The Vaid case was a very important case for parliamentary privilege law and also for human rights law. It raised a number of issues. The main one came from the fact that the chauffeur of the then Speaker filed a complaint alleging that there had been discrimination against him in the context of his employment.
The House of Commons and the Speaker took the position that irrespective of the merits of that complaint, which they said was not substantiated, there was a bigger question of whether parliamentary privilege means that challenges of this nature involving employment should not be going to Canadian human rights commissions or courts because they fall under the internal affairs of the House. That was the major legal argument on privilege.
At the Canadian Human Rights Commission we took the view, which ultimately the Supreme Court accepted, that privilege did not apply to the management of every single employee. It could apply to some positions key to the legislative process, but not to the Speaker's chauffeur. The courts set out the test for privilege: that under the Parliament of Canada Act it had to have existed in the U.K. in 1867 or be established via the necessity test, i.e., as necessary for the conduct of parliamentary affairs.
Another issue was, accepting that the Canadian Human Rights Act applied, where those complaints should go. Should they go to the commission or should they go, under PESRA, to the Public Service Labour Relations Board? In PESRA, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, there is a section that said that no other act applies.
Ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada said, not on the grounds of parliamentary privilege but of PESRA language, that those complaints ought to go to PSLRB and not to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. At the end of the day, I think this is one of those decisions about which all parties were happy. The House I think appreciated the recognition of privilege and the constitutional nature of it and also appreciated that such cases would go to PSLRB, which is what the House had argued. The Canadian Human Rights Commission was satisfied that the human rights principles would be available.
It was a very important case in that it reiterated and clarified the test for privilege that would apply to all cases.