If he refuses to obey the direction of the Chair the Speaker

or the Chairman either directs him to withdraw from the House for the remainder

of the sitting," — that means for the remainder of the day — "or names him for disregarding the authority of the Chair."

The lesser method, the more sensible method in a

circumstance such as this it seems to me is, first of all,

since we are supposed to be hon. ladies and gentlemen in this

House, to withdraw an offensive expression. It saves a lot of

trouble for everyone and, above all, for the Speaker.

I point out beyond that, if this parliament functioned in this manner, we would

be spending all our time in attacking each other and using offensive expressions

against each other. If that were so, the business of the country would never

be done.

For centuries parliament has prevailed on the rule of law in

this House as well as outside it. Since the rule of this House

is that you do not use offensive expressions against other

Members, when called upon to do so you retract those

expressions and apologize where necessary where it is clearly a

wounding offence.

If you have another cause so deep that you must insist upon

your statement, the way to do it is not this way; the way to

do it is by a substantive motion.

Therefore, I call again upon the Hon. Member to withdraw the

expressions he used to the Hon. Minister. I am asking him now,

will he do so?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this parliament. I

appreciate the need for the kind of decorum in parliament that

you have described. However, that honour must be on both sides

of the House. Mr. Speaker, I have accused a Minister of the

Crown of being untruthful with this House and I have, in my

mind, the proof which is necessary. I have sent for the

documents which would back that up and I expect them here

momentarily.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not the way to do it, as I pointed out

to you.

What I am concerned about really is not the merits of your

case that you are trying to make here, but that this is neither

the place to do it nor the time nor the particular proceeding

in which to do it. What I am asking you to do is to withdraw an

offensive expression which you should not have used in this

manner, in this time, in this way.

You understand the point I'm making: I'm not judging the

matter between you and another Member; I'm judging only what

I'm supposed to judge, the fact that you've used an offensive

expression. That's what you are offending against in this House

right now.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I

understand your position but I must also maintain my own

position: I believe this House was lied to and I can't back

away from that. position. It's as simple as that, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, I have no other course — I've done

what May says I must do — but to order you to withdraw for the

rest of the day. I'm not naming you; I'm asking you to

withdraw. It will follow tomorrow as night the day that you

will either have some evidence you wish to present or the House

will have some steps it wishes to take. But as for now, you've

refused to obey the Chair; you've refused to obey the rules of

parliament, and you've done so in a manner that is not the

proper manner in any event. In the circumstances, what can the

Speaker do but ask

[ Page 1251 ]

you to withdraw? Our standing order 20 of our rules clearly

says: "Mr. Speaker…shall order members whose conduct is

grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House

during the remainder of the day's sitting." That's only

for today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sitting only; just for the sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I mean this sitting. There may be a night

sitting; I don't know. But for this sitting.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, you have

based your decision on the fact that you've asked one Hon.

Member to retract what you consider an offensive expression.

The Member has indicated to you that he is prepared to document

his case and present evidence to you of the reason he believes

that a Minister of the Crown lied to the Members of this

House.

Now, as an Hon. Member he's prepared to do that; he has

already said he would do that as quickly as he can have that

documentation delivered to him at this chamber. Certainly it

seems to follow….

MR. SPEAKER: May I correct the Member? I have not asked him;

I have, under the rules, ordered him to withdraw, which I must

do under standing orders. I'm not judging the question between

the Minister and the Hon. Member; I have asked him to withdraw

an unparliamentary expression. That's as far as my aspect of

the matter goes. It's for the House to decide between the

Member and the Hon. Minister, not for me.

MR. SMITH: By the same token then, Mr. Speaker, if the

Member moves a substantive motion, there is no guarantee that

that motion will ever be debated in this House, any more than

another motion of substantial nature will be debated in this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, in the meantime, since he refuses to obey

an order made by the Chair — which the Chair must lawfully

make, and I have made — I have only one alternative: to ask him

to withdraw for the rest of the sitting. Would you do that? You

can speak to it if you wish.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, in drawing my attention

to the orders of the day, you suggested that the procedure was

to call for an explanation from that Member. I believe I gave

you that explanation and offered at your suggestion, Mr.

Speaker, to table the necessary documents.

Under the terms of this House it would seem to me that if I'm still prepared

to do that, and I am, then I should be allowed to table those documents….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to you, before you go further

on that argument, that where May refers to calling upon a

Member to make an explanation, that is where his statement is

ambiguous, that is where he says something which might be taken

as being offensive.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what you said.

MR. SPEAKER: But on the other hand, he may have meant it

innocently. That's where that is used in May at page 465.

It's not a question of you standing up and calling someone a

liar and then explaining why you call him a liar. That's not

the way it's done in parliament. I'm asking you in the meantime

to withdraw from the House if you're not prepared to obey the

order of the Chair, which is to withdraw that offensive

statement.

MR. McCLELLAND: I can't withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, I ask you to withdraw; I order you

to withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like your ruling on

the process of a Member accusing another Member of being a

liar. What is the process the House must deal with if there is

no substantive motion and the Member does not withdraw? How

does the House guide itself on his return on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the reason the Speaker usually orders a

Member to withdraw is because that is the lesser penalty, as it

were, for conduct that he will not withdraw. If he does not at

the next sitting carry out his duty to parliament and to this

House and withdraw the offensive expression, the House can take

whatever steps it wishes. It's set out in standing order 20:

"The Speaker…may call upon the House to adjudge upon the

conduct of such Member or Members." It's up to the House to do

what it wishes to do. That is why a substantive motion may be

moved by the House with regard to the conduct of a Member who

continues his offence or does not withdraw his offence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm confused, Mr. Speaker, because

if the Member is out of the House, he has no method thereby of

bringing in a substantive motion.

As I understand it, the Member has accused the Minister of

lying; that is, the Member has accused the Minister of having

authorized a study and the Minister denies that he authorized

such a study. It is my understanding of what has taken

place.

[ Page 1252 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You're playing games.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we must have the tape. On top of

that, Mr. Speaker, I would give the assurance that if a

substantive motion is placed on that matter, it will be debated

immediately.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I see a gross vacuum in the rules of the House here.

If it could be assumed that the Hon. Member for Langley is

correct — regardless of whether or not he has used

parliamentary language in explaining his position — and if the

only way he can draw this to the House's attention is to file a

substantive motion, Mr. Speaker, and if it is the due course of

the House not to act upon that substantive motion, then any

Member of the Crown could be guilty of the same alleged offence

and go off scot-free. Let the motion die on the order paper. I

see a vacuum in the rules of the House. I'm a new Member of

this House; I'd like to see a solution to this.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, no Member

can assert names or insults to another Member in front of that

Member without the Member having the right to ask the

originator of the statements to withdraw. As I understand our

rules, when one Member asks another Hon. Member to withdraw, it

must be withdrawn. That's where we're at now.

Now, in terms of the case in front of us, if the Member

comes to the House on his return with a substantive motion, I

will ask the House to give leave to debate that motion

immediately. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem, but it must be

clearly defined that the ruling on somebody calling somebody

else a name is separate and distinct from the matter that must

be either proven or disproven.

For the Member to suggest that there is a vacuum is

incorrect. If that ruling were not there, then my understanding

would be that any Member could come in and call anyone a liar

and not have to prove anything. That would be a gross misuse of

this House.

If a Member wishes to make an accusation against another Member, then right

now, in this instance, the documents should be tabled so that the accused can

see the evidence against him, as is British parliamentary procedure and courtroom

procedure. I think both sides should file documents with the House and I have

no objection to seeing that, but I do not think the matter can be left there.

A Member's honour is really related to this. The Member did say it was a matter

of resignation; he demanded the resignation of the Minister. If the Member is

incorrect, then I think it's incumbent on him to resign, Mr. Speaker, because

he has laid the case on that basis.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of it is, I think, that there's no

vacuum in the situation in regard to remedies. Actually, so far

as the Speaker is concerned, I think it's important that the

Members concerned and their honour in this matter be examined

most carefully before anything that is harmful to either Member

develops. That is why the British House has a standing

committee on privileges.

In this House it would be the practice, in the event that a

substantive motion is made, that the motion must deal with an

inquiry into the circumstances. It's not enough to stand up and

debate the matter; it should be inquired into by a committee of

the House. That is the proper method to do the thing if it were

done in the conventional manner in the British House, in the

House of Commons and, indeed, in this chamber as well.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think we need to; the matter will come

up in due course. I don't want people debating the merits. I'm

only concerned with one thing at this time and one thing only:

a Member refused to withdraw an offensive expression under our

rules and, having done so, I've asked him to withdraw. Whatever

develops will develop, but certainly this is no time for taking

it up further; we've done much too much on it now.

We'll proceed with question time. Would the Clerk please

take into account the time that's already expired?

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of

the Member who has left the House, I am prepared to read into

the record documents which substantiate his case.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not the way or the

time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how can he bring forward a motion if

he's not in the House? Can I bring forward a motion on his

behalf?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: He'll be here at the next sitting. Let us

proceed with the business of the House, please.

Oral questions.

NEW FERRY TENDER

SPECIFICATIONS

[ Page 1253 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'd like to repeat a question

I've asked three times already to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. May I ask the Minister whether he's now willing

to release the ferry tender specifications sent to the firm of

Nickum Spaulding in Seattle and the ferry specifications given

to CASE Existological Laboratories in Victoria?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the question you were asking me

about last week, and I told you I was considering it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're still considering it?

In view of the fact that only these tender specifications

can determine the claim that no Canadian firm was given the

opportunity to tender on the ferry contract given to Nickum

Spaulding, may I ask the Premier whether he will instruct the

Minister to table these documents before the end of the session

so we can avoid the type of hassle that we had earlier this

afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There's no requirement to answer

a question, nor is there any right to continue to ask the same

question. You see that at page 147, item C or item D in

Beauchesne .

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On that point, Mr. Speaker, that is why,

as I know, there is no reason for the Minister to table if he

doesn't wish to do so. That's why I put the second question to

the Premier in the hope that perhaps we could avoid the

difficulty that does come when documents and information are

not given freely. The type of problem that we had this

afternoon, I feel, might well have been avoided had there been

a more free and easy exchange of information — in particular,

Ministerial information.

B.C. STRUCTURAL

STEEL SHORTAGE

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: may

I ask if he can report any progress with respect to talks I

believe he is holding with respect to the shortage of

structural steel in British Columbia?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, a member of my department is presently discussing the matter with

leaders of the construction industry. I should have a report some time today

on whether the government will be wishing to meet with the leaders of the construction

industry directly. So far we're pulling together all of the pieces of information

that we have to try to get a clear picture of the steel shortage and, in reality,

where we might be helpful.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister.

If necessary, would he communicate directly, in person or by

telephone, with steel suppliers in eastern Canada?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm not sure whether I understood the

Member's question.

MR. CURTIS: If necessary, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister

communicate directly with steel suppliers? You indicate that a

member of your department is pulling material together to

determine the extent of the shortage, but I'm looking ahead.

Should the shortage prove to be real, as it appears to be,

would you communicate with the suppliers of steel in eastern

Canada where the shortage is originating?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I do not

think it would be wise to make decisions before the information

is before us.

TRADING OF BANKRUPT STOCK

ON VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, about

six weeks ago the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) took as

notice some questions I raised concerning the trading of stock

in Geo-Star Resources Ltd., which is a bankrupt company.

Trading continued for some 16 days after bankruptcy. I'd ask

the Attorney General if, in the past six weeks, he's looked

into the matter. Were there any inside trades being carried on?

Have any measures been taken by the government to prevent the

trading of bankrupt stock on the Vancouver Stock Exchange?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Yes, Mr. Speaker, as

I said, I got in touch with the Securities Branch and also with

the exchange. They're working out a procedure whereby they will

have reported to them bankruptcies so that there cannot be

trading in the shares of deceased companies, insofar as it is

humanly possible to prevent that.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the second part of the question the Hon.

Attorney General didn't answer. Were there any insiders trading

in this particular case, which we both know of? If so, is any

action contemplated against those insiders?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take that as notice.

LACK OF HOSPITAL SPACE

FOR OAKALLA DETAINEES

[ Page 1254 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would also like

to ask the Attorney General if he has been able to take any

action regarding the nine persons in Oakalla who apparently are

there largely for medical reasons but cannot be treated in

Riverview for lack of space. Could we have some direction as to

whether this problem is being solved?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I was very concerned about

the fact that during some renovations at Riverside, it was not

possible for some order-in-council people to be taken to

Riverside for their examination as quickly as they should have

been taken under the order-in-council. But I think the matter

is cleared up now and that everybody who should be there is in

Riverside, or in another part of the hospital. I think I have

that assurance from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who

is also familiar with the situation.

Do you know of any case where there is another holdup?

Perhaps I could take it as notice to make sure that what I'm

saying is correct. I think it is.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, as a supplemental question, I'm

sure the Minister is aware of the case quoted in The Vancouver

Su n, Thursday, November 1. In addition to the question of where

the person might or might not be accommodated, there seems to

be a real danger of a person not having his case heard and

being incarcerated in one or other of these two places. Really,

what I would like to ask the Attorney General is whether he is

assured that legal procedures are available to prevent this

prolonged incarceration of people who require various kinds of

examination and investigation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member

would like to come to my office where I'll give him some

information which I would not like to repeat on the floor of

the House on that particular case.

AVAILABILITY OF AUTO INSURANCE

FOR ABSENT BRITISH COLUMBIANS

MR. N. R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport and

Communications. I'd like to ask him what happens to an

individual who wishes to leave now on an extended motor trip — and I use Mexico as an example, but there are many other places

that I could use…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Who is that? Who is leaving — McClelland?

MR. MORRISON: Not I. …and he does not expect to return

until after the first of March. Apparently he cannot at this moment get

insurance beyond March 1 from an independent agent. What, if anything,

can he do now before he leaves, because he will be out of contact until

he returns?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's fairly simple. There are about 4,000

people annually who flee British Columbia for warmer climates,

and every year they are faced with the problem of getting their

valid vehicle plates. They get their mail forwarded to them and

they send the cheque for the plates to the Motor Vehicle

Branch, and the Motor Vehicle Branch, in turn, sends the plates

back so they have valid plates when they come back into British

Columbia.

This year along with the notice for new plates will go the

notice for insurance. They will fill that out, send it back and

with the plates they will get their coverage for insurance.

MR. MORRISON: How about driver's licences? Same thing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Driver's licences? Well, if they are away

and the driver's licence expires…I don't know what they do

if their driver's licence expires and they are out of the

province for five or six months. I suppose they write for a

temporary renewal or something like that.

MR. MORRISON: Does his insurance go on his driver's licence…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not at the same time, no; that will be a

later thing. It will be by mail the same way, no matter where

they are.

CLAIM-FREE PREMIUM BENEFITS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, I

notice that Mr. Norman Bortnick has stated that because there

is no access to personal claims records, all drivers will be

starting under the new scheme on par. I would like to ask the

Minister whether he will be taking steps to preserve the

claim-free position of many drivers who, under the present

system of private insurance, are sometimes paying less than 50

per cent of the actual premium because of their good

record.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know how that can be done without

the records of the present insurance companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ask for them?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a further question. I quote

only from the press that the green

[ Page 1255 ]

book on accident records has been given to the ICBC. I

wonder, if that is the situation and if this information is

available, whether the Minister could give assurances that the

low premium for those who are claim-free — not myself,

unfortunately — could still continue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The green book was given to us without

any figures related to British Columbia. After about 30 days

the tapes relating to British Columbia, on which the green book

figures would have been based, were made available to the

insurance corporation. They refused to make the programming for

those tapes available to us.

We had to go to work and work out our own programming, and

then take it from there. But that doesn't give you the

individual accident-free case. It doesn't give you that

information at all. It doesn't give you the name of the person

who has been accident free. What we are taking into

consideration are the points which each individual driver has

in determining his rate for the coming year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is that the only thing?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the only thing.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I just ask the Minister whether or

not, if the individual can produce proof which extends perhaps

back over 15 to 25 years of good driving and failure to have a

claimable accident, whether this will be taken into account as

well as the point system which deals with a relatively short

period of time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Everything will be taken into

consideration. I expect a statement within the next week or two

with regard to all aspects of the operation.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OF ICBC

MR. GARDOM: Another question to the Minister of Transport,

Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister if he has now received the

figures of the capital cost expenditures of the Insurance

Corporation of B.C.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You know, you keep objecting to people

consulting people outside the House, and I am trying

desperately to get the time to dig out those figures.

CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL

ENERGY POLICY

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Premier if he's had any

response to the telegram he sent requesting a national

conference to form a national energy policy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've had two replies. I've

had acknowledgment from the Prime Minister's corresponding

secretary, Mr. Lawless, noting that the telegram had arrived

and was brought to the Prime Minister's attention without

delay. And I've a reply from Premier Davis of Ontario. He says:

"I appreciate your sending me a copy of your telegram to Prime

Minister Trudeau calling for an immediate meeting on energy.

That initiative and concern parallels my own views." And he

would agree to an early meeting on the subject.

I heard over the air that Mr. Jetty of Alberta responded

positively to my telegram as well. I do believe, Mr. Member,

that this conference would assist in avoiding the kind of

emotional clashes that appear to be building up between some of

the provinces and Ottawa.

Introduction of bills.

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FUND

APPROPRIATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Community Recreational

Facilities Fund Appropriation Act .

Bill 117 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.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Public Service Act .

Bill 116 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VITAL STATISTICS ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Vital

Statistics Act .

Bill 113 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE COMPANIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill 115 intituled

An Act to Amend the Companies Act .

[ Page 1256 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 115 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.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, public bills and

orders: second reading of Bill 100.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wonder

if before discussing second reading of Bill 100, I might ask

leave of the House to file a copy of a study on the impact of

minimum wage revisions which I had promised to table with the

House some time ago?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the new Human

Rights Act of British Columbia, I'm very pleased to announce

that under this bill we have extended the coverage and the

particular bases upon which discrimination might be viewed and

dealt with by the Human Rights Commission. Under the old

legislation and through experience we found that not every type

of discrimination was recognized under the Act and that the

enforcement procedures under the old Act were less than

effective in terms of penalizing those people who did violate

the spirit and intent of the Human Rights Act .

We found also one of the very frequent criticisms of the

previous legislation was to the effect that it was kind of a

rearguard action. There was no real thrust developed by the

Human Rights Branch to educate the people on the implications

of the bill and what their obligations should be in terms of

eliminating discrimination.

When I say this, Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't intend to

infer any criticism upon the people involved in the Human

Rights Branch of my department. They were certainly governed by

the strictures of legislation and the strictures of

departmental organization which prevented them from developing

the kind of educational programmes which should be developed to

get the message abroad in the Province of British Columbia on

what type of action the employers and tenants should undertake,

what kind of advertising they should do in terms of their

relationship with the landlords and with their tenants.

So one of the prime thrusts of the new legislation is to extend the coverage

to cover public facilities, also any rental accommodation that might be advertised

publicly — whether it be commercial or a smaller unit. We have provided that

protection will now be based and provided against discrimination with regard

to race, religion, colour, nationality, ancestry, or place of origin; we have

extended that to prevent discrimination in any kind of public facilities whatsoever.

The criteria on which discrimination is judged now is the concept of reasonable

cause. In other words, the only reason by which a landlord, who advertises public

space, could deny access would be an obligation on his part to provide reasonable

cause for restricting its access to any member of the public whatsoever. So

in tenancy that's an important extension of protection, particularly, I would

suggest, to lower income groups who more frequently are obliged to rent space

in smaller units that are not of the commercial type. So this is an important

advantage and an important extension of the protection of the Human Rights Act .

We have provided for a clearly spelled-out prohibition of

discrimination in wages. There is a requirement that equal pay

be provided to men as well as women. That's a departure from a

situation which existed under the old Act. The sole criteria

now is on-the-job classification and upon the capabilities and

qualifications of the individuals, be they men or women. I

think that conforms to the spirit of human rights.

We have attempted to provide that there will be no

discrimination in employment advertising. There will be no

further indication of sex in terms of advertisements for job

opportunities — again this meets the spirit of the human rights

legislation.

I would point out that previously discrimination was

prohibited on the basis of race, religion, sex, colour,

nationality, ancestry or place of origin, or age if over 45

years. But now far wider protection is given, based on common

law principles ensuring the right of equality of opportunity

for all. Recognizing that employment is a basic right necessary

for survival in our society, the code maintains the principle

of equality of opportunity based on bona fide qualifications

rather than race or sex.

Specific protection has also been included under this new

Act. I think this is a first, to my knowledge, for those people

who may have been convicted in a

summary conviction and are

thus penalized in terms of employment.

We have all seen cases perhaps where employees have been

dismissed from their employment simply by a

summary conviction.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that unless the crime for which they

were convicted relates in any way to their employment and

jeopardizes the security of the employer, then they have paid

their debt to society. It should not fall to any employer to

set himself up as a higher agency of law enforcement than the

courts; he should not have the right to seek to assess

additional economic penalties on workers. So this is an

important addition

[ Page 1257 ]

to the new code and I think it's one that is long overdue,

Mr. Speaker.

We have a

section now which states that a trade union has

the clear responsibility of ensuring that any contract

negotiated with an employer will be free from discrimination.

The trade union as well as the employer has an obligation and a

requirement under the Act to recognize the principles of

equality and to refrain from negotiating any discriminatory

rates of pay, whether they be based on any of the traditional

concepts of sex, colour, ancestry or any other

consideration.

The administration of the new Act is changed a good deal. We

have sought to extend the personnel involved so that adequate

information can be disseminated from the department. We have

sought to grant more independence for the Human Rights

Commission from the department.

We have similarly given the branch the right, indeed the

responsibility, not only to act as an agency for education and

persuasion but also to initiate actions of their own volition

should discrimination be uncovered in any area. In other words,

they are not restrained to a strictly responding role now; they

have the authority and they will have the wherewithal to make

themselves a vital force in the community, not only in terms of

educating the public, employers and trade unions on what their

obligations are under the concept of equality and human rights,

but also in .terms of coming to grips with violations, rather

than sitting and waiting until a complaint is received from

some individual who feels he has suffered as a result of

discrimination.

This is a new and positive approach, I suggest; it

recognizes the need — and I can't stress that too much, Mr.

Speaker — that I think is quite apparent for a better

educational job to be done in terms of persuading people to

refrain from discrimination and to use the persuasive approach

rather than a punitive one.

Indeed though, should this type of conciliatory approach

fail, we have, under the enforcement sections of the bill,

provided for tougher penalties, not only in terms of recovering

lost salaries but also in terms of recovering, through

summary

conviction, insult to one's integrity and any mental anguish

one could encounter to his detriment in the community through

being discriminated against. I think this is an additional

indication that this government is prepared to get the message

across loud and clear.

It's not good enough simply to compensate someone for

discrimination in terms of wages. I think it is necessary to

bring forward a penalty for indulging in the kind of activity

which could materially affect an individual or a minority's

social standing in the community, their peace of mind and their

self-respect as individuals. This is what the new and tougher

penalties under the Act seek to achieve.

The boards of inquiry will be set up in such a way that they

will be a vital community organ for coming to grips with

discrimination in the communities rather than dealing with it

as a centralized authority of government. I think this is

something else again which will serve to make people at the

community level aware and cognizant of their responsibility to

treat their fellow man in a decent and respectful way.

This is just a rough outline of the Act. I think that some

of the new concepts contained in it are long overdue. I think

the procedures of the board are such that the whole question of

human rights will be pursued a good deal more vigorously than

has been the case heretofore.

Finally, I suggest that the penalties for flagrant and

blatant abuses of human rights in this province will be met

with up to $5,000 fines in addition to the recovery of any lost

income the person has suffered.

I suggest this type of approach to human rights should bring

the focus of public attention on everyone's obligation to treat

his fellow men as equals, to live up, Mr. Speaker, to what I

submit is one of the finest encyclicals to come out of Rome

when the Pope suggested that "every man is worthy of his hire."

I think that is an assertion everyone can embrace. I think it

is a goal incumbent upon all members of free societies to

achieve and to strive toward.

I submit that this bill is a major step forward along that

road. I commend it to the House for second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we are

going to support the measure; there is no question of a doubt

about that. It's an improvement upon the former legislation,

but in itself it is still pretty thin soup. I think that the

people in B.C. are continuing to be burned up with the very way

this government fiddles around with law reform. The measure

that has been proposed today is really one that has been in

gestation for a number of years.

I think perhaps the most significant thing about the bill is

the areas of its silence. I would like to speak about three

such areas which are most notable and certainly should have

been contained within the principles of this legislation.

Firstly, the bill should have provided a right to sue the

Crown. I think this very old hoary concept of "the Crown can do

no wrong" and "government is umbrella-ed from the arm of the

law" is something that should have perished with the divine

right of kings.

Surely to goodness all of us agree that the citizen is the

cornerstone in democracy. He should be fairly entitled to wage

his case against government. And government, with its enormous

resources and with the largest personnel and power to defend we

have ever had in this province, should not be permitted to

[ Page 1258 ]

hide behind the door of that very archaic theory. I

certainly would have hoped to find and am truly astonished that

we do not find within this measure the right to sue the

Crown.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it's appalling to me that we continue

not to have legal aid for the needy in the Province of B.C.

It's all very well to come out with a measure such as this, but

with the advance of science and technology and improved

economics, these things must never be at the sacrifice of

values. If today's society, with its fabulous advances, is not

able to come up with something that it was unable to do before,

it surely should be subject to the very highest degree of

censure.

The values that I am talking about are the dignity of the

individual, the respect for law and order and, I would say, the

very sacred responsibility of a contemporary society to nourish

those things. I think it's a very clear lack of public morality

when it doesn't.

The Economic Council of Canada said: "We are in times of

dynamic change and social ferment and our decisions for policy

actions are things of the present and not for the future." What

we need, Mr. Speaker, is political action on legal aid in this

province this very instant.

Unfortunately one of the characteristics of the law that has

been one of its most serious burdens from the outset is its

gap has been closing, it's true, but not significantly. And I

say it has been closing only as a result of the piecemeal

contributions of time and effort by individuals and private

organizations. The time has come for us in British Columbia to

take on legal aid, not just as a social measure but entirely as

a democratic right.

You know, it was way back in 1838 that Charles Dickens,

through the mouth of the beadle in Oliver Twist said, "the law

is a ass." I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's surely the

very height of assininity in this day and age not to create a

means of access to the law that is equal to all.

Justice must not only be done but must appear to be done.

There's no quarrel with, its being done within the walls of the

law courts, but that is of very little comfort to those people

who are unable to get through the doors. I'd say how very

justifiable this criticism is with this affluent government and

its billion dollar budget when it walks away from improving the

citizen's means of access to the law.

Everyone has the right to see the light, Mr. Speaker. That's

the job of all of us. For anyone to suggest for one minute that

there is equal access to the courts in British Columbia would

be rank hypocrisy. This is not any criticism of the lawyers or

of the courts — they try. But the poor cannot afford the due

process of law.

Again quoting the Economic Council of Canada, "Poverty in Canada is real; it is more than simple income

deficiency; it carries with it a sense of entrapment and hopelessness and the

poor tend to be collectively inarticulate." Those are very stark statements and raw facts by the Canadian economic council.

Unfortunately the poor view legal redress as a luxury. We

say that it is everyone's right. We are calling for equal

justice for all, not by relegating it to the charity of some

but government-supported legal aid for all of those in

need.

The requirement of need would have to be established. A

certificate for legal aid could issue in pretty well every kind

of legal case — accidents, contract cases — mandatory in the

bulk of them and discretionary in certain other items.

However, Mr. Speaker, until such time as we do have a proper

legal aid plan in the Province of British Columbia, there will

not be equal access to the courts of our province, which is a

disgraceful thing indeed.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped also as a third

point that we would have found included within this legislation

a direct reference to a need that is becoming more evident to

the government — at least I'm sure from the numbers of letters

that are sent to government Members and also from their taking

a look at the daily papers — and that is that the public are

clamouring for an ombudsman for the whole of the province.

It's very puzzling to me, when we're talking about human

rights legislation, which this truly applies to, why we don't

see built within this bill the right to have an ombudsman.

Particularly, Mr. Speaker, with the ever-mounting role by the

state which is going on daily in this province, we must have

checks on the exercise of administrative authority. The red

tape is growing, the bureaucracy is sky-rocketing and still no

one has a hand to put on the brake to help poor old Joe Q.

Citizen wade through this kind of maze.

You know, Mr. Speaker, long ago when common law remedies

were found to be inadequate because they were oppressive or

impossible, the court of equity was established, whose job it

was to do the right thing, to do equity and to assist in fair

discretion and to help and assist one over the hurdles and the

burdens of precedent. That's what we need in B.C., an ombudsman

with very wide powers to do equity in the realm of government,

to assist and screen complaints and to funnel suggestions to

appropriate government departments for action. His guideline

would be fairness and his job to help; and I say to help to

cure the effects of the impersonality of government, which is

growing with the socialistic administration in British Columbia

every minute of every hour of every day.

We've got to have that kind of office established so the

little fellow in our society can receive a helping hand and can

receive some degree of assistance to

[ Page 1259 ]

wind his way through the abuses of petty officialdom.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, the government has come in with

legislation but it is pretty thin stuff. If it had included in

it the three measures that I'm speaking of, it would have found

the widest of approbation, not only from the opposition side

but. from all the people within our province.

[Mr. Dent in the Chair.]

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this

bill is somewhat different from the previous legislation;

there are some additional provisions in it. The official

opposition will be supporting the legislation, but in the

course of moving through committee there are probably one or

two points on which we would ask clarification in particular

sections.

The success of this legislation, in my opinion, will be in

the administration and in the

interpretations placed on the

provisions of the Act as it is applied throughout the province.

We will be supporting the legislation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): This party also is impressed by

many of the improvements which are contained in this bill and

we will certainly support it. I would agree with the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) in that this party would be

even happier if we had the right to sue the Crown and the

institution of an ombudsman.

At least the Attorney General is on public record as having

promised that the right to sue the Crown will be introduced in

the form of a bill at the spring session. I hope that this

statement of the Attorney General was reported correctly. I

notice the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is nodding his

head, so it's reassuring that we will have the right to sue the

Crown in the spring of next year.

Another point that has been brought to our attention and

brought to the attention of every Member of the House is the communication from the British Columbia Civil Liberties

Association, which is suggesting that we look at the

possibility of having the commission responsible to the

Legislature rather than to any one department of government. I

have only received this letter today but it does seem to me

that since the wide scope of this bill covers almost every

aspect of human public activity it would not seem unreasonable

for the Minister to reconsider whether or not the commission

should be made responsible to the Legislature rather than to

one department.

The Civil Liberties Association points out that the functions of the commission

involve protection, enforcement and safeguards for minority groups, things which

don't fall into any one department but in fact involve the function of the justice

department, the Department of Human Resources and other departments. I would

just say that this seems to me to be a very reasonable suggestion.

I would say in passing that the British Columbia Civil

Liberties Association is a very useful agent for the

legislators of this province in that they're always bringing

forward some other point of view, which I think Members on both

sides of the House should always read and consider attentively.

I think their efforts are particularly useful to the non-legal

Members of this House who sometimes are not aware of all the

nuances of the legislation as it's introduced.

The emphasis in the bill that I like best of all, and which

the Minister commented upon, was the educational role of the

commission. I think in many ways the respect for human rights

is a matter which has to be engendered in the public by

education rather than by legislation. This is not for a moment

to disregard the importance of this legislation and the very

specific language which spells out rights in certain areas

where perhaps they've been weak or non-existent before; I'm

talking about the advertisements for jobs and

accommodation.

I have to confess that the reason I think education is so

important is that we made one of our own big blunders in our

party earlier this year when we advertised for a research

assistant. I honestly confess to the House that it never really

crossed my mind — when we placed the ad which had two big

headings; the top heading was "The Man" and the second heading

was "The Job" — to exclude female applicants for that job. When

this was drawn to our attention, it was painfully clear that

the only real

interpretation you could take from the ad was

that we wanted only a man.

As it happened, we did interview several ladies and we

finally chose a man who was the best person for the job. But I

think education of the public is really a vital part of this

bill and one which we like very much.

I was shaken in this House the other day when I raised a

matter unrelated to this bill. The Premier obviously is basing

a decision today on some unpleasant experiences he had as a

caddy at a gold club about 30 years ago, where some golf

course, quite unjustly, practised racial discrimination. I'm

assuming that the government really is keen and wishes to

practise what it preaches in this bill, but I have to say with

the utmost regret that that was not the conclusion I came to

the other day when the Premier made his most unfortunate

remarks about the golf courses in this country.

I've made further inquiries, and as far as I can determine,

Mr. Speaker, there is no golf course in the whole of British

Columbia which practises racial discrimination. Yet it was very

obvious when the Premier responded to debate the other day that

he is

[ Page 1260 ]

making judgments on a present situation about which the

government might legislate based on some unfortunate

discrimination which occurred many, many years ago.

I just say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the

Premier rises above the righteous anger and indignation which

he experienced as a caddy when he was a young man and realizes

that he's living in a somewhat different world today. Certainly

the different kind of world is exemplified in this bill. His

response shows that we all are easily given to remembering

events of many years ago which may or may not exist today. We

have to make our important judgments and assessments,

particularly as legislators, on the evidence and the real world

that exists today, not on discrimination which occurred 30

years ago.

One of the other features of the bill which we think is

forward-looking is stopping this discrimination against people

over 45, opening up the possibility that they can obtain jobs,

and not be prevented from obtaining these jobs because of

difficulties in getting into a pension plan.

Time and time again I've encountered men and women who for

no reason of their own have to find different work or change

their occupations in the middle years of 45 and upwards. They

just have a terrible time in our present society. So often,

when I inquire into the specific reason, it seems that if they

cannot enter the pension plan at the place of employment then

they are prevented from obtaining work. The fact that this bill

recognizes the unfair discrimination against people seeking

work in this age group is to be commended.

The Minister has already talked about penalties and the

access to damages which should result when a person's character

or integrity is questioned due to racial or other reasons. The

penalty of $1,000 is certainly not out of line with the kind of

insult that this can cause to individuals. If he has made any

mistake in this bill it's that he has not made the penalty high

enough.

One of the other points which the Minister has put very

clearly in this bill, which we screamed and shouted about on

the labour code, was

section 18. You've made my day, Mr.

Minister; you said you've been listening to us.

section 18

says: "An appeal lies from a decision of a board of inquiry to

the Supreme Court…." It goes even further and defines the

two very clear principles: on a question of law and on "any

finding of fact necessary to establish its jurisdiction that is

manifestly incorrect."

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this shows either one of two

things: the Minister really meant to put this in the labour

code and forgot; or he didn't mean to put it in but he listened

to all the eloquent pleas that the Members of the opposition

placed and he's probably even read my private Member's bill

about the guarantees of natural justice.

At any rate, we are not here to play games or to try and be

smart-alecks as to who did what. The fact is that it's in the

bill. We think this mechanism of appeal and the way in which it

is clearly defined is an excellent idea.

In closing, I would like to say that I also welcome

section

22 which exempts clearly-described private organizations. I was

a little concerned that such organizations as the Caledonian

Society might find great difficulty in processing memberships

since the Caledonian Society is based on a certain kind of

blood and it would make real problems for that kind of

organization if it were not excluded from the provisions of

this bill.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: A Member on my right tells me it's a racist

organization, but it really isn't, Mr. Speaker. Some of the

most broad-minded and hard-drinking individuals in society keep

things like the Caledonian Society in action. I really think

that the Minister showed a great deal of insight when he made

these exclusions to the bill. Thank you.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I too would like to rise

in support of this bill. I think one of the really interesting

things about this new human rights Act is that it repeals the

old one. On numerous occasions I have had reason to say how bad

the old human rights Act was; it really couldn't be amended or

changed in any way but actually should be repealed.

I am also happy that the government has chosen this year,

the year the United Nations has designated as Human Rights

Year, to bring in its new human rights Act.

I think this is really a very tremendous bill. There are a

couple of new concepts dealt with in the bill that I'm

particularly happy with, one of which is the existence of

reasonable cause as it applies to accommodation and jobs.

There are very many groups, Mr. Speaker who presented briefs

and letters and requests to the Minister and to various Members

of this government, asking to be covered by the human rights

Act. I'm thinking now of the group that asked that sexual

orientation be included in the Act, for example. Although the

requests of these members were not spelled out in the Act by

including the statement, "unless reasonable cause exists," we have, in fact, given them the protection they were

asking for.

My one regret, Mr. Speaker, is that this concept was not

extended to tenants. I realize that probably the reason why

tenants were not dealt with more effectively in terms of

eviction due to reasonable cause or whatever is because the Law

Reform Commission is presently studying that. I certainly

[ Page 1261 ]

hope, if ever the Minister gets around — to amending this Act — maybe in the spring or after the Law Reform Commission brings

down its report — that he will seriously look at the concept of

eviction unless reasonable cause exists the same way he does

with refusal to give accommodation or refusal for

employment.

Some of the areas that please me even more, Mr. Speaker, is

to see sex turning up in so many other sections in this Act, to

see that sex is specifically outlined and stated as a ground on

which discrimination cannot be permitted to exist. I certainly

would like to compliment the Minister on this and, again, add

just one more piece of recommendation.

section 9, the

section that deals primarily with

exclusion which formerly occurred in cases of trade unions,

employers' associations and this sort of thing, he states quite

clearly that for the purposes of this

section race, religion,

colour, age, et cetera, are not included. He should also

include the word "sex". I think it is very important that it be

spelled out.

An example of this, Mr. Speaker, is the business that has

been coming up continually before this House about the refusal

of the liquor commission to hire women. The liquor commission

is no longer using the excuse of the Factories Act, 1966 ; they

are no longer saying that it has to do with lifting weights

over 35 pounds. What they are saying is that an agreement was

signed by the trade unions involved, and in this agreement it

was agreed that no women were to be included.

I'm thinking of the tree planters; I'm thinking of the

situation that occurred with the dietary aides at Riverview — all over the place, Mr. Speaker, where it specifically states

that a contract was signed which said women should not be

included here. I'm thinking of the reason given why women are

not in the dining rooms on the ferry system: a contract was

signed that said women should not be included here.

That is why, even though the

section says, "every person has

the right," and even though women were, by law,

legislated to be "persons" a number of years ago, I think it

still needs to be restated in this particular

section that,

under this section, sex does not include terms for

discrimination.

I'm very pleased about the inclusion of political

affiliation and criminal records as grounds under which

discrimination can no longer be permitted to exist.

But maybe the most exciting thing about the Act, as the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, is the fact that the commission is now going

to get into the business of education. In this respect I would like to bring

to the attention of the Minister some of the things that are being done by the

Ontario Human Rights Commission. Even the federal government is presently involved

in the business of education, not so much educating the community in terms of

not discriminating but educating the individuals themselves in the business

of taking advantage of the opportunities that exist.

Further along this line I would like to suggest that when we

get around to the administration of this Act, recommendation

165 of the Royal Commission Report, Mr. Speaker, is a good one

that the Minister should seriously consider. What this

recommendation says in subsection (

c) is that "the Human Rights

Commission should include within its organization for a

period of 7 to 10 years a division dealing specifically with

the protection of women's rights."

I would very, very strongly like to urge the Minister to

seriously consider implementing this recommendation, bearing in

mind that it has a time limit on it, that the commission was

not asking for perpetuity or into infinity but just saying for

just this period of time — and I go back to my old analogy of

the long-distance runner, Mr. Speaker — that there be this

division dealing specifically with the protection of women's

rights. This is the only way we're going to get caught up, so

that you can start treating us equally. Really, to treat us

equally now, when we are so far behind, is to continue the

inequalities that exist.

I would like to support the call for more autonomy of the

commission. I think that the present staff, for example — I'm

particularly pleased with the director, and I think that the

appointment of this particular person to be director of the

Human Rights Act was an excellent one on the part of this

government. I'm not as pleased with the fact that we're going

to continue using industrial relations officers to do the

investigation. I think we need people with some kind of special

training, in terms of just appraising and making some kinds of

decisions about the pros and cons of discrimination — when it

exists and when it doesn't exist. I would like to suggest, if

there is going to be a decision to continue using these

officers, that we expand the kind of training they get, because

certainly it is my belief that they ate presently just not

qualified, or they just do not have the training to deal with

the kinds of subtleties involved in discrimination.

I'm very pleased that this Act is binding on the Crown. The

Crown is one of the largest employers in this province, and

they are among the worst offenders when it comes to

discrimination, as was pointed out with the ad running for

bindery workers, although that again was another case where a

contract with a trade union had been negotiated on that.

I think that charity has to begin at home. To write

an Act

like this and not to bind it on the Crown was one of the things

that made the last Human Rights Act so absolutely useless,

because 90 per cent of the time when a complaint was filed it

was against the Crown. And we found the Act was not binding on

the

[ Page 1262 ]

Crown.

So I for one am expecting all sorts of exciting and

revolutionary changes in the Public Service Commission as a

result of this Act.

MR. WALLACE: Well said.

MS. BROWN: I'm also happy to see that another large employer — the universities — is going to be covered by this. The

university which I worked for for some time before coming here — Simon Fraser — is a perfect example of the kind of really male

chauvinist stronghold that we've got to get at with this kind

of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the Minister — again I

would sidetrack to say that I hope that the initiative given to

the director in this Act and the initiative given to the

commission in this Act will be used, and that they will not

wait for complaints to be filed but initiate action themselves.

To have a place of higher learning in this province with not

one single female at the level of full professor, head of

department, or whatever it is, makes me wonder what kind of

higher learning is going on.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say once again how

really pleased I am with this Act, to congratulate the Minister

and all the people who worked on it, and to tell him that he

will certainly have my complete support if he will work on some

of the very good advice that I've just given him. Thank you

very much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate

the previous speaker, the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard

(Ms. Brown), for a very fine speech. I think she's hit the nail

on the head in quite a number of points.

I certainly agree that this is an improvement over the

previous Act, and we will be supporting this in principle.

The question that comes up, of course, is why the Act does

not go further in so many respects. The other question that

comes up is the fact if we accept this Act and the intent of

the Act, we will be engaged in amending a large number of bills

and Acts. Indeed, I mention the word "bill" because one of them

presented today by message, Mr. Speaker, includes

discrimination in terms of place of origin which I would have

thought that this bill we're discussing at the moment — the

human rights code — would have exempted, namely the question of

place of origin.

The fact is that we need in this province a large number of

amendments.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister has stated that I am quite wrong. I

refer him to

section 49 of the Public Service Act , Bill 116, presented this

afternoon, where it states:

"The commission, in appointing a person to any

position in the public service, shall appoint a Canadian citizen; but,

if no qualified Canadian citizen applies for a position, the commission

may appoint another person as a temporary appointment."

Now, that is a discrimination in terms of place of origin.

Admittedly, it might be acceptable on other grounds, but my own

view is that if you're going to accept the concept of bringing

people to Canada (and many people in this room have come to

Canada from other places), if they wish to become Canadians, if

they wish to indicate their desire to become Canadians and are

landed immigrants, we should permit them to not be

discriminated against, as

section 49 of Bill 116 introduced by

the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), Public Service

Act, apparently does.

It's fine to say, as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

has done, that I'm quite wrong. But I brought up a case, Mr.

Speaker, last week. It's a case referred to by the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), and I thank her for

the reference. It was a blatant case there of sexual

discrimination. Starting salaries differed by 85 cents between

men and women and, of course, women were the sex discriminated

against. The difference in the salaries of those who had done

their training was $2.14. Yet there was nothing in the Act to

indicate that they were for different jobs.

In actual fact, when the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) spoke last Monday defending the Act, he stated that it

was defendable, and he defended it on the grounds that they

were for different jobs. So in addition to having a salary

differential, which was discriminatory, we had job

classifications which were discriminatory.

Finally we find out that the government had accepted this

because of a union agreement which had this in it.

Now, I do think that the government's going to have to

depart very rapidly from any deals with unions of this nature

which lead to discrimination between the sexes. In this regard

I was delighted to hear the words spoken earlier by the

previous speaker, because it's precisely the type of situation

that we get into where for some reason, from desire to have

labour peace or from some other good cause, we accept

discrimination.

I am very pleased to see the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder)

is here. He spoke eloquently in this House a number of years

ago about the discrimination that occurs to northerners because

of hiring-hall practices in Vancouver. He spoke very well. I

must say at the time I was not a Member of the Legislature, but

I remember how impressed I was by his statements, which pointed

out that the convenience of the hiring

[ Page

1263 ]

hall in Vancouver — convenient for the big contractor,

convenient for the big union involved — nevertheless was a

tremendous hardship to people that were in the north and could

not come to Vancouver and wait for a job.

And, of course, this meant particular discrimination against

people of native Indian origin living in northern British

Columbia. They say southerners come up to take jobs because of

union agreements, which they felt they should have an

opportunity to take. I would only draw the attention of the

House to the fine work that was done by the member for Atlin

(Mr. Calder) in this regard in pointing this out some time ago,

because it's precisely the type of thing which we hope this

bill will go some way to alleviating.

Mr. Speaker, it's a pretty comprehensive bill. I would like

to suggest, though, that it doesn't go far enough. I would like

to suggest that the method of introducing this bill has been

most unfortunate. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed

out that he had had comments from the B.C. Civil Liberties

Association. I also have received them over the phone.

The opportunity that I have had as a trustee (as I am) of

the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to send out copies of this

bill to members of the public — Indian groups, for example,

people of other races who might be affected by this — and to

get their comments — what's wrong with it; what's right with

it; where would you like it changed — in other words, the

function of the opposition to probe a bill for weaknesses which

may not appear in first reading, was denied to us, really,

because of the way this bill was introduced. It was introduced

late in the session and, of course, brought on for second

reading and presumably committee stage very quickly.

If we are to have important pieces of legislation of this

nature brought forward, we must have an opportunity, if we are

to fulfill our functions correctly, particularly as there are

few Members of the opposition, of consulting with groups in the

public who could be affected by them.

I happen to be a white non-Anglo Saxon, but Protestant. Now

there are other groups who have different backgrounds. They may

wish to comment.

Perhaps I have had the advantage, Mr. Speaker, of having

spent seven years of my life where white Protestants are in a

distinct minority, and this perhaps helps me to understand

occasionally some of the difficulties that are encountered.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier points out that there can be

political discrimination as well, and we certainly realize that

in this House. (Laughter.) There's plenty of it.

What I would like to suggest, though, is that for

legislation which is extremely important to some people — while

perhaps I cannot fully understand their position and yet, in

the nature of things, the opposition has to try to represent

their views as best we can — we must have an opportunity of

consultation. Now this has been denied in this instance because

of the time factor. And while I'm sure that it's strictly an

accident, it's something which we trust will not occur

again.

If we are to avoid the difficulties that came with the

previous legislation, if we are to avoid the difficulties we're

already experiencing with legislation passed by this

government, we must have an opportunity of having debate based

on full information.

Now perhaps the Minister's not impressed by this argument.

But I'd simply point out to him that a quick reading on page 3

of this Bill 100, in

section 8 (2) (

a) at the end of that line,

there's a misprint, in my view. The word "or" occurs when it

should be "of." I notice he is now turning to it.

It's a very, very minor point, but if there are

typographical errors put in by those chauvinists down in the

Queen's Printer, we should have an opportunity of picking them

up. Perhaps there are more fundamental errors which could be

picked up — errors in substance which could be picked up.

HON. MR. KING: It is corrected already.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's not corrected on the copy that

I have, Mr. Minister. All I'm suggesting to you is that if

there can be typographical errors — and I'm the first one to

mention it in this House — maybe there are other areas where

there could be error which we would be better able to pick up

in this Legislature were we able to have proper consultation

with the public. We've not yet had that.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to close with comments about the

plight of the person over 45 who is looking for another job. I

have in my riding, in my constituency, a large number of such

people who have come to this part of the world, to Victoria,

from other parts of Canada, and sometimes other parts of the

world. They find themselves generally, because of so-called

pension provisions, to be virtually unemployable.

They have been able to have some success when it comes to

dealing with some of the federal departments — not all. They

have been able to have some success in private industry, but

relatively little. It's a real problem for a person who may

move here for health reasons or because his other job elsewhere

has expired. He comes here to a better climate where he hopes

to retire eventually, 15 or 20 years later, and he finds that

he simply cannot get work — not because he's not qualified, not

because he's not active

[ Page 1264 ]

and capable, but simply because pension provisions of a

company or the government or some organization prevent him from

getting a start. In some instances, of course, he finds the

union activity acting against him as well.

These people do have a right to get employment if they're

qualified, and I certainly hope that the Minister's assurances

that vigorous steps are going to be taken under this Act to

prevent the over-45s from being discriminated against the way

hey are…. I certainly hope that this will take place. I

commend him for this. In my area, my constituency, it's a

critical problem.

We don't have perhaps the range and depth of employment that

some other areas do. If a person comes here looking for work he

generally finds that he must take a far lower salary than he is

entitled to simply because of the fact that he cannot get

employment due to age — not due to qualifications, not due to

skill or abilities, but only because of age. If this can be

overcome, this new bill will indeed be a tremendous improvement

over the old.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that with these comments the Minister

will go and give us a day or two, perhaps, to continue our

consultations with interested groups before bringing the bill

on in committee stage. We hope that it won't come up too

quickly. I have sent copies out to various people. I was at the

university on Saturday with the Status of Women Action Group.

People were very interested in the bill. Not one of them had a

copy of it of the group that I was in — the seminar that I was

in — and they were intrigued by it and wanted to look at it

very closely.

I trust that the short opportunity we've had to send out

copies will be matched by the Minister bringing it on for

committee stage a little later so that replies can be received

from these people. It's perhaps easier for a lawyer to read it

quickly and come up with suggestions than it is for a layman,

or a laywoman, in terms of the legal drafting. I trust that we

won't have this bill put to us immediately, so that we can get

the opportunity of getting comments from the public.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise in

support of this bill, not to make a long speech, but just to

express my pleasure at the efforts by the Minister in taking

seriously this important area. As you know, in the past we've

frustrated our citizens — those of us who have been concerned

about human justice and concerned about equality among the

citizens in this province — due to the fact that there just

hasn't been any real vehicle available.

I think the Human Rights Act of the past was a mockery and a sham. It was mainly

very well-written rhetoric that gave the impression of being a concerned document.

But I'm here to tell you that after five years or more of working with community

groups that were concerned about individual rights, I never saw a case prosecuted

successfully under the old Act. I am no lawyer and I'm no expert in this field

but just one who cared and who tried in vain over the years to get the chairman

of that Act to implement some of the sections contained within it.

I think the whole problem was put forth by Mr. Jack

Sherlock, who is now retired, when he said himself that we had

to get proof and when we got proof we couldn't substantiate it

in court because of the nebulousness of the sections and the

ambiguity of the sections, and so forth. He himself was often

frustrated.

This Act outlines specifically, As some of the Members have

pointed out — particularly the Member for Vancouver Burrard

(Ms. Brown) about being explicit in speaking of sex as being

one of the areas in which there would be no discrimination — those areas that we're concerned about.

I think that in the long run we will be relying on the other

sections that deal with public education, because we're not

going to be able to name all of the areas; we would just go on

ad infinitum. So probably the most important

section of the

human rights code is the one that will give the department the

responsibility and the authority to involve itself in

educational programmes for the public, Really, this Act will

depend a great deal on good faith, the same as our Labour Code

requires a lot of co-operation and sincerity on the part of the

public.

To legislate in every area would be pretty nearly

impossible, and I don't think that it's in the spirit that we

would like our democratic society to function. I feel that the

government has the responsibility, where there is no spirit of

good will and confidence and trust, to take the lead with

determination and diligence to ensure that each individual can

have faith in the democratic system — by the government being an

example, supporting those principles upon which a democratic

society is based.

I'd just like to comment on one of the areas that too often

is taken for granted in our competitive society as being normal

and natural, and that is discrimination against the middle-aged

individuals — particularly females who, for lack of advice or

whatever, have allowed themselves to become victims of an

exploitive society that tells them they've got to look like

they're 21 when they're getting on.

They've raised their families and so forth, and they are

finding themselves not being sought after and, say, they're

around the age of 35, 40 or 45.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: These women have probably played the game, Mr.

Speaker, quite successfully.

[ Page 1265 ]

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: They've probably played the game quite

successfully, Mr. Member…Miss…Ms. Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown).

Our society is pretty slippery and it's pretty manipulative.

We've been telling these people that they should go out and do

themselves up and buy all of the cosmetics and so forth. And

then all of a sudden we tell them that no amount of cosmetics

is going to save them and that they're no longer needed in the

work force.

Now, I've got testimony to this fact: there are people who

can no longer make it. I've had women come to me and say,

"Should I put my age down so that I can get a job?"

I say, "Well, look. You have a right to be who you are. You

have a right to a living. You don't need to put your age down — if you're 38 or 40, why don't you say you are?"

They say, "Well, I'm going to be turned down before I even

get in the door."

That's right. You know, I'm telling it like it is. I think

that people should have pride in themselves, and we could give

them the impetus and the encouragement to have pride in

themselves. And I feel they've got to demean themselves by

telling lies about those great and glorious years in which they

have existed upon the face of this earth. They've raised

families and they've got daughters, sometimes, who are 22 and

25, and they're trying to be their twin. They can't have

that.

I think that this Act will probably give people in our

society a chance to enjoy better mental health, because I think

that the beginning of the end for this society is when on the

one hand we say that it's great to have a good healthy family

environment and we encourage people to do their part; then all

of a sudden when the family's grown up and perhaps someone is a

victim of circumstances that leaves him having to be the

bread-winner, they are finding themselves having a very tough

time. I think that is a disgrace and an insult to our

citizens.

Certainly it's an insult when we get into the other areas of privacy, as the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

was talking about, about sexual orientation, which is a private

matter where many of our people in the community have felt it

their duty to involve themselves in making determinations in

this area.

I think that the human rights code has an opportunity to

come out front and take the leadership in areas that have been

really exploited, because no one wants to be named, no one

wants to be outspoken. People prefer to be quiet, but there are

a lot of people who are being hurt.

One other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the people who we're trying to assist

quite often are those people who are afraid to stand up and speak on their own

behalf. They're afraid because they don't want to be embarrassed and they don't

want anyone to know that they are being discriminated against, for some strange

reason.

Could you imagine me, Mr. Speaker, trying to hide and say,

"I'm all right," when there's a big sign up there

saying, "No blacks allowed"? If I were ashamed to go up and say

I'm not allowed in there, then everybody would know it but me.

They'd just say, "If you can't see that sign, I can. What are

you going to say about it?"

I think that this is the kind of thing that is not too

subtle. But somehow our people don't come forward. Too often

you can see a blatant case of open discrimination where persons

are being denied rights that they should have under the

constitution but they are not prepared to go forward and sign a

document or make a statement on their behalf. And they would

not give you the authority to go and speak on their behalf if

their name had to be used. I think that's indicative of a

society that hasn't encouraged people to speak up.

I hope that we can change that, and I wish the director, Ms.

Kathleen Ruff, the very best. I hope that she will approach her

task dynamically and with imagination, and that she will have

faith in those of us who believe that we have to rely on a lot

of spirit and human commitment and support and try to stay as

much as possible out of the courts and out of matters of

adjudication when it's a question of concern for one another.

This is one of the things that I hope, Mr. Speaker, the Act

will bring to those of us who are fighting on behalf of our

sisters and brothers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if this bill was passed 13

years ago, I wouldn't be in this House. I'd still be in jail

because, Mr. Speaker, I left jail to come to this House and I

don't know which is the better place. (Laughter.)

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I was a young employee with the B.C.

government and I was fired for being a CCFer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, being a

socialist in British Columbia is a bad thing with the

establishment.

MR. GARDOM: You were a Waffler.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, there was no Waffle then, and I was

trying to get at the pancakes. And now the crêpes suzette — I've got the whole routine

[ Page 1266 ]

down. (Laughter.)

You know, Mr. Speaker, being a socialist in British Columbia

was worse than being black. They had barriers up for socialists

in the province for many, many years. There, was a far more

subtle form than colour discrimination or race or creed — it

was politics.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when the opposition talks about

politics, there was a civil servant who was approached by the

former Minister of Health, Mr. Martin, and told to run for

office and that his politics would be no barrier. At the time I

was fired. I never kept it a secret about my politics; I was

proud of my politics, and I was fired for my politics by the

former government. Yet they hired all kinds of people in the

civil service who had been active with the Social Credit Party,

some of them defeated MLAs and defeated candidates. They tried

to peddle a sanctimonious line, Mr. Speaker, that Socreds were

clean but socialists were dirty.

Now, I never forgot that whole experience, Mr. Speaker,

where I was denied the right to speak out freely in a society

about what I believed in in terms of politics. I was threatened

with my job, and when I didn't withdraw I was actually fired.

The records show, Mr. Speaker, that there was nothing against

my performance on the job, nothing against my professional

commitment to that job, and at no time was there any complaint

on the performance of my job. The only thing that was wrong

with me was that I thought for myself and I thought socialist.

And I was fired.

Now, I'm not angry that that unjust act was never rectified,

Mr. Speaker, because I'm a forgiving person. But another person

might have carried that scar throughout their whole life. All I

decided was that if my boss fired me, I was going to fire my

boss! (Laughter.) And that is exactly what took place. Now, Mr.

Speaker, not everybody gets the opportunity of canning their

boss. When you consider the lengths I had to go to can my boss,

it's hardly worth it. So I'm glad this bill is in today just to

say to all those people out there who are just as mad as I was

that they don't have to go to this length to can their boss to

get even.

So, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this day. But I do say that there

still is a great deal of discrimination against socialists in

this province. It goes back to the times of Parker Williams and

Hawthornthwaite and those pioneers like Ginger Goodwin — Ginger

Goodwin gave his life to the cause of socialism in this

province. Throughout the history of this province, democratic

socialists have always been relegated as something less than

acceptable.

Well, we've arrived, Mr. Speaker. Who is it that brings in this bill? Despite

all our enemies, despite all the attacks against us, do we respond in kind?

No, Mr. Speaker, we're responding with love. We're allowing the people to be

Socreds, and we forgive them for it. We're allowing them to be Liberals, and

we forgive them for it. We allow them to be Tories and we forgive them for it,

Mr. Speaker, for they know not what they do. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill in the hope that love

will embrace our enemies and lead them to the paths of

righteousness and socialism that is bringing the freedom to the

people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Pass the hat. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'm pleased

that the Hon. Premier said what he did in his closing remarks,

because I wasn't sure whether he was speaking for or against

the bill.

I think he raised one of the major concerns that I have

about the legislation in its present form. I supported it as

being a small but significant step forward from what we had

before. Yes, there's discrimination on political grounds, as

well as those other grounds which are so clearly spelled out in

this legislation.

If there's one thing that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, it is

that we are bringing forward legislation which does spell out

specific areas of discriminatory practices which are not to be

condoned in this province.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier said we do have discrimination.

Pick up any newspaper any day and what do you find? Man warring

against man, Jew against Arab, Liberal against Conservative,

Catholic against Protestant. The world is full of it and we are

trying in a few pages of legislation to reverse the trend. It

is a monstrous job, a job which these few sections are scarcely

adequate to tackle.

If I have concern about this legislation it is because,

involved in the words, is discrimination itself. Really what we

have is a sort of discriminating discrimination enshrined in

this legislation.

I'm pleased at the sections which give the commission

worthwhile responsibilities. I'm pleased that we now have the

opportunity under the commission and through its director to

make direct inquiries and investigations into alleged

discriminatory practices and to bring about settlements of

those complaints. But I am distressed, Mr. Speaker, when I see

that under the discriminatory practices

section we find those

words which all lawyers love, "reasonable cause."

This has always been, Mr. Speaker, the escape hatch for

those people who, somehow or other, wish to avoid the

responsibility of law or to bend the law to suit their

purposes. Because it means that, rather

[ Page 1267 ]

than dealing in absolutes — we are adding those words

"without reasonable cause" to indicate clearly that some person

or group of persons, the commission or the director, is going

to investigate and come up with a decision that what may have

appeared to be discrimination to an individual who has had

cause to complain is, upon investigation, to have been with

"reasonable cause."

And what is "reasonable?" It certainly isn't reasonable to

the black man or woman who feels discriminated against. It

isn't reasonable to the socialist who feels discriminated

against, or the Protestant, the Catholic, the Arab or the Jew.

It's not reasonable to that individual; yet, we have that

enshrined in this legislation.

I was astounded, quite frankly, to see in one

section with

regard to discrimination in the purchase of property that we

start off with the brave words: "No person shall deny to any

person or class of persons the opportunity to purchase any

commercial unit or dwelling unit that is advertised or in any

way offered for sale." That sounds great — until you get to the

end of the

section which says, "because of race, religion,

colour, sex, ancestry, place of origin or marital status." Why

do we have to have any "because of"? Why isn't it just

prohibited to deny any person the right to buy property for

their dwelling? Why isn't it just sufficient to say: "You shall

not deny to any prospective tenant the right to rent property

which is available to tenants"? Why do we have to modify it? Is

it going to be all right to deny that person, not on the basis

of race, colour, creed, ancestry or marital status but because

he happens to have a beard? Yes, there are all kinds of coy

ways in which discrimination can be practised and hidden.

Indeed, the people who discriminate best are most often those

who deceive the best. This has been our problem.

I would have welcomed the bill even more than I do now if I

had found some positives, some absolutes — still leaving the

right to the person to complain, still leaving the commission

or the director of the commission to investigate and inquire

and if they found that there was discrimination, to settle

awarding of damages in addition to penalties in the case of

awarding of damages and additional penalty as in the case of

aggravated instances of discrimination. Let's have some

absolutes.

Now I know it isn't possible to have absolutes in every

case. But surely we should not be building into this

legislation escape hatches for those people who, whatever their

reason may be, deem it fit and proper to discriminate and to

hide their discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, if I may say so to the Hon. Minister, I congratulate him. I trust,

in the selection of the members of the commission and of the person who will

fill the role of director, that he will be able to make the same kind of wise

selection that he has commenced to make with regard to the Labour Relations

Board. Because we have here, I think, the beginning of what may be our ombudsman.

At least many of the roles that the commission and the director will perform

will be, in a narrow field, similar to what an ombudsman is believed to be responsible

for.

I think that they will need a great deal of support from the

government and from the public in order to make their job

function. I think that we on all sides of this House should, in

supporting this legislation, make it clear to the people of the

province that this legislation is but a small step forward.

Really, the responsibility for its success does not lie in the

words in this bill but in the open-hearted way in which the

community will receive and recognize their responsibility to

make it work.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I hadn't intended to

speak on this bill because I thought that the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) had done such an excellent job.

But after hearing the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams), I decided that it was better to let him know that

some of the statements he makes are just a little bit picayune.

Never before have we had a government that has been so

conscious of trying to give the rights of people where they

belong, trying to stand up for human rights in every sense of

the word.

Many of our bills this year, this session and during the

spring session, have projected sections in which discriminatory

sections have been removed and in which we have tried to level

things out. I feel that this government has done an excellent

job on anti-discriminatory legislation in most of the Acts that

it has put forward.

I recall one time hearing a great man say, "We live in an

imperfect world and we must seek imperfect solutions to our

problems." To speak of excellence, who is to decide what is

excellence? Is the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound to

decide what is excellence or is any other Member in this

assembly to decide on what is the quality of excellence?

We must find the best solution at the proper time. If it is

not perfect, then there is always a chance for it to be amended

later or for something new to come in as time requires

adjustment to it.

We have seen this happen just last week. The superannuation

legislation was brought down in which widows will be given an

opportunity to remarry without losing their superannuation. We

have seen anti-discriminatory clauses in the labour

legislation. We have seen anti-discriminatory clauses brought

in in the adoption Act and so on and so on throughout a lot of

the Acts that have been brought in this year and I think this

is very fine. This is an umbrella Act for the others.

[ Page 1268 ]

HON. MR. KING: I would like to thank the Members for their

comments on the human Tights Act. I have listened attentively

to a number of suggestions that have come forward.

I would like to comment first of all on the suggestion of

the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) that

section

49 of the Civil Service Act , I believe, contravenes the

provisions of the new human rights Act. I would suggest to him

that he is quite wrong in that assertion.

Section 49 of the

public service Act simply seeks to give preference of

employment opportunity to Canadian citizens.

There is no reference whatsoever to national origin, race,

religion or any other aspect. It simply deals with Canadian

citizenship. And surely we have the right to give preference to

our own citizens within the confines of our country, without

offering equal opportunity to people in the Soviet Union or any

other country, in terms of employment in this province.

I would suggest that any suggestion that that particular

section is based on racial discrimination is dead wrong. I

think in the Act it's made quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that we

have….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Place of origin.

HON. MR. KING: There's no "place of origin" there.

Citizenship in Canada is the only criterion. It doesn't matter

whether the Canadian citizen has as his place of origin any

other country in the world. The citizenship is the factor, not

the racial background.

I would point out that in this Act we go further than that.

We provide for associations or organizations to be developed to

pursue and to expand upon the rights of racial groups, racial

minorities and so on.

I think it was the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who

spoke about the Caledonian Society and golf clubs and so on. I

recognize that there are certain associations formed to advance

the cultural and the social interests of particular racial

groups and that's fine, provided there is nothing in their

activities which contravenes the legitimate interests of other

racial groups also.

The only recommendation I could make to the Member for Oak

Bay for improving the Caledonian Society would be to infuse a

few more Irish people into the organization. Perhaps that would

be a distinct improvement. (Laughter.) However, be that as it

may, I want to assure the Member for Oak Bay that both the Hon.

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

and the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would have

had something to say had I sought to inhibit the legitimate

interests of the Caledonian Society in any way.

The point was made by one of the opposition Members that the

commission should bear direct responsibility to the Legislature

rather than through any particular Ministry. I would suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that it would be an unusual departure from

precedent to have a situation where an agency of the Crown,

such as the human rights commission, would have no direct voice

answerable for its interest in the Legislature. I think that

could create some real problems, if no department or no

Minister were answerable for the whole function of the human

rights commission and the director and the various panels that

will be set up under the legislation.

I think the fact that it is certainly more independent, and

certainly more divorced from the Department of Labour than was

the case heretofore is an indication that we want this agency

to function in the communities in an independent and aggressive

way, free from any political interference. It's been structured

in that particular way.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams),

suggested that the "reasonable cause" proposition dilutes in

some way the effectiveness of the Act. I want to point out that

there has been an extension of the grounds upon which

discrimination is prohibited. The "reasonable cause" factor

does not in any way dilute any other of those basic causes,

such as discrimination on the basis of race, religion, colour,

sex, the fact that one might have been convicted. This is

simply an additional expansion to come to grips with some of

those more subtle nuances on which people are discriminated

against.

I don't think discrimination can be approached in an

absolute way. There are so many subtle forms of discrimination

that an attempt to spell them all out in a definitive

legislative way would in my view be a mistake. Obviously many

of the subtleties couldn't be, wouldn't be recognized and hence

wouldn't be covered by the Act.

So the "reasonable cause" formula, rather than diluting any

of the traditional and more recognizable areas of

discrimination, offers a broader area. It's a much broader area

for any other subtle form of discrimination that might be

conceived in society. So I think perhaps he misinterpreted the

intent of that particular section.

The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

spoke some time ago — quite frankly I forget what he said; it

couldn't have been too profound.

One of the points he did make was that be was concerned that

perhaps there hadn't been enough opportunity for input. I'd

just like to read to the House, Mr. Speaker, a letter that I

have just received from the chairman of the British Columbia

Civil Liberties Association. It says:

"Dear Mr. King:

"Thank you for your kind letter of October

[ Page 1269 ]

30. I have just finished going through your new Bill 100, and

somewhat immodestly perhaps have checked it with respect to the 12 improvements

which our association had urged to be made in the present Act. I am sure that

my board of directors and the members of our association will feel most satisfied

to realize that to all intents and purposes 11 of our 12 suggestions are in

fact included in the new bill.

"On behalf of our association, may I offer you our

congratulations on your new bill which introduces such

important improvements over the present Act."

Now certainly that wouldn't indicate that we have failed to

provide an opportunity for consultation and for suggestions

from those organizations directly involved in civil liberties

and directly involved in fighting discrimination in all its

forms.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this belies the position put

forward by the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party. As he was

wrong in his

interpretation of

section 49 of the public service

Act, so was he wrong in his premise in this regard. He seems to

be maintaining his record very well today.

The lateness of the session, Mr. Speaker, I have no control

over the amount of time the opposition may want to study the

bill. We have had a heavy session in terms of labour

legislation and I have attempted to bring forward the

legislation as soon as practicable. I have no intention,

personally, of placing any strictures upon the amount of time

that opposition Members may want to debate the bill or consider

it. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I think it's obvious that this

bill does go a long way to improve the whole area of the

protection of human tights in this province. I suspect that we

will continue to find areas that are not covered. Certainly we

have demonstrated our interest in plugging those gaps.

We'll be receptive and we'll be sensitive to additional

needs for change; we'll monitor those as we go along. I'll be

anxious to hear any representations from any side of the House

on additional methods of improving and strengthening this bill

as we go along. With that, I would move second reading, Mr.

Speaker, of Bill 100, Human Rights Code of British Columbia

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 100 read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 101, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MINERAL ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of

this bill, these amendments apply to a great extent to Bill 44

which we passed at the last session of the Legislature. In

clarifying some of the

definitions with regard to a free

miner's certificate, there was a question as to whether it was

required to acquire title to a mining property. We've cleared

that up: a free miner's certificate must be kept in good

standing. Before it's disqualified, if a person was to forget,

the inspector has got to notify the person that he hasn't

renewed his free miner's certificate.

The right to use timber on Crown-granted claims is a subject

to issue a free-use permit under the Forest Act . This wasn't

quite clear.

The question of the rentals. At the time you record a claim

now the rental is $5 for the first year for the new claims, and

this covers the recording which places the recording of claims

for the first year in the same situation as it was previously,

except that the work requirement, of course, still stays at

$200.

If they do the $200 work it's to clarify also that the

rental fee will be only $10. If they fail to do the work and

pay in lieu of work, they pay $20 as a rental fee; and in the

following year if they do twice the amount of work, they get a

refund of the $10 that they paid extra. One of the most

important items of all in this bill was the one item, I think,

that the industry was most perturbed about; it was in regard to

the production lease.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Royalties.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Royalties aren't in this Act. This is the

mineral Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know the difference.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This doesn't deal with royalties.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The industry had the idea that the

Minister may or may not give a production lease once they've

fulfilled all the requirements of the Act. It was never my

intention that this should have been read into that bill. But

seeing that they did read it into the bill — and they were

quite emphatic about it — to clarify their minds I made an

amendment in this bill which says that once they fulfil all

the requirements, they will receive a production lease.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is Bill 101. This is the most

important item, I'd say, in the bill, except for the

clarification of other clauses. I move second

[ Page 1270 ]

reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RICHTER: In light of the fact that our statute books do

not contain a consolidated statute taking in the provisions of

Bill 44 along with this one, compared to the previous Act, it's

rather difficult to analyse the effects that this new Bill 101

will have on the final consolidated Act.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well, of course, we look for it here within the

statute books. However, there are probably some areas in which

there is grave concern as far as the mining industry is

concerned — mostly within the area of royalties, which they had

anticipated would be in the legislation, plus the fact of the

production permit. Now the Minister has stated quite rightly

that this has been an area of concern. It's a matter of opinion

as to how you interpret it. In this particular Act it's spelled

out much more clearly. I know the Hon. Minister is a man of his

word and he will stick by his explanation.

MR. WALLACE: Just to save time in committee, since this

question of the production lease seems to be the only really

contentious part of this bill: the Minister stated in

introducing second reading that, in terms of a production

lease, all the prospector or the company has to do is to meet

certain specific requirements in regard to pollution control

and other conditions. But, with respect, the

section still

could be interpreted as giving the Minister control over the

issuance or non-issuance of such a production lease.

Could the Minister perhaps just clarify when he closes the

debate that there are certain clearly defined, specific steps

which can be undertaken, and once these are undertaken there

would be no hesitation in allowing production to go

forward?

I think the fear of the industry, as I understand it, was

that there might be various reasons revealed, or otherwise,

which would be used by the Minister to prevent a production

lease being granted. But I understand from his statement today

that this