[ Page 4505 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Second reading

On the amendment

Ms. Sanford –– 4505

Mr. Lauk –– 4507

Mr. Gabelmann –– 4510

Division –– 4514

Mr. Cocke –– 4514

Mr. Passarell –– 4517

Ms. Brown –– 4518

Mr. Mitchell –– 4522

Mr. Barrett –– 4525

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4530

Division –– 4531

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 1984

The House met at 8:08 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a change in the procession coming in today, and I'd like to congratulate the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) on his elevation to his present position. I am confident that he will carry out his duties with appropriate due deliberation and decorum.

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

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) would like to get up and speak in this debate. I wonder if you could advise me how much time I have left, and then the minister will know how much time he has before he has to

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

MS. SANFORD: We have an acting House Leader and an acting Deputy Speaker tonight. I don't know what happened to the Deputy Speaker; he was a little late in arriving back tonight, I think.

Before the dinner hour I, along with my colleagues who have spoken on this hoist motion, was trying to convince the government that the best course of action for them at this stage is to set this bill aside for a period of six months to allow people who are concerned and knowledgeable in the field of human rights to talk to the government and make representations so that in the end we will have the best possible human rights legislation that we can come up with here as a group of 57 people. What we have now is totally inadequate in terms of meeting the needs in the area of human rights. We have an imitation of Bill 27, which was introduced last July and widely condemned. It was so widely condemned that even the government decided to abandon that bill, and left it to die on the order paper. Here we have again in this session the introduction of human rights legislation which is virtually the same as that Bill 27 which was so widely criticized last summer and fall.

If the government is at all concerned about ensuring that the area of human rights is properly legislated, it would not bring in a bill of this nature, which has no flexibility in it. And because it has removed the section relating to reasonable cause, thousands and thousands of people are left without any protection under this particular piece of legislation. The minister knows that; the people in the back bench know it. Even some of the cabinet ministers know it. I hope some of them will get up later this evening to speak on this piece of legislation.

Once Bill 11 was introduced and people had had an opportunity to look at the bill, even though it had been brought forward for debate in this Legislature, we had concerns expressed by a wide number of organizations. We had the regional director of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, Dr. Charles Paris, who was so....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Co-chairman.

MS. SANFORD: Co-chairman? He's the regional director, I think, of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. That's what I have on my list.

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

MS. SANFORD: Yes, it's on my list, and we received telegrams from these groups — Mr. Speaker, for the information of the minister — asking that we do what we can to ensure that Bill 11 not pass through this Legislature.

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

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

Dr. Paris, who has served as chairman of the Human Rights Commission in British Columbia, was so concerned about Bill 11 that he signed a telegram, on behalf of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, saying that this legislation is inadequate; it's not suitable for 1984 in British Columbia. We also had telegrams from people like Tim Stanley, who is with the B.C. Organization to Fight Racism; Donna Stewart of the North Shore Women's Centre; Chris Walmsley of the B.C. Association of Social Workers; Gurham Sangera of the Sikh Solidarity Association, representing the six Sikh temples in the lower mainland. These are all people who advised us by telegram that this legislation is inadequate, unsuitable, and should not pass through this Legislature. We also had telegrams from the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, Vancouver Rape Relief and the provincial Solidarity coalition. All of those people are dissatisfied with the kind of legislation and the lack of protection in the field of human rights that this bill affords the people of British Columbia. The Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition issued a press release shortly after the introduction of Bill 11: "The Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition expresses its shock that Bill 11 represents no significant improvement over Bill 27." The minister himself has admitted in comments across the floor of this House that Bill 11 and Bill 27 are virtually the same, and we certainly concur in that assessment. I again quote from this press release: "As a result of extreme public concern expressed last year, the Premier promised in his agreement with Solidarity to seriously reevaluate human rights legislation. The Coalition sees Bill 11 as a smokescreen of cosmetic changes and minor improvements."

[8:15]

It's exactly what all of these organizations.... Those people who are concerned and knowledgeable about human rights are saying the same thing about Bill 11. It is not just we in opposition who are making this request. It is all of these organizations, all of these people who are involved in human rights who have some knowledge and concern about the kind of legislation we have in this province in that important area. We're asking that this government consider and support our motion to hoist this bill for a period of six months so that we

[ Page 4506 ]

can again evaluate, examine, change and improve the legislation in the field of human rights. What we have now is inadequate, and unfortunately I believe what we have represents the attitude of this government in the area of human rights.

If you listen to the kind of comments that are being made around here tonight you will recognize and you will agree that the interest and concern in human rights is just not evident, just not present in that Social Credit group. If they hadn't brought in legislation that was virtually the same, we probably would not be debating this hoist motion here tonight. If they had listened to those concerns as they were expressed last July and all summer and all fall, then we would not be here tonight debating this motion to hoist the bill. We are determined to do everything we can to convince this uncaring government to set this bill aside, listen to the people, get some advice from people who understand what human rights is about and bring back a piece of legislation that all 57 of us will be happy to support. That's all we're asking, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to try to convince this government that the course they are embarked upon at this time is the wrong course.

I am going back to the press release issued by the Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition: "Also, contrary to any other jurisdiction, the human rights council is still a political tool. There is no political independence for the council, and it is still directly responsible to the minister instead of the Legislature, as in the case of the ombudsman and the federal Human Rights Commission."

This council can be used politically, Mr. Speaker. They will make decisions about which issues are frivolous, which issues should proceed, and which issues should be looked at. But the thing is, because the branch has been eliminated, because those people who had the authority and the expertise to investigate the problems that existed in the areas of discrimination are no longer there and because the government and the people of the province are now going to have to rely on the work of industrial relations officers to carry on that investigative work, the council will not have the time to deal with all of those complaints. The industrial relations officers are already so pressured to keep up with the jobs that they are trying to do for the government now through that Ministry of Labour that there is no way they can possibly take on the work that was done by the branch. They don't have the expertise, they don't have the time. They don't want the job, Mr. Speaker. When a person doesn't want the job that is assigned to them, they're not going to do a good job. We are asking them — or the government will be asking them — to take on responsibilities that they are not prepared for and for which they have no time because they're already so pressured trying to keep up with the complaints that are brought to them under the Employment Standards Act.

Even if we had legislation that we could support, if you don't have the enforcement officers, if you don't have the branch to carry out the investigative work that is required in these human rights cases, Mr. Speaker, then the legislation wouldn't be effective. So for that reason alone, the people who are sitting opposite in the Socred benches should be up supporting this particular motion to hoist the bill. Even if the legislation covered all of the areas that we would like to have covered in human rights legislation, if you don't have proper enforcement procedures then you may as well not have the legislation.

If the government people cannot understand that the legislation itself is bad, then surely they can understand that if you don't have the people who can do the kind of work, the kind of negotiating, the kind of investigating, the kind of mediating that's necessary in these cases, then the legislation itself is worthless. I hope that on that basis alone some of these backbenchers will get up and say: "Yes, this legislation must be withdrawn for six months. Yes, it's got to be improved. Yes, we've got to have some enforcement." But I think I'm dreaming, because I know that the interest in human rights in that party that's now in power in this province is very, very limited. That's exemplified perfectly by this legislation, by the fact that the commission has been fired and by the fact that the branch no longer exists to carry out the work that it was doing.

Another aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, that indicates that the government doesn't have much interest in the area of human rights is the fact that we're told by the minister that the government is now going to take on the educational work that the Human Rights Commission was formerly involved in. Instead of firing the Human Rights Commission, the government should have broadened its powers — should have given it more authority to do more research, to do more in the way of informing the people about their rights and informing people what discrimination is all about. That's now going to be done by the Minister of Labour and by the members of government. Even you, Mr. Speaker, can't be happy with that proposition. We know that the educational work that will be carried out by this government in the area of human rights will be worse than useless.

There's a lot of discrimination in Canada today. I'm thinking particularly of the area of racism. We in Canada don't hear too often about overt racist statements or overt acts of discrimination. We know that they exist, but we don't hear about them too often. One reason is that a large percentage of our population is not a visible minority. As a result, we don't hear too often about acts of discrimination and racist statements. But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the situation here in British Columbia is a very volatile one. We do see the attitudes on racism displayed now and again in British Columbia. We've had examples of it in the lower mainland. We certainly saw what people can do up in the Okanagan Valley, where the fruit pickers from Quebec were physically attacked. The racism is there. I think we need a human rights commission in this province that can carry out the work necessary to try to change the attitudes of British Columbians in the area of racial minorities.

Our history in Canada is not very good on this. Look at what happened to the Japanese during World War II, to the everlasting shame of Canada and Canadians. I feel very proud of the fact that it was this party that fought against the removal of the Japanese from the coast in the forties. It fought against the way in which we treated those people who had made their homes and their livelihoods here in British Columbia, simply tearing them away from their homes, allowing them to lose their fishing boats, their properties, their friends and the communities in which they had lived. The record in Canada is not very good. Look at the way companies like the CPR imported Chinese labourers because they could pay them at a lower rate than other Canadians were prepared to accept. Those are overt acts of racism.

I was born in Alberta and raised in a coal-mining town there, where we had a large number of people from various countries, mostly European countries. The racist comments

[ Page 4507 ]

made by all of the kids who were my age, starting in grade 1 — probably earlier than that, but certainly through the early grades at school — were indeed frightening. At first I didn't recognize that the statements made by my friends at school were racist. It wasn't until I got home and repeated some of the comments that my friends at school had made that I was able to learn through my parents, who had some understanding of human rights and the dangers of the racist attitudes some Canadians possessed, and benefit and understand something about human rights and racism. I suppose that's one of the reasons I became a member of this party; I recognized that the New Democratic Party had a proud record in terms of protecting the rights of minorities.

In those days a lot of the comments made were not only racist but also sexist. But I have to admit that on the prairies back at that time my parents, who were very concerned about racist comments, were not informed and were not aware of sexist comments — as most of the population were not, I expect. It's only in more recent times that discrimination on the basis of sex has become an issue in this country.

[8:30]

Earlier the minister indicated that he was going to introduce an amendment in committee stage which would ensure that there was no doubt — at least, this is my interpretation of what he said — about the section we have been concerned about, which we have raised on a number of occasions and which we believe required that discrimination be proved before it could be heard before the council. At this stage, I don't know what sort of amendment the minister is going to introduce. But unless that Section is cleared up, and unless it's made very clear in the legal language contained in the bill that the intent to discriminate does not have to be proved, we will never see a case through to the end in B.C. How do you prove intent? I'm going to watch with interest to see what the minister brings forward in terms of an amendment. The minister apparently has had information from his legal beagles that the section as it's now written is okay and that people who feel that they have been discriminated against will not be required to prove that the discrimination was intended. Let's hope that the minister clears that up.

Mr. Speaker, we still wait to hear from the people in the back bench about this particular piece of legislation. How can the bill be effective when the necessary work in the field can't be carried out by people who are knowledgeable and trained in the area of human rights. How can you bring in legislation that eliminates a very vital section, the section that was contained within the previous legislation relating to reasonable cause? How can these people support a bill that they know is not going to be effective? How can they support a bill that eliminates a Human Rights Commission, making British Columbia the only province in Canada without a Human Rights Commission? How can they support a bill that they know is second-rate? Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is second-rate. It should be hoisted for six months and rewritten.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I've spoken to the main motion for second reading, and I want to take this opportunity to canvass with the chamber some of the history of human rights in the province of British Columbia. It's a nice pleasant spring evening and those who will be too busy to listen to my remarks I know would be glad to have them in Hansard for later reference.

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

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

Interjection.

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

MR. MOWAT: Not much.

MR. LAUK: That's precisely what you're going to get. When you've been in public life for a few years, sometimes you start to reflect on what you've achieved.

Interjection.

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

This is a particularly — I was going to say "irritating," but it's not irritating it's a sort of disappointing time for me, dealing with this statute. When I was first called to the bar I was invited to join a number of committees concerning civil liberties, which I did. I participated in those committees and a couple of years later I was invited to join a group called the Human Rights Council. This was a volunteer organization. Many distinguished British Columbians, as well as myself, were on this council.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Including myself — thank you.

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

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Just so Hansard didn't miss that, the hon. second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) said: "What, Liberals?" You can see the need in a moment for such a history lesson, and I am reinforced in my resolve to continue.

These people who were not of my political persuasion were devoted to human rights. They worked very hard and they participated with great vigour in putting together briefs, papers and other work to present to government and other organizations with respect to the field of race relations and human rights. It was primarily an educative body, but it occasionally took on specific projects at the request of various organizations. I began to become more and more interested in this group, and in the late sixties it occurred to me that such a group of people with a wide variety of backgrounds and obvious different political philosophy but with some consensus with respect to equality and human rights may be able to achieve something, even when the government of the day was seldom interested in such questions. We pressed on. At the indirect request of the government of the day, the council investigated the Fred Quilt case. Do you remember the case where it was alleged that a native Indian in one of the most remote reserves in the province died a mysterious death? It was alleged that it may have been as a result of an altercation with some RCMP officers and so on.

The inquest that was held seemed to have been unorthodox in the way in which it was carried out. In any event, the council asked me to go to the area to investigate and

[ Page 4508 ]

produce a report, and I did. I tried to make it as objective as possible and interviewed people first-hand rather than receive second-hand information.

The understanding was that this request was made by the Attorney-General and the report was to remain secret. We disagreed with that, but we did agree to provide the report to the Attorney-General from our council, no matter what it said, and wait for a time specific before the Attorney-General would be giving an opportunity to the government to make a decision about a new inquest before the details were released.

Partly as a result of that, there was a new inquest. Perhaps the result was not what we all would have expected, but there was a new inquest. The judge was appointed to hear it, and it had the effect of at least solving some of the bitterness and the anger that existed from the point of view of the natives towards the white community in that neighbourhood.

The council also toured, and held conferences and provided a number of forums in which racial relations were discussed. In the hon. member for Cariboo's jurisdiction there were difficulties involving an increased migration of East Indians and some of the discomfort of the established white community with these new workers and their families coming in. I think that we assisted somewhat in helping the situation.

Then around 1969 or 1970 we presented a series of briefs to the then Attorney-General, Les Peterson, and he began to listen personally and was able to persuade his cabinet that British Columbia was one of the few provinces that hadn't in one way or another dealt with human rights at all. By the way, the council then liaised with civil liberties. There were a number of briefs presented, and the Human Rights Act was passed. It was nowhere near the kind of act that was asked for by our council or by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association or by a number of minority groups. It stated the basic human rights — race, creed, colour, etc. — and provided for the Ministry of Labour to provide some protection with respect to enforcement. It was minimal and it was not as impressive as we would have liked it to have been.

However, we did crack that cheap bottle of Idaho potato champagne and celebrated the occasion, because it was a foot in the door. It was almost 14 or 15 years ago, and we thought it was the beginning. It was the first step in developing a civilized attitude towards race relations and towards equality generally in the province of British Columbia. The people of this province deserved it. The province itself as a whole and its institutions deserved the respect that a more civilized statement from the Legislature on human rights be given, but it was barely enough. As we proceeded along and the New Democratic Party was elected in 1972, a much stronger Human Rights Code was passed. It seemed to be the logical evolutionary step. Enforcement was increased. More funding was provided to groups to provide an education to the various communities to decrease the tremendous and staggering costs that discrimination and prejudice cause in communities.

As a result, the Human Rights Code was passed and a new stage in the development of civilization in the province of British Columbia occurred. Since 1976 nothing has been done to advance the cause of human rights in this province. It's not one of those occasions where I would say "nothing or next to nothing," because nothing has been done. Now we see that rather than nothing being done, which I would have preferred to this act, something is being done that brings us right back to 1969. So in the twilight years of my legislative career, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will share with me a little bit of disappointment that in 15 years we've come full circle. The Human Rights Act proposed by this government today is less effective than Les Peterson's Human Rights Act of 1969.

The second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) doesn't really care what he says in this chamber. He hasn't read the act, and he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a sad thing, because being a native British Columbian and taking some pride in this jurisdiction, I have to, with some degree of shame, admit to others in other provinces and in other countries that this government has moved back 15 years. Why have they been able to do so? Why aren't the galleries full? Why aren't they parading in the streets? I'm not surprised that they aren't. Human rights is not a majority decision; it never has been. In most cases in our kind of system the majority doesn't need protection. It is the minorities, the people who are intimidated, the people who are easily co-opted by the majority into accepting second-class status. It is those groups of people that are easily set aside, taken for granted and put down. The only hope for them is a more strident demand for their own human rights.

[9:45]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

No, there is another hope. There is the hope that was seen briefly in 1973-74 when a government decided to represent the minorities as well as the majority in the province. I must confess that in my reading of history, Mr. Speaker, that so seldom happens that it's a thin hope indeed. Or there is the real hope. If I were to speak to native Indians, I would say your human rights do not lie within the good will of the white community or the white government. They do not and should not rely on the largesse and graciousness of the Crown. Their rights lie only within their power, and their power is what they make their power to be: that is, to demand and to demand and to demand.

Rights are not something that are granted; they are taken. In our society there isn't that kind of graciousness that will make us realize that these rights should be there and, without question, should be the law of the land and enforced, with educative bodies that will convince the population and the majority eventually that these rights are to their benefit in the long run as well. One day we will see that the majority of British Columbians will have the wit and the courage to realize that the human rights of their neighbour, who may be a visible minority person, are their human rights, that the freedoms of their neighbour are their own freedoms, and that eventually they who may feel that they are members of a majority will be in one way or another members of a minority, depending on the occasion and what's happening at the time. But that doesn't happen that often, and only through a long period of education will they be able to realize that human rights are for all. They protect us and provide for the human rights of our neighbours.

This is a backward step; there is no question about it. The minister — as eloquent as he is — has couched this new act in terms of improvement and protecting the status quo. It doesn't; it's a very regressive step. The political penalty is not there. This enables some of the back bench to catcall my friend from Comox and others of us who are speaking on this bill. Our speeches will not be reported; there will not be marching in the streets; an effigy of the minister will not be burned. That's the nature of the fight for human rights. After 15 years we've come full circle. Human rights have become

[ Page 4509 ]

less in B.C. They've become less not because fewer rights are named in the statute, but because there are fewer mechanisms and less power to enforce them. The government has steadfastly and relentlessly cut back on the funding necessary to educate the public generally. On many occasions on this side of the House we've said that if one wishes to be frugal with the public purse, one should look beyond the fiscal year. This government doesn't even look beyond the fiscal month to realize the tremendous cost of some of the steps they are taking. If, for example, the Minister of Labour, rather than representing the constituency of Langley — as wonderful a constituency as it is — would represent a constituency in the core of the city where there is a large immigrant population and therefore larger groups of minorities, he would realize that from time to time — as recently as last year, and sometimes it still flares up — there are very grave difficulties between races within the community that I represent and the communities in the city of Vancouver. Only through a gargantuan effort by volunteer organizations and by cooperation of the city council and the Vancouver school board and the police — people who do not need to and have not received direction — has this kind of race trouble been diminished and some form of education taken place. Only the very basest of our citizens participate in racial discrimination and violence, and they are such a minority that it stands as a great example when one considers the tremendous in-migration in recent years of visible minorities to the city.

But it's no credit to the government of British Columbia that this has occurred. They have sat idly by. They have sat more than idly by; they have been negligently neglectful. They have been grossly and recklessly neglectful of the potential dangers that arise in these kinds of problems. Thank God that the community, in its responsibility and wisdom, prevailed and the situation was resolved. What a much better province this would be, what an example we would be to the world and to the country, had we a progressive and thoughtful government that could provide support and encouragement for the kind of activity that went on in the city of Vancouver. Even key members of the Social Credit movement in Vancouver were surprisingly absent from the programs that were voluntarily put in place to resolve this volatile issue. It seems to me rather typical of the Social Credit Party and its members that they do not include as one of their highest priorities the resolution of this kind of discrimination. It's a very alarming characteristic of this political party, having regard for the fact that it has governed this province for so many years.

As I say, I do not expect that a government that governs by polling, by majority rule only, will respond too readily to the demands of minority groups. But if it's left too long, if such an act is in place too long, the cost to this government will be more than it ever dreamed of.

I want Your Honour, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this chamber to realize the tremendous cost in police and disruption in communities affected by adverse race relations, by lack of understanding and education and by lack of support of the authorities, who set the example in these communities. You've only to look at our neighbour to the south to see the tremendous cost to government and resources, and to the taxpayer, when race relations are neglected for too long, when the enforcement of racial equality within communities is neglected to the extent where it's underfunded, cut back or eliminated almost completely, as this bill purports to do. That kind of cost will make the minuscule saving the minister is trying to make by the repeal of the Human Rights Code seem totally irrelevant, meaningless, thoughtless and, as I say, even reckless.

This government's priorities are based on mindsets that are so far out of date, feudal in their origin.... As one back-bencher commented in the debate on the main motion, you can't legislate human rights; you can't legislate attitudes, But the Legislature legislates on behalf of society. It makes a statement, and the statement this minister is making through this act — and this is why we're suggesting that it be hoisted and reconsidered — is that human rights is of the lowest priority to the Social Credit government. And because of that, it's open season again among some relatively ignorant groups in our community. These groups of thugs, if you like, would not have the feeling that they could operate freely if this government stood by, and even strengthened, the previous legislation. But they do look to government as an example. They do look to authority for their guidance. If these would-be thugs felt that such discrimination and even violence towards minority groups would not under any circumstances be tolerated in this province, they would walk gently as if over broken eggs, or whatever the expression is.

As a civil libertarian, I.... My friend has mentioned the Ku Klux Klan bill that was considered by this House some time past, and I'll just mention it briefly. As I say, as a civil libertarian I was very concerned at the restriction of freedom of speech, but at the same time I was proud to see that the chamber acted as a group to make a statement to our society that these kinds of right-wing Nazi thugs would have no place and no home in British Columbia, and that they were alien to our way of life and had no ear anywhere, particularly in the highest chamber in the province. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that that statement had a considerable effect. In other jurisdictions where the Legislature and the authorities have not had the courage to make such a statement, the KKK has taken a hold — a small hold, but it has taken a hold. Here they have dissipated, been discouraged, disbanded and slunk away, humiliated and condemned.

[9:00]

That's why I think it's very important not to just use these clichés and easy phrases that you can't legislate away attitudes, and so on. We can stand up and make a statement which has its effect on society at large. I worry very much that this act is such a regressive step away from our solemn commitment to equality in this province that it will give comfort to those who, by lack of education, are racist and have attitudes which are harmful to cohesion and cooperation in our society.

We can't legislate away arson, rape and murder either by passing laws against them. Nevertheless, we pass laws against them. We investigate, we arrest and we convict, if we can, those who commit such offences. It doesn't eliminate those offences. Murder has been a capital crime, up until recently, for thousands of years, but murder is still with us. No one suggests that there should not be an offence such as murder under our Criminal Code. It is considered our most serious crime, and all other crimes are lesser crimes in comparison. I know that the government realizes that's a fact of life. They have a cursory understanding of human history. So what is their motivation? Have they climbed on this anti-human-rights bandwagon? I'm afraid they have.

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

[ Page 4510 ]

pander to that scapegoat attitude that develops during economic recession and depression. The true strength of a government and its commitment to such ideals as equality between the races and other minority groups is that they defend those rights when they are the least popular. Because of the economic downturn, minority groups are scapegoated all the time. "It's the immigrants who are taking the jobs." "Everything was all right before there were human rights in this province. Everybody knew their place." How many times did we hear that from Alabama and Mississippi in the sixties. We've come full circle.

It's not just an economic theory we're dealing with in respect to this government. It's not just an economic theory that we're dealing with in the United States. It's a lifestyle theory which is feudal in its origin, which structures people in their statuses and classes and keeps a mass of people under heel. It creates a reservoir of poor. You can call them serfs, as we did once, or slaves before that, peasants afterwards or unemployed today. It's the same concept. It's feudal in its origin. It's anti-democratic and it's a symptom of this government that they will repeal the Human Rights Code. It's a symptom of this government that they will de-emphasize those kinds of humanist pieces of legislation that have protected the quality of democratic life in this province to a great extent. It is a symptom of the lifestyle philosophy of the right. It is a serious and sad mistake that is made in history, it seems, altogether too frequently and cyclically. It always seems to occur during economic downturns, so that the government can focus attention on minority groups. Khadafy in Libya always focuses his attention on his neighbours and starts a war when he's in trouble economically. The leaders of other countries, such as Ayatollah Khomeini and all the rest of them, are scapegoating minority groups within their own countries — the Baha'i religion. If there's a problem, it's the Jew, said Hitler. If there's a problem it's the Baha'i, says Khomeini. And on it goes: scapegoating the people who are least able to defend themselves is the way to focus attention away from the government and its responsibility.

It always occurs during times of economic trouble. When are we going to find a government that has the courage and the strength to defend human rights in the worst of times. It's no test of a politician or his strength if he stands up and makes a glowing motherhood speech about human rights when everybody's employed, when there's milk and honey flowing in the streets, when we've got everybody in a great education system. That's no test of the strength of a politician. The test comes when the going gets rough. The Social Credit members and in particular the government are willing to fight for restraint to the last drop of the unemployed's blood. They are willing to defend their system of government and lifestyle to the last penny of the unemployed and the working poor. They have sacrificed nothing of their own, except perhaps their integrity. They will carry through with this mindless, feudal philosophy which is manifest in the repeal of the Human Rights Code.

So in the springtime, as the fragrance of lilac wafts through our Victorian windows as we sit in our offices in the parliament buildings, I can reflect on 13 years of public service and see what I've contributed to the field of human rights — precisely nothing. We're right back where we started from, and more's the pity. That's why I'm going to support the motion to reconsider this bill and have it lifted from the table for six months. I'm not convinced, however, that the government's going to vote with us. I am becoming somewhat doubtful that some of the Social Credit members will support us too.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I think that all 22 members of the NDP will support this motion, because whatever our differences on this side of the House, there is one thing that remains steady, solid and unchangeable with us, and that is the concept of equality. To borrow an image from the law, equality is like a golden thread in the fabric of our history and philosophy — equality in every sense of the word, as embodied in the democratic system. Equality doesn't mean that everybody is the same or is necessarily entitled to the same wealth or whatever, but that everybody is entitled to be treated the same and entitled to equal respect, and that everybody's differences are worthy of respect. That golden thread is the essence of the New Democratic philosophy; it is the antithesis of the feudal philosophy of the government opposite. We do not believe in a hierarchical society with a pyramidal power structure. We believe that people with wit and courage can govern themselves, that the idea of the boss, the king or the pharaoh are things of the past.

Those are some of the thoughts that I have 13 years later — actually 15 or 16 years after Les Peterson's Human Rights Act. I'm going to read that act again, Mr. Speaker; it might even be an improvement over this one.

I will be voting for this motion.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, members of the government side will be pleased to learn that we have exhausted our speakers on this hoist motion, in both senses of the word.

I intend not to recanvass issues which I talked about in opening the debate some days ago on April 12, but rather to do a review of what has happened in terms of this particular piece of legislation and to attempt to put the case once more, as my colleagues have done, for the delay of at least six months for this bill, so that people in the community can have an opportunity to participate in the development of this kind of legislation. Like the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I am not very optimistic about the prospect of converting members of the government side; nevertheless, it's our obligation to try.

Mr. Speaker, it has been well canvassed that when Bill 27 was introduced last July as part of the legislative package which created such proper furor in the province, a part of the resolution of the difficulties that culminated in November was that Bill 27, among other pieces of legislation, would be reconsidered and reviewed, and in fact there would be an advisory committee to assist in that process. The people of this province who quite properly were outraged by Bill 27 and many other pieces of legislation last summer and last fall believed the Premier, and the Premier indicated in the famous Kelowna accord that those bills that died on the order paper would be reconsidered and would be improved, taking into account the concerns that were expressed in one way or another by an overwhelming majority of this province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair, ]

Mr. Speaker, the people of this province in trusting the Premier, in believing the Premier, were betrayed. Because when Bill 11 was introduced some two and a half weeks ago, we really got Bill 27 reintroduced with a couple of minor

[ Page 4511 ]

changes. What respect can people have for a government, a parliamentary system and politicians in general when politicians make promises that, yes, your concerns will be listened to and heeded, and then they're not? More so in this bill than in any of the others we've seen, no changes of significance occurred.

[9:15]

I have to wonder, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister appointed an advisory committee, a committee that on the surface seemed to me to well represent many flavours of views in human rights issues, a committee that I think the public in this province had some fair amount of confidence in.... You have to wonder how it was that the legislation was introduced within 48 hours of the final report of that committee to the minister. How was it that he was able to take those views, assimilate them, understand them, ponder them, go through the legislative process that is required in government not only of drafting the bill but of going through the cabinet committee on legislation — all of those processes, and going to cabinet, and getting it over to the Queen's Printer and printed — all within 48 hours?

Mr. Speaker, clearly — and I think that in answer to a question I posed in question period the other day we had additional evidence, if not proof, of this — the advisory committee was a sham. No attention was paid to the recommendations at all. Those people were used as part of a political game to put out the fire last fall by, in effect, telling the public some things that weren't true, and that was that their protests would be heeded and changes would occur. Clearly the advisory committee and its membership were used and abused by this government. That's sad, Mr. Speaker.

We're dealing in this case with legislation that, for the most part, doesn't affect most members of the Legislature — and I say most, not all, because in human rights, every one of us could find ourselves in need of legislative protection. But for the most part, we white, male Anglo-Saxons don't need human rights. We dominate the Legislature. We dominate the political process. We dominate the establishment in this province. We run the show. These kinds of legislative initiatives are not for us in that narrow sense.

What we do when we write human rights legislation or civil rights legislation is recognize that minorities in our society, the powerless in our society, need additional protection in order to assert their rights, to protect their rights. When we write legislation for minorities who are for the most part powerless, who are for the most part unable to use the channels of power as effectively as we white, Anglo-Saxon males have learned to do, we basically have to remember that this is their legislation, not ours. Those minorities, those people who are subject to bigotry and racism and sexism and a whole variety of other ills, should participate in the writing of the legislation — more so in this case than in almost any other case of legislative activity that I can think of. They have that right to participate in the discussion and the drafting of the legislation. They should not be subject to charges that those groups are simply professional human rights activists who want to create jobs for themselves and who want to use human rights as a mechanism to control and achieve some kind of power in their own communities. That is essentially the charge that was made by the minister in different words, in rejecting the call from many groups in this province who wanted some time, wanted some input, wanted to participate in this legislative process.

That's the primary reason for the hoist motion. It would give us an opportunity to allow those people who are affected by this legislation the chance to participate in its drafting.

In summary, I want to suggest what some of the major issues are. These issues have, for the most part, been very well canvassed, but in summing up this hoist debate I just want to go through some of them, by no means all.

1 guess the single biggest issue, although there are many big ones, relates to the reasonable cause provision. How can the Minister of Labour go around this province suggesting that this will be seen to be or will soon become the best human rights legislation in the province when in fact it restricts and narrows the number of people who are covered by it? Earlier the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) interjected that this bill has a better flavour to it than the Human Rights Code because it now includes the discrimination against mental and physical disability for the first time. But when you go through the last annual report that's available — since last year's isn't yet tabled — you see that a significant number of the cases dealt with by the human rights branch were mental and physical disability cases. As a result of the reasonable cause provision in the legislation, many of the cases were well resolved. We'll get into some of that during debate in committee where we can have a more informal kind of discussion about that. I'm hoping that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who has something to contribute to this debate, will participate at that time if he won't at this time. The fact is that when you eliminate the reasonable cause provision in human rights legislation you are saying to a great many people who are not named in the legislation: "You no longer have any human rights." I talked about that at some length earlier in the debate. As I said then, you are saying to gay men and lesbian women, to pregnant women, to people who have difficulty with the English language, that they no longer have the protection that they've had for a decade in this province, because they are not named in the legislation and there is no reasonable cause provision. When you do that, I don't understand how the minister can say it's the best or it will be seen to be the best human rights legislation in the country. It's not.

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I'm long past believing the minister would listen to anything I have to say anyway. I'm not concerned at all that he's not here.

The absence of a reasonable cause provision means that we now have an open season for discrimination and for bigotry against certain groups in our society. I find that contemptible.

Interjections.

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

MR. GABELMANN: In the 1982 annual report — we haven't got the '83 one yet — there was a listing of the various kinds of complaints that were raised with the human rights branch. One of the largest groups of complaints comes under the title of "sexual harassment."

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

[ Page 4512 ]

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: Under the Human Rights Code the Premier would not be able to make that kind of sexually harassing comment to a secretary in this building. Under the Human Rights Act that the minister is introducing the Premier can get away with that kind of comment.

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: But they now are no longer covered. Those 63 people are now in a position to be able to be slandered and harassed in the way the Premier does to women in the hallways in this building.

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I'd like the Minister of Labour to withdraw "you're a liar." I don't think he was directing it where it belonged, but in any event I would like him to withdraw it.

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

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

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I clearly noticed that that minister directed that comment directly at the member for North Island. He looked straight at him and made that remark, and I think he should apologize to this House and to that member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the second member for Victoria, the minister said he would not imply any such comment to any member, and I should think that that would be an appropriate withdrawal.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when one says "you're a liar," you're ascribing that directly to the person that you're directing it at, and that has never been tolerated in this House. If we have new rules now, then let's understand those new rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the member for New Westminster, the Minister of Labour said that he did not direct such a remark or intend any remark to any person.

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

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: You see, that's the problem, Mr. Speaker. In this House we have a reflection of the reality in our society: that is, that there are a considerable number of people who do not understand the concept of human rights. And they're well represented on that side of the House. I suppose bigots deserve their representatives....

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

[9:30]

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister had to base his debate on what he knew, there would be nothing said by that member. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I intend to continue.

Clearly the reasonable cause provision is the most important element that is omitted from this legislation. Without it, we do not have human rights protection for many people in this society.

The minister has also wiped out the whole Human Rights Commission and its educational function. There will be no one left now but the minister, in his political way, through the use of television advertising or whatever other political channels he chooses to exercise. There will be no one who will take over the role of the Human Rights Commission, which is summarized in four points at the beginning of the '82 annual report. No one will be promoting the principles of the Human Rights Code; no one will be promoting an understanding of and compliance with the Human Rights Code — the act in this case; no one will be developing and conducting educational programs designed to eliminate discriminatory practices; and no one will be encouraging and coordinating programs and activities which promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. Where will be the kits and the material for school kids that was made available but will not now be made available? We will expect them to gain an understanding of human rights through a TV ad campaign designed to glorify Social Credit and its Minister of Labour.

The enforcement section has been talked about very well by my colleague from Vancouver Centre. This legislation is somewhat like writing a criminal code in this country, and hiring no police officers. This is somewhat like writing a motor vehicle act empowering the Highways department to set speed limits on the road, and hiring no traffic cops. Why would we do that? Why would we say that Criminal Code activities or lesser problems like motor vehicle offences require an enforcement agency because we believe those laws should be obeyed, but that human rights does not require an enforcement agency? Is it because maybe we don't believe that those rights should be enforced? That's the only conclusion. I think I said "policemen" a little while ago; that's part of my continuing learning process with human rights. I should have said "police officers."

[ Page 4513 ]

Clearly the government has attempted — badly and in a flawed way — to write legislation which will leave an impression that they believe in human rights, but not hire any traffic cops. Who's going to enforce it? Will the industrial relations officers in various locations in this province, on top of already too busy schedules, deal with human rights as well? That's what the minister suggests. If they don't and they can't and they won't, it goes to the council. So five people investigate and enforce. The minister shakes his head. The minister doesn't believe in having traffic cops for human rights; that's the problem.

Interjection.

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

Members on this side of the House agreed with concerns and complaints, many of them, about the Human Rights Code dated '74, with its amendment in, I think, 1981. We agreed there were problems with that Code and that there needed to be amendments. The delays were too long. I think the delays had more to do with the minister's desk than with the legislation; nevertheless, we agreed. One of the fundamental flaws — at the time it was not perceived as a flaw, but I think we've progressed to the point where we do see it as a flaw — is that the commission and the branch — which in my view should have a unified agency — should have been responsible to this Legislature in the same way that the ombudsman and the auditor-general are, and in the same way that the federal human rights commissioner is responsible to the House of Commons. That was a flaw in our legislation, as we learned subsequently. It should have been in this bill but it wasn't. In fact, what's happened is that the commissioners — or the council in this case — are even more a part of the minister's operations, even more subject to political interference. Step out of line once and they're gone. Cabinet order — bang, they're gone! No fixed terms. There should be. They should be responsible to this House. A unanimous recommendation of the House committee should select those commissioners.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

I'm a little disturbed — and we'll get into this in committee in more detail — about the apparent implication in this act that the minister will not be subject to the ombudsman's inquiries. Section 18: "The minister shall not be compelled to give evidence in any proceedings or otherwise respecting any matter...." That strikes me as a section to duck out of the ombudsman, which is wrong.

The other thing I wanted to do in the last few minutes that I have is to put on the record some concerns expressed by the provincial council of the bar association — the Law Society of B.C. They made a number of recommendations for change, and I want to very quickly summarize some of those recommendations. A committee of the bar made the recommendations, and I understand that they were approved by the provincial council. Their recommendations included the following points. They said that the legislation in respect of employment advertising should be extended to include "circulating and broadcasting of any advertisement." In their view that is a loophole in employment advertising.

They point out that there is no protection at all for discrimination with respect to contracts. They make the point that has been made in this debate: that that very important principle of equal pay for work of equal value is not included in this legislation. You can't have good human rights legislation in our society today unless it includes equal pay for work of equal value. The wording in the bill that is proposed is not sufficient. The provision in the bill is not adequate at all and does not guarantee that women will receive equal pay for work of equal value.

They talk about the need to include a section dealing with intent, and the minister made some reference this afternoon to his bringing in an amendment in respect of that.

The bar association makes the point in their next item, as I did earlier, about the independence of the commission. They suggest the chairman of the council should be selected by the Legislature. I would say that the entire council should be.

Why is there no provision for the filing of an annual report? That's a standard feature of legislation in this province. They make that suggestion.

They also make an important suggestion in respect of complaints. Paraphrasing what they say, essentially they argue that any person should have the right to initiate a complaint, even if that person herself or himself was not directly involved in the act of discrimination. That was a feature of the old Code and is not in this legislation. Complaints should be accepted whether made orally or in any other way. That's not in the bill.

Their suggestion is that the six-month time condition is too short and should be extended to a year, as it is in the federal act.

Importantly, in my view, their next point is that the human rights council should not have the right to in effect act as the judge and jury. More than that, they say the council has the right to receive the complaint — commonly called intake — to investigate the complaint, to go through the settlement and/or review process of the complaint and, in fact, to make settlements or judgments. What you really have here, Mr. Speaker, is a travesty in law. The same people who are receiving the complaint investigate it and they also act as a judge. Nowhere else is that concept accepted. They recommend that if a settlement has been agreed to at any process along the way, it should be ratified by the council. That's not in the legislation and it should be.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I suspect we can pursue that in committee stage. The law society — who are lawyers, and I'm not — argue that that's not in there.

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

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

[ Page 4514 ]

The next point is that the council should provide written reasons where a complaint is dismissed. It's not in there. There's no power allowing the council to approve affirmative action programs for disadvantaged persons. The council should have that power. Any number of decisions made by the....

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

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

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

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

Another point made by the bar association is that the council should appoint boards of inquiry and that the list could be prepared by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but that the council should have the right to appoint from that list.

[9:45]

I'll leave most of the other points they make, because they're minor and more legalistic with the exception that they argue that any party with a real interest in the proceedings should be allowed to participate.

These suggestions are some that haven't been at the forefront of the legislative debate. I'm going to look at section 19: "The council may approve any program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, and any approved program or activity shall be deemed not to be in contravention of this Act."

That's a quick reading again. That doesn't refer to a particular case that's been.... Okay, perhaps it does. I'll look at it more closely, and if I'm wrong, I'll tell the minister in committee when we get to section 9 that I was wrong. I hope I am, because that's a useful provision.

I was just saying that reading these particular concerns that lawyers have expressed doesn't mean at all that those are a comprehensive review of all of the issues, but because they haven't been introduced into the debate I thought it was important to add that to this discussion. I want to conclude before we vote on this motion by saying that if I've made mistakes in interpretation of this legislation.... No doubt I have, and no doubt other members in debate have made mistakes in interpretation, because I've heard some. We have had an opportunity more than any other citizens in this province to study the bill and to try to understand it. The rest of the public should have a similar and expanded opportunity also to read and understand the bill and make their concerns known to the minister.

What I don't understand is why the minister and his government need to proceed with such undue haste. Why is it that we're here tonight? Why are we having an unusual night sitting? Why didn't we meet three or four Thursdays ago?

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

MR. GABELMANN: The minister can make jokes about it, but the fact is that the government is determined to ram through this legislation before members of the public have an opportunity to understand it. The decision of the government is clear. They intend not to give time. They thought they could get it through before their recess, and were surprised when we put up some resistance to this legislation. Their expectation was that the two or three days they had would have been enough. They then had the recess, and now they're ramming it through. No one's speaking from the government side, because they don't want the legislation to take any more time. They don't want the possibility that the public might learn what's in this legislation and complain again, as they did last year.

Interestingly, despite all the corridor rumours and everything else, the Labour Code hasn't been introduced yet. But I'll bet you that when this is disposed of, we'll get the Labour Code.

The government is afraid of the people. The government knows its legislation is unpopular, knows that it can't possibly survive if issues are linked again as they were last summer. So what do they do? They bring them in one at a time. They ram them through by having unusual, extraordinary night sittings when there's no need whatsoever for them. We've got a couple of months until the summer holidays, which we could take in July and August for a change. There's no huffy. What's the problem? We'll take a couple of days off for the convention too. The government knows that this legislation is not popular. Otherwise they would let it be subject to public scrutiny. We believe, on this side of the House, that the public should have six months at least to consider this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question that the motion for second reading of Bill 11, intituled Human Rights Act, be amended by deleting the words following "that" and adding the words "six months hence" is now put.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 20

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

[10:00]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the government, having had this bill before the House for some little time, called a surprise sitting this evening, and then.... As a matter of fact, there were only 21 of their 35 there, because they knew the bullying tactics of this government.

Mr. Speaker, this government has the conscience of a lizard. It crawls on the ground, and the Provincial Secretary is just going to prove it.

[ Page 4515 ]

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggests that he wants to debate the bill, but indeed he doesn't want to debate the bill. He wants to play political games rather than debate the bill.

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order!

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

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

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

MR. LAUK: The Provincial Secretary rose on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and the member for New Westminster hadn't even started to make his speech. He hasn't even started not addressing the bill yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order was as valid as the minister's, so would the member for New Westminster.... The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound rises on a point of order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that Hansard has it correct that it's the second member for Vancouver Centre that's here, so that he isn't disappointed by his constituents.

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as an immigrant to this country, I take exception to being called a lizard by that member. I think that he should withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. That's discrimination.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member for New Westminster continue in debate, please, on the main motion?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, yes, but first could I address that point of order? I addressed this to the government, but if that minister in particular feels offended by that expression of mine, I would most decidedly withdraw it. I'd be delighted to withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Speaker appreciates your magnanimity and asks you to continue with the debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have heard considerable give and take across the floor today with respect to this bill. I have heard the minister from his chair address members opposite speaking on the bill and telling them that they're wrong or they're off base or this or that. I have had no consciousness of having heard one member of the government side, with the exception of the minister for a few scant moments, argue against the amendment. Not one of his backbenchers or his government colleagues got up and gave any arguments whatsoever respecting the amendment to hoist.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I will not go on with that for fear I might be reflecting upon a vote, but I will say this with respect to the second reading of the bill. He obviously has had no real concern among his colleagues at the passing of this bill, other than their vote like mannequins. Robots. We have heard from some of them that they might have a word to say. I expected the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to have more than a few words to say respecting this bill. I have heard nothing from that member except heckling. Can it be that we are all wrong, and that the people who are expert in human rights are all wrong, and the government is providing the protection for people in this province that need to be provided, and that they're right? They haven't got anybody out there in the public shouting "hosanna" about this bill.

Earlier we heard the minister say that where it could be shown that intent to discriminate was part of this bill, he would amend it. I would say that if he is serious about that, we're kind of happy about that one small participation that he has made in this whole question. It strikes me, however, that that was said this afternoon. Government has access to legal counsel and to qualified support services that could have provided him the opportunity to have that on the table this evening. Yet we are debating a bill in principle and we're not quite sure what the principle implies. Notwithstanding that, there are aspects of this bill that we don't agree with, but at least if he really was serious about providing at least that miniscule advantage that we're looking for, we would have been somewhat grateful. But it's not here. He could have announced it at the opening of the session. He could have tabled it, because he suggested that it could be brought in, with leave, and so on and so forth, during the committee stage. We'll wait with bated breath and see what happens.

We have heard, since the bill was put forward, that the minister has been boasting across the country that this bill will place us in a position of leadership in the country. Yet what does the director of human rights for Canada have to say about it? He says it puts us behind the rest of the country. I don't think that Mr. Fairweather would have read this bill along with the comics. I think he would have read it and interpreted it to the best of his ability, which, incidentally, is regarded rather highly in this country. For him to have said that it is not an appropriate bill, in view of the fact that we are now living in the 1980s, should, I think, give pause to the government. The government, rather than sitting around joking as they are doing now, should have paused and thought about what they might be doing to human beings in this province.

I have spoken to a number of people who are very much in touch with the grass roots in British Columbia, which is a province of disparate human beings, probably to a greater extent than in many other jurisdictions in Canada, but worthy

[ Page 4516 ]

human beings nonetheless. The one thing that comes out of my discussions with the people in B.C. is the fact that there are many terrified people in our province with respect to what they see here. Our problems are even further intensified by the fact that we have massive unemployment. Many more people are now in a position of economic terror, certainly percentage wise and numerically, than we have had for years and years. Couple that with a low defence from government, and that is what creates the terror among these people.

[10:15]

People have a tendency either to depend upon a government to act as government should to protect the weakest among us, or to say that the government would rather divide and conquer. That is what I see here: weaken the already weak rather than provide the strength of government. The strong do not need the defence of government, nor have they ever. For heaven's sake, government in a democracy should be there to provide a defence for the weak within that society. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not provide that strength.

I'm the first to admit that the human rights legislation put forward by the NDP in the early seventies had its weaknesses. I was part of government at that time. I will say also that it was landmark legislation in its time; nonetheless it had its weaknesses. We had our own arguments in caucus with respect to who should be included and how and so on. Now we go back more than a decade and weaken what was better then, bringing us back to a point where we're going to have to say that we've got to do it all over again. But before we do it all over again, how many people are going to be harmed? How many people among us are going to be discriminated against for one reason or another or in one way or another? I don't feel that a bill that weakens what we have had is something that we should in any way be asking this House to pass into legislation. We begged that this bill be given time. I would like to go further and say: "Let's go back to where we were two years ago before everything was hacked up." You see, it's not as if this has come before us to change the situation that was in place until 1983. That happened by the minister dismissing an entire branch working on behalf of people — the human rights branch. Then he brought in Bill 27, a wishy-washy piece of nothing that went nowhere. Meanwhile, there is no human rights branch. Anybody out there now with a problem has no advocate, nobody standing up for him or her. What they have is the minister, who sits idly at his desk worrying about the affairs of the Socreds and not worrying about the affairs of the people, which any government should be elected to defend.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to stand in this Legislature and say that everybody out there has a great conscience, that everybody out there has the will to be fair, that everybody out there feels as though they are brothers and sisters of all mankind. But that is not the case, and we all know it. I hate to suggest that human nature is base, but I will say this: we have among us bullies, people who are intolerant, and people who will pick on those weaker than themselves. This does very little to assist that group. It weakens the existing legislation. It's incredible to me; we have the legislation still in force, but that legislation.... By a stroke of the pen or with the back of its hand, or however you want to put it, despite the fact that the legislation is still in force, the government provided that no implementation could occur in the future by firing the staff that would implement the original Human Rights Code.

We went for the period until now without the protection. Now we are bringing in the replacement with Bill 11 — a human rights council which will have about as much independence from the minister's desk and from the minister's authority as his secretary. He has the power to hire and fire: "Do what I say, or else." No independence. As a result of that — really an extension of his office.... Even if one could suggest in one's wildest imagination that this was a minister one could trust with human rights problems.... Unfortunately, I'm not in the category that I'm describing. But even if I were, what if something worse comes along, Mr. Speaker?

What we want here would be somewhat difficult to attain, but nonetheless we want protection for people. I believe the council proposed in Bill 11 is totally subject to the whim of the minister. As a matter of fact, unless he gives them teeth to do what they wish to do — hopefully the right thing — then they really can't do it. I see nothing here that will keep the government at arm's length, in any way, shape or form, from the implementation and total workings of this new council.

I don't think politics should have any way of creeping into human rights legislation, but I see it creeping in here. There's a body of opinion out there that feels that survival of the fittest, the strongest, the bravest, the whitest or whatever — those with blue eyes — is the way to go. That should not be part of the heritage that we leave to even the next group of people to come down that walkway of British Columbia. We should be saying to the young, the old, those of other colours, those of other faiths: "More than in the sight of God are you created equal." We should be saying that there are ways and means in which this parliament, this assembly, is going to make sure you have every protection, that this assembly is going to make sure that you have every protection that is necessary to see to it that you have equal opportunity with your "brother and sister." I hope against hope, and believe me, my hopes are getting rather thin, having been across the floor from this government for some little time.... But I hope against hope that they will listen to those voices out there that tell them that what they're doing is not right. I hope that they will listen and bring in amendment after amendment to this bill to strengthen it. I think the best amendment would be a brand new bill; I'd like to see an amended Human Rights Code bill. But having said that, I don't aspire to those lengths.

[10:30]

1 do hope that there will be significant amendments in committee stage of this bill, if for no other reason than to give the government the pride of having done something right for the people who need the government to really perform. We are tremendously disappointed in the fact that what we see before us provides that the proposed council will have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for human rights education. We go from the point where we were, and that is the point where people have not been educated in terms of their responsibility to one another, and so they therefore need the help of government and are not getting it to the extent they should be with this legislation. But beyond that, we have before us a bill that will not provide them with that responsibility to provide the education. Oh yes, I'm sure it would be costly, cost a few dollars. How about the pain that it costs our society when things like that are not done?

[ Page 4517 ]

You know, Mr. Speaker, I thought that prejudice, as I grew older and more acquainted with the society in which I live.... I had the feeling up until a very few years ago that we were really beginning to make progress in terms of tolerance and prejudice. But it took a depression to bring me up short, a depression which we are now living in, whether the government likes to believe it or likes to admit to it or not. But it took that to persuade me that we are intolerant, that we are prejudiced and that we will continue to be that way until such time as we have proper education out there that is going to teach people that by God, we're brothers and sisters. Somehow or another we just don't seem to understand that that's exactly what we are. I believe that it's up to a Human Rights Act and its implementation to provide that kind of educational program that's going to assist us through the next decade and the following decades. I am very sorry that we don't see a sign of at least that. It's almost as though the government says: "Let's ignore the problem, and maybe it'll go away." You can't ignore that particular problem, because it will never go away. It feeds upon itself.

I believe that unless this Legislature, through its statutes, insists that there be that kind of education, what we are doing is advocating sexism, racism and all the rest of the "isms" that are part of this situation. It becomes almost a custom.... I'm not going to say any of the sexist, racist terms that I've heard in the past few weeks in this Legislature or anywhere else, but, Mr. Speaker, like you and every other member, I have heard those terms, and I have heard them more often in the last two or three years than I had for many years. For crying out loud, why now are we going backwards? Why shouldn't we be going forward? Why shouldn't we be trying to educate people, particularly the young? Were it not for the adults among us, with all our heritage of hate, our youth now would be in a position where they wouldn't be sexist, racist and all these things. But they've been taught that. Now they've got to somehow or another be taught the opposite. Yet we see nothing in this bill to assist in that regard.

I see my green light is on. One could speak forever on this subject, but let me say this before I get cut off by the red light: how can the minister, without staff, implement even what he has in this bill? There is no provision here for any kind of implementation whatsoever, because there's no provision for staff. They fired the staff; they fired the implementers. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that makes the bill as hollow and false as a bill can be. For heaven's sake, that's not fair to those people that this government is bound and determined by their oath to protect.

There's a complaint, and who do you bring it to? You bring it to a five-person board. And what do they do with it? Who do they put to work? Probably nobody, because first they have to look at the complaint to find out whether it's frivolous, vexatious or all those other terms that they can use to decide that they're not going to proceed with the complaint. There is no way I can tolerate this bill, and no way I could ever vote for a piece of hollow legislation such as Bill 11.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was difficult for me, speaking on the hoist motion, to go back over my childhood and some of the problems I had with racism and discrimination growing up in the city of Detroit. I talked a little bit about the military service and the riots of 1967. I don't think I have to talk about that; that's in the public record now and why I oppose the legislation that's before us today.

1 would like to do a quick analysis on some of the problems of this bill, such as reasonable cause. I have another aspect, and then I'll get back to the reasonable cause aspect. Discrimination in public facilities. In looking at it in connection with Bill 27, if this bill goes through it will allow the insurance companies the right to discriminate to a certain extent, without any need to justify the discrimination, particularly in the rate structures. What I mean by this is that a disabled person could be discriminated against with this bill because of increased insurance rates put on to disabled people. I know I'll be talking a bit more about this under section 3 when we get into committee.

Another aspect I'd like to discuss is the council itself. With this new Bill 11, we're changing the council. You need to investigate a complaint, but it still allows the council to say they won't investigate a complaint if it's frivolous. Who is going to make that decision when it comes to discrimination in society?

Another aspect of this is that if it's more than six months old.... In the far north it sometimes takes letters six months to get down to the south. I just received some Christmas cards last week, so I know how long it takes Canada Post to get.... You're dealing with....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: This is from 1982!

1 know how difficult it is in a lot of communities in the far north that are still without telephone services. What is an individual supposed to do if they find some type of discrimination in the far north? Write a letter to this council? What happens if it takes more than six months? The individual is denied his or her due process.

Much of this I'll leave for the committee stage, but I would like to go back to something that I touched on earlier in my speech, and that's the native aspect of human rights. I said yesterday that the native people — the first citizens of this country — were denied the right to vote until 1949. When we look at comments that come out.... We've had a comment just in the last month coming out of Victoria from one of the ministers who made a statement with regard to native people wanting to be put in jail in Prince George for the winter so they could get clean sheets and be able to watch television. There is much discrimination in society against the first citizens of this province and country. It has been with us for 117 years, and that discrimination still comes through when we look at the aspect of the potlatch, something that still has not been recognized by the federal government and provincial government in this country.

Another aspect of the discrimination against first citizens is the religious aspect of sweathouses, and how that is being denied to individuals, particularly those who are incarcerated in prisons. As I said earlier in my presentation this morning, for the first time a prison in Canada, which is in Ontario, has allowed the use of sweathouses as a religious aspect for native individuals who are interned in prisons. As my colleague the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) spoke about earlier, in this province there is discrimination against the Quebecois, as we found in the Okanagan last summer, and you find this as you travel through this province and across the west.

[10:45]

Another aspect of discrimination is the Canadian-Japanese problem. The violations of human rights of Canadian citizens in 1939-1941 still has to be resolved.

[ Page 4518 ]

1 wonder why we are scrapping the old legislation and bringing in this new legislation. What benefit is it going to bring to the people of British Columbia? I doubt, by bringing in a watered-down version or taking away certain aspects that were included in the old legislation and that protected individuals that it is going to be of any benefit.

I remember when I was teaching at a native school in Good Hope Lake in the far north. One of the writing exercises that I had for the grade 4 to 7 children that were in my class was writing a report on what racism was. It was surprising, with a classroom full of native children, what they wrote regarding racism. I keep those in a file at my home in Atlin, and one day I'm going to bring those down; they'd make interesting reading. I hope to bring them down over the weekend, and maybe I could read those into the record in committee, because it gives an insight into how individuals — children in particular, who are not born with racism and only learn it because of their parents or other adults — feel when it comes to racism, something they see as a daily occurrence. It is a sad commentary on society that we find that children are not born with racism but learn it from adults and the way they deal with each other.

At times it's totally fascinating when we find out how children deal with each other. When I had my son to my home up in Atlin a few weeks ago — I live across from the reserve in Atlin — a friend about the same age came up, and they were playing. Part of my daily wear outside of this Legislature is a cowboy hat. My son Rocky was wearing the cowboy hat early in the morning. We were sitting on the porch, and his little friend Freddie, a native boy — Tlingit Indian — came up and said: "Rocky, can I borrow the cowboy hat?" Rocky said: "Sure." Freddie said: "Let's play cowboys and Indians. You be the Indian and I'll be the cowboy." It was interesting to see the native child; he wanted to change roles. He wanted my son, who has blond hair and blue eyes, to be the Indian, and Freddie would be the cowboy.

That was interesting. It's a shame that at times children can't become the lawmakers and make laws for us. If I were able to see what children would write about racism in my grades 4 to 7 classes, what kind of legislation they would bring forward.... If it was talking about disabled people, nationalities, religious status — to see what children would bring forward in dealing with legislation for people. If it really came down to the crux of it, I think children would probably bring forth better legislation than the Bill 11 that's in front of us today.

Yesterday when I was talking about racism and native people — I think it goes further than just native people in this province and this country — I used the word "fear," and how fear can generate in society to cause racism, a cancer that spreads through society. The opposition brought forward the six-month hoist motion to give the government time to reconsider its position, to maybe allow public input from groups who probably know more about human rights than the government does, to bring forward some input into the legislation. Yesterday I used the words "consider," "reconsider" and "considerate." I can see that this government has no intention of reconsidering its legislation; that's why they voted against the hoist motion. I doubt if they really want to consider the implications of Bill 11 on society. The last word is "considerate." We hope that all individuals who receive the honour of being elected as an MLA to serve all constituents would be considerate in dealing with the problems of society with racism, discrimination, nationality, problems with religious status.

I'm not going on any further. I made my 40 minute speech yesterday, and as Mark Twain said: "It's now how long you talk, it's what you say." I think that at seven minutes to eleven Pacific Daylight Time or seven minutes to one Eastern Standard Time, as one of the last speakers for the loyal opposition, not much more has to be said. It has been said.

MS. BROWN: My colleague is not one of the last speakers, because we're all going to be speaking on this bill. As he said, it's seven minutes to eleven. We've been going at it since 10 o'clock this morning, and we'll just carry on. I guess this is another occasion when the government has decided that we're going to sit around the clock, and to ensure that we're all here, some of us are resting so that when this tired little group disappears, a refreshed group will hopefully take our place and carry on this debate.

This is very important to us. As I said yesterday when I spoke on the hoist motion, this is not an academic exercise that we're involved in. This piece of legislation deals not just with an ideological commitment on our part to equality among all people and certainly to equality in terms of access to employment and opportunity and other things, but also with equality in terms of respect and dignity for every human being regardless of whatever differences they may have.

This is one of the basic principles on which the ideology of our party was built. Certainly the whole concept of human rights is one that attracted everybody to the New Democratic Party. We didn't become interested in human rights when we joined the party; we joined the New Democratic Party because we recognized that human rights was one of its pillars and was intrinsically a part of its makeup.

Yesterday afternoon a group of people who share this concern — a very strong feeling for human rights — were on the front lawn of the Legislature. A number of them spoke. I was particularly moved and I certainly identified with a young woman who addressed the gathering. She and I have so many things in common: like me, she is a woman, and like me she is a member of a visible minority.

I think she raised a number of points on the steps of the Legislature which should have been heard by all 57 members of this House. I realize that at five minutes to eleven there are only about — I don't know — eight or nine of us here, not even a quorum; and there isn't any point in calling for a quorum vote, because it wouldn't make that much difference. The reality of the situation is that most of the members on the government side are not interested. I know you are, Mr. Speaker, because you certainly are paying close attention and have paid close attention the whole way through this discussion.

MR. REID: There is a quorum.

MS. BROWN: Oh, okay.

HON. MR. ROGERS: That was a personal attack on the Speaker.

MS. BROWN: No, it's not. I said that the Speaker is the only person who has certainly paid very close attention throughout — and I want the record to show that it's the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) who is presently in the chair and to whom I'm referring when I say this.

[ Page 4519 ]

As she pointed out in her statements on the steps of the Legislature yesterday, we should have been prepared for this piece of legislation, because it was heralded in the throne speech. The only reference to human rights which showed up in that speech was that the government had a commitment to see to it that human rights become an individual responsibility. I know that in speaking on the throne speech a number of members on this side of the House, including myself, expressed our alarm that the government was going to abrogate its responsibility for those people in our society who need the protection of human rights legislation, and that they were going to be left defenceless. So here the bill is, as it was promised.

She also pointed out that, in fact, by this simple act — this Bill 11 — the government would be going counter to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which pointed out that it was in fact the state which had prime responsibility for ensuring that human rights and fundamental freedoms for all individuals and all groups would be protected. So clearly, this bill contravenes the international Declaration of Human Rights, which we as signatories to the United Nations should be respecting and upholding. Certainly I hope that someone is going to challenge this bill under the Charter of Rights, now that we have a charter, because it is clearly a violation of that particular charter.

She said something else which was even more moving than that when she said that what this bill does to her....

She was so alarmed and angered by the bill because it went back to the pre-1969 legislation, which I referred to yesterday and which my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) referred to tonight. She said that it goes back to the mid-fifties, when people such as her — and she is of East Indian origin — and others of Chinese, Japanese and native origin were prohibited from working in certain professions, barred from buying property in certain exclusive parts of town, and denied or restricted in access to public facilities such as restaurants, bars, theatres and swimming pools, and of course we know that. She went on to point out that there are still British Columbians alive today who carry the scars of those days. And it's the British Columbians who carry the scars who are largely responsible, as my colleague from Vancouver Centre pointed out, for the voluntary human rights council which came out of the late fifties and early sixties and encouraged the previous Social Credit government to introduce the first human rights legislation in this province in 1969. As he pointed out, we've gone full circle. We're right back to 1969 and before, because what we are debating today and what we tried to have the government hoist for six months is a piece of legislation which in practice does not give us — and when I say us, I'm talking about visible minority groups, people who are discriminated against based on sex and age and disabilities of other kinds, mental or physical — any more protection than the 1969 bill, not even as good protection really.

[11:00]

We live in a much more complicated and sophisticated society, Mr. Speaker, where forms of discrimination are even more subtle than they were in 1969 and in the early 1950s. It was difficult enough then to be able to identify when one was being discriminated against, but today it's even more difficult because as was pointed out earlier by a number of speakers on this side of the House — because none of the government members have spoken in defence of this bill, neither in support of it nor opposed to it — human rights is a very flexible and changing kind of concept. What we like to think about is that it's the weak who are defended by human rights legislation. In fact, the weak have to become strong enough to voice their anger and their rage at being discriminated against and demand protection before there is legislation on the books protecting them. It wasn't until the disabled in our society came together as a group and started demanding that they be covered by human rights legislation that we were forced to look at their rights and to recognize that they needed protection. It wasn't until women became strong enough, banded together and started operating as a constituency and saying, "We are being discriminated against; we will not tolerate that any longer," that the Human Rights Code took that into account and discrimination based on marital status, sex, and that kind of thing was introduced into the Code. It wasn't until native groups, black groups and other groups spoke up for themselves and started agitating that human rights codes were made flexible enough and opened to include groups. So even though we protect the weak, the weak have to be strong enough to speak up and to become dangerous to the government in power, to become a nuisance and a threat to the power structure, before the power structure opens its human rights legislation and covers them. That is the reality of the situation.

As my colleague from Vancouver Centre pointed out earlier tonight, nobody is given any rights. Nobody hands you rights on a platter. That's why the children in our society are not protected. That's why when governments cut funding the first group they cut are groups who service children such as family support workers. Children have no clout; that's why. It is not until a group is strong enough to force the recognition of their rights on the attention of a government and to place government in a situation where they are threatened by that group, either through having the power of the ballot or some other way, that that group is recognized, the codes opened up and their protection enshrined in it. That is the reason why I am alarmed that this government has now decided that groups in our society such as women, ethnic and racial minorities and others have been so weakened by the economic crisis that we are going through, as well as by other measures introduced by this government to weaken them. They have been so weakened that the time is now right to force through a piece of human rights legislation which deprives them of protection which they formerly had fought for and enjoyed. That's alarming. That frightens me. That means that we as women have to fight that battle all over again. We have to have our consciousness raised again. We have to do the analysis once more. We have to come together again and say that other things are going to have to wait, because a threat to our security and dignity as human beings is now under assault. The protection which we formerly had is being removed for us, and we cannot live with this kind of vulnerability.

What this act means is that ethnic and racial minorities, visible minorities — the federal government refers to us as "people with novel and distinctive features"; that's how we're referred to in the federal Green Paper, which was formerly the basis of their human rights legislation — we of novel and distinctive features are going to have to stop our fight on behalf of other groups and come back and fight our own battle all over again to have our rights enshrined in legislation and our protection reintroduced. We once more have to pose a threat to the power structure. That's what we have to do. We have no choice, because the government, by

[ Page 4520 ]

this act, has served notice that we are so weak that we can be ignored, we can be exploited, we can be abused. That's what it's saying.

When the minister introduces legislation which deliberately eliminates the basic concept of reasonable cause, which really doesn't spell out in detail that you are protected against sexual harassment, doesn't spell out in detail that you can't be fired because you're pregnant — or after your pregnancy your job is not there for you to return to.... It doesn't spell that out. You still, even with "reasonable cause" in the act, have to prove that. But even that little bit of protection, which it took us 2,000 years to achieve, is gone. That's gone.

Do you know what that means? The minister says: "Read the bill" — that in fact all the protection is there, and it's the best protection in the world. Do you know what that means? That means that an employer can refuse to hire you because you are a woman. It means that, as my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) indicated in a letter he received from one of his constituents, when a young woman applied for a job as a baker's helper, which was advertised, the baker said: "I want a man. I don't want a woman for that job." He didn't have to give a reason. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because in this act the great loophole section says that if there are "occupational requirements...." He could say: "The occupational requirement of my bakery is that there is only one bathroom, and I believe that men and women shouldn't use the same bathroom."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's bona fide.

MS. BROWN: That's right. He can say: "The bona fide occupational requirement of my bakery is that there is nobody in this bakery under the age of 82 and male, and to introduce a young woman into the bakery at this time would be disruptive. The dough would fall and the bread wouldn't turn out right," or some nonsense like that. As an expert on baking, he knows. He can say: "It's been the history of this bakery since my great-grandfather started it that we have never had women in our bakery, and to introduce a woman in the bakery would be breaking a tradition established by this whole family regime, and therefore a bona fide occupational requirement of this job is that she be male in order to do it." Under the previous bill, as inadequate as it was, she could file a complaint and say, "that's not a reasonable cause." The two of them would go before the human rights board. He would argue his case and she would argue hers, and the commission would say: "That's not a reasonable cause. It may be a tradition and custom, but it certainly is not a reasonable cause."

Reasonable cause is a protective device; that's all it is. Even though it was never enshrined and written in the act that women could file complaints about being sexually harassed on the job, because of that clause they were able to do that. Even though it has never been written in the act that your political affiliation could not be used as a form of discrimination against you in terms of employment or rental accommodation or whatever, under the protective shield of "reasonable cause" you could file a complaint.

What the minister has not given us is reasonable cause for that being taken out of the act, except that in every single section of this act, you get the beautiful words at the beginning that say: thou shalt not discriminate based on race, creed, colour, sex, and physical or mental disability, and at the end it says "unless there is a bona fide occupational requirement for you to do so." Thou shalt not refuse to rent accommodation to a person because of their race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, age, or whatever, unless.... Thou shalt not do this unless.... You go through this bill and every single statement made in it, which if it were allowed to stand would make the bill, as the minister likes to described it, good human rights legislation.... In every single instance he puts a loophole in, and that's what we mean when we say intent has to be proven. Most of the bill is lifted — sections 3, 5, 8, whatever — verbatim almost out of the Ontario statutes. There have been federal and provincial court cases in Ontario — and I can name a few of them — which demonstrate that the onus is on the complainant to prove intent. The precedent has been established. The minister is saying that if we establish the precedent here, then he'll bring in an amendment and clarify the act. If it's so easy for the government to pick up the bad habits of other provinces, why isn't it as easy to at least learn from the mistakes made by those other provinces? Why isn't that possible?

The Ontario legislation, which as I said has been lifted from verbatim, has been tested in the courts. The case of Weatherstone and Goodman, of Pennell, Osler and Anderson. The judgment brought down in every instance was the same. It said: "The burden of proof is clear. It shows that a complainant must present evidence showing that there was intent."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We've already dealt with that.

MS. BROWN: No, you haven't dealt with it. You've said that if it's proven here you will bring in an amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I said I will bring in an amendment.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you will bring in an amendment; fair enough. Okay. So we don't need to worry about intent because the minister is going to bring in the amendment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: All you need to do is give me leave.

MS. BROWN: We will. When are you going to table the amendment so that we can see it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Whenever we get into that section.

[11:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: Okay, because it's important that we be sure that the amendment does the job that it is supposed to do. I'm glad that we've had some impact, anyway. I appreciate the fact that we've had some impact and the intent section is going to be dealt with.

What about the reasonable cause section?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about it?

MS. BROWN: Is it going to be reintroduced? Is the reasonable cause section also going to be an amendment which will be introduced? The reality of the situation is that my statements can be shortened considerably if the minister

[ Page 4521 ]

would indicate either by verbal or non-verbal communication that reasonable cause is going to be reintroduced into the act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker does not wish to influence the debate, but the member will appreciate that such questions are probably better reserved for the committee stage of the bill than on the broader debate of the bill at this time.

MS. BROWN: There's no question about that. I was simply trying to assist the business of the House by saying that if there was some indication that "reasonable cause" was also an amendment being prepared by the minister to be introduced to the House — although I am speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the minister in case he wants to show me a sign — I would be very willing to shorten the statements I'm about to make about reasonable cause.

No sign. Oh well, okay, here we go then.

The problem with reasonable cause is that it is very important to women, because a number of the complaints which are filed by women under this act are not spelled out specifically in the act. The only way in which it's going to be possible to file those complaints once the new act, Bill 11, is introduced is if there is a reasonable cause section, if it's reintroduced.

Let me give you an example. It's one I use as often as I possibly can. It's the habit that so many landlords and landladies have of not wanting to rent accommodation to single parents who are also welfare recipients. There is absolutely nothing in this bill which says that you cannot refuse to rent accommodation to a single parent or a welfare recipient. It talks about race, creed, sex, religion, age, mental and physical disability, class, but it doesn't deal with the new family concept which exists in many instances — that of a single parent who is also a female in some instances, but certainly that of a single parent who is a welfare recipient.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That has to be included. That kind of protection has to be in the act. In addition, the kind of protection against systemic discrimination, which women still have to deal with, either has to be spelled out in the act....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: There has to be proof that "class" means welfare recipient. That has to be proven, but it's okay, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the systemic discrimination under which women still suffer — as I said before, sexual harassment, the whole question of pregnancy, and the unclear treatment of that under the present bill — either has to be spelled out or we have to have "reasonable cause" in the bill.

You have to realize that what we're dealing with is a piece of legislation which doesn't stand in isolation. It has to do with the fact that the rentalsman's office was gutted at the same time as the Human Rights Commission was disbanded and at the same time as welfare rates were reduced for single people without children under the age of 26. A number of other resources were eliminated — the whole advocacy work that used to be done by the Status of Women Council and that kind of thing. Funding terminated.

So the bill cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a package which really serves to do violence to women. It's an assault on us. That's why reasonable cause has to be reintroduced.

Mr. Speaker, one of the really important things missing from the bill is the admonition that this new human rights council, commission, board — or whatever you want to call it — has to have responsibility for educating the public at large. I'll tell you why that has to be done. Bigotry and racism are not genetic. Neither is an appreciation of the rights of people. Bigotry is learned. Discrimination is learned. Respect for the rights of others and respect for the differences of other people is learned behaviour too. That has to be taught. There isn't very much that we can do about discrimination and bigotry in terms of eliminating it outside of the educational sphere. As my colleague said earlier, you can legislate against it, but the real job of wiping it out is based on the educational role of the human rights commission or council, as the case may be.

The previous human rights chairperson, Mrs. Strongitharm, knew that. It's in her recommendation. She recommended that the educational role of the commission should be expanded; instead, the minister has responded to that recommendation by eliminating it completely.

We used to have in this province a commission within the Ministry of Education that had responsibility for eliminating racism and sexism from textbooks. That's not possible anymore because one of the first things the government did was to wipe out that commission — fire them. They didn't exist anymore. The Human Rights Code has to do that but it doesn't. The Code says that no person shall publish or display before the public, or cause to be published or displayed, a notice, sign or symbol which indicates discrimination or the intention to discriminate. It does not deal with degradation.

I can remember, because it has happened during part of the 28 years I have lived in this province — and certainly part of the 34-odd years I have lived in this country — when every school and every library in this country had Little Black Sambo on its shelf. That book didn't discriminate against anybody but it was derogatory. It degraded a race of people. Complaints were filed in Ontario under the Human Rights Code, and one of the very first things that the black community did when it was strong enough to have some impact on legislation in Ontario was to file a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission about that book as well as about a number of others. And the Human Rights Commission brought down a ruling that said that that book was damaging because of its derogatory nature to a specific race of people and therefore should not be a prescribed textbook in the schools, or even a book on our public library shelves.

Under this act, that wouldn't be possible. There is nowhere.... I notice that the minister is not contradicting me on this, because it's true. The commission that could have dealt with it in the Ministry of Education has been wiped out and there is no protection under the act whereby a member of any racial or ethnic or religious group could file a complaint against a textbook in the schools on the grounds not that it discriminates but that it is derogatory and therefore hurts in some way.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: We're on the legislation. I'm speaking about the discriminatory publications, the inadequacy of that section.

Sexism is something else that was in the process of being wiped out through that commission when it existed. Today in

[ Page 4522 ]

this province women should be able to file complaints under the Human Rights Code about some of the derogatory pornographic material that is on the shelves of corner stores and other places, distributed by various magazine distributors in this province. It degrades women. We should be able to file complaints under the Human Rights Commission against a distributor based on the fact that that person is distributing material which.... It's not that it discriminates against us. God knows those magazines have nothing but women in them. They're not discriminating against us, but they're degrading us.

MR. REYNOLDS: What about Playgirl? It's got men in it.

MS. BROWN: Men should be able to file too if they are offended by the way they are treated in Playgirl magazine. I would fight for their right to be able to file complaints under the act if it were possible. I don't discriminate against men.

MR. REYNOLDS: Baloney!

MS. BROWN: Well, I may discriminate against you. I may have some questions about you personally, but I don't discriminate against men. I'm the mother of two men, so don't tell me about my relationship with men.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound finally woke up. He brushed his teeth and came in here to harass.

MR. REYNOLDS: I've been here all day.

MS. BROWN: That is not true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We'll cease the interjections. Please address the bill.

MS. BROWN: I would like to address the bill if you would protect me from the harassment from that member for Vancouver–Howe Sound. I wish he would get to his feet and speak either in support of the bill or in opposition to it. But not one member of that back bench over there....

MR. REYNOLDS: Not true.

MS. BROWN: Who spoke in support of this bill?

MR. REYNOLDS: That's not true. You don't know your facts.

[11:30]

MS. BROWN: Have you spoken in support of this bill? Not even he can support this bill, and God knows he supports all kinds of things.

In any event, the other thing the minister said is that there is a section in this bill dealing with affirmative action. Clearly he doesn't understand what affirmative action is, or he wouldn't say that. He drew to my attention section 19 of the act. That's not affirmative action. I'm willing to send him a copy of an affirmative action bill. I've introduced a private member's bill a number of times myself, and I also have a bill from Ontario and other jurisdictions which says: "There shall be affirmative action programs designed to achieve equality." That's what the bill says. It doesn't say that if a program exists, the commission or council, as the case may be, may permit the program to be excluded from criticism under the act, or if there's an institution which exists for the sole purpose of supporting one particular group in society, that's okay. We all know that. Sure, if there is a Roman Catholic school which exists for Roman Catholics, we know that the minister isn't going to interfere with them.

I really regret that my green light is on.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Maybe I'm the only person who regrets that, because there isn't any question that the members on the government side have not failed to show their contempt for the whole question of human rights.

In any event, this bill needs to be amended seriously. It needs a preamble which states very clearly that the government through this piece of legislation is enshrining the protection of the rights of all people in this province and not just a chosen few and that the role of the commission is going to be not just to enforce this legislation but to go out and educate the community at large as well. The reality of the situation, Mr. Speaker, is that you measure a community, a province, a nation or a group of people by the way they treat the weakest in their midst. You measure them by the value that they place on people whom they can crush if they want to. Based on that, you can see that this government cannot be respected. I have no choice, Mr. Speaker, but to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 9

NAYS 19

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

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I feel a little undressed right now; I haven't got my "A" button that I can wear. But I know my research people will go out and locate it, because if we're going to get back to the debates of last year, we're going to see again an erosion of the dignity of parliament that this government is continuing to enforce.

I still find it amazing, on hearing all these interjections from various back-benchers of the government, that not one of them will stand up and defend this piece of legislation. Even my buddy MLA in the cabinet over there hasn't got up

[ Page 4523 ]

and explained how all the people in his riding have come to him and said that they agree with this piece of legislation, and that they are happy to see over a thousand cases of complaints that are being legally, properly and democratically filed under the legislation that is now in place, the Human Rights Code.... These are complaints that have been brought to the government from discrimination, and this government has allowed them to gather dust in cardboard boxes after they fired all the investigative staff who were hired by the people to enforce rights and bring dignity to British Columbians. I haven't heard any one of the private members or the cabinet get up and say that their constituents are happy to see that action taking place. I find that shocking.

I am one of the grey-haired guys who believe in the dignity of parliament and the debates that have made the British parliamentary system one of the greatest democratic institutions. We have legislation on our books and rights that have been fought for by every group in our community. We have religious leaders from all the churches, people from business groups, women, and delegations from ethnic groups who have come to each one of us, and they know they are coming to the members of the NDP caucus, and they are also coming to the members of the Social Credit caucus. I have seen copies of letters sent to the minister who is piloting this piece of discriminating legislation through our Legislature. He has also had delegations giving their viewpoints in opposition to this bill and the one that came in on July 7, 1983, commonly called Bill 27.

[11:45]

I really do find it, Mr. Speaker.... I'm going to talk to you, Mr. Speaker, because the minister has sneaked out of the House. He is, I imagine, going back to get some more notes so he can get up and defend this. Or has he gone to bed?

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

When I go through this piece of legislation, as I said in earlier debate, I find that it has a lot of excellent window dressing in it. It says a lot of the right things. It's like the advertising that comes out in the media — the advertising that comes out in the slick publications. The advertising that the auto industry uses to a great degree talks about aerodynamics, talks about the gas consumption and kilometres, which a few of us are not quite sure of, and talks about going over piles of rocks. But it really doesn't deal with what the majority of the car-owners are looking for: the maintenance, the cost of repairs, the cost of repairing the fenders.

This is what this piece of legislation fails to do. It fails to give the most important part that human rights legislation must have; it must have in its makeup a way of educating people. It must have a way of giving leadership to the community for the changes that the world is bringing on to every one of us in our own communities. Bigotry was common; it was humorous; it was considered a lifestyle, even in my younger days.

Mr. Speaker, I know that if you had the okay from your House Leader or your caucus leader, that you could rise in this House and give some of the history of changes of attitudes that you have seen over the years. Those changes didn't come quietly. They didn't come because we could all see the light. They came because there was pressure from every segment of ethnic groups, pressure from every sex, pressure that was needed to jog our province ahead. I think this is where I find that the government is using high-pressure advertising. They're saying the right things, but it's not enforceable and it won't be enforced.

That is clearly demonstrated, Mr. Speaker, by the thousands of complaints that right now are gathering dust in the office of the Human Rights Commission. Complaints have been laid by people who felt that they were discriminated against, but the government does not have the will to give that protection that our legislation presently gives to the people. That legislation was passed by many members of the government who voted for it when it first came in. They gave lip service to all the wonderful programs of the Human Rights Commission in the last election.

I remember last year, in one of the many all-night debates, reading from an article — I shouldn't say it was an article; it was a political advertisement — of the Social Credit Party. It was praising the work of the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) for his work with the Human Rights Commission. I haven't seen him up here defending this piece of legislation, because he knows as well as every one of the members of the government, every one of the leading church groups and ethnic groups, the Status of Women, the trade union movement as well as the business community that this piece of legislation is a disgusting sham. This is 1984, Mr. Speaker, when our province, our citizens and our youth should expect and demand far better treatment than this legislation will give.

It doesn't seem that many years ago when we were all reading in the paper of Northern Ireland that a minority of 30 percent of the population who happened to be Roman Catholics were marching on the streets, protesting and signing petitions. What were they asking for? They were asking for some equality, some sharing in public housing. We had a city council dominated by English-speaking white Protestants. After building public housing they brought in legislation that allocated that housing solely to Protestants. Some 30 percent of the population were protesting and bringing delegations to the government asking for some equality so they could share equally on a percentage basis for the minority. They were asking for the same protection with their trade unions, where they could have rights to meaningful jobs where they could take an apprenticeship and learn a trade. But in Northern Ireland, which was under the British Crown, they could deny Catholics that right. What has happened?

I can remember living in beautiful British Columbia, where we thought we had everything, and we have. I couldn't understand. I'm not a Catholic. I couldn't understand why Protestants, and English-speaking Protestants at that, could not share equally the housing and the right to jobs, the right to apprenticeships. What has happened in Northern Ireland? They were denied human dignity, the dignity that lack of discrimination would have provided. That festered. You can push people down, but eventually they fight back. They started their fighting with clubs and pitchforks, but as each of us knows, the violence in Northern Ireland has gone from clubs, petitions and marches to guns and bombs. That hatred has spread all through the British Isles, because simple human rights that could have been given at that time were allowed to be eroded.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: My buddy MLA over there — because people fought for rights he has to call them communists. Mr. Speaker, you know that if they haven't got a sound

[ Page 4524 ]

argument or a right argument or the guts to stand up and fight for something, then they remark snidely that it is communism, Trotskyism or Bolshevism. We've heard them all. Any time there is any opposition to the status quo, when they are embarrassed, they call names. The name-calling goes on and on.

If rights are given equally and honestly, we do not look at discrimination, as the bill implies, that it must be intentional. We all know that to prove intention and to prove discrimination are two very different things. It's not what is said in the bill and it's not what is not said in the bill, but it's the philosophical concept and difference that I think those who are fighting for rights and those who are denying them have.

I don't think there's any justification. Last year, after the July 7 speech from the Minister of Finance, everything was hidden under the guise of restraint. We said that we have to restrain, we have to cut back on the civil service and on the expenditures of governments, but there are certain things that we can't cut back on. We can't cut out human rights. We can't cut out enforcement of the legislation we had today. I'm quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that if some particular loophole for large business corporations were still on the books, this government, with their free enterprise belief in law and order, would be enforcing every loophole for a large business corporation.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that's true. You know that if the forest companies found a loophole that was still on the books to get additional money back from stumpage, the Minister of Forests would be running to the Minister of Finance and getting the cheque to send it away. But when it comes to enforcing the legislation that is present on the statutes of this province, when they have complaints that have been legally an properly filed with the commission, the government does nothing. Very much like all our members, they sit there in the House and they do nothing. They do not get up to speak. They do not get up to debate it. They do not get up to explain why they have taken out "for cause" — one little section. We do hear across the floor that the minister is going to amend that and that "for cause" is going to be put back into the legislation. I'd expect to see my buddy MLA get up and speak and explain why it's going to go back in.

[12:00]

Mr. Speaker, I keep getting interrupted. I find that if I don't have my hands in my pockets at times, I start waving them around. I know that you would not like a lot of hand waving, so I am trying to be cool. I am trying to stir up a little bit of human kindness in that government side of the House. I expect to see my buddy MLA get up and support me.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you heard that interjection from the minister over there, but he says he's doing my work. I'll tell you....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the members please let the member speak and just listen quietly. Would you kindly stay on the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I was just making a kind of a comment that the minister said that he was doing my work. Normally in a parliament we can make some plans ahead. A lot of us, as MLAs, do make appointments with people. We do have responsibilities.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I listen to my horse-racing friend over there. He picks out nothing but losers when he goes to the track. He picks out nothing but losers when he supports types of legislation like this. He doesn't listen to the community which is saying: "Let's take a second look." Let's bring them in and do some consulting with the community. I know the minister had a group that came in and was going to consult with him. They were going to sit down and give some recommendations. The first thing they had to do was sign a document that they wouldn't disclose what they discussed.

You say that we want public input and want the community to give assistance to drafting legislation that is going to protect human rights, and yet we can't debate it and discuss it openly with the government, or have delegations who present their briefs go out and tell the public what kind of reaction they got from the government. They have to sign a document that they wouldn't disclose what they discussed. I could understand that if we were discussing tax legislation or if we were discussing changes in certain major pieces of legislation that affected the revenue of this province. But when you are discussing some basic legislation that gives protection on simple human rights, that we must have secrecy.... We have a government and back-benchers who are told to sit down, to keep quiet and not to discuss or debate it, because they know that when there is any across-the-House debate, or every time they get up and start defending some of this legislation, they put their foot into it. They leave it open for exposure of how shallow this particular legislation is.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As we go through this, I just look at the clock and realize that I spoke from yesterday to today. I think this is very significant. I was going through my notes, and when I was first going to speak on this particular piece of legislation, when it first came up, it was Friday, April 13. I couldn't help but think, when we were debating this legislation on Friday, April 13, how unlucky the people of British Columbia were. Granted, it has been postponed, and the notes I had very sincerely prepared for that particular day were not used. I think it is significant that the government has failed to make any alterations of any major importance in the bill this year compared to Bill 27 which they brought in last year — a bill that generated 20,000 to 25,000 people marching out in front of the parliament buildings in Victoria, and had 60,000 marching down Georgia Street in Vancouver. British Columbia was on the brink of chaos. It was pulled back, and they went to the church leaders and said, "Yes, we will sit down and consult with you and listen to your input," but that input depended on their signing a document saying that they would not disclose what they discussed.

We can go through some of the articles that have come out in the paper over the last year. "B.C. embarks on a dangerous experiment," said one of the human rights spokesmen. Another one says: "Our reputation is on the line." It's not only the government's reputation; it's the reputation of every one of us who live in British Columbia. Every one of us who is lucky and privileged to be elected to this House and who doesn't get up and oppose this legislation that allows that people who are going to be directly affected.... Our reputation is on the line.

[ Page 4525 ]

1 find the apathy and the humour that members of the government attempt to show quite shocking. I know from talking to them that underneath.... I know that the Minister of Transportation and Highways can't pick horses; he can't even pick good legislation. But he really doesn't believe it.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: It's funny, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to discrimination. You mention that an individual has poor choice at picking winners at the racetrack and that's discrimination. But when a person has filed a complaint to the government under British Columbia statutes and the government tends to ignore it and allows them to gather dust in a cardboard box, that's not discrimination. That's not discrimination, according to my buddy MLA on the other side of the House. That's not discrimination; that is only typical Social Credit tactics.

What infuriates me at times, Mr. Speaker, is the government's complete disregard of this Legislature and the community, because they are taking their direction from the Fraser Institute. The Fraser Institute seems to have the ear of the government. It has the power to change our laws, change our outlook in government, that such things as the Human Rights Commission are not needed.

I find it shocking that the minister bringing this through is the same minister who has not brought in the legislation giving protection to farmworkers in this province — protection under the compensation bill, protection of minimum wage. These members can sit there and chuckle and laugh, and I guess somewhere down the line the Fraser Institute says if more people work for less money we will prosper.

The human rights that should be given to farmworkers, the simple protection that the Workers' Compensation Board has given to all other industrial workers, has not been given to citizens of our province. I find it is hard, Mr. Speaker, when the same minister that is gutting the legislation that is on the books.... The legislation that is on the books needs upgrading. What was brought in '72, '73 and '74 needs to be brought up to 1984. But it doesn't mean that we should destroy it. We should improve it. We should take it from the groups that have made presentations to the government, the commission and our caucus, to sit down and listen to them and understand some of the needs that we must take into consideration. We must progress. We must analyze the effect of the education that has gone on. I said earlier in the debate on the same bill that we are not going to change it solely by enforcement or legislation. But if we are going to change the concepts of bigotry, the concepts that racial or religious discrimination is wrong, the discrimination in the workplace, the attitudes of men to women.... If that's going to change, it is only going to change slowly and it's going to change with education, with discussion and with open debate.

I say this is the important part that the commission was doing, the 10 or 12 years it has been in operation. It made a few steps down the road to progress. It's made a few steps that were good, and I quite believe if you talk to people within the community, it made a few mistakes.

[12:15]

The greatest progress made was the education in schools, the talks they gave to the service groups. The attitude was taking place that people should recognize discrimination. As I said earlier, I think that every one of us at one time or another has inadvertently discriminated against someone. We thought it was quite humorous. We made a slip of the tongue. I remember the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) making a slip of the tongue, and he would be the last one to really mean it. I have made slips of the tongue. But if we are going to make progress, we have to have that debate. We have to have that education. We have to listen. That's why I again say to the minister, and to each and every one of the 35 members of the government, that this piece of legislation is so important that we should have it sent to a legislative committee. That committee should be empowered to hear delegations from every ethnic group, every trade union and every business group from all sections of our province. They should bring to the members of that committee their particular views and requests for changes.

I only hope that if the government does see fit to take that piece of advice and that the committee that is struck is not summarily dismissed like the committee that this Legislature set up to study the privatization of the testing stations of the province. It was set up to study legislation and to study changes. All of a sudden I read in the local paper that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) had wiped it out with just a stroke in his happy, joking way. The committee that was set up by this Legislature was dissolved just like the commission that was set up by the Human Rights Code. It was abolished before the legislation was even discussed. It was abolished before the particular bill that is replacing the legislation was even drafted. If we are to believe the minister and the government that this is a new bill.... This was a new bill that came from a lot of input from groups that had to sign that they would not discuss publicly what their input consisted of.

In closing, I would like to again stress that human rights are something that you and I and everyone in this province have to fight for, expose, debate and discuss. We need the input from all sides of the communities. We must have that open discussion. I'm really sorry that this House is not hearing from all the members of the government who failed to get up and debate it. I only hope that what I said had happened in Ireland because they started off denying people equal rights to public housing.... They denied Catholics equal rights to learning a trade. They denied them the opportunity to join unions and get seniority in industry. The violence that came out of it.... I don't want to see the apathy.... If this legislation goes through without the investigative teams that are needed, without the educational groups that are needed to go out into the community and explain the changes that we need in 1984, there will be violence. When you have a thousand or more complaints sitting in cardboard boxes, gathering dust, and this government fails to act on it, I say there is going to be violence. I want it on the record of this Legislature that I predicted it, and when historians read it, they will know that at least the socialists and the NDP stood up and opposed it and the government sat back and rolled over any opposition, any debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think it's ironically appropriate that the government chose to bring this bill in and get it through as quickly as possible before too many of them have to speak on it or state their philosophical position on why they did away with the original human rights bill.

[ Page 4526 ]

My knowledge is — and I may be wrong — that only three government members have spoken on the bill. The records show that the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) has spoken on the bill; the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) spoke; and the minister himself spoke in introducing the bill.

The bill really represents a philosophical statement of where a government is. I would hope that before the debate is over the leader of the government would stand up and say why this bill is here, why this government has deliberately embarked upon the course of emasculating the Human Rights Commission and what purpose this legislation's replacement will serve from a philosophical point of view. Why has British Columbia reached this point now under this government that this legislation is necessary? I would think in this kind of debate that would be appropriate. But petty little venal minds that giggle about racist issues or sexist issues that still exist and are embedded in the history of this province bring in this kind of legislation and don't say why they believe this weakening is necessary and why they think that all of a sudden the garden will be rosy out there.

Mr. Speaker, history is very quickly condensed in this province. Above your chair is carved the date when this chamber was opened: 1897. It was a racist province when this building was opened. The Premier of the day, the second Premier of this province, Amor de Cosmos, was a flagrant racist, and he reflected the mood and the attitude of this province at that time. The subjects of racism in those days were the Chinese and the East Indians. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in this province in 1936, which is not too long ago in the record of human history, there was an attempt to allow the orientals to vote in British Columbia, and the antecedents of this very group politically were the ones who fought most against the idea of orientals voting in British Columbia. That wasn't achieved until many years later.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Little fat boy!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've often wondered about whether or not I should speak of my own experiences in this House. But I think probably it is historically a good thing that the minister came in and made the little crack about "little fat boy." Do you know, Mr. Speaker, how that remark started? In the mid sixties when I was speaking, a certain member of the cabinet yelled across at me "little fat Jew boy," That's how that started, Mr. Speaker. I have never talked about that publicly, but that's exactly how that remark started. It started in this House when a cabinet minister yelled across at me, "little fat Jew boy." One newspaper reported it. The rest shortened it, Mr. Speaker.

Now I'm a big boy, Mr. Speaker, and I can handle that stuff and I understand where it's coming from. But here we are with all that time gone, and that same kind of bigotry, ignorance and viciousness is still there.

MS. BROWN: That's what is so frightening about this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: It's all right, Ms. Brown. You and I understand the kinds of things that happen in terms of personal experience, but you and I are fortunate. We've never had to suffer the economic end of that kind of bigotry. In the area of West Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, until 20 years ago there was a covenant that said Jews and orientals couldn't own property there. Did one council member in West Vancouver ever open their mouth in public against that covenant? How was that stopped? It wasn't stopped because of the mercy of the bunch of jerks over there. It was stopped because ordinary, decent people said we've had enough of that kind of racism in this province.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That minister and that government represent a turning back of the clock of bigotry that extended right through this province right up until the time we brought in the human rights bill. My own brother applied to medical school and was not allowed in because there was a quota against Jews — that existed in this country. I've never discussed these things ever, but I'm leaving and I feel free to discuss them now. You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a quota against Jewish students. I've never discussed these things before because I felt they were out of place in terms of my own experience being related to debate, but I'm leaving shortly, and I feel entitled to say some of these things in this chamber now. When professional schools limited access to students, not on the basis of their grades or accomplishments but purely on the basis of their race or religion, in this province of British Columbia as recently as in my own history and my own hearing in this very chamber, then surely racism and bigotry still exist.

I have generally laughed it off. I've not suffered. I've done very well in this society, but I tell you that East Indian or black children don't get the chance to laugh it off under this government. At election time every one of you goes around crumbing to every ethnic group that you can lay your eyes on, shaking their hands, slapping their backs and asking for a vote, yet there is the seed of some of the smug jokes and statements that exist in the corridors. The racist and sexist attitudes of this government; the history of Social Credit and Solon Low and that whole background, with the filth of its attitudes toward other races and religions; the attacks on Remi de Roo here in this city — on a man of the cloth; the little jokes, the fun and the humour....

When I was first elected Premier of this province I got a little card in the mail from a prominent club — these are stories I've never talked about publicly — in downtown Vancouver saying that I could be an honorary member. I picked up the phone and told my secretary to get me the director of the club.

[12:30]

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You can say anything you want, Mr. Member....

MR. BLENCOE: Why don't you listen for a while, Phillips?

MR. BARRETT: Let him just rattle on; it's irrelevant.

I received this card saying that now that I was Premier of the province they would be honoured to have me as a member of the club. I phoned up the secretary and said: "Is it not true, sir, that you do not allow Jews in that club?" The answer was: "Yes, but that policy is under review." I said: "Why did you send me the card?" "Well, we've always had the Premier as an honorary member of this club." I said: "I'm sending you

[ Page 4527 ]

the card back, and when you change your policy, then I will consider being an honorary member."

Mr. Speaker, I'm in a position to brush those things aside, never talk about them publicly, and generally ignore them, because I'm one of the powerful, one of the policymakers. But that kind of stuff still goes on in this province. Legislation can't wash people's minds, but at least it can tell them to keep their mouths shut. Do you know how much harm open bigotry that is not legally attacked, as a philosophical position, by a government does to an Oriental child or adult, to an East Indian person, or to someone of a different religious faith? Do you know how much harm it does to the Japanese citizens of this province, who had property taken away from them while they were Canadian citizens? You cannot right those wrongs, but the least you can do is have the decency to put in writing that you will not tolerate that kind of behaviour, and that's all that these people ask for. They know the law won't change the racism, but they at least expect the decency of a government to stand up and say: "We don't practise it, we don't believe in it, and we forbid it in law if we can prove that it has taken place." What's wrong with that?

Instead, philosophically this bill is weakening the gains we have made in fighting racism in this province. Philosophically we have not had a statement from the leader of the government as to why this bill is necessary. There are leaders of ethnic and religious groups out there in this community who are deeply concerned about this legislation. Some of them are Social Credit, some are Liberal and some are Conservative, but they are decent, hard-working citizens of this province who have expressed those concerns, and they don't even have the dignity of a reply from the Premier himself as to why this bill is here.

Is it to save money? What abuses were so overwhelming in the previous legislation that they forced you to go ahead with this kind of bill? Can you face any of the religious community leaders in this province and say that that's what they wanted? Is there one single religious community leader in this province who has publicly stood up and said: "I agree with this government's legislation"? Name him or her. You would think that in a bill like this there would be one community leader with a religious background or from the religious community who would stand up publicly and say: "I support this legislation." Not one leader of the religious community has stood up and said that they support this legislation. Has there been one prominent leader of any ethnic group who has stood up and said that they agree with this legislation? Not at all.

Now that I've said some things that I've not said before in this House, I should relate my experiences when I was a personnel officer in this province. We had a hiring practice in this province: WASPs only. In the 1950s, when I took a senior position with the government of the day, we didn't hire what was known as DPs. That's right, there was a practice against that. Displaced persons were not in line for government jobs. You had to be white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. We didn't have East Indians or Chinese in the civil service, and we had damn few Jews in the civil service — my brother and I were two.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Why don't you be quiet?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you're absolutely right. I'll ask the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to come to order. Interjections are unparliamentary at the best of times, but from another member's seat they are most unparliamentary. Perhaps we can have some decorum, peace and quiet, and listen to the Leader of the Opposition, who has taken his place in debate.

MR. BARRETT: At that time there were also political limits on what civil servants could do, but that's a separate matter; that has been changed.

The civil service of this province was not open to members of minority groups. It was a tacit policy of the government not to hire native Indians, East Indians and Orientals. That policy permeated right up to the senior levels of the bureaucracy, and it took a long time before citizens of other racial, ethnic and religious communities were allowed into the civil service of this province. It was not a hangover of the days of the colonists, it was a subconscious policy that was carried on by this government, and I became aware of it when I was a personnel officer and attended a personnel officers' conference here in Victoria.

I usually enjoy the interjections of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, but I ask him to stand up in this debate and tell us why he thinks this bill is necessary and, if he personally thinks it's necessary for him to make interjections and to belch from his seat, why he doesn't stand up in this debate and tell us why he philosophically supports this bill. In the security and comfort of inane, stupid remarks from his seat, we get the banalities of an IQ that on a hot day hits 65, but I'd like to hear that minister stand up in this chamber and tell us why he supports this legislation. He's got a lot of guts to sit there and heckle, but he's got no brains to get up and speak, and say why this bill is a good thing.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I will once again ask the minister to refrain from heckling, particularly when he isn't even in his own seat. But I will also ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to avoid personal references.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will avoid personal references. But this bill will allow any kind of personal reference anybody wants to make, based on any level of ignorance, and that's exactly why this bill is not a desirable one.

You know, it is a difficult time for members of minority groups, particularly when the economy is on a downturn. It is at that time that members of minority groups or new immigrants into this country are the first ones picked out and attacked as being threatening to those of us who are native born and have our jobs. It's the whole assault on immigration. And it's there. It's an underlying thread of this government's whole policy.

This minister has a history of a know-it-all attitude. This minister is the one who foisted a $22 million drug program on the province of British Columbia without one whit of research to back up that program. I told you it was going to be a disaster. You were led astray by two people whom we won't mention in this House. Rafe Mair had to clean it up for you. We know that.

[ Page 4528 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're going to take his place.

MR. BARRETT: Now I have to clean up for him, is that it? It won't be that easy, Mr. Minister.

But the fact is that that minister is carrying the can for this. Why doesn't your leader stand up, since this is not a money bill, since this is not a bill that deals with some overwhelming issue that separates the Tories and Liberals among you, and tell the ethnic communities and the religious communities why this bill is coming in now after the history of bigotry and racism which exists in this province and which has even spilled over on occasion into this chamber?

You know, Mr. Speaker, we can't erase bigotry. We can't erase racism. But we can make declarations in this chamber saying that we will not tolerate it, and asking for the advice — and accepting it — and the participation — and accepting it — of a non-partisan, separate human rights commission, such as was established under our government and which should have been left alone.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It was politically appointed.

MR. BARRETT: Was yours politically appointed? Are you saying that Dr. Paris all of a sudden became political? Yours wasn't, eh? Well, then, if yours wasn't, why the hell are you changing it? I find it so hypocritical that the minister says there was no politics in their appointments to the Human Rights Commission. Tell us why you're getting rid of Paris and the whole group if it isn't politics. Oh, Mr. Speaker, we've got it out tonight.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We followed your model.

MR. BARRETT: You followed our model? You were not political?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You were political

MR. BARRETT: Were you political? Mr. Speaker, the minister's logic has caught up with him. There is no foundation in fact for accusing Paris or anyone else who was on that commission of being political. But you've made it a political issue.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You said that, I didn't.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you phony. Excuse me, that's a phony argument, not the minister. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the phonies.

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact in the short recorded history of this province that racism and bigotry are a part of our history. It has been aggressive. It was codified in West Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I never heard, in all the years you were a member, Liberal or otherwise, that you said a peep about that — not once. It was codified there in covenants in West Vancouver, in the British Properties, that Orientals and Jews were not allowed to own property there. And it's recorded in the history of this province, catalogue after catalogue, event after event, that governments had to be taken kicking and screaming to be more reasonable. Why did it take until 1973 to have a Human Rights Code to begin with? Because it took a whole new government with a different philosophy towards human beings to even bring that issue up to the kind of legislation where it should have been. Those people out there who expect leadership from a government, the religious communities and the ethnic communities, are they getting that here tonight? Why aren't you up telling us we're in with the trade unions and that this is a big trade union plot to keep the churches out or the ethnics out, eh? Stand up and tell us that the only reason you are bringing in this bill is to stop trade union power or church power or ethnic power. There's none of that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're the biggest phony.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, don't throw him out. It was he that reminded me of a very unhappy incident in this House with the "little fat boy" crack. And it was worthwhile to remind the House of what actually took place that night, which I've never spoken of in this chamber. But it's appropriate to talk about it tonight. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that took place in this chamber, and the kind of bigotry, the kind of attitudes that were allowed in this House and this province because governments never moved. It was there, and it is still there. It wasn't a long time ago. I've only been here for a short period of time — 24 years is nothing in the history of mankind — and I see the wheels turning right back again. I remember when we were in government and the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) made his cracks across the floor about the religion of certain people that the government was dealing with in New York.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who talked about the dirty Japs?

MR. BARRETT: We should have legislation to stop it no matter where it comes from.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is rising on a point of order.

[12:45]

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I overheard a remark that was made. It was untrue and offensive. I never said that I said, "Japs." I never said "dirty Japs," and I would ask you to ask the minister to recall.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A withdrawal has been asked for. Perhaps the minister....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, he's the one who should withdraw, not me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was an imputation heard by the Chair from the Minister of Labour about a comment another member made. If the minister would simply withdraw the first statement, then the matter is satisfied.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I would withdraw. I didn't say "dirty Japs." It wasn't me, so I'll withdraw.

[ Page 4529 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter is satisfied with the withdrawal. The Leader of the Opposition continues.

MR. BARRETT: Would that everybody who had a complaint about racism could come to the bar of the House and ask people to withdraw! Bring in that kind of bill and I'd support it. That's all that people are asking for. The same rights that members have in here to correct statements or attitudes should be given to citizens out there.

No one in this chamber is perfect. There are occasions when we all tell little stories tinged with racism or sexism. Sometimes it slips out of people's mouths inadvertently — like the Premier. But it would be worthwhile if the Premier came into the House and said what his personal philosophy is on this issue. Would it not be appropriate for the citizens of this province to hear the personal philosophy of the Premier? Wouldn't it be appropriate to hear his philosophy on anything? Nonetheless, wouldn't it be worthwhile to hear him stand up and tell us that the religious communities have his full support in the fight against racism? Wouldn't it be worthwhile to hear him stand up and say that the ethnic communities have his full support to fight against racism, and that he will not be voting for this bill?

Three government members have spoken. They can't get up and blame the unions. They can't get up and blame the unemployed. They can't get up and blame the federal government, so they just sit there without saying why they brought this bill in. Sometimes we expect more. Sometimes we expect better, but there is no reason for this, and there has not been enough historical evidence in this province to indicate that one thing has changed out there in terms of attitudes towards peoples of other races and other creeds — not one bit. And this bill is spreading fear in those communities. You've had these people come to your office, Mr. Minister. Some of them support your party. Some of them do; some of them don't. But the people who come to your office are people who have personally experienced the bitterness and the hurt of unthinking, uncaring, and perhaps even unintentional slurs.

Is it not a worthwhile approach to leave the Labour Code and the Human Rights Commission the way they were — as it originally came out of the Labour Code from the Ministry of Labour? Why have you changed it? It wasn't to save money. There's a thread, almost, of.... If the government doesn't agree with a department or the independence of a professional in the civil service, they're out to get him. You get that indication. It's like the ombudsman. If he criticizes the government, he's a bad guy. If the Human Rights Commission attack the government, they're the bad guys.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Did you have an ombudsman?

MR. BARRETT: No, we didn't, but it's a good thing you brought one in. You did a good thing. You're a good boy. Mr. Speaker, put that down on the paper. He's a good boy; he brought in the ombudsman.

MR. COCKE: And now they're trying to kill him.

MR. BARRETT: Now they're attacking him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The auditor-general.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you're a good boy; you brought in the auditor-general. You're wonderful. What the hell are you killing the Human Rights Code for? What is it, two out of three? Is this some kind of guess-again or something? Why can't we have your leader stand up and say why the Human Rights Commission was eliminated?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: He has.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he has not!

What you allow by passing this bill is the attitude....

Why this bill? The signal from this bill is for every racist and every bigot to say: "The clock is being turned back."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, David.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, it is so.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is not.

MR. BARRETT: It is so, Mr. Minister! Why don't you ask anybody out there who is dealing with these problems every single day?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We have.

MR. BARRETT: Like heck you have. You haven't paid a fig of attention to what's going on, and that same poisonous stuff is coming back in British Columbia, just as when the Ku Klux Klan re-arrived in this province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Come on!

MR. BARRETT: In a pig's eye! That stuff is out there. It's in the corridors, and when you give sanction to it by weakening the Human Rights Code and the commission, you're tacitly saying it's quite all right. Go and read the history in this province of what happened to people with different racial and ethnic backgrounds. It's still happening today. Two groups, more than any others, take the brunt of bigotry in this province: French-speaking people from Quebec and East Indian people.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're kidding!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, those two groups are the current public scapegoats.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It doesn't show up in the records.

MR. BARRETT: It showed up in the Okanagan, in the Premier's own riding — an ugly incident up there that transcended the kind of maturity that we hope would exist in this province. It shows up in working conditions for East Indians.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Wrong group.

MR. BARRETT: Would that I would be wrong! Would that I would not know the history of this province and my own experiences in this province and in this chamber!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You've been looking for work for too long. You've been out of it.

[ Page 4530 ]

MR. BARRETT: I suppose the debate will pass, and the handful of cabinet ministers over there will make their little jokes, but there are people out there who actually respect this government simply because you're the government. They don't know any better. But because they respect you simply because you're the government, they cannot understand why you're doing this. There are people who feel set upon in our province. There are people who feel isolated and who feel the need of protection from government against people who will not accept what and who they are. This bill is not going to do it, and you know it. This bill is a signal of a licence to return to the past, and you haven't given a philosophical explanation of why. You haven't, and the leader of the government hasn't.

Nothing is more symbolic of respect for government than having a leader of the government stand up and say why a certain piece of legislation, which deals with attitudes and frames of mind, is necessary. It doesn't deal with clear-cut violations of law or clearcut forest cutting or labour or anything else. This is essentially state-of-mind legislation, and it requires and demands the government to stand up and say what their state of mind is, what they hope for and what their dreams are in a bill like this. We haven't had anyone other than the minister and two...not obscure back-benchers, two prominent back-benchers whose names I can't recollect, but I'm sure they're prominent — not one cabinet minister and not the leader of the government. Of all legislation, the leader of a government should be speaking on this kind of legislation. Why hasn't he? Why won't he tell those minority groups and religious groups out there exactly what his philosophy is on this legislation?

Why? That's the big question. Why did you destroy the Human Rights Commission in the first place? What specific thing was wrong with it? What was it doing that broke Social Credit philosophy apart? What was it that was despicable? What was it that made it necessary to change the locks? What was it that required you to treat Dr. Paris that way? Stand up and tell me why you humbled that good man the way you did. Did he say something nasty to you? Was it necessary to treat those people that way? Did Dr. Paris run for office against you? Is it meanness? Pettiness? Stupidity? What have you got against Charlie Paris? What have you got against a Human Rights Code that went a little way towards dignifying people in minority groups? Why won't your own leader speak? What really is going on? It's petty.

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

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 22

[1:00]

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42 (3), the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the time is late and much of the debate that has gone on for the last little while.... I would like to talk about the last speaker who spoke in this debate, the leader of the official opposition, who gave a very passionate plea for some of the things that he has been talking about in this House for as long as he's been here, I guess — and before. I appreciate that, because I recognize the history of this province as well, and I recognize the story that that speaker told about how he got into this House, why he got into this House and why he's been here for all of those years that he's been here. But, Mr. Speaker, times have changed. Things are better in British Columbia and we want to make them continually better.

I wasn't going to say this until I had some heckling from across the way, but when I first came to this building myself — and that was in 1972, which is a fair bit of time, I suppose, in a person's life — I respected that first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) as someone who I thought was an honest, passionate defender of the rights of British Columbians to enjoy the best possible life they could. I must say that I am disappointed in the way in which things have happened in the past little while, especially with that member, who uses his last moments in this House as a sort of swan song to further his own personal ambitions, and who announced without telling his own colleagues that he is now going to be looking for ratings rather than honesty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll advise the minister that he is now making personal references....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, just a moment. We....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...listened for an hour tonight to personal aspersions cast against people on this side of the House from that member who wants to build up some kind of an audience on radio stations, and I won't say any more about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. No personal imputations please, and let's discuss the bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There are a number of items which have been brought forward to this House tonight, and yesterday, regarding various sections of the bill. I think they probably can be addressed as ably in third reading as they can in second reading.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, they can, in committee stage, sure. And I'd like to address them there, including some amendments that we've talked about tonight which will improve the bill. I understand that the opposition plans to put some amendments forward, and we'll talk about those at that time. I have a feeling that at seven minutes after one, it probably wouldn't do us much good to be discussing, under the principle of the bill, the kinds of things we've discussed now for a couple of days. I would have been happy to do it,

[ Page 4531 ]

and I will continue to be happy to do it during the committee stage of the bill.

With that understanding, and the understandings that I've given earlier about some amendments — or one amendment, particularly — that the government is prepared to accept and put forward with the leave of the opposition, I think that I would now just move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 9

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

Bill 11, Human Rights Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:15 a.m.