[ Page 4555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On section 3 –– 4555

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Brown

Mr. Parks

Mr. Cocke

Appendix –– 4567

FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1984

The House met at 1:38 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this being a continuation of the sitting, and the time having passed — it is now twenty-five minutes to two — I again call committee on Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

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

On the amendment to section 3.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, there are at least two essential principles contained in the amendment that we're proposing. The first one deals with the reasonable cause provision, and the second with discrimination in matters of premiums or benefits under insurance contracts. We are proposing in the former that reasonable cause be included in this section. In the latter we are proposing that references to the opportunity to discriminate in respect of premiums or benefits be denied.

Dealing first with the issue of the determination of premiums or benefits, we are clearly talking about the ability of the insurance industry to discriminate with respect to any matter of insurance — fire insurance, travel insurance, life insurance, and whatever other kind of insurance you wish to talk about. That same industry could say, for example, to all diabetics in society: "Because you have been diagnosed as a diabetic, you will pay a certain rate." Or they may say to all people suffering from a heart condition or any other particular physical or mental condition: "Because you are a member of a group with that condition, you are subject to a higher rate."

Mr. Speaker, we would argue on this side of the House that each and every individual should be treated on their own merit. Let me give you a personal example. I have a physical condition which required that I pay a higher premium for life insurance, and I have paid that higher premium for 15 years now. Now I have it reduced back to the norm, because in my case I was treated as an individual. They decided that that condition was such that I should be assessed a higher premium, which I paid. Upon review recently, it was decided that that condition was no longer a problem or, therefore, a risk, and I was able to be put back into the normal rate for my age group.

Under this legislation, unless the amendment passes, everybody with that particular condition could be treated the same and could be assessed that higher premium. No matter what the individual characteristics of that ailment might be with each person so affected, there are.... If the industry decides to say that all diabetics, for example — picking on another issue — will pay a certain rate higher than the 11 normal rate, " they would be allowed to do so under this legislation.

Yet there are many diabetics who have no particular added health risk as a result of their medical condition. They will now not have the protection under this legislation, because the health premium as assessed by an insurance company can be — I'm not saying it will be, but it can be and most likely will be because it's easier — assessed to the group.

If my rate had been determined because I fitted into a group, and if I had a medical opinion that I was not at greater risk, I would have had the right under the old Code to go to the human rights branch and have that changed because I should not be discriminated against in that particular instance. I would not have that right under this bill.

It may seem like a small issue, but it's not. Whether it's in this particular aspect or in many many other aspects of the bill, we're saying that the door is being opened — not completely opened; there are still some protections — but the door is being opened to the possibility of over-discrimination against individuals for a variety of reasons when there should not be any discrimination for any reason in that individual case.

No one in this House denies that there are times when an individual can be discriminated against. That's not at issue. That's what reasonable cause is all about. We discriminate against men by not allowing them to go into women's washrooms. That's appropriate, and there are a whole variety of.... That's a silly and obvious one in many respects, but there are many examples of that kind of thing where we say some form of discrimination is appropriate. But what this bill does — and our amendment corrects — is it allows for that discrimination in respect to insurance premiums or benefits to be applied to a group of people.

[1:45]

Mr. Chairman, those should be individual assessments. The member for Little Mountain, if I heard him correctly, shouted across "airline pilots." What he's suggesting perhaps is that all airline pilots should be in one classification. What happens if you're an airline pilot and don't fly anymore? If you're in the group and your premiums or your benefits are assessed on the basis of the group, you don't have the right to go and deal with it if the insurance company decides not to let you.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I am delighted that the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) wants to debate with me, and when I sit down I will listen carefully to what he has to say, and then we can have a debate about this. That will be very useful in this process. I might candidly and quickly concede that the member for Little Mountain undoubtedly has many things to teach me in respect of human rights issues, quite possibly in this particular one too. As I think he knows, I say that genuinely. That's what this Legislature is for: those opinions that each of us has, whether well formed or in some cases ill formed, but nevertheless our opinions, and the opinions that we have gleaned from those people we represent. That's what this is about. That's what committee stage is useful for, Rather than attempting to debate with the member while I'm on my feet and he hasn't got the floor, I would appreciate it if we could do that in a more formal and structured way after I take my place.

So that is the first of our concerns about section 3: the opening of the door to discrimination against groups of people who can all be lumped together because they suffer some particular medical condition or other situation.

For ten years there has been a commitment from the Ministry of Labour that this subject will be studied. I appreciate it is not the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who made that commitment, and I appreciate that it's not

[ Page 4556 ]

even his government that made that commitment, but nevertheless the pledge was made when the Human Rights Code was first introduced and never reneged upon. I don't remember an election campaign or even a debate in this House where the government said: "No, it's not our policy. We're not going to examine the whole question of insurance premiums and benefits in respect of the Human Rights Code." So to the best of my knowledge it still stands as a Ministry of Labour policy. But the work hasn't been done. I concede that this is a difficult area. I suspect that in our caucus we have some differences of opinion. I detected some of them emerging when I listened to the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). That's fair enough. We are all individuals. We act collectively.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat rises on a point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we do not seem to have a quorum in the house.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm having trouble counting at the moment.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, you have a responsibility to ring the bells.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under Section 6 of the standing orders of this House, "the presence of at least ten members of the House, including Mr. Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers." There are now eleven members, excluding the Chair. The member for Cowichan-Malahat rises on a point of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, it is some four minutes since I called the quorum. When I called the quorum there were actually six people in the House. You have a responsibility to follow the standing rules, which make it very clear what you must do if a quorum is called. I want to put on record that it appears to me to be a direct abuse of the rules of the House not to ring those bells when a quorum is called.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the question of the determination of premiums or benefits under insurance contracts, and our view that while there may well be some differences of opinion on the part of many members in this House, there is certainly no division of opinion in our caucus over the fundamental question at hand. That fundamental question is that insurance companies are now able to discriminate against individuals for no good reason, simply because those individuals may be part of a group of people with a particular medical condition. I have made that argument and will leave it for the moment; undoubtedly we will get back to it over the course of the afternoon as we continue to debate this section.

The other issue I want to talk about in section 3 is the reasonable cause provision or lack thereof in the bill. The suggestion was made by the minister — these are not his words, but I think it is his suggestion — that no one really knows what reasonable cause is. If I am being fair in ascribing that suggestion to the minister, I think he should know — he should have known already as Minister of Labour — that that question has been addressed by several boards of inquiry under the Human Rights Code. Those boards have found it possible, with relatively little difficulty, to define what reasonable cause means. The branch, as well, has defined guidelines in respect of reasonable cause in the question of disability, because as we know it wasn't specifically included in the Code and therefore had to be dealt with under the reasonable cause provision. The branch had no problem in designing guidelines to determine that.

I have not heard a good argument from the minister. The one argument that I suspect he rests his case upon is that if you have reasonable cause provisions, then members of the public don't know what is or is not discrimination. That argument, like most arguments, has some merit, but its merit is completely overwhelmed, in my opinion, by the argument that without such reasonable cause provisions people will be discriminated against in various ways. As legislators we have to make a decision as to what is more important: that every member of the public knows precisely what is or is not discrimination, or, alternatively, that people who are being discriminated against have some remedy. I opt for the latter. The minister opts for the former. The minister would prefer that there be discrimination in a variety of ways in exchange for the public's knowing exactly what they can and can't do. But very quickly, within a year if not within months, the public will begin to understand what they can do to discriminate under this legislation. In respect of public facilities they can discriminate against people with a different sexual orientation, because when you read section 3 it does not include in its list.... I should read it again: "race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability or sex." It does not include sexual orientation. In a public facility in this province it will, once this bill is law, be permissible to discriminate against people who have chosen a gay or lesbian lifestyle. I make no comment as to the rightness or wrongness; there's no moral value in this whatsoever. I deal simply with the issue. The minister says it's important that the public know what is or is not permissible. The public will now know that it is permissible to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

I think in his heart the minister knows that his argument that the higher priority should be the public knowledge of what is or is not discrimination is not as valid an argument, not as high a principle, as the one that says: "When there is overt discrimination it should be stopped. It should not be allowed. There should be a process for it to be dealt with." Without the provision in that list of categories, without the provision of sexual orientation, as I said in my opening comments in second reading, this Legislature, by passing this bill will have declared open season on gays in this province. Can you imagine, or do you know, Mr. Chairman, the fear that exists in that community as a result of that kind of human rights provision? They may not have been named specifically in the Human Rights Code — they should have been, but they weren't — but at least there was the provision that you could only discriminate when there was reasonable cause to do so. Any right thinking person would agree that you cannot and should not discriminate. There is no reasonable cause for discriminating against an individual because they have chosen a different, and an unpopular, sexual lifestyle.

[2:00]

I spent considerable time on this issue in second reading. I said at the time that it was a debate that is not easy for a lot of

[ Page 4557 ]

people, me included. Many of us are not comfortable with the facts relating to these issues, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what is reputed to be 10 percent of our population, people who have chosen, for whatever reason — I don't pretend to understand it — a different way of living in relation to sexuality. We are now declaring open season on those people. They are not protected, unless the minister does one of two things, and I would argue that he should do both. One would be to include sexual orientation in the list of definitions in subsection (b), and also to make sure that the reasonable cause provision is there to catch those other groups or individuals who may be discriminated against. The clearest case, and the one that's had the least public discussion, particularly in this Legislature, is the most difficult one, I guess. That's why I spent some extraordinary time on it in second reading and again now. If you do not include sexual orientation in the wording, or if you do not have a reasonable cause provision, there is no protection whatsoever.

I've talked to representatives of gay organizations in Vancouver in the last few weeks. I spent some time in Vancouver during the recess, getting to know some of the issues around this bill, and I talked to people who represent the gay community. They tell me horror stories about the terror in which they live as a result of what they view as a government declaration of war on them, one which signals to the public that you are less than human if you happen to have chosen a gay or lesbian lifestyle. I don't think very many members, if any, have an ability to comprehend that. I don't, and I freely confess that. But in listening to people express their fears and the fears they hear from their friends, colleagues and members of other organizations, I'm mightily impressed by the seriousness of their fear and the fact that they are not just making political points. They are not just being politically activist, or professional human rights activists. They're terrified. Nothing in this bill gives them any protection or hope whatsoever.

I appeal again to the minister. If he can't accept our amendment which deals with the issue, if he wants to separate the amendment into its two major different features — one being the insurance premiums, the other being reasonable cause and the definitions — that's fine. We've had very little time to properly draft amendments. I'm not particularly concerned about whether our amendment carries, but I want the principle contained in them to carry. I don't understand how the minister cannot accept the principle that gay people are humans; they are, whether we like it or not. They're human beings and have the right to protection. There are other suggested groups in our amendment; one of them is "source of income." We dealt with that earlier in respect to subsection (2).

I would be interested in hearing the minister's response to these questions. First, has a study been done relating to the issue of insurance benefits and premiums, and the ability now for discrimination against individuals on the basis of groups? If the study hasn't been done, will one be done? Will he make the same pledge that was made in the early 1970s by the then Minister of Labour to study that and bring back amendments to make this section better? If the minister won't accept "reasonable cause" — so far, he has indicated that he won't — will he then consider accepting additional words and phrases in subsection (2), so that entire groups in our community are not subject to discrimination, as they will be? I'd be interested in the minister's reply to those questions.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the suggestion that we should include a classification of people described by the words "sexual orientation, " I would remind the member of the opposition, who spoke so eloquently on one group of people who are sexually oriented in a way that is now much more acceptable than it was, that that category includes many people who are completely unacceptable to society. There are lots of us out there who do not believe in child pornography, for example, or child molesters; that is a sexual orientation that I think the member opposite would in fact reject himself. That's very likely why that kind of thing is left out of the legislation.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. I don't think the member knew what he was saying. I trust he didn't understand what he was saying; if he did, he totally misunderstands one of the most difficult issues facing this society. Child molesters, to pick on his issue, have various sexual orientations; in fact, most of them are heterosexual. I am not talking about criminal activity.... Mr. Speaker, my first temptation was to fly into a rage at that outrageous comment, but I'm resisting because I don't believe the first member for Vancouver South understood what he just said. What he just said, in effect, was that including a provision under this legislation to protect the issue of sexual orientation somehow protects criminals who violate children and their rights, or who do various other criminal activities, both heterosexual and homosexual. The evidence is that it's overwhelmingly heterosexual individuals who are involved in child molestation. In fact, most child molestation comes from the immediate family. The evidence is overwhelming on that issue; it's mothers and fathers and uncles and grandparents. Overwhelmingly the molestation comes from heterosexual.... I hope the member thinks carefully about what he said.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: The member asked me to think carefully about what I'm proposing. I am proposing that people who choose a gay or lesbian lifestyle as opposed to a heterosexual lifestyle should not be discriminated against because of their choice of that option. We are not talking about criminal molestation or any of those other kinds of things which are dealt with properly, and hopefully more severely, under other legislation. That has nothing to do with human rights. What we're trying to deal with here is that there are a considerable number of people "in the closet" because of society's prohibitions against their feelings. Many of them will not have protection under this legislation, and they did have some minimal protection under the Human Rights Code that is now being replaced. That has nothing to do with criminal activities that the member is talking about.

I appeal to you to think about what we're debating here. The implications.... As far as I'm concerned, the member's comments are themselves grounds for a complaint under the Human Rights Code. The implication of what he said is that if you're gay you commit child abuse. That's what he said. When you deal with human rights, you deal as much with implication as you do with specifically stated facts. I guess that's why there is a division of opinion in this province and in this Legislature, because some people are still bigots. And unwittingly, unintentionally I hope, the member for Vancouver South fits into that category.

[ Page 4558 ]

MR. PARKS: Are you telling me that because I don't approve of gays I'm a bigot?

MR. GABELMANN: You don't have to approve of gays, to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. If that member and the member for Vancouver South listened to what I have said both in second reading and again today, I've chosen the words carefully. I've thought about the issue. I am not talking about forcing them to approve, nor are you expected to approve gay lifestyles. We are not talking about moral values or judgments. I thought some of these people were Christians. They sure can't live up to the basic tenets of that belief.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: What we're talking about is human rights protection: the basic protection that women should have, or black people or any group we've come to accept. We don't practise it very well, but we've come to accept that we shouldn't discriminate against East Indians, for example. Intellectually we say we shouldn't discriminate against them. Well, by God, we should say the same for gays. It doesn't mean that we approve of the lifestyle; that's not at issue. Nor does it mean that because they have chosen that lifestyle they will therefore go out and be involved in child molestation, when in fact the figures are that overwhelmingly those crimes are committed by heterosexuals. I remember well the incident on Yonge Street in Toronto some four or five years ago in which there was a murder. If my memory is correct, there was conviction for murder, with a homosexual individual found guilty. That was somehow treated differently than it would have been had that man been heterosexual. It shouldn't be. It's not relevant.

[2:15]

I've restrained myself from reacting as emotionally as I felt following the comments of the member for Vancouver South because I think we shouldn't just yell and scream at each other in this place; we should try to learn a little from each other as well. I want to try to explain that we are not talking about approving or condoning, or any of the words the members want to choose, of a lifestyle that we don't feel comfortable with. What we are talking about is providing people with basic rights and basic protections. What I've said before I said again today and I'll say now: this legislation declares open season on gays in British Columbia. With this subsection they will now be able to be discriminated against in public facilities, because they're not named nor is there a reasonable cause provision for them to lay their complaint under. If you believe you are discriminated against because of your sexual orientation and this bill is law, what do you do? If you've been discriminated against, you believe, under section 3 in a public facility because of your sexual orientation, what do you do? You can't go to an industrial relations officer and ask to lay a complaint. You can't go to the council. They don't have any jurisdiction. Does the government understand that? Does the government understand the fear that is being created in that community? I suspect that they don't when I hear the comments from the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) and the member for MaillardvilleCoquitlam (Mr. Parks). I suspect that they don't understand what's happening out there. I would like to take those members with me to meetings with various gay and lesbian organizations, to sit down and talk to those people about their daily lives and what they have to put up with.

MR. R. FRASER: You've got a deal — but only during the day.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: There he goes — got him again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I cannot accept what I'm hearing. The member has taken his place in this debate, and it is a serious issue dealing with accommodation, services and facilities. If the member could relate his remarks to the specific details of his amendment and of the section he is trying to amend, that would be in order. And could we please cease the interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not that emotional a person, but that brings tears to my eyes. My emotion is not anger; it is absolute despair. That says more about the government and about the Social Credit Party than anything I've heard to date in this debate. Sure, those members will accompany me to a meeting with representatives of the gay community — as long as it is in the daytime. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to let somebody else take over for a moment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I did want to try to answer a question regarding the insurance aspect, but I don't think I can answer it to the member's satisfaction. I think he correctly identified that there may not be unanimity on the opposite side of the House regarding that. I haven't done an exhaustive study of the insurance industry and its premiums, but I do accept that insurance is a risk-sharing process and that there can be actuarial tables drawn up to share that risk among groups of people. I think that's a pretty well-accepted concept. There are some who don't believe in it, but I happen to believe that it's a fair way of providing reasonably priced insurance across the board in most instances. It was simply an oversight that life and health insurance were not included in the legislation before us now, and I've said that that oversight will be corrected.

On the matter of reasonable cause, I said earlier and I can only say again, I guess, that we attempted to identify the areas of most concern, the areas we've had the most difficulty dealing with, and to spell them out very clearly. Again, if at some time in the future that is found to be wanting, legislation can always be changed. At this point we want those spelled out very clearly, and we want them handled very quickly and carefully. From that point of view, I again must say that the government can't support the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: It seems that the minister missed the other important aspect of what the member for North Island was discussing, and that's the whole issue of sexual orientation. In particular, he missed the comments made across the floor by the second member for Vancouver South and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, which were jokes against the homosexual community in British Columbia and, in fact, probably representative of the problems that affected the government in drafting this legislation and presenting it in the first place. The very fact that that kind of joking and belittling of a

[ Page 4559 ]

large group of citizens in British Columbia can take place in this Legislature between two MLAs is an indication of what is going into this Human Rights Act and how deficient it is. I would ask the minister to dissociate himself from those kinds of remarks made by those members, because they exemplify a bias or a discrimination against a large group of people in British Columbia by members of his party. I think it's incumbent upon this minister responsible for human rights in British Columbia to dissociate himself and his party from the joking and belittling statements made by the second member for Vancouver South and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

Going back to the issue of the reasonable cause provision, there were certain disadvantages that the former Human Rights Commission saw in the reasonable cause provision. They also saw the need to....

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would say for starters that I have no objection to members over there making personal attacks on me, but I think they should know that it's not my running-mate they are picking on, it's me. I am the first member for Vancouver South, just to keep the record straight.

MR. SKELLY: But of course there's no apology and no dissociation, and I'm sure he's proud of his remarks. Again, it's another joke and another comment that brings disrepute on the House and the members of the House. It's unfortunate that that takes place in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the interjection was handled by the Chair. Perhaps we can address the amendment currently before us.

MR. SKELLY: One of the problems that was seen by the former Human Rights Commission with the reasonable cause provision, in the absence of expanding the number of explicit bars to discrimination under the Human Rights Code, was that.... I'll quote again from the February 1983 report of the commission, "I'm Okay; We're Not So Sure About You, " in which they quote the B.C. Civil Liberties Association:

"Explicit protection has a number of advantages over implicit inclusion with the 'reasonable cause' provisions. The most obvious is that future decisions could interpret the phrase 'reasonable cause' in a narrower manner than it has been interpreted in the past, so that certain groups would no longer be protected. Explicit protection eliminates that possibility.... Explicit protection can simplify and shorten the litigation process, since it eliminates the need to consider whether the form of discrimination at issue is covered by the Code. For all of these reasons, we believe that it is time to explicitly protect additional groups of citizens."

They don't recommend removal of that reasonable cause provision, because that's still absolutely necessary to cover any future concerns about discrimination, but they do call on the government to increase the number of specific exemptions in the Human Rights Code, and the one we're currently debating under section 3 is the question of sexual orientation. The commission, in that same report, recommended — they made a number of recommendations, in fact — at page 54:

"...that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be protected by all sections of the Human Rights Code.

"That protection to homosexuals and lesbians be extended through the use of the clause (no person shall be discriminated against on the basis of) 'sexual orientation.'

" 12. That sections 3, 8 and 9, dealing with acts of discrimination in public facilities, accommodation or services, employment and membership in trade unions or occupational associations be enlarged so as to specifically name sexual orientation as a prohibited basis for discrimination.

" 13. That homosexuals and lesbians be given the protection of sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Code so that no person shall deny any person the right to purchase property or lease property because of a person's sexual orientation, so that no employer can advertise an intention to refuse employment to a person because of sexual orientation, and so that a person cannot be asked questions about their sexual orientation in a job interview."

All of these recommendations were designed to expand the provisions of the Human Rights Code to cover a very large group of people in our society — in fact, a group that's probably much larger than many people realize. On page 53 of the same report, it says:

"Next to women, the minority that isn't" — because women are in the majority in this society — "gays are one of the largest minority groups in British Columbia. Perhaps the largest! A conservative estimate places the size of B.C.'s gay population at 180,000.... But despite our numbers, we are without a doubt the least understood minority. The existence of this widespread ignorance creates a situation in which even our growing number of supporters are hesitant to offer more than a statement in our defence. Most politicians and the governments are loath to go even that far."

That's from a submission provided to the Human Rights Commission by the Island Gay Community Centre Society. When we're talking about expanding the provisions of the Human Rights Act to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, we're talking about expanding the protection of that act, now that the reasonable cause clause is gone, to cover one of the largest minorities in British Columbia that are most open to discrimination by other members in society, generally due to an ignorance and misunderstanding about that group. Many organizations within society have called upon the government to expand that coverage, and the Human Rights Commission, again, quotes support from a number of churches. For example, the United Church: "We can begin by affirming the right of persons, regardless of sexual orientation, to employment, accommodation and access to the services and facilities that they need and desire." The Anglican Church: "We affirm that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection under the law with all other Canadian citizens." The seventeenth annual meeting of the Canadian Unitarian Council "encourages all societies and individual members to support all efforts to modify federal and provincial codes of human rights to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation." Organizations as diverse as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Labour Congress,

[ Page 4560 ]

the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Civil Liberties and Human Rights Associations and many others have gone on record in support of freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In addition, Mr. Chairman, a number of jurisdictions across Canada have expanded protection in their codes and contracts — for example, municipal workers in Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor — and the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has now been added to the human rights legislation in Quebec.

Again this province finds itself behind the pioneering provinces in changes that they are now making to human rights legislation in order to incorporate protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[2:30]

1 would urge the minister to consider accepting this amendment. I believe it is absolutely necessary. It has been recommended by a number of church groups, human rights groups and legal groups. It is also recommended by the American Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and many other groups who would like to see an end to the discrimination and abuse of homosexual communities because they do not have any explicit protection under human rights legislation in this province. That's one thing I would urge the minister to accept.

I would continue to urge the minister to dissociate himself from the cheap comments made by the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) across the floor of this House relating to homosexuals. The minister would be making a significant move if he would accept this amendment to protect a large minority of citizens of British Columbia –– 180,000 in all — who have no protection whatsoever under this new statute. I would urge him to accept this amendment.

MS. BROWN: You know, Mr. Chairman, the comments made by the first member for Vancouver South — and I don't want any mistake as to just who made that comment: the first member for Vancouver South — and the comment by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) about not wanting to meet with the homosexual community at night, demonstrates and I think illustrates why the Human Rights Commission — or the human rights council, as it is going to be called after this bill is passed — has to have an educational component enshrined in it. We've got to do something, Mr. Chairman, about the level of stupidity, not so much in the community, but as we continually find in the membership of this House. That in this day and age there are still people in a Legislative Assembly of this province, representing the community at large, making comments like that, thinking it's funny to make jokes like that, shows that the educational job still has to be done. I'm not talking about an academic education, because we're not dealing with uneducated people in the academic sense. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has a legal degree, as far as I know. I think he's been through a number of institutes of higher learning and is still stupid, still prejudiced, still bigoted, still uninformed, still would sit on the floor of this House and make wisecracks and jokes about a minority group or about minority members.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we're discussing point by point the sections of a particular piece of legislation and not the character of other members of this House, which I find most distasteful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Member. Unfortunately, the Chair was in the process of getting orientated to what was going on and didn't hear the remarks. However, I will be listening very carefully from here on, and I would ask the member to continue her dissertation, please.

MS. BROWN: I'm glad the member for Burnaby-Willingdon finds something distasteful. I certainly hope that is going to be reflected in his language in the future. I certainly hope that that means your language is going to be cleaned up and we won't have to live with any more of your distasteful comments.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon knows precisely what I'm talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please! It would appear to me at this juncture that we're going to be around here for some time and I would suggest that the business of this House and of the people of this province would be much better served if we acted in a proper and fitting manner. So we'll proceed in that manner, if you please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us deals with protecting groups that are not named specifically in the legislation, and one such group is the homosexual community. Implied in the suggestion made by the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) is that the homosexual community is dangerous to young people. I want to read you some statistics, because as I said before, I think the educational job still needs to be done.

Dr. Marmor, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and a world-famous authority on sexual disturbances, says his research has found that 90 percent of all sexual offences involving children are committed by adult males against female children — heterosexuals. When we talk about a group of people who are dangerous to children, we are talking about heterosexual males — 90 percent, Mr. Chairman. Read the statistics; read the annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources on the sexual abuse of children, and you will find that 90 percent of the cases in that report involve adult heterosexual males against female children. If we're really serious about protecting children and not having people teaching in our schools who are a threat to female children, then we should keep heterosexual males out of the classroom. That's what we should be talking about.

Look at the statistics on violence against women in our society and you will not find one single instance of the rape of a female by a homosexual male. One hundred percent of the time that an adult female is raped, the rape is carried out by an adult heterosexual male. If we are going to start talking about who is really dangerous in society, Mr. Chairman, about who is really dangerous to children and females in our society, I suggest that we start looking at heterosexual males. In regard to violence in the home, the battering of wives and children, violence on the streets, sexual abuse of children and the

[ Page 4561 ]

sexual abuse and rape of women, we are talking about heterosexual males. If that member who is so concerned about the schools were to get the statistics from the B.C. School Trustees' Association on the incidence of the molesting of female children in the school system, he would find that in 90 percent of the instances, as Dr. Marimore stated, the culprit was an adult heterosexual male. The first member for Vancouver South should be saying, as Pogo said: "I have looked at the enemy and it is us." Because that's precisely who the enemy is.

The fact is that the homosexual community doesn't write human rights legislation. They're not the ones who draft the legislation or who sit on the floor of this House and introduce, debate and vote on the legislation. As far as we know, they are not the ones who are doing the job. Therefore it is okay for members of the government to crack jokes across the floor, to make comments, to implicate and accuse a minority group that is not here to speak and defend itself. Another instance of where the weak are under assault by this government.

We didn't raise this issue because we wanted to get into a comparison between the threat posed to children by the heterosexual community and the threat to children by the homosexual community; we didn't raise the issue to do that. It was raised under an amendment in terms of reasonable cause, which would allow access for a group not specifically named in the legislation to appeal to the Human Rights Commission to lay a complaint in the instance that they experience discrimination in trying to secure decent and adequate housing for themselves. That's what we're talking about.

It was the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) who brought in another issue and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) who decided to choose the opportunity to make some jokes about people who are not here to defend themselves. That takes so much courage, doesn't it? It takes so much courage to sit in your seat, not even standing in your place, and attack a group that's not here to speak on their own behalf. It takes so much courage to attack a group that's not here on the floor of this House to speak in their own defence. Of course, we're accustomed to that coming from that particular member from Coquitlam.

The reality of the situation is that the amendment which was introduced by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) would give to this particular group, not specifically named in Bill 11 which is before us, access through which they would be able to lay complaints before the Human Rights Commission in the event that they were refused rental accommodation on the basis of the fact that either the manager of the apartment building or the owner of the apartment building or townhouse or house, as the case may be, did not want to rent to a person who is homosexual — be that person female or male, because homosexuals come in both sexes.

The minister indicated that he would very much like to see the act operate in the best interests of all British Columbians; that's what he has said on more than one occasion. The opposition has taken him at his word, and are suggesting that one way to ensure that the act does operate on behalf of all British Columbians, not just the ones named specifically in the act, is to accept an amendment which enshrines in the act a protective clause, a statement which says that reasonable cause has to be given in terms of denying or discrimination, and that not to do so would be to contravene not just the spirit but the letter of the law and the act itself. That's what the amendment is saying. In that way, the amendment would ensure that groups that we probably haven't even thought of at this time would be able to have the protection of the legislation. For example, nowhere does the legislation address itself to people for whom English is a second language. Yet there have been instances.... Maybe you, Mr. Chairman, as well as other members of this Legislature, have had new Canadians in their constituency offices, walking through the door or by the telephone, complaining that they have been refused rental accommodation or access to some form of public housing because they are immigrants, because English is not their first language and they have some difficulty expressing themselves in that language. That's not covered under this bill. Nowhere in the bill does it deal with the concept of language or with language as a handicap or a disability. If the minister is serious in his commitment that the bill should work equally for all British Columbians, this group too should have been specified in the bill.

[12:45]

As I have said on more than one occasion — I said it yesterday, last night and today, and I'll say it again tomorrow, whenever the occasion arises — I do not believe it is possible to remember every single group, every single individual, every permutation and combination which at some time or another will not find itself in a situation where discrimination can take place. I don't believe that's possible, and that's why I think it's so important that the protective shield of a clause which says "reasonable cause" has to be there for any decision which abrogates, penalizes, prevents or discriminates, as the case may be. You have to have reasonable cause. The onus is on you when you are refusing service, accommodation, access or whatever. You must have reasonable cause. Then the person who feels that they've been discriminated against can file a complaint saying there was not reasonable cause. At which point, the person guilty of the act of discrimination would be able to appear before the board and say: "There was reasonable cause. There is reasonable cause for this decision. I refuse to rent this accommodation for these reasons or for this reason. I refuse to allow access to this facility for this reason or for these reasons."

To me that's just a basic, rational concept. You must have a reason for your actions, for your behaviour, for the decisions that you make which affect other people's lives. If you in your own personal life want to do irrational kinds of acts, as long as it doesn't impact on anyone else, we have no control over it. If you want to stand up in the middle of your house all by yourself sometime and yell "fire, " there's nothing we can do about it because you're not hurting anybody. The house isn't on fire, nobody is hearing you, there is no panic. Nothing is happening. But when your decision and your action impacts on the rest of the community and on other people, then you must have a good reason for it.

That's what reasonable cause is all about. You must have a reason for saying: "No, I will not rent you this accommodation." You must have a reason for saying: "No, I will not allow you access to this public facility or to this facility." You must have a reason, and the act must say: "However, we will not accept reasons that have to do with a person's race, a person's colour, a person's sex, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, disability, source of income or any of these other areas." That's all that it says.

Take the other issue, the issue of political affiliation or — what is the other way of describing that? — political belief. There is nothing in the act to protect you against discrimination because of your political beliefs. Yet we pride ourselves

[ Page 4562 ]

on living in a democracy which respects people of different political beliefs. We pride ourselves on that, but in this accommodation section, it isn't there. In this section 3, which is the section that we're debating.... I know the act almost by heart, Mr. Chairman, so I know where it is and I know where it isn't. I think it was an oversight not to include it, because it's quite possible that it was the sections....

That it showed up in other sections but didn't show up in this one was probably an oversight on the part of the minister, and maybe in responding to my question the minister will state that.

But in any event, I think that if we had the amendment, if we accepted the amendment which was introduced and moved by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), it would cover that. You wouldn't need to be specific and to spell it out. You could have access to the Code and access to the commission to lay your complaints by going through that "reasonable cause" clause. That would be possible, and that's why it is so important at this time that that amendment be accepted.

So very quickly I just want to reiterate. Immigrants, people for whom English is not a first language — they run into discrimination based on that. Sexual orientation — they run into discrimination for that reason, in terms of accommodation, as outlined in section 3. Political beliefs — there are people who run into discrimination in securing accommodation based on that. And the one thing that I've been hammering away at for the last two days: welfare recipients run into it every single day. There isn't a member on the floor of this House who hasn't had, coming through their constituency office door or over their constituency telephone, representations from welfare recipients who have told them that they have been refused accommodation because they are in receipt of income assistance.

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again.

MS. BROWN: You're never up in your riding. How can they ever reach you? I get mail from your riding asking if you're still alive. They never see him, Mr. Chairman. There's a big ad running in his constituency newspaper asking if anyone knows the whereabouts of the member for Omineca, he hasn't been seen up there in so long. They describe him as being a tall, slim, handsome gentleman. They've even forgotten what he looks like.

In any event, maybe the minister would explain why, if he doesn't want to accept this amendment, "political beliefs" was not included in this section.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't intend to speak on this amendment, in all frankness, but I'm afraid the previous speaker illustrated to this House something that is in fact somewhat sad. She had the audacity to stand there in somewhat of a righteous manner in an attempt to explain to this House what was missing from this legislation. Then she committed a dastardly deed — she discriminated. Yes, Mr. Chairman, she singled out the entire group of heterosexual males. I wonder why she thinks she has the right to pick not on a relatively small proportion of our society; in fact, it's a large proportion in our society. I would think that even in her constituency she has a fair number of heterosexual males, but she saw fit to align her remarks with the homosexual male. In fact, she was quite proud to illustrate to us in her statistics and in her foolproof analysis that my daughter, surely to goodness, would be safe with a homosexual teacher. Ladies are not raped by homosexual males; they're only raped by heterosexual males. That type of logic, Mr. Chairman, is somewhat astounding from someone who professes to understand the nuances of this particular piece of legislation. She in fact has committed the most blatant acts of discrimination I have seen since I've sat in this House.

I don't think she really can understand what she is saying when she stands there and advocates that homosexual males be the only ones allowed to teach the female population of this province, but that is what she said. I wonder how boldly she'll go about her constituency repeating that; I wonder how she is going to feel when her constituents who happen to be heterosexual males hear about how she is condemning their dangerous and somewhat lecherous attitudes. Mr. Chairman, she saw fit to generalize. She saw fit to commit the type of thing that this legislation is hoping.... Hopefully we will require education for people like her. We are hopeful that this type of legislation will assist in educating people who see fit to generalize as she has done.

I don't think there is too much that needs to be said in support of this legislation; it speaks for itself and it speaks quite loudly. I don't think it's appropriate for members of the opposition to stand up in somewhat of an ongoing tirade of political rhetoric and to suggest that debating this particular legislation on a Friday afternoon is legislation by exhaustion. I find it interesting that for this bill the opposition, who profess this bill to be so important, have but four members in the House. Clearly, this particular piece of legislation is very important to the government as a whole. I am not able to stand up and acknowledge to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that I'm in favour of perversion, deviant behaviour or what my family considers behaviour apart from my norm. I am not able to condone the behaviour of homosexuality. I don't think it does any good for our society, and I am surprised that the official opposition is prepared to endorse that behaviour.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, probably the greatest benefit we've done to this province is to have taken the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam out of the courtroom and brought him in here. If that's an indication of his legal thinking, his logic, his memory and his hearing, then I think we are better to keep him here than have him out there.

I want to repeat what I said earlier, and that is to quote Dr. J. Marmor, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and world famous authority on sexual disturbances. Reporting on his study, he said: "90 percent of all sexual offences involving children are committed by male heterosexual adults against female children."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Ninety percent?

MS. BROWN: Ninety percent.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, no. Only 90 percent of the offences — not the group.

The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) indicated that the Human Rights Code should not protect homosexuals, because homosexuals were a threat to the children of the province, I'm pointing out that research does not

[ Page 4563 ]

support that. What research shows us is that there's a greater threat to our children from heterosexual males than from homosexual males. But regardless of whether there is a threat or not, human rights legislation is supposed to protect everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that's what this bill doesn't do. That's all.

[3:00]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that sometimes when these arguments get underway and members take umbrage with what another has to say, oftentimes the whole intent is missed. Nobody on either side of the House — certainly on this side — is suggesting that in any way would we condone any kind of harassment of children, any kind of harassment of women or men or anybody else, or any other of the aspects of human endeavour that sometimes offend very greatly. These are questions, however, that are covered in different pieces of legislation altogether, most of which are covered in the Criminal Code of Canada. What we're talking about here is the whole question of who is included in and who is excluded from this protection. We're saying that no matter how imaginative you might be, it would be very difficult for you or any group of people to cover, definitively, every group in society that may be affected by some form of discrimination in either public facilities or accommodation. That's really what we're dealing with here. You could think you have categorized everybody who should be covered. We have said that the group that should be covered but hasn't been imagined yet can be covered by including the line: "unless cause exists for denial or discrimination." That way, if somebody does discriminate, for whatever reason — it might be a wart on the end of a person's nose — then that reason has to be given to the person offended. That's pretty easy to understand, even, I would think, for some of the people who have been so critical of what has been said by my colleagues in the last hour or so.

That's really what this particular amendment does. It goes beyond that, of course, by specifying other groups that we determine should be included but have not been included. But the fact is that to date there hasn't been any inclination from the government toward moving in a direction where the acceptance of the reasonable cause clause looks like it's being accepted by the government.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When I saw the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) get up, I thought for a moment that he was going to make some kind of a contribution to the debate on this amendment. Instead, he did a critique on his interpretation of what somebody else had to say. There's no defence. There's no debate. There are no reasons given for the kind of legislation and the clause that's before us at the present time which is drawing so much criticism. If the government has good reason for presenting this clause in the way that they have, with the obvious holes that are in the clause, then why aren't we given some of those reasons? We aren't because it's indefensible. From the perspective the Socreds seem to have........ They seem to have taken to heart virtually everything that some of the right-wing institutes like the Fraser Institute have put forward. Not all of their ideas are economic. It's interesting that one of their leading lights, when he was talking about harassment of women in the workplace, said it's an employer's right to pinch....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. COCKE: Dr. What's-his-face. As a matter of fact, I have the quote; I'll get if for you, but it's really not topical in this particular thing. Who's that guy? Walter Block. That's the kind of attitude, of course; the stupid attitude toward fellow human beings by Walter Block. He's almost the theologian of the Socreds.

MR. R. FRASER: In whose mind?

MR. COCKE: In my mind, because you follow everything they do economically, and now you're following them morally, for heaven's sake!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we're discussing an amendment to section 3 of Bill 11, which deals with the services, accommodation and facilities. Perhaps we can....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: The signs of the times; the signs of the Socreds. Do it again, so that everybody can see. That's a disgusting piece of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: All hon. members will come to order. In committee, debate must be strictly relevant to the section or clause before us. Members are aware of the amendment currently before us dealing with accommodation, services or facilities.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's precisely.... I was using an analogy, and I probably shouldn't have. With respect to accommodation, what we're asking is, broaden it. Broaden the protection from discrimination to include what we have listed here, so that race, religion, colour, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, physical or mental condition, sexual orientation, political belief, age, family composition — very important — source of income or language normally spoken shall not constitute reasonable cause, and sex of a person shall not be reasonable cause unless it relates to the maintenance of public decency. That's very clear, but over and above that the important thing, as far as I'm concerned, is to inject the one phrase "unless reasonable cause exists for denial or discrimination," because no matter how intelligent or how prophetic one might be, one cannot think of every form of discrimination or every type of person who might be discriminated against. That therefore becomes.... Sure, you might call it a catch-all. But some out there require that catch-all, because they are not mentioned in the act. It's preferable to mention them in the act, but when you can't mention them in the act, then mention them in that form. I think that's just as straightforward as one can be.

If the minister would accept that kind of proposition, then we would accept, as an addition to our proposed amendment, an addition dealing in part with insurance premiums and the methods of securing that there is no discrimination there, with the exception, of course, of areas where it's impossible not to discriminate on the basis of age, mortality, etc.

[ Page 4564 ]

So why don't we agree that what we have before us here in this proposed amendment is far superior to what we have before us in the bill that we wish to amend: Bill 11, section 3. All one has to do is read the two in tandem, and one can make no other kind of observation then. The amendment is far preferable to the clause that we're debating.

So what about it? What's wrong? In the bill that we are amending, a number of the specifics are there, but not all. Why haven't they dealt with family composition? We had a debate hours ago about all the good reasons for that being part of this particular section of the bill. We've had outlined to us many instances where a single parent and children cannot obtain accommodation, just by virtue of their family composition.

We've had other instances where a source of income, such as welfare, has become unacceptable. It could be any kind of a source of income situation that would be deemed by a potential landlord or landlady to be unacceptable to their particular persuasion. Language is an obvious one — broken English. But you know, Mr. Chairman, they have to live somewhere. They have to have access to public places. There is no reason why these kinds of discrimination should not be included, as well as those that we can't think about now — those of the future. Mr. Chairman, unless reasonable cause exists, I believe they should be included.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to ask the indulgence of the House to thank my constituency for forwarding to me 22 carnations for distribution to the members of my caucus. The decision was taken when they received the phone call that I would not be able to meet with my constituents this afternoon as planned, as I would be here, as we had been last night, debating this human rights bill. In appreciation of the efforts that we are putting out, the constituency decided to send the flowers. I would like to express my appreciation to them for sending the beautiful red carnations, which indicate the fondness and affection in which they hold myself and other members of this caucus.

I want to deal with the amendment. I'm not going to talk about the aspect relative to insurance, because I will await the time when we finally get to the point in our proceedings when the Minister of Labour will introduce the amendment he is going to propose, which hopefully will clarify this insurance situation. So I'm not going to deal with that, but I do want to deal in a little more length with the proposal in this amendment which deals with reasonable cause. It attempts to return to the act the use of reasonable cause as a way of bringing a case before the human rights boards of inquiry that will be set up, hopefully.

[3:15]

I note that in this section 3, as it would be amended, with the same categories as in the original section, there is no inclusion of age. Now the reasonable cause would allow that to happen. It is included in our amendment but it is not included in the original bill. I think that that is important. I have known of many instances where accommodation has been refused or attempted to be refused because of age, both at the lower and the upper end of the scale. I would point out that even if the minister were to include age in here and even as my colleague's amendment includes age in here, in light of the interpretation which we have now passed, that excludes people under 45 and over 65; they are not included. Only through reasonable cause could any problems relative to age, in the way of discrimination, be brought forward under the existing act. That is one reason why it is so important.

I spoke of younger people being refused. There is unfortunately a tendency, should I say, to ghettoize in various tenancy areas; you have all older people, all younger people, all middle-aged people, all married people or all single people. I don't believe that's a good mix, a fair mix. I don't think it is in line with what we should be trying to do in a piece of human rights legislation. Certainly people have the right to live where they want to live, within the realm of what they can afford, and they should not be discriminated against because of age. They should not be discriminated against in any way, whether in accommodation or in any public facility. For example, suppose I wanted to go to a disco and was refused. They said: "No, you can't come in; you're too old." I would have no way of appealing under this particular bill. My choices are my own; I make those choices about the places I want to go and the things I want to do, and I don't want to be told that I'm either too young or too old. There are certain provisions that we have where it would be a breach of other laws — for example, establishments that serve or sell liquor. That's another law entirely. If someone of the full age of 19 was refused admission to an establishment dispensing liquor on the basis of being too young, that person should have the right to appeal. It's an infringement of their human rights. There is no opportunity unless you include that reasonable cause clause in the bill. Restaurants, any public facility, a meeting place.

That's just one of the things. It has been pointed out by others in this debate that it is impossible to cover every conceivable aspect of discrimination. There are devious minds that think of ways to discriminate. We cannot in any piece of legislation hope to include all of the possible ways in which that might happen. The best you can do is to have a reasonable cause clause. If you include that, then you preclude not just the possibility or the probability but the very great likelihood that people will fall through the cracks. That's why we on this side of the House differ with those on that side of the House who would do away with that. They don't want that. They say it's too good for people in British Columbia. It's fine for the people in Manitoba, but it's too good for the people in British Columbia; they don't deserve that kind of protection. We object to that. We believe that regardless of the reason, discrimination is discrimination and human rights are human rights. It doesn't matter whether it's something that's spelled out in here by various very specific terms of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or sex.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: No, there are areas that aren't covered. Age certainly isn't covered. It's not mentioned.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Member, there are two things that perhaps you should learn. One is that you do not speak in this House unless you're sitting in your own seat; the other is that if you want to speak in this House you stand up and get the Chairman to recognize you.

It's extremely critical that reasonable cause be included, to relate not just to this clause but to the whole piece of legislation. That's why we have this amendment on the order

[ Page 4565 ]

paper. That's why we are attempting to point out various examples of things that under this legislation you would not be able to bring forward.

One of the cases, of course, could relate to your ability to speak the English language. Certainly that particular case has even been tried — it has found its way to court. There was an instance in a sawmill — Plateau Mills — where the Code was violated and the mill refused to hire a person because he was allegedly not fluent in English. That went before the courts. There would be no place to take that to the courts. That employer, Plateau Mills, would be perfectly free to say: "No, sorry. No job for you; you do not speak English well."

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, hon. member, this section and the amendment to this section do not deal with hiring practices.

MRS. WALLACE: It's talking about reasonable cause in the amendment, and we have chosen this particular section to bring in the amendment relative to reasonable cause. True, it relates specifically to discrimination in public facilities, but the reasonable cause concept would provide opportunities for similar cases, perhaps relating to a public facility where a customer is denied service or does not receive the same service; they are discriminated against because of their inability to speak English fluently. That would not be a reason that could be used to have that case heard, under this legislation, unless we invoke the reasonable cause clause.

Hiring practices in public facilities, attendance in public facilities: all those things relate to far more than the specifics that are spelled out in this bill. That's the reason we continue to urge the minister to review his attitude. It's difficult, when you're trying to amend a bill that is basically drafted with a different concept in mind, to make the amendments necessary to correct it in the way we would like to see it corrected. It makes it difficult to speak to those corrections, because you're limited to the scope set by a specific section. But we believe and are arguing — and will continue to believe and to argue — that reasonable cause must be included not just in this section but in the whole concept of the bill if we are to have a just approach to human rights in British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Some time ago I interrupted my remarks as a result of the nature of the discussion that was going on about an issue I had raised relating to the lack of coverage in this section in respect to sexual orientation, which would be corrected by the amendment. Because I left the chamber, I missed the on-the-record comments of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), but I did have some exchange of opinion with him about that issue when neither of us had the floor. I want to quietly and calmly try to deal with the issue that the member raised. Although these are not his words exactly, they were to the effect that sexual orientation should not be included in this section or in fact in any other section because "it is a deviant behaviour." Human rights legislation is to protect people who have deviant behaviour or colour or religion and many other deviancies. What the word "deviant" means is that it's not part of the norm.

MR. PARKS: I should have used "perverse," then.

MR. GABELMANN: Now the member is saying that perhaps he should have used the word "perversion." Who is to say? If you take the position that sexual orientation is not an issue that should be covered under human rights legislation, what you are saying, then, is that it is such a behaviour, whether deviant or perverse, that anyone who chooses or doesn't choose to behave in that way is not human. That is the only logical conclusion of that line of thinking. I think sometimes we give more rights to baby seals and wolves and whales than we do to "deviant behaviour" in our society. I suppose in the member's mind a heterosexual chimpanzee would have more rights than a homosexual human being. I know those statements seem absurd, but....

[3:30]

MR. PARKS: They do, don't they?

MR. GABELMANN: They seem quite absurd, but I'm dealing with the issue in respect of what the member said. He said, in effect, that because the behaviour is deviant or perverse it shouldn't be grounds for protection under this legislation. Who decides that it's perverse? Me? That member? This Legislature? The courts? God? Who? You can't even find answers for those who might take a mainstream Christian approach. You can't even find clear answers in the Bible about that. Many modern churches are now in the process of ordaining homosexual ministers and preachers and lay ministers. Ordination of homosexuals is a hot debate in some of the Protestant churches. One or two of those churches had the same debate about women 60 years ago, and one or two of those churches have accepted that women are humans and can be ordained. Now the same debate is on about homosexuals. The member might find the behaviour perverse; I might find the behaviour perverse, but neither he nor I have the right or the responsibility to categorize that group of people, those human beings, those citizens of this province, as having chosen a course of behaviour that denies them the right, in this section, to accommodation in a hotel, for example. That's one of the areas that's covered in this public facility section.

What right, whether within the laws in the moral fibre of our society or whether from some extraterrestrial source — as so many in our society would claim give them some right for judgment — what possible right do we have to make those judgments that because, for whatever reason, you have chosen a homosexual........ I have used the word "chosen," but it's more than that. People don't necessarily choose — it happens. I didn't choose to be a heterosexual — I am. It just happened. I'm glad about that. People whose sexual orientation is different may be glad about what's happened to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us why you're glad.

MR. GABELMANN: Because I've got the same kind of mixed-up hangups that everybody else in this place has.

MR. KEMPF: Don't look at me! Speak for yourself!

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I will close with this: what the member is saying is basically that he and his colleagues in the government don't like and don't want to condone what they perceive as "perverse" or "deviant" behaviour. They therefore want not to grant rights under this legislation to those people. I have no alternative but to interpret this legislation as not protecting the rights of homosexuals in the question of public facilities, because they are not

[ Page 4566 ]

included in the definition, nor is there a reasonable cause provision.

I am going to leave it for the moment and let my colleague, the member for Cowichan-Malahat, resume the debate and we'll just carry on. Hopefully we'll get some response from members of the government who want to change their position now that they've had a chance to see how absurd it is.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying: "What fools can't understand they laugh at." I think we've seen that displayed here today. I do not understand the homosexual, but neither do I laugh at them. What is normal? It is very hard to define. We know that there are some very fine people who live in this world who are not heterosexual. The sexual orientation of an individual does not relate to the degree of honesty, kindness or warmth that are the other characteristics of that individual. Not in the slightest. They are human beings as we are; they have human rights the same as we do. But they will not have the protection of section 3 of Bill 11 as it is presently written. There is absolutely no suggestion that that would be the case.

If an owner of a public facility wishes to refuse admission to someone on the basis of sexual orientation, he can do so freely, and there will be no recourse under the Code as it is now written. To think that we would have the kind of remarks on the floor of this Legislature that I have heard today from members of the government side of the House, akin to the kind of remarks that I quoted in an earlier debate from the then members of the commission who were relieved of their duties.... It is shocking to me that legislators, people who are supposed to represent all of their constituents, who are supposed to be open-minded and unbiased, would toss out the kind of remarks that we have heard today. It is shocking and indicates to me that B.C. is not just slipping backwards; we are taking giant backward steps in the field of human rights.

Amendment negatived.

On section 3.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment to section 3, and I have the assurance of the Clerk that I may give a verbal proposal which will be noted and added to the bill.

It would be in section 3, to add "life or health" before the word "insurance" in the last line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, Mr. Minister. We will have to get it in writing, of course, but the oral presentation is acceptable at this point. So we have another amendment to deal with.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:42 p.m.

[ Page 4567 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

37 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With reference to the Columbia River power development financing —

1. What is the total expenditure on construction of storage projects to date, and what is the estimate of the total amount required to complete these?

2. What are the total expenditures on generation, transformation and transmission facilities to date, and what is the estimate of the amount required to complete these?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"To date, $601,716,582 has been spent on the Columbia River Treaty storage projects (the Arrow, Duncan, and Mica Projects). In order that these facilities be completed, a further expenditure of $457,851 will be required. Most of this is to be spent on recreational facilities on the reservoirs.

"Expenditures on generation, transformation, and transmission facilities to date total $670,191,438. These facilities are considered complete."

43 The Hon. J. Davis asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following question:

How many Orders in Council were passed in each of the fiscal years from 1972-73 to 1983-84, inclusive?

The Hon. J. R. Chabot replied as follows: