[ Page 4385 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M206), Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 4385

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. Macdonald –– 4385

Unions and volunteer work in health care facilities. Mr. R. Fraser –– 4386

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Hanson –– 4386

Unions and volunteer work in health care facilities. Mr. Reid –– 4386

Government advertising contracts. Mr. Stupich –– 4386

Consulting contracts. Mr. Stupich –– 4387

Presenting Reports –– 4387

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19)

Third reading –– 4387

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading.

Ms. Sanford –– 4388

Mr. R. Fraser –– 4391

Mr. Stupich –– 4391

Mr. Segarty –– 4396

Mr. Howard –– 4396

Mr. Skelly –– 4399

Mr. Rose –– 4402

Mr. Nicolson –– 4405

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we have a fine group of British athletes, the rugby football club of the Reigate Grammar School in Surrey, which, interestingly enough, was established over 300 years ago, in 1675. This is their fourth trip to our province, and they are going to be playing a series of matches against Oak Bay, Pitt Meadows, New Westminster, Semiahmoo and Centennial secondary schools. While they are here we certainly hope they'll be able to see as much of British Columbia as possible. They are accompanied by their coach, Mr. Allan Keith Reid, and other faculty members. I know that all members of this House would like to bid them a very warm and cordial welcome to our province.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the building somewhere today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Sam McRae from Williams Lake in the Cariboo. I would like the House to welcome him.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today are 55 students from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay. They are accompanied by their teachers, Miss Upton, Miss Lawry and Mr. Bates. I would like the House to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill M206, Patients Property Amendment Act, 1984, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in the gallery today Mrs. Margo Furk, who is on the West Vancouver School Board, and ask the House to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

EXPO 86

MR. MACDONALD: A question to the Premier of the province about Expo 86 and the big question — will it or won't it? In view of the private and public commitments that have been made, the commitment of the government and the billions of dollars — well, I would think a billion at least would be lost to the economy of B.C. If it didn't proceed — when's he going to 'fess up and say that the decision has been made, and that we're going through a charade here?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: This is a serious question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be a question, hon. member; it cannot be a debate or a speech.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to ask how long this "Billy and Jimmy” show is going to go on. Has the Premier not decided that it's going ahead anyway? That decision has been made, hasn't it?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Do you want it to go ahead?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, of course.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be improper of any government having the responsibility to deal with a recommendation from the chairman of Expo, the president of Expo.... This poses a very serious problem, one which this government did not want to face but one we'll have to deal with. To deal with the report offhand and out of hand, and not give it the due consideration nor.... The ramifications of what is implied in that report and that recommendation obviously are of great concern to this government, who introduced the concept of an exposition to this province some years ago, with opposition from many quarters which now profess great support. I think that support cuts across party lines, across work associations and across the geography of this province, and is therefore testimony to the wisdom of the concept of Expo. When we introduced it a few years ago, we fought hard to get the exposition sanctioned, and recommended to the people of this province that it could be of great economic benefit both in its construction and its implementation. But more far-reaching, because it deals with technology of transportation and communication, it can focus the attention of the decision-makers of the world — governments, corporations, technicians — on British Columbia in a favourable light, so that when they make their investment decisions in the future they will consider British Columbia for investment and jobs. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry if the member feels that we should give a glib, fast answer to this serious question, as he indicated in his preamble. He might deal with it that way, but I can't.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, after the speech there was an answer there.

You say that you are really concerned about the labour situation at Expo 86. Is there not a Labour Code of B.C. in place that defines what is and what is not a common site and that has powers of cease-and-desist orders? The whole thing is in place. Does the Premier not recognize that the legislation, which was begun by the NDP and is now in place, looks after these problems? Is he not just playing a political game and sort of spelling out the suspense? Is it not a charade? How long is this show going to run? Is it not all in place right now?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of many of the things that were done when the NDP were government. I remember when they restricted large numbers of British Columbians from bidding on government work. They brought in legislation that discriminated in the workplace, and this government has removed that legislation.

[ Page 4386 ]

UNIONS AND VOLUNTEER WORK
IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

MR. R. FRASER: I have a question for the Minister of Labour which does not appear to have the impact of Expo 86, but in my opinion it does. The question was brought to me by a constituent of Vancouver South. It concerns the use of volunteers in one particular health society from a labour point of view. He understands that the volunteers working for that society are being pulled into the union, and it's his concern that if all these employees — these volunteers, if you want to put it that way — who work for nothing are pulled into the union, the cost of that will be driven out of sight. I can see the implications of that being very far-reaching. I want to ask the Minister of Labour if such a thing is possible, or can those volunteers be permitted to do their job as they wish?

[2:15]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've had some representation myself in the last few days about this very matter. I must say, having once been the Minister of Health in this province, that the volunteer contribution by the thousands of volunteers in this province can't be measured in terms of dollars or social responsibility. I think everyone in our community would agree with that, including perhaps the few union leaders who might have a different agenda. I might just say to that member that I have answered one couple who are concerned about this in Kelowna — in the Premier's constituency, as a matter of fact. I said that volunteers in our hospital system are a proud and historic component of British Columbia's health services, and as such this government will continue to support the tremendous contribution made by our province's volunteers.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Premier. A moment ago we heard the Premier professing support for free and open bidding, and yesterday he said he was considering cancelling Expo because there must be full competition and, he will never favour one group or one firm. Will the Premier advise why no British Columbia firms were given the opportunity to bid on approximately $10 million worth of government advertising contracts, which has been awarded to the McKim Advertising firm?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I will surely look into the allegations contained in that question and bring an answer back to the member. Therefore I'll take the question as notice.

MR. HANSON: I have a new question. The auditor-general, in various reports, has referred to the Social Credit advertising firm as "less than honest." Will the Premier advise why he continues to deny British Columbians the opportunity to bid on the government advertising contract, while supporting the Social Credit firm which has been caught mismanaging public funds?

HON. MR. BENNETT: If I can respond to the member, he just attributed words to the auditor-general, Mrs. Morrison, referring to a Social Credit advertising firm. I read the report, and she did not make that statement, nor is it in fact true. Advertising agencies, I'm sure, cut across party lines in their membership according to the normal breakdown. Like the rest of the province, most people in most things elect Social Credit governments.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary. Will the Premier explain to the House why he does not adopt the same approach with the firm that has the Social Credit advertising contract, and put the contract out to open and free bids province-wide, to allow other advertising firms with more strict and rigorous financial controls than have been demonstrated by McKim and Vrlak Robinson to have their crack at that $10 million nest-egg?

HON. MR. BENNETT: This was taken as notice, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know if I would offend against the rules by answering a question that was already taken as notice. I can only assure the member that there are more firms participating in government business now than participated during the years 1972-75 when Mr. Dunsky from Toronto got the bulk of the advertising business from the NDP government.

UNIONS AND VOLUNTEER WORK
IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the question of the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), following up on his question about volunteer services for personal care homes. I'm led to believe that the Kinsmen Club of Whalley, which sponsors Kinsmen Place Lodge in Surrey, has volunteers who come in and perform hairdressing services for some of the patients. I understand that the union in that facility is pressing the volunteers to refrain from doing that so that they can bring in union employees. That's to the Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm very sorry. I was engrossed in a human rights annual report. Would you repeat the question, because I didn't hear it.

MR. REID: Not to eat up the time of question period, Mr. Minister of Labour.... I have a question about volunteer assistance provided in either health or personal care facilities. It has been suggested that the volunteers who help the senior ladies with their hairdos at Kinsmen Place Lodge not provide that service any longer and that paid employees be requested to provide that service. Would you look into that, please, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will took into it. It's the first I've heard of it, but I think it's stupid not to allow volunteers to come in and help the disabled and disadvantaged of this province. If any group is promoting that kind of activity in our province, then I would oppose it with every facility we have at our disposal, and I'll look into the individual case and report back.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTRACTS

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, before somebody sets up any more straw men, I'd like to ask the Premier....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

[ Page 4387 ]

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take offence at being called a straw man and I wish that member to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, possibly we could deal with this at the conclusion of question period.

MR. STUPICH: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. He knows whether or not he's a man.

The Premier, in response to the last question put to him, said there are more firms getting government advertising business now than when the NDP was in office. I'd like to ask him: how many more?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Member, I'll bring the number to the House.

CONSULTING CONTRACTS

MR. STUPICH: The government awards some $300 million a year in contracts to private consultants. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) declines to reveal a list of the contracts, thereby denying British Columbians an opportunity to bid on these consulting contracts. Will the Premier advise why he continues to allow secret awarding of consulting contracts at very high prices without public competition or bidding?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Finance advises me that he's already answered this question for you, and that the information is made public and is listed in due course. The public accounts operated under the same system when that member was a member of the government. They are a little more open now.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier again. The Minister of Finance does reveal a list of payees, but does not in advance of awarding contracts for consulting make public the jobs that are coming up, thereby giving various consulting firms an opportunity to bid. That's my concern: not who is paid for the job two years later, but rather what jobs are coming up and what opportunities are there for various consultants to bid on various contracts that are coming up. That's my question. There isn't any opportunity for that. Why do you continue this process of not allowing open bidding for $300 million worth of consulting work that is being done by the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Consulting work has great opportunity for all consultants. I'm surprised that the member on the one hand questions the number of consultants who work for the government, and then suggests that somehow there should be more. The deputies in government administration assess in the same way you get consultants anywhere. They do the prequalification through the qualifications for the specific task for which they're being requested; then they go through the various ways of the best one to do a specific job. Many consultant firms specialize in certain areas and reduce the amount of competition in any particular area, but all are considered. Judgments and proposals are made taking that into account.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the honour to submit herewith a special report to the Legislative Assembly pursuant to section 30(2) of the Ombudsman Act. I submit special report No. 8 to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Workers Compensation Board, volume one.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, if I may take a moment, this is a very significant day for this House; it's certainly a very significant day for our acting Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Ted Ratcliffe. Today, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, is Mr. Ratcliffe's last day of service in this House. He leaves on retirement effective tomorrow. Mr. Ratcliffe has served this House and the people of British Columbia faithfully for the last 12 years, and has been acting Sergeant-at-Arms since August of last year. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ratcliffe's life has really been one of service. I would just like to bring one or two highlights of that service to the attention of all members of this House.

Mr. Ted Ratcliffe enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1941. He graduated as a navigator and flew during World War II with No. 426 bomber squadron; for his service he was awarded — and wears — the Distinguished Flying Cross. In January 1945 Mr. Ratcliffe was seconded to what was then known as Trans-Canada Airlines, and flew with them on overseas service. He completed 106 crossings of the ocean, flying an airplane which we called the North Star. Putting in 106 trips in a North Star across that ocean was a lifetime's work in itself.

Mr. Ratcliffe returned to the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1948 and served during the Korean airlift. He made 14 crossings of the Pacific Ocean in service of that theatre of war, and retired from the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1968 with the rank of wing commander. This is not only a significant day for Mr. Ratcliffe in this way; it also just happens to be his birthday. As far as I am concerned, it is a significant honour to ask this House not only to wish him Godspeed and good luck in his retirement, but a happy birthday as well.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are delighted to join in the best wishes to Mr. Ratcliffe for the years ahead once he leaves this place, and also to wish him many happy returns of the day. I can't expand upon the litany of accomplishments that the member for Dewdney laid out with respect to Mr. Ratcliffe, but we understand that his sojourn in the air force and the position he held at TransCanada Airlines, both very hazardous occupations, undoubtedly prepared him well to enter and function in this place in an unruffled way. We wish him Godspeed in his years ahead; we enjoyed having him here very much.

I also want to add, if I might, Mr. Speaker, our words of commendation to the fine people who have worked on the staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms. All of them deserve to be given due credit for their activities.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

Bill 19 read a third time and passed.

[ Page 4388 ]

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the Legislature fail to understand the undue haste with which the government wants to proceed with this particular piece of legislation. As late as Thursday of last week the committee that had been established to advise the minister about the human rights legislation was still holding hearings. The bill was introduced on Tuesday; we had an opportunity to glance through it on Wednesday and to consult with a few people out in the community....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You had six months.

MS. SANFORD: The minister has made a very interesting comment, Mr. Speaker. He says we've had six months to look at this bill and he's quite correct, in that this bill is virtually the same as the one introduced six months ago by that same minister, Bill 27, the Human Rights Act. That bill was thoroughly discredited by people in this province and right across this nation. This bill, as the minister correctly points out, is virtually the same. I think it is because of last summer's outcry against the moves made by this government in the area of human rights that the government wants to proceed with such haste today, in order to get the debate on this bill before the Legislature and, as they hope, through the Legislature in quick time. They want to ram it through because they know this is unpopular legislation. They know that it's virtually the same as last year's, and they know that it was thoroughly discredited at that time. The Minister of Labour should be hanging his head in shame today for bringing this kind of legislation forward in this Legislature.

One of the measures of the advances in any civilization is reflected in the way a society treats minorities within that society, and in the whole area of human rights and discrimination. We find that in British Columbia we are taking a massive retrograde step in the area of human rights. We are stepping backwards; we are not moving civilization forward. This is second-class legislation, and it can't be termed in any other way. The issue of human rights is one of such fundamental importance that the government should not be trying to rush this through at this time. It's an issue which touches all of us, and it's an issue which measures the advance in our civilization here in this province. With this legislation, we are taking a massive step backwards.

This piece of legislation is a flimsy excuse for any kind of protection in the area of human rights. Anyone who takes the time to look at it will understand that very quickly. They will understand that it is virtually and fundamentally the same as that totally discredited piece of legislation the government had to abandon last summer. It is, in fact, a betrayal to all of those people who were assured and had assumed that this new piece of legislation would protect human rights in this province. That's not going to be the case.

The minister got up this morning and said that this bill represents a reaffirmation of the government's commitment to human rights. All I can say is "amen." That's very true. It's a reaffirmation of the same kind of lousy legislation that was introduced last summer. When this legislation, in a slightly different form, was presented to the province of British Columbia last summer, we had people all over the province objecting to it and voicing concern, and we had people across Canada voicing concern about what was happening here in British Columbia with an issue as basic as human rights.

At that time we heard from Gordon Fairweather, who is the chairman of Canada's Human Rights Commission and a very well-respected Conservative. He has taken an interest in human rights throughout his entire life. I'm sure that when Mr. Fairweather has an opportunity to read this legislation, he will say virtually the same thing. I'm quoting from Mr. Fairweather, who attacked the Bennett government's methods as emblematic of a police state. He also deplored the denunciation of human rights in B.C. Here we have the person who has been so concerned with human rights over the years that he has risen to the position of chairman of Canada's Human Rights Commission saying that here in British Columbia the legislation we have — and, Mr. Speaker, virtually the same legislation is before us today — is a denunciation of human rights in British Columbia. That's what we have in this bill. I don't think that the comments of Gordon Fairweather, who is probably one of Canada's most knowledgeable people in the area of human rights, can be dismissed out of hand, as I'm sure that minister will tend to do, and as I'm sure this government will tend to do. Gordon Fairweather, chairman of Canada's Human Rights Commission, is deploring the denunciation of human rights in British Columbia. They should hang their heads in shame today. It's a disgraceful piece of legislation which does not provide the protection in an area that to me is absolutely essential.

When the legislation was introduced last summer, we heard also from people like Father Jim Roberts.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: All right, are you also going to laugh at Gordon Fairweather?

Father Jim Roberts spoke....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is he the co-chairman of Solidarity?

MS. SANFORD: Yes, he is one of the co-chairmen. I suppose that if he belongs to that Solidarity organization this group is ready to dismiss him, no matter who he is. "Father James Roberts spoke into the microphone, condemning the Bennett government's anti-human-rights legislation in terms the crowd would not soon forget. 'It is the moral equivalent of the neutron bomb; it leaves the buildings unscathed, but it savages people.'" That's true. He's echoing what Gordon Fairweather is saying: human rights in British Columbia, as a result of the actions of this government, have virtually been eliminated.

Then we have Charles Paris. I suppose they're all going to pooh-pooh anything that Charles Paris had to say as well. For those who don't remember, Dr. Charles Paris was the chairman of the Human Rights Commission here in British Columbia. Of course he was soon dismissed. Charles Paris attacked Bill 27 as having nothing to do with the oft-touted reason of economic restraint, and he said: "This is a deliberate, philosophic attack on the very concept of human rights legislation." He said it was a basic fundamental attack. Here we have the chairman of the Human Rights Commission in

[ Page 4389 ]

British Columbia — of course that commission is defunct, and that chairman is gone. But I am positive, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Paris would be saying exactly the same thing today about this piece of legislation. The minister himself pointed out that it's virtually the same.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association last summer also pleaded with the government to back off the legislation that it had introduced. I'm sure that it feels the same way today. We have appeals from the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia to have that legislation dropped, eliminated and wiped out from the books of British Columbia, and here we are seeing virtually the same piece of legislation again.

As I pointed out, we had people across the country.... I would like to read into the record what a professor of law, who is a director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa, had to say about the legislation that was introduced last summer. Ed Ratushny was reported in the Globe and Mail on August 19, 1983, as saying:

"'We recognize that human rights are indeed fragile freedoms, in particular when the pressures...are brought to bear on those who are least able to protect themselves or fight back: women, the disabled, the old and racial minorities. The Human Rights Commission has gone on record over the past years as the spokesman for these groups, advocating the need for the majority to respect the dignity of all British Columbians.' While recognizing the realities of the current economic situation, the telegram" — sent to the Premier last summer — "pleaded for prudence in making cuts, 'so as to ensure that the impact is not felt disproportionately by those most in need of assistance and special protection.'"

This professor also stated:

"There are few better yardsticks of the basic integrity of a society than the degree to which it can meet these ideals through its laws, institutions and practices."

He's talking about the ideals of protecting basic human rights.

"Progress in developing human rights legislation in Canada represents many years of hard effort by the labour movement and other non-governmental organizations, culminating in the situation where every province, and the federal government, has its own human rights commission now — in all provinces but one."

Guess which one no longer has a human rights commission, because the government thinks that a human rights commission is simply not important enough to include in its program?

"The earliest provincial human rights codes, such as Ontario's, have been the subject of substantial amendment. Discrimination is seldom upfront" — says this professor — "and, indeed, discriminatory consequences may be generated unintentionally. That is why conciliation and education have always played an important role in human rights codes throughout Canada."

This human rights code — this new piece of legislation, Bill 11 — gives no priority to education. As a matter of fact, the minister is quoted in the press this morning as saying that it's really not the council's job to do the educating at all; it's government's. Mr. Speaker, help us, if that government is going to educate the people in British Columbia in the area of human rights. We heard what one of those ministers had to say this morning at a public accounts meeting. We know the attitude of a lot of the people within that government on areas related to racism and sexism. If we are to rely on the government to educate the people of British Columbia — and I think education is an absolutely essential part of improving human rights in this province — then there is very little hope. They have never shown an interest in the area of human rights, and this piece of legislation before us today certainly is an indication that they don't intend to give human rights much of a priority in the future.

[2:45]

I assume that one of the reasons the government wants to proceed with such haste in debating this bill.... It was on the floor of the House for debate only one day after it had been introduced, but we are getting, within our caucuses, a flood of telegrams. Phone calls are coming in from every part of the province objecting to this piece of legislation, and it's been out for only one day. I'm sure that that's one of the big reasons that this government wants to proceed with this and ram it through — get the legislation in place before the people of the province really understand what this government is attempting to do in this piece of legislation.

We've had telegrams today from Tim Stanley of the B.C. Organization to Fight Racism; Donna Stewart of the North Shore Women's Centre; Chris Walmsley of the B.C. Association of Social Workers; Gurham Sangera of the Sikh Solidarity Association, representing six Sikh temples in the lower mainland; Charles Paris, regional director of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews; Timothy Ag, Vancouver Gay Community Centre; the B.C. Human Rights Coalition; Harbans Dhillon; Jon Gates; Alicia Lawrence; Eleanor Crow of the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre; and the provincial Solidarity coalition. Within a day, Mr. Speaker, because we were able to send copies of this legislation by courier to some people who have expressed an interest in human rights in this province in the past, because they have had a chance to read through the bill — though I don't imagine they've had much chance to study it — already they are flooding us with telegrams and phone calls objecting to this piece of legislation, which is really a flimsy excuse for protection in the field of human rights.

The minister, in introducing this bill this morning, said that the government was committed to protecting human rights. If the government was committed to protecting human rights, then why did they eliminate the Human Rights Commission, leaving British Columbia as the only province in this country without a human rights commission? Why did the government, just after the July 7 budget last year, fire virtually all the people working in the human rights branch, giving the message to the province that human rights is not important enough to continue to have a human rights commission or to continue to have human rights workers who attempted to resolve the problems that develop all over this province in the areas of discrimination and human rights.

That minister is quoted in the press today as saying that B.C. will have the best human rights legislation — in Canada, I think he said — once this bill is passed. He said exactly

[ Page 4390 ]

the same thing after they introduced Bill 27, the other human rights piece of legislation that I spoke about earlier, which was thoroughly discredited and was such an embarrassment that the government finally had to abandon it. Now they've introduced a new piece — virtually the same — and they're hoping that by ramming it through the House they won't have the same opposition mounted towards the legislation, which does not protect human rights in this province.

The Human Rights Commission had the job of trying to promote understanding among people in our province. They had the job of trying to educate people about human rights and their own tendency to discriminate. There are many people in this province who discriminate against racial minorities, and on all kinds of other grounds, including sexual orientation, including sexism — they discriminate against women for one reason or another. This bill will not give that protection any more. The Human Rights Commission made recommendations to government about how we could improve human rights in this province. That commission has been eliminated.

This morning on CBC radio I head Bill Black from the University of British Columbia making some comments on this piece of legislation, and he said something that I really think should be brought to the attention of government. He mentioned that preventive work in the area of human rights is far more effective than trying to take action against people who discriminate. It's much better to have an educational program, much better to try to promote understanding among our people in British Columbia. Unfortunately, we have in our society in B.C. a situation which could easily result in open racial hostility. As a matter of fact, it has from time to time. We have a volatile situation in British Columbia in the area of racial discrimination; unfortunately, when you eliminate the commission that is assigned the task of trying to educate people in the areas of human rights, of trying to make people understand other people and the way in which they live — their backgrounds, religious beliefs and a language different from ours — obviously you're not going to have the same kind of chance to prevent the discrimination that's taking place in this province.

The commission has been eliminated, the council has not been assigned the direct responsibility for education, and the minister informs us: "Well, the government will take on that job." That'll be a joke, Mr. Speaker. Never before has this government attempted to do anything in terms of educating in the area of human rights and discrimination. This piece of legislation eliminates the work of the human rights branch and establishes in its place a politically appointed council consisting of five people. That council, unfortunately, will have the job of acting both as investigator and as judge. No council should be given the responsibility to act as both investigator and judge, because immediately the decisions made by that council are going to be suspect. If you're acting as both investigator and judge, then that's bound to be the case. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it's politically appointed. I would much prefer to see a council appointed by an all-party committee of this House by unanimous decision — the same way in which the auditor-general and the ombudsman were appointed. Surely a council — if that's the route the government is going to take — which is charged with the responsibility of human rights in this province should not be appointed politically by the minister.

They've no direct mandate to educate, and unfortunately the minister tells us that's going to become the job of the government. We know what that will mean.

I have not heard the minister give us one solitary reason for removing the section "reasonable cause" from the legislation. People could complain that they had been discriminated against, using the section "reasonable cause," and action could be taken in cases of discrimination. Action could be taken in areas that were not directly and specifically named within the old Human Rights Code. But now, with the removal of the "reasonable cause" provision, all kinds of discrimination are going to be able to take place in this province. Mr. Speaker, we've had a number of examples. But one particular example....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How many other provinces have it?

MS. SANFORD: I don't know how many others have it. The point is that we had it here in this province and it was serving a useful purpose in trying to cut down on discrimination. It's now been removed, and the minister should hang his head in shame.

We've had examples in this province of people who were denied employment because the employer said that the particular employee did not speak English well enough. That person, under the old legislation, went to the human rights branch and pleaded that this employer was discriminating against him without reasonable cause, because he didn't need to understand the English language in order to do the job that he was to be employed for. Eventually it turned out that that employee, through the "reasonable cause" provisions of that Human Rights Code, was established in that job.

[3:00]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On racial grounds.

MS. SANFORD: Well, the thing is that he utilized the English language as his excuse for not employing him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It was accepted on racial grounds.

MS. SANFORD: That may well be, but the employer denied him the right to work because he was not able to speak English well enough. That was the employer's reason, and that was the issue that was taken to the human rights branch.

Mr. Speaker, by removing the words "reasonable cause," people who are under the age of 45.... The only provision now is 45 to 65, as far as age discrimination is concerned. One of my constituents went to the human rights branch because he was denied access as an apprentice — I think it was a plumber's apprentice or a carpenter's apprentice — because of the fact that the union said that they would not accept apprentices above the age of 25. One of my constituents was over the age of 25. He felt that that union was discriminating on the basis of age. He went to the human rights branch, and even though the ages 45 to 65 are the ones named in the Code, he said: "There is no reasonable cause to exclude me from becoming an apprentice because I happen to be over the age of 25." He won that case, and he was accepted as an apprentice, and accepted in that union simply because of the fact that there was a "reasonable cause" provision within that act.

[ Page 4391 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Unions don't discriminate, do they?

MS. SANFORD: They did in this case. And the human rights people certainly ensured that that would not happen. By removing that "reasonable cause" section, my particular constituent would, because of age, have been denied the right to become an apprentice and join that union. Right now under this bill he would have no recourse whatsoever, because it's been denied him. In the bill people will not be discriminated against if they are mentally or physically handicapped; they've named them specifically in this new legislation. But by eliminating "reasonable cause" they have left out far more people. Far more people are going to be denied the right to ensure that their human rights are protected in this province by removing that "reasonable cause" provision. Unless you are specifically named in the legislation you will not be covered, because "without reasonable cause" has been removed.

People will be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. There was another area in which people could have some reasonable chance of ensuring they weren't discriminated against by referring to that "reasonable cause" provision. They're now left out; they're not named. They have no protection whatsoever under that piece of legislation.

As my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) mentioned this morning, pregnant women will not now have access to that "reasonable cause" provision and could well be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy. The minister shakes his head. At the end of second reading I would like him to advise me how their rights are going to be protected. The legal people are saying they are not protected.

We can now have provisions put in by employers that talk about people having to be of a certain height or weight in order to be employed. That could well be used to ensure that women are not hired in certain occupations, if the employer so decides. In other words, the employer who does not want to hire women, for instance, would not say, "Oh, I don't want to hire women," because he knows he would not be allowed to do that under the legislation; but he can bring in provisions ensuring that based on height and weight women would not qualify. According to this legislation, Bill 11, he would not be discriminating against women directly, only indirectly. Because the "reasonable cause" clause has been removed, they would not have that protection.

Another big change that has occurred in this legislation, a change from the Human Rights Code that was on the books for a number of years — introduced, I think, in 1973 or 1974 — is in the area of having to prove intent. This is going to make it far more difficult to ensure that discrimination does not take place. It is very difficult to prove intent, that the intent to discriminate was there. Discrimination can take place time and time again if people cannot prove intent. That's unfortunate. That's a huge weakness in this bill. There's no doubt that a lot of discrimination does take place. Unless the complainant can prove that the intent to discriminate was there, then the council will throw the complaint out, and it will not be accepted as a legitimate complaint of discrimination.

I think it's tragic that we have to be debating a bill that is such a second-class piece of legislation. We in this province should be setting the pace. We should be leading the way for the rest of Canada in terms of protecting basic minority rights and protecting people from discrimination of all types. We should be educating our people to ensure that discrimination does not take place. This piece of legislation fails on all of those counts. I will be most strenuously opposing this piece of legislation.

MR. R. FRASER: I do want to say a few words about this piece of legislation, and I want to congratulate the government on the thrust of the bill, which is, in fact, to encourage people to think, not necessarily to respond to a piece of paper. It's my opinion that irrespective of what you might write down on a piece of paper, you can always get around things. As the member points out, intent is very difficult to determine sometimes, no matter what kind of a dispute you've got. It's a matter of attitude with respect to the hiring of people, whether they be mentally or physically handicapped, tall or short or weak or strong.

I would like to point out that in my own business, for example, we have historically hired people who were qualified, irrespective of race, and when it came to equal pay for equal work, we have paid men and women the same pay for the same job. That, on our part, is an attitudinal acceptance of the ability to get the work done, and the whole thrust of our thinking in that respect is not to be concerned with where that person's origins might be but with what he can do with his other workmates to make the business work as well as possible.

So I suggest to anybody here who is worried about the bill that I'm sure there will be failures in every piece of legislation somewhere, because the world is not perfect and therefore the writing of a bill is never perfect. I suggest to you, though, the approach that the minister and the government are taking is an attitudinal approach to people: think about what you can find in the person looking for a job; and if they're qualified, hire them. There are lots and lots of examples of people who are willing to accept those seeking work on the basis of competence and ability. I suggest to everyone here that the closer we get to recognizing the fact that we are a very small part of the global village, that we trade around the world, and that our population makeup has now a much more interesting flavour than it might have had at one point, the more we will come to recognize that we will accept people without racial discrimination and that we will find that the intent of the bill is well placed.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not surprised that somebody on that side of the House would have so little to say about the bill or about human rights, but I must admit that he did catch me a bit short. I felt that even a Social Creditor would have more than that to say on the subject of human rights.

It's certainly no accident that it is the NDP who have a great deal to say about the threat to human rights in the province of British Columbia. We have a long history, as a party, of fighting for human rights, a history that goes back through the days of the CCF to the time the party was actually formed. It was a party at that time that fought for the extension of the franchise to include native Indians and orientals. Indeed, in the first election in which I campaigned as a candidate, in 1949, the native Indians still didn't have the vote. They did get it some time afterwards. It's no accident that the first native Indian to sit in this Legislature sat as a CCF MLA and later an NDP MLA — and, indeed, became a cabinet minister in the NDP administration. Later....

Interjection.

[ Page 4392 ]

MR. STUPICH: Do you really want me to answer that? Later, yes, there were a bunch of Liberals and Conservatives and one NDPer who joined together in a coalition — he was one of them, that's true. But my point was that it was no accident that the party which fought for so long for the extension of the franchise to include our native Indians was the party that was first represented in this Legislature by a native Indian. He sat for many years as a CCF and then NDP MLA. It's no accident that the only two blacks ever to be elected in the province of British Columbia sit as members of the NDP. We have a long history of having fought for human rights in British Columbia. We fought for the rights of the Japanese during the war, and certainly there are many tales of horror to be told about the way in which they were treated during the war. I recognize there was a war, and I recognize the problems of the time. But I went to school with some children who were very quickly, with very little or in some cases no warning, uprooted from their homes, and their assets somehow or other found themselves assumed by prominent Liberals of the day. They had extensive land holdings in the Gulf Islands and on Vancouver Island as well, and were very good farmers and very good fishermen. It was on Vancouver Island that I went to school with some of these children, who were treated very badly. I think Canada is giving some recognition of that now, but rather belatedly. So it is no accident that we're standing up in the Legislature today and expressing our concern about the current attack on human rights.

[3:15]

I have to associate myself with those of my colleagues who are wondering why this legislation is being proceeded with so quickly. There are other estimates that could have been handled. I know that the minister's response earlier was that we've had six months to consider this legislation. If that is the case, then the minister is saying that the legislation is essentially the same legislation as was introduced on July 7, 1983. That being the case, he is saying that the tremendous protest that drew together many organizations that would never be seen talking to each other.... One of the areas of protest was, about the attack on human rights. That protest has not been met simply by dropping Bill 27, which was on the order paper since July 7, 1983, the day the session wound up; it was not met by the introduction of Bill 11 a couple of days ago. That being the case, we can simply use the same questions, concerns and opposition that we would have to Bill 27 and, in the appraisal of the minister, we'd be dealing with exactly the legislation that we have today. I recognize that there have been some changes. He did not detail those changes. Apparently he felt they were so inconsequential that they weren't worth spending a great deal of time on. Others of my colleagues have talked about the one feature that is perhaps the most undesirable, the worst feature of the legislation — whether it's Bill 27 or Bill 11 — and that is the elimination of the reasonable cause provisions. Two members on this side of the House have spoken in opposition to Bill 11. Both of them have dwelt at some length with this elimination of reasonable cause.

I did accumulate a file last fall and to a great degree it's still appropriate. I'd like to make some references to this file, which I didn't have an opportunity to use then because the government did abandon the legislation — let it die on the order paper. We were encouraged then to think that there might be some substantive changes. We recognized that the Human Rights Commission had already been fired. Even though the legislation had not been proceeded with, they had taken steps as though they had the legislative authority to do everything they did. The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), when he was speaking in the budget debate in July or August.... As a matter of fact, we didn't finish the budget, as I recall, until September; we abandoned the budget and started talking about legislation. In any case, during that period the hon. member for Alberni talked about the relatively low cost. A million dollars is a lot of money in anybody's language, but it is a relatively low cost in terms of budget of the Human Rights Commission. Indeed, the public accounts for the year ended March '83 showed that while $1.6 million had been voted, the total cost of everything done in that area — all human rights programs — came in at less. The actual expenditures for that period were $1,251,959. It would seem to me that in terms of an $8.6 billion budget, that's a relatively small amount for us to be spending in the province of British Columbia to provide human rights education and human rights protection. There may have been excesses, there may have been some mistakes, and it might well be that there should be some changes in administration; but no case has been made for disposing of the program entirely or for changing it to the extent of the legislation that we have before us now, which really destroys the program.

An editorial in the Globe and Mail dated July 14 talks about a number of the pieces of legislation. This is just one week after. If I may, Mr. Speaker, question again this matter of the time, if what the minister is telling us is that the bill is the same as it was last fall, then of course we should all be opposing it to our utmost and the community should be mounting the same kind of protest as they did last fall. If indeed there have been changes to improve it — and I think the minister did want to make some case for that — then why not give the community time to review the new bill, to look at it and see whether it's something with which they feel they can live? The minister and the government appear to be anxious that the community not have the opportunity they had last fall. There was plenty of opportunity then because there was a whole package and there was lots of opposition to everything the government was doing. But this time they're bringing in this one bill and apparently hoping to sneak it through the Legislature in a hurry before the community outside — the people who are going to be affected by this — have any opportunity to see whether the legislation is indeed as bad as the original Bill 27, or whether it has been improved to the extent that they can live with it. I have to assume that it is almost as bad, if not as bad, and draw on some of the arguments that I would have used in the last six months of last year when this legislation was being discussed.

One paragraph of the editorial in the Globe and Mail of July 14 states: "Why, at a period when civil rights have assumed high priority everywhere in Canada" — particularly with that constitution debate, and certainly civil rights were part of that debate — "does the B.C. government decide to eliminate the human rights branch" — and that's still being done — "and the Human Rights Commission and replace them with a new panel far too much under the government's foot?" The first sentence is with respect to Bill 27 then and Bill 21 now. Why, when civil rights are being given higher recognition in the rest of Canada, are we in B.C. doing away with the human rights branch and the Human Rights Commission?

[ Page 4393 ]

Another story, in the July 16 Globe and Mail: "Labour Groups Join Forces to Fight B.C. Government." I can appreciate why there would be so many stories in the Globe and Mail today when we don't have other newspapers, but apparently this was then considered to be a very hot issue back east.

"The four federal ministers who signed yesterday's telex to B.C. Labour Minister Robert McClelland were External Affairs Minister Allan MacEachen, Secretary of State Serge Joyal, Judy Erola, minister responsible for the status of women, and Multiculturalism Minister James Fleming, each of whom is in some way responsible for human rights."

Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been an opportunity for these four ministers, or any others, and perhaps six or seven leadership candidates from the Liberal Party, to study the new bill to see whether or not they want to take as strong a stand in opposition to it as they did in opposition to the very similar bill that was introduced last fall. Going on with the story:

"They said it will be 'highly regrettable' if British Columbia takes measures that undermine the protection of human rights in a bid to exercise restraint."

There was no restraint program last fall. That was a fiction. The budget that was introduced on July 7, 1983 — here I'm repeating something I've said on other occasions, but I think it is appropriate to remind ourselves of it now — showed increased expenditures of 16 percent above those of the previous year. In a year when inflation was expected to be between 5 percent and 6 percent, an increase of 16 percent can hardly be called a restraint budget. Wiping out this program — and as I pointed out, the cost of the program for the year ended March 31, 1983, was $1.25 million, in round figures — cannot be considered a program of restraint. The government simply wanted to get rid of a few employees who were getting publicity for the work they were doing. It was good work generally, but they were getting publicity that the government didn't want to be associated with, and so they had decided that among all the other things they were doing this was one opportunity to get rid of a little burr under the saddle. It wasn't terribly important to them, they weren't terribly concerned about human rights education or protection, so they were using this as an opportunity to wrap it up in the whole program of restraint, assuming that the public generally would accept the idea that restraint was good, simply because it sounded good and had helped them win an election. It was an excuse to proceed with that at that time. It wasn't a restraint program at all; it was simply getting rid of something they didn't like.

A headline from the Province of July 27, 1983: "Churchmen Slam Bennett." "Members of the Canadian clergy are awaiting a reply from Premier Bill Bennett after adding their names Tuesday to a list of those who have slammed the provincial government for recent strong restraint measures." I would disagree that it is a restraint measure. "In a letter to Bennett, representatives of the Anglican..."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The member says Father Roberts. He's not Anglican.

"...United, Lutheran and other Christian churches criticized the government legislation and made it clear they expected an answer." To the best of my knowledge, they didn't get an answer until they saw Bill 11 tabled recently in the Legislature. Again one has to wonder whether these people have had an opportunity to review the new bill to see whether it's as bad as the one that was there before, or to see whether it is one that would attract the kind of attack that they, along with others, were able to mobilize in the province of British Columbia last fall. "The clergymen are attending the World Council of Churches assembly now being held in Vancouver." So it wasn't just the bad publicity we got in British Columbia, or the bad publicity that attracted the attention of the four federal cabinet members that I mentioned previously; it was also from representatives of the World Council of Churches coming from all countries in the world.

Here's another editorial from the Globe and Mail — I didn't realize all these were from the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker — which certainly can't be considered an NDP organ; I think there can be agreement on that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Have you looked in the mirror lately, Mr. Member, when you talk about holdup people?

This editorial deals with a number of the bills that were introduced on July 7 last year. "Also suspect is Bill 27, which repeals the Human Rights Code, dissolves the Human Rights Commission and establishes a council of human rights which is far too closely under the government's thumb...." This is very similar to one that I read previously. "The original commission may at times have been overzealous, but Bill 27 sounds as though the B.C. government is not really very interested in seeing that humans have rights." Mr. Speaker, the same can be said of Bill 11. The minister did tell us that Bill 11 is so close to Bill 27 that no one needs time to read it in order to know what his or her position is with respect to the legislation. The concluding paragraph says: "These are changes that would save little money and write 'arbitrary' on Mr. Bennett's brow."

Here's an editorial from the Province, dated September 26: "The Fight is Still Going On." If I may repeat myself, that's the point. There was time last fall for the fight to get mobilized and to keep on. This time the government is bringing bills in one at a time. They are proceeding with each one through the various processes of the Legislature and getting them out of the way before going onto the next one, so that there's no real time for the community to know what's happening until after the bills have had final approval in the Legislature. That would seem to be their tactic in this instance as well. We can only wonder and worry and anticipate what other legislation may be coming in, as the session goes on, that will be treated as summarily as have the several pieces so far, including the one before us now.

This editorial is headed: "Rights Bill Veils Rights."

"B.C.'s proposed new Human Rights Act is so long on intentions and so short on procedures to carry out those intentions that it might just as well be consigned to the waste-basket."

"Just as well," Mr. Speaker, except that it does eliminate the human rights branch and the commission.

"It says all the right things about how wrong discrimination is, but essentially it leaves it up to the individual to fight discrimination. The machinery for investigation and remedial action is so leaky that it's hard to see how it can function satisfactorily in anyway. For instance, the powers given the Minister of

[ Page 4394 ]

Labour — Bob McClelland at the moment — seem themselves to be a denial of human rights."

I had a letter from the Alma Mater Society of UBC — I suppose others have them. I happen to be a graduate of UBC, but I think that in this instance they sent letters out to everyone. It's dated August 9, 1983: "On behalf of the Alma Mater Society of the University...."

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Did I hear somebody say that they're all Liberals. I didn't think there were that many Liberals in B.C.

"On behalf of the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia, I am writing to you to tell you of our concerns dealing with the government's decision to dissolve the human rights branch.

"The Alma Mater Society has never knowingly used discriminating hiring or firing practices in the past and does not plan to do so in the future. However, we're all aware that many employers do use such practices. Many advances in interhuman relations have come about because of the branch's work. We feel that to dissolve the human rights branch will lead us back to the problems we have been able to overcome in the past. Thus we feel compelled to ask that you fight to repeal this decision."

At that point in time they should have said "to stop this decision from being made," rather than to "repeal" it.

Here's another letter from a constituent of mine. He writes not just as a constituent but also as president of the Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society — Dr. J.M. Dubé. It is addressed to the Minister of Labour. I don't seem to have a copy of the minister's reply; perhaps he didn't in this instance. I don't know. The letter indicated that a copy was coming to me, and usually we get copies of the replies, but in this instance I don't seem to have one. However, this is a letter dated August 16, 1983.

"The Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society would like to register its protest to the provincial government over its budget proposal which would, among other things, dismantle the Human Rights Commission and the agencies which make the commission a effective instrument for the protection of human rights in B.C."

Dr. Dubé has been working with this society for some time trying to advance the cause of human rights and trying to make people in the Nanaimo and Vancouver Island area more appreciative of the need for this concern, so he writes with some knowledge of the need for the protection of human rights, education and continuation of the program established by the NDP administration during its term of office. The letter goes on:

"Whatever the justification for economic restraint at the present time" — at that time he couldn't have known how little it was costing the taxpayers of British Columbia — "we see human rights as too important and vital to the level of decency and civilized life in our province to be jeopardized."

I think he speaks for many British Columbians when he says that. I haven't heard from him since the new bill was introduced, just two days ago. Even if he had put a reply in the mail immediately, I wouldn't have it yet. The letter goes on:

"What is the point of our living together in our society, economically viable or not, if the very reason for our bestowing upon the government the authority to govern is to be considered expendable? What is the point of having government at all, if we are going to leave such fundamental rights and freedoms as human rights to the vagaries of the marketplace?

"The philosophy of handing over the government to the private sector can go too far. Just as the basic human right to clean drinking water, or to security by our security forces, cannot be left to private companies and private armies, so too human rights cannot be left to private agencies. The private sector favours the rich and powerful who can pay for the protection of their rights and privileges. The poor and powerless are thrown to the wolves without any means of redress."

Mr. Speaker, that is a fact of life. As much as we would all like to change it, we have to admit that there is truth in that.

"The history of our society should remind us how recently it was that our fellow citizens in B.C. were prepared to discriminate against Chinese persons, who had to pay a head tax to enter B.C., equivalent to two years' hard labour. Furthermore, they were not allowed to bring their wives and families. Less than 100 years ago the black regiment in Victoria was disbanded through pressure by whites in Victoria. Only in the last 40 years did people from the Orient obtain the right to own land and to vote in elections. The treatment of Japanese-Canadians in the last war was a black day in Canadian history. No German or Italian descendants suffered such persecution here, although Germany and Italy were our enemies then.

"Negative attitudes towards women, the handicapped and visible minorities die hard in our population. There are many closet KKKs stalking the land."

Mr. Speaker, we all know some examples of visible minorities suffering at the hands of the majority in their areas.

"The impression that this government does not consider human rights important makes such people emerge from the closet. Since the announcement a large landlord has given instructions to his apartment managers that apartments are not to be let to East Indians, native Indians and welfare recipients.

"The rights of the farmworkers in the Fraser Valley to be organized like any other workers and benefit from Workers' Compensation Board provisions have been delayed for yet another year. The rights of bank clerks, domestic servants and chambermaids to organize to secure the benefits for which our forebears struggled in the town of Nanaimo for decades are now being further undermined."

Mr. Speaker, I certainly know of some of those struggles.

"This government is making it difficult for the poor and powerless, the most likely victims of discrimination, to feel confident that there is a respectable place for them as human beings in a caring, decent and civilized society. The frustration of such groups must lead to anger, and that is no sound basis on which to prepare for economic recovery.

"We plead with this government not to miss the whole point of government. In the private sector....

Interjection.

[ Page 4395 ]

MR. STUPICH: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just can't hear what he's saying. If he'd wait until I stop for a breath, then....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Why don't you have some ideas of your own instead of just reading letters all day?

MR. STUPICH: Had the minister answered this letter and sent me a copy, then I would know he had read it. At this point in time I doubt very much that he did read it. If he did read it, he certainly paid no attention to it. So I think it's well that he should sit here and suffer through the reading of this letter publicly, a letter that apparently he felt was not important enough to answer; certainly a letter he felt not important enough to give any consideration to in drafting the new legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I said you had no ideas; I didn't say the letter-writer had no ideas.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, he's suggesting I have no ideas of my own since I'm reading this letter into the record. My point is that this letter deserves some recognition. If the only way I can make the minister aware of it, since up to this point in time he hasn't been able to get anybody else to read it for him, then I am reading it to him. I'm just about finished. The concluding paragraph that I started.... I'll pick it up again:

"We plead with this government not to miss the whole point of government. In the private sector the balance sheet is the bottom line — money. In the public sector the quality of human existence is the bottom line. That means the safeguarding of human rights to every person regardless of sex, race, class, colour or religion."

I think it's an excellent letter. I think it's well worth reading into the record. I may say that in everything Dr. Dubé says I am in complete agreement with him.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is with us today. He's been away a lot lately.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He's complaining that I have another newspaper article.

I'm trying to explain — not to him, because I know he won't listen, and I don't expect that the Minister of Labour is really listening that much — to these people that there is some real, genuine concern in our community about the attack on human rights in the province of British Columbia. If I were simply to stand up on my own and say that I am upset about the attack on human rights.... I am one person.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There's no assurance even that I'm speaking for my constituents when I attack the government. They might have the idea in their heads that I'm doing it simply for political reasons, that I'm holding up this legislation because I want to keep the minister in his seat for a little while.

In quoting from various sources, I'm trying to demonstrate to the government that there is indeed widespread opposition to their attack on human rights; that there was indeed widespread support in the province of British Columbia for the very forward steps taken by way of human rights education and human rights protection under the NDP administration in the province of British Columbia. While there might have been some excesses, motivated by different people for different reasons, nevertheless the idea of protecting human rights was important in the province of British Columbia and was accepted.

Reference has been made by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) to the remarks by R.G.L. Fairweather, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I don't think she had the actual speech notes that I have in my hands right now. There's a very interesting quotation at the start of this, so I am going to read it too into the record. I hope the minister isn't too upset to have these words read to him. And I hope the Minister of Forests is ready to get on with his estimates, because certainly the opposition has been waiting for him.

This is the opening quotation: "Twenty years ago last August, Martin Luther King, during his famous 'I have a dream' speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, recalled the exhortation of the prophet Amos: 'Let justice flow like water.' It is a timeless yet nonetheless inspired objective for humankind to pursue."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It's a joke for the Minister of Forests. I'm not surprised at that, but to us it's important.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't mind his interjections if he were listening and interjecting in response to some of the things I'm saying. It's the ultimate insult to the Legislature to say he's interjecting and not even listening to the person speaking. His interjections are on some other topic entirely. So I'll have to ask him....

Gordon Fairweather, chief commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in his speech of September 1983 said: "Just exactly what is so special about British Columbia, aside altogether from the glories of your geography? Let us ponder a few details." This might get through even to the Minister of Forests...

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't count on it. He said he wouldn't count on it; nor would I. But you never know. Someday somebody might crack that skull a little and let something in. It's just possible. It's worth trying.

"Forty-seven percent of the children now attending school in Vancouver come from homes where English is the second language."

As I said earlier during the course of my remarks, when Canada as a whole is expressing greater concern, and when every other Canadian government is expressing greater concern about the attacks on human rights and about the protection of human rights, why is it that we're backing away from that in the province where it's most important? It's not the cost, as I pointed out; a million and a quarter dollars a year is not very much to pay for human rights education and protection.

[ Page 4396 ]

[3:45]

I would like to have had more opportunity to compare Bill 11 with Bill 27. I would like to have had some opportunity to have Bill 11 examined by those who have written me and to ask Dr. Dubé, for example, how he feels about the new form of the legislation. That opportunity has been denied by the government's haste to have this bill discussed and finally dealt with by the Legislature. The fact that they're in such a hurry to get it through is reason enough for the opposition to oppose it. We can't help but be suspicious of this inordinate haste for a bill that was left on the order paper last year. It was introduced on July 7, and by the time we adjourned at the end of October it had not been called once for discussion. There was absolutely no discussion of that bill in the House. Now a bill comes in, in a slightly redrafted form, and we're being asked to put it through the House within three days. We have to be suspicious of the government's motive in trying to get it through so quickly, when they had all the time in the world last year. If for no other reason, the opposition is opposed to this legislation and will vote against it.

MR. SEGARTY: I would like to say a few words in support of the legislation brought in by our minister after a lot of public input into this legislation, going on since last year's session of the Legislature.

I rise because I have strong feelings about this piece of legislation. As you know, I came to Canada in 1966 and, like other members of this assembly, such as the former member for Surrey, ran as a member to this Legislative Assembly and won. We won because of the warm-hearted support we received from members of our constituency associations and from the people who voted for us in our ridings. Since I came to Canada in 1966 I have found the people of Canada to be very strong supporters of human rights and individual rights and freedoms. Basically that is what brought me into the British Columbia Social Credit Party in 1972.

During the period of time from 1972 to 1975 we saw some changes in individual rights and freedoms in our province, such as we talked about in question period today, where only unionized construction workers would be allowed to participate in government projects. We talked in question period today about other individual rights and freedoms: the rights of volunteers to go in and work in intermediate-care facilities and provide assistance to those people who are less fortunate than a lot of us. People who would want to go in and do volunteer hair-styling in intermediate-care facilities, as mentioned by the second member for Surrey, would be denied today that basic right to go in and provide that service. Those areas are supported in large part by members of the New Democratic Party, who would sanction that type of situation. That's a situation that I don't think this government can tolerate, and I hope that this human rights legislation will address those particular areas and concerns.

The member for Vancouver South mentioned other areas of discrimination today, where people who volunteer their time in hospitals throughout British Columbia today would be prevented from volunteering their time because they are not members of a particular association.

We also noticed, last November, schoolteachers in British Columbia who wanted to go to work and obey the laws of the province of British Columbia being denied the right to obey the law of the province of British Columbia and attend to the children in their classrooms and look after those children's educational needs. We see today where some of those associations and unions are coming down now and fining their members for participating in those illegal work stoppages. I wonder if this human rights bill would prevent that from happening in the future.

Coming from a country where there were some very serious problems with religious and individual freedoms, since 1966 I have enjoyed that freedom that the people of Canada have awarded to me. It's a right to go out and seek a living and live anywhere in British Columbia that you want, to go out and work at anything you what, build your own home, go hunting, if that is what you want to do, and live a life full in every way. I thank the people of Canada and British Columbia for providing me with that opportunity since 1966. Only for a short period of time since 1966 was this province governed by a party other than the British Columbia Social Credit Party. I want to say that this party has always been in favour of individual rights and freedoms, far more so than the restrictive attitudes of the members of the New Democratic Party. So I support the legislation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the recognition and acceptance of human or civil rights in our country has been a consistent uphill fight, all the way. The recognition of human rights didn't come as a gift from some benevolent government; it came as a result of a struggle by people who were subjected to discrimination for a variety of reasons. It came as a result of their complaints, their political action; of their awakening in the minds of politicians the idea that their human rights should be recognized, dealt with, sanctioned in law, preserved and protected, and that there should be some administrative mechanism to deal with those situations where the rights of individuals may be offended against.

For a long period of time it was a question that was debated during election campaigns, some of them extending back, I would tend to think, before many people in this chamber were born. But there was a recognition of the need to convince the lawmakers of the land and of the province to recognize and preserve human rights and human dignity. It had to become an electoral issue, and it did. I'm sure many in this chamber can recall the statements by political figures at the federal level in Ottawa, as well as at the provincial level here under the coalition government, under the premiership of the late W.A.C. Bennett, under the prime ministership of the late Mackenzie King and others, that there was no need to have any legislative or constitutional recognition of human rights, because we inherit in this country, and in this province, the British parliamentary system, and with it the foundation of British common law, and that British common law had sufficient aspects to it to preserve and recognize human rights. That was the response by political figures in this province and in this nation not too long ago.

Yes, we did have British common law, case history law, rather than statute law that dealt with some aspects of human rights. It was under that British common law that the people of Japanese descent in British Columbia — Canadian-born citizens — were interned in concentration camps. It was under British common law that native Indians were denied, in this province and in this nation, the right to vote. British common law preserved their human right not to vote, not to participate in politics; it prohibited them from doing so. It was under British common law that women were denied the franchise — all in the name of British common law, which protected and preserved human rights and human dignity. It

[ Page 4397 ]

is because the recognition gradually developed on the part of political figures that there was no identifiable protection in British common law that in various parliaments and legislative assemblies a growing interest and desire to legislate came to pass with respect to the preservation and recognition of human rights, the protection of people against discrimination, or discrimination on a variety of bases. Equality and dignity finally got some legislative sanction, not as a result of any great generosity on the part of political figures in the past but as a result of a struggle by people to see their legitimate, God-given desires and rights as human beings preserved in legislation.

When the late John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada, the first break of any significance came with the introduction in 1960, I believe — not very long ago — of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I think it is significant to recognize a couple of things with respect to that Canadian Bill of Rights which the late John Diefenbaker introduced. One was that it was just a simple piece of Canadian parliamentary legislation. It had no constitutional capacity and wasn't a part of the British North America Act. It would do us well in this chamber to pay respects to that gentleman, to the Conservative Party at that time, to the late Lester B. Pearson, who was then the leader of the Liberal Party, and to others who were in the House. The second thing to remember is that the government, even though it had introduced a piece of legislation to be called the Canadian bill of rights, was prepared to accept, and did accept, amendments to that Bill of Rights made on the floor of Parliament. The perception then was that a Bill of Rights is in the possession of all of the people, and as a consequence the legislators representing all of the people should participate in the development of that law, and they did. It truly was the development of statute law by full participation of all members — all parties and all ideas — without restricting amendments on the basis of their point of origin. Amendments were looked at on the basis of their fundamental merits.

I think that is what we should be doing here. Here we have a bill before the House dealing with human rights that is basically the companion of the bill introduced a year ago in July. There are some slight cosmetic changes, but nothing of any significance. It is a bill that is introduced with a partisan complexion to its introduction, if not to the bill itself. I would submit that the way to go with this particular bill would be to have it referred to a committee of this Legislature. We have a committee with the name of Labour and Justice, and another called Health and Education — if education is to be a companion to this bill. Or it could be referred to a select special committee for the purpose of listening to representations by the people who are going to be affected by this piece of legislation — namely, the citizens and residents of this province, as individual persons, and the organizations in this province — corporate, union, associations or whatever.

[4:00]

If ever a piece of legislation lent itself to representations and input from the general public, it is this type of legislation. If the minister could give us the commitment that that is the course of action which the government will take — following second reading, if it wants to.... A referral of the subject matter would be far preferable, because then it would be done without a formal decision of the House having been made about the principle of the bill itself — namely, second reading. The subject matter of the bill should go to a legislative committee — select, special, standing or any other kind — so that the general public can say: "This is what we think about this bill. This is how we perceive that we will be affected by it. These are the additions that we would like to see in it. These are the changes and deletions. Here is our support" — or whatever they may want to say about it. This is not a possession of the Legislature alone; it belongs to everybody and it should go in that direction.

Even the Canadian Bill of Rights, if 1960 is the correct year from my memory, was only 23 or 24 years ago, which is not very long in the history of mankind. Certainly it's not very long in the history of this province or this nation where for generations and generations, for decades and decades — more than a century in some parts of this nation — discrimination existed, was practised and went unheeded, except by those who were the object of the discrimination. It took a long struggle to get to that point in 1960. Even that was a limited recognition, of human rights. It was limited, Mr. Speaker, because being a simple law of the Parliament of Canada, it only applied to federal jurisdiction under section 91 or 92 — whatever gives the federal Parliament the exclusive jurisdiction and enumerates the matters over which it has jurisdiction. It had no effect whatever upon the average everyday citizen. organization, corporation or union that functioned at other than the federal level.

Under the constitution, civil rights, as they're loosely referred to, are in the domain of the provincial government, Even the late John Diefenbaker's breakthrough with the Canadian Bill of Rights was very narrow and constricted in its application. It applied to the people who lived in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. The other groups of people to which it applied were employees and employers, such as in railways or shipping under federal jurisdiction, and native Indians. But even native Indians weren't protected in any adequate way.

There was a case of a native Indian in possession of alcohol, shortly after the Canadian Bill of Rights came into existence. Under the Indian Act at that time — and still, insofar as the actual words in the act are concerned, although they have been put to one side by a formal sanctioned process — alcohol was prohibited to native people. They couldn't possess it; they couldn't have it on the reserve; they couldn't have it in their homes. They couldn't come into your home, Mr. Speaker, and accept an offer of a drink from you; that was illegal for them and for you. A native Indian person, I believe it was in Saskatchewan, was charged under the Indian Act with being in the possession of a case of beer. He challenged that accusation in court under the Indian Act, claiming as his defence that the Canadian Bill of Rights applied to all equally in this nation, and therefore he was entitled to be treated equally with non-Indians. He lost the case — whether it went to the supreme court or not, I don't recall — on the grounds that the Indian Act was a specific act, which took away that right, while the Canadian Bill of Rights was a broad, general declaration. Therefore the specifics of the Indian Act held, and he was convicted. So even the breakthrough under the late John Diefenbaker had a very limited application, but it started us on the road.

Last year we moved further in the area of dealing with human rights, and we have within the Canadian constitution a Charter of Rights. This provincial government expressed opposition to having the Charter of Rights in the constitution. This minister was a part of expressing opposition to the idea that in the Canadian constitution we should entrench a recognition of human rights. Is it any wonder that he brings

[ Page 4398 ]

forward a bill of this nature now? The argument this government put forward was that constitutional entrenchment was not the way to go; that if you want to deal with human rights more appropriately, do it by ordinary legislation at the federal and at the provincial level so that any subsequent parliament, depending on the feelings of that parliament at the time, and depending on the political orientation of the government at that time.... Human rights, instead of being something constitutionally entrenched and preserved for all time, which is what they should be, could be juggled and tossed around and fiddled around with, taken away, adjusted, added to, changed, altered or ignored. The government, with the introduction of Bill 27, I believe it was, last year, and this Bill 11 now before us, has indicated the true reason why it opposed the entrenchment of human rights in the constitution of Canada. It's because they want to see discrimination practised. It's true that the bill identifies areas within which discrimination should not take place. Some of them are qualified by age, for instance; you have to be in a certain age group to be protected; if you are outside that age group, you're not, and you can be discriminated against. There are a variety of qualifications in there. We can identify these areas: you can't discriminate because of this.... I don't want to make specific references, because I may run afoul of the rules by talking about the details of the bill itself. Yes, they are there.

What does this government propose to see happen if a person feels that he or she is discriminated against contrary to this act? The first thing we have to look at before we see what happens is the structure of the bill on its administrative side. It's going to be administered by a politically appointed council of five people. I know this has happened in the past, and I also know that the Human Rights Code, which is being repealed by this, contains a provision for appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Surely we should not always hold on to the past and look backwards in our lives, hanging on to things that are inappropriate. Surely our obligation is to the future. The past is for the purpose of examination, to see whether or not activities in the past were correct or not. I submit that even though the party to which I belong, when it was government, did in fact introduce legislation that allowed the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint members of certain commissions, boards and so on, that privilege should be passed over and forgotten about. It has outlived its usefulness.

The Liberals in Ottawa, of whom the Minister of Labour is a great supporter, and a great student of their activity.... This legislation contains, Mr. Minister, exactly the same force that law after law in the Parliament of Canada contains under the Liberals — namely, the right of the government to appoint. The Liberals in Ottawa have filled up every conceivable board, commission or council with Liberal hacks. When they ran out of spaces in the Senate for their worn-out, tired-old-bones, politically partisan people, they looked to things like the Transportation Commission, and they filled them up with Liberals. That's what's happening under this government. The minister may smile and say: "Ho, ho! No, I don't support the Liberals." He doesn't say that openly, but he supports their concepts, and that's what's in this bill. They proved that with the community colleges. The community colleges were going to be a repository for Socred appointments; and they have been.

So the first thing to look at is that the five-member council appointed by the government is the administrator of this act and will deal with any complaints under it. The first thing that occurs is that the individual who feels there is a case of discrimination against him or her files a complaint. Then the council decides whether or not to proceed, whether to bother with the complaint at all. It can say no, and disregard the complaint, and not proceed with it on any one of — as I have it — four bases.

The first foundation is that the council has no jurisdiction. They can say: "No, we're not going to deal with that complaint because we have no jurisdiction." It's important to remember that that decision is a legally founded decision as to whether or not jurisdiction exists. It's legal in foundation, not substantive with respect to the complaint.

[4:15]

Secondly, the council can refuse to proceed if the council concludes that the complaint is better dealt with under another act. That has with it the implication of a legal decision.

The third is whether or not it's a trivial or a minor or a vexatious type of complaint, or one in bad faith. The council can say they're not going to proceed. That's a value judgment, but it also has an element of legality about it — a legal opinion as to whether something is trivial. It's not exclusively a lay decision.

Or it can decide that it can't proceed because the situation arose more than six months ago.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Speaker. One of the fundamental principles we have in a free society — which the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) chortled about here a while ago — is the rule of law. Gentlemen who are Queen's Counsel would agree with that, I'm sure. Even those learned gentlemen who don't have those letters after their name — I was going to use another phrase to describe them — fundamentally say that, yes, the rule of law is the foundation of our system of relationships, dating back to Roman times. One of the fundamentals of that rule of law is that if in law a wrong decision is presumed to have been made, you have the right to appeal. You have the right to go to a higher court, to somebody else, and say: "This judge didn't know what he was talking about. It's wrong in law." You can appeal it.

But not in this bill you can't. You have a council of five Socred hacks administering an ineffective law, making legal decisions and then denying the complainant the ordinary opportunity under the rule of law to challenge or question that legal decision. Is that decent and fair? Not in my books; not in my mind. No decision of that nature should be allowed to be made absolute, with no opportunity to proceed further.

Even in arbitration cases and grievances that arise in the workforce, in employer-employee relationships, and even in those cases where a person may have a grievance, launch it, proceed through the grievance procedure and eventually get to arbitration, which is final and binding.... Even that decision to have an arbitration board established in labour management relations is subject to review by the courts — not appealable, but subject to review. For if the arbitrator or the arbitration board errs in law in making the decision about the grievance, saying, "This is our award and we find...." Whatever they find, that decision, if it is thought to be in error in law, can be taken to the courts of this land and set aside, I think "quashed" is the word. Not reversed, but put to one side, saying: "Do it all over again; you made a mistake in law." Even in those instances where it has always been held that the arbitration board decision is final and binding upon the parties, it's appealable.

But not under this bill. We have a council of five people politically appointed — with no thought at this point whether

[ Page 4399 ]

any of them may be knowledgeable in the law, or whatever — making a decision on a legal foundation, namely whether the council has Jurisdiction to hear the complaint? If they say, "No, we don't have jurisdiction," they are making a legal decision. Jurisdiction is a legal question. They can make that legal decision and the complainant is stuck with it. He has no place to go — tossed out of court, no appeal, no right of redress, nothing — on the imagination of whoever it might be who is on that council. If the council decides it's not going to deal with that complaint because it should be dealt with under another act, then obviously they are looking at this act — "What do those words say?" — and they are looking at some other act and saying: "What do the words in that other act say? It's our decision that this complaint is more appropriately dealt with under another act." That's a legal decision. They look at the act and they interpret it. When that occurs the complainant is denied natural justice; denied the rule of law; denied his just rights as a human being — rights that I've heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) talk about in this chamber on a number of occasions, drawing into the discussion people with odd names like "Justian" or whoever these folks in ancient times are in the development of rights under law.

Here that same minister, with his colleague the Minister of Labour, is going to wipe out that opportunity — no further recourse. That is decidedly improper, decidedly unfair, decidedly discriminatory. To find an element of that kind of discrimination in a bill which seeks to prevent discrimination shows how deeply uncorrupted this minister and this government are to the preservation of human rights in this province. We only have to look to their words before, when they said that they had reservations about entrenching a charter of rights within the constitution because it could be better dealt with by ordinary statute law at the federal and the provincial levels. The concept there, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is now proving that it doesn't have too much concern about human rights in this province.

Let me conclude with just a few brief summation remarks, Mr. Speaker. First, the government opposed, by expressing serious reservations, the entrenchment of human rights in the Canadian constitution. Second, the government has imported into this bill a provision discriminating against complainants on the basis of denying them their ordinary rights under law. Third, it's making a political mockery of the results of the struggle of human beings in this land dating back more than 100 years in some parts of this nation and more than 200 years in other parts of it, and certainly over 100 years in this province. On the bases that I've put forward here I can't support the bill. I would support the idea of referring the bill or the subject matter thereof to a committee, so that the people of this province who are going to be affected by this piece of legislation will have their opportunity to put in their views about the type of legislation they would like to see dealing with their human rights. On that basis we could support it; otherwise it's not supportable.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to oppose Bill 11, the new Human Rights Act. It's very similar to the bill we saw presented in the Legislature last year, which was introduced at that time along with a number of other equally offensive statutes. At the same time, the Human Rights Commission, which was set up under that legislation, was fired, and the people who were appointed under the Human

Rights Code to do the investigation of human rights complaints were also fired. In essence, human rights protection in the province was virtually wiped out, even though the Code remained on the statute books. This province has been left without effective enforcement of human rights legislation ever since Bill 27 was introduced in the Legislature — in fact, ever since the Social Credit government was re-elected on May 5, 1983.

It was a part of a combination of bills that resulted in a general attack on the government of British Columbia coming from all over the country and, in fact, from around the world. I'm looking at headlines in the Victoria Times-Colonist of July 21, 1983, when British Columbia gained its new title of "Brutish" Columbia because of the brutish, rightwing, extremist, insensitive attitude of the government that took office on May 5, 1983 and which presented this type of legislation, which is only an example of that brutish and insensitive attitude the government has taken towards the citizens of British Columbia, especially those citizens who have the least power to protect themselves against actions by bigots and by the government itself.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, I am running for leader, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the reasons why I am running: to try to set up a political organization in this province that will overthrow such a brutish and extremist government that would present this type of legislation.

One of the things that concerns me is that this legislation does away with the functions of the Human Rights Commission as spelled out in the previous Human Rights Code. I quote from the previous Code under section 11(4):

"It is the function of the commission to (a) promote the principles of this act; (b) promote an understanding of and compliance with this Act; (c) develop and conduct educational programs designed to eliminate discriminatory practices; and (d) encourage and coordinate programs and activities promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Those are critical functions, and functions that should not be excluded under the current act.

The previous Human Rights Code was the kind of statute that carried within it both the carrot and the stick. The stick was, of course, the provisions which spelled out that if you discriminated against certain people or certain classes of people in a certain way, you would face certain procedures and the possibility of punishment. The educational function was the other side of the coin. This was the carrot. This was to try to encourage the citizens of British Columbia to change their attitudes — attitudes that were obsolete, that were based on prejudices and misunderstandings. The major function of the Human Rights Commission was to travel around this province and publish material which would help the citizens of British Columbia to become more tolerant and less prejudiced, to have a more open society and to recognize and accept individual differences much more than they had in the past. In fact, I suppose the last few words of the function of the Human Rights Commission is indicative of what this government is doing away with: that is, promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. That's our main concern about this act and the provisions that do away with those functions of the Human Rights Commission.

[ Page 4400 ]

[4:30]

The member for Vancouver South talked a little bit about attitudinal changes; how he and his company hire people from minority groups and that it's only a question of attitudes. There are two ways to change attitude. One is through education, through promotion, through explaining to people that certain attitudes are based on prejudice and should be changed. It's a very ineffective way of doing it. It has some effect, but it's a very long-term effect. One thing discovered by psychologists around the world and by experimental psychology was that action changes attitudes. In some cases, unfortunately, behaviour changes attitudes, and a certain element of coercion is required before you can change attitudes. That was enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States way back in 1953 in the case of Brown v. the Board of Education, when they decided that if they were going to change the segregated school system in the United States, going to desegregate school systems in some areas of the United States, they would have to force, through the application of the United States constitution, the desegregation of schools in certain states where the attitude of people in those states was against it.

There has to be a certain element of changing behaviour through coercive legislation. I wouldn't like to see that kind of thing happening in British Columbia — the national guard sent to take children to schools that they have a right to attend. It's almost universally recognized that action and behaviour change attitudes, and that education is a very poor substitute; it doesn't really do the job. Or if it does the job, it takes a very long period of time. That was also recognized by the Human Rights Commission that the minister fired back in 1983. In their report, How To Make It Work — in other words, how to make the Human Rights Code work — they talked about action inducing attitudes on page 14 of that report. They talk about the response to the challenge of "you can't legislate love."

"We are accustomed to thinking that action reflects interest and prejudices give rise to discrimination. Another generally held belief is that prejudices often are a result of ignorance, misconception and irrational fear. Let us consider the possibilities if we turn things around and focus on the educational functions of pragmatic human rights law. With vigorous enforcement, equal opportunity measures not only articulate ideals but also commend certain positive action. This forces new experiences on the prejudiced. The sun still shines on a racially integrated beach. The pipe joined by a woman welder is just as strong. The law at least creates the conditions for learning new attitudes through practising appropriate behaviour."

What human rights law should do in this province is change the behaviour of our citizens through legislation so that as a result of living together with other minority groups they become more tolerant, they experience the concerns of those minority groups and they learn to live together as a result of that legislation. One thing that is left out of the current Code is the action to induce changes of attitude and more tolerant attitudes. But it also rules out education. What we should be doing is combining education as well as legislation, and the punishments — or the coercion — that are available under legislation shall be to encourage a more open, free and democratic society in which people respect each other's differences.

The other thing the commission also made sure of was that the Human Rights Code was a vital and changing document. It made sure that the law would change with changing circumstances in our society. As tolerance and understanding increased through the community, and through the commission's efforts to make more and more of our citizens full participants in the community, then new changes would be required in the law. New groups would be recognized who are discriminated against, and the commission performed that function by travelling around the province, talking to people around the province, finding out which groups felt that they were discriminated against or that they were suffering or left out of the current Human Rights Code. The duty of the commission was then to recommend to the government changes in policies and legislation which would have brought the protections of the Code to those groups, as well as the other groups currently included under the Code.

A number of studies were carried out. The commission travelled around the province a number of times — I believe three times — since the current government took office. During their travels they met with thousands of groups around the province, with thousands of individuals, and heard hundreds of submissions and took hundreds of briefs. They brought down a number of recommendations. In June 1981 they published a booklet entitled Recommendations for Changes to the Human Rights Code of British Columbia. This was a booklet that was totally ignored by the government and totally ignored by the minister of the day. Nothing was done, and yet it was recognized at the time — in June 1981 — that British Columbia was continually falling behind the other provinces in terms of the protections granted under its human rights legislation.

This booklet recommended a number of changes to the Human Rights Code. The minister is probably familiar with those changes, because he is one of the ministers who ignored them. Among those changes was the protection against discrimination to be provided to handicapped citizens, based on physical or mental condition. We now see that that protection is included in this new Human Rights Act, but it's only partially included and in certain circumstances. It was surprising to us that in spite of the fact that we had an International Year for the Disabled, and in spite of the fact that resolutions were passed at the United Nations to encourage additional protections for disabled citizens, this government was one of the last to act and in fact is only acting now to include in its Human Rights Code the protection for disabled citizens. The United Nations resolution that was passed some time ago stated as follows:

"Disabled persons have the inherent right to respect for their human dignity. Disabled persons, whatever the origin, nature and seriousness of their handicaps and disabilities, have the same fundamental rights as their fellow citizens of the same age, which implies first and foremost the right to enjoy a decent life as normally and as fully as possible."

That was a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly.

Only now, Mr. Speaker, under this bill, are we including disabled citizens fully as a designated group under the Human Rights Code. Before, they could take some advantage of the "reasonable cause" provision under the Code. I suppose this is one of the sections of the act that we should support, because at least it improves the act in some measure, even though in other sections of the act the enforcement

[ Page 4401 ]

capability of the legislation is diminished. I don't know if there is really any improvement at all, although we do agree with the designation of physically and mentally handicapped people under this act.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: If only the act could be satisfactorily enforced, which obviously it can't. It is designed so that it cannot be satisfactorily enforced, so we are really doubtful as to the value of the protection provided to that specific group.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the June 1981 report also suggested other changes in the Human Rights Code of British Columbia that the government has seen fit to ignore. For example, there is a section on sexual orientation....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Is that this one?

MR. SKELLY: That's June 1981.

The commission recommended that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, be protected by all sections of the Human Rights Code. The new Human Rights Act does not protect citizens regardless of sexual orientation, and I am wondering why the government has not included those citizens as a minority group to be protected, in spite of the recommendations given by the Human Rights Commission as far back as 1981. What does the government have to fear? Why are they so concerned about not providing the same protection to those citizens who are discriminated against because of sexual orientation? Under the former Human Rights Code those citizens were entitled to a certain amount of protection because of that "reasonable cause" provision under the old Code. Now the reasonable cause provision is eliminated and certain people have no protection against discrimination at all. One of those groups is the one that is discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, and that includes homosexuals and bisexuals according to this human rights report of 1981. Why did the minister not make that group a specific group to be protected under the current Human Rights Act?

There are many other suggestions in that report of June 1981 that the minister and the government seem to have ignored entirely. One is the recommendation that the concept of equal pay for work of equal value for men and women workers be incorporated into the Human Rights Code. That was a suggestion made by the Human Rights Commission as far back as 1981. It is included in some other human rights codes, including, I believe, the Canadian human rights code, as well as in some other provinces of Canada, and yet again B.C. is the most backward province. This recommendation is not included in the legislation that we find before us.

In 1981 the commission also recommended provisions against sexual harassment on the job under the Human Rights Code, and that recommendation is not included. The definition of age in section 1 of the Human Rights Code: in the past the Code said that it was illegal to discriminate against a person between the ages of 45 and 65 for certain purposes. The Saskatchewan legislation back in 1979 expanded the coverage against discrimination on the basis of age from the age of 18 to 65. The Human Rights Commission back in 1981 suggested that it be an open-ended prohibition against discrimination based on age, and that there be a provision in this act preventing discrimination against people based on age from the age of majority beyond the age of 65, and that there be no other limit. That recommendation was also ignored. A number of the other recommendations in that commission report of 1981 were simply tossed out the window by this minister and ignored completely.

The one thing that the minister accepted, of course, was the right of the Human Rights Commission to toss out frivolous complaints. It was something the commission asked for. But in addition to giving the commission the right to throw out frivolous complaints, the minister threw out the commission as well, which is totally ridiculous. It does nothing to promote human rights in this province, and as far as we're concerned, on that basis it's a ridiculous bill. It moves us back years and years in this province in terms of the protection of human rights.

[4:45]

In February 1983, after another series of public hearings around the province, a new Human Rights Commission came down with additional recommendations for changes in the Code. Many of those recommendations were repeats of the ones made in June 1981, yet none of them was followed up by the minister, with the exception of combining the commission and giving it the right to prosecute cases and also the right to throw out frivolous cases. He accepted one, single recommendation. Unfortunately, the Human Rights Act that he's producing now is only a bare shadow of the protections we had under the Human Rights Code passed by the New Democratic Party back in 1973 and 1974.

None of us can really support this act. None of us on any side of the House should support this act. Really, what it does is set us back at least a decade, and possibly more. It destroys the rights of minorities in the province of British Columbia who previously enjoyed protection under the Human Rights Code because of that reasonable cause section of the act.

Whether or not a society is free or democratic is not determined solely on the basis of whether that society enjoys elections at the ballot box once every four years; it's not determined solely on whether or not we have a representative assembly such as this one. Other things are probably even more critical, in addition to those things, in defining a free and democratic society. One of those things is how that society treats minority group members within that society, and the priority which that society assigns to providing options to those minority groups for full participation in society without fear of prejudice or discrimination. If that society vigorously protects its minorities through effective human rights legislation vigorously enforced, then it can be called democratic. If it takes aggressive action to redress historic imbalances through such activities as an affirmative action program or requirement of equal pay for work of equal value, then that society can be called democratic. If it takes action to protect its citizens from literature and pronouncements which expose minorities to hate and ridicule, then that society can be termed democratic. If that society moves through the process of education, promotion and consultation to encourage citizens to live together in harmony and to respect individual differences, then that society can be termed democratic as well.

Under this new Human Rights Act, that education and promotion provision is taken away; that vigorous enforcement of legislation to protect minorities is taken away. No improvements are made in the Code, as recommended by the previous Human Rights Commission, to protect our citizens and minorities against literature which exposes those minorities to hate and ridicule. There's nothing in this Human

[ Page 4402 ]

Rights Act that advances citizens who have traditionally been ghettoized and kept below the poverty line through imbalances in the way they've been treated; nothing in the way of affirmative action programs such as there are in the Saskatchewan legislation and in the federal legislation. There's nothing that requires equal pay for work of equal value, nothing that allows for the vigorous enforcement of protection against discrimination for minorities.

This statute is completely defective. It should be withdrawn, as it was withdrawn during the last session of the Legislature. The government should draft a White Paper on human rights issues. It should incorporate some of the reports made by the previous Human Rights Commission. It should hold hearings — as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) suggested — through the Committee on Labour and Justice so that people can make proposed changes to this legislation to bring it up to date not only with the Human Rights Code that we used to have in British Columbia, but with human rights codes that are current in other provinces of Canada and through the national government itself. This is a defective statute. There's absolutely no way that we as New Democrats can support it. I would call upon all members of the Legislature, including members on the Social Credit side of the House, to vote against it, and I intend to vote against it myself.

MR. ROSE: I hadn't intended to speak on this bill this afternoon; however, as in many of these unplanned happenings in our lives, I'll do what I can to express my views on a subject that I think is probably one on which others would have a greater expertise. I'm a little concerned — and this concern has been expressed by some of my colleagues — about the fact that we're bringing this measure before us with, I think, undue and unseemly haste, at a time when there is little opportunity for public discussion of any kind, since there are no newspapers in Vancouver. The ones that are being published in such places as Victoria do not reach a great number of people who are going to be affected by this new legislation. I don't see what the hurry is.

One of the reasons I want to speak is to urge the government to delay further consideration of this bill beyond second reading until people have had an opportunity to express their views. I suppose the Minister of Labour could argue in a convincing way that we've had a lot of opportunity to discuss and listen to the complaints of various groups of people, since the bill is virtually identical to Bill 27, which came before us about one year ago. But the minister can't have it both ways. He can't argue on the one hand that this bill is a substantial improvement and then turn around and say on the other hand that we've had time to consider the legislation. The fact is that we haven't had time to consider the legislation, and all of us are getting wires from various interested groups, ethnic groups, groups that reflect different social and sexual orientations, saying that they want an opportunity to appear, or at least to organize their objections to what some people have described as a nefarious piece of business. We're not happy with what is in the legislation, and we're not happy with the haste in which it's been introduced and the attempt here — while nobody's looking, while there are no newspapers — to proceed has at this time. There is no opportunity....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: My hon. friend, my old and distinguished colleague, suggests that we should close the place down. I wouldn't object to closing the place down. If we could be assured that we could go through second reading and no further, and close the place down, I would certainly be moved to consider that. This isn't what we're asked to do, though.

The people in this room are seldom discriminated against. As I have observed many times, very few losers get elected as MLAs — unless I can provide the exception. Most of the people here are Caucasian, reasonably well educated and come from reasonably affluent backgrounds. Some of them have been very aggressive and have done very well for themselves; some have inherited lots of rich farmland, like my friend the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), whose family were once known as the squires of Dewdney — or Suicide Creek, as it's more popularly known as in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the note.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether this note was sent to help me or not.

I would like to say that a bill against discrimination, a bill for the protection of human rights, is probably not as a great a concern to those of us who are present here as it is to those people who do not have a voice here. I don't think that human rights....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The hon. first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is typical, I think, of the kind of gentry that would invite the serfs in at Christmastime and feed them a bowl of gruel, and say: "I am a good master." And they would say, "Yes, master," and they would tweak their — is it fetlock or forelock? — and bow....

AN HON. MEMBER: Fetlock?!

MR. ROSE: I'm just horsing around.

So when the member says that in his firm he doesn't need any kind of legislation to guarantee that his workers, regardless of their race, creed, colour, sex, ability, weight, strength, age....

MR. R. FRASER: Competence.

MR. ROSE: Provided they are equally competent, they don't have to fight and struggle for the kind of protection envisioned in human rights legislation. He has told us what a wonderful boss he is, and what a wonderful manager he is. There's no one out there who needs to be worried about it as long as he's in charge. That's not good enough. Human rights is not a privilege. It is not something that comes through the benevolence of a kind and generous master. It is something that should be guaranteed by law and enforced thereby for the protection of all citizens, some of whom perhaps are not members of that great mass of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants which was once the dominant force, and probably still is the dominant force, in this country. Our country has changed, and we are no longer that kind of a society.

I had the good fortune last night to attend a musical concert in my riding. It's an ordinary working-class riding, and they elect an ordinary working-class guy to come here

[ Page 4403 ]

and speak for them. I looked around the room in my riding, but I didn't see just a sea of white faces out there. When I looked over that multitude, there were people from all parts of the world present. They were all participating — presumably equally. To name some of the groups that I saw in that audience.... There was the dominant white audience there — the rulers, as Kipling used to say, of lesser breeds, in the old sort of imperialistic jingoism that we inherited from our British ancestry. But there were also black people — black citizens, black Canadians and their children. There were East Indians, native Indians, Vietnamese, other oriental people, and probably mixtures of the whole works, but I couldn't tell for certain.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We group those people in with the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, even if they aren't all Protestants, but many of them are Anglo-Saxons. Anyway, they're Caucasians. But we don't just have Caucasians in our society.

When I went to school in the thirties, half my classmates were Japanese, and we thought the world was going to be a much better place if we just didn't have that competition from the Japanese people. Now we didn't call them Japanese in those days; we had a special appellation for anyone who was different from us. At first opportunity we got under the War Measures Act — it was around 1941, I think — we loaded them all on boxcars. We stole their land. We put their land, their goods, their boats, their farms, their automobiles, their tractors and everything that they had, including their homes, under the custodian of alien property. So they had no protection. Even though we had a history of common law to protect people, and even though they were Canadian citizens, they were a visible minority. We deprived them of everything. Forty-one years later we get a report from the parliamentary committee that they should be compensated; they should have had the rights of Canadians. There was never one iota of proof that those people were involved in any kind of espionage or in any way tried to discredit the war effort on the part of Canadians. In fact, many of them distinguished themselves. And 41 years later we recognize that.

[5:00]

The thing with prejudice is — and we're all prejudiced.... We learn it from our cradles. We do our best to unlearn it, but it's there. It's acquired, it's a learned behaviour, and we teach it to our children. Unless we have some kind of legal, civilized protection against prejudice that's called human rights legislation, there is no way that we can prevent scapegoating of the kind that Hitler did, or that we did to the Japanese. The only way we can prevent that kind of thing is to have strong, legal sanctions to protect minorities, whether they're linguistic or religious, visible or invisible, large or small minorities.

I looked around that room last night, Mr. Chairman — I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker; I will promote you to Speaker — at all those kids making beautiful music together — and they were making music of the various cultures represented there — and I wondered: when it comes to getting a job somewhere, not a service job.... I'm not talking about being a sweeper or a ditch-digger or some job that requires very little in terms of education or whatever. I looked around the room last night, and I wondered if colour is going to make much difference when these kids go for a job, or if they're lucky enough to apply at the engineering firm of my friend from Vancouver South, provided they're competent and provided they're conscientious and all the rest of it. If they weren't fortunate enough to go to this very enlightened employer, maybe they might run into somebody who had learned some prejudice in a back alley somewhere and not have the luxury of working with such a benighted, progressive man. If they went to get a room at my friend's apartment house, if they were black or red or yellow, would they have an easier or more difficult time because of their colour? Are our rights in this country available to minorities, or are rights really only guaranteed to what is known as the dominant culture? It's about time we began to respect the kind of pluralism we have here. You don't do it automatically. Education often really only comes from.... I realize I'm quibbling, because I'm saying "really only often comes from...."

MR. R. FRASER: Exposure.

MR. ROSE: No, more than exposure. You think of the people like Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers and those people who were banging on the doors of Ole Miss and marching in the streets of Selma. Do you think they would have the kind of protection that they have today for an equal opportunity and education? Of course they wouldn't. They didn't get it by education. They got it by power and strength and embarrassing the hell out of the dominant culture. That's the way they got it. They didn't get it because it was right. They got it because they had the power to get it and they got some allies and shamed the rednecks into giving them that. Now we've got rednecks running rooming-houses, and we've got rednecks who are employers. We've got to have guarantees that one of those little kids who may not belong to the white-dominant culture but is from a subculture and needs a job, a place to rent, an opportunity to proceed in educational ways or socially or any other ways.... We want our society to be a little bit better than: "Get to the back of the bus, boss." We don't want that stuff here. I don't think you can have that and be sure of it unless you have some sanctions so that when somebody is told to get to the back of the bus he can shout: "That's discrimination." We want some legal action to take place. We all know it happens in Toronto. Today some of the Sikh community require of themselves to go in pairs or triplets on the subway because they're being beaten up because of their colour — for no other reason than that. What is their recourse? You could say: "Assault is a chargeable offence." Of course it is. But what is it in our culture that allows members of groups to do that? We've no monopoly on it. I'm quite sure if the whites were a visible minority in certain other places — and I've been one — we would have to undergo a similar thing. But that's what happens in Toronto now.

What happened in Toronto in 1915? There were signs on the beaches: "No Jews or dogs allowed." That's what we had on the beaches of Toronto the good, Hogtown, one of the biggest metropolises in Canada. Now that's our inheritance.

I'm sorry to see you go. I enjoyed your participation and I hope I didn't get....

What I'm trying to say is that prejudice is deeply ingrained and is part and parcel of our culture. We have to work to get over it. All of us have it; no one is without it. Therefore we need strong legal sanctions to improve our society. If we don't want people in our society then I would think the best thing to do is to keep them out of the country. But if they come here and participate in this country they should be guaranteed

[ Page 4404 ]

by law, by convention, by tradition and by everything else an opportunity equal to that of those who belong to a group which is in the majority.

Civil rights are not privileges. They're not favours to be bestowed upon people. They're rights that everybody in this country is entitled to, and anything that works against those rights should be sought out and rooted out. It's up to the government of this province to protect those civil rights in the most effective way they know. Just because some of those groups may be meddlesome or troublesome — I imagine Indira Gandhi would like to get rid of those separatist Sikhs in the Punjab right now — you can't do that. Just because people are a little trouble, because they are after certain rights — linguistic rights; religious rights; rights of access to job; rights of access to beaches, employment, apartments, golf clubs or whatever....

People really cheered when the Japanese left Mission in 1941, and left Steveston and all their boats, and left the Island. I know members of my own family said: "At least we don't have to worry about the competition. All those Japanese" — but they didn't call them Japanese — "have 12 kids and they work for two bits an hour." How could anybody compete against that? So when they left, and we robbed them of their property through the War Measures Act — those Canadian citizens, who had no rights because of the War Measures Act — a lot of people were quite happy. What happened there caused the Fraser Valley to go into an agricultural decline that lasted until another visible minority, the East Indians, came along and made it bloom again.

Nobody was actively able to farm the Fraser Valley and make a go of it until the Indo-Canadians, East Indians, Sikhs and people of that group came along and made it go again. But we still discriminate against them. We're discriminating right now on unemployment insurance against the Indo-Canadians; because they're farmworkers they don't have the same rights as other people to claim unemployment insurance. Because they're farmworkers we're willing to take this minority group, and any others who happen to be farmworkers, and deny them protection against the contaminants, pollutants and pesticides with which they work on almost a daily basis. We had the death of one awhile back. So we discriminate on unemployment insurance federally, and we discriminate provincially because we say: "Oh, no, we don't have to have any real strong sanctions against the use of pesticides. And if you do, maybe it's going to be a little harder for you to get compensation because, after all, you're an agricultural worker."

What I'm saying is that it's been a long struggle to develop our province to the level of human rights that we have today. Other people have mentioned to us that it wasn't until the sixties that we even allowed the Orientals and the native Indians to vote in this province. It was a strong fight. The NDP and their predecessor, the CCF, lost an election — or maybe several — because we were prominent in that fight to make certain that certain Canadians, because of the colour of their skin, were not denied an opportunity to vote. We fought for that sort of thing, and that's why we're very sensitive to this matter of civil rights.

I'm glad to see the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is in the House, because he comes from what some people would regard as a racial and linguistic group in Canada. He's a minority, but he's a visible minority, n'est-ce pas?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not even a Canadian; I'm a French-Canadian.

MR. ROSE: As John Diefenbaker once said: "I don't believe in hyphenated Canadians." But, you know, if you were speaking French and you were picking apples up in Keremeos last summer, you'd have been in a hell of a lot of trouble. Of course, you might be in a lot of trouble in Keremeos even if you were speaking English.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Never in Columbia River, my friend.

MR. ROSE: Regardless of that, I think it is demonstrable that, lurking just beneath the surface of many of us, is a rank prejudice that can lead to violence — not a hundred years ago when we had slavery, but today, because people are different, they speak a different language, or they belong to a different culture. So I'm saying that civil rights is a very fragile thing, and you don't protect it by putting forward legislation that is as weak-kneed as this is.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This proposed Human Rights Commission may be wonderful. It may be terrific, but as other people have mentioned, it depends who's on it. It depends on the zeal with which they put forward their views and go to bat for people who bring their cases before them. Somebody else mentioned how boards of the federal government are populated largely by ex-Liberals. I'd like some assurance that my old friend the minister will not populate or man or person his boards only with people that hold views politically congruent to his own. You can't look at a trade commission or a board of any kind put up by the federal government — it doesn't matter what it is; tariff boards, customs, various kinds of boards — that aren't absolutely littered with the carcasses of either retired or failed Liberal candidates.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They're not ex-Liberals; they're still Liberals.

MR. ROSE: No, the ex-Liberals are all over on your side. Those are the ones that can't make it to the boards. If they could have got on the boards they probably wouldn't be over there.

I don't want to end frivolously or with whimsy on this very serious subject. I implore the minister to give us time to look into these matters a little more thoroughly, and not try to rush this thing through. I ask him to give an opportunity to people to bring their representations, concerns and suggestions for improvement. Perfection doesn't necessarily lie across the aisle; neither does it lie here. I think a better idea can come from working together and trying to develop something that is not going to be a monster developed merely to embarrass the government, but something which ensures justice for those people who desperately need it because they happen to be born with perhaps a different kind of complexion, language, religion or hue. I commend this to the minister and request him not to rush this thing through, because there is nothing that we in this society should cherish more than a society which provides the fairest of all possible decisions for people, regardless of their colour or creed.

[ Page 4405 ]

[5:15]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, if this bill were a first attempt in British Columbia to codify human rights, it might be accorded support; it might even be praised. But when one realizes that very effective human rights legislation was discontinued in this province and that this province has an asterisk after its name, as Mr. Gordon Fairweather said.... When one thinks about the history of human rights in this province, it is a province that should have an asterisk — not because our human rights have been somewhat diminished and legislation has been brought in which has many very obvious shortcomings, but because it is a province which really is a melting pot of various cultural and ethnic groups and should be the leader among provinces, as it once was in terms of human rights legislation.

I remember the pre-World War II days and living in Kitsilano when the population was made up of Scots, Japanese and Sikh. I lived within a block and a half of the Sikh temple. My experience was that suddenly many of my acquaintances, and one of my best friends, just disappeared. I recall driving out by the old Exhibition Park with my father in his car, and it was pointed out to me that my friend might be behind the gates of Exhibition Park in the area which had been a fairground, but which at that time was a holding area for Canadian citizens — people born in British Columbia who were incarcerated. Certainly other nations with whom we were at war, people born in Canada or who emigrated and took up status in Canada, were not incarcerated, but the Japanese people were. That's within my memory and it's not an abstract thing. Here in British Columbia one should expect something a little bit better because of the experience that we've had.

I also represent in the Legislature an area of the province in which there is a high population.... I suppose the largest visible minority in that area would be the Doukhobor people. Even today there can't be a more misunderstood group of people. If you ask someone in the lower mainland to conjure up the image of the typical Doukhobor.... I would not even attempt to go into it in this House. A this is at a time when I find that the typical Doukhobor might be a dentist, such as my dentist is, a credit union manager, a school vice-principal, a teacher, a mill worker, a mill owner or a contractor. Indeed, about the one thing that does distinguish most of the people of that group is their industriousness, ingenuity and loyalty to Canada. But they have been very badly treated. I have witnessed a trial in this province which had to come closest to the Salem witchcraft trials, where Mr. John Verigin, the spiritual leader of the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ, was under charges based on evidence that had to do with curses and witchcraft — in my mind, absolutely prevaricated testimony given under oath.

Mr. Speaker, I also speak as a person whose three oldest aunts were born in Italy. From time to time I am reminded of prejudice, because I hear people, not knowing my background and looking at the name Nicolson, start to hold forth on their views about Italians. I think that we have a long way to go. I think a couple of the failings with this legislation are that by not having a commission.... We need more than just enforcement; we need education. This particular piece of legislation does nothing in terms of bringing us together. It will create, I suppose, more of the contests which go on and on in the courts and which titillate the public by the supposed absurdity of a particular case. What might appear to be trivial, because it has been trivialized in the press, will be the focus. That will be the way in which people will form their opinions about basic human rights in this province, and there will be no real affirmative, well-planned, deliberate program to raise the level of debate among people to encourage a better understanding among the various groups.

You know, it's rather remarkable, really, that all the time I went to high school East Indians were not the subject of discrimination. They had largely been assimilated. They were typically the kinds of people who might run for high school president and be elected. They were a very small minority, but they were very popular athletes. I think of the Dhillon family here in Victoria and their achievements in lacrosse, and that sort of thing — some of those older families. I think it was during the period of.... I suppose maybe it was prompted by unrest in Africa and places like that where there was a large influx of new immigration and then all of a sudden people were very threatened. So it isn't even a particular group that is constantly under attack. It's times when there is a newness at a rate of change that we can't keep up with when we develop very dangerous attitudes. I suppose that when we get into that climate with one particular minority group, this bill will come into play, and with the specific group that I've talked about, in some cases it will resolve in resolution of problems. It used to be possible to just establish that there was a reasonable cause to find that discrimination had taken place. The groups that are covered are now specifically spelled out, and there is no way of establishing certain things which may be in fact discriminatory. For instance, suppose that someone decides that no one with a beard can work in a particular place.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: There we see an example. It could be that no one with a beard could work in a particular place. What does that mean? For some people like my colleague from Atlin.... It means he would be faced with a very tough decision based upon his personal image and maybe other reasons. He could make a decision as to whether or not he wanted the job badly enough to shave his beard. This is a very serious point. It is one of the very serious shortcomings of this bill. A person who must wear a beard for religious reasons, such as a Sikh, could be interpreted under this act as not being discriminated against by virtue of the fact that he had a beard. One could quite easily prohibit Sikhs from being employed in a certain place simply by putting in a regulation that no one with a beard could work in a certain area.

That is not going to be prohibited under this act. I don't think it's going to be interpreted as such. You have eliminated the reasonable cause provisions which existed in the original act. The old reasonable cause provisions established the fact that many groups that weren't named in the old act but are specifically named in the new act were covered by the interpretation of reasonable cause. But now we have loopholes for getting around the intent of a human rights act.

[5:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Wording in several different sections of this act that deals with the letting, hiring and selling of premises, etc., speaks out about race, sex, religion, mental or physical disability, or impairment. There is a very specific reference to people who

[ Page 4406 ]

have been convicted. But a number of cases were found........

Another case would be that of a person requiring fluency in English for a job that does not require fluency. One could require this and use it again as a basis of discrimination, of excluding certain people. There are specific cases, like Dhaliwal v. Plateau Mills, in which that was found under the old legislation. Under the new legislation that would probably not have been found in the complainant's favour.

In another case, for the purpose of this act, age is defined as being between 45 and 65 years of age. What if a 40-year old decides to apply for an apprenticeship? If the person is 45 and they're turned down when applying for an apprenticeship, they would have better grounds to protest that they were excluded than would a person who is 40 or 35 or even 30, who would not be able to. Indeed, with a 25 percent unemployment rate in the under-25 age group right now, or with a lot of them having very marginal jobs, and with the lack of apprenticeship training and everything that's going on, we're going to have a very large group of people who might not have an opportunity for apprenticeship training in their early twenties, and certainly not in their teens. Maybe they'll be in their late twenties and early thirties, and if and when the economy recovers and these people go to apply for apprenticeship opportunities, they could be passed over simply because the government wants to have a particular piece of legislation which leaves lots of loopholes; this government has to satisfy the bloodlust of its more rabid members who want to see some destruction of human rights and who want revenge on the old administrators of human rights legislation in this province. So they have had to absolutely change and destroy one of the best pieces of legislation that we've had in British Columbia; they've had to diminish it and cheapen it and to some extent destroy it.

Also without the reasonable cause provisions, with this particular limited set of grounds, people can set up other kinds of barriers such as height and weight restrictions, and those particular restrictions have been fought. The cases were made under the old legislation. At the very best, we would have to go back over that very same ground. By eliminating the principle of reasonable cause....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: You'll accept an adjournment? Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, to clarify an issue that took place earlier today on Bill 19, there was some doubt as to whether the proper motion was actually made. To clarify that, I would like to put the question again.

The question is third reading of Bill 19.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I'm sure Mr. Speaker wouldn't mind if we just had a moment to collect our thoughts before putting a vote the second time before the House. Surely Mr. Speaker recognizes that that's not often done. That's sort of like adjourning the House and then, when everybody's gone, coming in and passing a few motions on your own. There are rules. From time to time it has been rumoured that this chamber follows them. I think that Mr. Speaker cannot put a motion twice to the House without unanimous leave of the House. If you'll check the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May, you will see quite clearly that the Mother of Parliaments has decided this question on several occasions, and the House of Lords approved.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point raised by the member, from time to time even the Chair, while not in error, sometimes is short of being correct. While the point by the member is well taken, possibly he would allow the Chair the luxury of putting the proper request in the leave motion.

On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, a motion not proceeded with at a particular time and passing on to other business becomes a dropped order. There are remedies for government in reviving dropped orders. They can find those remedies by referring to Sir Erskine May.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion put earlier was on a report. Since it was on a report, the proper motion at this time is therefore on the third reading aspect. To satisfy the member, who asked a very legitimate question on the point of order, shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is third reading of Bill 19.

Motion approved

Bill 19, Residential Tenancy Act, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the members for their cooperation.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.