or tO reserve as

BRITISH COLUMBIA

Socreds’ ‘human rights’ act

slammed b
snl

Bill 11, the new B.C. Human Rights Act
that is almost law has drawn the outrage of
other human rights agencies and federal
munisters and could be squelched at the fed-
eral level, according to the B.C. Human
Rights coalition,

Coalition spokesmen said May 8 that a
cake Poll showed 79 per cent of British

olumbians were against the Socreds’ tam-
pering with human rights legislation, and
€ new act “a licence to discriminate.”
E € government railroaded this human
nee bill through in four days, using every
actical manoeuvre to limit debate and late
night Sittings to force the legislation through
third reading,” said the coalition’s Harbans
Dhillon. :

While most British Columbians slept,
and while the Opposition fought valiantly,
the Socreds were eroding away our rights,
section by section, clause by clause,” she

_ told a press conference.

Introduction of Bill 11 when the legisla-
ture resumed sitting May 1 was marked by

an all-night vigil and a demonstration in

Victoria.

ee the bill was rushed through three
reacings and now requires only the assent of
Lieutenant-Governor Robert Rogers to
become law,

We have advised the _lieutenant-

governor that the act does not protect

human rights. It is so substandard to the

3 eames in other provinces in protecting

_ this

Promoting human rights that it places
On at grave risk in not meeting its

nati
intemational human rights obligations,”

said Dhillon.

Dhillon said the coalition has asked Rog-
ers for a meeting “‘and we will be represent-
ing OUF position in greater detail at that
time. We will be reminding him that by
withholding assent on this bill, he will-not
stand alone. :

Our coalition urges every British
Columbian of conscience to shower the
licutenant-governor with telephone calls,
telegrams and telexes urging him to with-
hold assent on the new Human Rights Act,
3 sent pending consultation
with the governor-general,” Fhe said.

Since then, four federal cabinet ministers
have Issued a joint statement expressing

major Concerns” about the new act.

Secretary of State Serge Joyal, Consumer

| aot Affairs Minister Judy Erola,
Multiculturalism Minister David Collenette

and Justice Minister Mark MacGuigan, ina
telex to B.C. Labor Minister Bob McClel-
land (under whose jurisidiction human
rights legislation and agencies fall) criticized
the new act because it contains no provision
for public education on discrimination.

That Concern mirrored one of the com-
plaints of the Human Rights coalition, who
have also cited the abolition of the Human
Rights Commission and Human Rights
Branch of the labor ministry, the removal of
legal counsel provision for complainants,
and the hand-picked nature of the new
Human Rights council, which will operate
without the staff of investigators the former
agencies employed,

Particularly significant, the coalition
pointed out, is the removal of the stipula-
tion that “reasonable cause” must be shown
to justify, for example, refusals of employ-
ment or rental units.

“What you have is legislation designed to
reduce the number of human rights com-
plaints in this province,” Dhillon charged.

If the appeal to Rogers not to give royal
assent fails, there is the possibility of appeal-
ing to the federal government to intervene.
That possibility was acknowledged by Dhil-
lon; “We know we have the support and
we'll go as far as we have to, to stop this bill
form becoming law.”

The power of veto belongs to Joyal.
Whether Ottawa will step into the dispute
during an election year, in which the federal
Tories will be certain to make an issue of the

af

seeking intervention to stop Bill 11.

Liberals’ disputes with the provinces over
jurisdictions, is moot. But there are some 27
precedents of federal veto in Canadian par-
liamentry history.

The new act also drew fire from Gordon
Fairweather, head of the Canadian Human
Rigths Commission, who said B.C. will be
“out of step” with other provinces’ human
rights legislation, as well as with the Charter
of Rights and Fredoms, which will come
into force within a year.

And at the annual meeting of the Cana-
dian Association of Statutory Human
Rights Agencies, delegates adopted a
motion from the Manitoba Human Rights
Commission and the Canadian commission
which raised “serious concerns about cer-
tain aspects and ommissions of the said
legislation.”

The CASHRA resolution expressed the
organization’s “conviction...that human
rightsgagencies must. have a measure of
independence from the governments that

y feds and agencies

BILL BLACK, HARBANS DHILLON, ALICIA LAWRENCE...B.C. Human Rights Coalition

vi

create them. . .the appointment of members
of the B.C. Council at the pleasures of the
government of the day without specified
terms seriously jeopardizes such independ-
ence and public trust.”

One of the last significant actions of the
now-defunct Human Rights Branch was its
award of back wages to Buphinder Singh
Dhaliwal, and an order to a Vanderhoof
sawmill to hire Dhaliwal after the branch
found rejection of the man’s employment
application was caused by the personnel
manager’s dislike for East Indians.

The ruling was made only days before the
Socreds introduced their first “restraint”
budget and 26 bills, including Bill 11’s
predecessor, Bill 27, last July 7.

As of May 11, Rogers had not replied to
the coalition’s request for a meeting, and a
further request was to be made Monday,
said the coalition’s Vancouver branch direc-
tor Peter Beaudin.

Letters

Raps story

Jess Succamore, national secretary-
treasurer, Canadian Association of Indus-
trial, Mechanical and Allied Workers,
writes: The article by Mike Phillips
“Cape Breton vote shows need for unity,
fightback” (Tribune Apr. 11, 1984) fea-
tures your usual pattern of convoluted
logic on the question of Canadian
workers having their own unions, and
how to go about getting them.

However, we find it disquieting
| (maybe disgusting is a more appropriate
word) that in your zeal to attack our
union you completely ignore the truth
and make the bold assertion that “as a
result of placing narrow nationalistic
goals above the’ demands of working
class unity and class struggle. A group of
B.C. miners has bolted from...” our
union. The writer then goes on to say
“CAIMAW found itself standing on the
sidelines of one of the most significant
labor struggles. ..” as a result of our fail-
ure to remain within B.C.’s Operation
Solidarity.

What gobbledegook! What a blow to
your own supporters in B.C. who know
that we have neither lost any mines to
date, nor did we “stand on the sidelines”
regarding the Solidarity movement and
we did play our part in the Solidarity
movement.

We have learned from history that if
you extolled our virtue we would have
some valid reason for concern. Neverthe-
less you should at least print this letter so
those of your readers who may have
believed Phillips’ terminological inexac-
titudes will have the opportunity to
know that his assertions were no more
than wishful thinking of one who is pre-
pared to sacrifice principle, morality and
dignity in the name of unity. Such unity
will never be acceptable to working peo-
ple, regardless of what you say.

The July 7, 1983 budget and the
accompanying 26 pieces of repressive leg-
islation marked Phase I of the conspiracy
of the Bennett government, the Fraser
Institute, and the big corporations which
direct and back both of them against labor
and the people of B.C. It consisted of

and education, huge layoffs of public
employees, and erosion of human and
trade union rights so that any fightback
against those policies would be weakened.

The Feb. 20, 1984 budget and the legis-
lation now being passed by the legislature
marks Phase II of this attack against the
living standards and rights of the citizens
of this province. We are getting more cuts
in social services, a human rights bill that is
a travesty and which amounts toa licence
to discriminate, and severe restrictions to
trade union rights in the form of amend-
ments to the Labor Code. In addition
taxes on working people are being
increased while taxes on corporations are
being lowered.

The aim of Phase I and Phase II of this
conspiracy is to enable the government to
divert funds designed for social services to
people to projects (often megaprojects)
profitable for big business. It should be
clear to all by now too that they are out to
so weaken the trade union movement as to
render it ineffective and useless.

Phase II has two new elements that
indicate a change of tactics by the Bennett
government in pursuit of unchanged aims.

One is that the government now intro-

drastic cuts in social services such as health.

duces its regressive legislation one bill at a_

The time to fight is right now

. time. The purpose of this, of course, is to
make sure that all groups adversely
affected do not get together and all protest
at the same time. This is one way to pre-
vent Solidarity II from getting on the
track.

The other tactic is that Bennett now
goes to the media to create artificial crises
and work up public opinion and public
hysteria on an issue before he introduces
his legislation. The controversy over Expo
86 is a good example. The dishonesty of
the government was clearly illustrated
when Expo 86 officials and the Building

Trades reached an agreement which Ben-
nett promptly proceeded to veto so he
would have an excuse for bringing in his
sweeping amendments to the Labor Code.

Let’s be clear about one other thing.
Premier Bennett and his government are
only going through with this anti-labor
legislation, draconian cuts in social servi-
ces, and erosion of human rights because
they are confident that the leadership of
Operation Solidarity and the B.C. Federa-
tion of Labor will do nothing about it.
They are sure that labor leaders like Jack
Munro, Mike Kramer and Art Kube will
limit themselves to verbal attacks, but will
not mount another counter-attack like we
had last November when an escalating

strike was set in motion, but called off by
the so-called Kelowna Accord.

Premier Bennett appears convinced
that the militant B.C. labor movement
under its present leadership has changed
from a tiger into a tame pussycat, ready to
roll over and play dead every time it’s
kicked.

Is Bennett miscalculating this time? Is
he underestimating the willingness and
desire of the trade union movement to
take the Socreds on? Some trade union
leaders like Jack Gerow of the Hospital

Rankin

Employees Union are speaking out and
calling for a mobilization of Solidarity “to
take up the challenge issued by the
government and call a general strike if
necessary.”

If there is no fightback this time, we
should have no illusions as to what will
follow. The Kelowna Accord resulted in
the Feb. 20 budget, the new (in)Human
Rights Act and the undermining of trade
union rights in the form of amendments to
the Labor Code. If the Bennett govern-
ment gets away with these, there will be
more and even worse legislation to follow.
If the trade union movement is not mobil-
ized now by its leaders, further down the
line it may be too late.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MAY 16, 1984 e 5