1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984

Evening Sitting

[ Page

4505 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading

On the amendment

Ms. Sanford –– 4505

Mr. Lauk –– 4507

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4510

Division –– 4514

Mr. Cocke –– 4514

Mr. Passarell –– 4517

Ms. Brown –– 4518

Mr. Mitchell –– 4522

Mr. Barrett –– 4525

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4530

Division –– 4531

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984

The House met at 8:08 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a change in the procession

coming in today, and I'd like to congratulate the member for Dewdney

(Mr. Pelton) on his elevation to his present position. I am confident

that he will carry out his duties with appropriate due deliberation and

decorum.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Ritchie) would like to get up and speak in this debate. I

wonder if you could advise me how much time I have left, and then the

minister will know how much time he has before he has to

DEPUTY SPEAKER: About twenty-five and a half minutes.

MS. SANFORD: We have an acting House Leader and an acting

Deputy Speaker tonight. I don't know what happened to the Deputy

Speaker; he was a little late in arriving back tonight, I think.

Before the dinner hour I, along with my colleagues who have spoken

on this hoist motion, was trying to convince the government that the

best course of action for them at this stage is to set this bill aside

for a period of six months to allow people who are concerned and

knowledgeable in the field of human rights to talk to the government

and make representations so that in the end we will have the best

possible human rights legislation that we can come up with here as a

group of 57 people. What we have now is totally inadequate in terms of

meeting the needs in the area of human rights. We have an imitation of

Bill 27, which was introduced last July and widely condemned. It was so

widely condemned that even the government decided to abandon that bill,

and left it to die on the order paper. Here we have again in this

session the introduction of human rights legislation which is virtually

the same as that Bill 27 which was so widely criticized last summer and

fall.

If the government is at all concerned about ensuring that the area of human

rights is properly legislated, it would not bring in a bill of this nature,

which has no flexibility in it. And because it has removed the

section relating

to reasonable cause, thousands and thousands of people are left without any

protection under this particular piece of legislation. The minister knows that;

the people in the back bench know it. Even some of the cabinet ministers know

it. I hope some of them will get up later this evening to speak on this piece

of legislation.

Once Bill 11 was introduced and people had had an opportunity to look at the

bill, even though it had been brought forward for debate in this Legislature,

we had concerns expressed by a wide number of organizations. We had the regional

director of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, Dr. Charles Paris,

who was so....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Co-chairman.

MS. SANFORD: Co-chairman? He's the regional director, I

think, of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. That's what I

have on my list.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is that what you have on your list?

MS. SANFORD: Yes, it's on my list, and we received telegrams

from these groups — Mr. Speaker, for the information of the minister —

asking that we do what we can to ensure that Bill 11 not pass through

this Legislature.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What did Judge Branca say?

MS. SANFORD: I'm sorry, I can't hear the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. Paris, who has served as chairman of the Human Rights Commission

in British Columbia, was so concerned about Bill 11 that he signed a

telegram, on behalf of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews,

saying that this legislation is inadequate; it's not suitable for 1984

in British Columbia. We also had telegrams from people like Tim

Stanley, who is with the B.C. Organization to Fight Racism; Donna

Stewart of the North Shore Women's Centre; Chris Walmsley of the B.C.

Association of Social Workers; Gurham Sangera of the Sikh Solidarity

Association, representing the six Sikh temples in the lower mainland.

These are all people who advised us by telegram that this legislation

is inadequate, unsuitable, and should not pass through this

Legislature. We also had telegrams from the B.C. Human Rights

Coalition, Vancouver Rape Relief and the provincial Solidarity

coalition. All of those people are dissatisfied with the kind of

legislation and the lack of protection in the field of human rights

that this bill affords the people of British Columbia. The Vancouver

Island Human Rights Coalition issued a press release shortly after the

introduction of Bill 11: "The Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition

expresses its shock that Bill 11 represents no significant improvement

over Bill 27." The minister himself has admitted in comments across the

floor of this House that Bill 11 and Bill 27 are virtually the same,

and we certainly concur in that assessment. I again quote from this

press release: "As a result of extreme public concern expressed last

year, the Premier promised in his agreement with Solidarity to

seriously reevaluate human rights legislation. The Coalition sees Bill

11 as a smokescreen of cosmetic changes and minor improvements."

[8:15]

It's exactly what all of these organizations.... Those people who

are concerned and knowledgeable about human rights are saying the same

thing about Bill 11. It is not just we in opposition who are making

this request. It is all of these organizations, all of these people who

are involved in human rights who have some knowledge and concern about

the kind of legislation we have in this province in that important

area. We're asking that this government consider and support our motion

to hoist this bill for a period of six months so that we

[ Page 4506 ]

can again evaluate, examine, change and improve the

legislation in the field of human rights. What we have now is

inadequate, and unfortunately I believe what we have represents the

attitude of this government in the area of human rights.

If you listen to the kind of comments that are being made around

here tonight you will recognize and you will agree that the interest

and concern in human rights is just not evident, just not present in

that Social Credit group. If they hadn't brought in legislation that

was virtually the same, we probably would not be debating this hoist

motion here tonight. If they had listened to those concerns as they

were expressed last July and all summer and all fall, then we would not

be here tonight debating this motion to hoist the bill. We are

determined to do everything we can to convince this uncaring government

to set this bill aside, listen to the people, get some advice from

people who understand what human rights is about and bring back a piece

of legislation that all 57 of us will be happy to support. That's all

we're asking, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to try to convince this

government that the course they are embarked upon at this time is the

wrong course.

I am going back to the press release issued by the Vancouver Island

Human Rights Coalition: "Also, contrary to any other jurisdiction, the

human rights council is still a political tool. There is no political

independence for the council, and it is still directly responsible to

the minister instead of the Legislature, as in the case of the

ombudsman and the federal Human Rights Commission."

This council can be used politically, Mr. Speaker. They will make

decisions about which issues are frivolous, which issues should

proceed, and which issues should be looked at. But the thing is,

because the branch has been eliminated, because those people who had

the authority and the expertise to investigate the problems that

existed in the areas of discrimination are no longer there and because

the government and the people of the province are now going to have to

rely on the work of industrial relations officers to carry on that

investigative work, the council will not have the time to deal with all

of those complaints. The industrial relations officers are already so

pressured to keep up with the jobs that they are trying to do for the

government now through that Ministry of Labour that there is no way

they can possibly take on the work that was done by the branch. They

don't have the expertise, they don't have the time. They don't want the

job, Mr. Speaker. When a person doesn't want the job that is assigned

to them, they're not going to do a good job. We are asking them — or

the government will be asking them — to take on responsibilities that

they are not prepared for and for which they have no time because

they're already so pressured trying to keep up with the complaints that

are brought to them under the Employment Standards Act.

Even if we had legislation that we could support, if you don't have

the enforcement officers, if you don't have the branch to carry out the

investigative work that is required in these human rights cases, Mr.

Speaker, then the legislation wouldn't be effective. So for that reason

alone, the people who are sitting opposite in the Socred benches should

be up supporting this particular motion to hoist the bill. Even if the

legislation covered all of the areas that we would like to have covered

in human rights legislation, if you don't have proper enforcement

procedures then you may as well not have the legislation.

If the government people cannot understand that the legislation

itself is bad, then surely they can understand that if you don't have

the people who can do the kind of work, the kind of negotiating, the

kind of investigating, the kind of mediating that's necessary in these

cases, then the legislation itself is worthless. I hope that on that

basis alone some of these backbenchers will get up and say: "Yes, this

legislation must be withdrawn for six months. Yes, it's got to be

improved. Yes, we've got to have some enforcement." But I think I'm

dreaming, because I know that the interest in human rights in that

party that's now in power in this province is very, very limited.

That's exemplified perfectly by this legislation, by the fact that the

commission has been fired and by the fact that the branch no longer

exists to carry out the work that it was doing.

Another aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, that indicates that the

government doesn't have much interest in the area of human rights is

the fact that we're told by the minister that the government is now

going to take on the educational work that the Human Rights Commission

was formerly involved in. Instead of firing the Human Rights

Commission, the government should have broadened its powers — should

have given it more authority to do more research, to do more in the way

of informing the people about their rights and informing people what

discrimination is all about. That's now going to be done by the

Minister of Labour and by the members of government. Even you, Mr.

Speaker, can't be happy with that proposition. We know that the

educational work that will be carried out by this government in the

area of human rights will be worse than useless.

There's a lot of discrimination in Canada today. I'm thinking

particularly of the area of racism. We in Canada don't hear too often

about overt racist statements or overt acts of discrimination. We know

that they exist, but we don't hear about them too often. One reason is

that a large percentage of our population is not a visible minority. As

a result, we don't hear too often about acts of discrimination and

racist statements. But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the

situation here in British Columbia is a very volatile one. We do see

the attitudes on racism displayed now and again in British Columbia.

We've had examples of it in the lower mainland. We certainly saw what

people can do up in the Okanagan Valley, where the fruit pickers from

Quebec were physically attacked. The racism is there. I think we need a

human rights commission in this province that can carry out the work

necessary to try to change the attitudes of British Columbians in the

area of racial minorities.

Our history in Canada is not very good on this. Look at what

happened to the Japanese during World War II, to the everlasting shame

of Canada and Canadians. I feel very proud of the fact that it was this

party that fought against the removal of the Japanese from the coast in

the forties. It fought against the way in which we treated those people

who had made their homes and their livelihoods here in British

Columbia, simply tearing them away from their homes, allowing them to

lose their fishing boats, their properties, their friends and the

communities in which they had lived. The record in Canada is not very

good. Look at the way companies like the CPR imported Chinese labourers

because they could pay them at a lower rate than other Canadians were

prepared to accept. Those are overt acts of racism.

I was born in Alberta and raised in a coal-mining town there, where

we had a large number of people from various countries, mostly European

countries. The racist comments

[ Page

4507 ]

made by all of the kids who were my age, starting in grade 1 — probably earlier

than that, but certainly through the early grades at school — were indeed frightening.

At first I didn't recognize that the statements made by my friends at school

were racist. It wasn't until I got home and repeated some of the comments

that my friends at school had made that I was able to learn through my parents,

who had some understanding of human rights and the dangers of the racist attitudes

some Canadians possessed, and benefit and understand something about human rights

and racism. I suppose that's one of the reasons I became a member of this

party; I recognized that the New Democratic Party had a proud record in terms

of protecting the rights of minorities.

In those days a lot of the comments made were not only racist but

also sexist. But I have to admit that on the prairies back at that time

my parents, who were very concerned about racist comments, were not

informed and were not aware of sexist comments — as most of the

population were not, I expect. It's only in more recent times that

discrimination on the basis of sex has become an issue in this country.

[8:30]

Earlier the minister indicated that he was going to introduce an

amendment in committee stage which would ensure that there was no doubt

— at least, this is my

interpretation of what he said — about the

section we have been concerned about, which we have raised on a number

of occasions and which we believe required that discrimination be

proved before it could be heard before the council. At this stage, I

don't know what sort of amendment the minister is going to introduce.

But unless that

Section is cleared up, and unless it's made very clear

in the legal language contained in the bill that the intent to

discriminate does not have to be proved, we will never see a case

through to the end in B.C. How do you prove intent? I'm going to watch

with interest to see what the minister brings forward in terms of an

amendment. The minister apparently has had information from his legal

beagles that the

section as it's now written is okay and that people

who feel that they have been discriminated against will not be required

to prove that the discrimination was intended. Let's hope that the

minister clears that up.

Mr. Speaker, we still wait to hear from the people in the back bench

about this particular piece of legislation. How can the bill be

effective when the necessary work in the field can't be carried out by

people who are knowledgeable and trained in the area of human rights.

How can you bring in legislation that eliminates a very vital section,

the

section that was contained within the previous legislation relating

to reasonable cause? How can these people support a bill that they know

is not going to be effective? How can they support a bill that

eliminates a Human Rights Commission, making British Columbia the only

province in Canada without a Human Rights Commission? How can they

support a bill that they know is second-rate? Mr. Speaker, this piece

of legislation is second-rate. It should be hoisted for six months and

rewritten.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I've spoken to the main motion for

second reading, and I want to take this opportunity to canvass with the

chamber some of the history of human rights in the province of British

Columbia. It's a nice pleasant spring evening and those who will be too

busy to listen to my remarks I know would be glad to have them in Hansard for later reference.

MR. REID: Gold-bound or leather-bound?

MR. LAUK: As long as it's not hide-bound.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh. dear. What do you expect?

MR. MOWAT: Not much.

MR. LAUK: That's precisely what you're going to get. When

you've been in public life for a few years, sometimes you start to

reflect on what you've achieved.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right. As my friend says, three seconds later you've gone on to something more productive.

This is a particularly — I was going to say "irritating," but it's

not irritating it's a sort of disappointing time for me, dealing with

this statute. When I was first called to the bar I was invited to join

a number of committees concerning civil liberties, which I did. I

participated in those committees and a couple of years later I was

invited to join a group called the Human Rights Council. This was a

volunteer organization. Many distinguished British Columbians, as well

as myself, were on this council.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Including myself — thank you.

Several of them, it was rumoured, were long-standing supporters of the party opposite. During the....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Just so Hansard

didn't miss that, the hon. second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain

(Mr. Mowat) said: "What, Liberals?" You can see the need in a moment

for such a history lesson, and I am reinforced in my resolve to

continue.

These people who were not of my political persuasion were devoted to

human rights. They worked very hard and they participated with great

vigour in putting together briefs, papers and other work to present to

government and other organizations with respect to the field of race

relations and human rights. It was primarily an educative body, but it

occasionally took on specific projects at the request of various

organizations. I began to become more and more interested in this

group, and in the late sixties it occurred to me that such a group of

people with a wide variety of backgrounds and obvious different

political philosophy but with some consensus with respect to equality

and human rights may be able to achieve something, even when the

government of the day was seldom interested in such questions. We

pressed on. At the indirect request of the government of the day, the

council investigated the Fred Quilt case. Do you remember the case

where it was alleged that a native Indian in one of the most remote

reserves in the province died a mysterious death? It was alleged that

it may have been as a result of an altercation with some RCMP officers

and so on.

The inquest that was held seemed to have been unorthodox in the way

in which it was carried out. In any event, the council asked me to go

to the area to investigate and

[ Page 4508 ]

produce a report, and I did. I tried to make it as

objective as possible and interviewed people first-hand rather than

receive second-hand information.

The understanding was that this request was made by the

Attorney-General and the report was to remain secret. We disagreed with

that, but we did agree to provide the report to the Attorney-General

from our council, no matter what it said, and wait for a time specific

before the Attorney-General would be giving an opportunity to the

government to make a decision about a new inquest before the details

were released.

Partly as a result of that, there was a new inquest. Perhaps the

result was not what we all would have expected, but there was a new

inquest. The judge was appointed to hear it, and it had the effect of

at least solving some of the bitterness and the anger that existed from

the point of view of the natives towards the white community in that

neighbourhood.

The council also toured, and held conferences and provided a number

of forums in which racial relations were discussed. In the hon. member

for Cariboo's jurisdiction there were difficulties involving an

increased migration of East Indians and some of the discomfort of the

established white community with these new workers and their families

coming in. I think that we assisted somewhat in helping the situation.

Then around 1969 or 1970 we presented a series of briefs to the then

Attorney-General, Les Peterson, and he began to listen personally and

was able to persuade his cabinet that British Columbia was one of the

few provinces that hadn't in one way or another dealt with human rights

at all. By the way, the council then liaised with civil liberties.

There were a number of briefs presented, and the Human Rights Act was

passed. It was nowhere near the kind of act that was asked for by our

council or by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association or by a number of

minority groups. It stated the basic human rights — race, creed,

colour, etc. — and provided for the Ministry of Labour to provide some

protection with respect to enforcement. It was minimal and it was not

as impressive as we would have liked it to have been.

However, we did crack that cheap bottle of Idaho potato champagne

and celebrated the occasion, because it was a foot in the door. It was

almost 14 or 15 years ago, and we thought it was the beginning. It was

the first step in developing a civilized attitude towards race

relations and towards equality generally in the province of British

Columbia. The people of this province deserved it. The province itself

as a whole and its institutions deserved the respect that a more

civilized statement from the Legislature on human rights be given, but

it was barely enough. As we proceeded along and the New Democratic

Party was elected in 1972, a much stronger Human Rights Code was

passed. It seemed to be the logical evolutionary step. Enforcement was

increased. More funding was provided to groups to provide an education

to the various communities to decrease the tremendous and staggering

costs that discrimination and prejudice cause in communities.

As a result, the Human Rights Code was passed and a new stage in the

development of civilization in the province of British Columbia

occurred. Since 1976 nothing has been done to advance the cause of

human rights in this province. It's not one of those occasions where I

would say "nothing or next to nothing," because nothing has been done.

Now we see that rather than nothing being done, which I would have

preferred to this act, something is being done that brings us right

back to 1969. So in the twilight years of my legislative career, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure you will share with me a little bit of disappointment

that in 15 years we've come full circle. The Human Rights Act proposed

by this government today is less effective than Les Peterson's Human

Rights Act of 1969.

The second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) doesn't

really care what he says in this chamber. He hasn't read the act, and

he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a sad thing, because

being a native British Columbian and taking some pride in this

jurisdiction, I have to, with some degree of shame, admit to others in

other provinces and in other countries that this government has moved

back 15 years. Why have they been able to do so? Why aren't the

galleries full? Why aren't they parading in the streets? I'm not

surprised that they aren't. Human rights is not a majority decision; it

never has been. In most cases in our kind of system the majority

doesn't need protection. It is the minorities, the people who are

intimidated, the people who are easily co-opted by the majority into

accepting second-class status. It is those groups of people that are

easily set aside, taken for granted and put down. The only hope for

them is a more strident demand for their own human rights.

[9:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

No, there is another hope. There is the hope that was seen briefly

in 1973-74 when a government decided to represent the minorities as

well as the majority in the province. I must confess that in my reading

of history, Mr. Speaker, that so seldom happens that it's a thin hope

indeed. Or there is the real hope. If I were to speak to native

Indians, I would say your human rights do not lie within the good will

of the white community or the white government. They do not and should

not rely on the largesse and graciousness of the Crown. Their rights

lie only within their power, and their power is what they make their

power to be: that is, to demand and to demand and to demand.

Rights are not something that are granted; they are taken. In our

society there isn't that kind of graciousness that will make us realize

that these rights should be there and, without question, should be the

law of the land and enforced, with educative bodies that will convince

the population and the majority eventually that these rights are to

their benefit in the long run as well. One day we will see that the

majority of British Columbians will have the wit and the courage to

realize that the human rights of their neighbour, who may be a visible

minority person, are their human rights, that the freedoms of their

neighbour are their own freedoms, and that eventually they who may feel

that they are members of a majority will be in one way or another

members of a minority, depending on the occasion and what's happening

at the time. But that doesn't happen that often, and only through a

long period of education will they be able to realize that human rights

are for all. They protect us and provide for the human rights of our

neighbours.

This is a backward step; there is no question about it. The minister

— as eloquent as he is — has couched this new act in terms of

improvement and protecting the status quo. It doesn't; it's a very

regressive step. The political penalty is not there. This enables some

of the back bench to catcall my friend from Comox and others of us who

are speaking on this bill. Our speeches will not be reported; there

will not be marching in the streets; an effigy of the minister will not

be burned. That's the nature of the fight for human rights. After 15

years we've come full circle. Human rights have become

[ Page 4509 ]

less in B.C. They've become less not because fewer

rights are named in the statute, but because there are fewer mechanisms

and less power to enforce them. The government has steadfastly and

relentlessly cut back on the funding necessary to educate the public

generally. On many occasions on this side of the House we've said that

if one wishes to be frugal with the public purse, one should look

beyond the fiscal year. This government doesn't even look beyond the

fiscal month to realize the tremendous cost of some of the steps they

are taking. If, for example, the Minister of Labour, rather than

representing the constituency of Langley — as wonderful a constituency

as it is — would represent a constituency in the core of the city where

there is a large immigrant population and therefore larger groups of

minorities, he would realize that from time to time — as recently as

last year, and sometimes it still flares up — there are very grave

difficulties between races within the community that I represent and

the communities in the city of Vancouver. Only through a gargantuan

effort by volunteer organizations and by cooperation of the city

council and the Vancouver school board and the police — people who do

not need to and have not received direction — has this kind of race

trouble been diminished and some form of education taken place. Only

the very basest of our citizens participate in racial discrimination

and violence, and they are such a minority that it stands as a great

example when one considers the tremendous in-migration in recent years

of visible minorities to the city.

But it's no credit to the government of British Columbia that this

has occurred. They have sat idly by. They have sat more than idly by;

they have been negligently neglectful. They have been grossly and

recklessly neglectful of the potential dangers that arise in these

kinds of problems. Thank God that the community, in its responsibility

and wisdom, prevailed and the situation was resolved. What a much

better province this would be, what an example we would be to the world

and to the country, had we a progressive and thoughtful government that

could provide support and encouragement for the kind of activity that

went on in the city of Vancouver. Even key members of the Social Credit

movement in Vancouver were surprisingly absent from the programs that

were voluntarily put in place to resolve this volatile issue. It seems

to me rather typical of the Social Credit Party and its members that

they do not include as one of their highest priorities the resolution

of this kind of discrimination. It's a very alarming characteristic of

this political party, having regard for the fact that it has governed

this province for so many years.

As I say, I do not expect that a government that governs by polling,

by majority rule only, will respond too readily to the demands of

minority groups. But if it's left too long, if such

an act is in place

too long, the cost to this government will be more than it ever dreamed

of.

I want Your Honour, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this chamber to

realize the tremendous cost in police and disruption in communities

affected by adverse race relations, by lack of understanding and

education and by lack of support of the authorities, who set the

example in these communities. You've only to look at our neighbour to

the south to see the tremendous cost to government and resources, and

to the taxpayer, when race relations are neglected for too long, when

the enforcement of racial equality within communities is neglected to

the extent where it's underfunded, cut back or eliminated almost

completely, as this bill purports to do. That kind of cost will make

the minuscule saving the minister is trying to make by the repeal of

the Human Rights Code seem totally irrelevant, meaningless, thoughtless

and, as I say, even reckless.

This government's priorities are based on mindsets that are so far

out of date, feudal in their origin.... As one back-bencher commented

in the debate on the main motion, you can't legislate human rights; you

can't legislate attitudes, But the Legislature legislates on behalf of

society. It makes a statement, and the statement this minister is

making through this act — and this is why we're suggesting that it be

hoisted and reconsidered — is that human rights is of the lowest

priority to the Social Credit government. And because of that, it's

open season again among some relatively ignorant groups in our

community. These groups of thugs, if you like, would not have the

feeling that they could operate freely if this government stood by, and

even strengthened, the previous legislation. But they do look to

government as an example. They do look to authority for their guidance.

If these would-be thugs felt that such discrimination and even violence

towards minority groups would not under any circumstances be tolerated

in this province, they would walk gently as if over broken eggs, or

whatever the expression is.

As a civil libertarian, I.... My friend has mentioned the Ku Klux

Klan bill that was considered by this House some time past, and I'll

just mention it briefly. As I say, as a civil libertarian I was very

concerned at the restriction of freedom of speech, but at the same time

I was proud to see that the chamber acted as a group to make a

statement to our society that these kinds of right-wing Nazi thugs

would have no place and no home in British Columbia, and that they were

alien to our way of life and had no ear anywhere, particularly in the

highest chamber in the province. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that that

statement had a considerable effect. In other jurisdictions where the

Legislature and the authorities have not had the courage to make such a

statement, the KKK has taken a hold — a small hold, but it has taken a

hold. Here they have dissipated, been discouraged, disbanded and slunk

away, humiliated and condemned.

[9:00]

That's why I think it's very important not to just use these clichés

and easy phrases that you can't legislate away attitudes, and so on. We

can stand up and make a statement which has its effect on society at

large. I worry very much that this act is such a regressive step away

from our solemn commitment to equality in this province that it will

give comfort to those who, by lack of education, are racist and have

attitudes which are harmful to cohesion and cooperation in our society.

We can't legislate away arson, rape and murder either by passing

laws against them. Nevertheless, we pass laws against them. We

investigate, we arrest and we convict, if we can, those who commit such

offences. It doesn't eliminate those offences. Murder has been a

capital crime, up until recently, for thousands of years, but murder is

still with us. No one suggests that there should not be an offence such

as murder under our Criminal Code. It is considered our most serious

crime, and all other crimes are lesser crimes in comparison. I know

that the government realizes that's a fact of life. They have a cursory

understanding of human history. So what is their motivation? Have they

climbed on this anti-human-rights bandwagon? I'm afraid they have.

Minority groups are the easiest to blame in an economic downturn. It's a weak-kneed government indeed that will

[ Page 4510 ]

pander to that scapegoat attitude that develops

during economic recession and depression. The true strength of a

government and its commitment to such ideals as equality between the

races and other minority groups is that they defend those rights when

they are the least popular. Because of the economic downturn, minority

groups are scapegoated all the time. "It's the immigrants who are

taking the jobs." "Everything was all right before there were human

rights in this province. Everybody knew their place." How many times

did we hear that from Alabama and Mississippi in the sixties. We've

come full circle.

It's not just an economic theory we're dealing with in respect to

this government. It's not just an economic theory that we're dealing

with in the United States. It's a lifestyle theory which is feudal in

its origin, which structures people in their statuses and classes and

keeps a mass of people under heel. It creates a reservoir of poor. You

can call them serfs, as we did once, or slaves before that, peasants

afterwards or unemployed today. It's the same concept. It's feudal in

its origin. It's anti-democratic and it's a symptom of this government

that they will repeal the Human Rights Code. It's a symptom of this

government that they will de-emphasize those kinds of humanist pieces

of legislation that have protected the quality of democratic life in

this province to a great extent. It is a symptom of the lifestyle

philosophy of the right. It is a serious and sad mistake that is made

in history, it seems, altogether too frequently and cyclically. It

always seems to occur during economic downturns, so that the government

can focus attention on minority groups. Khadafy in Libya always focuses

his attention on his neighbours and starts a war when he's in trouble

economically. The leaders of other countries, such as Ayatollah

Khomeini and all the rest of them, are scapegoating minority groups

within their own countries — the Baha'i religion. If there's a problem,

it's the Jew, said Hitler. If there's a problem it's the Baha'i, says

Khomeini. And on it goes: scapegoating the people who are least able to

defend themselves is the way to focus attention away from the

government and its responsibility.

It always occurs during times of economic trouble. When are we going

to find a government that has the courage and the strength to defend

human rights in the worst of times. It's no test of a politician or his

strength if he stands up and makes a glowing motherhood speech about

human rights when everybody's employed, when there's milk and honey

flowing in the streets, when we've got everybody in a great education

system. That's no test of the strength of a politician. The test comes

when the going gets rough. The Social Credit members and in particular

the government are willing to fight for restraint to the last drop of

the unemployed's blood. They are willing to defend their system of

government and lifestyle to the last penny of the unemployed and the

working poor. They have sacrificed nothing of their own, except perhaps

their integrity. They will carry through with this mindless, feudal

philosophy which is manifest in the repeal of the Human Rights Code.

So in the springtime, as the fragrance of lilac wafts through our

Victorian windows as we sit in our offices in the parliament buildings,

I can reflect on 13 years of public service and see what I've

contributed to the field of human rights — precisely nothing. We're

right back where we started from, and more's the pity. That's why I'm

going to support the motion to reconsider this bill and have it lifted

from the table for six months. I'm not convinced, however, that the

government's going to vote with us. I am becoming somewhat doubtful

that some of the Social Credit members will support us too.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I think that all 22 members of the NDP will

support this motion, because whatever our differences on this side of

the House, there is one thing that remains steady, solid and

unchangeable with us, and that is the concept of equality. To borrow an

image from the law, equality is like a golden thread in the fabric of

our history and philosophy — equality in every sense of the word, as

embodied in the democratic system. Equality doesn't mean that everybody

is the same or is necessarily entitled to the same wealth or whatever,

but that everybody is entitled to be treated the same and entitled to

equal respect, and that everybody's differences are worthy of respect.

That golden thread is the essence of the New Democratic philosophy; it

is the antithesis of the feudal philosophy of the government opposite.

We do not believe in a hierarchical society with a pyramidal power

structure. We believe that people with wit and courage can govern

themselves, that the idea of the boss, the king or the pharaoh are

things of the past.

Those are some of the thoughts that I have 13 years later — actually

15 or 16 years after Les Peterson's Human Rights Act. I'm going to read

that act again, Mr. Speaker; it might even be an improvement over this

one.

I will be voting for this motion.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, members of the government side

will be pleased to learn that we have exhausted our speakers on this

hoist motion, in both senses of the word.

I intend not to recanvass issues which I talked about in opening the

debate some days ago on April 12, but rather to do a review of what has

happened in terms of this particular piece of legislation and to

attempt to put the case once more, as my colleagues have done, for the

delay of at least six months for this bill, so that people in the

community can have an opportunity to participate in the development of

this kind of legislation. Like the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk), I am not very optimistic about the prospect of converting

members of the government side; nevertheless, it's our obligation to

try.

Mr. Speaker, it has been well canvassed that when Bill 27 was

introduced last July as part of the legislative package which created

such proper furor in the province, a part of the resolution of the

difficulties that culminated in November was that Bill 27, among other

pieces of legislation, would be reconsidered and reviewed, and in fact

there would be an advisory committee to assist in that process. The

people of this province who quite properly were outraged by Bill 27 and

many other pieces of legislation last summer and last fall believed the

Premier, and the Premier indicated in the famous Kelowna accord that

those bills that died on the order paper would be reconsidered and

would be improved, taking into account the concerns that were expressed

in one way or another by an overwhelming majority of this province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair, ]

Mr. Speaker, the people of this province in trusting the Premier, in

believing the Premier, were betrayed. Because when Bill 11 was

introduced some two and a half weeks ago, we really got Bill 27

reintroduced with a couple of minor

[ Page 4511 ]

changes. What respect can people have for a

government, a parliamentary system and politicians in general when

politicians make promises that, yes, your concerns will be listened to

and heeded, and then they're not? More so in this bill than in any of

the others we've seen, no changes of significance occurred.

[9:15]

I have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister appointed an

advisory committee, a committee that on the surface seemed to me to

well represent many flavours of views in human rights issues, a

committee that I think the public in this province had some fair amount

of confidence in.... You have to wonder how it was that the legislation

was introduced within 48 hours of the final report of that committee to

the minister. How was it that he was able to take those views,

assimilate them, understand them, ponder them, go through the

legislative process that is required in government not only of drafting

the bill but of going through the cabinet committee on legislation —

all of those processes, and going to cabinet, and getting it over to

the Queen's Printer and printed — all within 48 hours?

Mr. Speaker, clearly — and I think that in answer to a question I

posed in question period the other day we had additional evidence, if

not proof, of this — the advisory committee was a sham. No attention

was paid to the recommendations at all. Those people were used as part

of a political game to put out the fire last fall by, in effect,

telling the public some things that weren't true, and that was that

their protests would be heeded and changes would occur. Clearly the

advisory committee and its membership were used and abused by this

government. That's sad, Mr. Speaker.

We're dealing in this case with legislation that, for the most part,

doesn't affect most members of the Legislature — and I say most, not

all, because in human rights, every one of us could find ourselves in

need of legislative protection. But for the most part, we white, male

Anglo-Saxons don't need human rights. We dominate the Legislature. We

dominate the political process. We dominate the establishment in this

province. We run the show. These kinds of legislative initiatives are

not for us in that narrow sense.

What we do when we write human rights legislation or civil rights

legislation is recognize that minorities in our society, the powerless

in our society, need additional protection in order to assert their

rights, to protect their rights. When we write legislation for

minorities who are for the most part powerless, who are for the most

part unable to use the channels of power as effectively as we white,

Anglo-Saxon males have learned to do, we basically have to remember

that this is their legislation, not ours. Those minorities, those

people who are subject to bigotry and racism and sexism and a whole

variety of other ills, should participate in the writing of the

legislation — more so in this case than in almost any other case of

legislative activity that I can think of. They have that right to

participate in the discussion and the drafting of the legislation. They

should not be subject to charges that those groups are simply

professional human rights activists who want to create jobs for

themselves and who want to use human rights as a mechanism to control

and achieve some kind of power in their own communities. That is

essentially the charge that was made by the minister in different

words, in rejecting the call from many groups in this province who

wanted some time, wanted some input, wanted to participate in this

legislative process.

That's the primary reason for the hoist motion. It would give us an

opportunity to allow those people who are affected by this legislation

the chance to participate in its drafting.

In

summary, I want to suggest what some of the major issues are.

These issues have, for the most part, been very well canvassed, but in

summing up this hoist debate I just want to go through some of them, by

no means all.

1 guess the single biggest issue, although there are many big ones,

relates to the reasonable cause provision. How can the Minister of

Labour go around this province suggesting that this will be seen to be

or will soon become the best human rights legislation in the province

when in fact it restricts and narrows the number of people who are

covered by it? Earlier the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain

(Mr. Mowat) interjected that this bill has a better flavour to it than

the Human Rights Code because it now includes the discrimination

against mental and physical disability for the first time. But when you

go through the last annual report that's available — since last year's

isn't yet tabled — you see that a significant number of the cases dealt

with by the human rights branch were mental and physical disability

cases. As a result of the reasonable cause provision in the

legislation, many of the cases were well resolved. We'll get into some

of that during debate in committee where we can have a more informal

kind of discussion about that. I'm hoping that the member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain, who has something to contribute to this

debate, will participate at that time if he won't at this time. The

fact is that when you eliminate the reasonable cause provision in human

rights legislation you are saying to a great many people who are not

named in the legislation: "You no longer have any human rights." I

talked about that at some length earlier in the debate. As I said then,

you are saying to gay men and lesbian women, to pregnant women, to

longer have the protection that they've had for a decade in this

province, because they are not named in the legislation and there is no

reasonable cause provision. When you do that, I don't understand how

the minister can say it's the best or it will be seen to be the best

human rights legislation in the country. It's not.

MR. COCKE: Where is the minister when his critic is up? We don't even have a quorum.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm long past believing the

minister would listen to anything I have to say anyway. I'm not

concerned at all that he's not here.

The absence of a reasonable cause provision means that we now have

an open season for discrimination and for bigotry against certain

groups in our society. I find that contemptible.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for North Island has the floor.

MR. GABELMANN: In the 1982 annual report — we haven't got the

'83 one yet — there was a listing of the various kinds of complaints

that were raised with the human rights branch. One of the largest

groups of complaints comes under the title of "sexual harassment."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's not true.

[ Page 4512 ]

MR. GABELMANN: I said "one of the largest groups of complaints."

MS. BROWN: Such as saying to a secretary: "That's where the action is."

MR. GABELMANN: Under the Human Rights Code the Premier would

not be able to make that kind of sexually harassing comment to a

secretary in this building. Under the Human Rights Act that the

minister is introducing the Premier can get away with that kind of

comment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sixty-three out 1,065.

MR. GABELMANN: That's right. And you're saying that that 63....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They're important, but they're not the largest....

MR. GABELMANN: But they now are no longer covered. Those 63

people are now in a position to be able to be slandered and harassed in

the way the Premier does to women in the hallways in this building.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're a liar, and a rotten one at that.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I'd like the Minister of

Labour to withdraw "you're a liar." I don't think he was directing it

where it belonged, but in any event I would like him to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair did not hear any such comment. Did the minister make any such comment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't ascribe any motive of wrongdoing to any member of this House — none of us would, I'm sure.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I clearly

noticed that that minister directed that comment directly at the member

for North Island. He looked straight at him and made that remark, and I

think he should apologize to this House and to that member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the second member for Victoria, the

minister said he would not imply any such comment to any member, and I

should think that that would be an appropriate withdrawal.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when one says

"you're a liar," you're ascribing that directly to the person that

you're directing it at, and that has never been tolerated in this

House. If we have new rules now, then let's understand those new rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the member for New Westminster, the

Minister of Labour said that he did not direct such a remark or intend

any remark to any person.

I would ask the member for North Island to continue his debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if it will help to get the debate going, I'll withdraw any remarks that I made.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if it's a lie to say that women who are sexually harassed will not....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's what you said about the Premier.

MR. GABELMANN: You see, that's the problem, Mr. Speaker. In

this House we have a reflection of the reality in our society: that is,

that there are a considerable number of people who do not understand

the concept of human rights. And they're well represented on that side

of the House. I suppose bigots deserve their representatives....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Someday you should base your debate on what you know and not on what you read in the newspapers.

[9:30]

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister had to base his debate on what

he knew, there would be nothing said by that member. In any event, Mr.

Speaker, I intend to continue.

Clearly the reasonable cause provision is the most important element

that is omitted from this legislation. Without it, we do not have human

rights protection for many people in this society.

The minister has also wiped out the whole Human Rights Commission

and its educational function. There will be no one left now but the

minister, in his political way, through the use of television

advertising or whatever other political channels he chooses to

exercise. There will be no one who will take over the role of the Human

Rights Commission, which is summarized in four points at the beginning

of the '82 annual report. No one will be promoting the principles of

the Human Rights Code; no one will be promoting an understanding of and

compliance with the Human Rights Code — the act in this case; no one

will be developing and conducting educational programs designed to

eliminate discriminatory practices; and no one will be encouraging and

coordinating programs and activities which promote human rights and

fundamental freedoms. Where will be the kits and the material for

school kids that was made available but will not now be made available?

We will expect them to gain an understanding of human rights through a

TV ad campaign designed to glorify Social Credit and its Minister of

Labour.

The enforcement

section has been talked about very well by my

colleague from Vancouver Centre. This legislation is somewhat like

writing a criminal code in this country, and hiring no police officers.

This is somewhat like writing a motor vehicle act empowering the

Highways department to set speed limits on the road, and hiring no

traffic cops. Why would we do that? Why would we say that Criminal Code

activities or lesser problems like motor vehicle offences require an

enforcement agency because we believe those laws should be obeyed, but

that human rights does not require an enforcement agency? Is it because

maybe we don't believe that those rights should be enforced? That's the

only conclusion. I think I said "policemen" a little while ago; that's

part of my continuing learning process with human rights. I should have

said "police officers."

[ Page 4513 ]

Clearly the government has attempted — badly and in a flawed way —

to write legislation which will leave an impression that they believe

in human rights, but not hire any traffic cops. Who's going to enforce

it? Will the industrial relations officers in various locations in this

province, on top of already too busy schedules, deal with human rights

as well? That's what the minister suggests. If they don't and they

can't and they won't, it goes to the council. So five people

investigate and enforce. The minister shakes his head. The minister

doesn't believe in having traffic cops for human rights; that's the

problem.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I haven't read the bill? The problem is that I don't think the minister has read the bill.

Members on this side of the House agreed with concerns and

complaints, many of them, about the Human Rights Code dated '74, with

its amendment in, I think, 1981. We agreed there were problems with

that Code and that there needed to be amendments. The delays were too

long. I think the delays had more to do with the minister's desk than

with the legislation; nevertheless, we agreed. One of the fundamental

flaws — at the time it was not perceived as a flaw, but I think we've

progressed to the point where we do see it as a flaw — is that the

commission and the branch — which in my view should have a unified

agency — should have been responsible to this Legislature in the same

way that the ombudsman and the auditor-general are, and in the same way

that the federal human rights commissioner is responsible to the House

of Commons. That was a flaw in our legislation, as we learned

subsequently. It should have been in this bill but it wasn't. In fact,

what's happened is that the commissioners — or the council in this case

— are even more a part of the minister's operations, even more subject

to political interference. Step out of line once and they're gone.

Cabinet order — bang, they're gone! No fixed terms. There should be.

They should be responsible to this House. A unanimous recommendation of

the House committee should select those commissioners.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not talking about the WCB; I'm talking about the Human Rights Act.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not a double standard. There's an immense amount of difference between human rights and workers' compensation.

I'm a little disturbed — and we'll get into this in committee in

more detail — about the apparent implication in this act that the

minister will not be subject to the ombudsman's inquiries.

Section 18:

"The minister shall not be compelled to give evidence in any

proceedings or otherwise respecting any matter...." That strikes me as

a

section to duck out of the ombudsman, which is wrong.

The other thing I wanted to do in the last few minutes that I have

is to put on the record some concerns expressed by the provincial

council of the bar association — the Law Society of B.C. They made a

number of recommendations for change, and I want to very quickly

summarize some of those recommendations. A committee of the bar made

the recommendations, and I understand that they were approved by the

provincial council. Their recommendations included the following

points. They said that the legislation in respect of employment

advertising should be extended to include "circulating and broadcasting

of any advertisement." In their view that is a loophole in employment

advertising.

They point out that there is no protection at all for discrimination

with respect to contracts. They make the point that has been made in

this debate: that that very important principle of equal pay for work

of equal value is not included in this legislation. You can't have good

human rights legislation in our society today unless it includes equal

pay for work of equal value. The wording in the bill that is proposed

is not sufficient. The provision in the bill is not adequate at all and

does not guarantee that women will receive equal pay for work of equal

value.

They talk about the need to include a

section dealing with intent,

and the minister made some reference this afternoon to his bringing in

an amendment in respect of that.

The bar association makes the point in their next item, as I did

earlier, about the independence of the commission. They suggest the

chairman of the council should be selected by the Legislature. I would

say that the entire council should be.

Why is there no provision for the filing of an annual report? That's

a standard feature of legislation in this province. They make that

suggestion.

They also make an important suggestion in respect of complaints.

Paraphrasing what they say, essentially they argue that any person

should have the right to initiate a complaint, even if that person

herself or himself was not directly involved in the act of

discrimination. That was a feature of the old Code and is not in this

legislation. Complaints should be accepted whether made orally or in

any other way. That's not in the bill.

Their suggestion is that the six-month time condition is too short

and should be extended to a year, as it is in the federal act.

Importantly, in my view, their next point is that the human rights

council should not have the right to in effect act as the judge and

jury. More than that, they say the council has the right to receive the

complaint — commonly called intake — to investigate the complaint, to

go through the settlement and/or review process of the complaint and,

in fact, to make settlements or judgments. What you really have here,

Mr. Speaker, is a travesty in law. The same people who are receiving

the complaint investigate it and they also act as a judge. Nowhere else

is that concept accepted. They recommend that if a settlement has been

agreed to at any process along the way, it should be ratified by the

council. That's not in the legislation and it should be.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I suspect we can pursue that in committee

stage. The law society — who are lawyers, and I'm not — argue that

that's not in there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Look at the date. That was written before this bill came in.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, I'll concede that I may be wrong on that. That's fair enough; we'll see when we get to committee.

[ Page 4514 ]

The next point is that the council should provide written reasons

where a complaint is dismissed. It's not in there. There's no power

allowing the council to approve affirmative action programs for

disadvantaged persons. The council should have that power. Any number

of decisions made by the....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think what you should do is go read the bill again and then look at the date on that. That's been done.

MR. GABELMANN: Affirmative action? I couldn't find it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, look for it.

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister is so sure it's in the bill, he must know what

Section it's in.

Another point made by the bar association is that the council should

appoint boards of inquiry and that the list could be prepared by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but that the council should have the

right to appoint from that list.

[9:45]

I'll leave most of the other points they make, because they're minor

and more legalistic with the exception that they argue that any party

with a real interest in the proceedings should be allowed to

participate.

These suggestions are some that haven't been at the forefront of the

legislative debate. I'm going to look at

section 19: "The council may

approve any program or activity that has as its object the amelioration

of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, and any approved

program or activity shall be deemed not to be in contravention of this

Act."

That's a quick reading again. That doesn't refer to a particular

case that's been.... Okay, perhaps it does. I'll look at it more

closely, and if I'm wrong, I'll tell the minister in committee when we

get to

section 9 that I was wrong. I hope I am, because that's a useful

provision.

I was just saying that reading these particular concerns that

lawyers have expressed doesn't mean at all that those are a

comprehensive review of all of the issues, but because they haven't

been introduced into the debate I thought it was important to add that

to this discussion. I want to conclude before we vote on this motion by

saying that if I've made mistakes in

interpretation of this

legislation.... No doubt I have, and no doubt other members in debate

have made mistakes in

interpretation, because I've heard some. We have

had an opportunity more than any other citizens in this province to

study the bill and to try to understand it. The rest of the public

should have a similar and expanded opportunity also to read and

understand the bill and make their concerns known to the minister.

What I don't understand is why the minister and his government need

to proceed with such undue haste. Why is it that we're here tonight?

Why are we having an unusual night sitting? Why didn't we meet three or

four Thursdays ago?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We didn't want to.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister can make jokes about it, but the

fact is that the government is determined to ram through this

legislation before members of the public have an opportunity to

understand it. The decision of the government is clear. They intend not

to give time. They thought they could get it through before their

recess, and were surprised when we put up some resistance to this

legislation. Their expectation was that the two or three days they had

would have been enough. They then had the recess, and now they're

ramming it through. No one's speaking from the government side, because

they don't want the legislation to take any more time. They don't want

the possibility that the public might learn what's in this legislation

and complain again, as they did last year.

Interestingly, despite all the corridor rumours and everything else,

the Labour Code hasn't been introduced yet. But I'll bet you that when

this is disposed of, we'll get the Labour Code.

The government is afraid of the people. The government knows its

legislation is unpopular, knows that it can't possibly survive if

issues are linked again as they were last summer. So what do they do?

They bring them in one at a time. They ram them through by having

unusual, extraordinary night sittings when there's no need whatsoever

for them. We've got a couple of months until the summer holidays, which

we could take in July and August for a change. There's no huffy. What's

the problem? We'll take a couple of days off for the convention too.

The government knows that this legislation is not popular. Otherwise

they would let it be subject to public scrutiny. We believe, on this

side of the House, that the public should have six months at least to

consider this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question that the motion for second

reading of Bill 11, intituled Human Rights Act, be amended by deleting

the words following "that" and adding the words "six months hence" is

now put.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

Cocke

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe,

Rose

Passarell

Brown

NAYS — 20

Chabot

Nielsen

Bennett

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Ritchie

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Segarty

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[10:00]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the government, having had this bill

before the House for some little time, called a surprise sitting this

evening, and then.... As a matter of fact, there were only 21 of their

35 there, because they knew the bullying tactics of this government.

Mr. Speaker, this

government has the conscience of a lizard. It crawls on the ground, and

the Provincial Secretary is just going to prove it.

[ Page 4515 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Provincial Secretary rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) suggests that he wants to debate the bill, but indeed he

doesn't want to debate the bill. He wants to play political games

rather than debate the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, I....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm asking you to bring that member to order. We know what the order of business is before the House. Let's deal with it!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is not a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister rises on a new point of order — or a point of order, I should say, since the other one wasn't.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the member is not addressing the bill before the House at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre rises on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: The Provincial Secretary rose on a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, and the member for New Westminster hadn't even started to

make his speech. He hasn't even started not addressing the bill yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order was as valid as the

minister's, so would the member for New Westminster.... The member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound rises on a point of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that

Hansard has it correct that it's the second member for Vancouver Centre

that's here, so that he isn't disappointed by his constituents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's continue on with the debate.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as an

immigrant to this country, I take exception to being called a lizard by

that member. I think that he should withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. That's

discrimination.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for New Westminster continue in debate, please, on the main motion?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yes, but first could I address that

point of order? I addressed this to the government, but if that

minister in particular feels offended by that expression of mine, I

would most decidedly withdraw it. I'd be delighted to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Speaker appreciates your magnanimity and asks you to continue with the debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have heard considerable give and

take across the floor today with respect to this bill. I have heard the

minister from his chair address members opposite speaking on the bill

and telling them that they're wrong or they're off base or this or

that. I have had no consciousness of having heard one member of the

government side, with the exception of the minister for a few scant

moments, argue against the amendment. Not one of his backbenchers or

his government colleagues got up and gave any arguments whatsoever

respecting the amendment to hoist.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I will not go on with that for fear I might be reflecting upon a

vote, but I will say this with respect to the second reading of the

bill. He obviously has had no real concern among his colleagues at the

passing of this bill, other than their vote like mannequins. Robots. We

have heard from some of them that they might have a word to say. I

expected the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to have more than a

few words to say respecting this bill. I have heard nothing from that

member except heckling. Can it be that we are all wrong, and that the

people who are expert in human rights are all wrong, and the government

is providing the protection for people in this province that need to be

provided, and that they're right? They haven't got anybody out there in

the public shouting "hosanna" about this bill.

Earlier we heard the minister say that where it could be shown that

intent to discriminate was part of this bill, he would amend it. I

would say that if he is serious about that, we're kind of happy about

that one small participation that he has made in this whole question.

It strikes me, however, that that was said this afternoon. Government

has access to legal counsel and to qualified support services that

could have provided him the opportunity to have that on the table this

evening. Yet we are debating a bill in principle and we're not quite

sure what the principle implies. Notwithstanding that, there are

aspects of this bill that we don't agree with, but at least if he

really was serious about providing at least that miniscule advantage

that we're looking for, we would have been somewhat grateful. But it's

not here. He could have announced it at the opening of the session. He

could have tabled it, because he suggested that it could be brought in,

with leave, and so on and so forth, during the committee stage. We'll

wait with bated breath and see what happens.

We have heard, since the bill was put forward, that the minister has

been boasting across the country that this bill will place us in a

position of leadership in the country. Yet what does the director of

human rights for Canada have to say about it? He says it puts us behind

the rest of the country. I don't think that Mr. Fairweather would have

read this bill along with the comics. I think he would have read it and

interpreted it to the best of his ability, which, incidentally, is

regarded rather highly in this country. For him to have said that it is

not an appropriate bill, in view of the fact that we are now living in

the 1980s, should, I think, give pause to the government. The

government, rather than sitting around joking as they are doing now,

should have paused and thought about what they might be doing to human

beings in this province.

I have spoken to a number of people who are very much in touch with

the grass roots in British Columbia, which is a province of disparate

human beings, probably to a greater extent than in many other

jurisdictions in Canada, but worthy

[ Page 4516 ]

human beings nonetheless. The one thing that comes out of my

discussions with the people in B.C. is the fact that there are many

terrified people in our province with respect to what they see here.

Our problems are even further intensified by the fact that we have

massive unemployment. Many more people are now in a position of

economic terror, certainly percentage wise and numerically, than we

have had for years and years. Couple that with a low defence from

government, and that is what creates the terror among these people.

[10:15]

People have a tendency either to depend upon a government to act as

government should to protect the weakest among us, or to say that the

government would rather divide and conquer. That is what I see here:

weaken the already weak rather than provide the strength of government.

The strong do not need the defence of government, nor have they ever.

For heaven's sake, government in a democracy should be there to provide

a defence for the weak within that society. Mr. Speaker, this bill does

not provide that strength.

I'm the first to admit that the human rights legislation put forward

by the NDP in the early seventies had its weaknesses. I was part of

government at that time. I will say also that it was landmark

legislation in its time; nonetheless it had its weaknesses. We had our

own arguments in caucus with respect to who should be included and how

and so on. Now we go back more than a decade and weaken what was better

then, bringing us back to a point where we're going to have to say that

we've got to do it all over again. But before we do it all over again,

how many people are going to be harmed? How many people among us are

going to be discriminated against for one reason or another or in one

way or another? I don't feel that a bill that weakens what we have had

is something that we should in any way be asking this House to pass

into legislation. We begged that this bill be given time. I would like

to go further and say: "Let's go back to where we were two years ago

before everything was hacked up." You see, it's not as if this has come

before us to change the situation that was in place until 1983. That

happened by the minister dismissing an entire branch working on behalf

of people — the human rights branch. Then he brought in Bill 27, a

wishy-washy piece of nothing that went nowhere. Meanwhile, there is no

human rights branch. Anybody out there now with a problem has no

advocate, nobody standing up for him or her. What they have is the

minister, who sits idly at his desk worrying about the affairs of the

Socreds and not worrying about the affairs of the people, which any

government should be elected to defend.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to stand in this Legislature and say that everybody

out there has a great conscience, that everybody out there has the will to be

fair, that everybody out there feels as though they are brothers and sisters

of all mankind. But that is not the case, and we all know it. I hate to suggest

that human nature is base, but I will say this: we have among us bullies, people

who are intolerant, and people who will pick on those weaker than themselves.

This does very little to assist that group. It weakens the existing legislation.

It's incredible to me; we have the legislation still in force, but that

legislation.... By a stroke of the pen or with the back of its hand, or

however you want to put it, despite the fact that the legislation is still in

force, the government provided that no implementation could occur in the future

by firing the staff that would implement the original Human Rights Code.

We went for the period until now without the protection. Now we are

bringing in the replacement with Bill 11 — a human rights council which

will have about as much independence from the minister's desk and from

the minister's authority as his secretary. He has the power to hire and

fire: "Do what I say, or else." No independence. As a result of that —

really an extension of his office.... Even if one could suggest in

one's wildest imagination that this was a minister one could trust with

human rights problems.... Unfortunately, I'm not in the category

that I'm describing. But even if I were, what if something worse comes

along, Mr. Speaker?

What we want here would be somewhat difficult to attain, but

nonetheless we want protection for people. I believe the council

proposed in Bill 11 is totally subject to the whim of the minister. As

a matter of fact, unless he gives them teeth to do what they wish to do

— hopefully the right thing — then they really can't do it. I see

nothing here that will keep the government at arm's length, in any way,

shape or form, from the implementation and total workings of this new

council.

I don't think politics should have any way of creeping into human

rights legislation, but I see it creeping in here. There's a body of

opinion out there that feels that survival of the fittest, the

strongest, the bravest, the whitest or whatever — those with blue eyes

— is the way to go. That should not be part of the heritage that we

leave to even the next group of people to come down that walkway of

British Columbia. We should be saying to the young, the old, those of

other colours, those of other faiths: "More than in the sight of God

are you created equal." We should be saying that there are ways and

means in which this parliament, this assembly, is going to make sure

you have every protection, that this assembly is going to make sure

that you have every protection that is necessary to see to it that you

have equal opportunity with your "brother and sister." I hope against

hope, and believe me, my hopes are getting rather thin, having been

across the floor from this government for some little time.... But

I hope against hope that they will listen to those voices out there

that tell them that what they're doing is not right. I hope that they

will listen and bring in amendment after amendment to this bill to

strengthen it. I think the best amendment would be a brand new bill;

I'd like to see an amended Human Rights Code bill. But having said

that, I don't aspire to those lengths.

[10:30]

1 do hope that there will be significant amendments in committee

stage of this bill, if for no other reason than to give the government

the pride of having done something right for the people who need the

government to really perform. We are tremendously disappointed in the

fact that what we see before us provides that the proposed council will

have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for human rights

education. We go from the point where we were, and that is the point

where people have not been educated in terms of their responsibility to

one another, and so they therefore need the help of government and are

not getting it to the extent they should be with this legislation. But

beyond that, we have before us a bill that will not provide them with

that responsibility to provide the education. Oh yes, I'm sure it would

be costly, cost a few dollars. How about the pain that it costs our

society when things like that are not done?

[ Page 4517 ]

You know, Mr. Speaker, I thought that prejudice, as I grew older and

more acquainted with the society in which I live.... I had the feeling

up until a very few years ago that we were really beginning to make

progress in terms of tolerance and prejudice. But it took a depression

to bring me up short, a depression which we are now living in, whether

the government likes to believe it or likes to admit to it or not. But

it took that to persuade me that we are intolerant, that we are

prejudiced and that we will continue to be that way until such time as

we have proper education out there that is going to teach people that

by God, we're brothers and sisters. Somehow or another we just don't

seem to understand that that's exactly what we are. I believe that it's

up to a Human Rights Act and its implementation to provide that kind of

educational program that's going to assist us through the next decade

and the following decades. I am very sorry that we don't see a sign of

at least that. It's almost as though the government says: "Let's ignore

the problem, and maybe it'll go away." You can't ignore that particular

problem, because it will never go away. It feeds upon itself.

I believe that unless this Legislature, through its statutes,

insists that there be that kind of education, what we are doing is

advocating sexism, racism and all the rest of the "isms" that are part

of this situation. It becomes almost a custom.... I'm not going to

say any of the sexist, racist terms that I've heard in the past few

weeks in this Legislature or anywhere else, but, Mr. Speaker, like you

and every other member, I have heard those terms, and I have heard them

more often in the last two or three years than I had for many years.

For crying out loud, why now are we going backwards? Why shouldn't we

be going forward? Why shouldn't we be trying to educate people,

particularly the young? Were it not for the adults among us, with all

our heritage of hate, our youth now would be in a position where they

wouldn't be sexist, racist and all these things. But they've been

taught that. Now they've got to somehow or another be taught the

opposite. Yet we see nothing in this bill to assist in that regard.

I see my green light is on. One could speak forever on this subject,

but let me say this before I get cut off by the red light: how can the

minister, without staff, implement even what he has in this bill? There

is no provision here for any kind of implementation whatsoever, because

there's no provision for staff. They fired the staff; they fired the

implementers. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that makes the bill as hollow

and false as a bill can be. For heaven's sake, that's not fair to those

people that this government is bound and determined by their oath to

protect.

There's a complaint, and who do you bring it to? You bring it to a

five-person board. And what do they do with it? Who do they put to

work? Probably nobody, because first they have to look at the complaint

to find out whether it's frivolous, vexatious or all those other terms

that they can use to decide that they're not going to proceed with the

complaint. There is no way I can tolerate this bill, and no way I could

ever vote for a piece of hollow legislation such as Bill 11.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was difficult for

me, speaking on the hoist motion, to go back over my childhood and some

of the problems I had with racism and discrimination growing up in the

city of Detroit. I talked a little bit about the military service and

the riots of 1967. I don't think I have to talk about that; that's in

the public record now and why I oppose the legislation that's before us

today.

1 would like to do a quick analysis on some of the problems of this

bill, such as reasonable cause. I have another aspect, and then I'll

get back to the reasonable cause aspect. Discrimination in public

facilities. In looking at it in connection with Bill 27, if this bill

goes through it will allow the insurance companies the right to

discriminate to a certain extent, without any need to justify the

discrimination, particularly in the rate structures. What I mean by

this is that a disabled person could be discriminated against with this

bill because of increased insurance rates put on to disabled people. I

know I'll be talking a bit more about this under

section 3 when we get

into committee.

Another aspect I'd like to discuss is the council itself. With this

new Bill 11, we're changing the council. You need to investigate a

complaint, but it still allows the council to say they won't

investigate a complaint if it's frivolous. Who is going to make that

decision when it comes to discrimination in society?

Another aspect of this is that if it's more than six months

old.... In the far north it sometimes takes letters six months to

get down to the south. I just received some Christmas cards last week,

so I know how long it takes Canada Post to get.... You're dealing

with....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: This is from 1982!

1 know how difficult it is in a lot of communities in the far north

that are still without telephone services. What is an individual

supposed to do if they find some type of discrimination in the far

north? Write a letter to this council? What happens if it takes more

than six months? The individual is denied his or her due process.

Much of this I'll leave for the committee stage, but I would like to

go back to something that I touched on earlier in my speech, and that's

the native aspect of human rights. I said yesterday that the native

people — the first citizens of this country — were denied the right to

vote until 1949. When we look at comments that come out.... We've

had a comment just in the last month coming out of Victoria from one of

the ministers who made a statement with regard to native people wanting

to be put in jail in Prince George for the winter so they could get

clean sheets and be able to watch television. There is much

discrimination in society against the first citizens of this province

and country. It has been with us for 117 years, and that discrimination

still comes through when we look at the aspect of the potlatch,

something that still has not been recognized by the federal government

and provincial government in this country.

Another aspect of the discrimination against first citizens is the

religious aspect of sweathouses, and how that is being denied to

individuals, particularly those who are incarcerated in prisons. As I

said earlier in my presentation this morning, for the first time a

prison in Canada, which is in Ontario, has allowed the use of

sweathouses as a religious aspect for native individuals who are

interned in prisons. As my colleague the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

spoke about earlier, in this province there is discrimination against

the Quebecois, as we found in the Okanagan last summer, and you find

this as you travel through this province and across the west.

[10:45]

Another aspect of discrimination is the Canadian-Japanese problem.

The violations of human rights of Canadian citizens in 1939-1941 still

has to be resolved.

[ Page 4518 ]

1 wonder why we are scrapping the old legislation and bringing in

this new legislation. What benefit is it going to bring to the people

of British Columbia? I doubt, by bringing in a watered-down version or

taking away certain aspects that were included in the old legislation

and that protected individuals that it is going to be of any benefit.

I remember when I was teaching at a native school in Good Hope Lake

in the far north. One of the writing exercises that I had for the grade

4 to 7 children that were in my class was writing a report on what

racism was. It was surprising, with a classroom full of native

children, what they wrote regarding racism. I keep those in a file at

my home in Atlin, and one day I'm going to bring those down; they'd

make interesting reading. I hope to bring them down over the weekend,

and maybe I could read those into the record in committee, because it

gives an insight into how individuals — children in particular, who are

not born with racism and only learn it because of their parents or

other adults — feel when it comes to racism, something they see as a

daily occurrence. It is a sad commentary on society that we find that

children are not born with racism but learn it from adults and the way

they deal with each other.

At times it's totally fascinating when we find out how children deal

with each other. When I had my son to my home up in Atlin a few weeks

ago — I live across from the reserve in Atlin — a friend about the same

age came up, and they were playing. Part of my daily wear outside of

this Legislature is a cowboy hat. My son Rocky was wearing the cowboy

hat early in the morning. We were sitting on the porch, and his little

friend Freddie, a native boy — Tlingit Indian — came up and said:

"Rocky, can I borrow the cowboy hat?" Rocky said: "Sure." Freddie said:

"Let's play cowboys and Indians. You be the Indian and I'll be the

cowboy." It was interesting to see the native child; he wanted to

change roles. He wanted my son, who has blond hair and blue eyes, to be

the Indian, and Freddie would be the cowboy.

That was interesting. It's a shame that at times children can't

become the lawmakers and make laws for us. If I were able to see what

children would write about racism in my grades 4 to 7 classes, what

kind of legislation they would bring forward.... If it was talking

about disabled people, nationalities, religious status — to see what

children would bring forward in dealing with legislation for people. If

it really came down to the crux of it, I think children would probably

bring forth better legislation than the Bill 11 that's in front of us

today.

Yesterday when I was talking about racism and native people — I

think it goes further than just native people in this province and this

country — I used the word "fear," and how fear can generate in society

to cause racism, a cancer that spreads through society. The opposition

brought forward the six-month hoist motion to give the government time

to reconsider its position, to maybe allow public input from groups who

probably know more about human rights than the government does, to

bring forward some input into the legislation. Yesterday I used the

words "consider," "reconsider" and "considerate." I can see that this

government has no intention of reconsidering its legislation; that's

why they voted against the hoist motion. I doubt if they really want to

consider the implications of Bill 11 on society. The last word is

"considerate." We hope that all individuals who receive the honour of

being elected as an MLA to serve all constituents would be considerate

in dealing with the problems of society with racism, discrimination,

nationality, problems with religious status.

I'm not going on any further. I made my 40 minute speech yesterday,

and as Mark Twain said: "It's now how long you talk, it's what you

say." I think that at seven minutes to eleven Pacific Daylight Time or

seven minutes to one Eastern Standard Time, as one of the last speakers

for the loyal opposition, not much more has to be said. It has been

said.

MS. BROWN: My colleague is not one of the last speakers,

because we're all going to be speaking on this bill. As he said, it's

seven minutes to eleven. We've been going at it since 10 o'clock this

morning, and we'll just carry on. I guess this is another occasion when

the government has decided that we're going to sit around the clock,

and to ensure that we're all here, some of us are resting so that when

this tired little group disappears, a refreshed group will hopefully

take our place and carry on this debate.

This is very important to us. As I said yesterday when I spoke on

the hoist motion, this is not an academic exercise that we're involved

in. This piece of legislation deals not just with an ideological

commitment on our part to equality among all people and certainly to

equality in terms of access to employment and opportunity and other

things, but also with equality in terms of respect and dignity for

every human being regardless of whatever differences they may have.

This is one of the basic principles on which the ideology of our

party was built. Certainly the whole concept of human rights is one

that attracted everybody to the New Democratic Party. We didn't become

interested in human rights when we joined the party; we joined the New

Democratic Party because we recognized that human rights was one of its

pillars and was intrinsically a part of its makeup.

Yesterday afternoon a group of people who share this concern — a

very strong feeling for human rights — were on the front lawn of the

Legislature. A number of them spoke. I was particularly moved and I

certainly identified with a young woman who addressed the gathering.

She and I have so many things in common: like me, she is a woman, and

like me she is a member of a visible minority.

I think she raised a number of points on the steps of the

Legislature which should have been heard by all 57 members of this

House. I realize that at five minutes to eleven there are only about —

I don't know — eight or nine of us here, not even a quorum; and there

isn't any point in calling for a quorum vote, because it wouldn't make

that much difference. The reality of the situation is that most of the

members on the government side are not interested. I know you are, Mr.

Speaker, because you certainly are paying close attention and have paid

close attention the whole way through this discussion.

MR. REID: There is a quorum.

MS. BROWN: Oh, okay.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That was a personal attack on the Speaker.

MS. BROWN: No, it's not. I said that the Speaker is the only

person who has certainly paid very close attention throughout — and I

want the record to show that it's the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton)

who is presently in the chair and to whom I'm referring when I say this.

[ Page 4519 ]

As she pointed out in her statements on the steps of the Legislature

yesterday, we should have been prepared for this piece of legislation,

because it was heralded in the throne speech. The only reference to

human rights which showed up in that speech was that the government had

a commitment to see to it that human rights become an individual

responsibility. I know that in speaking on the throne speech a number

of members on this side of the House, including myself, expressed our

alarm that the government was going to abrogate its responsibility for

those people in our society who need the protection of human rights

legislation, and that they were going to be left defenceless. So here

the bill is, as it was promised.

She also pointed out that, in fact, by this simple act — this Bill

11 — the government would be going counter to the United Nations

Declaration of Human Rights, which pointed out that it was in fact the

state which had prime responsibility for ensuring that human rights and

fundamental freedoms for all individuals and all groups would be

protected. So clearly, this bill contravenes the international

Declaration of Human Rights, which we as signatories to the United

Nations should be respecting and upholding. Certainly I hope that

someone is going to challenge this bill under the Charter of Rights,

now that we have a charter, because it is clearly a violation of that

particular charter.

She said something else which was even more moving than that when she said that what this bill does to her....

She was so alarmed and angered by the bill because it went back to

the pre-1969 legislation, which I referred to yesterday and which my

colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) referred to

tonight. She said that it goes back to the mid-fifties, when people

such as her — and she is of East Indian origin — and others of Chinese,

Japanese and native origin were prohibited from working in certain

professions, barred from buying property in certain exclusive parts of

town, and denied or restricted in access to public facilities such as

restaurants, bars, theatres and swimming pools, and of course we know

that. She went on to point out that there are still British Columbians

alive today who carry the scars of those days. And it's the British

Columbians who carry the scars who are largely responsible, as my

colleague from Vancouver Centre pointed out, for the voluntary human

rights council which came out of the late fifties and early sixties and

encouraged the previous Social Credit government to introduce the first

human rights legislation in this province in 1969. As he pointed out,

we've gone full circle. We're right back to 1969 and before, because

what we are debating today and what we tried to have the government

hoist for six months is a piece of legislation which in practice does

not give us — and when I say us, I'm talking about visible minority

groups, people who are discriminated against based on sex and age and

disabilities of other kinds, mental or physical — any more protection

than the 1969 bill, not even as good protection really.

[11:00]

We live in a much more complicated and sophisticated society, Mr.

Speaker, where forms of discrimination are even more subtle than they

were in 1969 and in the early 1950s. It was difficult enough then to be

able to identify when one was being discriminated against, but today

it's even more difficult because as was pointed out earlier by a number

of speakers on this side of the House — because none of the government

members have spoken in defence of this bill, neither in support of it

nor opposed to it — human rights is a very flexible and changing kind

of concept. What we like to think about is that it's the weak who are

defended by human rights legislation. In fact, the weak have to become

strong enough to voice their anger and their rage at being

discriminated against and demand protection before there is legislation

on the books protecting them. It wasn't until the disabled in our

society came together as a group and started demanding that they be

covered by human rights legislation that we were forced to look at

their rights and to recognize that they needed protection. It wasn't

until women became strong enough, banded together and started operating

as a constituency and saying, "We are being discriminated against; we

will not tolerate that any longer," that the Human Rights Code took

that into account and discrimination based on marital status, sex, and

that kind of thing was introduced into the Code. It wasn't until native

groups, black groups and other groups spoke up for themselves and

started agitating that human rights codes were made flexible enough and

opened to include groups. So even though we protect the weak, the weak

have to be strong enough to speak up and to become dangerous to the

government in power, to become a nuisance and a threat to the power

structure, before the power structure opens its human rights

legislation and covers them. That is the reality of the situation.

As my colleague from Vancouver Centre pointed out earlier tonight,

nobody is given any rights. Nobody hands you rights on a platter.

That's why the children in our society are not protected. That's why

when governments cut funding the first group they cut are groups who

service children such as family support workers. Children have no

clout; that's why. It is not until a group is strong enough to force

the recognition of their rights on the attention of a government and to

place government in a situation where they are threatened by that

group, either through having the power of the ballot or some other way,

that that group is recognized, the codes opened up and their protection

enshrined in it. That is the reason why I am alarmed that this

government has now decided that groups in our society such as women,

ethnic and racial minorities and others have been so weakened by the

economic crisis that we are going through, as well as by other measures

introduced by this government to weaken them. They have been so

weakened that the time is now right to force through a piece of human

rights legislation which deprives them of protection which they

formerly had fought for and enjoyed. That's alarming. That frightens

me. That means that we as women have to fight that battle all over

again. We have to have our consciousness raised again. We have to do

the analysis once more. We have to come together again and say that

other things are going to have to wait, because a threat to our

security and dignity as human beings is now under assault. The

protection which we formerly had is being removed for us, and we cannot

live with this kind of vulnerability.

What this act means is that ethnic and racial minorities, visible

minorities — the federal government refers to us as "people with novel

and distinctive features"; that's how we're referred to in the federal

Green Paper, which was formerly the basis of their human rights

legislation — we of novel and distinctive features are going to have to

stop our fight on behalf of other groups and come back and fight our

own battle all over again to have our rights enshrined in legislation

and our protection reintroduced. We once more have to pose a threat to

the power structure. That's what we have to do. We have no choice,

because the government, by

[ Page 4520 ]

this act, has served notice that we are so weak that we can be

ignored, we can be exploited, we can be abused. That's what it's saying.

When the minister introduces legislation which deliberately

eliminates the basic concept of reasonable cause, which really doesn't

spell out in detail that you are protected against sexual harassment,

doesn't spell out in detail that you can't be fired because you're

pregnant — or after your pregnancy your job is not there for you to

return to.... It doesn't spell that out. You still, even with

"reasonable cause" in the act, have to prove that. But even that little

bit of protection, which it took us 2,000 years to achieve, is gone.

That's gone.

Do you know what that means? The minister says: "Read the bill" —

that in fact all the protection is there, and it's the best protection

in the world. Do you know what that means? That means that an employer

can refuse to hire you because you are a woman. It means that, as my

colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) indicated in a letter he

received from one of his constituents, when a young woman applied for a

job as a baker's helper, which was advertised, the baker said: "I want

a man. I don't want a woman for that job." He didn't have to give a

reason. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because in this act the great

loophole

section says that if there are "occupational

requirements...." He could say: "The occupational requirement of

my bakery is that there is only one bathroom, and I believe that men

and women shouldn't use the same bathroom."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's bona fide.

MS. BROWN: That's right. He can say: "The bona fide

occupational requirement of my bakery is that there is nobody in this

bakery under the age of 82 and male, and to introduce a young woman

into the bakery at this time would be disruptive. The dough would fall

and the bread wouldn't turn out right," or some nonsense like that. As

an expert on baking, he knows. He can say: "It's been the history of

this bakery since my great-grandfather started it that we have never

had women in our bakery, and to introduce a woman in the bakery would

be breaking a tradition established by this whole family regime, and

therefore a bona fide occupational requirement of this job is that she

be male in order to do it." Under the previous bill, as inadequate as

it was, she could file a complaint and say, "that's not a reasonable

cause." The two of them would go before the human rights board. He

would argue his case and she would argue hers, and the commission would

say: "That's not a reasonable cause. It may be a tradition and custom,

but it certainly is not a reasonable cause."

Reasonable cause is a protective device; that's all it is. Even

though it was never enshrined and written in the act that women could

file complaints about being sexually harassed on the job, because of

that clause they were able to do that. Even though it has never been

written in the act that your political affiliation could not be used as

a form of discrimination against you in terms of employment or rental

accommodation or whatever, under the protective shield of "reasonable

cause" you could file a complaint.

What the minister has not given us is reasonable cause for that

being taken out of the act, except that in every single

section of this

act, you get the beautiful words at the beginning that say: thou shalt

not discriminate based on race, creed, colour, sex, and physical or

mental disability, and at the end it says "unless there is a bona fide

occupational requirement for you to do so." Thou shalt not refuse to

rent accommodation to a person because of their race, creed, colour,

sex, marital status, age, or whatever, unless.... Thou shalt not do this unless.... You go through this bill and

every single statement made in it, which if it were allowed to stand

would make the bill, as the minister likes to described it, good human

rights legislation.... In every single instance he puts a loophole

in, and that's what we mean when we say intent has to be proven. Most

of the bill is lifted — sections 3, 5, 8, whatever — verbatim almost

out of the Ontario statutes. There have been federal and provincial

court cases in Ontario — and I can name a few of them — which

demonstrate that the onus is on the complainant to prove intent. The

precedent has been established. The minister is saying that if we

establish the precedent here, then he'll bring in an amendment and

clarify the act. If it's so easy for the government to pick up the bad

habits of other provinces, why isn't it as easy to at least learn from

the mistakes made by those other provinces? Why isn't that possible?

The Ontario legislation, which as I said has been lifted from

verbatim, has been tested in the courts. The case of Weatherstone and

Goodman, of Pennell, Osler and Anderson. The judgment brought down in

every instance was the same. It said: "The burden of proof is clear. It

shows that a complainant must present evidence showing that there was

intent."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We've already dealt with that.

MS. BROWN: No, you haven't dealt with it. You've said that if it's proven here you will bring in an amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I said I will bring in an amendment.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you will bring in an amendment; fair enough.

Okay. So we don't need to worry about intent because the minister is

going to bring in the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: All you need to do is give me leave.

MS. BROWN: We will. When are you going to table the amendment so that we can see it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Whenever we get into that section.

[11:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Okay, because it's important that we be sure that

the amendment does the job that it is supposed to do. I'm glad that

we've had some impact, anyway. I appreciate the fact that we've had

some impact and the intent

section is going to be dealt with.

What about the reasonable cause section?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about it?

MS. BROWN: Is it going to be reintroduced? Is the reasonable

cause

section also going to be an amendment which will be introduced?

The reality of the situation is that my statements can be shortened

considerably if the minister

[ Page 4521 ]

would indicate either by verbal or non-verbal communication that reasonable cause is going to be reintroduced into the act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker does not wish to influence the

debate, but the member will appreciate that such questions are probably

better reserved for the committee stage of the bill than on the broader

debate of the bill at this time.

MS. BROWN: There's no question about that. I was simply

trying to assist the business of the House by saying that if there was

some indication that "reasonable cause" was also an amendment being

prepared by the minister to be introduced to the House — although I am

speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the minister in case he

wants to show me a sign — I would be very willing to shorten the

statements I'm about to make about reasonable cause.

No sign. Oh well, okay, here we go then.

The problem with reasonable cause is that it is very important to

women, because a number of the complaints which are filed by women

under this act are not spelled out specifically in the act. The only

way in which it's going to be possible to file those complaints once

the new act, Bill 11, is introduced is if there is a reasonable cause

section, if it's reintroduced.

Let me give you an example. It's one I use as often as I possibly

can. It's the habit that so many landlords and landladies have of not

wanting to rent accommodation to single parents who are also welfare

recipients. There is absolutely nothing in this bill which says that

you cannot refuse to rent accommodation to a single parent or a welfare

recipient. It talks about race, creed, sex, religion, age, mental and

physical disability, class, but it doesn't deal with the new family

concept which exists in many instances — that of a single parent who is

also a female in some instances, but certainly that of a single parent

who is a welfare recipient.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That has to be included. That kind of protection has to be in the

act. In addition, the kind of protection against systemic

discrimination, which women still have to deal with, either has to be

spelled out in the act....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: There has to be proof that "class" means welfare

recipient. That has to be proven, but it's okay, Mr. Speaker. As I was

saying, the systemic discrimination under which women still suffer — as

I said before, sexual harassment, the whole question of pregnancy, and

the unclear treatment of that under the present bill — either has to be

spelled out or we have to have "reasonable cause" in the bill.

You have to realize that what we're dealing with is a piece of

legislation which doesn't stand in isolation. It has to do with the

fact that the rentalsman's office was gutted at the same time as the

Human Rights Commission was disbanded and at the same time as welfare

rates were reduced for single people without children under the age of

26. A number of other resources were eliminated — the whole advocacy

work that used to be done by the Status of Women Council and that kind

of thing. Funding terminated.

So the bill cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a package

which really serves to do violence to women. It's an assault on us.

That's why reasonable cause has to be reintroduced.

Mr. Speaker, one of the really important things missing from the

bill is the admonition that this new human rights council, commission,

board — or whatever you want to call it — has to have responsibility for

educating the public at large. I'll tell you why that has to be done.

Bigotry and racism are not genetic. Neither is an appreciation of the

rights of people. Bigotry is learned. Discrimination is learned.

Respect for the rights of others and respect for the differences of

other people is learned behaviour too. That has to be taught. There

isn't very much that we can do about discrimination and bigotry in

terms of eliminating it outside of the educational sphere. As my

colleague said earlier, you can legislate against it, but the real job

of wiping it out is based on the educational role of the human rights

commission or council, as the case may be.

The previous human rights chairperson, Mrs. Strongitharm, knew that.

It's in her recommendation. She recommended that the educational role

of the commission should be expanded; instead, the minister has

responded to that recommendation by eliminating it completely.

We used to have in this province a commission within the Ministry of

Education that had responsibility for eliminating racism and sexism

from textbooks. That's not possible anymore because one of the first

things the government did was to wipe out that commission — fire them.

They didn't exist anymore. The Human Rights Code has to do that but it

doesn't. The Code says that no person shall publish or display before

the public, or cause to be published or displayed, a notice, sign or

symbol which indicates discrimination or the intention to discriminate.

It does not deal with degradation.

I can remember, because it has happened during part of the 28 years

I have lived in this province — and certainly part of the 34-odd years

I have lived in this country — when every school and every library in

this country had Little Black Sambo on its shelf. That book didn't

discriminate against anybody but it was derogatory. It degraded a race

of people. Complaints were filed in Ontario under the Human Rights

Code, and one of the very first things that the black community did

when

it was strong enough to have some impact on legislation in Ontario was

to file a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about that

book as well as about a number of others. And the Human Rights

Commission brought down a ruling that said that that book was damaging

because of its derogatory nature to a specific race of people and

therefore should not be a prescribed textbook in the schools, or even a

book on our public library shelves.

Under this act, that wouldn't be possible. There is nowhere....

I notice that the minister is not contradicting me on this, because

it's true. The commission that could have dealt with it in the Ministry

of Education has been wiped out and there is no protection under the

act whereby a member of any racial or ethnic or religious group could

file a complaint against a textbook in the schools on the grounds not

that it discriminates but that it is derogatory and therefore hurts in

some way.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We're on the legislation. I'm speaking about the discriminatory publications, the inadequacy of that section.

Sexism is something else that was in the process of being wiped out through that commission when it existed. Today in

[ Page 4522 ]

this province women should be able to file complaints under the

Human Rights Code about some of the derogatory pornographic material

that is on the shelves of corner stores and other places, distributed by

various magazine distributors in this province. It degrades women. We

should be able to file complaints under the Human Rights Commission

against a distributor based on the fact that that person is

distributing material which.... It's not that it discriminates

against us. God knows those magazines have nothing but women in them.

They're not discriminating against us, but they're degrading us.

MR. REYNOLDS: What about Playgirl? It's got men in it.

MS. BROWN: Men should be able to file too if they are

offended by the way they are treated in Playgirl magazine. I would

fight for their right to be able to file complaints under the act if it

were possible. I don't discriminate against men.

MR. REYNOLDS: Baloney!

MS. BROWN: Well, I may discriminate against you. I may have

some questions about you personally, but I don't discriminate against

men. I'm the mother of two men, so don't tell me about my relationship

with men.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound finally woke up. He brushed his teeth and came in here to harass.

MR. REYNOLDS: I've been here all day.

MS. BROWN: That is not true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We'll cease the interjections. Please address the bill.

MS. BROWN: I would like to address the bill if you would

protect me from the harassment from that member for Vancouver–Howe

Sound. I wish he would get to his feet and speak either in support of

the bill or in opposition to it. But not one member of that back bench

over there....

MR. REYNOLDS: Not true.

MS. BROWN: Who spoke in support of this bill?

MR. REYNOLDS: That's not true. You don't know your facts.

[11:30]

MS. BROWN: Have you spoken in support of this bill? Not even he can support this bill, and God knows he supports all kinds of things.

In any event, the other thing the minister said is that there is a

section in this bill dealing with affirmative action. Clearly he

doesn't understand what affirmative action is, or he wouldn't say that.

He drew to my attention

section 19 of the act. That's not affirmative

action. I'm willing to send him a copy of an affirmative action bill.

I've introduced a private member's bill a number of times myself, and I

also have a bill from Ontario and other jurisdictions which says:

"There shall be affirmative action programs designed to achieve

equality." That's what the bill says. It doesn't say that if a program

exists, the commission or council, as the case may be, may permit the

program to be excluded from criticism under the act, or if there's an

institution which exists for the sole purpose of supporting one

particular group in society, that's okay. We all know that. Sure, if

there is a Roman Catholic school which exists for Roman Catholics, we

know that the minister isn't going to interfere with them.

I really regret that my green light is on.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Maybe I'm the only person who regrets that,

because there isn't any question that the members on the government

side have not failed to show their contempt for the whole question of

human rights.

In any event, this bill needs to be amended seriously. It needs a

preamble which states very clearly that the government through this

piece of legislation is enshrining the protection of the rights of all

people in this province and not just a chosen few and that the role of

the commission is going to be not just to enforce this legislation but

to go out and educate the community at large as well. The reality of

the situation, Mr. Speaker, is that you measure a community, a

province, a nation or a group of people by the way they treat the

weakest in their midst. You measure them by the value that they place

on people whom they can crush if they want to. Based on that, you can

see that this government cannot be respected. I have no choice, Mr.

Speaker, but to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 9

Cocke

Lank

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Brown

NAYS 19

Chabot

Nielsen

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Rogers

McClelland

Heinrich

Ritchie

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I feel a little undressed right

now; I haven't got my "A" button that I can wear. But I know my

research people will go out and locate it, because if we're going to

get back to the debates of last year, we're going to see again an

erosion of the dignity of parliament that this government is continuing

to enforce.

I still find it amazing, on hearing all these interjections from

various back-benchers of the government, that not one of them will

stand up and defend this piece of legislation. Even my buddy MLA in the

cabinet over there hasn't got up

[ Page 4523 ]

and explained how all the people in his riding have come to him and

said that they agree with this piece of legislation, and that they are

happy to see over a thousand cases of complaints that are being

legally, properly and democratically filed under the legislation that

is now in place, the Human Rights Code.... These are complaints

that have been brought to the government from discrimination, and this

government has allowed them to gather dust in cardboard boxes after

they fired all the investigative staff who were hired by th