Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some comments on this motion. Mr. Chairman, in the development of Bill 1, the department intended that only one adjudicator would hear a complaint when it gets to a hearing. That was the intention and the French translation clearly reflects that. However, we have identified that the English version is not clear. In designing the proposed human rights scheme, one of the department's objectives was to ensure that there would be no inefficiencies in the use of resources required to run the human rights program. Care was taken to look to problems faced in other jurisdictions because of their legislative schemes. For example, problems that could lead to duplication, overlap and unnecessary procedures. This, in the public interest, ensures that resources allocated for human rights are spent efficiently. Hearings held by one experienced adjudicator could promote that objective and at the same time meet the interest of having impartial hearings. This is one reason why the qualifications for adjudicators are quite high. Under this bill, when a complaint gets to a hearing, it will likely be quite costly to deal with. Adding two more adjudicators to hear a matter could greatly increase that cost. In addition, matters may be referred or appealed to the courts. The decision of the panel of the three adjudicators could easily give rise to an appeal as a decision of one adjudicator.

Just to conclude on this issue, I will be proposing a motion to clarify that hearings are to be held by one adjudicator only. This will promote both the objective of efficiency and the interest of having an impartial hearing.