Clause 60.

Clause 61.

Clause 62. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the committee felt that there should be some penalty for someone who brought forward a... or that there should be exemplary damages available to the adjudicator in issues of findings that somebody had acted wilfully or maliciously or in the instance of some party continuing to contravene the act.

We noted that the laws of Canada, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Yukon and Manitoba all allow for exemplary damages. We thought that it would be useful to include that ability for adjudicators as well in our legislation.

I MOVE that sub-clause 62(3)(a) of Bill 1 be amended by:

Renumbering Sub-clause (7) as sub-clause (8) and by adding the following after sub-clause(6):

(7) Where the adjudicator finds that the party has acted wilfully or maliciously or has repeatedly contravened to this act, to pay to any party dealt with contrary to this act an amount not exceeding $10,000 as exemplary or punitive damages.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make some comments as well, that the government does not support this amendment. The object of human rights legislation is to promote respect for human rights in our society. The general purpose is not to punish.

However, there are offence provisions so that a person in serious breach of the law can be prosecuted. Sub-clause 62(3)(a) of the bill includes a power to make an award to compensate a complainant for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. In addition to other remedies to compensate the complainant.

This helps to meet the objective of the scheme of ensuring that a successful complainant is fairly compensated. Some other jurisdictions in Canada do allow for exemplary or punitive damages but most of those do not allow for both damages like the ones we have under sub-clause 62(3)(a)(v) and for exemplary or punitive damages.

In addition, there is a concern that since the respondent in the private sector will not have the assistance of an advocate through the human rights office, the respondent will have to bear the full costs of defence against a complainant.

If the person is found to be at fault, they will have to further compensate a complainant including compensation relating to injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. As most employers in the Northwest Territories are small, the addition of exemplary or punitive damages could result in financial hardship.

We are starting with a new Human Rights Act and a new Human Rights Commission. It is possible that people will discriminate against others without knowing it. Until the commission has had enough time to really get human rights education and promotion going, the government believes that adding exemplary or punitive damages would be unfair.

The government also has some concern that including this kind of damages could result in significant cost implications for the GNWT if damages are awarded against us. We will have a new act with new grounds of discrimination. The government, of course, will act in good faith, but it is impossible to predict the certainty of how such things will be interpreted. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, did I hear the Minister say that he was worried about the government being found guilty of contravening this act and there might be substantial damages that have to be paid? My goodness. I cannot believe that he would talk about human rights in that way and say that this government is worried about them.

If this government is in fact violating human rights, they should be prepared to pay punitive damages. I think that it is unconscionable that we would use the excuse that people may not know about human rights and therefore we should not have punitive or exemplary damages include in this bill.

What is the point of having something without teeth? If we have a human rights bill, let's make sure that it has the teeth to do the job. Let's stand up and do the right thing here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For those of us who are hearing this relatively with fresh ears, I am trying to get at what the quarrel is of the opposing positions. May I ask Mr. Dent to clarify again what his motion is trying to achieve? Is that possible? Thank you.

Ms. Peterson, did you want to respond?

Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this penalty is aimed at who and what kind of infractions? Is that for the people who are complaining not in good faith? Who is this aimed at and what kind of infractions? Thank you.

Ms. Peterson.

To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried. Clause 62, as amended.

Clause 63. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee does not agree that cost awards should be awarded against the respondent only and we are satisfied that the current provision as set forth by the government sets a sufficiently high standard. It speaks to frivolous and vexatious that would, in effect, protect complainants who create delay because they do not lack, or because they lack the resources. It would protect them from being penalized.

We also believe that the costs should be available in other circumstances that the government's clause does not contemplate, such as in cases of particularly egregious breaches of the act, or where a respondent has repeatedly engaged in discriminatory behaviour.

I should add, Mr. Chairman, that this would be consistent with other jurisdictions who award costs in Canada, such as Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, Quebec, P.E.I., Newfoundland. They all grant the tribunal or adjudication panel broad discretion to award costs in a complaint. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,