Human Resources Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

That, to me, implies that there are aspects that could be potentially binding the Human Rights Commission's hands, then. I thought the Human Rights Commission was untouchable. I need to clarify some of this, because we're going to need another lens to look at this through, if it is true that we indeed can tie its hands.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

I'll defer to the department.

[John Barlow]

Mr. Van Raalte.

[James Van Raalte, Director General, Accessibility Secretariat, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Chair, maybe I'll just clarify the point.

The Human Rights Act will always prevail. This is an administrative procedure amendment. The Human Rights Commission has a great deal of independence in how it operates and how it sets its rules from an administrative justice perspective. The distinction, I believe, if I'm hearing things correctly, and I could be wrong.... This is about telling the Human Rights Commission how to conduct its business as opposed to how it applies human rights laws and its human rights lens to different decisions.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Van Raalte.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 103 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 104)

On clause 104, we have several amendments proposed, beginning with LIB-47.

Mr. Ruimy.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal expressed concern that there might be insufficient detail set out in Bill C-81 in relation to appeals and that there was a risk there could be future legal challenges regarding what the tribunal can do and cannot do with an appeal.

It has also been raised by the Department of Justice that 30 days may not be a sufficient amount of time for persons with disabilities who are self-represented to file an appeal.

The effects of this motion would amend clause 104 to provide greater detail for the appeal power of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and provide the tribunal with the ability to extend an individual's time to make an appeal if the circumstances warrant it.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Is there any discussion on LIB-47?

Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Is this giving a suggestion to the Human Rights Tribunal? I thought we had heard discussion in the last one, in which we had the subamendment debate, from the department about telling CHRT what to do.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Mr. Ruimy.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

The CHRT, in consultations on all of this, are the ones who are actually recommending this to avoid future legal challenges regarding what the tribunal can or cannot do. It's something they feel they need to have in there to protect their process.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Just to clarify, because I don't feel my question was answered, in discussion of the subamendment to the previous clause, we somewhat were told that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal does not want to be told how to do its job, but this amendment here would suggest to it what to do. I'm just trying to understand, because I'm feeling there's not a consistency.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Mr. Ruimy.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

This actually comes from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I will say it again. They are the ones who feel that, without this amendment, it could create problems down the line. This is just trying to speak to where they feel there may be court challenges. It gives them the ability to continue doing what they are doing.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Ms. Falk.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I find it quite interesting that there was reason before not to change something, or to change something, whatever it was. There's this inconsistency. I don't understand.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Mr. Van Raalte.

[James Van Raalte]

I hope I can make the distinction.

The previous amendment concerned the review process carried out by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Your first level of recourse is through a process within the commission. It was an amendment that would prescribe how the commission was to conduct its work. There are always concerns about the independence of the commission and telling the commission how to undertake its work.

This is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which is the appeal body to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is my understanding from the testimony and the submission that they have requested flexibility in their appeal powers.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Okay, thank you. That clarifies some things. It's interesting that we're taking some things we hear and we're not taking other things we hear, for example, timelines. We're cherry-picking what we want to take.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

We now move LIB-48 submitted by Mr. Hogg.

[Gordie Hogg]

This is consistent with the discussion we've just had. It puts us in line with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and subclause 104(1.1) would read:

The appeal lies on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law or fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, including a principle of natural justice.

This is to go in alignment with the CHRT and their actions, so it's to come into compliance and alignment with them.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

We are on LIB-49.

Mr. Ruimy.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

We're suggesting adding in:

the grounds of appeal and set out the evidence that supports those grounds.

It's just keeping in line with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

[The Vice-Chair, Mr. John Barlow]

Is there any discussion on LIB-49?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 104 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 105 agreed to)

(On clause 106)

I understand that there will be some changes to the amendments in clause 106. We'll start with LIB-50.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I would like to withdraw LIB-50 and replace it with a new amendment, reference 10151430. Copies have been distributed.

Clause 106 would be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 57 with the following:

may, by order, confirm, vary, give the decision that the Accessibility Commissioner should have given or rescind the decision or order to which the appeal relates or refer the complaint back to the Accessibility Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with any direction the Human Rights Tribunal may give.