Library of Parliament Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Jim Eglinski]

Madam Chair, this is only my second meeting here, so I'm going to play a bit on the ignorant side.

I'm having a little difficulty here on your paragraph, “ln the last Parliament, the 33rd Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommending the establishment of an electronic petition system was concurred in by the House and the solution was launched in December 2015.”

I take it that is the motion that Mr. Graham worked on as a staffer at the time, and was presented; it's there. Am I wrong?

[Pierre Rodrigue]

No, the origin of the system was a private member's motion that was moved by Mr. Stewart.

[Jim Eglinski]

Regardless, we're looking at 2015, and we're now looking at 2018. We're some three years into the process, and it doesn't appear that we've gone anywhere with it. You're saying we're about to meet with our British counterparts.

My colleague here says he'd like to rush it, and my colleague across says we should use a little caution, but we seem to be using a lot of caution in some of your wording here and there, Mr. Dufresne. It's almost as if we're not wanting to make decisions because there may be some complications or there may be....

My God, it's been four years to get this process going and we're nowhere. We're not much further ahead than when David spent the better part of a couple of weeks drafting this. It is complicated, I agree, but it sounds like some reports I was hearing in another committee where a whole bunch of departments weren't doing anything because they didn't want to step on anybody's toes, and nothing was getting done.

How long do you think it will take? I guess it's just as simple as that. How long do we keep putting it off? It's been four years now for something that's not that complicated, I don't think.

It's time for it.

[Pierre Rodrigue]

I'd like to say we could do this tomorrow, Mr. Eglinski.

As I mentioned to Mr. Lauzon, in the next few weeks we want to determine if there is a way to make it accessible. If there is not, we will be asking ourselves what we do in the meantime and if there is an option we could take as a transition before we can make them accessible. That would probably be to put them on a public website as is, provided of course that those who request it can have an accessible version within a certain deadline.

We still need to have discussions on that with the government to see if they would be willing to provide it. We don't own the document. We don't produce the content. We're not the authors of the content. We get them at the last minute before they are tabled, so we need the calibration with the departments.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Lucie Moncion]

Mr. Graham, you have the floor.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I need clarity to follow up on Ms. Jordan's question. Are we already vulnerable to human rights complaints, given that these documents are already accessible within the Hill structure for the 4,000 employees who work here?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I think being accessible to people working here is a possibility. The issues can come up in that context, but the vulnerability is greater if you make it available to the general public.

Perhaps there are things we're able to do internally more quickly. It's a case-by-case situation, but certainly the more broadly it is made available, the more individuals can find they lack access to it on the basis of their disability.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What's your role versus that of Parliament? Normally you'd be with us at PROC rather than here. What's your role versus the Library of Parliament's role on this file?

[Philippe Dufresne]

My role on this file is as the law clerk to the House of Commons, providing legal advice and support to the House administration that is managing the implementation of these measures.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Lucie Moncion]

Mr. Lauzon, the floor is yours.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Philippe, I think I asked earlier how many complaints you have received in the last three years.

[Philippe Dufresne]

I would have to get back to the committee.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Approximately, are there hundreds or dozens or a handful?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I would hesitate to give a number but we're not talking about hundreds. I think it's more in the nature.... It depends on what you're talking about in terms of human rights complaints, as well.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

The thing that you're so worried about, the human rights cases that you're so worried about, how many of those have you had to deal with in the last three years, since 2015?

[Philippe Dufresne]

We haven't had to deal with many.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Do you have a ballpark figure? Is it two or 42?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I would say it's less than 10, and—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Have they been resolved?

[Philippe Dufresne]

They've been resolved.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

If we'd have had this in place three years ago, you'd still maybe have had those same 10 or fewer and they'd have been resolved, okay?

The other question that I have is I was told that seriously Parliament is exempt from being sued.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Parliament has some immunities in terms of parliamentary privilege. That's clear. In the Parliament of Canada Act there is protection for parliamentary publications, but these issues aren't always 100%. There are arguments made in cases as to does this fall inside or outside...so that is something that is managed, as well. Even if you've fallen under parliamentary privilege, there may be an argument that you're still, in fact, not complying with those principles.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

We keep talking in “maybes” and “possibly”.

It seems to me that we probably should go forward with this. Isn't it worth, for the common good, to take the possibility that in the next three years we might get a handful of complaints that will probably get resolved? In the final analysis it won't cost the government anything, and we'll have all these people who got all this information. What's the matter with that?

[Philippe Dufresne]

All I can say is that, ultimately, I suppose it would be a decision for this committee in terms of a recommendation, and for the House, ultimately, as to the way to go. Certainly, in terms of complaints processes, as I've indicated before, those can be dealt with, addressed, and there's an outcome.

What I said at the outset is that this legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Act and proposed Bill C-81, set out the principle that all Canadians should be able to fully participate in society, that things should be made accessible by design and that all efforts ought to be made to provide that full accessibility. That's the context in which we're giving—

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Right now, hardly anybody has access. We're going in the wrong direction. We can't keep resisting this. We have to move forward, and I would like to suggest that this committee make a motion that we recommend to Parliament that we proceed with this within 30 days. Let's get it done.

I don't know how somebody can maybe break that.