[ Page 4533 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984 (Bill 21). Second reading 4533

Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Mr. Pelton)

On section 4 –– 4533

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 4534

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On section 1 –– 4534

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Skelly

Division on amendment

On section 2 –– 4540

Ms. Brown

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Skelly

Division on amendment

On section 3 –– 4544

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1984

The House met at 10:09 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: The House is advised of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a couple who are in our House today visiting from the great constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain, in that great city of Vancouver. Would the House please welcome Carla and Bob Palmer.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's an honour for us to have in our galleries today Mr. Finn Olesen, who is the head of the press and information delegation of the European Communities to Canada, now stationed in Ottawa. I'd like all hon. members to bid him a most cordial welcome to British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think perhaps the first order of the day should be to welcome the Clerk-Assistant back to British Columbia. We're delighted to see him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), I would call second reading of Bill 21, with the usual understanding that this being a miscellaneous statute, there will be full opportunity for debate during the committee stage.

[10:15]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1984

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the House Leader indicate that there will be the usual understanding. The usual understanding is that we debate each section in principle as you would in second reading. Last session I remember having a little argument with respect to somebody in the chair who wasn't quite responsive to that particular agreement. It worked out, and we will work it out this time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1984, 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. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 9.

BUILDERS LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: I seem to recall that there's a back-bench member shepherding this bill through the House. I looked for him here, and I couldn't find him until I looked at the Chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I note that my colleague has an amendment to section 4 on the order paper. She is not in the House at the moment; she has gone to get her material. Is it permissible for me to move the amendment that stands in her name?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MRS. WALLACE: Then I move the amendment that stands in her name, and I would like to speak in support of it. The amendment has been requested by the people who rent equipment, who have been excluded from this act. When we noted on the order paper that the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) was intending to move an amendment to this bill, we believed that perhaps the government was in fact prepared to move in that direction. Unfortunately, that amendment was never placed.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: He has placed it? I see.

My colleague is now here and would probably be prepared to speak in support of her amendment, but I want the House to know that it has my wholehearted support too.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, maybe you can tell me whether this amendment is similar to the one we accepted yesterday. I think it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In substance, hon. member, it is identical.

MS. BROWN: Yes, that's right, and I supported it yesterday, do so today, and will tomorrow too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In view of that, hon. member, would you be prepared to withdraw your amendment?

MS. BROWN: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, the amendment is withdrawn.

Section 4 as amended approved.

[ Page 4534 ]

Sections 5 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 9, Builders Lien Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GABELMANN: I would like, first of all, to move the amendment which I have...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...standing in your name on the order paper.

MR. GABELMANN: No, it's not standing on the order paper in my name, unfortunately, because of the speed with which we are proceeding. But the amendments have been given to the Clerk, and I'd just like to....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Could we have a copy, Mr. Member, for the minister, please?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, in order to facilitate the process, since we are going through this bill so quickly, preventing the opportunity to have these amendments — the minister's as well as our own — printed on the order paper, I will read the amendment that I would like to introduce. It would add the following definitions to the interpretation section, section 1: 'Family composition' includes a family composed of one or more parents and one or more children. 'Sex' includes the condition of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness, and 'sexual harassment' constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. 'Physical or mental condition' includes a condition limiting or perceived or believed to limit the performance of normal activities by a person who is or is believed or perceived to be suffering significantly and not temporarily from a physical or mental limitation, disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 'physical or mental condition' includes epilepsy and any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical coordination, deafness or hearing impairment, muteness or speech impediment, physical reliance on a dog guide or wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device, a mental disorder, mental retardation or impairment, or a learning disability or dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language.

In moving this amendment we are attempting to make clear some other definitions in order to overcome problems inherent in the bill primarily in respect to the absence of a reasonable cause provision. I want to deal with this very quickly, and I believe some of my colleagues may want to participate as well in each of these three additional definitions.

The definition of family composition is necessary; this should be added as a prohibited ground of discrimination to protect single parents and families with children. The definition that I'm proposing is based on the 1983 recommendations of the B.C. Human Rights Commission. There is unquestionably immense discrimination in a variety of areas — particularly, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) pointed out last night, in the area of accommodation. Women who are single-parenting are frequently discriminated against on the basis of their particular family structure.

I think we recognize in this age and era we're in that the family is not always any longer the traditional nuclear family. It has a variety of expressions, and as has been pointed out many times in this debate, we need human rights legislation to keep pace with changes in society — to make sure that as the changes occur and different institutions and organizations develop, the human rights legislation is broad enough to cover those circumstances. Clearly, one of the changing features of our society, whatever one thinks of the fact of that change.... A major group of people in our society no longer fits into the traditional family model. For that reason we wanted to echo and include in the legislation the recommendations made by the Human Rights Commission in 1983 in the matter of defining family composition.

The definition of sex we wanted to include in this section because there is some considerable doubt, to put it in its best light, as to whether pregnant women are in fact protected by the Code. Opinion has been voiced on both sides of that issue, and I suspect that it's one of those issues that would take some time to resolve, probably inevitably in the courts. We could solve that whole process by doing in relation to pregnancy what we're doing, hopefully, later on in terms of intent: that is, just to make clear, to specify, that discrimination on the basis of sex also includes the condition of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. We also want to include in that section matters relating to sexual harassment.

In the debate in second reading there were a number of interjections by the minister suggesting that in fact sexual harassment would be covered by the legislation. I don't believe that to be the case. Again, there's some considerable doubt. The easy way to resolve that, if in fact we want to make sexual harassment illegal under the Code, is to change the definition so we make clear that discrimination on the basis of sex includes also discrimination on the basis of sexual harassment.

The third definition of physical or mental condition is to attempt, by being as specific as we are in that particular amendment, to make certain that the definition relating to mental and physical condition is interpreted liberally so that there is not any doubt at all as to what is included. That, too, is a recommendation in 1983 of the B.C. Human Rights Commission.

I just want to say in concluding my opening remarks on this that these are not radical concepts. These are, I think, amendments that the government and the minister should be happy living with. It deals with the changing nature of the family; it broadens the definition of discrimination in respect

[ Page 4535 ]

of sex, and it also makes clear what we mean by physical or mental condition in the legislation. Those amendments are perhaps not written in precisely the language that the minister would choose if legislative counsel were involved. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would indicate that he agrees with the premises and the philosophy behind these particular amendments, I would be delighted to withdraw the amendment, given an assurance and an undertaking by the minister that he will bring in similar amendments to section

[10:30]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have the amendments that we were going to propose, and I'll be sending them over in a moment for the opposition.

While I can appreciate the member's concerns and the reasons for putting forward these amendments, I must say that the government must reject them at this time, with the assurance that if in some way we find that the problems that these amendments are designed to correct are not already covered under the proposals that we're making, then I'd be prepared to reconsider. But at this time I believe that the matters which the member is most concerned about are covered under the current terms, and simply to put those words in the legislation is not necessary.

For instance, I might just say that we've broken some ground in terms of what some of the human rights inquiries have now decided. In terms of pregnancy, for instance, it's only weeks ago that a human rights inquiry ruled that an employer terminating this particular woman because she returned to work after pregnancy was discrimination on the basis of sex. So there have been some precedents. We have now appointed a board of inquiry into a sexual harassment case and I believe there will be some precedents set there as well. So those two important terms, I believe, are already covered under the terms of the act. I don't think we need the specific words to do that. But I give the assurance to the member that if it proves that that's not the case, we'll take further action.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the route through which sexual harassment and other things not specifically spelled out in the act were dealt with by the commission and the Code was through "reasonable cause" and that's gone. If "reasonable cause" is back in the amendments, then we're at a severe disadvantage, because we have not had an opportunity to see the amendments which the minister is bringing in.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's not to do with reasonable cause.

MS. BROWN: There is none with "reasonable cause?"

Reasonable cause was the route through which women could file complaints dealing with sexual harassment, the pregnancy question, the business of welfare recipients being refused accommodation and single-parent families being refused accommodation. Reasonable cause was the route they used to do that. That's been removed, and nothing has been placed in the act to ensure the protection of these particular groups.

The minister says that precedents are going to be established. On what grounds can someone now lay a complaint before the commission? There is certainly nothing outlined in the act whereby a person can file a complaint of sexual harassment. It doesn't come under any sections in this present act and there isn't the reasonable cause umbrella. So the precedent which the minister is speaking about is not going to apply to this act. The precedent applied to the existing act because reasonable cause was in it. It's not in this act. That's why it needs to be spelled out.

Also, the minister did not comment on the issue of welfare recipients, more and more of whom are finding that landlords are refusing to rent to them simply because they are single-parent families in receipt of income assistance. They have no protection at all. The minister doesn't go to bat for them, doesn't fight for them. And the Human Rights Commission can't because they are no longer covered by this act.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, for the minister's comments to apply that sexual harassment would in fact be covered under this bill that we're debating requires, as I read it, that the definition of sex.... It says, for example, in section 3 — "or sex of that person" — that that includes sexual harassment. I think it takes a leap of faith more than I am able to make to have the definition of "sex," which is usually interpreted as gender... and I suspect that's the way it will unfortunately be interpreted. You can't discriminate against someone because they're female; or because they're male doesn't deal with sexual harassment. That language in the Human Rights Code was not the basis, as I understand it, for complaints about sexual harassment. Sexual harassment was dealt with through the reasonable cause provision, not through the specific naming of sex as an area in which discrimination cannot take place. It does not deal with that.

It is arguable about pregnancy, and I would hope that a judgment about this bill, when it becomes law, would argue that if you discriminate against a pregnant woman you are therefore discriminating on the basis of sex. I would concede that that is an arguable point. I'd like to make it clear by being specific and naming it, then there is no discussion, no argument, and no need to go to court to resolve it. But clearly, in the case of sexual harassment, it is not covered. The minister can't cite precedents, because the precedents we have regarding sexual harassment deal with the Human Rights Code, which included the reasonable cause provision.

I'd like the minister to stand up and offer us an explanation of how he perceives that sexual harassment will be covered by the provision in various sections of the words, in effect, that you can't discriminate on the basis of sex. How does that prevent sexual harassment?

MRS. WALLACE: In his earlier remarks the minister indicated that there was plenty of precedent set and that sexual harassment was covered. He was sure that it was covered, and if it wasn't covered he'd do something about it. I don't think that's good enough, because the precedent that's been set was set under the old Code, which allowed that to happen under the reasonable cause section. Now he is wiping that out, so as a result he is wiping out that precedent and any grounds or basis for that precedent. What he is doing is completely eliminating any opportunity to ensure that pregnant women, or women who have pregnancy- related illness, or any women or men who face harassment as a result of sex.... There is no provision in the wording of the new bill that provides for that. That has been borne out by reports that have been written in his own ministry. I don't know why he doesn't read his own ministry’s reports. I was quoting a

[ Page 4536 ]

report yesterday that was written by the commission, which he didn't seem to know anything about.

There has been another report written. The material was prepared by the chief officer of the old human rights branch who has pointed out this very thing and has indicated that the greatest number of cases that the commission had to deal with, the single largest category of incidents, was sexual harassment, and yet that is wiped right out. There will not be an opportunity under this new bill for that to take place.

The composition of the family is another one that's very important. It was only when we got the Human Rights Code that a woman was seriously considered for a mortgage, and I know of a case in point. It was extremely difficult for a woman to get a mortgage; it was also difficult for her to get a lease or to rent accommodation. It was extremely difficult for her to get a mortgage if she wanted to buy her own home. A woman, as the head of a household, was not accepted by mortgage companies. That family composition is an important thing to have included here. I don't know what the minister's objection is. If he really believes that this bill is such an advanced piece of legislation, why does he object to ensuring that it includes these possibilities? Why does he object to including a family composition definition, the sex definition, or physical or mental conditions or some attempt to describe that particular area?

I just don't understand his reticence to accept these kind of suggestions, if in fact he really believes that this is an all encompassing piece of legislation — landmark legislation — that's going to do such a great job for human rights. His failure to accept these amendments indicates to me that he's really trying to make it less broad, and that he's really trying to remove the opportunity for this largest single category of incidence of complaints relative to sexual harassment. He wants to protect those people who are involved in that type of sexual harassment from being brought up before the courts under the human rights bill. It seems to me that that is his intent if he refuses to accept this kind of amendment or refuses to include the reasonable cause section in the bill.

MS. BROWN: Again in support of the comments of my two colleagues, I have a quote here from the chief complaint officer of the human rights branch, Ms. April Katz. In April 1983 she said:

"The reasonable cause provision as a catch-all for group characteristics not specifically named in the legislation is unique to British Columbia. The provision has allowed complaints to go forward on the basis of such group characteristics as physical or mental condition, sexual orientation, family status, ages under 45, ages 65 and over, sexual harassment, racial harassment and pregnancy."

She then went on to say that the single largest category of incidents of complaint has been in the area of sexual harassment. This was the route they used: the reasonable cause. Reasonable cause has been removed from this bill; it's no longer there. Therefore this unique provision which made sexual or racial harassment, pregnancy and mental and physical condition able to be dealt with by the Code and the commission is no longer there. That's the only reason that the amendments dealing with the spelling out of these characteristics are being proposed today. If the minister in response would either indicate that reasonable cause is going to be reintroduced or some other way of spelling out the specific protection for these groups, we'd be very willing to accept that.

[10:45]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Again, in our opinion it isn't necessary to spell them out. As I understand it, no other province except Manitoba has a reasonable cause provision now. They've just recently introduced theirs. Yet the matters of sexual harassment, pregnancy and others are all dealt with as human rights activities, and it has been found across Canada that they are discrimination on the basis of the various codes of the country, including ours.

You can read little quotes out of context all over the place. The fact is that on investigations carried out by the human rights branch, for the last annual report, 1982, the largest number.... You say that sexual harassments are the largest number of complaints.

MS. BROWN: Under reasonable cause.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, 63 of the 1,065 investigations in that year were for sexual harassment; that's not the largest component. If you'll look at the 1980 report, you will find that sexual harassment cases were normally handled not under reasonable cause at all but on the basis of discrimination by sex. Of the 303 complaints on the basis of sex — I must apologize; I have to get farther away from my eyes as I grow older — 36 of them were on the basis of sexual harassment under discrimination on the basis of sex. It's well established, and I don't think it's necessary.

Again, precedent isn't being abolished because of this bill. We deliberately moved into boards of inquiry far more quickly than did any of my predecessors, including the NDP predecessor. I'm not saying this to blow my own horn, but I've appointed more boards of inquiry on human rights than any of the ministers involved since the Code was established. Many of them, physical and mental disability for instance, were found not under reasonable cause but rather on the basis of discrimination under the way the act was written. In 1979 I think we had seven complaints referred to the board of inquiry; in 1980 there were three; in 1983 there were 43. We've established some very important precedents. Some of the inquiries which have not yet been completed will also establish some very important precedents, including the matter of height and weight, which is one of the most important ones that has ever been held in this province, in my opinion. So those precedents are going to be there.

We talked about this with all of our legal advisers and others. I don't believe in putting words in a bill just to make people feel more comfortable. I think we need to be very specific, clear and simple so that the public doesn't misunderstand what we're doing and people who are asked to adjudicate know exactly where they're supposed to go. That's what we tried to do in this bill, and I believe that we've achieved it.

MS. BROWN: I want to get it absolutely clear from the minister that under the bill as it exists a single-parent family refused accommodation on the basis that they are in receipt of welfare can file a complaint.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not on that basis.

[ Page 4537 ]

MS. BROWN: That's why we are asking about family composition; that's the whole point. How would that be dealt with? Would the minister explain to me how a single-parent family in receipt of income assistance which has been refused accommodation by a landlord or a landlady for that reason can file a complaint of discrimination?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would expect that that single parent — and possibly the overwhelming majority would be female — would file under discrimination on the basis of sex.

MS. BROWN: But the landlord or landlady is absolutely specific: "I do not rent to welfare recipients." What does a welfare recipient who happens to be a single parent say to that? The landlord or landlady would say that it has nothing to do with her sex: "I just do not rent accommodation to welfare recipients, and I don't like families that have only one parent and a group of kids."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the case would have to be proved as it would have been under the Code — that the service was not being provided on a basis listed in the Code, and it would have to be on the basis of sex.

MS. BROWN: Let's try a single parent who is a man.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Same thing.

MS. BROWN: He's being discriminated against on the basis of sex too?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Sure.

MS. BROWN: In recommending the inclusion of family composition, my colleague from North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was trying to deal with this age-old problem which none of the human rights codes have dealt with to date, except through the reasonable cause provision. You have a landlord or a landlady who says: "Regardless of your sex, I do not like single-parent families, and I especially do not like it when they are dependent on income assistance. I don't care what sex you are. I don't like renting to single-parent families, and I don't like the fact that a single-parent family in receipt of welfare wants to rent my accommodation." How does that single-parent family file a complaint? Under what provision?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Under the sections that are available to us at the present time. It can be sex or marital status. If they are single parents, that's marital status.

MS. BROWN: In receipt of welfare?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Marital status. Section 3.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, presumably the minister is talking, in this particular respect, of section 5. You can't discriminate in respect of tenancy premises on the basis of various things. It says "marital status," and it includes sex. It does not make any reference whatsoever to source of income. Clearly, people in this province, regardless of their gender, are discriminated against because of their source of income.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We could find any number — dozens and hundreds, perhaps — of similar cases of discrimination. For us to write in in this particular section and others "source of income" would not be the most appropriate way of dealing with it, because there are so many issues of that kind. So the way you deal with it is by including a reasonable cause provision. You can now discriminate on the basis of source of income. It so happens that that is usually discrimination against single women with children, but it is not a sex-related discrimination. It's not a marital-status-related discrimination, because the landlord or landlady would say: "I don't mind whether my tenants are married or not. I don't discriminate on that basis" — and in this case that would be so. "I don't discriminate on the basis of whether the prospective tenant is a woman or a man." In the case so cited that would be so. Discrimination in this case would be on the basis of the source of income of that individual. The case we're talking about relates, as I said, primarily to women; some men too. It's an issue that many of us are concerned about because it's yet another example of discrimination in areas that aren't traditionally thought of as areas of discrimination — source of income. The only way you can deal with that — unless you are so omniscient that you can think of every single category of potential discrimination and write them all down, which I don't think any one of us could ever do — is to have a clause or phrase in the bill which allows the council to deal with discrimination on a reasonable cause basis. It is not reasonable, by any standard that I think anyone would accept, to discriminate on the basis of source of income, yet it happens daily in this province. It happens constantly in this province. Any MLA who does their job knows of constituents to whom this has happened. I certainly do. You can't deal with it by including the phrase "source of income." You deal with it by including the reasonable cause provision, which we've had for 10 years and has worked well, and which people in both the branch and the commission have said has enabled them to properly administer the Code, to properly administer justice in this province. If the minister can find another way to make sure that unnamed acts of discrimination are covered, then fine. I'm not wedded to "reasonable cause" if there's a better way of doing it, but this bill doesn't do it. You can now discriminate against an individual who wants to rent — to pick one example — because of their source of income, and that's wrong.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering why the minister is so reluctant to include in the act these more specific definitions of sex, physical and mental condition and family composition. He says it's just so many extra words and that many people are protected under specific wording in the act such as "sex" or "physical and mental condition." It's interesting that the Human Rights Commission recommended — last year I guess it was — that the act be made much more specific in addition to leaving in the reasonable cause clause. I'd like to quote from page 18 of their February 1983 report, "I'm Okay; We're Not So Sure About You."

"Despite the continuing utility of the 'reasonable cause' concept and the need for its extension into other areas, it was repeatedly emphasized in submissions at hearings that the protection of the Code must be expanded to explicitly prohibit discrimination against certain groups. The explicit injunction against

[ Page 4538 ]

discrimination is crucial in informing both the public and the victims of discrimination of what constitutes public policy and what redress is available. Most people don't knowingly break the law. If they are informed, for example, that the Code precludes the denial of accommodation to the disabled, this sensitizes them to their obligations in this regard."

I think what we're trying to do here, in making these definitions much more specific in their terms, is to attempt to educate the public that these categories of persons cannot be discriminated against and that those categories or disabilities are listed under the definition section of the Human Rights Code. Essentially, Mr. Chairman, we're doing what hundreds of groups and individuals around the province recommended to the Human Rights Commission and what the Human Rights Commission in turn recommended to the minister on numerous occasions: that if we are to make this Code effective, if we are to broaden the coverage so that many groups and individuals in the province who should be covered under this Code are covered, then we must make the Code more specific. So if somebody feels that they're discriminated against.... For example, a woman who is fired from her job because she is pregnant or suffering from a pregnancy-related illness picks up this Code and says: "Possibly I can hang my case on a discrimination against sex, possibly not. The definition is not that specific." But if we include in this Code a specific bar against discrimination based on firing somebody because of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness, then that person who is discriminated against will see clearly that this act protects her and will be able to take the case to the proper authorities.

[11:00]

What the Human Rights Commission recommended is that the Code be made much more specific in the terms that it uses so that people around the province will know what behaviour constitutes discrimination, and persons who are discriminated against can then use the Code to find out if their particular case can be taken to the authorities with some hope of redress. I think that what we must be doing in this definition section — and I hope that the minister will change his mind about this — is making it far more specific so that the people of this province are much better protected and much better educated as to what constitutes discrimination under the Code.

I think we should also include the reasonable cause provision. The minister says Manitoba is the only province that has a reasonable cause provision. Why is this government always concerned to be the worst province? Why can't we include everything to make sure that we have the broadest possible protection of human rights? We refuse to put the reasonable cause section in our Code because only Manitoba has it. If Manitoba has it, and it provides much better protection on human rights in Manitoba, by all means let's put it in our Code. If other provinces have specific bars against certain classes of discrimination, by all means let's put those specific bars in our Code so that our Code becomes the best in Canada, and we become the example to other provinces in Canada and to Canada itself. I think the Code should be as specific as possible to protect as many people as possible and to educate as many British Columbians as possible as to what constitutes discrimination so that we can stamp it out in as many cases as possible.

MS. BROWN: I am hoping that the minister is thinking about the arguments that are being raised at this time in support of these amendments we are submitting. I mentioned last night and earlier that it is not possible to draft a piece of human rights legislation which can ever completely anticipate every form of discrimination that any group or individual in our society is going to experience at some time or other. That's not possible. What is considered to be discrimination today was not even thought about 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. Back in the old days of 1969, when the first act was introduced, no one even had coined the phrase "sexual harassment." A human rights code has to be flexible, fluid and dynamic. It has to be able to adjust itself to a raised consciousness and our changing perception as time goes on. Other than that it's totally useless.

There are two ways of doing this. One way is to open the Code every single time an issue is raised and brought to the attention of the government and be specific about it in terms of coverage. The other way is to use the kind of protective shield which "reasonable cause" represents. What reasonable cause does is give access to the Code through which a new group, a new idea, a new concept can be tested and the precedents established. Through reasonable cause things like sexual harassment, racial harassment, assault on one's dignity in one form or another was able to be entered into — accessed — to the Code, and then the boards of review were able to establish their precedence.

We have no idea what the future may hold in terms of discrimination. We know that the Code still does not address itself to the concept of sexual orientation. We know that. We know it is still not addressing itself to the concept of source of income. At a time when there are more people in this province in receipt of welfare than ever before, discrimination against them on that ground is still not being addressed by the Code. For the precedents to be established, they first have to have access under which to lay their complaints. You can't lay your complaint on a marital status. Marital status means: are you married or are you single? That's what marital status is. It has nothing to do with whether you receive income assistance or not. You can't have access through sex, because the landlords and landladies are discriminating whether you're male or female, or anything else for that matter. We still have landlords and landladies in this province who discriminate against people who have children. They say: "No children allowed." We still have that. How are you going to test that? You can't test it on marital status. You can't test it on sex or political affiliation. What are you going to test it under — disability? Are we going to have to take children under disability in order to test that and bring to the attention of the minister and the government that discrimination in this area exists? We are struggling to deal with the fact that the minister is determined to remove the protective shield which reasonable cause made possible. So we are trying to help the minister make the Code better by suggesting that the term "family composition" is certainly something that should be looked at, and a new definition for "sex," which would specifically include pregnancy and sexual harassment, is also something that should be looked at. The definition of physical and mental disability or ability should be dealt with.

We are trying to struggle with the fact that the minister is taking away the protective shield that reasonable cause made possible. I am hoping that the minister is listening to us, because there are real problems out there. As each group becomes more aware, and as their consciousness becomes

[ Page 4539 ]

raised, they are beginning to say: "My rights are being abrogated because...." As their voice is being raised, we have to listen to that. That's our responsibility as decision-makers. We have to listen to groups of welfare recipients who are saying: "This is an infringement on my rights. I can't live where I want to live because I am poor and dependent on the income assistance system." We have to ensure that those people's rights are protected. That's what we're here for, and it's not happening, as a direct result of the way this bill is being amended.

I hope the minister is at least willing to accept that reasonable cause should be returned, even for six months, until he and his assistants have had an opportunity to look at the ways in which the bill needs to be made more flexible, more responsive, more dynamic and able to be changed; or he should at least accept these amendments, which are very specific about the groups which should be included in the Code at this time.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to carry on in the same direction in which my colleague has been speaking, relative to family make-up. Somehow the minister is confusing marital status with family make-up.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'm not.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, you have indicated, Mr. Minister, that a complaint relative to the make-up of the family could be filed under marital status. That is not the case. Marital status relates to whether you're married or single or have a live-in mate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Single parent.

MRS. WALLACE: No. Marital status has nothing to do with children. Marital status relates to the relationship between two people or to a person living singly. So what we're talking about here is a different issue: what happens when there are children involved who happen to have a single-parent family?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, that's right. Either we need this — the family unit — or else we need a definition of marital status in the Code, because the way it stands now there is nothing relative to children. Children have nothing to do with marital status.

[11:15]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, in our gallery, we have Mrs. Witty and ten girls from the 24th Surrey Girl Guides. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

On section 1.

MRS. WALLACE: Back in 1981 this government brought in an amendment to the Human Rights Code, and the result of that amendment does not seem to appear anywhere in the new bill as before us now. The only place I can see where I can raise this is under the interpretation section, because that 1981 amendment did in fact make an interpretation. It repealed section 19(2) of the Human Rights Code and replaced it with the following: "An act or thing done or omitted by an employee, officer, director, official or agent of any person within the scope of his authority shall be deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted by that person." The interpretation of that is that an employer was responsible if his employees on his behalf committed an offence under the Code. That was the intent of that amendment brought in by this government in 1981.

Now that is nowhere in this bill, and I'm wondering whether or not the minister would be prepared to include in the interpretation something that would indicate that an employer is in fact responsible for the actions of his employees in the field of human rights. That was obviously the feeling of the government of the day in 1981, which was that minister's government, when under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981, they moved to bring in that particular change to the Code. It was something that they felt was missing from the old Code and was an amendment that they brought in only three short years ago. I'm wondering whether the minister is prepared to either assure me that it is adequately covered somewhere else in this bill, or will he bring it in under the interpretation section.

[ Page 4540 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite sure that the matter the member raises is covered in the bill. Section 21 says: "An act or thing done or omitted by an employee, officer, director, official or agent...shall be deemed to be an act or thing done...."

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to do with the amendment which I have tabled with you — and a revised copy, because there were some typing errors in the other one and omissions on my part — is to really concentrate on the affirmative or positive aspects of the Code, rather than simply concentrate on the discriminatory aspects.

That section as it now reads states that: "No person shall publish or display before the public, or cause to be published or displayed before the public, a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or class of persons in any manner prohibited by this act." What I have done, Mr. Chairman, is to look at other legislation. I found that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code really deals in a more positive way with the real issue of what a human rights code is supposed to do. So I have submitted an amendment, lifted almost verbatim, except I've tried to deal with the sexist language of that, from the Saskatchewan Code. It reads as follows: No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or displayed, on any lands or premises, or in a newspaper, through a television or radio broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or publication, or by means of any other medium that he or she owns, controls, distributes or sells, any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation, tending or likely to tend to deprive, abridge or otherwise restrict the enjoyment by any person, or class of persons, of any right to which they are entitled under the law, or which exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person, any class of persons or a group of persons because of their race, creed, religion, colour, sex, marital status, physical disability, age, nationality, ancestry, sexual orientation or place of origin.

What the amendment does is close every possible loophole that could exist, either through the use of video cassettes, the television media or the radio, not simply of material which discriminates against any group in society, but against the display or use of material which abridges that particular group or individual of their right to dignity at all times — exposing to ridicule, advocating hatred of that person, or in any other way affronting that person's or class of person's dignity.

[11:30]

The reason why I'm introducing this amendment — and I'm hoping that the minister will recognize the importance of it — is because there really is no other legislation which addresses itself to these particular aspects of the Human Rights Code. We have a Civil Rights Protection Act in this province which deals with the written or expressed position in the way of hatred, but it doesn't deal with belittling or ridiculing, or with the affront to a person's dignity.

In Saskatchewan in 1980, I think it was, a complaint was filed by a group of people at the University of Saskatchewan — women as well as men — against a newspaper published by the engineering students, called the Red Eye, which is very similar to the Red Rag published by the engineering students at UBC. It too is racist, sexist and defamatory. It advocates hatred and violence against people of different races, different religions, and certainly against women. It is a newspaper that affronts the dignity of all people, regardless of their race, religion, sex, creed — whatever. Under the Code, under this particular section of Bill 11 as it now stands, it is not possible to file a complaint against the Red Rag here in British Columbia.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

However, in Saskatchewan the members of the university community, male and female, were successful in filing a complaint under their Human Rights Code against the Red Eye, using the section dealing with abridging or otherwise restricting the enjoyment by any person or class of persons of any right to which they are entitled under the law or tending to expose to hatred, ridicule, belittling, or otherwise affronting the dignity of any person or class of persons. When they filed the complaint, the attorney-general of the day, Mr. Roy Romanow, introduced a board of review to deal with the complaint. After listening to a number of petitions, also to the lawyer for the university as well as the lawyer for the engineering students' society, the Human Rights Commission brought down a rather lengthy judgment, which I'd be very happy to table with the House and share with the Minister of Labour if he has not already seen it. A precedent-setting decision was made in which the Human Rights Commission ruled that in fact the Red Eye did indeed affront the dignity of a special class or group of people, and did indeed abridge their right to dignity and enjoyment, and expose them to hatred, ridicule and belittling. On that basis, a judgment was brought down.

The reason I'm suggesting this amendment at this time is because we sorely need to have that kind of access to the Code here in British Columbia, not just in order to deal with the Red Rag — which is indeed a rag — but also to deal with the incredible proliferation of pornographic material which we are experiencing in the province today. It cannot be dealt with under any other piece of legislation, because the Attorney-General keeps insisting that the federal jurisdiction does not give him the power to do so. A complaint, however, could be filed under a human rights code if the code included the sections I have proposed in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am submitting to the Minister of Labour that he at least read the amendment I've submitted and give it some serious consideration, because it is very sorely needed at this time.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I certainly appreciate the comments from the member who has just taken her place, and I agree with most of them. But we had this debate in 1981 when we were talking about where that kind of protection should be built. At that time we decided in this Legislature to pass the Civil Rights Protection Act under the Ministry of the Attorney-General, rather than include those protections in the Human Rights Act — a lot fewer words, but everything is covered in that act, as far as I'm concerned. It does deal with anyone who conducts or communicates in any way....

[ Page 4541 ]

We didn't go into all the words, but it says: "...conduct or communication" with regard to "(a) hatred or contempt of a person or class of persons, or (b) the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons in comparison with another or others...." I'm surprised that if there is that much passion about a publication of the University of British Columbia, some action hasn't been laid under that act. Perhaps that advice should be given. But we've had that debate, and it was decided to go that route, and I believe that there is adequate coverage in British Columbia at this time. I would sure like to see it tested.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the reason that an action hasn't been laid under the act is that the act really doesn't deal with it. The Red Rag doesn't discriminate against women; there's nothing but women of different colours in the Red Rag. What the Red Rag does is ridicule, belittle and affront the dignity of.... The Civil Rights Protection Act doesn't deal with that; it is restricted to discrimination and the advocation of hatred — as you said — on the basis of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin. It doesn't include gender — my colleague is reading it — because we looked at it very carefully. That's the only reason that the complaint hasn't been laid under that act. The act doesn't include gender; it doesn't include sex. It doesn't deal with ridicule, it doesn't deal with belittling and it doesn't deal with affront to dignity. It doesn't deal with depriving, abridging or restricting the enjoyment of any class of person...etc. The act doesn't do it, but the Human Rights Code could. The Civil Rights Protection Act is a very restrictive act. We've looked at it. If it were possible to file a complaint under it, believe me, it would have happened. But it doesn't do it. That's why we're appealing to you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I understood the member to say that the so-called Red Rag.... I've never seen it so I don't know what it does, but I understood the member to say that it was racist. So there is a basis there. I would suggest to the member that perhaps it would be better at some point during the Attorney-General's estimates, or in one way or another, to seek to amend the Civil Rights Protection Act to make sure that it covers the questions the member is concerned about.

MS. BROWN: What is the Human Rights Code supposed to do? What is the nature of human rights legislation? It's supposed to protect from discrimination, and it is supposed to affirm. It has two roles: a protective role and an affirmative role. Why do we have to go to the Attorney-General? The Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, has opened the Code. It is being redrafted. He's listening to amendments. He is himself introducing an amendment. Here is an amendment which will enhance and enrich the Code, will make it more relevant, will make it a better Code. What is wrong with the Human Rights Code having included in it this affirmative statement about protecting the rights and the dignity of classes of people from ridicule, belittling, advocating hatred and that kind of thing? Why should I go to the Attorney-General? We're dealing with human rights. This is a human right that I'm talking about. Would you explain to me why you are reluctant to deal with it?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, we had this debate three years ago, and it was decided by this Legislature that the issue was important enough that there should be a specific act dealing with civil rights protections. This Legislature passed that act. The act is here; it's in place. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. It's not my act, and I can't reflect on what this Legislature decided to do.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the context in which the Civil Rights Protection Act was introduced, debated and passed was the increasing visibility and organizational activities of the KKK. What the member for Burnaby Edmonds is talking about is another matter altogether.

The minister is suggesting that this isn't an appropriate debate because, in effect, it's covered by other legislation. It isn't. The minister has in effect admitted that, although he hasn't put it in clear words. The only prohibited categories of discrimination in the Civil Rights Protection Act are colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin: basically, what your beliefs are and what your colour is and not much more. What the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is talking about is an entirely different matter, one in which other groups in society — whether they be women, gay or a whole variety of other categories who are not covered by the Civil Rights Protection Act or intended to be or likely ever to be — are more appropriately covered in this act. I concede that the Legislature in its majority, for reasons that I think were more to do with the time than very much more, did in fact decide to construct alternative legislation. It doesn't mean that that's the appropriate way to go. Given a calm climate in which to argue, I would say that we should do all these things within human rights legislation and have one law — one administration of that law — so that people know where to go. Among other things the Civil Rights Protection Act has its remedies in the courts. One of the strengths of human rights legislation for the most part is that the remedy is outside the court system so that poor people have access as well.

For the minister to say that the discrimination that occurs in a magazine or a newspaper like the Red Rag — which is largely sexist discrimination; it's other things too, but it's largely sexist discrimination — should be dealt with somehow by the Attorney-General through the Civil Rights Protection Act is ludicrous. He's not going to. I doubt whether the Legislature would want him to. But what we and, I expect, the majority of the public would like is for this kind of activity to be precluded in the Human Rights Act. That's where it belongs. Introducing the Civil Rights Protection Act is a red herring.

MS. BROWN: Under Bill 11 as it now stands, the council could decide not to proceed with an investigation on the grounds that it is frivolous and trivial, and that's not as far-fetched as it sounds. When I raised the issue of the Red Rag under the estimates of the Minister for Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who is responsible for it, he said: "That's nonsense. Boys will be boys. Don't bring a frivolous issue like the Red Rag onto the floor of the Legislature." That's what he said when I raised it. He decided it was frivolous. What guarantee do women have that the minister responsible for the Human Rights Act wouldn't say the same thing?

[11:45]

When I raised the issue of pornography, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) said: "That's

[ Page 4542 ]

ridiculous. That's frivolous. You're wasting the taxpayers' time. Some of us don't think that Hustler magazine is pornographic. Why are you bringing that here? That's no big deal." So the council would very likely, under the minister's instructions, decide that it was a frivolous issue and should not be dealt with by the Human Rights Council. That would be the end of it. But if in the event of a miracle the council did decide to deal with it, on what grounds would they deal with it? Because under the act as it is written the abridgement of dignity, belittling and ridiculing, is not included. The council would have to say: "Under the act as it is written we have no powers to deal with this issue." First there is the battle not to get it ruled frivolous and trivial, and then once it's accepted for the council or the boards of review to look at it, they look at section 2(1) and say: "There is no indication of intention to discriminate, and there's no discrimination. That's the only thing that we can deal with. Sure, it abridges your dignity and ridicules women and belittles them and proscribes their right to enjoyment and respect, but we can't touch it because there's nothing under the act that gives us the right to do that."

That is the situation that we are faced with. Under the act as it now stands, they couldn't deal with it even if the council.... The minister recognizes that, which is the reason why he is suggesting that the Attorney-General should deal with it. There is an intrinsic difference between one's civil rights and one's human rights. Protection for one's dignity is something that the Human Rights Commission and human rights legislation and the minister responsible for such legislation should be addressing and should be seeing as their mandate. So to say that the Attorney-General should be dealing with this.... The Attorney-General has nothing to do with this. This is a human rights issue, and this is where it should be dealt with.

The Code, if it's at least going to attempt to respect all groups of people in the community, has to deal with this very serious issue we are facing today. That's the point I raised earlier. The kinds of things which one perceives to be an abrogation of one's rights or an infringement on one's rights change. That's why the Code has to be flexible — fluid enough that it can deal with these kinds of things. In the history of our nation, we've never before experienced this kind of proliferation and onslaught of violent pornographic material in every form of media — written, visual, audio, or whatever — that we are experiencing today. Whether it's on the television or radio, on your video cassettes, or in newspapers, books and magazines, it has never happened in the history of the world before. Never has it been as bad as it is now, and never has it escalated as rapidly as it is at this time. We've got to address ourselves to it.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) says the federal government has to tighten up the Criminal Code and then he'll be able to do something. In the meantime, we have an opportunity through the Human Rights Code at least to make a public statement saying that in this province this government will not tolerate affronts to the dignity of women and children in this way, and to lay complaints. That's all we're asking the minister to do. It's not going to cost anything. He can't use it as a restraint measure and say that to balance the budget we're going to have to bargain away the dignity of women and children. It's not a restraint measure; that can't be the excuse.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not sure what more I can say, except to repeat that this Legislature decided that the way in which the kinds of civil rights protections the member talks about would be protected would be under a different act. Looking at the records of the House, I note that there was no recorded vote taken, but I assume that means that no one voted against that act and everyone here voted in favour of that route. I don't agree with the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that we reacted to some individual group. I think that this Legislature was vitally concerned about civil rights protection, not just from one group but from anybody who violated those civil rights. So we took that route, and I just think that it's inappropriate to discuss this matter in this context. I can't say anything more than that, except that, for the member's information — in case she doesn't already know — I'm told by one of my staff people that the Red Rag is no longer publishing, that the university withdrew permission to have it published as a result of some earlier discussions that went back, I'm told, to about 1979. Today, that publication is not being put out. That's just as an aside, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Well, I don't want to get into a debate over the Red Rag, because the university has withdrawn its permission, but the Red Rag is still being published, and we're fighting the Red Rag every year. When Lady Godiva rides, the Red Rag comes out. If you want last year's copy of the Red Rag, I can let you have it, because the women's office at the university is still fighting the Red Rag. The university is doing everything it can, but the Red Rag is still being published. We've got to be able to file complaints.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister is trying to tell us that it's inappropriate for us to be discussing this because we supported the Civil Rights Protection Act. I think it's inappropriate that that minister is not able to recognize the difference between the items covered by the Civil Rights Protection Act and the items being talked about in this amendment. They are entirely different issues. There is no way, under the Civil Rights Protection Act, that the kind of things proposed in this amendment could be dealt with. These are two different items entirely. This is a human rights issue. It's an issue that is very drastically affecting women and children in this province. It's an issue that is on the upturn, that comes to the fore in times of economic downturn. It's an issue where big bucks are being made by certain groups and promoters, and it's an issue that is definitely an infringement of the human rights of certain people within society, rights which cannot be dealt with under the Civil Rights Protection Act. That the minister stands up and tries to throw a fog over the debate and tell us that it's improper for us to be debating this is to me just a complete failure on his part to recognize what human rights are all about.

MR. SKELLY: I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has no response to this. It's a very important issue and one that has been addressed by the Saskatchewan government through their human rights legislation. The idea is to prevent the use of media, through radio broadcasting and television, for attacking certain groups in our society through the use of information which encourages hatred of that group, or which ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of that group. If we are to retain that education component of the Human Rights Code.... What we are doing here is allowing the absolute opposite to take place. If we don't specifically restrict this type of behaviour and transmission of

[ Page 4543 ]

hatred and ridicule against certain groups of people, it undermines the effect of the act. I think the minister should take a careful look at this amendment, go back to his advisers and bring this amendment back in in its proper form — again, in the form in which it exists in Saskatchewan.

There seems to be a belief in this province that wherever there is better legislation.... For example, if Manitoba has a "without reasonable cause" clause, and Saskatchewan has a much better method of preventing the dissemination of literature and media broadcasts which belittle, ridicule or hold certain groups, races or cultures up to ridicule, then we should have something that is second best. This province should have the best record of human rights, the best legislation on human rights and the best administration to protect human rights of any province anywhere. We should be the people who set the example for the rest of the country, hemisphere and world. That's something that makes people proud to be British Columbians.

This is a multicultural society in which we live, and everybody should enjoy equal rights and protection under the law. An amendment such as this would improve the enjoyment of those rights and protections. Yet the minister, knowing that this much-improved section exists in Saskatchewan, has rejected it completely. People are covered under his legislation — if it can be enforced. They are covered from the use of ridicule by signs, symbols, newspapers, etc., but they are not covered in other media that are equally important — perhaps in this era of mass communications even more important in communicating hatred and ridicule and belittling of other groups in society. The minister refuses to take any action, even though other provinces in Canada have established the precedent. I can't see why this minister always has the desire to be second best, or even worse. What we should be doing is taking the best that we can find anywhere — the best protection and educational devices in the field of human rights that we can find anywhere, and improving our statute by incorporating them into it, so that our people become the best protected anywhere, and our statute and administration becomes the symbol and beacon for people all over the world. What is wrong with that?

British Columbia used to be proud of the fact that we were leaders in the world in many things. We had the fastest growing employment, we were a developing economy, and we were improving social services. Now we seem to have a desire under this government to be second best or worse, and to treat our people second best or worse. Why does the minister not pick up on the good ideas that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have and good ideas from all over the world and incorporate them into our statute and even improve it to protect our people much better? Why does the minister always want to be second best? I would encourage the minister to change his mind on this, to consult his advisors on this, and to accept this amendment. I think this is a fine amendment, and I encourage it to the minister.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I find this quite interesting, because it is the first time since I've been in this Legislature that we've been debating a bill which is not on the floor of the House, and that's what we're doing. We're debating the wrong bill. This Legislature decided that the way in which these rights were going to be protected was through the Civil Rights Protection Act. If you don't think it goes far enough, then you should amend that act. It deals specifically with the kind of thing that member is talking about, and perhaps it should be broadened. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be, but it's not this bill. In fact, I think this whole debate is out of order.

[12:00]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this amendment covers two separate issues, one of which the minister addresses himself to: the question of human rights being covered by civil rights legislation rather than human rights. The second issue is why the protection against discrimination is not extended to radio, television and other forms of electronic media. I wonder if the minister would respond to that particular section of the amendment. He's being interrupted by the government Whip, so I'll just....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will appreciate, Madam Member, that when one is standing at their place, another member cannot stand except on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I appreciate that, but the minister wasn't prepared to stand yet, so I thought I would just hold his place for him. My question was, would you explain why the protection against discrimination in this section deals only with the printed media, written or signed? Why is it not extended to protect us in terms of the electronic media — radio, television and video? The minister himself uses television to tell us that we all should love each other, but in the section it isn't there.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Chairman, I disagree, The interpretation of "publish" today includes all form of media — any kind of publish, as long as it's put before the public.

MS. BROWN: So that would include television, radio and every other form of broadcasting device. I just wanted that to be on the record, to be absolutely sure. The whole issue of human rights in the context of belittling, exposing to ridicule and affronting of dignity is not going to be dealt with by the Human Rights Commission or human rights legislation. Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We're not prepared to accept the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I can't hear the minister's response.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have no further response.

MS. BROWN: I want the record to be clear, Mr. Chairman, as to whether the minister is saying that the human rights legislation and the minister responsible for human rights is not going to be dealing with human rights issues of ridicule, belittling and affronting the dignity of people, classes of people or groups of persons. That's what I am asking.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the government is not prepared to accept the amendment put forward by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 4544 ]

YEAS — 8

NAYS — 25

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I noted that the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) voted in the assembly, after the assembly having been acquainted of the fact that he has been temporarily appointed Speaker because of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker. I refer you to sections 11 and 12 of our standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I'm sorry, but your point of order must fail; section 12 of our standing orders refers to proceedings in the House and not in committee.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce the amendment that I had supplied to the table earlier. Inasmuch as it's not printed, I will read the amendment that we're proposing. It is, first of all, to delete section 3 of the bill and substitute the following: 3(1) No person shall (a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public; or (b) discriminate against a person or class of persons with respect to any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public unless reasonable cause exists for the denial or discrimination. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), (a) the race, religion, colour, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, physical or mental condition, sexual orientation, political belief, age, family composition, source of income or language normally spoken shall not constitute reasonable cause; and (b) the sex of a person shall not be reasonable cause unless it relates to the maintenance of public decency.

[12:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, in section 1, the definition section, we have canvassed at some considerable length the issue of reasonable cause, which is certainly a major component in this particular amendment. I don't see any purpose in repeating those arguments now, but I want to suggest that that is a major and an essential element of this amendment: that is, the introduction of the reasonable cause provision. May I remind the House that the provision has been proposed not only by the commission in 1983, as I mentioned earlier, but also by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association. It is not a left-wing, radical human rights activist type of amendment. We're talking about something that is widely supported by a disparate group of people in the community.

Dealing briefly with the reasonable cause provision, it's important for a variety of reasons, among which is the fact that the application of the Code can expand as community attitudes change. Perhaps the best example — which we alluded to before — is that even though the Human Rights Code of 1974 did not include a reference to physical or mental disability, we were able to protect people under that Code as a result of the reasonable cause provision. What happened in that legislation was that it didn't properly deal with issues that might have been present then but which weren't considered to be issues that should be dealt with. But as community values and attitudes changed, it was perceived that mental and physical condition should be covered by the legislation. Because of the reasonable cause provision, those people who were discriminated against on that basis were protected. Similarly, no doubt other issues will develop and attitudes will change in the coming months and years, and the flexibility would then be built in if a reasonable cause provision exists. In this particular amendment, of course, we're dealing with public facilities.

The other value of the reasonable cause provision relates to the question of intentional as well as unintentional discrimination. We'll get to section 9(1) later and deal with that issue at that time. Nevertheless, the reasonable cause provision has been used to allow for coverage of unintentional discrimination.

The reasonable cause clause also helps to ensure that technicalities don't get in the way of proper human rights protection. For example, it was once argued that discrimination against immigrants was not discrimination on the basis of place of origin. That was solved by a board of inquiry deeming that it was discrimination without reasonable cause. We've had those kinds of examples in the past, where reasonable cause does allow for the kind of protection that the government at least talks about wanting to provide, but doesn't in this legislation. That, I guess, is the essential element of all of our arguments relating to the reasonable cause protection.

We have argued before, and I make the argument again now: under this legislation people under 45 have no protection vis-à-vis their age; gays and lesbians have no protection; language minorities have no protection; and there is at least some very reasonable doubt as to whether pregnant women and sexually harassed individuals have any protection. It could be so simply remedied by the inclusion of reasonable cause language.

The amendment also deals with the issue in the last few words of section 3 relating to premiums or benefits under contract of insurance. When the Code was amended in 1974 to deal with this particular problem of overt and deliberate discrimination in matters of insurance relating to sex or gender, it was made clear that that was temporary. When a thorough examination and study took place as to how to avoid this kind of discrimination, then there would be amendments brought in to remedy the problem. The fact is that we've neither had the remedy in legislation nor ever had the studies.

[ Page 4545 ]

Can the minister table with the House, when it later reconvenes, or provide information as to the studies that his ministry has conducted in respect of discrimination relating to insurance? I don't believe that has actually happened.

The way the legislation is written now allows for discrimination against groups or individuals in matters of insurance that have nothing to do whatsoever with the particular experience of that group. There is no protection whatsoever. You can now say under this legislation that all women should pay twice as much fire insurance as men. That will be legal. You can now say, for example, that travel insurance can be made twice as expensive for women as for men, despite the fact that that would be a discriminatory act and despite the fact that you wouldn't be able to produce evidence that women run twice as much risk while they're travelling. It would be legal, under this legislation, to levy those kinds of discriminatory premiums. Any number of examples can be cited, and I won't do that, but I make the point that a serious philosophical problem exists in relation to this issue, one that I'm not sure has been thoroughly canvassed by anybody in this province in terms of the philosophical underpinnings of that concept of different rates of premiums. I'm not making the argument at this time, because I haven't done a thorough enough evaluation of the question.

As one individual in this House, I'm not making the argument that there should be no discrimination on the basis of perhaps gender or some other category in respect of insurance. That argument can be made. It most likely will be made, but I'm not making that. I'm making the other kind of argument; by including language like this, the minister not only accomplishes that limited objective which the insurance companies have lobbied him to accomplish, but it also opens the barn door wide open for any other kind of overt discrimination, on any basis, in respect of insurance premiums or benefits. That must be dealt with. We deal with it in our amendment simply by not making it an exemption.

I concede that our amendment may not meet all of the concerns that could be expressed about this, but I would rather have it limited, in the way that our amendment limits it, than to have it wide open for any kind of discrimination on any basis whatsoever, as will now be allowed by section 3 of the Human Rights Act.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that there's much more that I can add to what has been debated on a general basis in second reading. This amendment goes really to the heart of the matter of where we differ, and that difference is obviously going to stay. I don't agree with one of the member's earlier comments — and I believe of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) as well — about flexibility in this bill. I don't think it should be flexible. I think it should be very specific so people in the community understand what they can't do and what is against the law. One of the problems has been that people didn't understand what was discrimination in this province. There were no clear guidelines, no clear routes to follow; that's one of the reasons it took so long for the resolution of disputes in British Columbia. And you — the generic "you," the people on the other side of the House — obviously also believe that the government can do everything. I don't. I don't believe the government can do everything, and I don't think it should even try; but it should identify very serious problems and then move in and attack those problems, and I believe that's the route we're going.

So as far as the reasonable cause provision goes, the government is not going to accept that reasonable cause be reintroduced into the bill, and I think that to recanvass the whole argument of the last couple of days would not be proper.

MS. BROWN: First of all, I want to respond to the minister, who is saying, at 25 minutes after 12, the very opposite to what he said at 25 minutes after 10. When my colleague from North Island said that section 1, the interpretation section, had to be specific so that people would know precisely who was protected against discrimination and what issues were covered by the act — such as sexual and racial harassment, pregnancy and those kinds of things — the minister said: "No, I don't believe the Code should be that specific." Now, two hours later, when we're dealing with section 3, he says: "I don't believe we should be general, and I don't think we should be flexible. I think we should be specific." If we're going to be specific, let's go right back to the beginning and start all over again, because the interpretation section of the Code is not specific enough. For example, your definition of marital status is one that we'd like to have included in the Code. Your definition of marital status is new and unique and different, because it includes children. It says that a person who has children is deemed to have a different marital status than a person who doesn't. The rest of us thought it had to do with being married or unmarried.

You said you don't need to be specific about such things. Now, in this section, you are saying that you need to be specific. You can't have it both ways. That's what this bill is trying to do. It's not specific in the areas where it should be specific, and it's specific in other areas where it limits the coverage and the groups of people who can be covered by the legislation. That is the gist and the intent of the amendment submitted by my colleague. The new wording of the act would ensure that nobody falls between the cracks, that nobody is left unprotected as a direct result of your failure to be more specific in this section.

I know my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat is going to deal with this in more detail. The section dealing with the insurance companies is one which we are not going to accept, but I'm going to allow my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat to deal with that.

MRS. WALLACE: Before dealing with that section, I want to deal a little more with this reasonable cause thing. The minister said it very well: we have a difference of opinion. He does not believe that there should be justice for human rights if there is reasonable cause. He only believes that there should be provision for hearings to take place if they fall within some specific categories that he has named within this bill. If they don't fall in there, then he does not believe that you should have any opportunity to justice as far as human rights go. That's what he said.

[12:30]

Age, for example. If you're between 45 and 65, you have some protection. You and I, Mr. Chairman, might find ourselves out of a job if the government should determine that we were not entitled to sit in this House because of our age. We would have no right to appeal under this particular bill. If you're under 45, it's the same thing. Suppose you're 25, 30 or even 40, you want to apply for an apprenticeship and you're told you're too old; you have no room for appeal, no matter how well qualified or well suited or how great your

[ Page 4546 ]

need — in case of an industrial accident or something like that and you want to apprentice for a different job. There's no provision under this code.

Yes, I do want to talk about the insurance thing, because it certainly affects a great many people, and it could particularly affect women. It allows discrimination on the grounds of sex and physical or mental disability with respect to premiums or benefits under contracts of insurance. If I want to insure my house, am I going to have to pay more because I'm a woman or because I have some disability? Does it make any difference to the company what my sex is if I want to insure my house? Does it make any difference to an insurance company whether I have some disability if I want to insure my house against fire or insure something against theft? Under the provision that the act would have, it would allow an insurance company to make that kind of discrimination. You know and I know and the minister knows that insurance companies have actuarial tables. They establish rates based on certain facts. That's the way it should be — certain historic data — but not based on the fact that I'm a woman or have a disability, either physical or mental.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: That's a different thing. If they want to talk about smoking and charging different premiums for smokers and non-smokers, that makes good sense. There are actuarial tables that show that smokers are more apt to burn down their houses. There's no problem with that. But just because I am a woman, or because I'm a man, or because I have a physical disability or mental impairment, an insurance company can charge me more to insure my house? That just doesn't make any kind of sense. Travel insurance could be two or three times as expensive, and I would have no way of appealing that under this bill. That's what this amendment is all about. It's about the reasonable cause, and it's also about this very strange provision about insurance that the minister has seen fit to write in here. It makes no sense whatsoever. Actuarial tables are the things that should be used, and if they're not used then I should have the right to appeal under the human rights legislation. I will not have that unless this amendment is included in this bill, because what the minister is proposing leaves it wide open with no opportunity. I am sure that if the minister thinks twice about it he will realize that that is not the route to go, and that he needs to change that section relative to insurance to allow the kind of protection that we're talking about on this side of the House, the protection that the amendment suggested by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) would put into place.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as a mite strange that the minister hasn't got up and at least explained the last part of this clause: "...In the case of physical or mental disability, to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of insurance." There are many contracts of insurance, and if this applies to all contracts of insurance, then it's the most ridiculous thing that I've seen. It says right here that we will permit those powerful insurance companies to discriminate where others can't. It strikes me that if there were good reason.... For instance, in terms of life insurance, there's no question that people with certain physical or other illnesses are not eligible for the same quality of life insurance that others would, just by virtue of the statistics, and unless you have a universal kind of insurance program that has been the case for a number of years. This is so all-encompassing it means, for instance, that if I wish to insure my house, automobile or anything, all these matters can be taken into account as part of the determination of my premium. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this part of an otherwise relatively bad section is about the worst of all, because not only is it saying that we're going to assist the insurance companies to discriminate, but it is almost insisting they do.

I have had a fair amount of experience with insurance companies over the years, and I'm sure that they're dancing with glee over this particular section. I suggest that over the years insurance companies, particularly casualty companies, have tended to "cream." That's a word that's used in the industry for those who just take the very best available and leave whatever else to somebody else. One of the reasons why this province got into the ICBC situation in the first place was because of creamers. They discriminated through age and sex, and in every way possible, to the extent that a number of years ago, before 1974, there was what they called assigned risk in this province. There was a whole class of people who couldn't buy insurance except through a compulsory category insisted upon by the government of this province, because the government had said that it's mandatory that you have insurance when you drive an automobile.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And expanded on with our FAIR program.

MR. COCKE: Yes.

So, Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here is outside of the automobile insurance thing.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll answer this for you.

MR. COCKE: You will? Okay. I'd be interested in the minister's answer to that particular question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the members opposite have made an extremely good point on the matter of the insurance. I would be prepared, at an appropriate time after we've dealt with the amendment we're speaking to now, to put in some words, which I'm going to go get now, basically saying that this section would only apply to life or health insurance.

MRS. WALLACE: I do have some questions about the life aspect of that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You can't debate that now.

MRS. WALLACE: I am debating this section and I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, for edification of the minister, in case he is going to draft some kind of an amendment, that relative to life insurance, actuarial tables show that there is a difference in life span between males and females. If in fact a company is allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, they can then disregard that difference in drawing up any life insurance premium rates. I would have some very serious....

[ Page 4547 ]

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what this says. It says that in the case of sex, the determination of premiums or benefits under contract of insurance.... If I'm not reading that right, I'd like the minister to explain what I'm reading wrong in there. If that relates to life insurance, it means that they can disregard those actuarial tables relative to longevity.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, it's exactly the opposite. Somebody — I've forgotten whether it was the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) way back in the early stages of second reading — asked if we had been heavily lobbied by the insurance industry. The answer to that has to be no. We were not lobbied. We did get some correspondence from the insurance industry which convinced me that if you want to do what I think you want to do — that is, be allowed to spread the risk so women would get cheaper insurance premiums because of those actuarial tables — then that's what we want to do. I don't want to have more expensive travel insurance because you might be in a wheelchair or something like that. So I think that if we limit this specific provision to allow those actuarial tables to be used in determining premiums for life or health insurance only, I expect that will include group insurance.... The member for New Westminster will know more about this than I do, but that's what we want to do, Madam Member.

[12:45]

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have had a fair amount of experience in the industry and I can't imagine insurance companies — let me put this into context — operating without access to actuarial tables. I agree that there are many insurance companies who do not provide a lower rate for women for their life insurance but at the same time provide a lower pension because of their longer life expectancy. So they are getting the best of both worlds.

What the minister is saying here is: make them compete in this particular area. I say yes, absolutely. The question of life and casualty I'm not opposing. Some of my colleagues are having difficulty with it. The only thing that I am particularly opposed to...and if the minister is prepared to bring in the amendment that would exclude the other forms of insurance such as car insurance, house insurance and general insurance, I think that would be fair enough.

You see, Mr. Chairman, the minister was talking about group insurance. In group insurance, of course, what you do in order to assess the group premium is evaluate all the risks within the group, which include male, female, some with a higher morbidity expectation than others and so on and so forth. Then that all has to be part and parcel of the construction of that premium. So I agree that there's no way, if we get too tight on this thing, that you would be able to merchandise insurance as we know it today. We could stand here and say that okay, we would prefer that everybody get universal....

MR. REID: You may have to go back selling insurance one day, so be careful.

MR. COCKE: I don't have to ever go back to selling insurance. Maybe you'll go back to selling cars someday.

In any event, I agree with this direction that the minister is taking. I think it cleans that up to my fancy. Certainly I'll discuss it with the remainder of my colleagues. At the moment I'm not speaking for our whole caucus, because it's a new concept for some. But I do think that if we can see the amendment, let's have an opportunity to discuss it.

MS. BROWN: I need some clarification as to what the procedure is now. Does this mean that section 3 is going to be lifted from the table and put aside while the amendment is being drafted?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No. Your amendment is still on the floor.

MS. BROWN: When that's disposed of, your amendment will be introduced?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: One way or.... Yes.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

I would like to go back to discuss our amendment which deals with reasonable cause. The amendment says that the groups which are not specifically named in this particular section of the act would still have the freedom in the event of either intentional or unintentional discrimination. Sometimes that does occur. Discrimination is not always intentional. Occasionally someone who discriminates can plead and say: "It wasn't deliberate. It was unintentional." As the act now stands, that could not be dealt with under this present legislation. However, under the amendment as it is written, unintentional as well as intentional discrimination would be dealt with, because we would be reintroducing the concept of reasonable cause to the legislation. There would be no loopholes, no cracks for anybody to fall between. No one who has not been specifically named, no group of people, such as welfare recipients, who have not been specifically named.... They would still be protected, because they would have access to the legislation through the concept of reasonable cause. The amendment is more specific in the long run in terms of areas of protection.

The minister is very involved in a serious discussion, so with your permission I will wait until he is free to listen.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Were you listening? Oh, I didn't realize that you could listen and talk at the same time.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: I was speaking in support of the amendment and suggesting to the minister that the wording of the proposed amendment from my colleague from North Island is better and in many ways more specific than as it is presently written in the act. The minister said that he wanted to be specific, that he felt that the problem with the earlier Human Rights Code was that it was not absolutely clear. A number of people were confused as to just what areas they were and were not permitted to discriminate in. I am suggesting that the amendment as it is written, saying that no discrimination is

[ Page 4548 ]

going to be permitted under any circumstances unless reasonable cause exists for the denial or discrimination, is much better. It will ensure that no one falls between the cracks. It will ensure that unintentional as well intentional discrimination is dealt with. It will also ensure that a person would not be able to get away with a discriminatory act based on a technicality.

I wonder if the minister would like to respond to the two issues which I raised: that is, that dismissal on a technicality would not be possible if the amendment were accepted; also, unintentional discrimination would not be permissible if the amendment was acceptable.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't quite understand the issue on the dismissal by someone on a technicality. As long as it's covered under the terms of the bill, the only way one could be dismissed would be if it wasn't covered under the terms of the bill. Again, I say yes, there may be some things which that member considers to be discrimination that won't be covered, and I have admitted that. I can't say much more about it. But the matters which are covered will, I believe, be covered much more fully and much more competently.

On the matter of intent, I haven't canvassed legal people on whether or not reasonable cause would handle the intent thing, but since I have made it quite clear that the government will not accept the reasonable cause concept, we....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My problem is that I flunked recess in school. [Laughter.]

On the matter of intent, I said last night that I fully intend to deal with that. We'll make it clear, following words similar to those which are in place in Ontario; that will come up at a later time during the bill.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until 1:15 this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

MS. BROWN: No, we're debating it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is the House Leader's decision to continue this debate this afternoon on a bill before us that has been handled very clumsily by the government. Last night until sometime after 1 a.m. they used the typical bullying tactics to get it through second reading. Now, Mr. Speaker, they're using the same tactics to put it through the committee stage. This kind of tactic has never produced anything other than sheer, utter animosity in this House. Naturally members have made plans. There has been no announcement of this particular situation. Members have made plans to otherwise engage themselves this afternoon.

As far as we're concerned, we will guarantee that you will get this piece of legislation through in terms of committee at exactly the same time as you would have otherwise. I will tell you that that is an undertaking from the opposition: an absolute assurance that we will drag our feet, because of the lack of any kind of cooperation from this government. There was no suggestion last night that there would be work....

Members are human beings who make plans. Members are human beings who know when adjournment time comes and are free to make plans thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who remain — and we will remain — make plans to drag our feet on this section and the next section. You might possibly get one more section through. As far as I'm concerned, I'm sick and tired of the bullying tactics of the Social Credit government, and not just on the opposition; it's all those people who are affected by this piece of legislation that we don't like at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that a point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is on the time.

MR. HANSON: It's apparent that the government has become so heavy-handed, so contemptuous of this House, so committed to this serial July 7 budget approach of last year, when they failed by putting all the bills together in one package, that they're now pressing forward by breaking all the standing rules of this House to achieve their objective. It is grossly unfair to the people of this province to have this bill rammed through the House when it could be taken forward for public hearings in the community and so on. We do have standing orders which outline the times that this House sits. Yet at the same time we have a government so committed to a time schedule of blasting the labour movement, of disrupting and destroying human rights in this province, that they want to do this bill so they can then bring in the Labour Code amendments to hammer the labour movement in this province. It just won't wash, Mr. Speaker. The people on this side of the House are committed to fairness and justice in this province, and we will stay here and fight this approach. Because of the contempt in which the Social Credit Party holds this House, we must stand here and fight on behalf of the people to have order in this House and a fair way of making laws. That member sitting there who happens to be the Premier is enthralled with the heavy-handed approach; he had a taste of it last fall. He got a taste of the power of closure, of bullying tactics, and now he's addicted.

[1:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon. member, parliamentary language is always a hallmark of good debate, and I think we should avoid any personal references to another member of this House. I would remind all members that the debatable question before us is the time suggested in the motion, which is 1:15. Please confine your remarks to that.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) gave this House an undertaking: that is, that there will be no shortcut by the time cuts of the Social Credit House Leader. We will do our duty as members of this House and of the opposition, as we must. We will carry forward in debate the clause-by-clause changes required to

[ Page 4549 ]

make this a just bill. We will not allow the government to shortcut that circuitry. There will be no time gain by Social Credit. All our members will stand in this House and ensure that there is no time gain at all. The bullying tactics must be stood up to, because it's getting worse every time we come into this House. He is now at an addiction level for bullying tactics; he needs a bigger and bigger hit of those tactics constantly to meet the threshold of his physiology. It will not wash, Mr. Speaker; we will not go for it.

MR. R. FRASER: I would like to advise the House that the member from the Okanagan is the Premier because he was elected by the people on May 5, 1983, and the anniversary is tomorrow.

With respect to the hour, I suggest that I'm prepared to cancel my weekend plans if the business of the House is more important. I'm prepared to sit as long as the opposition requires to propose the amendments and make all the suggestions and contributions they wish. I can do that; it is my first priority, and will be as long as I'm a member of the House. It may be 1:15, 2:15, today, tomorrow or Sunday, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I really have to try to indicate to the government and to this House that I thought we'd all learned some lessons from the session last summer, where we had legislation before us that created great consternation and concern and there was a necessity for slowing down the process and for consultation, rethinking and reflection. This side of the House has tried during this session to accommodate the government in many areas. We have agreed on and are participating in some reforms of this House. On a number of occasions we have given leave to bring in legislation or to continue debate on certain parts where it's not normal and we could have said no according to the rules of the House. We are committed to trying to use this House in a more respectful attitude. I think the people want both sides of the House to have the opportunity to look at this kind of legislation in a rational and intelligent way, not necessarily ramming something through as quickly as possible, forcing the Legislature to work to wee hours of the morning. Now, of course, having dropped the hoist motion, this side of the House is offering the opportunity for a bipartisan approach to this very important piece of legislation; an opportunity for....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BLENCOE: That is exactly what I'm trying to talk about. We have come to the end of the road, Mr. Speaker, in terms of how we handle business in this House. Yes, it's time for some moderation and compromise in this House, Mr. Speaker. We have offered a committee analysis of this kind of bill. We have today offered some reasonable amendments for discussion, and we have asked the government to consult with interested groups. We have asked for a period of peace and consultation on this kind of legislation, and yet we continue to get the attitude and tactics that reflect the situation of last summer that scared British Columbians — and we're about to start it again.

British Columbians don't want this kind of legislation and the procedures that you continue to utilize. They want some reasonable, intelligent and rational moderation, but we're not going to get that. We're again going back to the old ways. Because of the kind of legislation we're talking about, the kind of principles and ideals that are involved in this kind of legislation, and the impact on all British Columbians, we ask the government to deal with this issue in a non-confrontational way. The method which is now being pursued.... It started last night, and we're starting it again by forcing this House to sit I don't know how long....

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not forcing you.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh yes, you are.

We're asking you to be reflective and reasonable about this kind of legislation and not force this House into crazy hours.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Here they are heckling someone who is trying to ask for a different approach to this kind of legislation. This is important, Mr. Speaker. It is important for a government that happens to be part of a free and democratic western world to say what we believe in, but yet think about those things clearly and take time and support those ideals, hopefully in a non-confrontational process.

Pursuing this direction and forcing this House to meet beyond the normal hours that have come to be expected is once again creating a confrontation and is not going down the road to what British Columbians want: reasonableness and moderation in how we deal with business. This is unreasonable and will not achieve peace and harmony in our province. It is time that we worked together and achieved some of that peace and harmony. You pursue and push the hour past the normal time and you create confrontation. I ask the government to rethink not only its legislation but the time that it is pursuing in this kind of legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the next speaker, I would ask all members to please retain order and decorum in the House. We have a very simple motion before us; it deals with adjournment at this specific time. It is the only debatable motion, and if we confine our remarks to that concept, the Legislative Assembly will be well served.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking, of course, in favour of the motion.

If the members of the opposition really believe that this is an important subject for discussion, why is it that we only have four of them in the House at this time? Why is it that we had eight and nine in the House last evening when we were discussing the subject? If it is one of the most important matters to come before this House, why aren't they in here giving us their opinion? I would hope that we would support this motion, and that we will stay here so we can get the job of the people done.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed. Last fall we were here around the clock: legislation by exhaustion; dealing with issues that were of grave concern to a great many of the people outside this Legislature; dealing with issues that were so strongly supported at that time that it was suggested that they be let die on the order paper. It was suggested that the human rights legislation as proposed at that time would die on the order paper, and that there would be

[ Page 4550 ]

consultation; that we would have a government that was prepared to take a second look and to consider the concerns of the individuals who would be so closely and severely affected by the changes the government was proposing. The House adjourned at that time — in that particular session — and did not reconvene for many months. We finished that session and much of that contentious legislation died on the order paper, or else it was.... After sitting around the clock, to discuss some of that legislation, 24 hours a day, that very legislation that was forced through the House was negotiated to be non-effective on all public servants. That is the procedure we saw then, Mr. Speaker. Now we are back at exactly the same place. Not only are we back in a legislation-by-exhaustion situation in which this House sits until 1:30 a.m., reconvenes at 10:00 a.m. and is now proposing to carry on, probably through the rest of this day and this night to force through the same bill...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Different bill!

MRS. WALLACE: The same bill with minor, cosmetic changes.

... by sheer dint of numbers and through exhaustion.... Obviously there has been time to reconsider that bill. There should have been ample time for consultation. If that had actually taken place, would the Minister of Labour find himself in the position he's in today? Two specific suggestions from the opposition have caused him to say: "Hey, wait a minute, I've got to change this. It isn't right." There's intent and the matter relative to insurance. On both of those he said: "Look, I've got to change it."

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on standing order 43. I think it's very clear from the last few minutes of supposed debate by the hon. member that she has persisted in doing nothing pertaining to the motion before us. Either it was irrelevant, to say the least, or clearly tediously repetitious of previous speakers. I'd ask the Speaker to bring her to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order is well taken. As the Chair has advised the House in just the last few moments, the debatable motion before us is that this House do now adjourn until 1:15 in the afternoon. If we can contain our remarks to and remain within the concept of that motion, the assembly will be well served.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I believe my remarks relate very directly to that. What is happening through this urgency, this rush, this legislation by exhaustion, this need to reconvene within another two or three minutes — to be back here to discuss this same thing.... After having discussed it for hour upon hour upon hour, the Minister of Labour is not ready. He's not ready to carry on. He has amendments to draft. He's listening to recommendations from this side of the House. He needs to take more time to consider this. He should not be being forced to be back here with these amendments, which will be hastily drafted, which we haven't had time to even have a look at....

[1:15]

We're drafting legislation on the floor of this Legislature after having sat through hours.... People are tired, and it is ridiculous to come back here and carry on doing the same sort of debate and discussion finding that the legislation is lacking in certain areas and that the minister has to accept these changes, recognizing the fault of the.... He's had long enough, but he hasn't done the job. Now we're into exactly the same situation we were in last fall, with the same type of legislation, attempting to force it through the House without any consideration for the need for that consultation — which obviously hasn't taken place or the minister wouldn't be in the position he is in today. If ever there was a time when that government should take a second look and not continue to force its will, just for the sheer sake of brute force, now is the time. Obviously the minister needs to go through that bill with a fine-tooth comb and see if there are other areas.... Perhaps he needs to look at the amendments we're proposing, so that he has a little time to review them and to discuss them with his supporters and his advisers and decide whether or not there are other areas that need to be changed, so we can have this on the orders of the day, so we know what we're dealing with, so we have time to prepare debates. We should not be rushing pell-mell through something, forcing it through hour after hour — legislation by exhaustion — something that should have gone out with the Dark Ages, something that was supposed to have gone out when these rules were drafted, but that this government continues to ignore.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am not wishing to continue much longer, but I have just a couple of points. The legislation which is being considered by the House was, I believe, introduced to the assembly April 10. I think that the opposition may have had adequate time to place their amendments on the order paper, which would have given the minister an opportunity to read them and consider them, but I understand the opposition has indicated they have not had time to do that.

With respect to the time which is now upon us, I don't know if the member who just took her seat believes she is going to persuade the government differently than continuing with debate on this legislation. I would humbly suggest that we'd be accomplishing a great deal more to have debate on the legislation rather than to hear a silly argument of why we shouldn't adjourn until 1:15 and perhaps spend an hour or two arguing about whether we should sit again at 1:15 well after that time is passed. That hour of debate with respect to the adjournment motion, I think, would be much better utilized in discussing the sections of the legislation before us. No wonder many citizens think that some members on occasion in this House may not be utilizing their time as MLAs most effectively.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again I'll remind the Legislative Assembly that the Chair is not aware of any legislation before us. We are discussing an adjournment motion.

MS. BROWN: I was here until 1:30 this morning; I was back at 10 o'clock; I'm here at 1:15; and I'll be here for as long as it takes. Because we're not talking about trees or salmon or mines; we're talking about people. A lot of us worked very hard and made a lot of sacrifices so that we could have decent legislation in this province to protect black people, women and the disabled. That legislation is now being taken away from us. If we have to stay here after 1:15 today, after 1:15 tomorrow or after 1:15 on Sunday to debate that, we will do it, because I have to be able to say to myself and to my children that I fought a racist government. I didn't win, but I fought them. That is the reason why it matters not

[ Page 4551 ]

whether this amendment passes or it fails as to whether we stay here at 1:15 or past 1:15. The issue still remains that a racist government is pushing through racist legislation on the floor of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all I want to make it clear that I have no problems at all in being here this weekend. My constituents will understand why I miss meetings with them tomorrow and again on Sunday. That's not a particular problem. What is a problem is that those people, numbering in the millions, who will be affected by what we do this weekend will not have their lives well served by having laws that govern their existence, their behaviour and their lives determined through a process of exhaustion.

In order for me as one MLA to do an adequate and competent job in attempting to improve the legislation in order that it be as good as it possibly can be, I need to consider these things quietly, carefully, and in the normal course of events, and within a timetable that the public has come to expect. There is no doubt in the minds of those people in the community who are concerned about this particular legislation that we wouldn't have got to committee stage until next week except for the decision last night to go to an all-night session. We would have been finished today in second reading. We probably needed a couple of days, in that neighbourhood, to deal with the committee stage. If we had adjourned at one o'clock today and had come back at 2 o'clock on Monday, I would suspect that if not by 6 o'clock on Monday, then certainly by some time on Tuesday we would have been able to properly consider legislation, properly consider amendments that both this side and that side would like to consider. We could have done that, and the public who are going to be affected by this legislation would have been well served.

They will not be well served by the acrimony that developed as a result of this kind of tactic. That will impair the ability of this Legislature to work cooperatively in order to get the best possible legislation because we set up a "we-and-they" situation rather than an "us" situation. That's not good, particularly for legislation of this magnitude and this importance to people's lives.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), at the beginning of this debate when we reacted with horror about the 1:15, said: "There's no problem — just withdraw all your amendments." What does he think our responsibility is as legislators? It is to legislate. The minister responsible for a particular bill isn't the only person allowed to have some say about what legislation should be. That's why we were elected. We were elected to put those amendments if we felt they were proper. We didn't do it in a deleterious way; we've only put in 14 or 15, whereas we could have put in several hundred. We could have. We considered it, and I've got them. I'm tempted now to do it.

Mr. Speaker, because we knew we would have time today and again on Monday and Tuesday to do this properly — not a question of going through all afternoon, all night, all day Saturday, all Saturday night — we scratched more potential amendments than we have actually prepared. But you know what? This forces me to consider going back and doing that kind of delaying tactic.

We will be through this legislation for sure by Tuesday, whether we sit at 1:15 today or at 2 o'clock on Monday.

That's a reality. Why would the government want to do this? Why would the government want the Legislature to sit this weekend? Is it so afraid that public opinion is so massively opposed to them on this issue that they don't want the public to know about it? The Legislature has had Wednesday and Thursday and Friday so far to discuss this legislation. This is the first time there has been publicity, in any meaningful way, about this legislation. The public is now beginning to understand that there is legislation on the floor of this House relating to human rights that is the same as last summer's bill, and the government is afraid that that learning will take place out there in the public, given the time. That's why they want to got the bill through on the weekend, rather than in the normal course of events.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again I will remind the assembly that the motion before us is an adjournment motion. We have no legislation in front of us at this point. We are simply debating the time of adjournment. Any other debate is irrelevant. Please proceed with respect to the motion in front of the House at this time.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I am arguing that we should not sit at 1:15 but rather we should sit at 2 o'clock on Monday, and I've outlined the reasons. The public does not have ample opportunity to respond, as it should, to legislation that affects it. MLAs are not able to do as effective a job when they're forced to sit and do legislation by exhaustion.

I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that MLAs on the government side of the House are more prepared to debate a time of adjournment than they are the legislation itself. They were elected, as we were, to deal with this in a calm and rational way, and we cannot do that if we have a government determining that it's going to bully its way through by sitting late at night, by sitting on the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, as I said to begin with — and I'll close with this — I am personally quite happy to be here. I'll sit here and talk, and what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is that I'm going to have an opportunity now to spend a lot more time dealing in a lot more detail with — this legislation than I would have had otherwise. If the member thinks it's a threat, he's right.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, it seems that some of these extra debating times are necessary, mainly because if there was any resemblance between the pious utterings of the opposition at this time and their actions, then there could be some credence put in what they are saying. However, they now seem to be so greatly interested in debating the legislation after having spent a great deal of time debating a hoist motion. Now the member says that we would have done it on Monday and Tuesday. But I hear public utterances from them to the effect that they are going to use whatever tactics are available to them to block this forever. If that member had assured the government that they were only interested in a rational debate on the legislation and on the amendments, then perhaps, if some of their actions had indicated that, something could have been done. Really, if you want to debate the topics.... There's a great cry now of, "We want to debate the issues," after spending how long? — making commitments to do anything possible within the rules of this House to block some legislation. You say the people need to know, I think the public of this province does need to know that something needs to be done. Legislation

[ Page 4552 ]

needs to proceed in an orderly fashion and not because of the tactics that these people want to use — abusing the rules of this House in order to delay.

[1:30]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, it's this type of motion and this type of activity on behalf of the government that has cast this House into disrepute time and time again. It has characterized it in the eyes of the public as a zoo and as a House that can't control itself. It's a House that now lacks respect among other legislatures and citizens across Canada. It's a tactic that reduces the standing of all members of the Legislature and all political parties. The whole legislative process is held very low in public esteem in this province as a result of the tactics that are being used today. It's this type of attempt to ram legislation down the throats of the public without any attempt to cooperate between the parties in this Legislature, to allow the parties to develop the means of amending legislation and debating legislation in detail.... It is legislation that is the concern of thousands upon thousands of citizens of British Columbia. The government is attempting, in the final hours of the week, to ram this legislation down the throats of the people in this House and down the throats of the people in British Columbia. It generates the kind of fruitless, insulting debate that takes place across the floor of this House, and in particular from that corner back there, whose occupants have never spoken in debate on this or previous human rights acts.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will come to order.

I'll remind members in this House once again that we are debating an adjournment motion. There's nothing else before us except that motion. Please confine your remarks to that motion.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Speaker of the House is now attempting to improve the rules of the Legislature to make it function a little more smoothly and fairly, so that we can get through the business of the Legislature in a much more expeditious fashion. Yet it's this type of bullying behaviour on the part of the government that undermines the attempt to achieve that on a bipartisan basis in this Legislature. This is not the way to achieve good legislation in the province of British Columbia. We're willing to stay here until all hours of the day or night. We have the time to do it. If you want us to do it this way, it will take only two or three of our members in the House, and we can debate section by section until the cows come home.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's all you've got left.

MR. SKELLY: It's all that's necessary if you want the debate to be carried on in that way. If you want the reputation of the House to be cast in that way, then that's really all that is necessary.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Surrey will come to order — and all other members too, please. We are discussing an adjournment motion.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, if you're measuring the number of people on that side of the House who have spoken in this debate as opposed to the number of people on this side, we stand second to no one. None of those members has spoken in debate on the Human Rights Act. On the other hand, we have consulted with groups outside of this Legislature that have serious concerns about this bill. Groups are meeting right now, this weekend. Our members are meeting with some of those groups right now to discuss potential changes to this bill that would improve the bill. That's why we would require the time over this weekend to assist in bringing better legislation into this House. If there were much more cooperation between that side of the House and the opposition, we would get a human rights code through this House that the citizens of British Columbia would be proud of. Instead, here we are at the tail end of the week. Many government members have already gone home; many of our members are already out in their constituencies and in other constituencies consulting with groups concerned about human rights.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I feet that far more time is required for legislators to get out into their constituencies to consult with their constituents on the type of legislation we should be passing here. A 15-minute recess is absolutely ridiculous. There are amendments to consider. There are amendments to be put on the order paper so that all members will have access to them. Members should have the opportunity to go back to their constituencies and consult with the people they serve in order to find out their opinions on the Human Rights Act that we're debating.

I would encourage that we reject this motion to adjourn to 1:15. It doesn't make any sense anymore in any case, Mr. Speaker. Let's act reasonably and maturely. Let's act like adults in this Legislature. Let's raise the opinion that the public has of us. Let's give ourselves an opportunity to go and consult with those people to find out what they want in terms of human rights legislation in this province. The Human Rights Commission has done that over the past three years, and they've come up with completely different findings than the people on the government side have.

Give us that opportunity on this weekend, Mr. Speaker. Do not accept a silly, frivolous motion that will cause this House to work well into the night on Friday. We're willing to do it. We're paid to do it. We're here to do it, but it would be much more productive, much more fruitful, a much better

[ Page 4553 ]

investment of a member's time if we could be consulting with our constituents to find out precisely what they want in terms of human rights legislation.

It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that you accepted this motion in the first place, and I'm certainly prepared to vote against it.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:38 p.m.