1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 1343 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Weather Modification Activity Act (Bill 118). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1343

Mr. Gardom — 1343

Mr. Wallace — 1343

Mr. Smith — 1343

Mr. Chabot — 1344

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1344

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 7.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345

Amendment to

section 13.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345

Amendment to

section 17.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345

section 20 as amended

Mr. McClelland — 1345

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1345

Report stage — 1346

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964 (Bill 82).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 14.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1346

Report stage — 1346

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

Committee, report and third reading — 1347

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

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mrs. Jordan — 1348

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1348

section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1349

Hon. Mr. King — 1349

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1349

section 3.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1349

Hon. Mr. King — 1349

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1350

Hon. Mr. King — 1350

Mrs. Jordan — 1351

Hon. Mr. King — 1351

Mr. Gardom — 1351

Hon. Mr. King — 1351.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1351

Mrs. Jordan — 1352

Hon. Mr. King — 1353

Mrs. Jordan — 1353

section 4.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1353

Hon. Mr. King — 1353

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1354

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. King — 1354

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1354

section 5.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1354

Hon. Mr. King — 1355

Mr. D.A, Anderson — 1355

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. King — 1355

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1356

section 8.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1357

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Mr. King — 1357

section 9 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1357

Hon. Mr. King — 1357

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1357

Mr. Richter — 1358

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1358

Hon. Mr. King — 1358

section 15

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1358

Amendment to

section 16.

Mr. Gardom — 1358

Hon. Mr. King — 1359

Mr. Gardom — 1359

section 16.

Mr. Gardom — 1359

Amendment to

section 17.

Mrs. Jordan — 1360

Hon. Mr. King — 1361

Mrs. Jordan — 1361

Mr. Gardom — 1361

Hon. Mr. King — 1362

Mr. Gardom — 1362

Mrs. Jordan — 1362

Hon. Mr. King — 1362

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1363

Division on amendment to

section 17 — 1363

Report stage — 1363

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill 85).

Committee, report and third reading — 1363

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act (Bill 89).

Committee, report and third reading — 1364

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966 (Bill

106).

Committee, report and third reading — 1364

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1973 (Bill

110).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1364

Mr. Phillips — 1364

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1367

Mr. Gardom — 1371

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1371

Mr. Phillips — 1372

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1374

Mr. Phillips — 1375

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1376

Report and third reading — 1376

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1973

The House met at 8:35 p.m.

Orders of the day .

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 118, Mr. Speaker.

This is not related to the bill earlier regarding a change

under vital statistics, Mr. Speaker.

WEATHER MODIFICATION ACTIVITY ACT

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is fairly straightforward. The government

is of the opinion that it should assert its sovereignty in these areas in which

there may be some question. The question of water management in the province

is closely related to the weather, needless to say, and artificial activities

in relation to the weather are of some import with respect to water management

in the province, power projects and the like.

I think the bill more or less speaks for itself. We're

determined to see the government exerts its authority in the

water basins of British Columbia, which are areas of our

natural concern in this province. I did ask one of my

colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for a one-liner comment with respect

to this bill. I'm not an expert in one-line comments myself,

but the suggestion was that, "Everybody talks about it and

nobody ever does anything about it; you now have a government

that's going to do something about it." (Laughter.)

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

ask if they were practising on Sunday. It sounds to me like

they over-reacted a little bit.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. I move second reading.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to say,

Mr. Speaker, that I know the Minister has been aspiring to this

position, and if this bill is going to help him, well, God

bless him.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Who does he think he is,

God?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We've had the snowflake Minister

introduce this bill tonight, (Laughter) but there's just one aspect of it that's

slightly troubling and that's the definition section. Apart from that it's not

a bad bill at all but it states that "weather modification activity," which

I suppose will be called WMA, means any activity designed — and so forth and

so on — which may increase fog or cloud.

Now of course this would take into effect many of the

policies the government has been prescribing to us this

session. In view of that I just wonder whether or not the

government would plan itself to come within, the areas and

regions of the definition.

Applying the definition in its literal sense it would of

course, constitute an offence in the Province of British

Columbia today for a person to burn one's leaves in one's back

yard without acquiring the requisite permit, I suppose, from

the Minister. I don't suppose that he intended that the bill

would go that far, but it's unfortunate that the definition

will give that capacity to the Minister.

It's a funny thing to have to talk about unlimited powers in

something that is so unlimited as weather control, but we find

it here coming under the Minister.

I don't know; as long as we've got faith in granny, Mr.

Minister, it may work out all right.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's a fascinating

bill by title, Weather Modification Activity Act , and it

certainly does make one feel that somebody wants to be plugged

in to God. I'm not necessarily quoting from any earlier

administration, but one of the interesting phrases that….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Not necessarily. But one of the phrases in the

bill talks about dissipating fog. To be serious for a moment,

this of course can become a very valid concern of the airports,

and particularly the Vancouver airport. Certainly during the

war fog dispersal was a very important factor in controlling

the safe landing and taking off of aircraft.

I wonder if the Minister, in winding up second reading,

would mention whether he has had any discussions with airport

authorities or the federal Department of Transport as to the

very practical implication of this bill in relation to the

whole question of fog control. It isn't a matter for humour on

that point; it's a very practical and serious aspect of civil

aviation and transportation of passengers by recognized

airlines. I wonder to what degree he has had discussions with

airport or federal transport authorities on this particular

aspect of the bill.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's an interesting bill

and it leads one to think of many situations which may or may

not be covered under the bill. I just wonder, Mr. Minister, in

closing the debate, whether you would elaborate on the fact

that

[ Page 1344 ]

this puts those people out of business who like to witch for

water and find water wells, or if you are going to prohibit the

Indian people from conducting a rain dance in the province or

anywhere in any part of British Columbia. Is that part of the

intention of this bill? When we look at this redistribution of

precipitation, as is suggested in this bill, I wonder how the

Minister is going to accomplish that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Talk about a snow job!

MR. SMITH: I realize that the Minister, on occasion, and his

colleagues have been quite capable of snow jobs on the part of

the public and in this House, but since this doesn't include

snow, because the people in the lower mainland apparently are

not afflicted with snow except on the odd occasion….

HON. MR. BARRETT: The hail you say!

MR. SMITH: Halley's Comet did you say? Well, the Hon.

Premier wants to get into the act too tonight.

But seriously, it's a known fact that in certain

circumstances it is possible to seed clouds and, by that

particular action, precipitate rainfall. But if the Minister

needs this type of a bill to become involved in that sort of a

process, then I'd suggest to the Minister that perhaps he would

look into the problem that the Peace River experiences now with

fog in the late fall and winter months that we never

experienced before.

It is a result of excess precipitation and humidity in the

air as a result of Williston Lake — at least, this is what the

weather officials tell us. Perhaps so that myself and other

people who wish to fly during the late fall months and the

winter could, as they did in the past, depend almost 100 per

cent on air transportation in and out of the area, he would see

if he could do something about the fog banks that flow into

that area during the months of late October and November and

into the month of December.

You're going to enact a bill which will help relieve the

lack of precipitation in certain areas of the province.

Certainly I would suggest that you look into another aspect,

and that is the areas that have fog now where in previous years

none existed.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt in my mind that

this is hasty, last-minute legislation, because just a few days

ago, the Premier indicated very clearly to this assembly, to

Members of this House in the official opposition, that there

was only going to be one more bill. This is about bill number

22. It's a hasty piece of retaliatory legislation, that's what

it is, because it came in after the Seattle Light and Power, if

that's the proper term of their corporation…Seattle Light,

Heat and Power?

Anyway, after they had proposed a cloud-seeding proposal to

increase the water behind the Ross Dam, because of the

inability because of low water to generate the maximum

generation of power, there is no doubt in my mind that that's

what it is. It's hasty, retaliatory legislation prepared by the

Minister. We've seen, from the type of attitude the Minister

has projected in other areas as well, that he's not beyond this

kind of action, as far as I'm concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. CHABOT: But what shocks me most of all is the fact that

Governor Evans was here not too long ago. There was this

goodwill and meeting of opinions and so forth.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): There still is.

MR. CHABOT: And there was supposed to be great cooperation

between the State of Washington and the Province of British

Columbia. I'm shocked, really, to see the retaliation being

projected by the introduction of this bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised. Here

is, once again, separation of the points of view in this

Legislature. It's very clear what the view is now of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Are they in favour of foreign

rainmakers in Canada? Is that what the Hon. Member is talking

about?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the fact of cooperation? What about

the fact of cooperation with the State of Washington?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is a 49th parallel in North

America; there is an international border between our two

countries. We can have cooperation between our two countries

and we will have cooperation between that state and this

province, I'm sure.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish! Rubbish!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But that is a border. We are two

sovereign nations on either side. Now there is an opportunity

for the Member to put it on the line — that 49th parallel. How

does he feel about our regulating activities on this side of

the line to our benefit?

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the water at Roberts Bank?

[ Page 1345 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I move that the

question now be put.

Interjections.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Motherhood!

Bill 188 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL CENTRE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to

section 7.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 approved with amendment.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 13 approved with amendment.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 approved with amendment.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper — 20 (a).

Amendment approved.

section 20 as amended.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Well, Mr. Chairman, the

official opposition feels that this is a slap in the face of

the elected members of the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital

District who may appoint a person to attend the meetings but

have no voting rights. We would like to suggest that perhaps

those people would be allowed voting rights on the board. If

not, they shouldn't be allowed even the opportunity to attend

the meetings.

We just feel that this is once again an opportunity in which

this government has taken away the rights of the elected

members of either hospital districts or regional districts.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the GVRD has had a long

practice of not wanting to be a voting member on any of the

Vancouver boards, and it was their desire that we were

following. If that Member over there has any other ideas or has

any other evidence, I'd like him to stand up and say so.

Because I met with the entire regional district when we were

discussing this whole question of what their status would

be.

They agreed with their status. As a matter of fact, they

appointed their chairman, Dr. Purdy, to be their representative — non-voting, but their observer. It might be interesting too,

to know that the meeting….

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: You know, you've got all the time in the

world after I'm finished, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, there was no persuasion here at all; this was

at their behest. It's significant in that they have dispatched

their chairman to be the observer — and that's the position that

he wants to hold.

Further to that, Mr. Chairman, they don't take this kind of

liberty with any of the hospitals in the Vancouver area. That

is having a voting delegate. It just happens to be the way they

want to work and it works out fine with us.

The meetings, incidentally, are public.

Section 20 approved with amendment.

[ Page 1346 ]

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the Minister I would

clarify one point, and that is that under

section 6 it was the

amendment that was passed by the House. The amendment to

section 6 which was passed deletes the section.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 81, Medical Centre of British Columbia Act , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 82, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MENTAL HEALTH ACT, 1964

The House in committee on Bill 82; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): As the Hon. Minister is

aware, our critic in this area is absent from the House on a

matter of urgent public business, a special committee set up by

this House. I would like to move that the committee rise and

report progress and ask leave to sit again on this bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this bill has been before the

House for some time. In second reading this bill was given

absolutely no opposition from any

section of the House. I just

can't imagine any reason why there should be any debate

whatsoever in the committee stage.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is aware that there

are shadow cabinets in the opposition. Our critic on this bill

is absent from the House. If he does not wish to adjourn the

debate until the Member is back, in view of the fact that he is

absent from the House on a matter beyond his control, then

that's the way the House will so rule.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's not a debatable motion. I

would put the motion now.

Motion negatived.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to

the bill by striking out the words "three months' and

substituting the words "thirty days" in

section 14.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which line?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's in

section 14, line 4 — striking out the words "three months" and substituting "thirty

days".

Amendment approved.

Section 14 approved with amendment.

Sections 15 to 24 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 82,

An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, 1964

reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HOSPITAL ACT

House in committee on Bill 105; Mr. Dent in the chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister is aware that

the official critic from the opposition is unavoidably away

from the House on a matter of urgent public business, serving

on a committee established by this House. In all deference to

the responsibilities of the opposition, this Member should be

present when this bill is brought before the House. If it's the

government's policy to ramrod legislation through, then we must

accept this. But in all due respect to the democratic process…

[ Page 1347 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: …and the British parliamentary system, I

would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You must be under the wrong impression. I

always understood that the Whips had agreed that this was not a

contentious bill. If that is the case — and your House Leader

(Mr. Chabot) is nodding — there is a difference between your

House Leader and you and I'm afraid we can't accept this

motion. Someone must speak for your party and obviously it must

be the House Leader; that's how the Whip arrangement works.

Therefore we cannot accept the motion.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is there's no debate….

MRS. JORDAN: Are you aware the government Whip is away and

we can….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no debate on the

motion….

MRS. JORDAN: If our critic is in the House, we were quite

willing to accept the debating of the bill….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The motion is that the

committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion negatived.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 105,

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 109, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

REGISTERED NURSES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 109; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

MRS. JORDAN: May I point out that while this Act may well be

in keeping with the wishes of the registered nurses of British

Columbia, our critic is out of the House on a matter of urgent

public business. We would ask that due deference be given to

the parliamentary process…

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: …and the offices of parliament and the

responsibilities of the elected Members of this Legislature.

The government should not be in a position to be ramrodding

legislation through this House while our critics are…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: …away at their demand. We move that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this bill was accepted by

their critic. He endorsed this bill. At the time this bill went

to second reading there was absolutely no contention in the

bill whatsoever. That Member over there is trying to make a

show of this debate this evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no debate on a motion….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept this

motion. When the House leader is sitting next to that Member,

nodding and agreeing with us…how do you expect us to run

this House? Incredible!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion is that the

committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion negatived.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 1348 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 109,

An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

House in committee on Bill 100, Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

MRS. JORDAN: In view of the fact that our official critic in

the Department of Labour, the Hon. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot), is absent from this House on a specially

constituted committee which is attending to a matter of urgent

public business, and because we feel that it is the critic's

right and responsibility to be in this House whenever

legislation concerning their area is debated…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: …I would like to move that the committee

rise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Member may speak to the

section or move a motion but may not preface her motion.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I would just like to make the point in speaking

section 1 of this Act that our critic, the Hon. Member for

Columbia River, has a responsibility and a right to speak

either in favour of or in contrast to the

definitions of this

Act and to be present in this House when these

definitions are

debated.

Due to the fact that he is, by order of this House,

attending a specially constituted committee which is attending

to a matter of urgent public business, and that he should have

the right to be here, I would like to move that the committee

rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again in order that

the responsibilities of this Legislature may be carried out in

their proper form.

Motion negatived.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to know why "age"

only means between the age of 45 to 65. I would have assumed

that it should have been completely open-ended at the top end.

I wonder why, indeed, there is no objection to discrimination

against a person because of youth. Could the Minister comment

on this?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, the only

age area the seems to have encountered problems in terms of

discrimination in employment opportunity is that age group

which is between 45 and 60. It is to that group that this

protection is specifically extended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, for starters, this bill

goes a great deal further than strictly employment opportunity,

and thank goodness it does. The fact is that I remember a case

that came to my attention when I was an MP — I passed it on to

the MLA for the area — of a person being given a particularly

hard time because of his youthful appearance. He apparently was

very sensitive on this subject and he got fed to the back teeth

with people serving in liquor stores giving him a hard time on

age, hassling him, insisting that he produce identity, when

they knew full well that the fellow was over 21 because they

had dealt with him before.

It is not a major point; it is a minor point. Perhaps you

and I appear our age, unfortunately, and we are not too worried

about it, but it was a major factor for this particular person.

For me, perhaps, I couldn't understand it but, again, it was a

psychological problem that he had. I wonder why we have to

specify specifically only 45 to 65. That is only 20 years out

of the three-score-and-ten the good Lord allots to us, and it

doesn't appear to me to be a restriction that makes sense.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, this is

the usual age group, and the usual and most customary way of

discriminating against age groups is in employment. There is a

provision in the bill, as I think the Member knows, for the

prohibition of discrimination on the basis of any reason unless

they can show reasonable cause. So if discrimination on the

basis of youthfulness in terms of access to public premises or

anything of that nature were alleged, then the person

perpetrating that discrimination would be obliged to show

reasonable and just cause for that type of conduct.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, I can think of a job classification which is

restricted to those 31 and under. Indeed I was startled to

realize that because I was once employed under the age of 31 in

this particular

[ Page 1349 ]

category. I can also think of a fair number of cases where,

because of pension plan provisions in particular — the type of

iniquitous pension plan provisions that lock you in for 30 or

40 years — 45 simply is not a relevant age; 40 or 35 might well

be.

It is not a major point, perhaps, but I just don't see that

we have to restrict this to people who are discriminated

against only in that 20-year span.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This, Mr. Chairman, is apparently…not

a contradiction, but I would like the explanation of the

Minister. In

section 2 (1) it says that, "No person shall

publish or display before the public, or cause to be published

or displayed before the public, any notice, sign, symbol…." which would discriminate against anybody — and quite rightly

too.

Section 2 (2) goes on: "Notwithstanding subsection (1), any

person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his

opinions on any subject." As this wipes out the effect of

subsection (1) I presume that if you write out your objection

to a particular racial group or sexual group, or whatever it is

that you particularly dislike, you can do so as long as you use

a paint brush and use a large piece of paper. As long as you

are writing, you can get away with it.

The two appear to be contradictory and 2 (9) seems a fairly

large loophole to place in this particular section.

HON. MR. KING: I don't believe that

interpretation is

correct, Mr. Chairman. I believe the differentiation here is

simply to indicate that the intent of restricting any writing

or publication to the extent that it may not be discriminatory

is, on the other hand, clearly not an attempt to inhibit or

restrict the free expression of one's opinion and one's right

to free speech. That is spelled out in subsection (2).

Certainly anyone who, by their speech, indulged in

discrimination that had the effect of injuring a party, would,

I suggest, be liable under this Act, as they would be liable if

they indulged in their free speech with slanderous comment — which would make them liable under the common law for damages

in that situation.

So I don't think it is an inconsistency. I think it is

simply an indication that this does not inhibit free speech in

any way, but that free speech is subject to the prohibitions of

discrimination, as it is to slander.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In this bill we are reducing the right to free speech

for a stated and useful and correct objective: to cut out discrimination. That

is the objective: to cut out discrimination. That is the object of the bill:

to cut down on the free expression of people when it comes to this certain area

which we consider to be discriminatory. Let's face up to the fact that we are

cutting down on free speech. It is not something I object to; I appreciate it

under these circumstances. But we can not have it both ways, as the Minister

has attempted to do.

We are cutting down on free speech. The question is whether

or not the exception in 2 (2) is too wide. In my opinion, if

you are going to throw in 2 (2) you perhaps have wiped out any

placard on a wall, but you have not wiped out a guy who

expresses his opinions by word of mouth, not wiped out anybody

who expresses his opinions by writing them out. All you have

done, perhaps, is the very limited area of putting up a sign on

a wall or something of that nature. It appears to me that 2

(2) wipes out 2 (1).

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree with you.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Once again, this is a very important

bill, Mr. Chairman. We have in

section 3 (1): "No person shall" — deny or discriminate — "unless reasonable cause exists for

such denial or discrimination." I wonder if the Minister would

give us an indication of what would constitute reasonable

cause.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, of course the Human

Rights Commission will ultimately be available for adjudicating

just cause. It seems to me, as I indicated in the debate on

second reading of this bill, that it's quite impossible to

spell out in legislative language all the various forms of

subtle discrimination that can exist.

An illustration, I would suggest, would be in the case of

advertising for rooms and so on in smaller family units. In

that situation, obviously I don't think it would be wise to

insist that a little old lady who might have a room to rent

should be obliged to rent to any member of the public citizenry

when perhaps the accommodation is such that it would call for

the sharing of bathroom facilities and so on.

I don't think we should try to nail it down in such a

stringent way that the legitimate rights and interests of

landlords in situations like that are abrogated. This simply

provides the "reasonable cause" formula as a criteria. I think

that that's the only reasonable and flexible way that can be

taken in it.

The Act clearly provides that no discrimination will take

place in rental accommodations, in

[ Page 1350 ]

employment, on the basis of race, sex, racial

origin, age, and so on. But there are other subtleties that can be

discriminated against and that can't be completely covered in

legislation. That is where the proposition of reasonable cause comes

into play, and I think it is the only appropriate way for approaching

the whole question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister turned the

page to 3 (2), he'd see what is specified there. We certainly

do have race, religion, colour, ancestry, place of origin, sex,

and no mention of age.

I realize the Human Rights Commission is going to deal with

this Act, but the fact is that the Minister in introducing it

should be able to give us a layman's understanding of what the

situation is. Can this

section be used by a couple who have

three children, who want to rent accommodation, but find

themselves unable to do so because the landlord says, "I don't

like children, and as far as I'm concerned, that's reasonable

cause."

Can it be used by somebody who wishes to rent accommodation

and they say, "No, I'm sorry, I just dislike Black Labradors;

you own one; we can't possibly have you here"?

Can it be used when somebody comes and they say, "Oh, your

name is Radford; you're the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation; you're a hunter; you carry guns around. I'm

sorry, I won't have you in my building"? Apparently he's out

shooting something at the moment.

Can it be used when you get the situation of, for instance,

the number of people in the family unit or the age of the

people concerned? "I'm sorry, kids just turn me off. Anybody

under 25 is a no-good and I'm not renting to you."

That's not race, that's not religion, that's not colour,

it's not ancestry, it's not place of origin, it's not sex, but

it's discrimination. Under

section 3 (1) (2) the way this is

written, it would appear to me that the landlord would have a

perfectly valid case and the would-be tenant would have a

perfectly terrible case if they came before the Human Rights

Commission. These are the type of things I'd like the Minister

to comment upon.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to be patient

with the Liberal leader. I think I have explained to him that

the premise of reasonable cause goes beyond those usual factors

of discrimination which are all outlined in the Act.

He made the point, Mr. Chairman, that he sees nothing about

age in this section. Well, he just attempted to comment upon

the age factor contained in the first

section of the bill.

I don't know what else I can say to convince the hon. Gentlemen. I assumed,

because he is a lawyer, he would have a better understanding of these provisions

than he appears to display.

The hypothetical propositions he put forward could certainly

be brought before the Human Rights Commission. If anyone was

turned down, if anyone was denied access to public facilities

or to rental accommodation on the basis that they had too many

children or on the basis that they had a Black Labrador and

they felt that it was a form of discrimination, then certainly

they could bring a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. It

would fall then to the commission to determine whether or not

the landlord or the proprietor had reasonable cause to deny the

access.

I can't answer in a definitive way what the decisions might

be because they'd be subject to the peculiar circumstances of

each individual case. I think that's clear enough, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is that we're refused any

suggestion that age should be extended to anything from 45 to

65 years, anything other than those 20 years. Here it may well

be possible to discriminate. The landlord will turn to

subsection (2) (

a) and he'll say, "Look, you've listed the

areas where discrimination is forbidden; this is something

outside it."

Therefore, I would like to amend this section, to add the

word "age," between the words "race," and

"religion," on page 2,

section 3 (2) (a), line 1.

It's unfortunate that age is not more general; perhaps I

should have amended the age

section in the

interpretation

section.

But the fact is that there may well be a landlord who

doesn't like senior citizens. He says, "Oh, if you're coming up

to be a senior citizen, well, I'm sorry, you're through. We

don't like senior citizens. They spend too long in their rooms;

they turn the lights on too much; they keep the heat too high."

All sorts of just picayune, stupid reasons for trying to keep a

guy or a woman out of it. I would suggest that this amendment

is well worthwhile.

HON. MR. KING: I'm quite satisfied Mr. Chairman, that the

provisions of

section 3 (~) are clear in that no person shall

discriminate on the basis of "race, religion, colour, ancestry

or place of origin of any person or class of persons shall not

constitute reasonable cause; and the sex of any person shall

not constitute reasonable cause unless it relates to the

maintenance of public decency."

Now, reasonable cause is the key factor and I'm quite

confident that any Human Rights Commission would not rule in

favour of a complaint or an action that was based on the

prohibition or the refusal to allow accommodation to someone

simply because they represented a certain age category. So I

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the "reasonable cause" formula,

[ Page 1351 ]

which the civil liberties commission has embraced and

recommended in this Act, is quite adequate to cover the fears

the Hon. Liberal leader has put forward and expressed.

Consequently, his amendment is redundant, Mr. Chairman, and I

oppose it.

Amendment negatived.

MRS. JORDAN: I was not here for the main debate on this

bill, and perhaps the Minister will clarify for me in relation

section 3. I think it also will relate to another

section of

the Act.

He himself has stated in this debate this evening that it's

impossible to truly define what constitutes discrimination;

there has to be a fairly large degree of latitude. This is a

matter which I think can be accepted quite readily.

What concerns me is that if the commission is to have this

latitude necessary, then it should be incumbent upon the

commission to give a written recording, available upon request,

for the reasons for their decisions as to whether or not this

act constituted discrimination. My question to the Minister is:

is this embodied in the Act? I can't find it; perhaps I'm

overlooking it. But if it is not there, then, Mr. Minister, I

suggest that this is an essential part of this Act.

You're expressing confidence in the commission, which we all

would like to feel, but we must recognize the realities of

life; not every commission set up is always worthy of that

amount of confidence for any number of reasons. But it is just

and right that anyone who is charged with discrimination should

have a written reason from the commission for the reasons why

they are charged.

If you relate that to

section 17, where an appeal can lie

from a decision of the board of inquiry in the realm of the

supreme court, then surely the reasons for the decision given

by the commission would be quite relevant to the inquiry held

before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Would the

Minister comment upon this please and clarify this?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we're debating

section 3

and the Member for North Okanagan is attempting to debate the

enforcement

section which is, I think,

section 17 of the

bill.

It is provided that appeals from the decisions can be made

to the courts. Anyone who is charged under this Act is entitled

to legal representation and they are entitled to present

evidence at a hearing. So where the Act says "to the courts for

appeal" I think the concerns that the Member is expressing are

well provided for.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): With respect, I

totally support the premise that was made by the Hon. lady

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) because there is not any built-in provision

in this bill at all to furnish reasons of the board, or reasons

of your board of inquiry, or of your director, or of you, Mr.

Minister.

There is one right of appeal to you. There is absolutely

nothing whatsoever within the statute saying that you should

furnish reasons for an adjudication that somebody has been

guilty of a discriminatory act. I think that the premise raised

by the Member is indeed a valid one.

Secondly, it is rather amazing to me, in finding these

extremely strong powers against someone who has contravened the

Act, that we don't find any protections whatsoever for a person

who is charged for contravening. That individual himself is

equally entitled not to be discriminated against. That person

is equally entitled to all of the provisions that flow from the

concept of natural justice.

The Minister, when he was speaking, Mr. Chairman, raised the

point. He said that there is an appeal to the court. Well,

there is only an appeal to the court from a decision of the

board of inquiry. There is no appeal to the court from a

decision of the director, nor is there any appeal to any court

from a decision of the Minister.

Just to carry on with some of the inconsistency of the Hon.

Minister of Labour — it is a nice thing to hear from him

tonight, that perhaps he has learned somewhat the error of his

ways. We find within this statute that at least he gives people

the opportunity to be represented by counsel — something that

he took the greatest exception to when we were discussing Bill

I would like to hear from the Hon. Minister as to his

inconsistency in this point.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the Member is that concerned

about consistency, perhaps he would like to address himself to

section 3 of the bill, which is what we are discussing at this

present time. We are not dealing with enforcement. I would

suggest that that will come under

section 16.

There is a provision in

section 16 that every person who

allegedly breaches this Act will have the right to legal

representation. He will have the right to cross-examine

witnesses and be fully apprised of any charges and any evidence

against him. That is not contained in

section 3 and I would

suggest that we continue with the debate on the

section-by-section appraisal of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am afraid the earlier sections will

take a little longer than the latter ones because of the many

points that come up. In

section 3 (1) (

a) it says, "deny to any

person or class of persons any accommodation, service, or

facility customarily available to the public."

It would appear to me that where you have such

[ Page 1352 ]

things as the Sons of Norway, or the Haggis Society of my

friend on my left — the Caledonian Society, the Burns crowd — if you have Haggis McBagpipes turning up to try and get

accommodation in a rental unit confined to Icelandic citizens,

I presume this would not be a facility which is customarily

available to the public. Would this be the case?

In other words, if somebody sets up their rental

accommodation, their condominium, and they put in provisions

which are discriminatory — basically discriminatory by nature — which, indeed, make it so that it is not customarily available

to the public, but you have to pass before a selection

committee before you can purchase a condominium, you can escape

the provisions of sections 3 (1) and 3 (2).

HON. MR. KING: There is another

section in the bill, later

on, Mr. Chairman, which clearly allows and recognizes the

legitimate interests of organizations such as the Caledonian

Society, which the Liberal leader likes to refer to as the

Haggis Society, where they are simply constituted to pursue

their own cultural or linguistic interests but, indeed, do not

discriminate in any way against other racial groups or the

public. That is not contained in

section 3. It is contained in

a later section, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask one sort of specific question

section 3 (1)? If the Ku Klux Klan established a

chapter in

Victoria, had housing facilities for its members, would they or

would they not be covered by

section 3 (1) and 3 (2)?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, we are going from the

ridiculous to the sublime in this debate. I don't know whether

the Hon. Liberal leader can be truly sincere about that kind of

a question or not. I thought he was a member of the legal

fraternity. If any organization, be it the Ku Klux Klan or be

it the Liberal party or be it any other organization, indulged

in discrimination, denied similar rights to the public that

they reserved for their own membership, then those who were so

discriminated against would have a claim — would be able to

file a charge under this Act.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I gather then that

section 3 (1) would

not apply unless these facilities were totally open to the

public — in other words, a restaurant, a hotel, a public

facility of that nature.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't wish to join the debate on the Ku Klux Klan; they

are not my favourite organization. But I do feel that the Minister didn't understand

the point that we were trying to make and which was supported by the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). That is that the wide latitude

that is built into the Act with good reason, for defining what in fact is discrimination,

must have reasons available to the public, because the decisions made by this

commission are going to be precedent-setting certainly in the province of British

Columbia, I think that when you take this into account and recognize that each

area of society has its view on what in fact are their human rights, you must

then consider that when their rights are infringed upon, in their view, there

should be reason given publicly for this decision.

I would like to cite an example. I don't usually tend to

bring in the constituency that I have the honour to represent.

We had a case where a group of people, motivated by an older

person, went into a small restaurant for a long period of time

and created disturbance in terms of occupying booths without

purchasing more than a cup of coffee, made it so that it was

impossible for elderly citizens, who generally patronized this

restaurant, to get into the restaurant and who then tend to

move away from it, and, in fact, created a real disturbance to

the proprietor of this small restaurant and his legitimate

right to earn a living from the business which he had financed

and was operating.

It was all entwined around the fact that these people had

long hair. I think that had this case come before the

commission that you are establishing here, it would have been

argued on the basis of long hair which well might have brought

in a decision that the proprietor was discriminating against

the people with long hair when, in fact, what was at point was

the issue of whether a small or big proprietor of a legitimate

business has the right, within reason, to protect the

opportunity to operate that business.

I am sure the Minister can see — and I am not arguing the

merits of this particular case — that when the commission makes

a decision on a case such as that, it is absolutely essential

that that decision be available, in writing, so that other

small or large business people have knowledge of what, in fact,

this commission views their legitimate right in the world of

business to be; also what, in fact, the public has a right to

expect in terms of protection of their human rights and their

right, perhaps, to go in and have a cup of coffee in a quiet

atmosphere, and again, the fact that the decisions of this

commission will be setting precedents in British Columbia.

These will be of vital concern to people in British Columbia

as they relate to their own attitudes and their own actions in

terms of human rights. I suggest that they will relate and will

be very important to court decisions in this matter. The

Minister should be prepared to state before this House that

there is a right on the part of either of the parties involved

in such an action to request and have the request

[ Page

1353 ]

granted of securing a written decision and the written

reason for the decision of this commission.

Is the Minister prepared to understand this point of view

and give his commitment to this Legislature that this right

will be observed? Surely, this in itself, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, is a human right.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you direct the

Members on the opposite side of the House to stick to the

section of the bill.

section 3 is not an enforcement

section

and I don't think the Member for North Okanagan would suggest

that the enforcement provision should be continued in

section

What

section 3 does is simply maintain the criterion which

was covered under the old Act prohibiting discrimination on the

basis of race, religion, colour, nationality, ancestry and

place of origin. Additional protection is now extended on the

common law test of reasonable cause, and that is a common law

test. So that would cover those situations like the Member

outlined, and I agree with her. That's what I have attempted to

show also — that there are so many unique situations that

develop it is impossible in legislative terms to identify each

of them, and hence the reasonable-cause formula which is common

law.

If the cafe proprietor she refers to or the little old lady

that I referred to earlier are deemed to have justifiable and

reasonable interests for prohibiting loitering of young people

in their establishment, or for excluding certain people from

rental of their one room, then that would be recognized. So we

don't want to, in a blanket way, set one standard for every

situation. That just doesn't work. This is the intent of this

section.

When the Member displays a concern about reasons for

decisions, I appreciate that; but let's wait until we get to

the appropriate enforcement sections.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister and I are obviously on very common

ground. Perhaps he would enlighten me as to just which

section

in the Act I might debate this point and receive his commitment

that these decisions would be available in writing to directly

concerned parties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Get on the right

section.

MRS. JORDAN: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Get on the right section.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking the Minister's guidance, through

you, Mr. Chairman: in which

section in this bill the Human

Rights Code of British Columbia Act can I legitimately debate

this question?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 17.

MRS. JORDAN: You'll accept it then and give us…. Thank

you.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 4 deals with housing and purchase

of property, and once again may I put in a plea for those over

65 and those under 45? The over-65 are discriminated against in

a large number of ways. I would think that if we are going to

specify race, religion, colour, sex, ancestry or place or

origin and marital status, we should also throw in the word

"age," just as we — and I am at fault in this — should

have amended that earlier section.

The other thing is that the government has talked quite

eloquently about ghettos and things of that nature in other

legislation in the last couple of days. I notice that on page 3

the words "political belief" come in. Yet for some reason

there's no consistency in the number of things that are put in

these sections and the number of things that are left out.

"Sex" is left out in some of them, for example, quite wrongly.

I notice the Minister is trying to patch it up with amendments.

"Political persuasion" is in some and out of some.

Where is the logic and consistency in this particular

section? Why is age excluded and why is political persuasion

excluded?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

section 4 is a new

section in

the Human Rights Act. Previously there was no protection

whatsoever in the purchase of property. There was no statute or

provision in the Human Rights Act which prohibited

discrimination in the purchase of property, so this is new

ground in terms of human rights legislation in this province.

It simply seeks to prohibit discrimination in the purchase of

property and land on the basis of race, religion, sex, colour,

ancestry, place of origin or marital status.

Previously discrimination in this area was not covered at

all. Now it's inconceivable to me that discrimination would be

practised in the availability for purchase of property on the

basis of age. I cannot conceive of that type of situation. It

seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a rather picayune

criticism. Certainly I can't imagine a situation not related to

those grounds that are covered in this

section 4 which would

affect one's right to purchase a home or

[ Page 1354 ]

property.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the

reasonable-cause formula does apply to any

section of this Act

if a person has a complaint that he has been discriminated

against. He has the common law avenue to approach the question

of discrimination if it is not specifically enumerated in the

section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister

to notice the difference between

section 3, where there is talk

of reasonable cause, and

section 4, where there is not. The

only reasons in

section 4, which he admits is a new

section — the only way to prevent discrimination is on the grounds

specified.

It's not a general thing, and for want of further clarity

they add in a few words. It's only on those specific headings

that there can be a complaint. He wonders why I mentioned the

word age; it's perfectly simple. You have a situation where

there are a number of families — and I am thinking in terms of

condominiums and I'm thinking in terms of housing which is

fairly close together — and basically they don't want elderly

people there, and I'll tell you why.

They find they complain a great deal more than others about

the noise of children, and it just saves hassle to get them off

somewhere else where they are in their little ghetto and keep

these particular areas for the families who are young.

Of course, the reverse happens when you get into an area

with mostly elderly people. They don't particularly want to

have kids running around making noise. Therefore, there is a

discrimination one way or another in terms of age in a number

of the new-type housing situations — condominiums, apartments,

things of that nature.

If it is not in the Act in

section 4, there is no way the

Minister can use the excuse that, "Well, reasonable grounds

have to be proven." It just doesn't happen that way. He has

made that point perfectly clear himself by saying that

previously, until this

section came in the Act, there was no

way. Now with this

section there is a way on the specified

grounds only and he should know that. It's a question of

looking at the Act.

Finally, just as an aside, will he quit referring to me as a

lawyer? I'm not a lawyer.

I will move an amendment to add the word "age" between race

and religion, in

section 4, line 9, and the words "political

persuasion" after the word. "sex" just where they should be in

the next line. I so move.

Amendment negatived.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper to

section 5.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, how the Minister can put

forward amendments to add the words "sex" and "marital status"

in this

section and deny "age" in others I find extremely

curious. But putting forward this amendment he is accepting the

arguments we have put forward up to now that unless the words

specifically are there, protection is not granted. He is

accepting that.

Well, he shakes his head. But let me tell him, as a person

who is not a lawyer but who has a law degree, that he is wrong.

The fact is that he has been told by his advisers, by the

people who write these amendments for him and write the bills

for him, that he should put this in. The reason he put it in is

precisely the argument that I put forward earlier in terms of

age. I am quite willing to accept his amendment, I might

add.

The other point that I would like the Minister to comment on

is that there is an escape hatch in this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you debate the amendment

only?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We passed the amendment didn't we? He sat

down. He moved it; he passed it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I recognized the Member on the

amendment.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm sorry. I thought you said that all

those in favour…. Go ahead.

Amendment approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the last line but one you have the

joker provision. In fact, the whole of

section 5 (2) indicates

this. Subsection 1 does not apply where a person advertises or

otherwise represents a space as available for occupancy by

another person who is to share with them the use of any

sleeping, bathroom or cooking facilities for the space. Take

for example the Acadia camp at UBC, which I remember — large

areas, all sharing a common cooking facility.

It is a curious thing but it would appear to me that these

could be set up under this Act, because they share a common

cooking facility, as restricted to people of one faith, one

sex, one religion — you name it. It does not prevent

discrimination in the university fraternities, perhaps, which

might be an even better example on the basis of….

[ Page 1355 ]

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister Without Portfolio): Try a private

home. That's even a better example.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, private home as well, as the

Minister…. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the

debate. I'm sure she has some good information to advise. But

as I am on the university campus at the moment with my example,

let me stick with the fraternity house or sorority house.

A distinct discrimination can exist there under this Act on

the basis of religion. Now maybe you argue that the Jewish

people like to have certain cooking facilities, and that there

is reason for discrimination and that's fair enough. But this

joker clause here, I think, leaves a fairly large loophole to

the Act and I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment

on that.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment upon it,

and I wonder whether the Hon. Minister of Consumer Affairs

(Hon. Ms. Young) would like to add her suggestions.

HON. MR. KING: I thank the Member for his incredibly

patronizing lecture, Mr. Chairman, but I would point out that

here again in

section 5 the grounds which are prohibited as a

basis for disallowing accommodations, and so on, have been

expanded over the old Act.

Incidentally, on his assessment of those things which are

specifically contained in the Act in each section, I disagree

very strongly with him. We include in the sections, pertaining

to each particular issue, the most probable and the usual and

acknowledged basis upon which discrimination is exercised. In

those kinds of situations, such as sorority houses, which the

hon. leader of the Liberal Party seems to know so much about

(Laughter), we rely on the proposition of reasonable cause to

protect the interests of anyone from discrimination under this

Act. We set up the concept of reasonable cause.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that proposition is embodied

in the bill. If the specific

section does not outline the

particular ground upon which the person claims discrimination,

then they still have the option of appealing to the board, or

to the director, on the basis of discrimination which violates

the common law as contained in the Act here.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that the problems

here are basically because of a misunderstanding of what the

common laws insists upon. If where this Act is inadequate, one

can get protection from the common law, obviously we don't need

this Act.

We need this Act because discrimination has been practised in the Province

of British Columbia in past years in a number of areas — not just sex, religion,

or the other things that are put down here, but also in a lot of other headings

as well. Sexual orientation; domestic arrangement; age if under 45 or over

65, I've mentioned; source of income; physical handicap — all these areas

are where there is discrimination and where discrimination has been practised,

let the Minister look at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association material on it.

They can tell him about this.

These people cannot fall back upon the common law, because

the common law provides no protection. If it did, we wouldn't

need this Act!

HON. MR. KING: Now, Mr. Chairman, what I referred to as the

common law was the formula contained in this Act. I'm not

suggesting that there is provision in the common law to cover

discrimination. What I have said is that the common law

proposition of reasonable cause has been established in this

Act.

What the Liberal leader doesn't seem to understand or

appreciate is that there is such a thing as private rights also

in this province, and what we are seeking to do here is to

provide against discrimination in any area where there is

public access.

Surely the leader of the Liberal Party would not suggest

that every private organization should be forced to open up

their doors and their full facilities to the public. It's only

when they presume to be a public dwelling or a public

convenience or a public enterprise that everyone has the right

to participation without discrimination. But what the Liberal

leader is suggesting is an assault upon the rights to privacy

of some peoples in this province, and I'm rather surprised by

it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this is what this Act is

all about, as I tried to tell him in the earlier

section when

we were dealing with the right of free speech. We are, in this

Act, abridging certain freedoms — for example, in this

section

where we're talking about the tenancy, or, the

section previous

where we're talking about purchase of land.

The thing is that somebody may carve off half his property

if he wishes to sell it, and yet he cannot discriminate now,

because of this

section — quite rightly — in terms of religion,

race, colour et cetera, but he can discriminate if the person

who comes to him has had a history of mental illness, for

example. He can!

Now I'm not saying that everything has to be put in this Act

but I do wish the Minister would understand that where you have

situations where the discrimination is not covered by specific

wording in this Act, discrimination can be practised.

Section 5 approved with amendment.

section 6.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing

[ Page 1356 ]

in my name on the order paper on

section 6, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The amendment states that we are striking

out the words "equal work" and substituting the words "similar

or substantially similar." I'd like to know the

distinction.

HON. MR. KING: It's simply an amendment to use the same

language in both sections so that there's not a difference in

the language. We do not want to indicate by the use of the word

"normally" instead of "reasonably" — we do not want to make

that differentiation for fear of the danger that a different

interpretation might be placed upon it. It's simply to bring

consistency to the wording.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask if this

section would prevent

the Queen's Printer from continuing to discriminate against

women, in terms of: first of all, their salaries; secondly, in

terms of job classification; and thirdly, in terms of a union

agreement which is not even binding upon the government?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is binding on the

government. The human rights

section is not binding on the

government, did the Member say?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I want to know whether that

discrimination that I brought to your attention 10 days ago

will be wiped out?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this Act is binding for the

first time on the Crown.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well can I take the Minister's assurance

that, on the passage of this legislation and its signing and

coming into force, discrimination which I brought to his

attention on the basis of sex, where women are discriminated

against in the Queen's Printer, will be wiped out and we won't

see further advertisements of the type that I mentioned to

him?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this Act wipe

out discrimination that has existed in the civil service in the

Province of British Columbia for many, many years. The Crown is

bound by the provisions of this Act for the first time. I don't

know how I can express it in any clearer manner so that the

leader of the Liberal Party might understand that.

I would suggest that this is the first government in the

Province of British Columbia which has been willing to live by

the provisions of the human rights Act and the labour code that

we do enforce on the private sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll discriminate against you.

HON. MR. KING: Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I haven't found

a Liberal government in Canada yet which has been prepared to

live by the terms that it imposes on the private sector. So I

find the Liberal leader's concern about discrimination very

welcome and I assure him that this government is dedicated to

the elimination of discrimination.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The specific question I asked the

Minister I will repeat: that is….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister is not required to answer

a specific question. He answers it in his own way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And I'm not required to ask anything less

than 67 questions until he takes it under advisement. The

specific question is whether or not the agreement between Her

Majesty, in right of the Province of British Columbia, and the

Civil Service Commission, and the typographical union, which

led to the discriminatory provisions which now exist in the

Queen's Printer, which discriminate against women in terms of

pay and in terms of jobs, will be wiped out with the passage of

this Act and with this Act coming into force. It's a specific

example which I brought to the Minister's attention 10 days

ago!

Amendment approved.

Section 6 approved with amendment.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria on the

amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On

section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've passed 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We haven't passed it. I stood up to speak

section 8. Don't play games.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Don't be testy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask leave of the House to return to

section 8.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1357 ]

section 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, it may be amusing to the

government, but human rights is a pretty serious question, and

I'd ask the Premier to take it seriously.

Here we have the words "political belief" for the first time

and I repeat the question I put earlier. Why does it occur

here, where it goes in discrimination in respect to employment,

and not elsewhere? Why is there not consistency, such as the

Minister pointed out when he brought in the amendment to

section 6, which should be necessary and should be throughout

this whole bill?

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

section 9 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have here "discrimination

by trade-unions and employers and occupational association."

The question I'd like to pose to the Minister is: how far is

this going to go to wipe out the type of union hall hiring

which the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) brought to the

attention of this Legislature some years ago and which still

exists in many industries?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the

section places a

requirement in trade unions not to negotiate contracts which

embody discriminatory rates against females. It provides that

they will not practise discrimination on any of the common

grounds with respect to their membership.

This is something that is again a new section. There is much

broader coverage in terms of access to the privileges of trade

union membership than has ever been contained in legislation in

this province before. With respect to hiring hall practices, I

am not aware of discrimination in that respect and I invite the

Liberal leader, if he knows or can document any case of

discrimination in hiring hall practices, to come forward with

that evidence. I would be very happy to receive it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The reference I was making, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, was to the cases brought forward by the Hon. Member for Atlin

(Mr. Calder) some time ago whereby people in the north consider, rightly or

wrongly, that they are discriminated against because of the practices of unions

to hire from Vancouver. People have been flown up to the north; local people

are unable to take advantage of job opportunities because of this practice.

I wonder if that is going to be affected by this section.

The second question I have on this

section is intended

membership in the trade union — in other words, line 3 of this

section 9 (1). Does this mean that an individual, by announcing

his intention to join a trade union and his desire to join a

trade union, is on the same footing in terms of equality of

opportunity to get a job as the person who is presently a

member?

HON. MR. KING: It says that members should respect anyone

who might be entering an apprenticeship programme as a

carpenter or as a pipe fitter with the intended eventual goal

of entering that craft. In order to enter that craft he has to

be a member of a trade union. So that is the reference to

"intended."

With further respect to the Member's charge of

discrimination in hiring hall practices, I am not aware of the

Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) documenting any case in the

House. That could well be. I don't know when it was, but I

would again invite the leader of the Liberal party, if he can

document and produce evidence that discrimination is going on,

to bring it forward, by all means, and we will certainly

investigate it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are not here investigating individual

cases. We are asking whether this

section will apply under

certain circumstances. I take it, from the Minister's reply,

that if the practice of central hiring continues and works to

the detriment of people in northern or remote areas of the

province, this

section can be used by a person so affected to

get an equal crack at the work involved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal leader implies a

certain bias here. He displays, I think, a certain prejudice

himself by innuendo, suggesting that people may be

discriminated against. Now either you come forward with a case

or not.

It is clear that under this legislation we have bound trade

unions by the same requirements that are imposed upon

companies, that are imposed upon employers and tenants. In

addition to this type of protection, for the first time we have

an ombudsman under the Labour Code of British Columbia Act who

has the authority to investigate and inquire into any charge or

any complaint by a trade union member that he has been unfairly

dealt with by his trade union.

I think it is just a little bit shallow to hear the concern

expressed by the Hon. Liberal leader when

[ Page 1358 ]

this government has moved further to the protection of

individual rights in this province than, indeed, any Liberal

government ever has, or the federal government has attempted to

do. I find the grounds and the complaints that the Member is

bringing up somewhat picayune and shallow, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): I wonder if the

Minister would give assurance to the House on what I presume to

be probably typographical errors. I mention particularly

section (9) (1) (b). It doesn't seem to read right. Can we be

assured that a correction will be made there, or will the

Minister explain the wording if a correction, in the Minister's

mind, is not required?

It is the second word in (9) (b): "negotiate, or behalf of

that person, an agreement that would discriminate against him

contrary to this Act." I believe there are several other minor

amendments or sort of discrepancies of that nature. Could the

Minister explain this?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) is quite right. That

correction has already been filed with the Law Clerk and it

will be corrected.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In (9) (2) (

b) we have here: "The

conviction of criminal or

summary convictions charges shall not

constitute reasonable cause unless such charges relate…."

What I would like to know is, if a person has been charged,

convicted, sentenced, served his sentence, and is once more

out, whether or not his previous conviction could, under this

section, still be held against him if it relates to the

occupation, employment or membership.

There are some provisions, for example, whereby people with

criminal records, so-called, cannot be on the directorship of

companies. There is a case in Vancouver dealing with the sports

club at the present time. I was wondering what would happen if

a person has served his time — whether this could still apply

to bar him from any continued employment or continued

membership in an organization.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this would depend on the nature

of the man's employment with a company. If he had access to the

treasury and he had been convicted of theft or absconding with

funds or something of that nature, then obviously he would be a

threat to the company's legitimate security interests. They

would have reasonable cause, under those circumstances, to fire

him.

But where a situation arises that a man may be convicted of a violation of

the Liquor Control Board Act, and he is fined $50, then certainly no employer

should have the right to set himself up as higher authority than the courts

of the land and to assess additional economic penalties upon that person.

This clearly differentiates between a situation where an

employer has a legitimate interest, a legitimate concern, a

matter of trust with that employee, and a different situation

where he can use a conviction as justification for dismissing

an otherwise very reliable employee.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved with amendment.

section 15.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, I couldn't let this clause go by without expressing

my deep satisfaction to the Minister for placing this

particular clause in here. For a number of years, as a Member

of the opposition, I presented a private Member's bill on this

very

section and saw it go down year after year without being

received by the former government.

MR. GARDOM: You haven't had as much experience in that as I

have.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, Mr. Member, it was very frustrating.

Why I am particularly delighted to see this is I think that

this particular

section is going to do much for many of our

people out there — many of the citizens, particularly women — who unfortunately found it most difficult to enter a complaint

themselves, particularly if they were working in a large

institution and they were afraid of recrimination.

Now, of course, through this

section anyone, male or female,

can now have a complaint entered on their behalf by someone

else. I think this should certainly speed up and certainly

bring before the Human Rights Commission many cases of

discrimination which, because of the former government's lack

of interest in seeing that this clause went through, never came

to the attention of the Human Rights Commission. So, I am very

pleased and I certainly am very glad to endorse it.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to

section 16 (1) in the third line thereof by deleting the word

"may" and substituting the word "shall," thereby making

it mandatory that "where a director is unable to settle an

allegation, or where he is of the opinion that an allegation

will not be settled by him, the director shall make a report to

the Minister of Labour who shall refer the allegation

[ Page 1359 ]

to a board of inquiry" with the following matters still

continuing as they are in existing

section 16.

What I am complaining about in the section, as now written,

is that it is another discretionary power unto the Minister and

it is apparently another socialistic concept of appeal

procedures. At the one extreme there is no appeal procedure and

at the other extreme there is a most limited form of

appeal.

I think we've got to make up our mind whether we are going

to have a proper appeal or not. The Minister made a great deal

of the fact in earlier discourse this evening that right of

appeal lay from a decision of a board of inquiry to the supreme

court under certain circumstances. But the only right of appeal

to the supreme court, Mr. Chairman, is the right of appeal from

a decision of that board.

Under

section 16, where we find that a director is unable to

settle an allegation or reaches the conclusion that he can't

handle the matter, then he has to make a report to the

Minister. But at that point the Minister may, if he chooses,

permit the matter to remain dormant. There is not any specific

need, on his part, to refer the matter to the board of inquiry

where, in my view and in view of the Civil Liberties

Association of this province, it should go. I would make that

amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

section 16 follows the trend of

the Act that attempts to take a conciliatory approach to human

rights. I think that basically the prevention of discrimination

and recognition of human rights is a process of education.

Certainly it is preferable, in my view, that if the director

can resolve allegations of discrimination by consultation with

the parties — by the power of persuasion — then that should be

the route to go. But under this

section we have placed an

obligation on the director that in those cases where he or she

cannot resolve and settle the complaint or allegation by this

conciliatory approach, then she must refer a report to the

Minister of Labour.

Now, she has no latitude there even though she may be

dealing with a complaint that is based on pretty frivolous

circumstances. Surely there is a requirement at some point that

the merit of the allegation should be looked at. If it is

indeed frivolous, then there should be a point at which it can

be stopped without going the whole route of setting up a panel

to deal with it.

That is the intent of using the words "may refer the allegation to a board

of inquiry" rather than making it mandatory, as it is mandatory for the director

to bring it to the attention of the Minister. I think this is a reasonable proposition

because surely, as the Member well knows, there are bound to be a number of

cases which will be of a completely frivolous nature. It would be unduly expensive

and time-consuming to have to process every one of them through the whole grinder.

So that is the intent.

MR. GARDOM: Does the director have the right to take that

case herself?

HON. MR. KING: No. It's incumbent upon the director. She

"shall" refer it, so that the adjudication of frivolity….

Mind you, her recommendation would be taken under consideration

when she made her report as to whether it was a valid complaint

or not. If she recommended that it was based on firm grounds

and on solid evidence, then in all probability it would

proceed. But if it came with her suggestion that it was

frivolous and the evidence bore that proposition out, then

there is no reason why it should go through an inquiry

board.

MR. GARDOM: But it is still upon the director, I would

assume that it is the duty of the director to make the

adjudication of frivolity in the first instance. I think you

would agree with me on that.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, but she must refer it.

MR. GARDOM: You do agree with me on that?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: Then I appreciate the referral. However, I'll

stay by the amendment. It's apparent that it's riot going to

pass, so let's put the question.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make another observation, if I may.

I did so earlier and the Minister said he would prefer it to

come a little later in this discussion of the particular

sections of this bill.

We had quite a bit of discourse between the two of us during

the discussion of Bill 11, the labour code, particularly under

section 21 where I proposed the amendment at that time Mr.

Chairman, that parties to proceedings would be entitled to

present evidence with or without counsel.

I am very happy to see under

section 16 (4) that before a

board of inquiry the Minister now deems fit to see that people

do have the right to be represented by counsel. That right is

stipulated and built into the statute. The only question I have

to the Minister is why he happens to take one course of action

under the labour code and why he happens to take another course

of action under this Act.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Through the Wrigley gum over there he is doing

his very best to convey a message to

[ Page 1360 ]

me, and I missed what he was saying.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the people have been giving a

message to that party for some time and he hasn't caught on to

that yet, so I think it's too late for me.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, now, now, now! That's late humour. It's not

the early show. We appreciate that. You are not entirely

keeping the galleries full yourself either, Mr. Minister, I think it would be appropriate if we have your reason now.

You must have some reasons for doing these things. They just

don't come out of the air and surely you just don't

rubber-stamp the suggestions of legislative counsel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: What are the reasons for putting this into this

bill and taking it out of the other one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, we are debating the human

rights Act now, not the labour code. Perhaps the Member has

thought of some things he would have liked to have said in the

debate on the labour code. I would ask him to restrict his

remarks to this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I was going to make the same point

myself.

MR. GARDOM: Those remarks were made during the debate on the

labour code. He suggested that….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member has no right to

ask a question concerning another bill. We are discussing

section….

MR. GARDOM: I just asked you a simple question about

legislative tradition. Is it asking too much that we have a

consistent approach in legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have only the bill before us.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MRS. JORDAN: You will recall earlier, Mr. Chairman, that I

and other colleagues drew the Minister into debate on

section

3. In so doing, he made very clear, in relating this to

section

17, the need for flexibility in determining what, in fact, does

or does not constitute discrimination as it applies to this Act

and the penalties under this Act.

When we get to

section 17, I must again bring up the point

that we recognize the need for this flexibility, but in so

doing we also recognize the urgent need for this commission to

be required to make available, on reasonable request — I don't

mean frivolously — a written statement for their reasons of why

they will accept or not accept a charge of discrimination.

Section 17 (1) says: "Where a board of inquiry is of the

opinion that an allegation is not justified, the board may

dismiss the allegation." This is a reasonable part of the Act,

but surely it is then reasonable to suggest that the board must

make available the reason for dismissing the allegation.

It goes on in subsection 2 to say that "the board of inquiry

shall order any person who contravened this Act to cease such

contravention, and to refrain from committing the same or a

similar contravention." Again the point must be raised, Mr.

Chairman, thinking in terms of this Act and the decisions that

are going to be made by the board, that in time, as these

decisions are made, they will automatically be developing a

definition of what constitutes discrimination in British

Columbia under this Act.

Surely in setting those types of precedents, it is mandatory

that there be written reason for these decisions and precedents

so that if one does not agree or a new human rights

commissioner does not agree with a previous decision of the

Human Rights Commission, then there is something upon which

they can constructively criticize the previous decision and

give sound reason for their current decision.

Also, Mr. Chairman, if you read

section 17, the commission

has the right to levy a penalty up to $5,000 for contravention

of this Act. Now, that ain't peanuts, in my book, Mr. Chairman.

I think it isn't in many books. That's a very hefty fine and

well may be justified. But surely if an individual is to be

fined up to $5,000, then there should be sound reason in

writing for the levying of that fine — not just an arbitrary

decision that you are fined because you contravened this

Act.

Also, under subsection 3 "A board of inquiry may make such

order…as it considers appropriate." So again we see great

latitude in the power of this board, which we don't disagree

with at this time, but we say that with such latitude there

must be written reasons for the latitude that they are

taking.

With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an

amendment to this bill — Bill 100, the Human Rights Code of

British Columbia Act . In

section 171 would like to suggest that

we renumber subsections (3) and (4) as subsections (4) and

(5) and add a subsection (3): "The board shall make all of its

decisions against a person who has contravened this

section

available in writing for such person."

My learned advisor tells me that this is in no way

[ Page

1361 ]

contrary to the position that the Minister has taken. And if

we look up the labour code, Bill 11, we'll find that this exact

wording is used in that Act. While this amendment may have been

worded a different way from my own choice, it has been worded

in this way in order that it wouldn't offend the Minister. By

using his own words we hope that he will accept the fact that

there is need and the right to a written decision of this

commission and that he will accept this amendment on these

grounds.

HON. MR. KING: What is the amendment?

M R. CHAIRMAN: I think she read the amendment. It adds a subsection

(3), and renumbers (3) to (4) to (5). Subsection (3) would read: "The board

shall make all of its decisions against a person who has contravened this Act

available in writing for such person."

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, my concern here is that if the

board is to publish all its decisions the confidentiality of

evidence that might be submitted by parties appearing before

the board could be compromised. We certainly don't want to

discourage anyone from bringing complaints before the

board.

The Act now provides that not only that person who is

discriminated against, but anyone else who knows of

discrimination, may make a complaint before the board also.

Certainly, if their evidence before the board were to be

revealed in decisions, then we would reduce the chance of

anyone filing such a complaint, it would seem to me.

I would mention also that the courts do not give reasons for

all their judgments unless they are appealed. There is a basis

for appeal here, and I think that that's satisfactory at this

point.

I'll certainly think about the Member's suggestion. But I

don't want to accept it as an amendment at this time. I'll give

it consideration, though, and if there are no legal

complications in it I would consider bringing that amendment in

next session.

MRS. JORDAN: One more point. I appreciate the Minister's

comment and the fact that he's taking this amendment under

advisement. I would just like to say in thanking him for his

open-minded attitude that his own argument, with respect, helps

solidify my argument.

The one thing I think we're all concerned about and that has been a concern

before is that when people are allowed to register a complaint on behalf of

someone else, there is a great danger of frivolous action. I would suggest,

in addition to my previous arguments, that the idea that this decision and the

reasons for the decision could be made public would serve as a built-in deterrent

against any such frivolous action. I appreciate him bringing it up, because

I think he's helped support our argument very strongly.

MR. GARDOM: I'm very much in support of the amendment, Mr.

Chairman. I welcome the comments of the Minister that he's

prepared to look at it, but he's had an opportunity to look at

it before. It's not a new proposal at all; it's one of the

primary concepts of the fundamental philosophy of the principle

of natural justice, and it's one of the ones that he gave

thought to himself when he came in with the labour code, which

we're not entitled to talk about tonight. We're not entitled to

talk about the Labour Minister's consistency in one case and

inconsistency in another, and this is one of his classic

examples of being inconsistent.

We've got a lot more here than just looking at situations.

Between now and when the Hon. Minister may reach a conclusion

that it would be a good thing to have in here, we could have

the liberty of a subject involved, since in this particular

section we find that it is possible for the board to make an

order against a person who has contravened the Act to pay up to

$5,000 compensation.

We also find within the provisions of this section, Mr.

Chairman, the right to have that order of the board made an

order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, or the County

Court of British Columbia, and that order will have the same

force and effect and all proceedings may be taken on it as if

it were a judgment of the appropriate court. And if it is a

judgment of the appropriate court, and becomes a judgment to

the extent that there is a $5,000 claim against somebody, and

somebody chooses not to pay that, that person can face civil

imprisonment. He can do that on the basis of not having reasons

given against him for that.

That's an absolute denial of the liberty of the subject!

You don't find this in the Criminal Code of Canada.

To suggest that this should be a provision in here…this

is not one that should be just looked at, Mr. Minister, and I

would respectfully suggest to the Minister tonight that if he's

troubled about this particular

section he should adjourn this

particular section, carry on with the rest of the bill, and

come in tomorrow with an amendment. If the terminology of the

lady Member (Mrs. Jordan) doesn't suit him, let him come

tomorrow morning with terminology that does suit him.

There is no way that the principle of this amendment tonight

should be forgotten or disposed of. This should be carried

tonight. We should not have Star Chamber tactics, which this

could become by virtue of abuse existing in the Province of

B.C.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, it can. You can shake your head all you want

to, Mr. Premier. And if you'd like

[ Page 1362 ]

to go ahead and enter the debate in this thing, or the

Minister of — whatever he is back there — Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer), we'd be delighted to hear from him,

too.

But the Minister's own arguments were the most valid

premises for the support of the lady Member's amendment. It's a

thing that should be done now. This should not be hoisted. If

you want to hoist it for a little while to look at it, fine and

dandy. It shouldn't take too long — the legislative counsel is

in the corner over there and you can have a short chat with

them, and have it attended to before 11 o'clock without any

difficulty, let alone tomorrow. But I think without any

question of a doubt this amendment, or a government amendment,

if the Minister would prefer…. And we know how sensitive

this Minister is about amendments, because 77 were proposed in

the labour code and there was only one that he would give any

thought to at all.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether that shows

my insensitivity or whether it shows the ineptitude of the

opposition in terms of providing reasonable amendments. But

we'll all have to be our own judge of that situation.

I don't share the rather surprising concern of the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I would point out

that in

section 16 (6) "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may,

by order, establish rules governing the procedure of a board of

inquiry."

MR. GARDOM: "May!"

HON. MR. KING: There's authority there to establish the

rules, and to require reasons to be given, or the precise

manner in which the board will function. I think that's quite

an adequate safeguard in terms of ensuring that those appearing

before the board will receive adequate advice of their rights,

and adequate evidence on which decisions which affect them are

based.

I oppose the amendment.

MR. GARDOM: The Minister refers to 16 (6), and 16 (6) is

just to the effect that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

"may" by order establish rules governing the procedure of a

board of inquiry. Well, it may, but the Minister is not in the

position to give any undertaking to this House or to anyone

else that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall enact the

provision that the lady Member (Mrs. Jordan) has proposed.

There's no way that he can give that commitment or undertaking

to anybody because he couldn't follow it through — we know

that.

No, you can't. You might not be the Minister — who knows? You might trade with

Highways, or something or other. You don't have the capacity to give that as

a commitment. And, strangely enough, you haven't even volunteered to give it

as a commitment tonight. You have acquiesced with the premise, you agree with

the principle, but you say that you want to look at it, even though you have

brought in an exactly parallel situation in your labour code.

What we're talking about in this bill is human rights.

That's what the bill's all about! It's human rights. And one of

the basic human rights in the concept of natural justice is

that reasons for judgment shall be provided against people who

are adjudicated against. It is a denial of natural justice not

to provide that, and that's why the lady Member moved the

amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to prolong the debate, but after

listening to the Minister and his reception originally to the

suggestion of the amendment, I didn't like to hear him really

castigate his own legislation.

You said, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the

amendment was inept, and that's why you couldn't accept it. It

was lifted directly from your own legislation

section 23 of

Bill 11. Surely the Minister's not suggesting to this House at

this time that Bill 11 is inept legislation, or even has inept

sections.

So surely, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, there's

absolutely no reason, for the matter stated by the Hon. Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), for other reasons given,

and for the very drafting of this amendment, for you not to

accept it in terms of human rights and fair play and the other

reasons to avoid the possibility or help safeguard against the

possibility of frivolous complaints.

I again would ask the Minister to accept the amendment now,

showing faith not only in his desire to make a truly human

rights bill, as much as possible, but also to not insult his

own legislation, and to consider his own legislation with

confidence. And if he accepts this then certainly we can accept

the fact that he does consider his legislation confident. And

that this amendment, as I said before, is virtually lifted from

section 23 of Bill 11.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan

doesn't hear too well. I suggested when the Member complained

not many of the Liberal amendments were accepted, I said

perhaps it has something to do with the ineptitude of their

contents. I wasn't referring to the

section of this bill.

Now, I have indicated that under

section 6 of

section 16 the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may establish the rules

governing boards of enquiry.

I have suggested to the Member for North

[ Page 1363 ]

Okanagan that her suggestion has some merit and it will be

studied. I suggest further that if a decision is made that it's

advisable and contributes anything to the bill, that change can

be made under the existing Act without further legislative

action or amendment. So, I simply offer that to the Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Bill 100 is the human

rights code. And if there's any legislation which should within

it contain such a provision it's this bill. We have put it into

other legislation; we have put it into the labour code. And the

lady Member's proposal is a very simple one: that in this bill,

which is the human rights code — "rights code," not

human rights by order-in-council code, but a rights bill — we

should have it incorporated into the wording so that when we

pass this bill, if it is passed — I assume it will be — we can

then be sure that it's right there in the legislation and a

change in the Minister won't affect things, a change in the

government won't affect things; it's enshrined in the

legislation.

Now, I appreciate what the Minister said about 16 (6), but

16 (6) is not anything but a statement which says that the

Lieutenant-Governor may, by order, establish rules. Well,

that's precisely the type of situation that a human rights bill

should get away from. We should be dealing with rights of

citizens, not making these people dependent upon the cabinet,

upon the Minister, upon others who may in their discretion

allow them to have certain rights. These are rights which they

should have by virtue of being citizens of this province. If

there's anything which I think displays the attitude of the

government or could display the attitude of the government it

would be refusing an amendment of this nature.

We in this party believe that rights exist because of the

fact that people are free and independent citizens of this

province and of this country. It's not a question of rights

being granted grudgingly by a paternalistic government by way

of order-in-council. It's not that; it's something else.

Individuals mean something; individuals are important in this

respect.

The Member's amendment is very, very clear — indeed she

claims it's lifted from Bill 11,

section 23. And under the

circumstances I fail to see why it cannot be put into this

piece of legislation.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Curtis

Wallace

NAYS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that when the

committee reports the division to the House that they ask that

it be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Sections 17 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill

complete with amendments and further reports that divisions

took place in committee on sections of the bill and asks leave

to have these recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Bill 100, the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act ,

reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SUPREME COURT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 1364 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 85,

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COUNTY COURTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 89; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 89,

An Act to Amend the County Courts Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 106, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

REVISED STATUTES ACT, 1966

The House in committee on Bill 106; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 106,

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 110, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

GRANT ACT, 1973

The House in committee on Bill 110; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, last night a question was

asked about the commitments of the former administration for

this $25 million. I am told that the BCR budget is being

prepared, but not finalized. The capital commitments are

related to new locomotives, rolling stock, which I understand

does not include the $15 million expenditure announced by the

present administration for the 1,000 new boxcars which will be

purchased on a lease-to-purchase plan. Ballast and tie

programmes, a bridge programme and new buildings, the question

of relocating the headquarters from downtown Vancouver to North

Vancouver — those were the commitments for the $25 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, the specific breakdowns of the

budget are not finalized, but I'll remember the Member's

question and try to get the information to you.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): During the second

reading of this short bill last night, we witnessed by the

president of the railway (Hon. Mr. Barrett) quite

an act on the

floor of the Legislature. He spent quite some time talking

against the railway and against what has been done on the

railway in the past few years.

One of the statements he made, Mr. Chairman, and I quote

from Hansard , was to give me an explanation why the extension

to Fort Nelson was rushed through so quickly.

We witnessed, Mr. Chairman, since this government came to

power, that everything has to be surveyed and sent to

committee. All I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that we could

have surveyed this railway extension into eternity, but had it

not been for decisive action on the part of the previous

administration, there would probably not be any railway

extension into Fort Nelson today.

I couldn't help but think, Mr. Chairman, when the president

of the railway was talking, that I want to

[ Page

1365 ]

thank God for our forefathers who had the vision and the

foresight and the courage to build that great railway which

united this Canada of ours. Maybe it could be said, Mr.

Chairman, that they rushed through the construction of the

Canadian Pacific Railway. I want to thank God, Mr. Chairman,

for the vision and the courage and the foresight and the

business ability of the previous administration when they

pushed the railway — which was the laughing-stock of the

Province of British Columbia some years ago — when they pushed

it through into the Peace River country and had the vision to

push it through to Fort Nelson, an extension that will be used

by the present administration in the development of the

north.

The Premier wanted to know why we were having so many

problems with that particular extension, and in his own words,

"which may cost of millions and millions of dollars to

correct." Mr. Chairman, it has to be written into the record — and it has to be known by the taxpayers of British Columbia,

who own this railway, and who, I might add, by and large are

very proud of this railway — that had this extension not been

built in the year that it was built, it would have not only

cost twice as much, it probably would have cost us three to

four times as much as it will ever cost to correct some of the

minor engineering problems that may be existing on the railway

at the present time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Minor engineering!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, with the way

this socialist government has added to the spiral of inflation,

that I'm being very conservative when I say it would have cost

three to four times as much to build the railway today as it

would have had it not been built in that time.

It probably would have cost 10 times as much, as the present

Minister of Finance will find out when he starts building

further extensions in the north.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

You'll eat those words.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll eat those words? You'll eat those words!

You who are the Minister of the resources of this province who

needs that railway to carry through some of your vast visions

and ideas — had it not been for the visions of the previous

administration, had it not been for the courage of the previous

administration, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, you wouldn't have that great empire that you've got

today to play with.

It's time you realized and paid tribute to the vision of the previous administration

and quit knocking it around. When you're knocking it around, Mr. Chairman —

when they're knocking it around they're not really knocking around the previous

administration. What they're knocking around is the administration of that great

railway — the people who put in time and hours and courage, overtime, to see

that that railway was the success that it is today.

Now, it's all very well and good for the present Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to come in and knock everything that

was done and to tear down….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the

Minister of Finance realize that he is no longer in opposition,

that he take on the stature of being the president of that

great railway, that he look at it in an objective way and try

to build it up, instead of tear it down.

If that present president of the railway had any idea of the

problems of construction in the north, knew anything about the

terrain that that railway was constructed through, knew

anything of the problems of drainage, knew anything about the

clay soil that exists in that area, he wouldn't condemn the

engineers who designed that extension to Fort Nelson. I

suppose, Mr. Chairman, that we could say the same thing about

the Alaska Highway. It was rushed through in a time of war. A

lot of time and energy went into it. And what's happening

today? Many sections of the highway are falling away; the

bridge over the Peace River fell down.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's all right, it wasn't that many years

later.

When you take the time to drive that highway and go over

that railway, then you can start condemning it. You sit in your

cushy big offices down here and you really don't know what's

going on in the north.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, there are many problems

that engineers who have not had the experience of working in

the north are finding out, and they have to find out many….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you quit yakking? If you want to stand up

and make a speech, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and

condominiums and everything else that goes with it (Hon. Mr.

Williams), you can do it when I am done.

MRS. JORDAN: Ask him why he was fired from Kelowna.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member please confine his

remarks to the amendment?

[ Page 1366 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I am confining my remarks as close as possible

to those made by the president of the railway last night, Mr.

Chairman. I want to tell you that no matter how many engineers

you put on a particular route for a railway, or no matter how

many engineers you put on a particular route for a road, I

don't think that you will ever find that they will completely

agree with one another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, well, there's "Oh, oh, oh!" — the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, the know-all engineer

for everywhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the section. We are in committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about $25

million that's going to the British Columbia Railway, and I am

talking about $25 million that may go into design and

engineering for extensions of the route. This is what we are

talking about.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I think that no

matter how many specialists you have design a particular route,

you are going to have disagreements. It is very easy to have

hindsight and say when something fails that it was poorly

designed. But the engineers in British Columbia and, indeed,

many of the engineers in Canada who haven't actually been in

the north, who haven't built roads in the north, who have not

had experience in it, are going to have problems.

That's why millions and millions and millions of dollars

today are being poured into a pipeline — a short pipeline — just to find out some of the problems of construction in the

north. Maybe we should have done the same thing with the

railway. I don't know. I think it's not proper that the

president of the railway stand up and condemn those

engineers.

If it had been for the policies of the present

administration, if it had been government, I don't think there

would have been any extensions into the Peace River area.

It's all very well and good for the Premier to order

studies. I am not saying that when those studies come in that I

have too much faith in those studies. If he were to appoint

unpolitical people to the studies and bring in studies that

were unbiased, maybe I would have a lot more faith in the

studies, But some of the studies, Mr. Chairman, that have been

brought into this House have been studies designed specifically

on a political bias.

The Premier went into quite some length last night to give credit to the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey about his financial ability in criticizing the railway.

Well, Mr. Chairman, this sort of leaves me almost sick in the pit of my stomach,

because I realize that had it been for the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

the railway would have remained as the laughing stock of British Columbia.

The Premier says that the former administration bungled the

whole engineering process of that particular extension. You

would think that the previous administration had gone out and

actually done the engineering design on that railway. I do

hope, Mr. Chairman, that we don't have to stand in this House

in a few years — and I wouldn't want to be condemned or guilty

of it — and try to fault the present administration on a deal

they had made with the CNR and CPR, because I hope that deal

turns out to be for the benefit of not only all of the people

of British Columbia, but for the benefit of all the people of

this great Canada of ours.

Our Premier took the time to condemn the engineers who built

this railway before the report that he has ordered has even

come down, Mr. Chairman. Now, you tell me that that's not going

to bias this report. Yet he wants us to give him the authority

to put an additional $25 million into this railway. How can

those engineers, who, by the way, are biased to begin with

because they are from the CPR and they are from the CNR,

possibly bring down an unbiased report?

However, there was one thing about the performance last

night. What the Premier lacked in business ability he certainly

made up in having the entertaining ability of a clown.

I think that I would have been much more impressed if the

Premier had taken an objective view about the problems that we

are having on that particular extension instead of coming out

and blatantly condemning the engineers of the British Columbia

Railway. I don't know what he was trying to accomplish except

to try and bring about in the people who work for the railway,

who think of it as their railway and who are loyal to the

railway, a sort of attitude of complete discouragement. Why

worry? Why even try, when the President of the railway is

against us? Engineers and architects have always differed.

Things that have been designed will never always be

perfect.

He took a great deal of time in his remarks last night to

talk about the great surplus and the great budget such that he

was able to spend this $25 million without it even phasing on

the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you, and I want to tell this

Legislature and I want to tell all those wonderful people who

work for this railway and I want to tell all the taxpayers in

the Province of British Columbia…

HON. MR. COCKE: Say it louder then.

[ Page 1367 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: …that if it were not for the extensions of

this great British Columbia Railway into the Peace River area,

if it were not for the proposed extensions in behind the

Alaskan panhandle, and if it were not for the extension into

Fort Nelson, this government wouldn't have the money in its

coffers that it's got today! They wouldn't have this $25

million to play around with! The economy of this province

wouldn't be as buoyant as it is today if it were not for the

pioneering and the engineering and the opening up of the

hinterland that this great railway has done for this

province!

It's time that we started getting down to the basics and

facts of what the development of the hinterland and what the

development of the north country has done for the economy of

this province. That's why our Minister of Finance can stand in

this House today and in front of the press and in front of the

radio and on all the open-line shows and say that we're not

ruining the economy and that the money is rolling in faster

than it did before.

I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. It is because of the

pioneering and the development of the opening of the north that

this pioneer British Columbia Railway has done. That's why the

economy of this province is buoyant today. It's time that all

of us in this House were conscious of the fact.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that before the engineers and

the specialists from the Canadian Pacific Railway and the

Canadian National Railway come out to do studies on a railway

that is very well run, very well engineered, they take a look

at the national railways, both the CNR and CPR. They are

costing the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada multi-million

dollars a year in subsidies. I would suggest before these

specialists come to British Columbia that they take a look at

their own backyard.

I would suggest to you that the people of British Columbia

who are subsidizing the Canadian Pacific Railway, who are

subsidizing the Canadian National Railway, and who are not

receiving any help from the federal government — maybe we

wouldn't need to be voting this $25 million if the federal

government were paying their fair share of the operation of

this great railway here in British Columbia instead of the

taxpayers of British Columbia having to pay the whole shot.

They put an extension in Alberta. Who has to subsidize

it?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about money! I am talking about

$25 million, Mr. Minister of Finance, that you want the

taxpayers of British Columbia to put into this railway!

I would suggest that you go to some other province, Mr.

Minister of Finance. Find out how much the federal government

puts into the extension of railways in Alberta, in Ontario and

in Quebec. How much money from the federal coffers come into

the extensions of the British Columbia Railway. Not one

cent!

Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's all very well and good. The Minister

of Finance has condemned the railway that has done more than

any other single thing to get the economy of British Columbia

rolling, to open up the north country and to bring all those

tax dollars into the coffers which they're having such a great

time playing with.

No, Mr. Chairman, it's time that the Minister of Finance and

president of the railway realized how much time, energy,

devotion, courage, guts and good sound business reasoning has

gone into the development of this great railway.

Mr. Chairman, due to the time, I'd like to make a motion

that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion not approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what we've heard in bombast

does not in any way impinge upon the responsibility of a

Minister of the Crown, who is charged with expenditure of

public funds, to be as sure as humanly possible about the

validity of the expenditure of those funds.

If political statements are made and then must be backed up

with dollars, and we find that the dollars have been

inadequately spent, then it is not a blame of the engineers for

the concept to the railroad, but is a responsibility of the

politicians.

This is not a Social Credit railroad; this is a railroad

belonging to all of the people of British Columbia. And you

must understand that if there are to be any attachments of

surfaces or clouds to this railroad, you must recall the

history of the cutting of the trees at Summit Lake and the

commitment by the former administration that the railroad would

never stop until it reached the Alaska border. Those

commitments being given just before an election campaign.

We are responsible to the taxpayers to provide the funds in

this wealthy province. There are no gifts in this province. Any

wealth that we have is a reflection of very hard work of all

the people of this province. If I'm to carry out my duties as

Minister of Finance and my responsibilities as the president of

the railroad then I want to know as much as humanly possible

about what I'm voting on before I say yes or no, or cast my

vote at a board meeting.

With those conditions, it is my responsibility when a Member

of this House raises a question about engineering — engineering

decisions being made by

[ Page 1368 ]

politicians saying, "Go ahead with this or that project."

The ultimate responsibility is not the engineer's. The ultimate

responsibility is on the politician, who is a board member, to

say yes or no.

When a mu