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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4407 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 14). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 4407

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading.

Mr. Nicolson –– 4407

Mr. Lockstead –– 4409

Mr. Macdonald –– 4412

Mr. Lauk –– 4414

Mrs. Wallace –– 4417

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984 (Bill 21). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4420

Legal Services Society Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 23). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 4420

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1984

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

MR. NICOLSON: At adjournment I had outlined the fact that

this particular piece of legislation, in the fullness of time, will

probably prove to be more restrictive to human rights than were there

no human rights code at all. In the fullness of time, the natural

rights of people in the tradition of a British judicial system and

common law would probably devolve toward them, but with this specific

piece of legislation, which restricts the groups for which human rights

protection exists, maybe in the short run we will be better off, but

probably in the long run, and in an enlightened society, this piece of

legislation will act more as an impediment to human rights. Certainly

it could be expanded.

Many years ago Thomas Paine wrote The Rights of Man , and at that time human

rights were actually a struggle against a class society. It was a response to

some ideas that had been put forward criticizing the American Revolution and

the French Revolution, of which Thomas Paine was a champion, and insisting that

things were much better in Great Britain at the time. At that time Great Britain

had a very firmly entrenched class system, You had certain rights if you were

a member of a certain class, and you had virtually no rights if you were not.

He pointed out at that time that it was as ridiculous for a person to inherit

certain political rights as it would be for someone to inherit the right to

be a mathematician. We seem to have forgotten how far we have come from that

been given up by themselves more by their failure to adjust to a changing society

and a changing economy than by anything that's actually been taken away

in the British system. But that was the situation at that time in terms of the

evolution of human rights.

Today people, it would appear, are going to have to continue to

fight for rights if they are not granted. If a government does not

respond and does not listen....

Look at what has happened in the past in this country. If one goes

back through the archives, the books and old newspapers to be found in

the provincial library, one will find that there is some history of

violence in this province and in this country, in spite of the fact

that we did not have a major revolution. There was a willingness to

respond and to anticipate that if we were to keep peace, order and good

government, we should listen to the requests of people.

Last summer there was a glamour.... I don't think anything raised

the anger of people more than the proposed human rights code of Bill

25. Bill 25 got more unfavourable comment than any or all of the other

pieces of legislation — the dirty dozen, if you would — put together.

The Premier gave assurances in that Kelowna agreement that Bill 25

would be substantially amended, yet what we see here is a very

cosmetic....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, he didn't. It was Bill 27.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Bill 27 –– I stand corrected. Thank you. And if Hansard could correct any time I've said "Bill 25" to read "Bill 27...."

[10:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And he didn't say that either. You're a liar. He didn't say that.

MR. NICOLSON: He didn't, eh?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay. Do you want to prove I'm a liar?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sure.

MR. NICOLSON: That was certainly part of the understanding

that I was given, and I watched the breathless pronouncements as people

were going in and out of the Premier's residence.

This was a major part of the opposition to the legislation last

year, but now by the minister's own admission there is nothing but a

small, cosmetic change. Right now by interjection he is defending Bill

27 and saying that this particular piece of legislation is okay even if

it is not substantially different from Bill 27.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to know who told you that. I just want you to tell the truth; that's all.

[ Page 4408 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Is Mr. Speaker on a leave of absence? I guess he is.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker would like you to tell the truth too.

MR. NICOLSON: Actually, if the truth be known, I would like

to speak about some other things in my riding. I could get on to

aspects of B.C. Hydro dams and things, only we appear to be on Bill 27,

now in its new guise of Bill 11.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Just tell the truth. That's all we want.

MR. NICOLSON: Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill is going to create a situation in which people

in this province are going to view human rights through human rights

conflicts. This is a system for resolving conflict, and that's all it

is. There is not going to be the thrust that we had with the Human

Rights Commission, which was a thrust to educate, to reduce, to head

off and avoid the very kind of conflict that this particular piece of

legislation will be set out to resolve after the fact. This particular

piece of legislation then is another judicial process and what people

are going to be seeing, the image of human rights in this province, is

going to be that conflict. It's going to be the perogy controversy.

It's going to be the controversy of whether one can or cannot wear a

turban in a....

AN HON. MEMBER: Play golf.

MR. NICOLSON: Or could possibly play golf. But it is going to

be that kind of a conflict. People and the press are interpreting

it.... The press is concentrating on the absurdity and minimizing the

seriousness, and that is going to be the window on human rights in

British Columbia. This act is only set up to create visible conflicts

between individuals or parties and not to concentrate on the education

of the populace at large. It does not look at the underlying root

causes of conflict and of people abusing the human rights of others.

It's a definite backward step. We are much further behind in human

rights than we were several years ago.

When I think of the pressures that various kinds of racial, ethnic

and other types of bigotry can create and have created in the past....

One never knows when it will be their turn to be singled out as an

ethnic group. As I stated yesterday, most of the East Indian people

that I grew up with in my high school days were not subject to that;

they were very popular people. It was only when there was another new

wave of immigration that things became inflamed. Today one sees

graffiti, one hears ethnic slurs and one is constantly assaulted by

this type of thing. I find it very disturbing when I'm driving in my

riding, and I see an ethnic slur as graffiti on a Ministry of Highways

barrier. I think particularly of one on the Cape Horn Bluffs, and I'm

offended by that every time. Sometimes I'm also offended when I wonder

why the Ministry of Highways hasn't obliterated it in the past two

years. That in itself, I think, speaks something.

We must do more than just punish somebody when an offence occurs

under this act. We must do a great deal to change attitudes. I don't

see this happening in the act. I don't see it happening with the kind

of attitude we've taken in this province in terms of totally

dismantling what we have.

I also think that we in this Legislature have set a new pattern.

This government can be credited with setting a new pattern in setting

up independence in terms of new boards or new agencies. There has been

some improvement in some of the boards of corporations. As a result of

the old Crown corporations committee, some of the Crown corporations

have set up a more independent type of board. The more important

innovation that this government has made, for which I would say it

could take some credit — and of course the whole House could take

credit for it, because both of these actions were acts of the

Legislature — was the manner in which the ombudsman and the

auditor-general were set up: chosen by an all-party committee,

answerable to the Legislature, not to cabinet. Yet this council, this

quasi-judicial board, which must be seen to be truly independent, is to

be set up by cabinet and exist at the pleasure of cabinet.

This is perhaps the most flawed portion of this bill. It is

regrettable that this government, which can proudly point to the fact

that in their term of office, since 1976, they have brought in two very

exemplary independent agencies that in this particular case.... Is not

human rights at least equal in importance to the concept of having an

ombudsman, when it comes to the concept of fairness, independence and

integrity? Is not this Human Rights Council of equal importance to the

integrity required in setting up an auditor-general? If it is, should

it not also be set up by an all-party committee so that it will not be

defeated before it starts?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How did your government set up the Human Rights Commission?

MR. NICOLSON: I have just been talking about how things have

been set up since 1976 and giving you some credit. But if the minister

is too stupid to recognize a compliment when it is being given, and too

ignorant to appreciate some gracious praise from the opposition, I will

rest my case.

When speaking to a herd of independent minds over there, Mr.

Speaker, one perhaps finds oneself somewhat frustrated in reaching them

with logic or even with praise. I don't know how smug and

self-satisfied a government can be when it rejects praise or a

compliment. If ever there was need for a group of people to re-examine

themselves.... I suppose they're so carried away by the fact that they

won this past election by a popular vote majority of 5 percent that

they have convinced themselves that they must have won it by a margin

of something like 30 percent. If they're under that illusion, I hope

they continue to be.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I have won four elections, my hon. friend.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation really fails on three

different counts. It fails inasmuch as it limits the rights of man. It

fails inasmuch as this piece of legislation has codified the number of

people to whom it shall apply, has excluded many other classes of

people and has left open the discrimination against people who would

have been protected under the old act under common law through the

natural evolution of our system. It also fails in that it will not be

seen as an independent body, particularly in light of the history of

this government since the most recent election — the manner in which

the human rights branch was dismissed and all of that.

[ Page

4409 ]

There can be only one way to salvage this bill, and that would be if the minister

would consider bringing in an amendment to the bill that would allow for an

all-party legislative committee to select the council, as I believe it is called

in the bill. Those are three areas in which I think the government could do

itself a great service. I don't think the government would be at all limited

by doing this, and it would continue that tradition which this government has

adopted. It is one of the things to which I give credit where credit is due,

in spite of the fact that the minister might not want that credit for his government.

This government has established independence in the case of the ombudsman and

the auditor-general, and it should do the same with the council for human rights.

[10:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, on a bill like this that was

first introduced last summer, but was not called for second reading

then.... At that time the minister said that he was going to consult

with human rights groups and many other groups around the province. The

bill has been reintroduced as promised this spring, and here we have

very nearly the same bill, with some small exceptions.

I've driven them out. It's all right; we still have a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, in view of a number of concerns that I have, I'm going

to take a few minutes to speak on this bill. It's difficult to know

where to start. I've read the bill. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure

that even lawyers understand the full impact of this piece of

legislation. Nonetheless, we'll do our best.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I think I'll start by quoting Martin Luther King.

Twenty years ago last August, during his famous "I have a dream" speech

in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.: "Recall the

speech of the prophet Amos, where he said: 'Let justice flow like

water.'" Those words mean something to me, Mr. Speaker — obviously not

to some people in this House, but they do mean something to me. The

reason I ran for public office was because of human rights and people's

rights. A lot of people have different opinions and views of what those

rights should be, and that's fair enough in a parliamentary and

democratic society. When we in this province take a backward step, I

feel it is the duty of every member of this House, certainly the

members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to fight backward steps in

legislation. Progress has been made at great cost of suffering to a lot

of people over the past 115 years, since we have been a province of

Canada. I really do feel strongly and deeply about these matters.

One of the reasons, if I may say so — I was going to talk about this earlier,

but I think it's a good time right now — is because in my riding, as many

other tidings in British Columbia, we have a large native Indian population.

I've lived in my riding pretty well all my life. I might say that 11 percent

of the population in my riding happen to be native Indian, so I've had the

opportunity to talk with a lot of native Indian people and others in the community.

I have witnessed certain examples of sheer discrimination against our native

Indian people, as one group. There are many other groups affected by this bill,

and I am very much aware of that. I may name some of them later, but I just

want to speak for a few minutes from first-hand knowledge. I'm not going

to give specific examples, but I'd like it on the record. I'd like to

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that because I've had the opportunity to witness

this type of discrimination against this one particular large group in my riding,

I feel very strongly about the bill that the government has introduced. It takes

away rights that have been fought for and worked for at great cost to some of

our citizens over the years.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I do. I sincerely do, Mr. Member, or I

wouldn't be standing in my place here today. The member interjects, and

fairly so. We do that to each other in this House from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about over 50 years — or less of first-hand

experience, where I've personally had the opportunity to witness this

in my riding. In fact, some very serious court cases have taken place

in years gone by simply because of discrimination against this large

population in my riding, and those court cases have been won. That was

before meaningful human rights legislation existed in this province.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was our government in 1973

which introduced the first meaningful human rights legislation in this

province. We did a great deal to alleviate discriminatory practices

that were taking place prior to that legislation. Almost every major

case would have to go through the courts. That was not the case until

this bill was brought into this House a few days ago.

This is what's going to happen again. We're going to end up with

major cases going before the courts, because I don't think this bill

will allow the council, which is going to be imposed upon the people of

the province.... They won't have the power and authority to settle many

of these cases. But more than that, it's not the major case examples,

where people have perhaps been arbitrarily thrown into jail, beaten

while there, and these kinds of things — that is, the cases that are

likely to come to light — but it's the smaller, subtler discrimination

that takes place on an everyday basis, usually against people who

probably very often are from low income groups particularly and people

who don't have the knowledge of where to go.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The civil liberty offices and community law offices have been cut

back in funding. So even if people did know where to go — or to a

constituency office — to seek advice on how to get appropriate help,

the community law and civil liberty offices across the province simply

do not have the staff to handle every case that is brought to their

attention. Even there, I could give you some examples today if I

wished, but I won't get into that. We've been through that under

another debate in this House.

So there's one reason.... I'm not going to refer to a matter that

happened in committee, but we had an example yesterday in a committee

where a cabinet minister made certain statements about our native

Indian people. I believe that that cabinet minister made those

statements in good and fair conscience; he was asking a legitimate

question of the corrections branch officer. But the fact is that that

remark was quite discriminatory. I've already heard from some of the

native people in my riding regarding that remark. The point I'm making

is that some of us seem to take for granted, in our

[ Page 4410 ]

everyday language — sometimes not even realizing

what we're saying — that we're discriminatory, perhaps because we've

grown up that way, because of our own personal attitudes, or whatever

reasons. The fact is that there is discrimination out there to some of

the very large minority groups in our province, and in my view this

legislation — no question about it, Mr. Speaker — will set back human

rights in this province to where we were at least 25 years ago, if not

more.

The elimination of the reasonable-cause provisions basically allows

the government to do what they wish to do — the council, I should say,

not the government; but the council will be appointed by the

government, and we're all very much aware of that. The council may

reject any complaint it considers trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made

in bad faith. In theory, that could include almost any complaint ever

made to the human rights branch in this province. I may add that my

information has it that the human rights branch received over 1,000

complaints a year. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of those

people who lodge complaints were sincere. I am aware that a few were

frivolous — a small minority.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A recommendation from the Human Rights Commission.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay, but — this is an across-the floor

discussion, Mr. Speaker, with the minister — the fact is that the

majority of people who lodge complaints before the Humans Rights

Commission were in my view sincere.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Don, did you read the recommendation from the Human Rights Commission in their last report?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I have a copy.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Did you read where it says "trivial, frivolous or vexatious"?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there will be ample opportunity

for the minister to enter into debate when debate closes — or other

members who may wish to participate during the second reading debate.

In the meantime, the Chair has recognized the member for Mackenzie, who

will continue speaking uninterrupted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have been

happy to respond to the cross-talk across the floor with the minister.

The problem was that I couldn't quite hear what he said.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll send it over to you. I'll get you a copy right now.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Please do.

In any event, I do not believe that the majority of those complaints

were frivolous. While they may not have been as sincere in the eyes of

the commission as the ministry would have liked, the fact is that to

the people lodging those complaints, generally speaking.... In my view

95 to 96 percent of those complaints were real complaints and issues to

the people involved. Some couldn't take their family into a motel room

because they were of the wrong race or colour, according to the rules

of that particular hotel or motel.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, we are debating a

government bill, and I would point out that there is not one member of

the cabinet in the House. I would just like to call this to your

attention, Mr. Speaker. It seems most inappropriate to be discussing a

government bill without one member of the cabinet in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member; we

have a quorum, and that is essentially all that our standing orders

call for during debate.

MR. REE: On a point of order, I concur in your statement, but

all the members of the government who are in the House support this

bill, and that is sufficient presence here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Neither points is a point of order. We have a quorum. The rules of the House are satisfied.

[10:45]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciated the brief respite, but just for

the record and in all fairness to the minister, the minister has been

in the House, and he is out at the moment getting for me a copy of the

human rights report, which I have not read. I have seen it sometimes,

and I'll go over that report again, perhaps during the course of this

speech — I don't know. I know he will be back in the House, and I do

appreciate my colleague's pointing out for the record that the

government is so uninterested in this very major piece of legislation

that they have left the House. I know that cabinet ministers have

meetings. The heavy duties of state are on their minds with Expo and so

many other things happening such as trips to Scandinavia. Some of the

ministers are away to Japan and Australia.

MR. REE: We have more government members than opposition members in this House.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We all have outside duties to perform on behalf of all the people of the province. We understand that.

Our position on this legislation: when compared with the former

Human Rights Code it is sadly inadequate, cutting both the branch and

the commission and replacing them with a politically appointed council

with severely reduced powers. That's what we're talking about. How do

you prove, under this proposed act...? It will pass probably without

amendments. The government does not accept opposition amendments. They

should. In a normal parliamentary situation they should, but they won't.

The minister has forwarded to me a

section of "A Report of the Human

Rights Commission on Strengthening the Statutory Protection of Human

Rights," February 1983. I'll read paragraph 31 of this report. I'll

read this because the minister pointed it out, and I try to be

reasonably fair, though I'm political. I know that the minister is

going to discuss this when he sums up debate on this bill at some

point. The paragraph is entitled: "The Commission Recommends."

"To ensure that public funds are not wasted on

allegations that are made maliciously or in bad faith, the Commission

recommends: The Human Rights Commission be given power to dismiss

complaints that are found to be trivial, frivolous or vexatious and

power to require consent of the victim to investigate a third-party

complaint."

[ Page 4411 ]

Well, that's fine. What the government is doing in this bill is

taking that one

section out of context of the whole bill that they have

introduced in the House.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 40 famous

Burnaby citizens, students. They are accompanied by their mentor Mr.

Don Atwood and teachers Colleen Shook and Mary Bennett. I would ask the

House to bid them welcome.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Experts in human rights legislation from coast

to coast agree that the new bill will make it much harder to prove

discrimination, because it will be necessary to show that there was

intent to discriminate. The removal of the reasonable cause provision

will mean that many people will no longer be covered by the legislation

and others will have far less protection. We in the New Democratic

Party are deeply concerned about the implications of the government's

human rights legislation. If it is passed, we will become a province

where protection from human rights violations will be reduced and in

some cases eliminated.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Bah, humbug!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, Mr. House Leader, that is not humbug. It's

humbug in your view. We know very well that the people in the Social

Credit Party — certainly in the Social Credit government — don't

believe in human rights as such and the protection of the many minority

groups in this province. We know that. We know that the government will

pass the bill eventually. They have an overwhelming majority over

there, which is out of proportion to the number of votes they received

— a situation they're going to enhance by adding nine new seats to

their group after the next election, they hope. We shall see. As long

as the Social Credit government continues to press for this kind of

legislation, I think the people will reject them in the next provincial

election; for the sake of the people in this province, I hope it is

very soon.

As I said, this legislation will indeed totally erode human rights

in this province. I am going to join those members of our side of the

House in asking.... When we're speaking in this House, I guess we

should say the "man." The "man" is the word that the press likes to use.

The point I'm making is that I'm going to join those people on this

side of the House in requesting that the minister pull back on this

legislation at the present time. This House is going to be in session

for some time yet. After second reading of this bill, the minister and

the appropriate people — I think it should be the Labour and Justice

Committee, a standing committee of this House — should travel the

province, visit all major areas and give people the right to put their

views before that Labour and Justice Committee. We could hoist the bill

for six months. I'm not moving a motion to hoist right now. The point

I'm making is that if we have that type of hoist, the Labour and

Justice Committee of this House — and a number of members of this House

have suggested they would support this recommendation — could travel

the province and listen to various groups. The Canadian Council of

Christian and Jews has contacted us, as I'm sure they have contacted

your caucus. They are very concerned about this legislation. The B.C.

Organization to Fight Racism, the North Shore Women's Centre, the B.C.

Association of Social Workers — a very significant group — and the B.C.

Human Rights Coalition, which is another significant group of people,

not politically oriented.... There are Social Credit representatives in

that group.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll give you the whole list if you like. You should have it in your office anyway — if you read your mail, Mr. Member.

The bar association of British Columbia — the lawyers — has requested that this legislation be set aside.

MR. R. FRASER: Show me the letter.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'll just send that member the letter from the bar association of British Columbia.

I don't want to ramble on here too long and take up the time of this

House, so I will be closing my portion of this debate. But I did want

to go on record as being very much opposed to this legislation. I ask

that the minister set this legislation aside. convene the Select

Standing Committee on Labour and Justice of this Legislature, go out in

the province — to the lower mainland, Victoria, up Vancouver Island, to

the interior, northern British Columbia, everywhere where human rights

may and will be affected — visit those centres, and give those

community groups a chance to speak for or against or recommend changes

in this legislation. If the government does that and comes back with a

bill that has been well thought out, after looking at other legislation

across Canada and perhaps in portions of the United States, it will

come back with a much better bill.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was very

pleased that the member passed me this information from the office of

the president of the Law Society of British Columbia, but this refers

to last year's bill. This is my first opportunity to bring that to the

member's attention. Perhaps he'd like to keep that in mind when....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon. member. If

you wish to participate in this debate, or have any material to offer

the House, then you will have every opportunity to do so.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, thank you. The member is quite

correct. I'm pleased the member did raise that matter as a point of

order, which was not a point of order. The fact is that the bill we are

now debating is the same bill, with a few minor changes.... I have the

minor changes right in front of me and I'll go through them. Why not?

It's the same bill that was introduced to this House last.... The only

minor change between Bill 11 and Bill 27 introduced last summer is that

the commission will now have the right to investigate some complaints.

But the "reasonable cause"

section of Bill 11 before us and that of

Bill 27, which was introduced last summer, are exactly the same — that

section is exactly the same. The fact is that the commission will have

to make an arbitrary decision on its own as to whether or not to

proceed with the investigation of a complaint. They will have that

right. Even if they do proceed, under this bill, the

[ Page 4412 ]

person who is being complained against will have

the right to have the commission's ruling overruled in the courts. So

the bill is essentially the same. In fact, you could easily pass Bill

11 and it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. The so-called

consultative process that the minister claims he went through with

certain groups in this province was absolutely meaningless. It was a

sham to get the government off a political hook that they found

themselves on last September and October when that bill was introduced.

So there is essentially no difference in the bill whatsoever.

[11:00]

We have reams and reams of correspondence — letters, briefs from

human rights groups all over the province and from many other groups.

But the bill that we're debating here this morning is essentially the

same as the bill introduced last summer, and that member should

understand that.

As I said before, I'm not asking the minister to withdraw the bill.

Leave the bill on the order paper. Convene the Select Standing

Committee on Labour and Justice and visit all parts of this province to

listen to people in a real way, in a public way, and avoid a lot of

dislocation that may take place over the next couple of weeks because

of this legislation. It would be the human thing to do; it would be the

right thing to do; and it would be the political thing to do.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's very nice to get all those

plaudits from the government benches as I rise to speak. I don't expect

to receive any when I sit down, but to have them initially is at least

something, especially from the first member — he insists upon that

point — for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser). He wants another letter

from the bar association. I think we could get one on Bill 11, and I'm

sure that the letter would be extremely critical of the bill. But we

don't have that letter.

The last speaker made an excellent point in view of the situation

that we see in British Columbia with human and civil rights: that is,

that the process was badly damaged last summer when the government

introduced Bill 27 like a sledgehammer. It began with the discharge of

the employees in the human rights branch and the arbitrary dismissal of

the commission. That sledgehammer approach caused very grave damage to

the cause of human rights in British Columbia. It exacerbated feelings

of discrimination and paranoia, and lowered the levels of tolerance.

Looking back, I think even the minister would agree that that

sledgehammer approach did a grave disservice to this province, but now

we have an opportunity to take our time. Clearly last year, with that

budget legislation, it would have been better to have left the existing

machinery of human rights in place and to have held hearings throughout

the province with a view to improving the protection of those rights.

Now that we've tried to repair some of the damage caused by the

introduction of Bill 27, the opportunity still remains to step back, to

take our time and to hold some hearings to let the public and the

people express themselves freely on human rights, and to raise the

levels of tolerance in this province, which in my opinion have been

pretty high in the past.

I don't like to see this kind of legislation being pushed through in

the manner that it is at the present time. It was introduced a week or

two ago and immediately called for debate in this chamber before the

community which is vitally interested in these matters has had

sufficient opportunity to express itself in a constructive way — and I

stress "constructive." I recognize that there are substantial

differences,Mr. Speaker, between this bill and Bill 27 that was introduced last summer.

I find it difficult to disagree with some of the points that the

minister is making. The minister is quite correct in saying that the

Human Rights Commission, before it had its head severed, did recommend

one tribunal with powers to investigate, decide and dismiss frivolous

complaints. That power to dismiss frivolous and vexatious complaints

has been in the rules of court for many years — used very sparingly,

but in the courts — but with this difference: where a litigant's case

is dismissed because it is adjudged to be frivolous and vexatious, he

has the right of appeal. That appeal process is nowhere to be found in

the new Bill 11. I'm not complaining about the right of the new Human

Rights Commission to dismiss complaints that are made, in the words of

the old commission, "maliciously or in bad faith" or are "trivial,

frivolous or vexatious." When that power is given to a politically

appointed body, it is very important that there should be a right of

appeal, limited as it may be and was in the old legislation, to the

courts of the land, because we're dealing, to some extent, with

appearances as well as substantive wrongs. The new body must seem to be

fair as well as be fair. When you take away appeal rights, and you say

in your legislation that you don't want any judge of the Supreme Court

of British Columbia or the court of appeal, or the Supreme Court of

Canada — because some of the other cases went that high; I think the

Caldwell case did — criticizing, spanking or reversing your commission,

that shows a bit of paranoia on the part of the government. It shows a

desire to protect themselves by having the power to appoint and dismiss

the commission, and to appoint, in all probability, people who are

favourable to their own political point of view and can behave in

accordance with their view of human rights, with no appeal to the

courts of the land. I think that is a tragedy. I think this government

has done grave damage to the cause of human rights and tolerance in the

province of British Columbia.

A lot was made of the Hunky Bill case by columnists. My old friend

Doug Collins — I suppose he still is a friend, but he is very much of a

political antagonist — had a field day with the Hunky Bill case. We all

have different opinions about it, but I agree that it was not a case

that should have gone to a long, expensive hearing with lawyers on both

sides. In the last analysis, it was marked by two things really.

Firstly, apart from human rights, there is also freedom of speech, and

anybody should be able to call themselves what they will under the

heading of free speech. Secondly, it always appeared to me that the

term "Hunky Bill" was a coming of age of the Ukrainian community, which

had had a long history of being discriminated against, but was now able

to say: "Yes, we are Ukrainian Canadians, and we can say that with good

humour, and poke fun at ourselves," as some of the older established,

elite, visible and invisible minorities have been able to do in Canada.

I think it was a good-humoured thing, and it was free speech. But it

was this government that set up the inquiry into the Hunky Bill case,

not the NDP It was not the fault of the Human Rights Code that was

brought in by the NDP government but, I think, the very unwise use of

it on the part of the government which helped to stir up the storm of

criticism of the human rights legislation. It was too long, too

expensive and too silly in some of the things that went before lawyers,

the expense and delay and the whole bit.

I, too, agree when the minister says that in this area adjudication on allegations of violations of human rights

[ Page 4413 ]

should be swift and certain, with no big penalties

and not too many lawyers. I even agree — although I wouldn't want it to

go out of this chamber — with the Attorney-General of the province of

British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Smith) in terms of young offenders — and I'm

talking on the same subject of something swift and certain in terms of

juveniles who get in conflict with the law. They're not really bad, but

when they're granted the right to a lawyer and the first thing the

lawyer says to them is: "The worst thing you could do is 'fess up to

anything; don't own up to what you've done," you've taken the freedom

of law and the right to silence to ridiculous and very expensive

lengths. Juvenile offenders really need to own up to what they've done,

which is the first step toward rehabilitation. They do not need to have

a lawyer tell them not to say a word, or to make them prove it. Then

the game is played, and it shouldn't be a game; it should be

rehabilitation. So when the minister says that it should be swift and

certain in this legislation, I think that there should have been a

tightening up of the old inquiry system, the references to the minister

and the rest.

There should be a non-political, strong, adjudicative body such as a

Human Rights Commission. I don't think it should be as political as it

has been made in this legislation. I think that a commission appointed

by the cabinet — and it follows from that that the cabinet can dismiss;

they're appointed at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor — would be

seen in the province of British Columbia as a political body, and

rightfully so. I don't think it would have taken much imagination to

have framed a commission established, say, by a committee of this House

and representing both parties, and a selection process that went

through that committee in much the same way that the ombudsman and the

auditor-general have been appointed. The result is then viewed as

non-political; they have terms of security of office and can speak

freely. They don't have to be thinking: "To hold my position on this

commission I must, as a bottom line, reflect the philosophy of and what

the government wants me to do." You say that human beings don't do

that. They act independently, and if they're fired, they're fired. A

lot of them are like that, but a lot of them are not. A lot of them are

very human creatures who will say: "I hold a political office. I will

be beholden to the view of human rights which I think the government

holds." I think that's very unfortunate, and something very easily

corrected. The commission, as I say, must not only be impartial, strong

and fair, but it must be seen must seem — to be all of those things.

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker, I have been proud of the extent of tolerance in the

province of British Columbia. I've watched it over many years — not as

many as some of the members think, but quite a few. I have vague

reading — and I was very young — "No Japs." It didn't say "allowed."

That was enough — "No Japs." And I remember very well the evacuation of

the Japanese from their homes, without cause. I remember very well the

history of the Chinese community, through friends, and the head tax

that was imposed on them alone as a racial group; the denial to the

Chinese-Canadians, who pushed the CPR through the Rocky Mountains by

the sweat of their brows, of the right to bring their wives from

Kwangtung Province in south China. Men who became very good citizens of

this province were forced out of their native province in the south of

China basically because of famine. The only reason they left their

native soil was that they didn't have the kinds of dams and water works

that now are in Kwangtung Province, the irrigation and things that make

it possible for people to farm and live which have occurred since 1949.

They were denied those elementary rights.

Then gradually, beginning with the granting of the vote to Indians —

in fact to everybody, Japanese and Oriental Canadians of all kinds — in

1949, they had the opportunity opened up to them to enter the

professions as well. We had no notaries, no lawyers of Chinese ancestry

before the early 1950s because they were barred by legislation. That is

no longer the case. Of course, we have many at the bar, many in the

schools of medicine, notaries public, and the rest. More important than

any legislation is the opening up of fair and equal opportunities

without discrimination of any kind. We've done pretty well in the

province of British Columbia in that respect.

In Vancouver East I've seen the transition. There was a time when,

if you ran for political office in Vancouver East, you had to be

beholden to the old soaks, like Harold Winch. He was a veteran, eh? He

was a member of the Legion, welcomed in the Army and Navy. That was the

key political element there — the Anglo-Saxon veterans, the Scottish

community. How much it has changed! First you had the beginning of the

Italian community moving eastward from downtown Vancouver and buying

homes, and maybe having more than one family in a home for a period of

time, and it first being resented because they had a somewhat different

culture. They had more joie de vivre and brio. But that resentment

quickly faded throughout Vancouver East. The Chinese moved from

downtown. As they got jobs and more opportunities, they moved eastward

and settled throughout Vancouver East. Of course, it's happened to many

other minorities. The last major group with a different origin to

settle very extensively in the east and south of the city of Vancouver

is the Sikh community, and there was resentment at first. There still

is very considerable latent prejudice, but it's changing.

In this province you had a pretty good level of tolerance,

understanding, good will and appreciation of the differences and of the

richness of diversity — appreciation that if you want a full life, it's

much better to mix and enjoy the cultures and carry on life in company

with people with a different background. But last summer I think grave

damage was done with the introduction of Bill 27. I know I'm repeating

myself on that point. I'll just say it again very briefly. The fabric

of tolerance was torn by the sledgehammer approach of Bill 27: the

firing of the commission, the elimination of the human rights branch

and the workers before there had been any hearings or any discussion

with the community and the people affected. Now that the government is

trying to repair that damage with this bill, it should be a bill that

is far better than the Bill 11 we see in front of us.

I'm trying to remember what Dr. Sam Johnson said; I think he said:

"How small, of all that human hearts endure, that part which laws or

kings can cause or cure!" You can't do it all by legislation. You can't

legislate tolerance. Tolerance depends basically upon economic and

social programs. If you have deprivation and disparities, you have

envy, jealousy, bitterness, rancour, which reflects itself in

discrimination because of race or sex or creed, or something of that

kind. If you have a society of good opportunities and fairness, a

reasonable social equality in terms of rewards — and rewards achieved

by merit and not by luck or connections or things of that kind — then

you're going to have a tolerant society. This

[ Page 4414 ]

bill and no bill can create that; that's economic and social. But the bill should be better than the bill we have before us.

You draw the inevitable conclusion that the government has

downgraded the cause of human rights by this legislation. You've got

Dr. Charles Paris, who was doing, in my opinion, a most estimable

service on behalf of his native province in terms of spreading that

spirit of tolerance, understanding and appreciation of the differences.

Of course, he's gone. Why? Why should such a person, doing so well,

have been summarily dismissed? And he's not to be replaced by this kind

of legislation. That kind of an educative body has gone. The amounts of

money to be spent on that in terms of promoting tolerance were very

minimal — I think it's a million and a half dollars, but in terms of

billion-dollar budgets very small — for this province with all of the

ethnic diversities and potential for trouble that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't agree with those who oppose this bill

by talking about taking some kind of strike action or holding up

projects, or things of that kind. That kind of action is not only

self-defeating, but it also aggravates the kind of feelings we're

trying to dismiss forever from this province. But I do say, along with

the member who just took his seat, that there is very good reason to

take this bill out, in terms of hearings throughout the community, and

hear what people have to say about it.

I'm concerned about one other feature of the bill which I will

mention, which is the use of the word "because" throughout the

sections. You have discriminated on the grounds of race, or something

of that kind, "because" of race, "because" of creed, "because" of age.

The legal decisions are very clear that when you say that a person is

alleged to have discriminated "because" of something, you're referring

to a mental state. You're saying "because of his motivation." In other

words, anybody coming before the new tribunal has to prove what in

old-fashioned terms was called mens rea; you've got to prove that the

man who discriminated did so with guilty intent. That's often very

difficult to prove. The consequences of discrimination without that

guilty intent may be just as severe as if the guilty intent were

present. Both kinds of cases should be dealt with by the commission.

But with the absence of a general clause allowing those kinds of

complaints to be heard, such as the reasonable-cause clause in the old

legislation, we're faced with the fact that this new commission will

have to dismiss these things out of hand if the complainant can't prove

— and the burden of proof would be on him — that he was discriminated

against by reason of a guilty intent. Does the minister say that that

should be the case: that a complainant must prove mens rea, or guilty

intent or motivation? It's very difficult indeed to prove, for the

Devil knows not the thought of man. Discrimination can take place

without the complainant's being able to prove guilty intent. The onus

of proving that, when you, do have that kind of clause in the

legislation, is upon the person complaining. I think that it is a very

fatal and most unfortunate aspect of the present bill.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to take my place by reiterating what I'm

saying. There should be an appeal to the courts. We should not be

afraid, especially with a politically appointed body, of having the

guidance and, where necessary, the direction of the courts of the land,

to make sure that that political body is fulfilling its mandate, to

give the appearance of fairness as well as the actuality. We should

appoint the new Human Rights Commission in an entirely different way,

in a totally non-political way, so that it will have that appearance of

fairness. While the bill may be supported by some recently appointed

QCs, nevertheless I don't think it meets the approval.... If there were

time for a proper analysis of this legislation to be made by the civil

rights division of the Canadian Bar Association, I'm sure we would have

constructive and worthwhile criticisms that could be embodied in the

legislation.

I strongly urge the government not to push ahead today with this

legislation, but to stand it down and let there be a free discussion

throughout the whole community of British Columbia. In that way, we

begin once again to raise the levels of tolerance and good humour in

the province of British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: I want to associate myself with the remarks of the

previous two speakers in the request that the minister carefully

consider lifting this bill from the table and endorsing resolution to a

committee of the House, to review this bill as a White Paper perhaps or

other briefs and recommendations that may be presented to it. The

reason we're of that view — and I speak for myself certainly and, I

think, most of my colleagues as well — is that we're not committed to

delay; we're not committed to spending public funds uselessly. But I

think one has only to listen en passant to the remarks of the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who has just taken his

place, on some of the history of racial immigration to the community of

Vancouver to know that over many generations the struggle for human

rights is very slow. The mills of the gods grind slowly. I also agree

with the previous speaker's contention that human rights is not a

question of law; human rights is education; human rights is a question

of respect for the differences that people have, and one cannot

necessarily impose that kind of respect through legislation. The Human

Rights Act, however, is an official statement of society on what

society and its governing structure thinks about racial discrimination

and human rights.

[11:30]

In this political process in Victoria, usually the government

introduces a bill, the opposition responds, the press pick up the

opening remarks of the minister and the response of the opposition and

interview affected groups within the community. Within 48 hours it's

all over. I suppose that accurately reflects the effect of some of the

legislation coming before the House, but that is not so for the Human

Rights Act. There's no quick response that can be made. There's no

"opening response, then it's all over" kind of process. The effects of

the provisions of Bill 11 may be felt for some time and may have a

rippling effect within the community.

I cannot help but feel that the government, and particularly this

minister, who is otherwise very intelligent and demonstrates political

judgment, is callous in the area of human rights. They're callous

because of ignorance and because of lack of understanding. I suppose

some people may be fooled into thinking that the Human Rights Act as

now proposed just changes how human rights complaints will be heard on

a structural basis. The fact is that this is a serious and far-reaching

retreat from a commitment to human rights.

The argument out there among large groups of people.... Certainly I

may concede the government and the minister will have a majority of the

population in support, with not much interest in the matter. There is

only interest in the matter from people who have an understanding of

the human rights situation. I have had experiences, being raised

[ Page 4415 ]

in the city of Vancouver, of terrible

discrimination against racial groups. The one occasion I remember most

graphically was in elementary school when a Chinese boy was being

harassed by fellow grade five students. Harassed is a polite word to

use; savaged is a more correct term. The philosopher Tagore says: "You

have merely to look into the face of a child to know that God exists."

When I looked in the faces of my colleagues on that day in that time, I

wondered whether God existed at all. Where do they learn this kind of

discrimination? As Rogers and Hammerstein, the two great philosophers,

indicated: "They've got to be carefully taught."

My own experience is not as savage, but it was graphic to a person

of my age, nine years old, when it was discovered in the private school

I was attending that my parents were of mixed Slavic descent. That's

when I first heard the term "hunky." I heard all about what Hunkies

were from the kids I was growing up with. Hunkies were stupid; they

were thick-necked; they worked on the railroad; they dragged their

knuckles on the sidewalk and so on — all of those delightful

characteristics of a "hunky." Now you don't really understand what that

means. That means that a nine-year-old half believes the things that

are being said about him. After all, these are people he has trusted

before, and where did these nine-year-old friends of mine learn these

things? They learned them from their parents. They had to be carefully

taught.

I know that the argument being raised now for retreating from a

commitment to human rights is the "Hunky Bill" case. That was a

terribly badly run case. It was a terribly misunderstood case. The

Chinese boy who was being savaged, as I recollect, tried to laugh along

with his tormentors. But you learn as you grow older that you don't

laugh along with bullies. You don't join with them to torment yourself.

And that was the issue in the "Hunky Bill" case. It didn't matter

whether Bill Konyk was Ukrainian. Because he's Ukrainian he has no

right to belittle his own ethnic origin, which includes the rest of us.

He has no right to make that decision on behalf of a whole group of

people. Nor do non-Ukrainians and non-Polish people have the right to

make a judgment about how important the Hunky Bill case was. They're

not on the other end of that bludgeon of racial and ethnic

discrimination. Turning your back on your own people does not give you

that right either.

Within our community there are people of Ukrainian descent who are

doctors, lawyers, professors, brain surgeons, Popes, bishops and MLAs,

and they don't have the right to trivialize an issue of ethnic

discrimination and bring in

an act saying: "We're retreating." "Look at

how much the Hunky Bill case cost," they say. "Look at how trivial it

was," they say. It was like the ladies' golf time. I say they don't

have the right on this side of the House, and they don't have the right

on that side of the House, because they weren't there.

It is a question of discrimination. It is a question of respect. But

I have found, as I grew older, Mr. Speaker, that respect sometimes

comes with a firm hand, as well as education. And sometimes education

follows rather rapidly, if you know what I mean. My own son had an

experience when he was in grade 4. Someone brought to his attention

that his father was a member of the New Democratic Party, and therefore

a communist, Marxist traitor, or whatever. My own son, although only in

grade 4, brought forcibly to the attention of this young friend of his

the error of his ways. And when that broken nose was brought to the

authorities' attention at the school, the parents were called in. When

we heard the whole story I explained that sometimes a broken nose is

good education. They, of course, are the closest of friends today. And

although I don't know whether that....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They have funny noses.

MR. LAUK: Well, there's a slight ridge in the fellow's nose.

But he'll always take with him the lesson in humility that was taught:

you've got to respect people's differences. And if you're not going to

do it out of your own knowledge, good will, understanding and wisdom,

then sometimes you'll do it with a little bop on the beak.

The Human Rights Act is a statement of this Legislature saying we do

not tolerate racial discrimination; but it cannot be taken seriously if

it's a retreat from the commitment to human rights that this chamber

made in the past. My colleague from Vancouver East is quite correct.

There are aspects of this bill that cannot be taken seriously and that

cannot be enforced.

If one must prove what was on the mind of the person that's accused

of discrimination, I say that you cannot, in most cases, prove

discrimination. Therefore many aspects of this bill are unenforceable.

I know the government must have received that advice: therefore I am

charging that the government is making a deliberate retreat from a

commitment to human rights.

Like my colleague from Vancouver East, I deplore and dissociate

myself completely from those who call for civil disobedience and

irresponsible behaviour in response to this retreat. It was quoted in

the press today that a certain person in Vancouver belonging to an

organization I never heard of called the Human Rights Council — I used

to be the chairman of the B.C. Human Rights Council, but this can't be

the same thing — has called for civil disobedience, shutting down the

Expo site, and all kinds of irresponsible responses to Bill 11. This

cannot be tolerated. It will encourage the very opposite reaction from

the community to what is desirable. Although I can understand that

person's anger and disappointment in this bill, I cannot condone that

kind of irresponsible call to arms. We must continue, with patience, to

bring the government, particularly the minister, to the fountain of

knowledge. We must encourage him to increase his understanding. To call

a restaurant "Hunky Bill's" may not seem serious, but it does lend

validity to the expression and to the prejudice against that group of

people. The people of Slavic ethnic origin have done extremely well in

Canada, and they're part of the community. They don't suffer the kind

of racial discrimination as other ethnic groups in the community do —

we used to, but we don't any more. But that's not the point.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

I want to say a special word about the Chinese. The Chinese have

never demanded their human rights in an irresponsible way, through

civil disobedience. They have demanded it in a different way and in a

more powerful way, and I want to share that with the chamber. Through

industry, loyalty and a contribution to the community at large, they

have made people like the Minister of Labour recognize that

contribution. They have, through their own example, strength and

discipline, contributed so much to the community and set such an

example that to deny them their

[ Page 4416 ]

human rights any further would have been a manifest

injustice and an even further blot on our history. I was born and

raised in Vancouver, and I grew up with Chinese people. I'm a part of

their history, and they're a part of mine. When you go through that

experience, you develop this kind of deep respect for the differences

and for the similarities between people. I believe that their example

is the right one. I discourage those who call for civil disobedience,

make irresponsible remarks and encourage a kind of negative attitude

toward human rights.

This bill is a deliberate retreat from the commitment that this

chamber made toward human rights in the past. It appears on the face of

it that these are just changes in the structure of how human rights

will be enforced. Human rights can't be enforced through this act. The

idea of racial discrimination being prohibited by the Human Rights Act

under this legislation will be a joke. The Doug Collins's of the world

and all of the bigots and fools will win the day. The government has

been bludgeoned.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister, who is of high intelligence, to

consider lifting this bill and either submitting it to a committee or

submitting some resolution to a committee. Let's carefully look at the

question of human rights. There are large groups of people of various

ethnic origins out there who do not call for mounting the barricades,

but they are deeply concerned with the government's move. No, they

won't picket; they won't shut down Expo; they won't blow up the

parliament buildings, but they are deeply affected by this kind of

retreat. They wonder whether they are second-class citizens once again.

They question the motivation of the government. Social Credit is by

definition anti-education and now — through Bill 11 — anti-human rights.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You don't believe that.

[11:45]

MR. LAUK: I do. I think it's clear that human rights is a

question of understanding; it's not the imposition of your particular

view of what human rights should be at this time. It should be an

objective standard, and it has to apply to all people and all

principles of equality of rights. Who is to decide whether something is

frivolous and vexatious? Twenty-five years ago a whiplash injury —

pardon me for referring to my own preoccupation — was not readily

recognized by the courts of the land until the court of appeal....

Guess what happened? Did they have an insight through their own study

of the law — in jurisprudence? Did they take a medical course? No. Two

justices of the court of appeal got whiplash injuries, and that's when

in British Columbia whiplash became a serious injury for which

compensation should be given. That's the kind of education I'm talking

about.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Or the executive director of certain societies I know.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Don't you get interest on the funds you use? You like controlling those funds, don't you?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You do, eh? Well, we'll catch up to you.

There is no point in being self-righteous about any of these things.

That's the kind of education I'm talking about. If you haven't been on

the other end of the stick, Mr. Speaker, you really don't know what

you're talking about, unless you're very perceptive. I said the

minister was very intelligent; I didn't say he was perceptive. I think

he showed political judgment; I didn't say he was wise. I think that

over a period of time he can acquire that kind of knowledge and

withdraw this bill and put it before a committee.

There are some opportunities within this bill that if the minister

insists upon it proceeding to committee, he can demonstrate the

government's sincerity in the protection of human rights. I would ask

him to amend the expressions in the bill that indicate that one must

prove mens rea, or guilty intent, to prove discrimination. The

expression "because" has been judicially.... The minister knows this.

If you haven't had this legal advice, you should withdraw the bill

right away.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, if you've had any legal advice, you'd know

that the judicial

interpretation of that phrase means "guilty intent."

You haven't had that advice?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We've had better advice than you give.

MR. LAUK: From the Court of Appeal of Tasmania?

Every judicial

interpretation of that word in Canada is clear — guilty intent.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Some of my best friends are Tasmanians.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Name three.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it always happens when the Wink Martindale of the Legislature comes in and interrupts me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't like your Lester Maddox drawl.

MR. LAUK: Who is Lester Maddox?

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your rapt and uninterrupted attention,

while you're reading the predictions of the Bishop Omarr, or whatever.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member finished?

MR. LAUK: I finished sometime ago.

Before I take my seat I want to bring to the attention of the poor

wretch up in Trail who is looking for his Volkswagen car seats that I

think they've now become the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs'

(Hon. Mr. Gardom'

s) jacket.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I would ask the minister to consider those amendments. If not, I'll try and bring them to his attention in committee later on.

[ Page 4417 ]

I oppose this bill on the grounds that I've stated, Mr. Speaker. I

think that the minister has really missed the point and that it is a

serious retreat from human rights; and I would ask the minister,

irrespective of partisan differences, to renew his interest in human

rights in a real in-depth way and not deal with it purely in terms of

what he can get away with politically.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it seems as though I've spoken on

this bill before. It's a subject that we've dealt with at some length

in these chambers, and one that we've dealt with as a result of the

attitudes of this government, which does not make adequate provisions

or demonstrate real concern for the individuals who find themselves in

difficulties in the province of British Columbia.

Human rights is certainly very closely related to freedom. I believe

that I have referred to my definition of freedom in this House before,

but I want to put it into the record once more. It relates to a story

as recorded by a young French pilot during the Second World War. He was

flying bombing missions over Germany, supposedly in the name of

freedom. As he was flying those bombing missions, dropping bombs on

women and children, he thought a lot about what freedom really was. He

kept a diary in which he recorded some of his thoughts; it was

published posthumously as a book — he was shot down while flying those

missions. His definition of freedom was that every individual is

entitled to complete and absolute freedom as long as it does not

interfere with the complete and absolute freedom of any other

individual.

MR. VEITCH: Good stuff!

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. And think about it, Mr. Government Whip.

That means that you do scarcely anything without interfering with some

other individual's freedom. We interrelate as human beings, and what we

do affects the very lives of other individuals.

That is why we on this side of the House are so concerned about the

changes this government is proposing relative to human rights in this

province. They are massive changes. True, the Code as it exists could

do with some updating. Times change. That Code is ten years old. But

you don't update a Code for 1984 by taking it back to the early 1900s,

and that is what this change is proposing to do.

Last fall or last summer, whenever it was that we were in a very

difficult situation in this Legislature — when we were sitting around

the clock and crowds were gathering on the streets — there was

obviously some concern on the part of the government that they had gone

too far, and they backed off. The Premier, instead of coming into this

Legislature and telling us his thoughts, went on TV, as seems to be his

wont. He made a statement to the public by way of the television media

that he was going to adjourn the House, and he did. When that House

adjourned, certain bills died on the order paper, one of them being the

changes to the Human Rights Code. Later the Premier made a commitment

that he would have....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I hear the member saying over there: "have

consultation..." that he would bring in some changes; that he had seen

the error of his ways. Well, we know now that that commitment was just

so much fluff. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) yesterday,

as recorded in Hansard , made that

very clear.

When my colleagues were talking about the lack of time they had had

to review this bill and to consult with the concerned individuals to

see what their feelings were about it, do you know what the minister

said, Mr. Speaker? He said: "You've had six months." Those were his

words. What the minister was admitting to this Legislature is that this

is Bill 27 revisited, and that's exactly what it is. There are a couple

of minor concessions. Sure. we're thankful for small mercies, but the

major thrust of this bill is exactly the same as that of Bill 27.

Let's just think a little bit about what this bill is doing as

compared to what we presently have, the Human Rights Code. The first

thing I would like to talk about is education in human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we do not have a quorum present. The

things I want to talk about I am very concerned about. I would like to

have some members of that government, particularly the minister

responsible for this bill.... Only the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is over there. I would like to have them in

the House to listen to what I'm saying.

[12:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are quite right, Madam Member. I guess we

should ring the quorum bells and perhaps get some members of the

opposition and government benches into the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: As I was saying when there was no quorum, I am

extremely concerned about this bill. The remarks I want to make are

very important to me and to a great number of my constituents and to a

great number of people in the province. For that reason, I want to be

sure that the minister responsible for the bill, who is again now

leaving the House, has an opportunity to hear the remarks I am making.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps he should see his doctor.

[Laughter. ]

One of the things about this piece of legislation that is of extreme

concern to me is the fact that while the Human Rights Commission as

established under the Code was able to conduct and partake in an

education function, under this bill there is no provision for such a

function. I would submit that that is one of the most important things

we should be doing as far as human rights are concerned: the need to

discuss the difficulties that can arise as a result of discrimination

or possible discrimination, the need for the kind of dissemination of

information that has been taking place in my constituency between the

East Indian community and the Caucasian community. In fact, we have

been able to have demonstrations in the schools on how a turban is put

on and why a turban is worn, and on how you put on a sari. That sort of

understanding of the reasons that people dress as they do, the things

they do and the customs they have is critical if we are to develop and

enhance a society that is able to live hand in hand with each other,

with the various segments of our society. That is something that has

been conducted locally, as a result of the concerns we have had in our

valley that we do not have

[ Page 4418 ]

any development of racial discrimination. We have a

great many large ethnic groups in Cowichan, including East Indian,

native Indian and Chinese. That's the kind of work that was being

undertaken and could be undertaken by the Human Rights Commission.

There is no provision for that in Bill 11; the whole educational

function is gone — disappeared, lost. That's prevention.

The minister says that this is going to be cheaper. I doubt if this

is going to be cheaper. He talks about some figures. You look in his

budget, and he's got about half as much money this year as last year.

It won't be cheaper if we do not do this educational work. The result

will be that we will have an expanded need for this new commission,

because there will be more and more problems. We won't be preventing

them by not having that education in advance.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if someone wishes to make an introduction I'd be delighted to give them the opportunity.

MR. PELTON: I certainly thank the member for Cowichan-Malahat for the courtesy.

MRS. WALLACE: Any time for you.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have noticed over

the past few weeks that we have had a lot of school people come to

visit us. Today I feel very proud that I have some pupils here from my

riding. I would like to ask all of those in the chamber to make welcome

the students from Ferndale Elementary School, and their teacher Mr.

Ewert.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Cowichan-Malahat continues, and the Chair thanks the member as well for her courtesy.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't quite get all

the symbolism of your signs. I thought perhaps you were asking me to

adjourn, but it seemed a little soon for that.

While we're on introductions, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be

allowed the privilege of making an introduction. I notice in the

gallery today my constituency rep Mrs. Joan Gillatt, who has come down

to see me in action. I would ask the House to welcome her.

Incidentally, I'm also expecting three friends from Newfoundland.

These people are not here yet, but they're on their way. They are three

women who Joan Gillatt and I met when we travelled to Greece a year ago

last fall with a group of women. We were hosted by the Greek Women's

Organization. They will hopefully be here in the gallery, if they make

it in time. They are coming to see us in operation here. One of these

women is particularly interested inasmuch as she is the constituent rep

for the Minister of Education in Newfoundland. Her name is Linda Sue

Chambers, and she is accompanied by her mother and her aunt. They will

be here shortly. If they do arrive before we adjourn, I hope you will

also give them due welcome and behave yourselves, because I've told

them about what a great organization we are here in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Right. No screech.

I've talked about education. Another concern that is hand in hand

with education or the lack of it, or the wiping out of any educational

process — is the investigative staff. Under the Human Rights Code there

was provision for investigative staff. The Human Rights Commission and

the people who worked there could go out and investigate relative to a

complaint. You could find out just what had happened and whether or not

the complaint was justified. You had some basis to work on. That's now

gone. Under this bill you will have a complaint, you will consider it,

and you will send a letter to the complainant that you do or don't

agree with the complaint and whether you're prepared to take it

forward. It's very cold and impersonal; there's no backup and no data.

There is just an opinion. I regret to see that that opportunity,

ability and provision for investigative work to be done relative to any

complaint that comes before the commission or the newly appointed

council, as it's called, is gone. If you're going to administer the

existing act or this one in an effective way, then you have to have

provisions for investigation. That is just not here. The powers are not

there for that investigation, and the structure is not there. This

bill, as it is worded, makes it impossible to get the necessary

information or statements.

One change that has been made is that you can now subpoena evidence.

In that respect it's interesting to note that while the act provides

great discretionary powers to the minister as to why or why not a case

goes forward.... He makes the decision in many instances whether it

will be referred to a board of inquiry, and yet if either party decides

that the result of that board of inquiry is not correct, and they want

to challenge that and take it to court, the minister is exempted from

providing any of the information on which he based his opinion. So

while he has added the right to get some information, he who has that

decision-making ability has exempted himself from the need to provide

reasons for why he made the decision. That is taking altogether too

much power into the hands of the minister.

Another change which I think is completely wrong is that this Human

Rights Council will not have the authority or the ability to initiate

claims. The Human Rights Commission had that authority, and it was

certainly in the best interests of protecting little people who might

be concerned about taking a case forward themselves and who were

limited in their funds. The commission was able to move in and take the

case for them. Now unless you have a representative organization to

take the case forward, you have to do it on your own. There is no way

that this new council has any authority. There is no provision for that

council to take the case forward.

[12:15]

There they are — my friends Bette Hardie, Joan Chambers and Linda

Sue Chambers. Please welcome them. All the way from Newfoundland.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which one is from Corner Brook?

MRS. WALLACE: They're all from Comer Brook. Welcome to British Columbia.

Another reason why I oppose this bill and why I think this bill is

inferior legislation to our existing Human Rights Code is the fact that

there are so many dual remedies offered. One of those remedies is that

someone who goes before that newly proposed Human Rights Commission may

be directed to

[ Page 4419 ]

proceed under another act. What that says to me is

that this council will have the power to direct that a complaint be

dealt with under other legislation. There may be numerous cases where

the complainant who is a subject of human rights discrimination would

have such remedy. It's important that the protection be offered to that

person in a way that those remedies will actually apply toward the

betterment of human rights.

Human rights are not something that can simply be dealt with in a

sort of black and white situation. I use that figuratively. What I'm

saying is that there are all sorts of areas which don't deal with

specifics. There are areas where it is very difficult to define the

exact reason, to have a case that will actually hold water in a case of

law, and yet there is very real discrimination there. So it seems to me

that even though the council may in its wisdom decide that some other

act may apply — and it could apply in a great many cases — it is not in

the best interests of human rights in this province to shunt those

cases out under those acts where the only recourse is through court of

law or through some other body, such as a labour relations board or

another sort of tribunal. The human rights concern is the one that we

must be completely beholden to. It's the one that we must ensure is not

lost in some other form of tribunal where human rights is the secondary

consideration. So I have concerns about that.

Legal costs. Certainly under this act there are going to be a lot

more costs to any complainant. In fact, if the complainant takes his

case forward and it goes through the whole routine as set out, he may

well find himself assessed with costs. Many people who have a

legitimate human rights concern will be hesitant to go this route just

in case they lose, because they know if they lose they cannot afford to

pay that kind of assessment. So in a way it is discrimination against

the poor, and certainly that in itself is a loss of human rights. I'm

concerned about that step in this particular piece of legislation.

I mentioned it before, but I'm going to mention it again. The fact

that the minister can use his discretion to deny a hearing seems to me

to be really placing on very perilous grounds the lot of the person who

is involved in a case of discrimination. How is the minister to know

whether or not there has been discrimination? How is he going to make

that decision? There is no way that he's going to have any information

on the thing. Is he going to judge whether it's trivial? Is he going to

judge whether it is, in his opinion, discriminatory? There are a lot of

things that I'm sure that minister would think were quite all right but

that I would feel were far from all right. I don't like the idea of

placing in the hands of one person the right to decide about something

that may have had a very definite effect on the life of some new

Canadian, on the life of some woman, on the life of any British

Columbian. He has that right to decide without giving any reasons or

any explanation, without having any information to back up that

decision, and without having to make his reasons public.

Another change is that the....

When my colleague and the minister get through having their conversation I will continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're old friends.

MRS. WALLACE: We're wasting a lot of it. Okay, fine; I'll finish.

The next point I wanted to deal with was the fact mat under this

bill the council will not be able to be a party to board of inquiry

proceedings. The old Human Rights Commission did have that right, and

they used to assert that right quite consistently. But the new

commission will not have that right. It means that a complainant who is

not.... I think that the government and you, Mr. Speaker, should

realize that a lot of the people who are involved in these cases of

discrimination are not people of any great amount of wealth. They are

very ordinary people who do not have the funds or the expertise to take

a case forward. So again, the complainant is without assistance at the

board of inquiry. The enforcement of the rules is going to be very

frustrating, because the new council is not going to have the kind of

authority that the commission did to go along with the complainant and

help them through the process. That's lost, and it makes it more

difficult to enforce the ideas, which are supposedly behind this

legislation, that there will not be discrimination. It makes it much

more difficult to get the thing through in a way in which a favourable

decision will be forthcoming, because there is no provision for any

assistance for the claimant, and there's no right of appeal. Once the

thing is there, it's there. The minister makes a decision; that's it,

unless you're prepared to take the thing to court and unless, in fact,

it does have a legal basis to provide for that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's the way it is now.

MRS. WALLACE: Sure, maybe that is the way it is now. But if

you're going to make some changes, let's ensure that the change does

provide for some kind of tribunal that does not involve the expense or

the legal technicalities that are required if you go into a court of

law.

The thing that I want to talk about, probably in the main — and I

should hurry on, because my time is certainly disappearing here quickly

— is the removal of the "reasonable cause" provision. This is the one

that is really relevant to the sorts of cases that I've been talking

about that are not specific in law. There have been cases raised;

examples have been given of the under-45-year-old who, for some reason,

is discriminated against because of his or her age. If they're under

45, no matter how reasonable their case may be, there is no provision

for them under this bill. By the same token, if anyone over 65 is for

some reason discriminated against because of age, there is no provision

in this bill for that case to go forward, no matter how reasonable the

cause is. The removal of that "reasonable cause" provision leaves

people under 45 and over 65 without any protection, any way of getting

anything before the human rights council if it relates to age.

One of the examples that's been given is the apprentice who was 26

or something, and there was a rule about apprentices being under 25. He

would have had nowhere to go under this bill,

whereas under the old

Code he did have some place to go under the "reasonable cause" clause.

The same is true with a person over 65. If for some reason they are

discriminated against because of age, there is no way that they have

any opportunity to take that case before the human rights council, as

proposed in Bill 11, and as was proposed in Bill 27 before it. There's

no change there.

I'd like to quote from a report that was filed and made public in April 1983. It's entitled Labour Law and Practice: Human Rights . It is a report made by the chief compliance officer of the human rights branch. Her name is April Katz.

[ Page 4420 ]

I'm sure the minister is familiar with this report, and familiar with Ms. Katz.

"The 'reasonable cause' provision, as a catch-all for

group characteristics not specifically named in the legislation, is

unique in British Columbia."

She's talking about the existing Human Rights Code.

"The provision has allowed complaints to go forward on

the basis of such group characteristics as physical or mental

condition, sexual orientation, family status, ages under 45, ages 65

and over, sexual harassment, racial harassment and pregnancy.

"The single largest category of incidence of complaint

has been in the area of sexual harassment. While other jurisdictions

have been plagued with questions of whether or not sexual harassment

was included under the definition of sex discrimination, British

Columbia has proceeded with complaints of sexual harassment under the

catch-all provision of 'without reasonable cause.' Sexual harassment is

the single largest growing category of discrimination, both alleged and

proven."

The minister says she's wrong, and I hope that when he closes second

reading he will give us some hard facts, because this is a report out

of his own ministry by one of his own employees. I am sure that as the

chief compliance officer of the human rights branch Ms. Katz is

extremely familiar with the cases that come before that branch.

[12:30]

By changing the bill to leave out the reasonable cause provision the

minister is simply giving the back of his hand to women who are

constantly harassed, both on the job and off. We hear all the time, Mr.

Speaker, of the situations that occur in the workplace and socially,

where sexual harassment does take place. Going back to my first

complaint about this bill, the lack of the educative process, it is

something that the male sector of our population certainly require to

be educated about. It's something that is societal, something that we

have inherited and something that is no longer appropriate. It was

never appropriate, but it certainly isn't appropriate in today's

society. For this minister to deliberately remove the clause that

provided women with the ability to take a case of sexual harassment

before the Human Rights Commission....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're wrong there.

MRS. WALLACE: No, I'm not wrong, Mr. Minister. That is the

clause where those cases went in. They did not fit under that clause,

Mr. Speaker, and I am certainly opposed to this bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At the request of the official opposition, I

would adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House on behalf of

the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe).

Motion approved.

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

Speaker. I would like to associate myself very much with the remarks of

the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat and welcome the good ladies from

the province of Newfoundland to our province. I think it goes without

saying that Newfoundland and British Columbia are the bookends of

Canada; but for our two provinces the country could well fall apart.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1984

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984.

Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

LEGAL SERVICES SOCIETY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Legal Services Society Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the House at its rising do stand

adjourned until Tuesday, May 1, at two o'clock in the afternoon. Should

it appear to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker or the Deputy Speaker,

after consultation with the government, that the public interest

requires that the House shall meet at an earlier time and date, Mr.

Speaker or the Deputy Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied,

and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated in such

notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned

to that time and date.

MR. NICOLSON: I just want to say that this is the best wording of this motion that I've ever heard.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all members a very joyous, thoughtful and thankful Easter. I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada