1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 7
[ Page 7369 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS APPROPRIATION AND CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill will enable the province to receive forfeited proceeds of crime from the United States or other jurisdictions. It will also allow for the receipt of proceeds arising from drug-related offences where provincial or municipal police forces have assisted in the investigation. All money received will be placed into the forfeited crime proceeds fund and used to assist law enforcement and administration of criminal justice in the province.
A protocol signed in 1989 by the then Attorney General and the then Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations will provide guidelines for the disposition of money in the fund. The introduction of additional sources of proceeds, particularly as they arise from drug-related offences, is a positive step in helping to fight crime.
Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill revises the provisions in the statutes of British Columbia that express the powers, duties and functions of the ministers and ministries of the provincial government. These provisions are being consolidated in sections 10 to 16.1 of the Constitution Act, and 20 other statutes that currently also make reference to these powers, duties and functions are being repealed or amended by this bill.
Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT ACT
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP ACT
PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND TRUSTEE ACT
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: bills intituled Representation Agreement Act, Adult Guardianship Act, and Public Guardian and Trustee Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: These three bills, together with a bill that will be introduced in a moment by my colleague the Minister of Health, are designed to work together to set out a new system of adult guardianship in British Columbia. The new system establishes support and assistance for adult British Columbians who are unable to make independent and informed decisions because of age, accident, disability or illness. These bills reform the existing legislative scheme which was introduced 30 years ago. They provide a balance between an adult's right to make his or her own decisions and society's obligation to protect individuals who are unable to make decisions because of diminished mental capacity.
The existing legislative scheme can no longer respond to the needs and wishes of individuals directly affected by the legislation, their families and the professionals who provide support and services. Individuals who are directly affected by this package of legislation want the right to make their own decisions to the greatest extent possible, often relying on the support and assistance of family members and friends. These three bills clearly establish an adult's right to make his or her own decisions; however, when it can be shown that an adult needs assistance, this legislation puts in place mechanisms by which family and friends can provide that assistance either on a formal or informal basis. The public has also asked the government to address concerns surrounding the possible abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults. Mechanisms to resolve such situations are also contained in this legislation.
In summary, the purpose of these three bills is to allow British Columbians to arrange in advance how and by whom decisions about their personal life, health care or financial affairs will be made, should they at some point in the future become incapable of making these decisions independently.
Bill 48, the Representation Agreement Act, also sets out procedural safeguards to ensure that the authority granted to an individual by another person is not misused; secondly, enables government agencies and community organizations to work together to stop abuse, neglect or self-neglect of adults who are unable to make decisions because of diminished mental capacity or severe physical disability; thirdly, ensures that the procedures leading to a court order appointing someone to make decisions for another person are fair and result in court orders which are specific to the needs of the adult who is having difficulty in making decisions; and fourthly, redefines the existing office of the public trustee by creating a new office of the public guardian and trustee and ensures that the new office
[ Page 7370 ]
operates with community input and acts in an effective manner in carrying out its duties.
These three bills represent the culmination of a truly unique process of collaboration between the government and concerned people and organizations that have spoken from a community perspective. The consultation process has been underway for three years and has been noteworthy because of the commitment of many British Columbians to the development of this new adult guardian system. These bills implement the recommendations set out in the joint community and government report entitled "How Can We Help?" which was officially presented to government in the fall of 1992.
Bills 48, 49 and 50 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
HEALTH CARE (CONSENT) AND CARE FACILITY (ADMISSION) ACT
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act.
Hon. E. Cull: The Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act is part of the legislative package on adult guardianship, which also comprises the three acts that have just been introduced by the Attorney General.
The broad intent of this bill is to clarify the law with respect to consent to health care, based on a number of court decisions in this area. The act confirms the right of a capable adult to give or refuse consent to health care. It also provides a legal basis for the existing practices of having another person, usually a family member or a friend, give consent or withhold consent to health care when an adult individual is unable to do so. Finally, it sets out procedures and safeguards with respect to admission to and residence in care facilities for both capable and incapable individuals.
All adults are entitled to receive the most effective and least intrusive forms of support and assistance when they are unable to act independently to make informed decisions on their own. This bill will both clarify and broaden the protection and rights of health care recipients. In addition, the bill will provide guidance to health care providers with respect to obtaining consent to health care. This bill represents a very important component of the government's adult guardianship initiative.
[10:15]
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. The details of legislation tabled by the government this morning appear to have been released to the news media before being introduced in this House. I'd like to reserve my right to investigate this matter further. However, it does appear that if the details of this legislation have been released to the news media prior to introduction and first reading, that would constitute a breach of the privileges of members of this assembly.
Hon. Speaker, for the benefit of the Chair, I would table a news report of this morning from the Vancouver Sun.
The Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the member. The Chair wishes clarification. Is the member reserving the right to raise the matter of privilege at a later time, or is the member raising the point of privilege now?
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, if the Chair would agree, I would reserve the right to raise this point of privilege at a later date. In order to do that, I think I need to indicate for the Chair's benefit why I believe there is a potential problem here.
The Speaker: If I could clarify for the member: having reserved the right, that is all that's required at this time. The Chair notes that right, and the hon. member will be permitted to put his point of privilege at a later time.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 33.
HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)
On the amendment.
The Speaker: The hon. member from Powell River-Sunshine Coast adjourned debate.
G. Wilson: Last evening when this debate on our hoist motion adjourned, what I was suggesting to the government was that this act does more to extinguish the right of freedom of expression than it does to look after hate literature and the propagation of hate literature.
The Speaker: Order, please. I regret, hon. member, the Chair was in error. The member's time had expired or the member had set down from debate, and it was the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs who adjourned debate. I do apologize for that confusion, hon. member.
J. Dalton: Just so the House is in tune, we are on the hoist motion that the opposition has put forward.
[ Page 7371 ]
It's unfortunate that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was cut off. That's fine, we'll probably hear from him later if and when we get back to the main motion.
We've heard some unwarranted criticism from the members opposite about our hoist motion. They are trying to suggest that the opposition is not in favour of the intent of this bill. Well, I can assure the House that the opposition is not concerned about the intent of the bill as such. What the opposition is truly concerned about is the way this bill is worded and the probable consequences if this bill becomes law.
I would first point out to the members of the government that our hoist motion is not ill-intended. Our hoist motion is well-intended. Our hoist motion will allow time to reconsider this very important bill and the implications coming out of it.
Let me, for a moment, outline the timing of this bill so we can see where we're at. The bill was introduced for a first time on June 7. Second reading started on June 10, and it was on that same day the opposition moved the hoist motion that we're now dealing with. Nothing further happened with this bill until yesterday, when we finally came back to the hoist motion. It was adjourned at 6 o'clock last night, and now we're back on the hoist.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Several NDP members have indicated their concern about our delay in hoisting this bill. As I've already stated, and as I want to re-emphasize, we are not here to discredit the intent of the bill and the law; we are here to point out some true flaws and fallacies in it. I will address those as I proceed. Putting aside the predictable concern of members opposite about the fact that the opposition would have the audacity to hoist this bill, I suggest that the bill reflects an attitude that we often see in legislation coming from this government: that they know best, that they are able to ascertain for the people of this province how best to implement and enforce law. I think this bill truly reflects that difficulty.
Even though the intention of the bill is good, as I've said, unfortunately I think it's quite predictable that it will not stand the test of time and the test of legal challenges. No one quarrels with the need to address and hopefully eliminate from our society -- although it's a very difficult thing to do -- the discrimination, hatred and contempt that many people, whatever their so-called cause may be, unfortunately show for other people because of race, religion and language. None of these causes, of course, have any validity. I can assure the House that the opposition is very concerned, as are members opposite, about the implications of such discrimination and hatred and contempt. Those things must be opposed, and no one quarrels with that. However, laws that address these issues must be formulated to withstand predictable and actual challenges.
I submit that if it is passed into law as currently worded, Bill 33 will be challenged. I think that is a certainty. I say that because of the track record over time of challenges to many similar pieces of legislation, either federal or provincial. It's certainly well documented that certain provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with the dissemination of hatred -- trying to isolate certain racial and other groups as targets for hatred -- have been challenged over the years. I think what comes to mind, for example, are the unfortunate cases of Keegstra and Zundel, which have been well documented and well publicized. Of course, those become headline cases due to the very serious implications of not just the charges laid but also how the Charter of Rights fits within the context of those challenges. I would submit that the Charter of Rights, as much as anything, is going to give serious legal challenge to Bill 33. We may not like it; we may not be entirely comfortable with the unfortunate fact that well-intended laws are dragged through the legal process. But that is a reality.
The Charter of Rights contains within it freedom of expression. It's a fundamental freedom. I don't think any Canadian, either in this House or elsewhere, would challenge the right of all Canadians to enjoy freedom of expression. But I would submit that freedom of expression is compromised by some of the wording and the intent of Bill 33. That's unfortunate, because I'm sure that the government did not have in mind to compromise freedom of expression. I would like to think that the government had this in mind: how can we complement that fundamental freedom by addressing these very real concerns of discrimination and hatred that unfortunately find their way into our society?
How is freedom of expression compromised by Bill 33? One very real way is the elimination of part of what is currently contained in section 2 of the Human Rights Act, the very section that is being amended by Bill 33. I will read into the record the provision that will be removed from the current Human Rights Act if this bill is passed. In section 2(2) of the act it states: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." I emphasize freely expressing opinions. That's the essence of the current Human Rights Act, and that's what is being eliminated by the proposed change in legislation through this bill. It will clearly compromise freedom of expression.
I would like to assure all members that I am not speaking of unfettered freedom of expression. Freedom of expression, like any other fundamental freedom in our society, has to be exercised with reason and some certainty that it will not be abused. But the Charter of Rights deals with that. The Charter of Rights provides that there can be reasonable limits placed on any freedom or right contained within it, and that will always be so. However, I submit that this government has placed an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression through Bill 33. That's why I submit that, without question, this bill will be challenged through the Charter. Having looked at many of these cases both through the Criminal Code and provincial legislation, I personally do not think that Bill 33 will successfully withstand those challenges.
I would like to think that it's not this government's intent to submit a piece of legislation and pass it into
[ Page 7372 ]
law in order to complicate the legal process by inviting challenges to the B.C. Council of Human Rights. I would like to think the very opposite, but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. It seems rather ironic that this well-intended bill is quite likely to produce very adverse effects.
Moving from the general concern I have about compromising freedom of expression, I would like to point out to the House that wording of a particular nature in Bill 33 is going to cause concerns about interpretation and how it should be applied.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
For example, in the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Act, we find certain terminology such as the word "issue," which is used in section 2. We don't have a definition of that word. I point that out because the word "issue" will introduce a new term into the act if this bill is passed into law. I think we have to flag that one. What does the government have in mind by "issue"? How would that be interpreted? How would that be applied if challenged?
Another term is certainly going to cause confusion and questions of interpretation. It is a reference in this same section 2 to anything that indicates discrimination. I cannot understand how "indicates discrimination" might be interpreted. That is a very vague and uncertain term. A term that immediately follows it is likely to expose a person...to hatred or contempt. What's the interpretation and definition of "likely to expose"? How will the council or the courts apply and interpret that? One other reference that concerns me as well in section 2(2) of the proposed amendment is "a private communication." There's no definition or interpretation in the bill of what that might be. It also goes on to say "a communication intended to be private."
[10:30]
These words and expressions are very open-ended. They lack precision. Anything that lacks precision that finds its way into law is going to be challenged, and I submit that it will be challenged successfully. Again, that's my main concern. I don't want to see a bill passed into law that is going to create further problems. We would like to see legislation that will withstand the challenges of law.
This government might be interested to hear the words that were just published this morning in a Vancouver Province editorial. It's an editorial dealing with Bill 33. I've spotted several such editorials and columns in the last few days. Naturally, the press is very concerned about the implications of Bill 33. What does the Vancouver Province editorial tell us? I think this is useful advice for this government. This is the last paragraph of the editorial: "In writing bad law to address a problem, the NDP is creating a potentially far worse problem. Fortunately, bad laws have a way of getting thrown out by courts. But they shouldn't be written in the first place." Hear, hear! They shouldn't be written in the first place. This is good advice, hon. Speaker.
Why are we in this House spending our time dealing with bad law? Why would we pass into law something that, as I've already argued....
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I can assure the member opposite, who is concerned that I might be blindly following an editorial in a newspaper, that that is not the reason why I have read this into the record. I think it is timely because it supports the very arguments that I am advancing. That statement from the publication certainly highlights many of the concerns that people in the press and the media, among others, have about this bill. They are not the only ones in our society who have this concern. These are words of wisdom and words of advice for this government that I hope they will follow, but we will have to see.
Now, as I've said before, these words and expressions that I have pointed out in the bill will, I think, without question be challenged. I think they will be challenged successfully, and that's the unfortunate part. As the Province states, we're going to put into place bad law, and it should not be the intent or the purpose of this Legislature to pass bad law. I would like to think that we will be passing law that would not be challenged. I will compliment the government to this extent: their intentions are good. But the best of intentions will be defeated and shattered by passing a bill that is flawed, and this bill is flawed.
This bill contains words that are vague or uncertain. I will use a parallel example that may be of assistance to the government. Last year we passed through the Legislature a tax on legal bills. What happened to that tax? It was successfully challenged. It was challenged on two grounds. First, it was challenged on the grounds that it was vague, and the courts will not enforce any law that is not certain. Second, it was challenged on one of the provisions in the Charter of Rights. As I've already argued this morning, these very things will give rise to a challenge to Bill 33: vagueness and the Charter of Rights.
We have already seen at least one example of legislation coming from this government that has been shot down in flames. I'm predicting that Bill 33 will suffer the same fate. I would like to think that this government will support the hoist motion or, if not , withdraw this bill or just leave it on the order paper. Do not pass it into law, because it cannot survive legal challenges.
We have existing laws in this country that deal with the very thing Bill 33 seeks to redress. The laws aren't perfect. I've already commented that many of these laws have been challenged. There are provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with the dissemination of hatred and comparable offences. Those laws have been challenged, and they will continue to be challenged. That's the right of a free society. If a criminal or other offence is laid against someone, obviously that person has the opportunity to raise a valid defence. That defence may be contained within the Charter of Rights. Nobody quarrels with the right of a citizen to so challenge. But I think that any legislative body should
[ Page 7373 ]
have in mind the likelihood of any piece of legislation surviving such challenges. If there is not a strong likelihood of surviving the challenge, why put the law into effect in the first place? Why not, as we are arguing in our hoist motion, let the thing sit for six months so that we can rethink it and then, if the government so wishes, bring it back in an acceptable form? I can assure this House that the opposition would be more than happy to support legislation that will stand legal test. This legislation will not stand the test, and we're not going to support it for that reason.
We also have provincial laws that deal with offences related to the dissemination and spreading of hatred -- the current Human Rights Act, the one that this bill is seeking to amend, and the Civil Rights Protection Act. That legislation will serve the purpose that this government is seeking to tamper with. The government should not present a piece of legislation just because it may look good or is timely, or perhaps serves some particular purpose. Legislation has to be put into place that will predictably withstand legal challenges. This bill will not do that. We're going to add to the further confusion of legislation, both federal and provincial, that has been challenged, some successfully, some not. We're going to throw a further complication into the legal process with Bill 33.
This bill doesn't contribute to strengthening the law, as the government would have us believe; it really detracts from the existing law. I think that's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that the government would be suggesting that we put into law a bill that is really not going to help the process. If Bill 33 becomes law, I predict that the first person charged under it is going to raise a legal defence and a challenge. The entire enforcement process will be slowed up by such a challenge, and I predict, as I stated earlier, that the challenge will be successful. Then where are we? We're back to what we have now. So why throw a law with flaws and shortcomings into the legal enforcement process, waste time, money and effort through legal challenges, and come back with really what we started with?
Because it's well intentioned but clearly flawed, Bill 33 must be hoisted and put on the back burner for further consideration. If not, then the bill should be allowed to die on the order paper and not see the light of day as far as being implemented is concerned. Again, my main concerns are the vagueness of the wording; the predictability or some of these words and phrases being challenged because of their uncertainty; and just as importantly, that freedom of expression is going to be compromised and significantly affected by Bill 33. The government, I'm sure, would be the first to argue that the right of any person in this province or this country to freely express his or her opinions should not be compromised. This bill does compromise that very thing, and that is not -- or should not be -- the purpose of legislation.
I have to speak in favour of the hoist, obviously. Again I want to assure all members of the House and all people of the province that the opposition is not speaking against Bill 33 for the wrong reasons, as the government would have us believe. The opposition is speaking against the technical nature of the flawed wording and the very strong likelihood that Bill 33 will not survive legal challenges. I re-emphasize that there is no point in putting into law something that clearly cannot stand the test of those legal challenges. That's just a waste of everyone's time and effort and should not be the purpose -- even though it's not the intended purpose -- of this legislation.
I encourage all members, both on the government side and in the opposition, to support the hoist motion. This bill, given its very clear message of detracting from the very thing that it is trying to address, cannot be supported. It should not be supported. We will have to see whether this government intends to carry this bill further. We will carry on supporting the hoist motion. Once we get through that, we will have to see what the government's purpose or game plan is on this bill.
Once again I encourage all members to support the hoist and allow this bill to be worked further so that anything that may come out of the proposed legislation has some validity to it. When I say validity, I am speaking of legal validity, not the intended good purposes of the bill. We recognize that those purposes are there, but any good purpose has to have true legal validity in support of it, and this bill lacks that.
H. De Jong: I am speaking in support of the hoist motion on Bill 33. I also want to indicate to the Speaker that I am the designated speaker for the third party.
Today is a sad day in British Columbia, when all of a sudden the members of the government side have withdrawn their names from the speaking list on this very important matter. It is unfortunate that this matter comes to the House in the form of a bill. I think the issue is far more sensitive and should have had open discussion rather than discussion in a bill such as this. In a partisan sense, I suppose I should be pleased that the New Democratic Party -- the government in this House -- is at last showing its true colours in its total disregard for individual freedom whenever it comes in conflict with the collective.
This issue -- which goes to the heart of what we are doing here -- goes far beyond party considerations. I cannot take pleasure in the obvious political harm the government is doing to itself by introducing this Orwellian police-state bill, saying that only politically correct newspeak will be tolerated in the socialist government of British Columbia. It will not work.
It is human nature to love and cherish various types of freedom, but most importantly, freedom of speech. Nobody likes to be told what they are allowed to do, say or think. That is the ultimate violation of the human personality. People who have lived under communism or in cults understand the power of the big lie and the constantly repeated slogan to rob one's thoughts of real freedom. Ideology, which acts as a mental virus, is often still in people's minds, even years after they have been released from the power of those responsible for the brainwashing.
[10:45]
This compulsory niceness bill is a strange product of our militantly moderate Premier. Under this legislation it seems that the only allowable bumper sticker would
[ Page 7374 ]
be: "Love thy neighbour, or else!" But it is not quite true of this bill, either. As Vaughn Palmer pointed out, we have the NDP's usual double standard. People are protected on the basis of a number of factors, which do not include occupation or economic status. Is it because this factor is partially a matter of choice? Surely that could not be the case, since religion is included. That is, and should be, entirely a matter of choice. What really disturbs me about some of the NDP members is their wilful blindness with regard to this issue. They see only that which is convenient, and with regard to differing opinions they have ears of stone. Racial hatred is thought to be a crime, but class hatred is perfectly okay.
The Minister of Finance tells us that he is not here to represent anyone who makes more than $100,000. He smiled as he said it. Non-union, as far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, is a badge for second-class citizenship. Sign a card to unionize, but vote in a secret ballot to deunionize. This is nothing other than a display of a most distasteful double standard by our Premier and his government. The NDP continues to have a strategic blind spot: a peculiar insensitivity to the outrages of the extreme left. There is nothing liberal about this bill.
I really appreciate the fact that the opposition party is giving heed to this bill and explaining their opposition to it as well.
My friend in front of me just passed a note that he would like to make an introduction, so I will break my speech for that purpose.
C. Serwa: May I have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
C. Serwa: Joining us this morning in the precincts are 37 grade 7 students from Glenrosa Elementary School and Helen Gorman Elementary School in Westbank. They live in perhaps one of the most beautiful areas in British Columbia, the central Okanagan, with vineyards and orchards and a fantastic view of Lake Okanagan right on their doorstep. They are here to listen to the debate on a very important bill, Bill 33, human rights legislation, which is before the Legislature. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Cooksley and a number of parents. Would members please make them welcome.
H. De Jong: As I mentioned, I'm really pleased that the official opposition sees the same thing in this bill as we in the third party do. They too understand that censorship is not the way to fight hatred.
Lenny Bruce would have been charged under Bill 33 because of his comedy act, not because of his obscenity but because he believed the only way to fight irrational prejudice was to expose it and ridicule it. But that exposure would not be permitted under this bill. Instead, we are getting the thought police and breeding a province of busybodies and informers.
Before Bill 33, I was probably prepared to agree with the Premier's attack on Equity magazine for depicting him as a Brownshirt on its cover. In appreciation of and respect for the office of the Premier and the various offices within government, I can tell the Premier and his Minister of Finance that they did not deserve that type of editorial comment. Perhaps that picture did exceed the bounds of fair comment, and undoubtedly that has made the Premier angry. The question is: is this bill perhaps a response to that incident? Isn't it ironic that just a week later, this bill was introduced on the floor of the House? This legislation was, in my opinion, introduced in the House to justify the underlying anger against that kind of editorial comment.
I'm very concerned by the pattern I see emerging from the NDP legislation: first of all, shut up employers who want to talk to employees about the impact of unionization on their businesses; then shut up the workers who don't toe the union bosses's line. For the attitude, we can remember the words of the Minister of Forests back in 1987, when he said: "...the union says, `If you don't do what you're told, we're going to get you.' Quite often," he continued, "there's a real reason why these situations exist. I'd hate to see a watering down or a taking away of the right of a group of people to exercise self-discipline...." No velvet glove there, just an iron fist -- the same fist we saw come down on group 3 schools this session in Bill 20. If you'll forgive me the metaphor, hon. Speaker, the other fist has dropped.
This legislation, as I've said, will not work. It will no doubt do more harm than good by feeding the paranoia of those on the fringe in hate groups. I believe that was referred to in one of the local newspaper articles this morning. If the government introduced hiring quotas by race or gender in the next session, it could use Bill 33 to muzzle opposition to reverse discrimination. People will now fear that perhaps that is lurking behind this legislation as well. That may not be the intent of the legislation, but in the plain wording of it that's the effect. It is a bill to chill or slant certain kinds of debate. Immigration policy is a prime example, but there are many others. There have been very robust debates in some churches about whether or not practising homosexuals ought to be eligible for the clergy. Other churches have a debate regarding the ordination of women. Presumably, these debates are now outlawed by this legislation.
I honestly doubt that government members have ever considered that we are dealing with trading off individual rights every time we pass civil legislation to protect groups of people against discrimination. We are limiting people's rights to not associate with others or to not sell their own homes to whomever they may choose, and so on. Perhaps in some cases there are some very persuasive reasons for doing that. Certainly no one in this House would want to live in the Mississippi of the 1950s or in South Africa today. But let us understand that once you depart from the principle that each individual is free to make their own choices, you find it impossible to draw a clear line. The Premier told us the other day that limits on free speech are proper if someone is being hurt. Should I have the right to say: "Take off, Fatso"? There's at least as much discrimination against overweight people in our society as any other group, yet we have no legislation to protect their
[ Page 7375 ]
feelings. Management consultants advise that fat people in professions earn less than others with the same level of skill because of discrimination. But we have no ministry of obese persons -- or do we? -- because, for whatever reasons, their plight is not currently fashionable in left-wing intellectual circles.
The government has already shown its willingness to discriminate against evangelical Christians in Bill 20. But to mention this is not politically correct, so I'm not allowed to call the government hypocritical. On what basis are we now choosing the groups that we will protect from discrimination -- those believed to twist in the wind? It is nothing but fashion that has dictated these choices. As a result, prevailing left-wing fashion will now determine the limits of our freedom of speech and expression of opinion in British Columbia.
We have heard much talk of reforming our parliamentary system in recent years, and I'm all in favour of that. It seems to me that now would be an excellent time to make a start in that direction. I cannot believe that after really considering all of the implications of this legislation, many of the government members would really line up against free speech in British Columbia. I would like to propose that the government present this bill for a free vote, with no negative repercussions for any member of cabinet or the back bench who votes against this well-intentioned but dangerously flawed gag law. Perhaps the reason the government members do not dare to speak up on this hoist motion is that there is no parliamentary freedom here.
I know that this is a hard issue for many people who have undoubtedly personally been victims of racial discrimination and abuse, and I sympathize with them. What you may not know is that the country I come from has a number of different provinces, and I happen to come from the province of Friesland. It was a province that had its own language, and in many respects we were somewhat different from many of the people in the Netherlands. It was almost like a little Quebec within Canada, though not to that extent. But it did have an effect on us whenever we went outside that province. We have not experienced the same grievances, though, as the people of Punjab have in India. It's much worse there.
Some people have kidded me, and perhaps are still kidding me -- perhaps some members of the Legislature here -- about my accent. I have no problem with that. But I have always believed in dealing with that kind of problem by tackling it head-on, not running away from it by sending it underground. That's what this bill does with those kind of situations, and that is exactly the worst and least effective means of dealing with it. The Germans are learning that to their sorrow while we speak here today, as they have been over the last couple of weeks.
[11:00]
I want to remind the members of this House of the words of the past U.S. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, perhaps the greatest legal mind America ever produced. He said:
"If there is any principle of the constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought we hate...rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of the government to decide what its citizens must say and hear."
I would also commend the words of Nobel prize-winning Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek in his book, The Road to Serfdom. He comments:
"In any society, freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. It certainly does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to think or believe. It shows a complete confusion of thought to suggest that, because under any sort of system the majority of people will follow the lead of somebody, it makes no difference if everybody has to follow the same lead.... The growth of reason is a social process based on the existence of...differences.... Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions, and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of the social process."
This bill is wrong in principle, and I have no doubt that it will backfire in practice, just as federal anti-hate laws have done. As John Diefenbaker predicted, they have done more to publicize hatred than to thwart it.
NDP members should not forget that laws like the one we are debating here were used earlier in the century in many places. For what purpose? To prevent trade union organizers from speaking in public. If those censorship efforts had been as successful at that time as they were against the IWW next door in Washington State, there would likely be no New Democratic Party, and they would not be sitting in this chamber today. It is one of our prides as Canadians that we have never had the equivalent of the McCarthy hearings or the infamous House Committee on un-American Activities.
Why would we want to create a Star Chamber to punish politically incorrect thought? If fashions alter, do the members opposite not realize that they could become victims of their own precedent? How would they like Harry De Jong to be the B.C. thought police? Believe me, that thought is as distasteful to me as I am sure it is frightening to government members. But that is exactly what we are creating with this bill: thought police. Surely the government would prefer Senator Joe McCarthy and the logic of William O. Douglas when he said:
"A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with the conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging.... That is why freedom of speech...is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest."
Recent U.S. experience has clearly shown that using group defamation laws to combat racial hatred is far more effective and has far less of a reverse effect than treating some kinds of thought as criminal.
In the area of freedom of expression, to suggest that we set commonsense limits is as ineffective as trying to legislate the meaning of beauty. It is entirely in the mind
[ Page 7376 ]
of the beholder. If this bill is used, it will be used to persecute. If it is window-dressing or a statement of principle, the same objective could be obtained by a resolution; no bill would be required. If it is a tool of social engineering, let us at least put the contract out to tender. Let the bill face the test of a free vote or a referendum after a full and informed public debate. I have a great deal of faith in British Columbians' sense of decency and commitment to liberty.
In opposing Bill 33, I challenge the government members to show their commitment to personal freedom by defeating the bill. I know that this would be hard for them. Several members on the government side from various cultural backgrounds have spoken in support of the bill, and I suppose to some degree that's understandable. I myself came as an immigrant to this country. I was only 15 years old, but I did run into some frustrations at the beginning, particularly the language, becoming accustomed to Canadian customs, different habits and types of sports; the list goes on. However, the acceptance has been overwhelming. The acceptance by Canadians of new immigrants has, I'm sure, been overwhelming for everyone who has spoken on it in this House. I have enjoyed 30 years of public service. I have served on the hospital board and as alderman, mayor and now MLA for the Abbotsford constituency. Those members with different nationalities and cultures have also been accepted by their respective communities to represent and serve all constituents in their constituencies.
I strongly believe that Canadians, being from many nationalities and cultural backgrounds, have built, and will continue to build, a strong nation. It is a nation that is prepared to fight voluntarily for the freedom of people, which Canadians have done in several wars. They want freedom for all people, not just Canadians. They have fought for the freedom of people around the world. Such a response is an expression of love by the Canadian people as to what they are willing to put on the line. In fact, many of them have given their own lives for such freedom. Muzzling the inward feelings or thoughts of the individual, which this bill will do, can only lead to greater misunderstanding of the individual as well as of the groups affected. No government should ever limit expression of opinion. If it does, it will lead to oppression.
Many politicians of all parties, at all levels of government, stand on platforms from time to time and expound on the great cultural mosaic that Canada presents to the world. Within that great mosaic, every nationality has its own tile, and within that tile every Canadian is a little gem. This bill will not do anything to enhance that beautiful mosaic; in fact, it will cloud it. Canadians want to polish that little stone by themselves in whatever way they wish to, and so they should be allowed. That should never be taken away from them. That's why many people came to this country -- to live in the freedom that they had not been able to enjoy in other countries.
Our challenge as elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, is to stimulate individualism in Canada by building communities and families. Because a strong family and community builds a strong nation. That's what Canada has been, and I hope that that will always remain. It is this way because of the individual freedom that has been allowed in this country; it should continue to be allowed.
Hon. Speaker, I am concluding my statement this morning. As Canadians we are asked to love our neighbour as ourselves -- not, as I stated earlier, to love our neighbour or else. Canadians have proven time and again that they love their neighbour as themselves, be it within or outside this country. We fail many times as individuals to do that, because we have our own thoughts, and they aren't always what they should be. But in the end Canadians say: "Yes, I'll buckle down on my thoughts, and I will continue to love my neighbour -- whatever they mean or say." That should be the cornerstone. It has always been the cornerstone not only of British Columbian society but also of Canadian society. I urge the government to withdraw this bill from the Legislature, because Bill 33 will not retain that individual freedom.
J. Tyabji: I am happy to rise in support of the hoist motion against Bill 33. I believe that this may be the most important debate that all of us participate in during this legislative session. What we stand for as elected officials is at the heart of the debate. What philosophical framework do we find acceptable to set up for the people of the province? How do we define what kind of society we want to live in? What kind of society do we believe we are building on behalf of our constituents?
There have been many eloquent arguments on the government's side in support of this bill. However, it's my belief that most of those arguments are based on emotion -- perhaps strongly felt and legitimate emotion. Many points are ones that I personally can relate to very strongly in terms of how it feels when one is set apart and excluded.
But at the heart of this debate is the difference between liberalism and socialism. To what extent do we restrict individual freedoms and liberties in pursuit of creating a harmonious society? How do we create a harmonious society? Do we believe we can legislate harmony in society, or do we believe that we must encourage the evolution of society toward a much more harmonious state than it is in now?
[11:15]
The debate that we're engaging in right now has been around for centuries -- in fact, longer than that. The ancient Greeks had this debate when they started to talk about what a democracy is. What does it mean to allow the will of the people to advance? How does the will of the people manifest itself in legislation and government representation to make democracy work?
In the opposition, of course, we prescribe to the principles of liberalism. We believe that we cannot legislate a just and fair society; we must work toward it to ensure that it evolves, and that it evolves with the will of the people. We see articles being written. We've referred many times to Doug Collins and to hate propaganda that is distributed. We know that there are groups throughout the province. In fact, this morning on CBC we heard about neo-Nazis in the military who
[ Page 7377 ]
are under investigation. These are frightening, frightening things that are happening in our society. But rather than legislating them underground and believing that we can legislate people's hearts and believing that by passing a law we will eradicate it, those of us who find these things offensive must turn the spotlight on them. As a society, we must rise up against it. If we don't like the North Shore News publications, we have to picket it and stand outside and say: "We don't accept this kind of publication." That takes courage, and it's a lot of hard work. But that's how you get society to evolve.
Rather than legislating something and driving those thoughts underground where they will fester and profligate and where there will be a continued distribution of those ideas -- which will happen -- we have to face it head on. By doing that, we will raise the awareness of the kind of society we're trying to create. That's what liberalism is all about. It is about working with the people and for the people, for the kind of society we believe we must have -- not just for the kind of society we should have, because that's fairly subjective. But when we are looking to a democratic society, the principle for that is the will of the people. If the will of the people will allow the publication of columns like we've seen in the North Shore News, unfortunately we must work to change the will of the people. It's hard work, and it takes a long time.
I've been criticized quite strongly by the government benches for my position with regard to women's equality. I believe women are equal and must be treated as equally integrated members of society, with the respect they deserve as fellow human beings, but I do not believe in legislating reverse discrimination. This government has criticized me for that. That, too, is the essence of liberalism. No matter how many laws we pass, we can't change the minds of those who would like to denigrate minorities and women. There are those who, through their own blindness and their own worldview, through whatever system they were raised in, have come to the opinion that it is acceptable to treat one human being as if that human being mattered less than another.
The only way we can combat that is to, in a conciliatory way, educate these people, have compassion for their ignorance and recognize that they must be treated as being equal to people who are enlightened. We must not have contempt, although it is a temptation. We must not dismiss these people as though they are valueless, because then we fall victim to the very same worldview they are using when denigrating other human beings. We must accept that there has unfortunately been cultural and systemic discrimination -- elements which have moulded that person -- and we must try to work with those elements to change the system so that we may evolve into a progressive society.
I've done a bit of background research on this. This is something that I feel quite passionately about, because I've had to come to terms with it. As a woman or as somebody with a funny last name growing up in a place where everybody was fairly uniform, how do we resolve the fact that the people around us may have a different perspective about us than we wish they would have? We do that through communication, understanding and tolerance.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear the NDP once again interrupting and saying that this is not what we're talking about. We are very much talking about civil liberties.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: I will not even engage the back bench. I hope that they take their place in the debate.
We have one publication by Alan Borovoy, who has taken the Canadian experience and written When Freedoms Collide, when the debate about "freedom to" goes head to head with the debate on "freedom from." This is what we're debating here. Liberalism means that we have the freedom to express ourselves, to live as free individuals in a society. We would hope that society will evolve to a progressive state, and we will assist and encourage that through communication and education.
The socialism perspective is freedom from, that they will legislate freedom from all those thoughts that are not consistent with the socialist worldview as to what kind of society we should have. It is not that the vision of the society we would like to have is very different, but the way in which we achieve that is absolutely and totally different. That's where the debate of "freedom from" versus "freedom to" comes into play. That's what this is all about. In this publication When Freedoms Collide, by Alan Borovoy, in a chapter called "The Extent of Dissent" he talks about how even authoritarian and totalitarian governments often presume to act in the name of and with the consent of the people. "Coerced and contrived consent does not satisfy the standards of democratic procedure. Democrats believe the consent of the citizens must be freely given." That's what this is all about. As democrats, we must realize that the people must consent to having their rights removed.
We can talk about the social contract and how we understand the social contract. What is the social contract? The social contract is basically our understanding of how we allow ourselves to exist in a democratic society. That is the social contract we have here: the social contract of a democratic society. If we believe that consent must be freely given, then within that social contract we cannot legislate against the thoughts that people have a right to express. We can speak out against it. We can picket it. We can act against it. If we feel strongly enough, we can run for office and pass the kinds of laws that do not limit people but rather encourage them to move in a different direction, to move toward the kind of just society that we as Canadians want. I believe almost every Canadian will have the same perspective on what that society should be in terms of justice, fairness, opportunity and the removal of barriers and discrimination. That's the kind of society that Canada is all about.
This book goes on to say: "This gives rise to one of the most vital principles of democratic society. The right of free consent necessarily implies a right of free
[ Page 7378 ]
dissent." It is a democratic right that you must have the freedom to express yourself. You weed it out when society comes forward and says: "That is not an expression that we deem acceptable." That's when you get rid of it. You must not drive it underground. It goes on to say: "The right to dissent does not mean the right to disobey a duly enacted law." That goes back to the message from the leader of the party, who said very strongly: "The laws are on the books now. We can prosecute for hate literature now." We can't restrict people's freedom to express themselves right now. We believe that in a democratic society people must have the ability to speak their minds. That is one of the definitions of civil liberty. That is one of the things that so many of the civil liberties leaders in the past have fought for: freedom to, not freedom from. Freedom from is a move backwards. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.
So many times in the past we have seen civil liberties leaders shot or incarcerated in their fight for the freedom to: the freedom to express, the freedom to speak out against the views that the government considered not to be in the public interest because the government had a definition of the public interest that ran contrary to the one of the leaders of the civil liberties movement. Who defines the public interest? Who defines human rights? The government of the day? Is it an arbitrary decision? Is it something that moves from government to government, based on the perspective of the government? Will "freedom from" be defined in that manner? Clearly that's exactly what the bill is setting out.
In this book they go on to say that the right to dissent is even more than a grievance procedure: "It is the vehicle by means of which the quest for truth may be pursued." If we are seeking the truth about human equality, about the virtues and the values of humanity, let those come forward who have base views, whose world view is distorted, and let us educate them. Let us work with them. Let us identify them. And let us in a compassionate society understand why they have those views and accept that it is not the kind of view that will move us towards a just society, so therefore we must meet it in a public manner. We must have the debate for truth. We must go forward, with our own definition of what it means to be democratic. This is the very heart of democracy.
We know that we in this House are not going to be unanimous on what is in the public interest; neither will we be in agreement with many of the media stories in terms of their perspective of the public interest, because every individual has a different perspective. But it is only in the debate in the search for truth that we can determine as a society what the majority view is. To that extent, democracy works. If as legislators we have a perspective of what a good, just, fair and compassionate society should be, then we will move forward in a constructive and positive way in the freedom to express. We will participate in those debates. We will identify those who are speaking out in a manner that we don`t feel is consistent. Even if the government wishes to define the public interest, define it openly, take issue with what is being stated that is not in the public interest, have the debate openly and if the people will that the government is right, then they will reward that government by supporting it and by advancing that government's perspective. But if the people do not believe that the government's definition of public interest is consistent with society's, then the people will choose to support another group. That goes to the heart of the civil liberties movement and the civil liberties debate and the kinds of things we have long been fighting for. Many of us have been fighting to move toward a better understanding of each other, whatever colour, shape or form we come in. That is going to be a global debate. In fact, the United Nations is meeting today on the issue of human rights.
How do we define human rights? Even on the world's stage there is a debate about the definition of human rights. It's a debate that raged during the referendum campaign, a debate that is raging throughout this, and a debate that our own Liberal leader has been waging since 1987. How do we define human rights? We use a universal definition that all people are equal, whether they happen to be prejudiced and biased and narrow-minded from the perspective of those of us who are working to move society in this direction, or whether they happen to be enlightened fighters for civil liberties. Every person must be treated equally under the Human Rights Act.
We must have the freedom to advance the debate on human rights, because we know that to drive it underground is wrong. Although we cannot prevent people from thinking and feeling these things, with this law we can prevent them from saying them out loud. That doesn't make it go away. How can we educate and identify these people if we don't even know who they are? How would we know, for example, that Doug Collins has these perspectives if we didn't read about it? Why can't we organize some kind of public demonstration against the North Shore News? We know that ultimately it's a business and the market decides. If the market is purchasing it, shouldn't we ask why that market exists? Shouldn't we take issue with that and have a public debate about it? Shouldn't we ask why the Governor General's award was given to Doug Collins for his publications? Shouldn't that debate be going on rather than on legislation that will prohibit that kind of thing from coming forward? Don't we wonder why a federal government has chosen to award the newspaper for those publications? Why aren't we asking why the debate is not more open than it is, rather than saying: "I take issue with it; therefore I will put it in the closet, and it will surely go away." That is not what will happen.
[11:30]
I'd like to quote one last time from When Freedoms Collide: "Inevitably such vast freedom carries with it enormous risks. Freedom of expression can be used to propagate lies as well as truths, wrongs as well as rights, injustice as well justice, and junk as well as art. The central question is: where are we prepared to put our trust?" As a society, if we believe that we must trust in the democratic way and trust that the people are intelligent enough to understand that what is being put forward is propaganda and hate literature, then those
[ Page 7379 ]
people will rise up and say: "As a society, we deem that not acceptable." If we have the freedom to express that, then that freedom will win the debate in the search for truth.
When we talk about the essence of democracy and some of the social activism that has led the debate on civil liberties in the past, I'd like to move to some of the classic political science theorists. Rousseau comes to mind, because he was often misunderstood. On the one hand he was advocating the fact that in accepting the social contract -- in accepting the fact that in a democracy we come together and have collective laws that govern all of us -- we are giving up some of our freedoms. That is understandable. We all know that in order to have freedom to express ourselves, within our society we are still constrained by the laws that make the society function. However, he was one of the strongest spokespersons for the fight to keep the civil liberties that we value as a society.
In dealing with this, I want to talk about an article by Robert Wokler on "Rousseau's Two Concepts of Liberty"; that being in conflict, where we have the liberty that we abrogate to become part of the social contract versus the liberty that we must hold onto and cherish as what is left to us as individuals within society to advance the best interests of the society. "Legislators and tutors alike deprive persons of the very liberty Rousseau claims they should enjoy. Of all thinkers decried as collectivists or totalitarian, of all those vilified for sacrificing liberty upon the altars of state control and social indoctrination, none professed a greater love of freedom nor a more resident determination to maintain the independence of a free man." That was Rousseau.
Much of that is the essence of liberalism. We recognize that we have to have a strong government to protect the people within society. We also recognize that we must protect the liberties of the people within society, and the government might not understand that distinction. There is a very important distinction. If we are going to maintain any freedoms at all in society, we have to maintain our freedom to be individuals, to express our individual perspectives, to advance our views, so that we as a society can debate where we are going and can evolve. Rather than having a top-down procedure, where government decides what's in the public interest, let the public decide what is in the public interest. Let that debate and that healthy process move forward. Where we believe something is being bypassed and overlooked, let us as legislators use our abilities to mobilize the debate on that. Let us use our ability to articulate some of these things in the House. Let us debate in the House, for example, why a Governor General's Award would go to the very kind of publication that this law is seeking to more or less make illegal. To me that's a more important debate. Why is there such a dichotomy? How can we have this kind of schizophrenia?
In Robert Wokler's dissertation on Rousseau, he quotes Rousseau on what man loses by the social contract:
"In his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything that he attempts to get, what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. Beyond this he also acquires moral liberty, which alone renders man truly master of himself. In civil society we do not make our natural liberty secure, but renounce it in exchange for liberty of another sort."
"Give man entirely to the state or leave him entirely to himself," Rousseau concluded in a fragment. "The contradiction between our desires and our duties renders our condition miserable. Man could not possibly enjoy both forms of liberty together."
[The Speaker in the chair.]
These are the kinds of concepts that we are grappling with when we try to draw the line between abrogating some liberties in society in order to achieve a system that gives us freedom to and abrogating them to have freedom from each other. How is it that we can sit here as legislators and not understand this distinction -- that you cannot take away our freedom to express in order to try to save us? I say "save us" in the sense of the crusade that the government seems to be on, a crusade that we may argue is morally well-intentioned but legislatively is so badly flawed. We will end up in a situation where, in the attempt to provide us freedom from those opinions that the government deems unacceptable, we will end up with little freedom left at all. In fact, as I have said before, this law will be on the books long after this government is gone. As the Leader of the Third Party said in his speech, once this law has passed, it will be extremely difficult to get us back to the position that we're in today where some of our civil liberties are entrenched, because that happens to be the way the legislation is set up. That makes me very nervous, because when this government is gone, what will be in its place? How does this government know what will be in its place? How do any of us know? The laws that are in the books must represent fundamental principles. There must be no arbitrariness in the distinction of human rights. Human rights must be so entrenched that there's no decision-making ability. It's not a case of: "I happen to find it offensive, and therefore it is against the human rights of the person who I deem to be offended."
In fact, hon. Speaker, if I can speak frankly from my own personal experience yesterday in the House, when the leader of the party talked about human rights issues and happened to mention that he, of all people, is standing up fighting for the rights of the media and the very editorialists who are saying things that have been hurtful to him, we had jeers coming from the back bench, because....
An. Hon. Member: Because it wasn't on the basis of race or colour.
J. Tyabji: As I was saying, because the hurt that he experienced wasn't legitimate because it wasn't on the basis of race or colour. So this government, in its wisdom, is going to decide which hurt, which offence, is the kind of offence that can be legislated against.
In terms of defining the public interest, in terms of that kind of arbitrariness.... Because this person happens to be a white, male, Anglo-Saxon Protestant,
[ Page 7380 ]
that's okay; but if somebody happens to be part of a group that this government has identified as being a group that they will protect, that's not okay. Why? We're all human beings. Shouldn't we be moving to a society where we try to prevent the kind of hurt and hatred through ignorance that we've seen in the past, in whatever form it takes? Do we not want to move forward and be enlightened? Do we not want to have a debate? Do we not want anyone to be able to express himself or herself so that we can take issue with it? If they don't put it in print, if they don't say it publicly, we won't even know it's there. What we do know is that it will be distributed down the line. We do know that any kind of publication that is not intended or deemed to be intended for public distribution is still all right, so you could, in this age of computers, have massive mail-outs with exactly the same ideas, but we won't know what's going on. In this Legislature, we will have no idea that these ideas are being disseminated, propaganda is still going forward and debate in the search of truth is happening in a very one-sided manner somewhere where we can't see it. That's what this bill does: it drives it underground. That is the wrong approach in the fight for fundamental freedoms.
I want to use one last publication in this debate. We're talking about the very essence of our civil liberties. We're talking about what it means to be a free participant in our democracy. We can look to the global scale -- as I mentioned earlier, the United Nations is today struggling with a definition of human rights -- and ask ourselves how, outside of this jurisdiction, do we empirically define civil liberties? Notwithstanding the partisan debate in this House, how is civil liberty defined? In Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1985-1986, Raymond Gastil talks about the definitions and criteria of freedom in a section called "Discussion of Civil Liberties:"
"The checklist for civil liberties is much longer and more diffuse than that for political rights. While many civil liberties are considered in judging the atmosphere of a country, primary attention is given to those liberties that are most directly related to the expression of political rights, with less attention being given to those liberties that are likely to primarily affect individuals in their private capacity.
"Open public discussion is at least as important a civil liberty as a free communications media. The ultimate test of a democracy is the degree to which an atmosphere for discussion in public and private exists free of fear of reprisal by either the government or opposition groups."
That's what we're debating today, and it's something that is independent of this jurisdiction. It is an international definition of civil liberties.
What we're talking about here is not whether or not we disagree with hate propaganda. We do. We feel the pain when we read something that is borne out of ignorance or a world view that we believe is unacceptable in moving toward a just and compassionate society. The fight for civil liberties has been waged for centuries. People have lost their lives in the pursuit of civil liberties, and with this one bill civil liberties will be abrogated in a way that this government is choosing not to look at and not to understand.
H. Giesbrecht: Show some courage.
J. Tyabji: If this government had courage, it would wage the debate openly. It would take on the federal government for giving the Governor General's award to a newspaper and a columnist that have been promoting ideas not consistent with an equal society. That's the kind of debate we should have here. The government would have the courage to have the friends of government organize pickets. It would have a public protest and an open debate and have society evolve to the situation where there's a better understanding of what the issue is. How can we have this debate if we drive it underground? How can we even have a debate on civil liberties? How can we understand the difference between "freedom to" and "freedom from" unless we have the debate?
I said at the beginning that I welcome one part of this debate; it's allowing us to show the fundamental difference between liberalism and socialism. Contrary to the assertions that we are spineless, liberalism takes a lot more guts. It takes a lot more work to fight the system from within it and to fight the system with the laws as they exist. Liberalism sees the kind of hurt and discrimination that exists and takes it on head-on, with the understanding and compassion that recognizes that people who perpetrate it are people whom we must try to understand and must treat with respect. We must treat them with respect and we must feel a lot of compassion for them, because they don't know what it is that they're perpetrating. They don't understand what it means to be a human being and to treat every human being equally. That is at the heart of this debate.
I stand up supporting the hoist motion because in my mind we cannot support with the passage of one bill the erosion of the civil liberties that so many people have spent so much time defending and so many people have ended up losing their lives over.
D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I request leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: I think it's very appropriate that this grade 7 class from Fraserview Elementary School in Mission is touring the precincts today and taking in this most important debate. The members in the House would observe the cultural mix that we enjoy in Mission, a multicultural mosaic of our community. At this time I bid the House make the future of B.C. very welcome in this precinct.
V. Anderson: Probably more than most others, this bill is a very personal one. It's not one that can be built just on theory. It has a very personal meaning to everyone here. I am sure that all who have spoken and will speak on this bill are speaking from their own personal experience. The very nature of how we enter into this dialogue.... It seems to me that this particular bill must be a dialogue more than a debate, because it expresses the essence of where we come from and where we would like to be going together, as a community and a people.
[11:45]
[ Page 7381 ]
I must therefore say, first of all, where I come from, because it seems that unless we understand where people come from and what their basic intent is, it's difficult to enter into the kind of dialogue that is important in this particular question. I come from a background which has two basic principles: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul and strength; and equal unto this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. This is the basic stance from which I come. It is also the basic stance which I would hope and trust that everyone else comes from. I must recognize that because it is my stance and my hope for other people, I cannot require that other people come from that same stance or have that same perspective. Because I believe that you should love your neighbour as yourself and I would try to encourage others to do exactly the same thing, I cannot compel them to do that.
I stand as part of a religion which, like every other religion in the world, has at one time or another persecuted others because of what they believed to be right and just for all people. We have had to apologize over the generations for the treatment of others in doing what was, in our mind, right at that time. Even as we have apologized to the aboriginal people in our own community and our own time, so we apologize to all of those people who came to this country because they believed they would have the freedom they did not discover in the lands from which they came. They came to this country believing that they would escape persecution because they would not be accepted in the manner in which they believed they should live.
We have had a great deal of comparison here with regard to what has happened in Germany over the years. We have taken that as a touchstone for many of our comparisons. We know what happened in the Holocaust and how members of the Jewish community were destroyed. The attempt was made to destroy them utterly. We also know that those who were not Jewish, but who stood up for them -- and they were of the majority within the country in which they lived -- were likewise persecuted and put to death. So those who were initially persecuted and those who stood up for them were treated in the same manner.
We come because we are concerned, and properly so, that there are people within our community -- indeed all of us at one time or another have contempt, which is one of the words within this bill -- who express hatred at us for one reason or another. Some of us do not express it in the same depth and breadth as others within our community. Some within our community go forth each and every day believing that before the day is out contempt and hatred will be expressed toward them and that because of some difference that they have, they will be denied opportunities that would have been available to them without that difference.
It is not acceptable that these things happen within our society. Men, women or children should not be denied opportunities that the rest may enjoy because of a particular characteristic that may be part of their personal makeup. It may be a characteristic which they inherited and of which they have a right to be proud -- a characteristic which does not demean them, but which is part of the nature of whom they are. It's part of their being, it's part of their reality and it's part of their strength and their contribution to our community. It's part of the strength and contribution by which we have welcomed and would welcome each other to share together in a common undertaking.
I appreciate, therefore, the intensity of our feelings as we speak about these concerns. I also appreciate why sometimes, in the middle of such an intense discussion, our emotions overtake our rationality. We jeer and ridicule each other across the floor, as we do sometimes in our "political debates" because it's part of the game that we play. But in this particular dialogue we are not playing a game; for if we are, we are playing with the lives of men, women and children, and that's not what we're about. We're about trying to come to a decision among ourselves, collectively and individually, whereby the lives of the people of this community can be richer and stronger. All those who have spoken have said that we agree wholeheartedly that everyone should have the opportunity to have an equal place in our community. We all have said that we are angry and frustrated at the hate and contempt expressed by one person to another and one group to another within our community. We want that changed and overcome.
What we are arguing about is not the common intent, but the process of how we go about achieving that. What we are trying to do in our dialogue with each other, I trust, is not to prove the rightness of one presentation or another, because we will all have failures in the way we would express or try to deal with an issue. Indeed, if we all had the answers, there would not have been any problems in the first place. It's because we're human beings that we don't have the answers. It's because we think and act differently that the process is not clear and not easy. No matter what we do today -- whether we pass this bill or not -- we have not solved the problem. We might have taken a small step toward a solution, but it will take much more than this to get at the basic concerns being expressed in this discussion.
It is important to try to clarify what we are about, and we are struggling with part of that clarification. When we read the bill as it was put forward, some of us were not sure if we understood its results. We know what the intent was, and we wholeheartedly agree with it. But we're not sure that we agree that the way it's put forward will get the results that the intent wishes to achieve. As I listened to the different speakers, I became even more concerned about whether this presentation is clear enough to achieve our intent. As I listen to the speakers trying to say what the bill means to them, I'm discovering that it means quite a different thing to every person who has spoken. Therefore the clarifications and the meanings are not there. I'd like to look at some of the things that have been said in order to clarify what we understand the process to be.
Before I go into that, I see we are at the noonhour. I suggest that we adjourn debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]