Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1992

Volume 4, Number 10

[ Page 2403 ]

The House met at 5:52 p.m.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Petter tabled reports of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs for the fiscal years 1989-90 and 1990-91.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I call second reading of Bill 36.

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 36 is largely a housekeeping bill, but I would like to make some comments on it so it's fairly understood.

For the most part, the amendments in this bill clarify the definitions and objectives of the Employee Investment Act, which, as members know, was proclaimed in September of '89. These amendments serve to address various shortcomings of the existing legislation.

As the Employee Investment Act is a relatively new act, it was expected that over time shortcomings would be found, and with one exception the proposed amendments to this bill are primarily technical in nature. The amendments do not involve any policy initiatives. However, there is a broadening of investor eligibility in an unrestricted employee venture capital corporation such as the Working Opportunity Fund. In particular, the bill contains an amendment which will allow all working British Columbians to invest in the Working Opportunity Fund. In order to understand why we're fine-tuning this act, I'd like to spend a few minutes to provide members with an overview.

The Employee Investment Act encourages employees in British Columbia to invest in small and medium-sized B.C. businesses through either employee share ownership plans or employee venture capital corporations. Both are designed to increase the availability of equity capital for B.C. businesses. As members know, small and medium-sized British Columbia businesses face a severe shortage of risk capital. This has been confirmed by numerous studies and by observation of many industry and business groups. Given that the small business sector created upwards of 80 percent of all new jobs in the past decade, this constraint on growth needs to be addressed. New knowledge-intensive and, in particular, diversifying industries need patient equity in order to develop. A key objective of the Employee Investment Amendment Act is to help address this gap in equity capital. It does this by encouraging British Columbia employees to invest in our province's businesses.

In addition, studies show that companies with both employee investment and involvement in decision-making have superior business performance, including improved growth rates, profitability and innovation. This success promotes competitiveness, job creation and economic opportunity. Employee investment also serves to strengthen the bonds between employers and employees. This often results in an improved industrial relations climate.

One of the key functions of the employee investment program is to preserve and protect jobs where an employer is experiencing financial challenges. Employees play an essential role in most, if not all, business revitalizations. Consequently, the employee investment program is a key tool that the job protection commissioner can use.

Another asset of an employee share ownership plan is that it can provide a viable means of business successorship in the event that a retiring owner wishes to see the business continue to operate. This is an especially valuable tool for smaller communities where the closure of a key small business could have a significant economic repercussion. Because of the numerous benefits related to employee share ownership plans, the Employee Investment Amendment Act provides a financial tax credit to employees so as to offset the risk associated with business ownership.

In addition to the employee share ownership plan, the Employee Investment Amendment Act also includes an employee venture capital component. Employee venture capital corporations are tools by which employees can pool their funds and direct them into eligible B.C. businesses for the purposes of job creation, economic diversification, employee participation in share ownership and enterprise development. To date, the program has registered 17 employee share ownership plans, representing over 6,000 employees who have raised $8.2 million in equity capital. Currently there are a number of other companies contemplating employee investment. During the coming year these companies could potentially raise $4.7 million in equity capital for B.C. businesses.

In addition, there's the Working Opportunity Fund, which was registered in January of this year. This diversified fund has proven to be extremely popular with investors. As members may know, it was developed through the cooperative efforts of the provincial government, business and labour with the goal of benefiting all British Columbians. Thus far, the fund, which covers all the province's employees, has raised $7.4 million for investment in small and medium-sized B.C. businesses. By way of comparison, the Quebec Solidarity Fund raised $500,000 during its initial offering in 1984 and $8 million in its second year. When compared to the $7.4 million raised by the Working Opportunity Fund, it is clear that British Columbians have responded positively to this key initiative. We expect that the Working Opportunity Fund will grow to $100 million over the next five to seven years, making it the largest pool of venture capital in the province. This would go a long way in helping address the existing financing gap that exists in British Columbia.

Our government is working with the Employee Share Ownership and Investment Association. Together we're helping companies understand the role of employee investment. Through seminars and membership meetings, awareness of employee ownership is being increased. To date, the association has organized two employee investment conferences and is organizing a 

[ Page 2404 ]

fall forum, which will be co-sponsored by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

Given the economic significance of the Employee Investment Amendment Act, we want to ensure that the act operates in a smooth and efficient manner and in the best interests of all British Columbians. It's within this context that we've brought forth amendments to the act. In summation, passage of this bill will correct the identified shortcomings of the original legislation. I move second reading of Bill 36.

[6:00]

F. Gingell: It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak on Bill 36. We on the opposition benches are always being accused by members of government that we don't support anything. That's why I'm so terribly disappointed to see that there are only one, two, three, four, five, six, seven...

Interjection.

F. Gingell: ...and the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale has now....

Interjections.

F. Gingell: So let it be recorded in Hansard, hon. Speaker, that I rose....

The Speaker: Hon. member, I must say that it is never in order to comment on the presence or absence of members in the House.

F. Gingell: I would like it to be recorded by everybody that I, as the representative of my caucus on this particular subject, rise to support this bill wholeheartedly. It doesn't do enough, but what it does do, I support.

I was really pleased to hear the minister refer to the work that is being done by the Employee Share Ownership and Investment Association, because I was a founding member of that organization. I signed the bylaws of the association when we caused it to be incorporated. I was a director from its first time, and I was involved in picking that rather awkward and difficult name. We tried to find a name that didn't say ESOP, so that it wouldn't be confused with the U.S. organization.

This bill really does do a lot of good things. What it doesn't do, I'm afraid, are things that to an extent are outside the authority and power of the provincial government. What this country needs is an employee share ownership program that is truly a national scheme, that would allow the kind of sensible tax-deferred schemes that take place in the United States and in other parts of the world. British Columbia is clearly showing the leading role. Our program and our plan is much better than the one in Ontario, and we really have been the leader.

One thing that I would like to bring up at this time is that successful employee ownership of corporations isn't just an income tax deferment program; it is a style of business ownership that requires a very real commitment, and you have to believe in it to make it work. Having got to the point where you believe in it, you will realize that it isn't just a question of the ownership of shares. The employee commitment and involvement in the organization has to be real.

People need to change management styles. Managers and directors of corporations have to realize that if they are going to get real value from employee ownership, they have to make as big a commitment to the concept as the employees do. The employees make it with their money; management has to make it with their minds. They have to create an organization that allows responsibility and decision-making to move down to where it matters and where it can be best formed, and they have to allow the employees to have a real say in the management and the day-to-day operations of the organization.

That doesn't mean to say you necessarily need to have rules about putting them onto the board of directors, because often boards of directors don't meet, and when they do, they don't really deal with the nuts and bolts. You have to get management to understand that the people who do the job every day are the most capable and will make the best decisions with respect to their roles. This requires education. You can't just come along, sign up a plan and get all of the tax benefits without ensuring that the company is ready for it. There is clearly a role to be played by our colleges, by the British Columbia Institute of Technology, perhaps by our universities, to ensure that the management skills and the science of operating an employee-owned corporation are available to British Columbians. Without that kind of commitment, without ensuring that education can take place, we will never garner the full benefits.

The benefits can be substantial. It is without question that -- this is through a study done by the Toronto Stock Exchange -- corporations that are employee-owned or have a major factor of employee ownership outperform their competitors.

With my unequivocal support of this bill, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to it.

L. Fox: Like the previous member I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this bill. I think it behooves us all to understand and know that this Employee Investment Act was created during the last administration. For those reasons we in the third party are extremely pleased to see that this government is continuing along those same trends.

As I understand it, this bill allows for three different types of employee ownership. Under the employee share ownership plan the company directly offers shares to employees. Any company with less than $500 million in assets may register under this plan. It's my understanding that 15 companies have taken advantage of this provision to date.

The second part of it is the restricted employee venture capital corporation. The employees of one company sponsor a venture capital corporation which may only invest in the company that they are registering under the plan for. This may be done for companies that are diversifying our economy and that have at least 

[ Page 2405 ]

50 percent of their employees in B.C. and have less than $35 million in assets. It's my understanding that two corporations have taken advantage of this investment opportunity to date.

The unrestricted employee venture capital program is the third opportunity. This fund, sponsored by labour organizations, can sell shares to any working British Columbian and invests its money in many B.C.-based companies of varying size and sector. The Working Opportunity Fund is only an example of this sort of employee venture capital corporation.

I am pleased to stand up and tell this House that the third party supports Bill 36.

C. Serwa: I'm certainly pleased to be able to stand and speak on the principles of Bill 36, the Employee Investment Amendment Act. I'm particularly pleased because it was the former government that recognized the need for and the opportunities of this act. For the information of the current minister and yourself, hon. Speaker, and all members of the House, I would like to talk a little bit about the historical development of this piece of legislation. It has an interesting development and a difference from the normal process and procedure.

The Hon. Grace McCarthy was minister at the time that this initiative was put forward. The minister gave private members the opportunity to participate right from the grass-roots beginning of this piece of legislation, to participate in meetings with people from the business sector -- obviously people who were employed in various organizations and companies -- and also to work with the professionals in the civil service, in the government. So we attended quite a series of meetings over a fairly lengthy period of time.

It was good for us, because it was a hands-on opportunity to see the process of legislation being formulated and developed. It was particularly rewarding and fulfilling for private members on the government side to actually have a hand in shaping something that we believed would be, and has proven to be, a very positive type of initiative.

The need was perfectly obvious, in that it was going to provide an investment opportunity for employees of corporations. Security and the investment opportunity were certainly very important to these individuals. The benefits of it were that they developed a sense of proprietorship, and that's certainly what this bill is bringing forward. It is encouraging a sense of proprietorship in all the employees of a wide range and variety of companies who wish to take up this opportunity.

The benefits for the business were the injection of additional capital into businesses, which made businesses far more competitive. They could expand their market and their product line and could be more competitive nationally and internationally. That again provided security for employment for the workforce.

Over and above that, there was something else that has transpired. There was a sense of proprietorship that created an added incentive for efficiency and productivity, because now the employees had a direct sense of ownership in the corporation. So that aspect created a better atmosphere in the workplace, and it has been very positive all the way.

I am very pleased to stand up and say, as one who has been involved in this right from the beginning, that it is a splendid piece of legislation for all British Columbians wherever they may be -- in the workforce or in management -- because it's going to be a tremendous asset for the economy. We're always looking for investment capital, even though we have the highest growth rate of investment capital coming into the province. But certainly we're very pleased when employees in the province have and express that confidence in the future of the province that they invest in the businesses in which they work, and create harmony.

In the end, obviously it's going to be an awareness that the coming together of business and industry, of the workforce and of government, is the only secure path to a long, strong and bright future for the province of British Columbia. I stand again, as my colleague from the third party did, and commit our support to this particular piece of legislation.

[6:15]

K. Jones: It is my pleasure to rise in second reading of Bill 36, the Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1992. The Liberal opposition is pleased to support in principle these amendments. Most of the amendments seem to clarify the wording of the act and expand the definition of eligible investors so that any British Columbian who is employed for at least 20 hours per week can buy shares in an employee venture capital corporation. The broadening of investor eligibility to allow the establishment of the Working Opportunity Fund, WOF, was achieved by passing an OIC on January 8, 1992, and this bill puts the new criteria into practice.

We support the objective of the act, which is to encourage British Columbia employees to make equity investments either in the company that employs them or in employee venture capital corporations. We also support the tax credit incentives to employees who invest in shares under a registered employee share ownership plan, ESOP, or in a registered employee venture capital corporation, EVCC.

In general, the opposition supports the idea of working British Columbians becoming more involved in the productivity of their companies and in the expansion and diversification of the economy of the province. However, it must be realized that the new Working Opportunity Fund is not going to free up much equity capital. In the first year of the fund's operation, no money will go to equity investments. Gradually the equity share of the investment portfolio will be increased. While the official opposition recognizes the need for the WOF to be a conservative investment vehicle, it is not a complete answer to the gap in affordable equity financing for small-to medium-sized businesses. During this difficult economic time in our province, in order to provide jobs for our citizens and capital for expansion and growth, business needs all the help it can get.

Hon. Speaker, again I say that the Liberal opposition supports these amendments, and I encourage the 

[ Page 2406 ]

government to come forward with more initiatives to help expand the economic development of British Columbia, to provide jobs for our citizens and a more secure future for our children.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With the unequivocal support from members opposite, I would like to move second reading of Bill 36.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, by leave now.

Leave not granted.

Bill 36, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 38.

LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understood that there was an agreement to proceed to all stages this evening, and it doesn't seem that we quite put that together. I move that Bill 38 be now read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, I wish to describe to the House the background and principal features of this bill, a bill which I believe to be of great importance. There is growing recognition in our society of the extent of child sexual abuse and its often devastating long-term psychological effects. I'm sure that all members of the House have been horrified upon hearing or reading accounts of the trauma suffered by survivors of childhood sexual abuse. This knowledge makes it imperative that we as legislators do everything possible to demonstrate society's unwillingness to tolerate this crime. Even more important, we must do everything within our power to assist those who have suffered as victims of childhood sexual abuse.

One of the things we have learned is that a great many people who have endured such abuse suppress the memory for many years as a way of coping with the horror. We have also learned that one of the most important healing factors is to have the opportunity, however many years have passed, to confront the abuser. This bill has been introduced in recognition of those facts, and reflects the government's desire to address the crime of childhood sexual abuse, and to assist and support those who have survived it.

One of the most effective ways for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to confront their abusers is by seeking compensation through civil suits for the mental, physical and emotional damage inflicted by the abusers. As a result, we have become aware of obstacles posed at present by provisions of the Limitation Act as they relate to the capacity to bring suit by survivors of childhood sexual abuse. The basic limitation period for personal injuries under the act at the present time is two years. In the case of minors, this two-year period begins at the time they reach the age of majority. The act does provide for postponements under particular circumstances. It has become evident, however, that the present provisions are inadequate to meet the needs of survivors of sexual abuse.

The victim in some cases still lives in fear of the abuser until long after the opportunity to bring action has passed. Of even greater significance is the suppression factor I referred to previously. There are many documented cases where the survivor is in his or her thirties or forties or even older before the suppressed memories surface. At that point, for many individuals the need for healing becomes intense, and an important component, as I have suggested, is to see the abuser confronted publicly, and the crime recognized. The amendment proposed in this bill reflects an understanding of these factors and the importance of addressing them. The amendment would remove the time restrictions in such cases and would thus allow a survivor of childhood sexual abuse to take legal action at any time.

Hon. Speaker, I suggest we can do no less than to take this step to make clear our society's revulsion for this crime and our determination to assist and support the victims of this crime. In so doing, we will not only be providing support for a great many people in our province, we will be providing an example which other provinces and territories may choose to follow, thereby potentially benefiting people beyond our borders. I urge all hon. members to support this bill and to make clear that British Columbia legislators of all political persuasions are united in our determination to combat childhood sexual abuse and to assist the men and women who have survived its horror.

A. Warnke: In response to the bill introduced by the Attorney General, I want to compliment him on some of the opening remarks he has made. I share with the Attorney General that this is a very serious problem, which seems to have attracted public attention in recent years. I must admit that I found it very difficult to even comprehend that these kinds of heinous crimes -- and I would call them heinous crimes -- exist in our society. I suppose it tells me that I'm quite blessed to have gone through the first two decades of my life not really being exposed to this at all. Therefore it's very troubling to me, to all members and to the public at large to realize that such acts do take place.

Once these are acknowledged.... I agree with the Attorney General's remarks in another context. It must be a terrible trauma to individuals who have been victims of these acts. Anyone who studies psychology can imagine the need to suppress such experiences in life. I suppose it is part of the human character that you always try to overcome any sorts of severe traumatic experiences that you have witnessed in life.

I agree as well with the Attorney General on this point: one cannot simply say that there is a short period of time in which individuals can confront the abuser. One can easily imagine it. All one has to do is read the various newspaper reports of those who have finally confronted their abusers. It takes some time for a person 

[ Page 2407 ]

to overcome this particular trauma. In this specific context I would have to agree with the Attorney General that this bill, which allows one to confront the abuser long after the situation or event has occurred, is a very necessary one.

I was thinking of something else when I read over this bill. It's something that I have gradually come over to in the past few years, especially as a student and teacher of the administration of justice. One strong point here is that society has not paid sufficient attention to the victims of crimes. I am one of those who feel that not only do we need an awareness that victims have rights, but in an institutional context it is extremely important to expand the rights of victims. In a more general sense, this is a very constructive and positive bill, because I think it does set a clear direction that we as a society and specifically as a government -- and in this context the opposition would share that -- need to do more in terms of addressing victims' rights. The more we can address and expand victims' rights in an institutional context, the more we are on the right course. This not only applies to the most heinous of crimes in our society, but I would like to see the expansion of victims' rights in a more broad and general sense.

If there is a criticism of this bill.... To be quite honest, I am not one to overly critique it. I have heard others critique the bill. I suppose it should be mentioned, and indeed I see it as part of my role to bring to the attention of the Attorney General and the House generally, that perhaps -- and there are certain groups in our society who firmly believe this -- more should have been done. Perhaps what we need to do is develop more legislation that seeks prohibitions against sexual offenders, especially those working with and near children, and those who are pedophiles. Some sort of mandatory treatment is absolutely essential. I believe that is the correct way to proceed, but, on the other hand, I'm not one to criticize this particular bill for that. Maybe another bill would be sufficient and necessary. As a matter of fact, there is something in this bill -- the very fact that it is short and right to the point -- that I particularly like. It has a very specific goal and idea in mind that I think can be shared by all members of the House. Therefore I would like to join the Attorney General in support of this bill.

C. Serwa: I think Bill 38, the Limitation Amendment Act, is a very positive and welcome bill. The only thing I can possibly lament is that the government of British Columbia does not have the opportunity to change the Limitation Act as far as criminal charges are concerned. I think that all we can do is the civil proceedings. I acknowledge that that is, in fact, the government's limitation here in the province. I look forward to the day when the Limitation Act is suspended for sexual offences that involve young people, which may not come to the surface in 15, 20 or 30 years perhaps. I really do believe fundamentally that the limitation should be removed from the criminal charges for those types of acts as well. Just from the perspective of the third party, the Limitation Amendment Act, with respect to the limitations on civil proceedings, is very positive and most welcome. We would wholeheartedly support that.

[6:30]

C. Evans: I obviously don't need to speak on this bill in order to get it to pass. It appears to have all-party consent. I don't need to speak on this bill in order to mail it out as a political message, because it's obviously not a partisan issue. I want to speak on this bill because some three or four months ago, when I first came down here and met with the Attorney General, I asked him if we were going to be able to move on this piece of legislation this year, because it was the single most important piece of legislation in the government's agenda, as far as I was concerned. In part, I'm rising to say what a wonderful thing I think it is that four men have now risen to speak on what is all to often relegated to a subject of women's issues. In fact, it's incredibly appropriate that the speakers on this issue be men, because 98 percent of the perpetrators of this particular crime are the gender that's speaking in the House tonight.

I think it's a real good thing not only that we pass this law but that we have this debate. We had a full House here and in the gallery and the press the day that we passed, essentially, a symbolic bill about disarmament. We almost had a unanimous vote that British Columbia would be a nuclear-weapons-free zone, because everybody wanted to be here to say to the public that they took a position on war. If I have the nerve when I get through talking, I'll call for division, because I'd really like to see this room fill up again.

This is not a symbolic issue. This is a war, an issue and a matter out in the streets and homes of British Columbia. A whole lot of people will be affected by it, unlike the disarmament legislation.

I just want to talk a little bit on this subject. I would ask the members to be a little gracious. I know that I don't need to talk to you to convince you, but I have been writing these notes since we got here three months ago. I want to run through a couple of them. One of the reasons we have to pass this law is not so that we pass the law, but so that we have the debate.

What the Attorney General said a little while ago is that the issue has been a failure in the courts all through the history of the English common law, because of silence. We, as the Legislature, as leaders and as legislators, have mirrored the court system in terms of our silence. We like to get together in front of the newspapers and talk about sensational cases of abuse that periodically turn up. A priest or a school teacher or someone has done something that attracts the attention of the public. We don't like to stand up here and talk about what goes on every day in the homes of the children of British Columbia. We don't really like to stand up here and talk about the fact that right now we're talking about a crime where the majority of the victims are victimized by members of their family, 25 percent of them by their parents. And since 98 percent of the abusers are men, I should be more specific and say 25 percent of them by their fathers.

We have buried this issue not just during my generation but during my dad's, my mother's and my 

[ Page 2408 ]

grandparents'. I'm sure some of you know that the person who wrote the book on modern psychotherapy, Dr. Freud, in his youth wrote about the sexual abuse of children. In fact, it seemed to him that most of his patients had the same story to tell. I don't know why, when he got older, he decided to take the line of the patriarchy and say that it didn't exist and come up with a whole bunch of other theories. I don't know why intelligent and famous people kept telling us, generation after generation, that sexual abuse was a cause of many people's problems. I don't know why previous generations ignored it. When we got to the place of tonight, it just seemed to me that we ought to talk about it a little bit rather than passing it in the dark one night in a relatively empty room.

I'm skipping the pages you don't need to hear, since I don't have to convince you.

If there are people who are unhappy with our expenditures in terms of social costs and policing costs in this province, I would like those people to celebrate this event. People in this House over the last few months who have felt that we were spending too much money, and people across Canada who are concerned with the death of our culture, should give some thought to the study after study after study done in this country that has identified that of the child prostitutes in the city of Vancouver, 65 percent of the boys and 70 percent of the girls are survivors of childhood sexual abuse. The numbers run through our hospital system and our prisons. We spend the money on policing. We spend the money on hospitalization. We spend the money on the criminal justice system. It seemed to me, until tonight, that we chose as a culture to spend that money on symptoms and results rather than identifying the causes for what they are.

To say that we chose is harsh language, but I want to bring up the residential school issue for a minute, because what we're doing here tonight speaks to that issue. Since the late 1800s until 1983, I believe, we as a culture decided to eliminate another culture and to use physical and sexual abuse as one of the steps. I say that because prior to standing here I read page after page trying to decide whether to say that. Decade after decade native people kept telling us what those schools were doing to their children. You can see all over this country the results of the residential school program. Those people, as the Attorney General pointed out, whose 11-year-old minds managed to forget the experience, until tonight had no recourse against this culture. We said that a crime can be committed upon you, and then when you are able, when your community helps you to heal enough to say out loud what happens, you'll find that the white folks' courts say you have no recourse.

I am proud that our generation shut down those schools in this decade, and I'm really proud that this government and both parties on the other side are now going to say to people: "If you desire, as part of the healing process of you as an individual or as a community, to ask for recompense in the white people's courts, the white people's courts will welcome you."

I just want to say two other things. First, there is a wonderful thing happening in North America in that people are talking about this stuff -- 4,000 teddy bears on the steps outside, and the Attorney General's bill here tonight -- and because people are talking about it, it is becoming difficult to be a pedophile in North America. But we have more money as a culture than is good for us. As some of you no doubt know, it is now possible in at least two cities on this continent to take tourist tours to countries where the exploitation and slavery of children is legal, and to come back because of course you cannot be charged. I don't want to waste your time proving that statement. I guarantee it's true, or I wouldn't be saying it here in the House.

What I want to say is that we have made a mistake in our era of "think globally, act locally." We have decided that it's possible to simply clean up our own community and therefore improve the world. Hon. Speaker, it isn't possible. Like so much of environmental matters and worker safety matters, in terms of sexual abuse, in terms of slavery and the exploitation of children, either people solve the problem on a world level or we will not solve the problem. It is not okay to wake up in one of our communities as a criminal and decide to perform that criminal act in another country in order to escape prosecution.

The last thing I want to talk about is what some of the hon. members in the other parties have been talking about: what they would like to see us do now. For sure this is not enough, and both hon. members have said that they wished we had gone further. I'm sure we will have unanimous consent for this legislation without a division. I want to give you my commitment that we will have unanimous consent to see this thing through for the next year and years and decades, until the last vestiges of the patriarchy have been dealt with and exposed.

Let me say that, in the short run, I'm proud of this government for not doing the newsworthy, attention-getting, fast-moving, shortsighted things that we might do in order to respond to the external lobby that we deal with this issue. It is not okay to take something as complicated as this issue that involves people's lives and exposure of those people to some danger and some humiliation.... It is not okay to take an issue like this and race around and say that we will fix it in a week, a year or even in the mandate of a government.

I am pleased that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Women's Equality are going to deal with this issue in terms of prevention. The Ministry of Social Services is going to deal with this issue, and the Ministry of Attorney General is changing the legislation today.

It is a complicated issue that will require discussion. I think a measure of the commitment of this government to deal with it honestly is the fact that we do not respond with knee-jerk solutions or newspaper-headline-getting solutions, but by saying to people, including the other parties and the people in the outside world, that we want to talk about it, and that we will take steps. Everybody knows that this government has a hectic and crowded legislative agenda for this very first session of this new government. I'm really pleased that this bill will pass by unanimous consent in this 

[ Page 2409 ]

first session of this government, and I think you can guarantee that means all the other steps in due time.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I just want to say briefly to members of the House who have participated in the brief debate that we've had how much I appreciate their support and their comments on this legislation.

While I agree entirely with the comments of the member for Nelson-Creston in respect of not seeking public attention on issues of this kind for political purposes -- because I think that was the message he was imparting, and I very much try to follow that dictum -- I do regret, I must say, that this bill has had so very little coverage in the media. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the most significant things we will be doing here in this Legislature this session. Its impact will be available, unfortunately, for thousands of British Columbians.

[6:45]

I hope that we will find ways of making sure that all of those British Columbians know that we have done this, so that once the bill is passed and proclaimed they will have an opportunity, should they wish, to avail themselves of the civil remedies that will now become available in a clear and direct fashion.

Once again, I just want to thank all members of the House for their support for what I think is landmark legislation in this session of the House. I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave, I move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Bill 38, Limitation Amendment Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 21.

ENFORCEMENT OF CANADIAN
JUDGMENTS ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish to describe to the House the background and some important features of this bill. Bill 21, the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, implements recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. It is also based on a uniform statute developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The object of the work of these two respected bodies and the purpose of this bill is to modernize and simplify the current legal rules respecting the enforcement of money judgments from other provinces and territories in Canada. By so doing, this bill will help improve the administration of civil justice and will also help facilitate commercial relations between the provinces and territories of Canada.

Currently money judgments from other Canadian provinces and territories are treated in the same manner and according to the same rules as judgments from foreign countries, which often have laws and legal procedures that can be significantly different from our own. The policy of the bill is that it is no longer appropriate that money judgments from other provinces and territories of Canada should be so treated.

The bill provides a straightforward procedure by which the judgments governed by this act may be registered in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Upon registration, such judgments would be enforceable according to the same rules as judgments of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The provisions of this bill with respect to money judgments from other Canadian provinces and territories will complement the existing reciprocal enforcement of court order provisions in the Court Order Enforcement Act and the Family Relations Act. British Columbia is in the forefront with the consideration of these kinds of provisions. It is to be hoped that other Canadian provinces and territories will also give early and favourable consideration to them.

A. Warnke: In response to the introductory remarks by the Attorney General with regard to Bill 21, we should be pleased that, as he pointed out, the bill is a combination resulting from a working paper produced by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia and from work done by other commissions, the Attorney General and justice officials. Indeed, reference was made to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

I agree with the Attorney General that the purpose of the legislation is to enforce judgments from other provinces and territories in Canada, which is a very constructive move. As well, we recognize that there are several collection problems that exist in this country, particularly when we have a situation where debtors leave a particular province where the original decision was made, move to another province, and then there are some difficulties resulting from that.

While we on this side can support this bill on the basis that it can assist creditors who are trying to obtain something from their debtors, nonetheless there are perhaps some weaknesses that we perceive, which I hope that the Attorney General will put forward in his summary remarks; or perhaps some other members of the government would like to defend that particular bill. From our point of view there does seem to be a difficulty indicating what the cost is for filing a judgment. Nor is there really any indication as to the intricacies of filing such a judgment. These are a couple of questions that we have on our mind.

I suppose it would be very fair to say that this is not meant to be a criticism of the bill, but I suppose if you critique a bill one could ask what will be the effect of implementing this bill on the court system in this province. Maybe that could warrant some sort of response as well. On the whole, we are trying to move towards some sort of accessibility by those creditors 

[ Page 2410 ]

trying to obtain something from their debtors and therefore using the courts. The courts are supposed to facilitate creditors' seeking whatever is indebted to them from debtors. I suppose the argument can be put forward, and I think the Attorney General is implying this quite correctly, that as it stands right now there is extreme difficulty for a creditor to obtain such judgments.

There is one part of this bill I would also like the government members or specifically the Attorney General to address, and that's in the context of the Family Relations Act. The Family Relations Act is excluded from this bill. I'm wondering whether there is a premise here that the present system in place actually works. We have a situation where a number of people across the country are trying to obtain payments or support payments. It has been suggested by those who criticize our system that even when debtors are finally tracked down, the enforcement of the payment of a person in another province or even within British Columbia itself is fairly weak. Indeed, it is often difficult to locate such debtors in family situations who obviously should pay. Even if they are located, the legislation is weak. In this context, it has been raised whether this particular legislation should not also address that. There seems to be some problem here. Perhaps the government could respond to that.

There has been some confusion expressed that could perhaps be clarified here. It stems from at least two views that I've confronted here. One suggests that we've already got a Court Order Enforcement Act. Is this not sufficient, because of the reciprocal agreements that we have with the provinces? What I have found interesting is that there are two views on this subject by so-called expert opinions, one believing that there is sufficient reciprocity between the provinces. I'm not so convinced of that, and I suspect that the Attorney General is not.

On the other hand, I think it does raise the question: apart from some of the stipulations in part 2 of the Court Order Enforcement Act, what are the problems here in terms of reciprocal agreements between provinces and ourselves? Another concern is expressed as well: to what extent does Bill 21 replace the Court Order Enforcement Act? This is not altogether clear. This side would appreciate it very much if the Attorney General could elaborate on the extent that Bill 21 replaces the Court Order Enforcement Act. It's not very clear among those who have examined this particular subject.

Lastly, if there is a criticism here, it is the suggestion that the bill allows for civil suits only. In this particular context of enforcing judgments from other parts of Canada and so forth, should not the bill go a little bit further? There is perhaps a very valid reason for it not to go further, but I would appreciate it very much if the Attorney General or another government member could debate and argue that point of view.

On the whole, because this particular bill is a move to enforce judgments exercised by the courts in other provinces, I think this is quite essential. This is an absolutely necessary move to take. Those who are not lawyers may often be confused as to what the legal community is talking about and so forth. I do have one analogy in mind, and that is in terms of the administration of justice and the distribution of rights. The closer we move to some sort of free trade in the context of the administration of justice and laws, the better. As a matter of fact, hon. Speaker, as I reflect on some laws in the United States, sometimes involving transportation laws, sometimes even some criminal laws that do not quite fall under federal jurisdiction, there is a tremendous confusion about how law enforcement and the courts are to address particular cases and particular problems. We see how in a very complicated society such as the United States, with 50 legal jurisdictions in addition to the federal jurisdiction, this contributes a great deal to circumventing the laws, beating the system, finding loopholes and so forth.

This is what we would really like to get away from in this society. We do not want to encourage a system whereby all people have to do is find loopholes, or even get the idea that they can move from one province to another and possibly avoid the application of judgments brought down in one province or in one place in the hope that they will not entirely or at all apply somewhere else. We don't want to encourage that. In that context, I think Bill 21 is a contribution, and one which this side certainly supports.

[7:00]

L. Fox: I rise in support of the bill, but I want to make a brief concern known with respect to 2(c).

Timely as it was, I received today from one of my constituents a letter from the family enforcement program. I hope that this particular amendment looks after these inadequacies. The letter states to my constituent:

"Although your maintenance order has been enrolled in the family maintenance program, we are unable to enforce your order for maintenance, because the debtor's whereabouts are unknown. This means that the status of your case has been changed to inactive, and the program may only be able to monitor what payments are due and the amount owing to you."

It appears in discussions that I've had with this particular constituent that even though she has provided this program....

The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret I must remind you that we are on second reading of the bill, and perhaps you could save your comments on specific sections for the committee stage.

L. Fox: Can I talk to the principles of the bill, hon. Speaker?

The Speaker: Yes, most certainly.

L. Fox: I guess my concern was whether the principle of this section was dealing with this particular concern. Perhaps I'm in error with respect to that, but I can only suggest that it would have been my hope that any change by Bill 21 would have addressed those areas of concern.

With that, I will leave the specifics to the Committee of the Whole.

[ Page 2411 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the response to the members' comments would best be dealt with in committee stage when we get to that, if not later tonight then on another day.

May I say in general terms that I think all of the concerns expressed by both members are not a part of this legislation. This bill really deals only with civil judgments, money orders, in other provinces of Canada, and some of the other legislation that was referred to is not covered by this legislation.

For example, I say to the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca: the enforcement of maintenance orders is not affected by this statute. Similarly, some of the legislation referred to by the member for Richmond-Steveston is not affected by this particular amendment. It's simply an effort to get some reciprocity in respect of civil money judgments in other provinces of Canada. I think we can perhaps address those in more detail when we go to committee stage.

Motion approved.

Bill 21, Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 37.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1992 contains amendments to nine statutes administered by the Ministry of Attorney General.

An amendment to the Commercial Arbitration Act clarifies the section that provides that judicial intervention in matters of commercial arbitration is limited to instances expressly provided for in the act. This amendment strengthens the intent of the Commercial Arbitration Act, which is to provide people with an alternative to court litigation as a means of resolving commercial disputes. Clear limits on judicial intervention, except as provided for in the act, help to make arbitration less expensive, faster and more certain than it would otherwise be. The act contains specific provisions allowing for the Supreme Court to set aside an arbitrated award in cases of impropriety or arbitral error and allows for appeals and applications to the court in specified circumstances respecting questions of law.

A technical amendment is also made to the grammar of the parallel section in the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

A housekeeping amendment to the Court of Appeal Act consolidates and clarifies several provisions dealing with leave to appeal to that court.

The Evidence Act is amended to permit police constables who hold the rank of corporal or higher or who are detachment commanders to be commissioners for taking affidavits for British Columbia. This will increase administrative efficiency by eliminating the need for individual applications and orders for appointment of corporals as commissioners. I might depart from my notes at this stage to say to members that it will also save me signing dozens of authorizations to accomplish that particular need.

There are several amendments to the Expropriation Act. One provides for the appointment of a vice-chair of the Expropriation Compensation Board with the powers and jurisdiction necessary to sit alone at a hearing. This will permit the vice-chair rather than a three-person panel to conduct hearings when the chair is unavailable. This amendment will result in cost savings and increased efficiency. Improvements are also made to the provisions respecting the advanced payment of costs incurred by an owner who has made an application to the board. These amendments clarify the intent of the advanced costs section of the act that, as distinguished from costs awarded at the conclusion of the hearing, are incurred prior to the hearing of the issue and are therefore to be submitted prior to the hearing. Costs incurred thereafter will, of course, continue to be addressed under the other cost provision in the act. They also permit the chair to delegate the power to conduct a review of such advanced costs to another member of the board.

Because the chair must often sit on the actual hearing of the compensation claim, this amendment will prevent any possible prejudice that could result from having the same person review a bill of advanced costs as well as hearing the subsequent compensation claim.

Another amendment requires that in assessing advanced costs the member of the board conducting the review should assess the reasonableness of the bill for advanced costs taking into account all relevant circumstances. This is an improvement on the current requirement to determine advanced costs based on the complexity of the issues and the probable amounts involved in resolving the issues, the consideration of which could prejudice the impartiality of the main hearing. This amendment will avoid this possible difficulty. Finally, the Expropriation Act is also amended to provide that a former board member may continue to assist with respect to a hearing with which he or she was involved while still a member.

The amendment to the Offence Act clarifies the provision dealing with the payment of fines indicated on a violation ticket and also clarifies the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court to decide proceedings relating to violation tickets.

The Parole Act is amended to improve the efficiency of the Parole Board by providing that the executive director of the board shall serve as the vice-chair of the board.

The other amendments in this bill are of a technical or housekeeping nature and are designed to improve the effectiveness of the statutes being amended. It seems to me that given the nature of the bill and as we normally do with miscellaneous bills, the substantive debate may well be better placed during committee. I leave it to members of the House to decide how they wish to conduct this, but there really isn't a principle contained within the bill. I have tried not to debate it at 

[ Page 2412 ]

this stage, but rather to provide a clarification and explanation of what the contents include. I would be very happy to have both a principled and detailed discussion in committee stage, if members would agree with that procedure.

A. Warnke: This bill, Bill 37, as I reflect on it and as just described a moment ago by the Attorney General, has no real connecting philosophy or principle attached to it. I would agree that this is a miscellaneous bill to which there is not a principle attached.

It is my view that when one examines this bill in detail, this bill should be addressed most appropriately at committee stage, because of the variance of the subjects of the clauses and so forth.

Having said that, I can't help but reflect as we get into the different sections and so forth.... The Attorney General has touched on one subject that we will take up in closer detail in committee, and that is section 15 regarding traffic tickets. We've had an interesting development in the last number of months as to the application of essentially handing out traffic tickets and so forth. So it is something that we might want to take up in detail, but we will have a little bit of fun with that.

As a whole, I agree with the Attorney General that this is a miscellaneous bill that takes in different subjects, and I recommend that we proceed with it.

C. Serwa: In speaking to the philosophy and principles of this particular bill, I agree that it's perhaps a little difficult. But I will speak to one aspect of this bill that I have a great deal of difficulty with. It's the political aspect of this bill coming out of the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act. I have a great deal of difficulty with that aspect.

This particular bill has the opportunity to create a vice-chair for a position, and it has hamstrung the activities of the proceedings of the commercial arbitration board at the present time. The vice-chair that has been chosen is duplicating the position of the chair, and it creates the question of who is, in fact, in charge in this particular situation.

It's the political aspect of this. My information indicates that the vice-chair or the vice-chair designate will receive more than $98,000 a year, which is approximately the current remuneration of the sitting chair. It's the political aspect of this particular bill coming from the Attorney General's office that gives me a great number of problems.

It's certainly the philosophy and principles of the general bill to try to improve the mechanics, and the operation is something that we will go further into in Committee of the Whole. But it's again the political aspect: the appearance of patronage that is injected into a bill put forward by the Attorney General that creates a great deal of difficulty.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, we will discuss this further in committee stage. I just need to say at this point that I'm a little surprised -- I must say, honestly surprised -- by the comments of the member for Okanagan West.

An Hon. Member: East.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: West.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, she wouldn't be, would she?

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I remember very clearly where the member lives, and I think to myself, now that's to the east and to the south of Kelowna and therefore he must be the member for Okanagan East, but it doesn't always follow, does it, as those of us who don't live in our own constituency recognize from time to time.

But seriously, the establishment of a position of vice-chair at the expropriation board -- not the commercial -- is not at all designed as a political move. One of the problems that exists now is that the chair of the board -- someone those of us who have served in the House for a while all know well, particularly members of that member's party -- could sit alone to hear a case, but no other member of the board could sit alone. They had to be a panel of three. One of the things we wanted to do, at the suggestion of the board, is to make it operate more effectively and allow for two people on the expropriation board in fact to hear cases individually -- the chair or the vice-chair. We think that would save considerable money.

I think the member may be confusing the appointment of a certain individual, who to my knowledge has no political connections, unlike the chair, to the position of vice-chair. The reason that appointment was made earlier was to provide for a transition -- to allow for any cases that are presented now so that when the change is made at the expiration of the term of the current chair, there will be an ability to continue on with a new chair. Having an overlapping period was deemed to be important to that; otherwise all the cases that were heard right up until the middle of August would have to be heard by someone who's no longer in that position. So there was a need to find a way of overlapping the appointments of the transition overlap. It was simply for that purpose. I just want to say, in case the record leaves an impression that should not be left, that this is not a political manoeuvre. It's not partisan, and is certainly not patronage.

[7:15]

Bill 37, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 44.

STATUTE REVISION ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the bill be now read a second time. I wish to describe to the House some of the background and features of this bill as well.

[ Page 2413 ]

The existing Statute Revision Act was enacted in 1966, and last amended in 1979. This new act was drafted after consideration of the existing Statute Revision Act and the statute revision legislation of other Canadian and Commonwealth jurisdictions. It combines useful ideas found in those acts with the new concept of limited revision.

Generally, statute revision legislation establishes the authority to deal with legislation in limited ways without first obtaining approval of the House. For example, this legislation permits the chief legislative counsel to combine acts or provisions of acts, alter the numbering of acts, rename an act or a portion of an act, alter language and punctuation to achieve a consistent style and make minor amendments to clarify the intent of the legislation. Once these changes have been made, the revision is submitted to a select standing committee of the Legislative Assembly for review and approval. The new act introduces the power to produce limited revisions of the statute. This will allow for more frequent revisions and the consolidation of acts that are frequently amended.

A. Warnke: I would like to rise on the discussion of Bill 44. For a few years now, since the report Access to Justice was published, there has been considerable talk about how to essentially make our laws knowable before the public. In many ways the idea is to try to establish some sort of plain language. We move closer to the idea of dispensing with legalese and trying to develop laws that can be understood by the public. That is essentially the direction we want to go in.

In this context, if there is a problem with this bill, it's that what is needed is to make laws more accessible to people in those areas where people have the greatest contact with the laws -- that is, in terms of legal documents, insurance documents, banks and similar kinds of institutions where people have daily or weekly contact. These too should somehow be affected by this kind of legislation, simply because people are in contact with these kinds of documents. Maybe there is a very good reason. Maybe it is very difficult to take these documents and subject them to the intention that we find in this bill.

Once again, the principle of the bill is one that can be supported very easily. I'm sure that the Attorney General and all of us are aware of it, but it has to be raised every time we move in the direction that is intended by legislation such as this. Whenever we make it easier for the laws to be redrafted and rewritten -- and while prima facie one might say that it's just a matter of cleaning up a little bit of grammar here or making the language a little easier to read there -- we must always protect the intent of what is being expressed in our laws. In the minds of the public there is always the suspicion that what was intended in a particular law might be altered slightly with the change of a word. While the word may be easier to read, nonetheless the particular word that is inserted or substituted for another could always have the prospect of altering the intent and the meaning of the original law. It's extremely important to always keep that in mind. It's very fair to say that on second reading a point like that should be made.

There are specific points. As we go through the various clauses, we will obviously ask for points of clarification and so forth. It's not my intention to focus primarily on one particular clause. I will mention clause 3 not to debate it, because we will take that up in committee, but to draw attention here that this is the core component of how that should provide for these changes. Some people in the legal community have suggested that maybe this provides an artificial check on the process. I hope this is not the case. We might just have a look at that. Again, it is an issue that we could take up at committee stage.

I can't resist making one little point when it comes to altering language. It is not only in this legislation, but we see it in at least two other bills as well. I think the intention is proper. I personally don't see anything offensive in it, and I don't think members on this side see anything offensive in it. It's trying to make statutes not only easier to read but also more gender neutral. It has been a view long held by me that one problem we have in North America -- not only in Canada but in the United States as well -- is that in a lot of what is written in legal documents and in literature and so forth we tend to be pretty loose with the use of language. I would say that perhaps we have slipped into using gender-biased language.

I've often argued that many times we use the pronouns his and her in our language. As a matter of fact, some of my students in my former career know only too well that I have a thing about pronouns. I don't like pronouns. The reason I don't like pronouns is that they move us away from how the language should be properly used, especially in literature. We tend to use "he" and "she." What was really driving me up the wall -- and why I like this present career -- was when I started reading more essays with "he/she," when in fact the word "one" was perhaps more appropriate.

I would suggest that it is not just a matter of eliminating that particular kind of pronoun but that the basis of how we use some of these pronouns improperly may have a lot to do with the fact that we really have not got the firm grasp on the use of language that we should. That's one source of gender bias that I see in our use of the language.

I always have to bring this up as well when I come across a reference to gender bias. There is this one word that bothers a lot of people: "history." Some people are under the false impression that "history" is a shortened form of "his story," that that's where the word came from. This exemplifies how there is gender bias in our language -- and indeed there is gender bias in our language. The faster and closer we move to gender-neutral language, the better.

Just for the record, I want to protect this particular word. "History" is not an abbreviation of two English words but comes from the Greek histor. An "h" in Greek is actually an apostrophe, and it begins with an "e." Histor in Greek means "knowing" -- in this case, knowing the past. I want to protect that one word, history, not because it's gender-biased but because I have a tremendous admiration for the Greeks, and anytime I 

[ Page 2414 ]

can keep a Greek word in the English language, I always prefer to do so. Having said that, I would encourage support for this particular bill.

D. Symons: There are just a few comments I'd like to make regarding the bill. I agree with everything my colleague here has said. But I think there are two things we should take note of. One is that as far as plain language is concerned, I think we should put some priorities on this. For instance, the Residential Tenancy Act. I think it is one that affects a lot of people in the province, and it is certainly a bill that should be put into plain language.

The other criticism that I might have with the bill is the language itself. I think if we're trying to put forth something that says we're going to revise statutes and bring statutes into line with the language of the day, so people can understand it.... You might see what I mean if I just read you a portion of section 9(1): "A reference in any of the following to an Act or provision included in a revision must be interpreted, in relation to any transaction, matter or thing after the coming into force of the revision, as a reference to the revised Act or provision having the same effect as the Act or provision replaced by the revision." Is that perfectly clear? Not to me, madam Speaker. I think that it needs revising in plain language.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I had the same question, but the lawyers tell me that it's the best they could do. The problem with the need to have what appears to be not plain language in a provision such as the one raised by the member is that what we're doing here is authorizing a person and then a committee other than this Legislature to make changes to statutes. We need to be careful and very precise in so doing. As a result of that, we had language that, as the member correctly points out, is not the plainest English you'll find anywhere. However, I am assured by those who write legislation that it was necessary in order to make absolutely certain that we are doing what we want to do with this particular bill. Accordingly, I now move second reading of the bill.

[7:30]

Motion approved.

Bill 44, Statute Revision Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 45.

STATUTE REVISION MISCELLANEOUS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I wish to describe to the House some of the features of this bill. As with the previous bill, I think it's simply not a matter for debate, but rather a matter for explanation. We can have whatever debate might be necessary in the committee stage.

This bill amends several acts as part of the statute revision process. These are minor amendments intended to update the language of the statutes and to facilitate the making of minor changes to forms and rules prescribed by statutes. Amendments to several acts eliminate references to a "certificate of lis pendens," and replace that phrase with the plain language term, "certificate of pending litigation." I think we're halfway on the road to plain language when we do that.

An amendment to the Interpretation Act facilitates the use of gender-neutral language in all of the statutes. Several other amendments allow forms and rules of an administrative nature to be removed from the statutes and placed in regulations so that they may be amended by regulations or bylaws. These include: an amendment to the Agrologists Act to remove the form of membership certificate from the act so that it may be re-enacted and revised by bylaws of the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists; an amendment to the Fish Inspection Act to remove the form of oath from the act so that it may be re-enacted and revised as appropriate by regulation; and amendments to the Land Survey Act and the Library Act to permit forms to be re-enacted and revised by regulation. These amendments provide a more efficient process for revising documents of an administrative nature.

In closing, I don't think this bill should take us more than three or four hours to get through in second reading.

A. Warnke: We'll see about the three or four hours.

In response to the Attorney General, I would like to speak very briefly to Bill 45. Once again it is a miscellaneous act for all intents and purposes. It covers many different subjects and amendments to various acts, and I think it is entirely appropriate to take these up at committee stage. It is at committee stage that we feel some of the acts do need some sort of clarification.

In general, if we are to try to extract the principle of this bill, I would agree that it is a move by the government to remove some of the legalese from legislation. We have talked a little bit about this already in the context of Bill 44. The one example here of lis pendens.... As one who did take Latin some time ago, anytime that Latin disappears it hits at me a little bit. But I certainly recognize, on the other hand, that for most people it makes a lot more sense to read "certificate of pending litigation" as opposed to a reference to lis pendens, which seems to be always translated. After all, this is the 1990s.

I can actually think of another example which has bothered me, despite knowing a little bit of Latin, and that is when certain individuals come before the courts and proceed to enter the plea of nolo contendere. I always thought that if you're guilty, you're guilty. If you plead guilty, you plead guilty, and yet there are those who plead the Latin form of "no contest." Somehow that has always bothered me personally. I feel that just because someone pleads in Latin somehow they're on an elevated level, and we plebeians plead guilty when 

[ Page 2415 ]

we're before the courts. Somehow I always thought that was highly unfair.

As to the general principle of the bill, I think to somehow change from legalese to putting terms in a context that everyone can understand is certainly a move forward. However, on the other hand, that's not the only purpose of this bill, and we'll see that as we move to committee stage.

In general, some of these amendments are quite straightforward in terms of the clarification and simplification of statutes and amendments which reflect modern societal mores, such as gender and faith, neutrality and so forth. Beyond that, one consideration should be whether there will be any changes with regard to the repeal of the terms "form" or "schedule."

At any rate, we'll take up some of these at the committee stage. One question that I could pose to the Attorney General is: what format will the new forms and schedules take, and what form of check will be in place which would validate the format and questions of the form, and so forth? I believe the Attorney General might say that committee is the best place to take that up, and I would concur with that if that's his feeling.

Therefore I suggest that we should move to the next stage on this particular bill.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I agree that committee stage is the best place to answer that question, because I don't know the answer without some help. So we'll do that later.

That's all that needs to be said on this bill at this point. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 45, Statute Revision Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 1992, 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. C. Gabelmann: In case the House wasn't advised earlier, according to the standing orders, we're required to notify members that the House will be sitting tomorrow afternoon.

With that, I call second reading of Bill 63.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. A. Hagen: It is with considerable pride that I rise tonight to move second reading of the Human Rights Amendment Act.

Our government, both in its term of office and as represented by the New Democratic Party prior to becoming government, has been committed to enhancing and protecting the rights of individuals and groups in British Columbia. This bill, which is an amending bill to the current Human Rights Act, makes some very significant improvements in that statute and, with those improvements, furthers the rights of disadvantaged persons in our province.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

In dealing with human rights, I think all of us recognize that we are talking about legislating and putting into practice the means by which we may all ensure that citizens of every kind may live freely in our society and participate in the economy, the services and the privileges that are a part of it in ways that are reasonable for all. I think that those values are shared by all members of the House.

It's my anticipation that the amendments that our government is bringing forward today for discussion in second reading, first of all, and then for processing through the House will be welcomed as very significant additions to the statutes of our province and, more importantly, to our values of protecting and speaking for all kinds of people who live in British Columbia. With this legislation, with the changes that are part of the bill, we are fulfilling a very clear commitment -- one of many actions that we have taken over the past three months -- in the Speech from the Throne.

I want to take a few minutes tonight to outline the key amendments encompassed in this amending bill and to elaborate a little on some of them in order to have a better understanding of how they fit into the statute that they will join when we complete our debate. First of all, the legislation adds two new prohibited grounds for discrimination. Those grounds are family status and sexual orientation. This legislation also makes provisions for class action complaints and remedies. I would like members to keep that class action clause in mind, because it applies in many of the amendments that are going to be discussed with this bill. They apply also to other provisions of the act as they are presently constituted.

With this bill we will also be facilitating employers' ability to propose employment equity programs in both public and private sectors. We are removing the limit on general damages. We are expanding a rather strange definition of age which exists in the current statute to include everyone from the ages of 19 to 65. Finally, what this bill does is to move a clause from the Residential Tenancy Act, where there is a reference to the Human Rights Act, into the Human Rights Act, where it appropriately belongs.

These amendments broaden the protection that we provide for citizens, broaden the remedies available to citizens who have concerns about the constraining of their human rights and provide means for the Council of Human Rights to provide assistance and support for citizens and classes of citizens who may wish to consult with it and work with it in the furthering of human rights.

Let me now take a few moments to speak about some of the specific amendments in a little bit more detail. I know that members of the House will be wanting to elaborate in areas where they have a special interest or where they take a special pride and satisfaction in the amendments that we're bringing forward. I'll speak first of the discrimination clause that protects those on the basis of family status. The inclusion of family status in the Human Rights Act will prohibit discrimination on the basis of who a person is related to. It will also provide protection for individuals who may be discriminated against based on family status.

[ Page 2416 ]

In a sense, if you think about family status as a permanent characteristic for most of us, most of us are parts of families, very different kinds of families in many instances. We're looking here at the family being a protected unit. In the workplace the protection that's related to this particular amendment will prevent discriminatory hiring policies based on family relationships and an employer from providing benefits to persons solely because they are a family. There are protections here that say that everyone has rights to jobs and employment. There may not be prescriptions that would prevent those people from the due process of acquiring such a job.

[7:45]

Family status is also very much protected by the movement of the tenancy provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act into the Human Rights Act. This means that families, including single parents with children, will be protected from discrimination in rental accommodation due to their family status. Presently there is a statute, as I say, that deals with this, so this is not new. But by putting the particular clause in the Human Rights Act, the sense of protection, the knowledge about that protection, is more clearly available. That information will also be available then in the education publications made available by the Human Rights Council to inform citizens of their rights and the processes by which they may seek some counsel and redress if they have complaints against their rights being violated. In this case we are looking at all families, but I think most of us recognize that it's special families, particularly single-parent families, who very often may be discriminated against in their access to housing. But parents with children, whether it's a one-or two-parent family, will have protection as a result of this amendment.

With these amendments we too join five other jurisdictions in Canada -- provinces and territories -- which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There is a sector of our citizens who remain unprotected from discrimination because of their sexual orientation, and these amendments are intended to capture in the framework of the act protections for people on the basis of sexual orientation in such areas as tenancy, employment, membership in a trade union or occupational association, in the public services and facilities that people enjoy as citizens. In any of these areas that are in the present act, we are adding the words "sexual orientation" to a list of protected categories. As I noted earlier, we now join four other provinces and one territory where those protections have been, in many instances for some years, a part of their human rights legislation.

I want to turn now to the amendments that deal with employment equity. There is in the current legislation a means by which an employer may consult with the Human Rights Council around an employment equity program; however, the process is long, and the enabling aspect of that legislation is weak. So the amendment that we are putting forward in this bill today is an amendment which will provide greater flexibility for employers in the public and private sector to bring forward policies and programs to deal with the goal of a greater equity for our workforce in the province. Employers will be enabled then to do that planning, to develop those policies, secure in the knowledge that they will not be violating the Human Rights Act.

However, we have also left open an option to employers to consult and to seek guidance from the Human Rights Council around the plans, the policies, the programs that they may develop for employment equity in order to ensure that their plans are indeed in compliance with the act. I believe that this is very consistent with the nature of the act and the nature of our Human Rights Council -- to provide education and support, to ensure that citizens are thinking about human rights and thinking about equity provisions as they go about their work in the economy and society.

The people who will benefit from the greater flexibility that employers will now have in developing employment equity plans are people who in many instances are disadvantaged because of race, because of colour, because of ancestry, place of origin, physical or mental disabilities or gender -- the traditional groups that we've come to know, in the Charter and in other language, as the equity groups. I know that the Minister of Women's Equality joined me yesterday in taking great pleasure and pride in the facilitating nature of this amendment, because it's the Minister of Women's Equality who has among her responsibilities the issue of promoting employment equity so that our workplaces more realistically reflect the very diverse nature of our society.

In all of these areas the tradition with the Human Rights Act -- in fact the statute itself -- has really limited the council to dealing with complaints that relate to individuals. Even though there may be a class of people who are affected by discrimination where, as we say, it's systemic, it's in our system, it's the way we are doing things, the Human Rights Council has been precluded from making a ruling that would affect anyone other than the individual who is bringing the complaint or the person who is bringing a complaint on behalf of that individual.

However, class action is a very effective way for us to deal with systemic discrimination. For instance, in the area of employment equity there may indeed be class action that would be appropriate. A class of persons may now file a class-action complaint under the act as it will be amended. The Human Rights Council may, on hearing an individual complaint that clearly has applicability to a broader class of people, be able to make rulings that will be related to that class of people. This will help us in an administrative way too, because very often there has been a proliferation of complaints on an individual basis coming to the council. Because it was prevented from making any rulings for other than the individual, each complaint had to be dealt with in its own right and on its own merits.

We will now have meaningful remedies for discrimination in our system that may affect classes of people. When people have asked for an example, one that we have used is an example which fortunately did not reach a human rights tribunal and would have been in federal jurisdiction if it had. But many of us remember that there were concerns about some practices of the 

[ Page 2417 ]

Japanese airlines around Indo-Canadian travellers. There was a concern that there was a discriminatory practice based on race, based on the ethnicity of that group of people. Under this legislation they would, if it were a provincial jurisdiction, have been able to bring a class action.

However, I want to note in making reference to that particular set of circumstances that the very nature of a class of people working to bring forward an issue where discrimination was perceived -- to make representations around those issues, to give some public profile to that issue -- resulted in a settlement or an agreement between the parties. I want to emphasize that one of the roles of the Human Rights Council is to assist in that mediation, that kind of discussion between the parties so that we are developing a greater understanding of the nature of discrimination, and we are helping people to find practices and ways of doing things that are consistent with our human rights values as expressed in our legislation. The class-action section will apply to all of these amendments of which I've spoken, and I believe will both streamline the work of the council and make it possible for it to make rulings that will assist people to avoid the circumstances of discrimination and help us all to be better educated about how we can support human rights within our province.

Another amendment, which is really a kind of technical amendment, is one relating to age. We had a very strange clause in the Human Rights Act as it presently exists, which says that people are protected from discrimination on the basis of age if they are 45 to 65. We have broadened that age to encompass all people from the ages of 19, which is our age of majority if you like, to 65. We had a rather strange situation, for example, where a young person of 18 living with a family would have been protected under some of the legislation as it existed. Once that person turned 19 there was no protection. In fact, age is a factor in many services or opportunities that are available to people. We've all heard people experience the dictum "you are too old" or "you are too young," and that kind of discrimination will no longer be possible.

I want to note that throughout the legislation there is always the criterion of bona fide...and there are other exemptions, if you like, that provide for reasonable kinds of interpretations of the legislation. That's important to remember when we look at the amendments that we're bringing forward at this time.

Hon. Speaker, what I have done tonight is to briefly outline the major amendments that are encompassed in this bill. I want to conclude my remarks by stating that we know, from the signals we sent when the throne speech indicated that these amendments would be coming forward, that their nature and scope were going to be welcomed by the community of British Columbia which values the dignity of all people and our reputation and development as a tolerant society.

I believe that this bill provides us with significant enhancements of our current human rights legislation, and that British Columbians around the land will have opportunities, as a result of these changes, to expand their own understanding of the rights of each individual to live freely within our society and to respect the values, rights, inheritances and communities of other people. I look forward to its process through the evening and to the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the House as we proceed with second reading.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation, as the minister has pointed out to us this evening. It's one that many people in the province are looking at with a great deal of interest, and in some cases with a great deal of concern. There are those who are very much in favour of it, and there are those who have certain questions -- deeply felt questions -- about some of the clauses within this act.

One of the concerns we have is the haste with which this act is being brought forward to the House. It was introduced for the first time yesterday, when we had an opportunity to look at it. It was then put on the order paper for today without a great deal of time to look at it. We did negotiate, we understood, through the House leaders, that it would not come in for second reading until tomorrow, so that there would be more time to examine it and more time for other people to reflect upon it.

Then suddenly, half an hour ago, we discovered it was again on the agenda this evening. There is the whole question of the haste with which this is being brought forward. If it was not such an important bill and of such great interest to so many people, we might overlook the haste. But when it is brought forward in this manner, once again we are caught with the process of this government not enabling people to be consulted or to have a chance to respond in the manner in which they should have an opportunity to. That's a very great concern at the beginning.

[8:00]

We are concerned that people should have full opportunity for their human rights. We are aware that if this bill is to be passed -- even if it's amended in certain sections as we go along -- it will join Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and the Yukon in bills that essentially cover the same areas of concern which are being raised in this bill. We know that certain aspects of this bill are also being discussed at the federal level. The federal human rights legislation at this point is not as extensive in some areas as the bill that is being brought here. We do know that on the federal level there are grave concerns about certain aspects that are contained in this bill as well. It is not one to be glossed over quickly or without a great deal of thought or consideration.

There are some concerns that the minister has related in her brief presentation this evening. I will touch on a few of those and then touch on it section by section, raising some of the issues that have been brought to our attention.

The whole area of education and human rights is one that people are concerned about. We are discovering that the work of the Human Rights Council is not well known in the province. The people who know it best are the people who applied to it because they had a concern. Those who found that they were helped are very positive about it. Those who found that they were either not eligible or could not be helped by the work of 

[ Page 2418 ]

the council are negative about it. We have those mixed feelings, but I daresay that the larger percentage of the population really doesn't know what the Human Rights Council is about, how it functions or how it operates. That is a concern.

There is a concern out there, too, that in the haste of the presentation this bill will be overlooked in its depth of meaning because it will be seen as just fulfilling an election promise and trying to do it quickly so it will get marks from the public rather than having them fully understand the intent and the quality of what's being undertaken here. We are concerned -- and it will come up again -- about the statute of limitations and the six-month clause that is still in the Human Rights Act. It means that if you don't respond relatively quickly, then you're out of luck. We're concerned about how it applies equally across the province. In other words, are there facilities and staff and opportunities across the province for all people, rural and urban, to take advantage of equally?

We've been told that more money has been alloted to the Human Rights Council, which has a considerable backlog in cases at this point. This new bill will pile up even more of a backlog very quickly. Even with an increased staff, I'm sure it will be some time before they will be able to catch up or deal properly with the many issues that are before them.

We had a suggestion from people who are concerned about the legislation as they look at it and who deal with human rights concerns. They say that instead of a council, there needs to be another format, a commission. This is something to be considered in the future.

There was a hint in the press release that went out regarding this bill that this was all but the forerunner of a revision to the Human Rights Act. That is a hint, but it is only a suggestion. If so, it enables us to wonder where it is leading and what hint these actions are giving us.

This bill is trying very hard to overcome discrimination. One area of discrimination that is not really dealt with in the act is the economic discrimination of people who are in a low-income bracket. They do not have the same access, understanding or ability as others do to discover that this is available to them. For many of these people their only source of knowledge is a weekly newspaper that may be dropped free of charge on their doorstep. If they are living in a tenancy or in a low-income place, even this source of information is not available to them. There is a difficulty in getting the information to the people who perhaps have most need of it.

There is no question or uncertainty in here about discrimination in the case of health in tenancy and other situations. I know in the time I was growing up, if you had tuberculosis it was very difficult to find a place to live because people were worried about the contagiousness of that disease and did not want you close at hand. That situation probably arises today with persons who have AIDS -- the difficulty of finding a place. This does not necessarily deal with the discrimination that they feel and have to live with.

The definition of family status is uncertain, because there is no definition as to what family status means. Indeed, there was a definition which has been repealed in the Residential Tenancy Act, and therefore the definition that was there and had certain validities in it has been removed. So we understand that the only definition perhaps can be finally made by the courts, because it's not contained here and there's no reference as to which definition might be used.

The definition in the Residential Tenancy Act was that a family means two or more persons. It doesn't say what relationship they have, what age they are or anything about them. It simply says that "family" means two or more persons who live together and includes a parent and the child of that parent. It was a very open, inclusive definition. The only person that it excluded was a single person, and the act has opened the door for them as well. But in opening the one door and leaving out this definition, it may have closed the doors to other people unintentionally, and I think that needs to be looked at and considered.

One of the questions about age, which this act has attempted to deal with by broadening the area from 19 to 65, concerns discrimination for those under 19 and many youth who have finished university, who have completed high school, who are working and are 16, 17 and 18 years of age. They're not children who per se are living at home. They're old enough to get out and be married on their own recognizance, and these people are not included in this act, so the question is whether 19 is the proper age to include, to limit.

On the other hand, the 65-, 66- and 80-year-olds -- anyone over the age of 65 -- are not included in this act. Where are their human rights? There are many seniors who feel that their human rights have been lost, and they would look to an act like this that might include them rather than to exclude them.

Looking at the sections of the act, I'll highlight some of the concerns that we'll deal with in more detail in committee stage. There is the one about the very definitions that are not there in section 1, the definitions that perhaps could be there. There is the question of whether even the age of 19 to 65 is inclusive enough without some attention to those under 19 and those over 65.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I would bring your attention to the standing orders. The bill will be debated section by section in committee. Could we restrict our remarks to the bill in general, please.

V. Anderson: Yes, I will do that.

These are the concerns we have as we look at the areas of this bill. There are slight changes in here, and if we don't look at them carefully, we'll overlook them. The family status one, I have suggested, is a concern, because we have left it up to the B.C. Council of Human Rights to define that. That's perhaps not the wisest thing we should be doing.

The changes in the Residential Tenancy Act, by leaving out some things and bringing in others, have some advantages, but they also have some concerns, which I've already mentioned. One of the concerns that comes up regularly from people in my riding has to do with people trying to rent their houses. They rent it to a 

[ Page 2419 ]

family with three children, and that's fine. But the next week, they discover there are three families with 15 children living in that house now. What can they do about it? On the other hand, the neighbours are also having a problem because there are now seven cars in front of that house and up and down the block. They're asking what they can do about it. When we're talking about human rights, we have to talk not only about the rights of specific individuals but how these rights affect neighbours and others within the community who say: "We have rights, too." The rights of the one and the other needs to be considered back and forth. We need to look at the implications of this for others within the community.

The ability for class action is another item that the minister has referred to. There are two types of class action, if you like. We usually think of the one where a group has a concern that they would like to have rectified -- because of age or whatever it might be. They can take that as a class and deal with it at one go.

But what about the person who feels that they're being discriminated against by a class of people? How do they get that particular need dealt with? Does the class action work both in the positive and in the negative, so that a class could be taken to account both in protection and in trying to get some redress from them?

There are a couple of places in the act where they have properly tried to achieve gender neutrality by changing "he" to "member." But within the same section, there are a couple of places where they failed to do that. We suggest they should be consistent and make all the necessary changes to the section. Perhaps that's because of the haste with which the bill has been brought forward.

The limitation of $2,000 in damages that has been removed from the bill raises the concern, on the other hand, of what the upper limit is. What is the discretion? When we were in the United States for a number of years studying, my wife used to talk about the "suage insurance" that you had to have in the United States, because you were sued so often and the settlements were so high. We run the danger of the settlements being so high in this undertaking that it may be difficult at the other end of the ledger. These are concerns that people are raising: that in making freedoms we do not abuse them at the other end of the scale. How do we arrive at a balance between them?

[8:15]

The employment equity programs naturally should be non-discriminatory. What is the meaning within this bill when it talks about employment equity programs, and it simply refers to "other special programs," a nebulous kind of definition which leaves it wide open to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to undertake almost anything they would like to undertake? If we were to extend that, we would say that perhaps there is too much freedom within the bill, without enough definition and guidelines in those particular areas. You might even say -- some people would be delighted with this and others would be concerned about it -- that within the bill, without saying so, there is the option to reinstate the rentalsman program or something of that nature to the same effect, because that would be good for the human rights of the people living in rental accommodations. So there are places where the bill opens the doors, without really saying what that future legislation might bring.

There are a whole variety of issues in this bill. Though we are concerned that the human rights of all people be extended, we're also concerned that in the rush to do this we do not in essence deny the rights of some and put forth an act which will be so difficult for the Council of Human Rights to interpret and to put into effect that it will cause the community to be negative towards what we are doing here tonight, rather than positive.

Those are some of the concerns that we raise and will deal with in more detail in the clause-by-clause study. It is a move in the right direction, but there are details in the move that have yet to be worked out, or we may not get to the place which was initially our goal.

J. MacPhail: I'm glad to be able to rise in this House this evening in full support of Bill 63. I was a bit worried when I was listening to the member opposite, wondering whether we were actually debating the same bill, but I think we are. I look at this bill and see it as an absolute breath of fresh air that's going to blow through British Columbia, and I am thrilled to be able to support it.

B.C. will finally be a fair and open place to live and raise a family. You know, it's interesting that we want to be able to define a family. All I know is that a family in this province is no longer June and Ward Cleaver with Wally and Beaver. No longer does that family exist, and finally we have legislation that gives recognition that the world has changed greatly. We're bringing ourselves up to the standards that already exist and are universally accepted in other parts of the world and, indeed -- as our minister responsible for this act indicated -- in other jurisdictions within Canada as well.

I might add that there is a convention of the International Labour Organization, convention 159, that gives recognition and calls for the recognition of family status within employment law. Our federal government signed a commitment, along with many other countries, that we would bring forward convention 159 and ratify it. I would like to say that our province is a leader in bringing the laws of Canada within line so that we can finally ratify convention 159, and I'm delighted about that.

I want to particularly emphasize my support for several sections. While I support the overall bill, some sections are particularly important to me, the first one being family status. No longer will women and men have to worry about the fact that they have children. They're not going to have to hide their children; they're not going to have to lie about that. While it will affect all of us in society, this is particularly important for women. Eighty-five percent of our single-parent households are headed by women, so we will benefit from this amendment completely.

I must give kudos to the former government. They did bring in an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act that breathed in some openness to the right to have 

[ Page 2420 ]

accommodation when you have children. At that time I was changing places of residence, and it was wonderful. Landlords also felt much more open to the fact that no longer did they have to limit themselves in selecting particular tenants -- all families were accepted for residency. So I give credit to the previous government for doing that under the Residential Tenancy Act, and to our government for expanding that and incorporating it where it rightfully belongs in the Human Rights Act.

Secondly, I want to give credit to British Columbians in the matter of taking forward the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of our sexual preference. It's interesting to note the difference between our jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction, where for years our federal government has promised prohibition against discrimination for sexual preference and has never come through. Indeed, today it still fights within its own Conservative caucus -- and I mean that as a double entendre -- which will not put forward an amendment to the Charter of Rights. I commend us for that. It's an inclusive and compassionate amendment, and it shows that our government believes every person is free and equal in our dignity and rights.

The last amendment that I want to speak on is the removal of the $2,000 penalty limit. The removal of that is bringing the law into the real world, where there are many businesses -- and, indeed, individuals -- that see $2,000 as merely the equivalent of a parking ticket. It is no deterrent for discrimination. They look upon it as merely a nuisance payment, and it was not having any effect in making our world free from discrimination.

I don't share the member opposite's concern that we have to worry about the sky being the limit. We are not the United States. We have a body of law with a fair penalty system, and the removal of this limit will not in any way make the sky the limit in our province.

We will now be able to put in the hands of our Human Rights Council some legitimate solutions for bringing about fairness and equality in our province. My fellow colleagues will be speaking to many of the other amendments, but I want to say that Bill 63 has been a long time in coming, with lots of consultation. It was not a hurried process, and I join with almost every other British Columbian in welcoming this.

J. Dalton: I would caution the House that we shouldn't get caught up too much in the euphoria of this bill. The official opposition certainly is not opposed to the bill by any stretch. There are some very good things in it. The concept and many of the changes are certainly long overdue. However, I'm going to point out two things in this bill which may cause some implementation problems, and that's why I caution everyone in the House this evening not to get caught up too much in the emotion generated by such a piece of legislation. The bill does have merit, and we will certainly in our comments.... One member has already made some comments to that regard, and other members, I am sure, will be saying the same.

There are two points that I want to draw to the attention of the House. One is dealing with the lifting of the $2,000 monetary limit in damages. I quite agree; I think that $2,000 is, in effect, just parking-ticket status, as I believe the previous member said. However, having at one time been a member of the legal profession, I would caution all members that there could be a dangerous element here in allowing too many lawyers to get involved in human rights disputes. I'm not suggesting by that comment that lawyers should not be involved. But I can assure you -- and certainly there's lots of evidence -- that when damages become, in effect, unlimited or unspecified, some people in the legal profession will be rubbing their hands with glee and thinking: "Great, here's another growth industry for our profession." Other lawyers will be able to get involved in the process of litigation as far as human rights complaints are concerned.

Again, that's not to suggest that lawyers should not be involved. Certainly everyone should be encouraged to seek legal advice. But the point I'm making is that if you lift the limit and don't impose any ceiling.... I notice in other human rights legislation across Canada that they do impose ceilings of $5,000 or $10,000. British Columbia is not going to do that through this bill.

I will give a parallel situation. In the small claims jurisdiction they lifted the limit to, I believe, $5,000 -- in fact, it may be $10,000. I must confess that I'm not quite current, but certainly the monetary limit in small claims was significantly increased. There has even been some contemplation that it be further increased to $25,000. I can tell you as a fact that the effect is that more and more lawyers are finding their way into small claims court. That court is not designed for lawyers on a day-to-day basis; it's designed for the common people to use, so that they can feel comfortable in that environment and not feel the overwhelming nature of a lot of lawyers arguing back and forth and raising exceptions, and things of that nature, which most people feel uncomfortable with, and naturally so.

I am of the opinion that lifting the limit without imposing a monetary ceiling could have the negative effect of people perhaps seeking out legal advice unnecessarily or of creating claims or complaints that may not have any basis. I think there could be a dangerous element to that. Perhaps a useful point to keep in mind is that the monetary ceilings imposed in similar legislation in other jurisdictions may perhaps be warranted in this bill.

I must say again that I am pleased to see that the very nominal $2,000 damage limit that is currently in the Human Rights Act will be amended by this bill, because certainly that amount was hardly warranted for many people to even consider making a complaint. The argument against not imposing some ceiling is that there could be this dangerous element of allowing claims to go almost unchecked. That may work against the actual philosophy or intent of that part of the bill.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The other comment I want to make deals with class actions. Other members have already commented about class actions. I can tell you that British Columbia doesn't have a great record for properly understanding class actions. Perhaps one thing that's missing in this bill is what we mean by a class or a group of persons. 

[ Page 2421 ]

That is not really defined in the pending legislation. There could be a danger by not ascertaining what we mean by a group or class of persons. It may not be truly understood what group or class may be entitled to appear before the council or a board of inquiries seeking compensation or some other relief. Class actions, as I commented earlier, are not truly understood in our legal jurisprudence, so I do caution the members of the government that one of the provisions in this bill may be getting into an area that is not necessarily going to allow people easy access for relief, but may work contrary to that.

The points that I've made are that there are some difficulties with implementation of some of the parts of the bill. Overall, I'm supportive of the concept and the philosophy behind it. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill, when we'll be able to address some of these particular concerns and sections clause by clause. That would be the most appropriate place to raise some of the technical points that I have made some general comments on.

[8:30]

B. Copping: I too am very pleased and proud to be a part of a government that has brought this bill in today. I take special pride in every one of these amendments. This is a bill about a society based on equality. This is a bill about the dignity and the rights of all people. This is a bill about fairness to all British Columbians.

I found that the member for Vancouver-Langara commented on the haste of the bill. I had just the opposite impression. It would have been very easy for this government to have rewritten the entire Human Rights Act, to have brought it into this Legislature in this session. Instead, there was a lot of thought and a lot of process put into the amendments as a first stage, amendments that I don't think anybody can quibble with.

The earmark of a just society is how all people are treated and respected in that democracy. Do we look at or categorize persons based on their gender or on their religion or on their sexual orientation? I would hope not, and this bill moves away from that happening.

As we know, there are injustices in human rights happening all over the world today. Canada itself had a sad history when it came to the Chinese head tax, when it came to the internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II and when it came to not permitting certain categories of people to vote. This is a major bill in that there are major amendments, amendments that are well thought out.

Unfortunately, we often criticize and we are usually prejudiced towards people that we know the least about. Hopefully, we will change this with time. This bill will have some teeth. We don't want any more of our citizens to have hollow victories.

H. De Jong: I'm not going to speak very long on this bill. However, there are a few points that I'd like to make. I think the member for Vancouver-Langara gave a good explanation on many areas within the bill and certainly brought up some very valid points.

We can talk about sexual orientation, but in the newspapers and on television every day we hear and read a lot about children having been harassed. This bill says that if a person is hired for.... It doesn't specify in which areas this would not take place. In jobs where they are put in charge of children, sexual orientation certainly must be considered. I don't think it can be put aside and just anyone hired who has the qualifications from an education point of view.

This bill, I believe, while it speaks of the rights of human beings.... Yes, rights are important, but we must also consider that the rights of one become an obligation or a limitation on others. This bill, I understand, has been drafted in a very hasty manner, and certainly points that out. It has not considered the limitations and obligations it may place on others.

There may be a lot of good things in this bill, but in the final analysis there is too much centralization of power placed in the hands of a very few people who may have been appointed to a committee or a commission.

L. Krog: I note with interest some of the criticisms levied against this bill by members of both parties of the opposition. I must say, with respect to the remarks of the member for Abbotsford, that I am somewhat surprised, to say the least, that he seems to be associating the question of pedophiles and illegal acts with one's sexual orientation. I would have hoped that in this chamber, given the level of education of the members present, that kind of bogeyman, that kind of jaded thinking, that kind of mistaken belief, would have long disappeared from the rhetoric that passes back and forth in this chamber.

What this legislation speaks to is fear. Statistics tell us that one in ten in society are lesbian or gay. As much as the newspaper may indicate that great strides have been made in this area, there is a large sector in our population that lives in fear: fear of revealing what is an innate part of their very personality and being; fear of losing a job; fear of not being able to obtain accommodation; fear of not being able to move upward in a society that prides itself on mobility for all of us. What this bill speaks to is addressing that fear. It is saying that collectively, as a society, we are not any longer going to tolerate discrimination on the basis of someone's sexual orientation. That finally puts into legislative language what many progressive people have felt for a long time.

It is all very well to mouth great, kind, wonderful, good-hearted things that we all talk about. But if we are not prepared to pass legislation that gives legal and binding effect to those fine ideals, then we are nothing more than hypocrites. Hypocrites is what this society is filled with in large measure, when we deal with the other aspect of this bill, which is the question of family status. Politicians and legislators have spoken for generations about the enormous value of the family to Canadian society, yet there is no protection for families. How many young families, poor and with children or families of a new type -- recognizing changing mores in society -- are denied the basic right to rental accommodation on the basis of that family? Surely it is time as 

[ Page 2422 ]

a society that we said that having children and wanting to live somewhere isn't a crime in Canada anymore.

British Columbia is finally going to step into the twentieth century -- a little slowly perhaps; nevertheless, we are finally arriving. I suggest to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano: don't be hesitant. There's a brave new world out there. Walk into it boldly and with pride. Don't talk about the minuscule points that give you concern. There's a new drummer drumming in British Columbia, and I suggest that you get in step with it. This government is saying to the people of British Columbia: "We're going to move ahead. We're going to put into effect the good things that we believe in, and we're not going to tolerate discrimination in this province anymore."

An Hon. Member: Whose moral standards?

L. Krog: Someone heckled somewhere in the distant background about moral standards. This has nothing to do with morality. Morality is a matter between people and their consciences and their Gods. We are not here to legislate morality; we are here to legislate the rights of citizens in British Columbia to be free from discrimination, to be able to move and walk freely among society regardless of their sexual orientation or whether they bring children with them or not.

There was some criticism of the issue of class complaints and class actions and the removal of limits on damages. The message is very clear. If you're worried about the limit on damages, then I strongly suggest to those in this province who are going to discriminate that they seriously consider not discriminating. The commission and the judicial authority are going to set reasonable limits, as they have done in the past. To suggest that we should be concerned about limits is to suggest that we do not believe in the system of justice that has been established in this country. Surely we've come beyond that.

No, I wholeheartedly support every aspect of this bill. I commend the minister for bringing it forward to this chamber. I commend the government for having the courage to do it. I suggest to the members of the opposition who have some concerns: abandon your concerns, and come and join us in doing something progressive in this province.

J. Weisgerber: I'm going to rise, first of all, and start my comments by saying that I support the intent of this legislation in general terms.

The last member who spoke talked about the difficulty of families getting accommodation. Had he been here in the last session, he would have known that legislation was passed to ensure that families were not discriminated against in tenancies. That was done by the previous government.

It's interesting for me to watch the members of the government join in the debate, and I'm glad that they do. They've got something that they feel good about and that they want to talk about, and that's important.

An Hon. Member: That sounds a little patronizing to me.

J. Weisgerber: It may be. We haven't heard much from the back bench on a number of bits of legislation that have been brought in by this government.

While you're feeling good about this legislation.... You've had an opportunity in your caucus to discuss it a great deal more than we on this side of the House have had. When we develop and introduce good legislation, part of that process is to provide British Columbians outside of this Legislature and members of the opposition inside it with an opportunity to examine the legislation, to study it, to think about it and then to speak to it. What I'm disappointed about is that it was brought in yesterday in first reading, it was brought in today for second reading, and I suspect it will be dealt with tomorrow in third reading. Good legislation can stand public scrutiny. Good legislation can be tabled, can be circulated broadly among the interest groups, can be considered, recommendations can be put forward and changes can be recommended; that's no threat to the government. Good legislation will stand examination. I'm disappointed that legislation that the members feel so strongly about.... They deny those people who may be affected by the legislation a reasonable opportunity to discuss and make recommendations for changes.

Think for a minute about the average British Columbian who, perhaps by some miracle yesterday, was aware that the legislation was tabled. Even if they were, how would they go through a process of examining the legislation, giving it consideration, contacting their elected representative, recommending changes and having those recommendations back in this House in less than 24 hours? It's not a reasonable expectation.

If I'm going to criticize this bill, I'm going to criticize it for the haste with which the government appears to be pushing it through this House. We've been here for two and half months, so we've had lots of time to prepare and table the legislation. I suspect we're going to be here for a week or two yet. It seems to me there's also an opportunity for the bill to have at least been circulated among those groups of people who are interested in it. I think it downplays the legislation. I think the haste with which the government appears to be determined to push it through takes away from the legislation. Quite honestly, I'm unsure why the government is in such a hurry to put this legislation through.

I've only been around this House for five and half years, and I'll tell you this. In that short time, the best legislation is legislation that was brought in, made available for people to comment on, perhaps even put out in the form of a White Paper and brought back the next session. Those are good kinds of legislation with broad public input. That's not normally the process, but nor is the process that we see this bill being pushed through with. I think it's unfortunate. I think it takes away from and detracts from the opportunity for British Columbians, aside from their elected representatives, to participate in legislation that may well be important to them.

[8:45]

I look forward to looking at this bill section by section after we've had an opportunity to examine it in some detail at least. I sincerely hope that it won't be 

[ Page 2423 ]

tomorrow. I hope that third reading and committee stage of this bill can be put off at least until next week to give some of the people who are going to be affected by this bill an opportunity to let their elected representatives know about....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The member across the way criticizes, because we should have let bills go through second and third reading today. That exactly makes my point. There are 50 or 60 pieces of legislation on the order paper. There is ample opportunity, hon. member, for bills to be read and dealt with in their proper order and for the bills to be put on the order paper long enough for people to examine them and consider them.

H. Lali: I rise in support of Bill 63, the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992. I was not only dismayed and disappointed but also greatly disturbed by the Liberal member for Vancouver-Langara's hear-no-evil, say-no-evil attitude regarding this bill. In one breath he criticizes the existing Human Rights Act, and says that there are so many deficiencies and exclusions and there are a lot of things that could be done, yet in the next breath he says that Bill 63 does not go far enough to make changes, and that it shouldn't be introduced, that it should be delayed, that we're doing it in haste. That reminds me of the typical Liberal doubletalk attitude that's present here in this chamber. Like my colleague for Vancouver-Hastings, I too wondered if the member for Vancouver-Langara was debating the same bill as was being introduced here in the House for second reading.

As a member of a visible ethnic minority group I can assure you that any changes, however little they may be perceived to be by the member opposite -- any positive change -- to this act are better than no changes at all.

We're fast becoming a world community, a world society. This government is determined to help create a society based on equality and tolerance, the principles that we all strive to achieve.

This bill prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. A member from the third party spoke earlier and made some references regarding this particular aspect of the bill, not realizing that within this community and society there are people of different sexual orientations that live and work and communicate with us side by side. We go through a lifetime not knowing what their sexual orientation is; often we may be best friends with them. Yet we have a member who rose here and does not want to give access or rights to these people that they should be duly enjoying in a democratic society such as Canada.

This bill also prohibits discrimination based on family status. Single mothers are the crux under this whole section. As an employment counsellor for a federal agency for five and a half years before becoming an MLA, if there was one group that I found not only great difficulty in trying to help counsel but at the same time lots of sympathy for, that was the single mothers. Often coming from abusive situations where the husband was not only emotionally abusive but also physically abusive to the spouse and the children, and then after maybe 15 or 20 years of being out of the workforce, they're forced to go either on welfare or to other agencies for help. Often they came to my office to seek help in trying to get either retrained or back into the workforce. Adding to their difficulties in finding a job and the low self-esteem that already existed in their minds, the very worst thing that could happen to them was to be denied access to rental space because of their status as single mothers.

Bill 63 also enables people to file a class action complaint. The minister spoke earlier of Japan Airlines and the Indo-Canadian situation.... Had this legislation existed at that time, those Indo-Canadians who had been negatively affected by this could have used this in their own situations to help with the systemic discrimination that was taking place.

I am an individual from an ethnic minority. Even though I do not see a lot of that discrimination myself, people from my ethnic background have witnessed it, and are still witnessing day by day. I can recall one time when I was applying for a job fresh out of university, looking for the jobs in the ad section of the Vancouver Province, and I made a telephone call to this one company and had the interview over the telephone. They asked me what my name was, and I said: "It's Harry Lali." We had a half-hour interview, and he said: "You're hired. Show up at this place on Monday morning at 8:30." I showed up there, and this fellow came to the waiting-room where I was sitting, looked around, walked back out again. He did that three times, and on the fourth occasion when he came in he was looking around, and I asked him: "Who are you looking for?" And he says: "I'm looking for this Harry Lali fellow." I says: "That's me." He said: "Oh. I thought it was a white guy."

Even though I have mentioned that myself, I don't have very many instances where I feel the discrimination coming out towards me, but even that incident had an effect on my mind; and I can just imagine that some of my old countrymen from India who are visibly different, who wear a turban, have a beard, maybe dress a little different -- what kind of emotional stress they must go through day by day.

In closing, I would like to say that this bill is in keeping with the longstanding CCF-NDP tradition of creating a society based on equality and tolerance. As history has already made evident to us during the '72-75 period under the Dave Barrett government, it was the NDP which brought in the Human Rights Commission, which extended a lot of the rights that people shouldn't have to fight for. This government is doing the same. I applaud the minister for introducing this bill.

L. Reid: Tolerance, fairness, justice. Bill 63, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992, speaks to those issues, and speaks to them very strongly.

I had the privilege on Friday to be in Prince George, and to meet with a group, Equal Justice for Women. They are fighting discrimination at all levels, because they are not able to access justice within our court system. They're not able to access justice within their 

[ Page 2424 ]

communities. It's a very significant case, and certainly they will welcome this type of legislation, because at last they will have an opportunity at least to get their issue before the courts. This particular case came about in April 1991. A prominent Prince George doctor, charged with 16 counts of sexual assault by 12 women, was found not guilty on all counts. Reasons for dismissal as cited in the judge's final judgment included past history of incest, past emotional trauma, irritability and moodiness -- things that should not come forward in terms of being part of someone's testimony, someone's justice. Twelve women's testimony was unceremoniously rejected, and their credibility disregarded. They do not believe that the court system is working in their best interest. Certainly this group of women in Prince George who have come together to seek justice in this case will look very favourably upon this, and they will hopefully see this as the first step.

Certainly I agree with the comments made by members across the floor that to do something now is important rather than rewrite the entire piece of legislation. I have no difficulty with that at all, because I think quite honestly that human rights is an evolving process. I think we will continue to look at this and revisit it very carefully, and hopefully very often, because I think quite honestly that this needs to be something that people keep uppermost in their minds. If we're going to be considered a civilized society, if we're going to be concerned with tolerance, racial equality and justice for all citizens, we have to be thinking of these issues every single day. It is not something that can come up when legislation comes before the House, or when the House sits. That's important, but every single day we must ensure that we do not discriminate against anyone in society. Certainly we have given lots of examples. I am sure every single person in this House could give examples of when out-and-out discrimination has occurred.

I don't think we need to recount all the cases that we would want to put on the public record, because the government is willing to move ahead with this issue. They're willing to take a look at where we want to go, and I would hope that some amendment, some revision, appears every sitting of this House, that we indeed refine our views, focus our views so that we understand and act upon, actively implement, fairness and justice and tolerance for everyone in our society.

E. Barnes: I must say that this is once again a moment that we have all waited a very long time for. I also want to say, before I forget, that if we can't be emotional about events such as this, I don't know what qualifies.

I don't want to get into a confrontation with the opposition about details, because I don't believe that it's constructive or worthwhile to politicize this human rights piece of legislation; in fact, I think it's a dangerous thing. What we need to do is realize that this is an opportunity for us to address a serious social problem. I don't think any of us can say that we're free of discrimination of some sort. It's not because we desire to be discriminators. It's the culture and environment that we live in. We should really be helping the minister celebrate, because imagine what it has taken for the minister to get to this point. Imagine what it's taken for the government to get to this point.

It will be 20 years this September that I have been sitting in this House, and in 1969 I was at an all-candidates' meeting in which there were a number of gay and lesbian constituents who were asking me and my running-mate at the time, Bill Deverell, what our position on sexual orientation was. I didn't even know what he was talking about. When I found out what he was talking about, I had so many confusing impressions about my own sexuality, let alone people who were of a different sexual orientation, that I ducked out. I never did answer the question. I couldn't answer it, because I didn't understand it.

So I'm not here to blame anybody because of their reticence about endorsing this legislation, because I think we are moving at various stages of development. All of us are learning. The minister has given us an opportunity -- boldly perhaps, in some people's eyes, but obviously not as fast as in some other parts of the country. We mentioned Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, the Yukon Territory, so we're No. 6 on the list in this country. We're not leading; we're catching up.

[9:00]

The tragedy is that there is a need for the legislation. Many members have referred to the fact that we're doing something, we're taking some action, and I hope with all my heart that we recognize that this is yet again an example of how far we've got to go. In 1992, here we are addressing something that is historically a wrong against our fellow human beings. The problem is, as pointed out by the member for Parksville-Qualicum, that it is a question of fear, a question of ignorance. But I say that with the greatest of respect, because I've never considered myself a bad person -- not by choice.... But I was certainly ignorant and fearful, and it was because of that fear and ignorance that I didn't act as boldly as I would have liked in certain situations. I found myself following the herd instinct, going along with whatever the status quo required, not being willing to stand up and say: "This is wrong."

So the member is right again when he says that it isn't so much a moral issue as a human rights issue. We're talking about fundamental human rights and not judging a person by the colour of their skin or by their religion or national origin or sexual orientation, just simply as a human being, born through the same process that I was born. It's as simple as that. As legislators that's our first and really only responsibility: to ensure that the laws we bring down are equitable, fair and impartial with respect to any of these so-called categories that we've got to specify in the Human Rights Act.

That's really all this is about, and I think that's what we should keep in mind. It's not the details. This is a first step. This isn't the end -- not by a long shot. I can assure you it's not just some of the categories in the justice system and health system that some members have mentioned; it involves a lot of society, a whole range of concerns. I'm not going to even raise some of them, because I'm pleased that we're taking this first 

[ Page 2425 ]

step. I think that when I'm out on the streets I'll be getting quite a bit of input about the shortcomings of this legislation, about how far it should have gone and didn't go. But it is taking a lead in this province.

We're going to learn a lot when this bill is complete and becomes law. The Council of Human Rights is going to have an excellent opportunity to do proactive education, something that we had at one time under the old Human Rights Code, as some of you will recall. When the budget cuts came and that council was cut back in terms of offices out there to meet the needs of people who are laying complaints, and there was no opportunity to educate and help the public to understand the issues, we lost ground.

I would like to see us think in terms of meeting the challenge of this legislation. It's something we can all celebrate, and we should unanimously support it and not be afraid to be bold about this, because human rights has got to become a number one item on our agenda in the world of tomorrow, just as the environment has had to become, as have more conservation in the use of our resources, better lifestyles and more efficiency in every aspect of our lives and our environment. We can't do this unless we have people feeling that their lives are worth something, that we can help them celebrate where they are and make them feel good about helping us make this a better world. This is what this is about.

It's not going to do us any good to say that we're penalizing offenders too much, that if we don't have a limit, there's a danger we will spend too much money in settlements. But really, can you think of a more important symbol than "the sky is the limit" when it comes to offending people because of their fundamental human rights? How much is too much? How much, really, is too much when your dignity is being offended?

We're talking about people who are gays and lesbians -- but the leader of the third party was quite correct about the Social Credit government doing something about single parents and discrimination because of family status. That's important as well. That is also a sad comment on where we are, when we dare to discriminate against people who are having children and need a place to stay in those so-called adult-only facilities. There are many of them in my constituency -- adults only, no children allowed. There was a time when there were no dogs allowed. I certainly can remember as a youngster growing up in the States when there were no blacks allowed. But we're learning, and we're going to continue to learn.

There are many people out there who have human rights grievances that we haven't even begun to listen to yet. Gay-bashing is a growing activity in society; it's not a dying thing. We're going to have to be more aggressive and make people more responsible. If we have to become punitive about it, make them pay. I think that the public has to understand that there is nothing worse than being degraded as a person in this so-called democratic society, and we've got to teach that.

I've made these comments in the past. I'm very repetitive, but it seems that there is no greater cause for being here than to talk about fundamental human rights, because that's the basis upon which we either support or reject what is going on in terms of public policy. If your fundamental rights are denied, you can imagine what people are saying. I don't need to suggest what the language might be. That's how people are. They're very basic. If you're shafting me, so to speak, don't come and ask me to cooperate with your agenda. But if you treat me right, if you include me, if I feel like I am worth something, if I have access to the decision-making process and if I have recourse if there is something that I find offensive, then I'm going to feel pretty good about this system.

These are all the things that we say we have within our constitution. These are the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed. We've got to make them a reality, and I think we're off to a good start. I commend the minister. I certainly am pleased that our party has had the courage, through convention, to finally debate this issue, bring it forward and be now able to implement it. I can tell you that it's been a long time coming. A lot of politicians play with it. The federal government is playing with it. We may or may not be aware, but the Justice minister has often talked about leading on changing the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation. That hasn't happened yet. Why hasn't it happened? -- fear, backlash and concern about how many votes they will lose.

I think we have to sell people on the importance of what we're doing, rather than being cowardly about it. It's important enough. How can you lose on it? What a great debate that would be. We're talking about human rights. What price do we put on human rights?

Thank you, hon. members, and I want to congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation forward. It has been a long time coming. Certainly it should not be delayed for any reason after what we've been through, regardless of the criticism about debating the details. We'll be able to do that in committee, but we should move expeditiously with this legislation, get it enacted and get on with doing the other jobs that we have to do.

A. Warnke: I would say at the outset that if this bill passes -- actually, I see no reason why it shouldn't in some ways -- it will be because of the remarks of the previous speaker, the member for Vancouver-Burrard. That should be well remembered in that party across the way. He said something extremely important: it is a very dangerous thing to politicize an issue. Who did the politicizing? We reflect on this debate. When we look at it again, what has happened is that the remarks in response to the minister introducing this bill were made by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara. For that matter, I would urge not only all members of the Legislature but, indeed, everyone in our society to take a look at the remarks from the member for Vancouver-Langara. When you take a look at those remarks, I would say to all these people, you would recognize that here is a person who has brought forward a reasonable response. The member expressed some concerns. Certainly the member is perhaps the last one, I would say on his behalf, to act hypocritical, which was one word that was used, or to engage in 

[ Page 2426 ]

doubletalk, which was another word that was used. By whom? By members of the government.

If I recall this debate, here was my colleague for Vancouver-Langara pointing out some very valid concerns. One of those concerns was the haste. Something took place earlier this evening -- unfortunately the member for Okanagan West is not here -- and the member from Burnaby North said: "Well, why did you and Social Credit oppose some of our bills going to the committee stage?" I'll say why to that member. Because the member for Okanagan West was very concerned as to how this government deals with legislation.

I was quite prepared; this side was prepared; for all I know, Social Credit was quite prepared to let that legislation go to committee stage. But when we see the playing around with legislation: introduce a bill, take it off; introduce a bill, take it off.... My goodness, this is what finally bothered that particular member, and this is what I want to point out to the member for Burnaby North.

It's all right to introduce a bill, but.... I think it is one of the rare times that perhaps I will stick up for the member for Peace River South. The member had a very good point: the best kind of legislation is that legislation that sometimes is dealt with moderately so that people can reflect on that kind of legislation. Here in this bill, I notice that there is the constant reference -- on more than one occasion -- that we shall not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, do this, do that, because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex or sexual orientation.

There's a word in there: sex. What about gender? I thought this government was so involved in the bills that were introduced earlier this evening that we don't look for certain kinds of words that generate some kind of a bias. And indeed, this is the kind of word that perhaps should be altered to something else. Even a simple little thing like that is something worth re-examining. Indeed, I would perhaps suggest that on this side we will be pressing for changes in this bill to replace the term "sex" with "gender" or something like that.

[9:15]

But it's the haste that is of some concern, because I think most members on this side have a tremendous amount of sympathy for this bill. Did we not hear members -- even members from the third party -- saying that we will start with a premise. I recall the leader of the third party starting with the premise that, prima facie, he supports the principle of the bill. Well, if the principle of the bill is supported, then what's the problem? Surely it is worth re-examining very carefully how legislation is processed in this chamber. If my colleague for Vancouver-Langara expresses that concern, I think it is up to government members who want to avoid politicizing an issue -- this is where I agree with the member for Vancouver-Burrard -- to not denigrate my colleague for Vancouver-Langara for expressing a few concerns. Isn't that what this chamber is all about? At the outset, when I listened to the minister, I was really rather sympathetic toward this bill. In response to my colleagues and seeing those government members politicize this bill....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Well, using terms like "hypocritical...." What kind of language is that, if you're trying to be non-partisan in this chamber? Hon. Speaker, what kind of language is saying the members in the opposition are engaged in doubletalk. What kind of non-partisan, oh-we're-above-it-all language is that? Who here in the government -- who has so far defended this bill -- was doing the politicizing?

I would suggest that it was them because, hon. Speaker, look at the methodology of those who have supported the bill tonight. Each one has developed what I would term a straw-man methodology. The straw-man methodology is: we will take one kind of example and illustrate that this is all the bill means, and that this is the intention of the bill. "How could you possibly be against it?" Meanwhile, they're not exploring all facets of the bill. There is no one in this party -- and I think not even in the third party, though I should not speak on their behalf -- who is against single mothers and children. What kind of straw-man methodology is that?

There is also a legitimate concern that there is sometimes a confusion about what constitutes freedom. Minimally, philosophically speaking, there is freedom from and freedom to. One of the main philosophical motivations for myself and for many people in our party is the emphasis on individual rights. What seems to confuse the concept of freedom for many members on that side of the House and among many people in the New Democratic Party is the confusion of collective and individual rights: that is, that one can attain individual rights only through some sort of collective action; one can pursue individual rights only through collective rights, and that is through the rights of others.

Hon. Speaker, I personally reject that, because there is more to life than simply identifying yourself with one particular group, one particular class, one so-called equity group and so forth. I've mentioned this before. One's freedom is not necessarily through a total submission to a collectivity or a particular group. That's maybe where you get some of your identity, but freedom is for the individual. If an individual wants freedom and dignity, it is freedom and dignity of a person as an individual. This, I would suggest, is a premise that creeps into this particular bill and needs further examination.

In the last analysis, we on this side might even agree to this bill. Certainly I was sympathetic to it at the outset. As we progress through the evening -- and hearing what some other members have expressed to us -- more and more I have to question.... I started out being sympathetic to the bill, but now I have to be questioning the intentions, the purpose and the nature of this bill. I have not heard from other members opposite a very strong, cogent or coherent argument as to why this bill has to be passed now and so suddenly. Therefore the comments from my colleague for Vancouver-Langara are most appropriate and are shared by others. They are also shared by members from the third party. On that basis, it is about time that members of the 

[ Page 2427 ]

government start to take a look at their legislation, be realistic as to what can be processed and start to be honest with us in this chamber.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 63. I'd like to talk a little on some of the comments that have been made on both sides of the House and express some ideas -- not those of people in this chamber but those of the people whom this bill affects -- as to why it is an important bill.

This bill is part of a process. It's a process that starts to break down walls that hold peoples apart. Nobody chooses when they will be born. They don't choose whether they will be white or whether they will be black or yellow or red. They don't choose whether they'll be male or female, and they don't choose their sexual orientation. And too often in today's society they're not able to choose their position in our society, because the values or the prejudices or the fears of people -- as the member for Vancouver Centre so eloquently put it -- play a large part in dictating where they will stand.

This bill addresses two very important areas. It addresses sexual orientation and it addresses family status. When we talk about human rights, we talk about rights for all of us. Each of us as human beings should have a certain dignity to live our lives without fear of prejudice. Just as we can't choose where we're born or the colour of our skin or our sexual orientation or whether we're born into wealthy families or poor families, we cannot pick and choose when it comes to who gets rights and who doesn't get rights. A fundamental building block of a society is that everybody must be eligible for the same rights. That is what this bill does. The amendments carry on what was started 15 years ago. They're one more step to a more just society.

Let's look at the two areas that this bill deals with. They're the ones that I think most members in this House know are the most important elements of this bill. Sexual orientation. It has taken 15 years, from the introduction of the original act to today, to debate the issue. During that time thousands of British Columbians have lived in fear because of who they are, have been denied employment because of who they are, have been denied a mortgage because of who they are or the status of their relationships, and have basically had to live a double existence.

One only has to look at some of the headlines in today's newspapers to realize how real their fear is -- that which some people say is an unnecessary fear. You read in the papers about gay-bashings in the West End. You read about the federal government and witch-hunts conducted by the RCMP in the public service in the fifties and sixties. That's not that long ago. You read about the millions of dollars the U.S. Department of Defense spends training people and then rooting them out of their armed forces because they feel that they're a threat to national security. They're reviewing that.

British Columbia is finally catching up with many parts of our country. We have always prided ourselves on being very progressive. Quebec was the first province, followed by the Yukon and Manitoba and Ontario and Nova Scotia. We in British Columbia pride ourselves on being a leader. We're now number seven in terms of addressing this issue. It's great that it's here, but I think it says something that we're number seven. We always strive in this province to be number one.

This act is not going to end discrimination against gays and lesbians, against women, against minorities. But it sends out a signal to people that we as a government, that we as a society, are not going to tolerate discrimination; that we believe that in order for society to improve everybody must participate, and that everybody must feel that they are of value, that they are no better or no worse than other groups.

We see that in family status. People talk about the nuclear family. It was referred to by the member for Vancouver-Hastings as "Ward and June Cleaver." I don't remember that; I see it in reruns now, but I was too small when it was in its heyday. We hear today about the breakdown of the family, about divorce rates. We hear that single-parent families face discrimination in areas of housing, of jobs -- for whatever reason. There's people who say: "Well, you know. It's a breakdown in society. This is isn't going to solve those problems." If we look back over history, I have to ask myself: has there ever been a time in our society when we have had a traditional family, except maybe in that late fifties and sixties, that golden age of television, which gave this sort of Hollywood-sanitized version of what family life is about?

There are stories of sexual abuse coming out today that took place in the forties, the thirties and the twenties. They go back long before the problems of today's nuclear family. They took place in the days of the so-called traditional family. How many traditional families were there in the Depression, when someone had to leave a mother looking after the family and go perhaps thousands of miles to find work? How many traditional families were there after the First and Second World Wars, when millions of men and women didn't return home and left a single parent to raise a family? How many traditional families were there when a parent died of illness? In my own family, for a considerable part of my life I was raised, and the younger members of my family were raised, in a single-parent family headed by my father. The idea of the traditional family, while very noble, is totally divorced from the reality of today and also from the realities of yesterday.

The inclusion of family status recognizes the distinct problems that families of today face and that, no doubt, families of tomorrow will face. We too often forget the fact that those who are educated, who are well off and who have enjoyed the benefits of society.... I think that all of us in this chamber, for the most part, are products of a system that has allowed us to achieve the best ideals that society would like us to achieve. Yet for millions of people in this country, that's not often an option.

[9:30]

Too often we are told that the single mother on welfare is the problem, and it's her fault. People get trapped in constant denigration because of who they are and where they are. It's no longer socially acceptable to make jokes on the basis of a person's race, but it's still okay to make jokes about someone who is gay or 

[ Page 2428 ]

lesbian. It's still okay to make jokes or to pass judgment about a woman who is on welfare and trying to raise three children. We have to change that. We have to change those attitudes. Only when we change attitudes like that, will society truly start to march forward.

As we confront the problems of today, we see that they are not the problems of a small area or a provincial area; they are increasingly global problems. They don't require the participation of small numbers, but rather the participation of all individuals. Only when all individuals feel that they're fully able to participate will we really start to achieve not only the definitive goals but also the larger picture -- those idealistic goals that each of us in this chamber hold. I'd like to conclude with: we walk this way but once; it would be nice if everybody could do it with dignity.

W. Hurd: It's a privilege to rise in a debate on a bill as important as Bill 63 to so many thousands of British Columbians. It's important for members opposite to realize the difficulty the opposition has had in dealing with this bill on such short notice. It's also important for them to realize that when this bill was dumped on the official opposition, one of the first things we did was consult with the people -- as best we could given the time-frame available -- who are going to be affected by this bill, the individuals out in the community and the organizations that we tried to contact on short notice. We asked them the basic question: "What do you have to say on it? This is an important piece of legislation that will affect you as an individual and will affect your organization." I can tell you that in the short time available we weren't able to gather too many opinions. As this process was unfolding -- and the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara will confirm that it has been unfolding all afternoon -- the question that I would ask myself was: why was it up to the opposition to do this kind of research? Why is it up to the opposition to consult on a bill as important as this one? The issues that were raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara were not pulled out of thin air. He raises concerns about education, the statute of limitations, equality of distribution, what type of administration we need -- constructive concerns about this bill, which were addressed by people we consulted in the community as well as our research people with the limited time available to them.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard well knows that the most important type of legislation, the legislation that stands the test of time, is the legislation drafted through consensus. Hon. Speaker, I can't understand a single reason why a legislative committee of this chamber could not draft a human rights bill that would be the best this country has to offer. Not one member of this chamber would not stand in line to serve on that committee, but they will never be given the chance by this government, because they have apportioned these issues to themselves. They have stood, member after member, in this chamber tonight and have said that they know better than anyone on this side of the House what's good about this bill and what we should support as members of the opposition.

It's bordering on hypocrisy for this government to suggest that we have to approve a bill thrown at us with a limited amount of consultation and discussion, with apparently minimal consultation with the people who are going to be affected, and to say to us that if we vote against it, we're voting against the principles of equality and human rights. That's the message being handed to us in the chamber tonight. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that it is offensive to the people on this side of the House, who are being forced to deal with this legislation, possibly as important a bill as has ever come before the House in this session, and to deal with it in this manner at 9:35 p.m., merely hours after it was introduced to this House. That's the kind of government we're getting, and that's the kind of concern that the people of this province are expressing to those of us in opposition: where's the consultation? Why wasn't I asked about this bill?

An Hon. Member: Where have you been for the last 20 years?

W. Hurd: There hasn't been any consultation, hon. Speaker, because we've asked the people this afternoon, and we're not seeing any indication that they've been consulted on this particular bill.

There are other problems with this bill that they've addressed and suggested need to be changed. But we can't address those changes in the limited time available to us, and this fact the minister and this government well know. They know that if we stand in the chamber tonight and express any opposition to this bill, they'll be able to spin the fact that it was the opposition who opposed human rights: "We've risen above it all. Only our party has shown the kind of leadership that's needed to be shown on this issue."

Where is the consultation? Where is the consensus? Where is the commitment that this government made to both those principles during the last election? They are not evident in the debate we're engaging in tonight, I can tell you that.

I urge the government to think about the possibilities for consensus on an important bill like this. Surely, if the chamber can speak with one voice through a legislative committee, would that not send a signal to the rest of this country that British Columbians representing every political party and every stripe stand firmly committed to a human rights bill that is the best this country has to offer and not apportioned by one political party as their own pet issue? We've seen people stand up and speak in the chamber tonight who have not been heard from for this entire session on one single bill, even those that affect our constituents. Yet they will stand on this issue and berate the members of the opposition for expressing legitimate concerns about the kind of issues that are expressed to us by people in the community.

In my view, it is indeed a tragedy that we have to debate a bill like this in what is becoming a partisan format. There's no one on this side of the House or in this chamber who would dispute the need for changes in this area. It's impossible to argue that the two particular clauses in this bill that have been changed 

[ Page 2429 ]

don't need to be changed. We don't argue with that. What we are concerned about is the fact that this government has apportioned the human rights issue and suggested to the opposition that any concerns it expresses are against this motherhood issue, and that nothing we say or propose, no ideas we come up with, are worthy of consideration, because they and they alone know what it is to be discriminated against or what we have to address in terms of human rights in this province.

I urge the members opposite to make a real statement about human rights and to send this bill to a legislative committee. Let's put the kind of teeth into it that would send a signal to the rest of this country that British Columbia isn't just in fifth or sixth place but is number one in terms of all-party support for human rights.

U. Dosanjh: At around 7 o'clock I was dozing off in my office due to the heat. I walked into this chamber, and there was a breath of fresh air. For a change we were talking about human rights. It saddens me to see that over the last two hours the debate has, to a certain extent, degenerated into accusations. I'm really disappointed. As I walked into the Legislature, I had in my hand Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Obviously the book is dated. If he was writing it today, he would have written "Rights of Human Beings" or something of that sort. There is an interesting quotation that I want to share with you, hon. Speaker and members of this House: "When the tongue or the pen is let loose in a frenzy of passion, it is the man and not the subject that becomes exhausted."

Friends, let us not be exhausted ourselves; let's exhaust the subject. Let's talk about this fundamentally important issue that has been raised in the House as a result of the introduction of this bill. That issue is the changes the population of British Columbia has been demanding and seeking for the last 17 years.

I have a great deal of respect for the member for Vancouver-Langara, the member for Richmond-Steveston and other members on all sides of the House. It is not a matter of showing respect or disrespect; it's a matter of acknowledging the truth. The truth is that ever since 1975, the previous administration has tried to dilute the human rights legislation that our government brought in between 1972 and 1975, which was the finest piece of human rights legislation in the entire North American continent. All of the people concerned from all of the various groups and communities that we have talked about today have made submissions over the years to the government, to the Social Credit Party, to the New Democratic Party and to this government.

For us to stand here and say that there has been no consultation is simply not stating the facts, my friends. There has been consultation. There have been members in our caucus.... We've been pressing for this legislation to come forth in this session and not wait for the next session, because the people of British Columbia have waited for 17 long years. We don't want them to wait even for 17 seconds, if we can help it.

There has been ample consultation with all of those groups, including the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, which have drafted legislation that they would like us to proceed with. Obviously this legislation would be under constant review. You will have the opportunity next year or the following year to talk about this legislation at length. These are essentially housekeeping amendments that are long overdue and are well recognized by every section of society that bill affects. We cannot deny those sections of society the protection that is so needed at this time.

A. Warnke: This is not a housekeeping bill.

U. Dosanjh: My friend from Richmond-Steveston says it's not a housekeeping bill. For advocates of human rights -- people who have been working on the front lines of this struggle, people who have waged battles over many years and decades -- this is a housekeeping bill. This is nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, I'm ashamed to stand up here and have to contend with somebody saying that this is not a housekeeping bill. This is essentially a housekeeping bill, bringing into line....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

U. Dosanjh: I talked about losing sense in passion, didn't I? Obviously some of us don't even stand up and talk, and we still lose sense. I can't understand why. We're talking about one of the most sensitive areas in human endeavour -- human rights. If we can't see that some of these basic rights ought to be given to people today and not tomorrow, and that we can talk about some of the other issues you may want to bring later on, then I think I have some serious problems. Because in terms of philosophy -- and my friend from Richmond-Steveston talked about philosophy -- we are perhaps stuck in the Middle Ages.

This bill is revolutionary and yet it's housekeeping, because in effect it says to the Human Rights Council, if one interprets one of the sections appropriately, that the Human Rights Council may on its own motion investigate abuses and discrimination in this province in any area of endeavour under the jurisdiction of British Columbia. I think it's important for us to keep it in mind that for many decades ordinary people in British Columbia have been denied those rights.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the House please come to order. The member for Vancouver-Kensington has the floor.

[9:45]

U. Dosanjh: We talk about all of the other issues in the world. We are concerned about the earth summit that's happening. But there are issues staring us in the face every day, and this bill deals in a very simple fashion with some of those issues that haven't been dealt with for a long, long time.

[ Page 2430 ]

The member for Vancouver-Langara raised a very important point: we need to publicize this bill. We need to publicize this issue so that we educate the public about the process of arriving at these legislative amendments. That's why we're having this debate. That's why the minister made a statement yesterday. That's why, in fact, the Human Rights Council, under the most recent amendments, is being given the mandate to promote, suggest and recommend programs and projects that would educate the public, and advance the cause of human rights.

I don't want to take any more time. I will simply say this: it is never.... You know, when we started talking about women's rights 25 years ago, everybody said: "Let's not be hasty." When we started talking about other rights, when the blacks started their struggles in North America, we said: "Let's not be hasty." When we bring into the purview of the legislation protections for some of those sections of society who have been demanding protections for a long, long time; when we do away with the limit of $2,000 in terms of the compensation, which is long overdue, because the courts in this province have been accustomed to establishing judicial limits.... We don't need to educate our courts. They are highly educated and qualified people who have worked on the basis of established common law and legislation for a long, long time.

For us to stand here and then say there is a certain fear of floodgates for lawyers to come into this area.... My friends, I know lawyers who have been doing human rights work in the last many years for a pittance -- pro bono work. There is a body of advocacy in this province that has been doing that work, regardless of the fact that there has been only a $2,000 limit. I want the House and members to recognize the fact that all of us endeavour in our own areas to do what's required so that we can live in a better society than we have today.

K. Jones: I'm not going to speak to this issue on this bill on the basis of emotionalism or the substance of the bill itself, because I think we all agree that the substance of the bill is what we would like to see come forward. In a very quick look at this bill, I really think that the minister is going to have to take it back, because it is a totally rushed-through job. It's terribly full of errors in its descriptions. I would like to invite all members to take a look at sections 3, 5, 9 and 12. I would certainly like to have the attention of the minister, because this is very important. The minister should be paying attention to the fact that there are definite errors in the descriptions of the various discriminations that occur in sections 3, 5, 9 and 12. They are all different.

The Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that some items are better left to committee stage. Could he keep his remarks as general as possible to the purpose of the bill.

K. Jones: I appreciate that. I'm not going into detail. I'm just pointing out the fact that there are technical errors in the bill that need to be addressed. As an overall item, terminology is incorrect in the bill. There's a real serious problem here in that the bill appears to have been rushed through without proper scrutiny. I'm sure that our staff who would normally look at these would have spotted these errors. They are so blatant. There's just no continuity in one reference to another reference to another reference. In one clause there is a reference to religion, and in another there is no religion referenced. In almost all of them, sex is mentioned. Does that mean you are discriminated against because you do have sex or you do not have sex?

E. Barnes: On a point of order, the member is discussing sections of the bill, which is inappropriate during second reading. He should be discussing the principle of the bill. During committee stage, those comments would be in order. I hope that you would advise him so.

The Speaker: With due respect, the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale has mentioned that he's trying to pull that into a general comment on the bill. I'm sure that he will continue to do that.

K. Jones: That is the whole context of it. It's not against the principle of the bill that I am speaking; it's against the way the bill has been brought forward. The bill appears to have been rushed in preparation. It's not in the proper form that should come to this House. I think that it requires a further review by the minister before we bring in this very important legislation. I think it's important that we have it in the best possible condition before we try to make it into legislation. Legislation should be complete. It shouldn't be sort of half or partially finished; it should be complete in its entirety and should not be questionable in law after it's brought into practice. In the condition this is in right now, it would certainly be thrown out of a court of law, because there are many errors that could be pointed out in it.

D. Streifel: I rise to move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:53 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada