Clause 45.

Clause 46.

Part 5, adjudication appeal, clause 47.

Clause 48.

Clause 49.

Clause 50.

Clause 51. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is perhaps rather a housekeeping amendment that committee would like to make here and it has to do with the interpretation, or the potential interpretation, of the notion that any member, when an adjudication panel is appointed, the bill as proposed suggests that the chairperson of the panel shall designate any member of that panel, et cetera. It may be interpreted that any member is a sole or single member to hear an issue. Committee thought that the chair of the adjudication panel should have some flexibility to appoint more than one member where it may be deemed necessary. An example of this may be where there is an expectation of an exceptionally long or complex case, that it may well serve the interest of the issue to have more than one member designated.

We are proposing some changing, Mr. Chairman, to allow that flexibility to have more than one member of an adjudication panel serving.

I MOVE that clause 51 of Bill 1 be amended by striking out "any member" and by substituting "one or more members."

Thank you.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Minister, to the motion.

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.

To the motion. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think as you can hear, the Minister is clearly opposed to the intent of this motion. Our committee saw reasons for wanting to have the ability to use more than one adjudicator on occasion. We would agree that in the interest of the economy and time, that it would be better if most adjudications could be handled by one person.

However, having had some experience as a government with human rights tribunals and seeing how long those tribunals can go on should a complex case come forward, a complex complaint, we thought that it might be in the best interests of both the complainant and the commission to be able to choose to have more than one adjudicator involved.

For instance, if you get into a lengthy process and one of your adjudicator becomes pregnant and delivers a baby, do you not want to have the ability for the case to carry on perhaps with just one of them if you have two involved?

Or what about a situation where you maybe need to have a person replaced, could you not for a while have two adjudicators overseeing the case?

I think that is where the committee was coming from with this one. We felt that rather than having to see an adjudication perhaps start all over again after a substantial amount of time, that if it was seen right up front that the panel would be dealing with a very complex issue that might take a considerable amount of time, that in the interests of saving time it could actually be useful to occasionally appoint more than one adjudicator to work together.

That is the position that the committee has taken. Clearly the Minister is speaking against the motion and then is planning to propose a separate motion that would substantially differ from the purpose of the motion put forward by committee. At this point, I have heard no argument that would stop me from supporting the committee motion because I think that as things stand, we leave more risk that something would have to get started all over again because of an adjudicator having to step down perhaps.

To the motion. Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated. Clause 51. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I MOVE that the English version of Clause 51 of Bill 1 be amended by striking out: "any member of the adjudication panel" and by substituting, "one member of the adjudication panel."

There is a motion on the floor. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like clarification on what is being achieved by this change? What will be the difference between any member to one member?