Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Proposal to Remove Offence and Punishment Provisions

Clause 25 of Bill 30 proposes to repeal the offence and punishment provisions of the act, replacing them with a provision providing that anyone who contravenes section 15 or subsection 40(1) is guilty of an offence. However, clause 25 does not specify any penalties for the offences set out in these two sections of the act.

During the public hearing, the Human Rights Commission indicated its support for the removal of penalties specified in this section of the act, arguing that they are not consistent with a restorative approach to the adjudication of human rights complaints; the commission does not use those provisions; and that other human rights acts in Canada do not contain penalty provisions.

Committee reviewed the human rights acts of 11 provinces and territories. Of these, Committee found that 10 contain penalty provisions. Only British Columbia's Human Rights Code does not.

It is the committee's view that, generally, the various acts distinguish between the remedies that may be ordered or imposed by the body adjudicating human rights complaints, as distinguished from process-related offences under the act for which fines can be imposed by the courts.

Remedies are largely directed at compensating and restoring the dignity of the individual whose human rights have been infringed, or requiring remedial activities on the part of the violator to prevent similar infractions in the future. In such instances, offences often occur because the person or organization was unaware of their obligations under the act.

Committee believes that the restorative approach is most appropriately exercised through the remedial actions that may be ordered by the commission or adjudication panel in the process of resolving a human rights complaint. In these cases, the offences and penalties set out under subsection 72(1) of the act are not required, as the appropriate remedies will be determined through the commission's restorative justice processes, including mediation, or by the adjudication panel in accordance with its authority under the act. Therefore, committee agrees with the removal of subsection 72(1).

In contrast, section 15 and subsection 40(1) prohibit actions by those who attempt to thwart the authority or operations of the act by wilfully refusing to comply with direction under the act or by engaging in deceitful, fraudulent, or intimidating behaviours related to activities governed by the act.

Committee cannot support the removal of the penalties specified for these offences as this would deprive the courts and, by extension, individuals who have been wronged of the opportunity to punish unlawful behaviour that is wilful, deliberate, and thus not as likely to be made better by restorative measures. Accordingly, committee moved Motion 7 to amend Clause 25 to repeal subsection 72(1) and to retain subsection 72(2).

Power of the Adjudication Panel

Subsection 62(3) of the act sets out what remedies an adjudicator may include in a remedial order where there is a finding that a human rights complaint has merit. Clause 24 of Bill 30 proposes to amend this section to broaden the adjudicator's power to "do anything the adjudicator considers that the party ought to do to promote compliance with this act, including with respect to future practices."

Committee is concerned that this proposal is too broad. It allows the adjudicator to order a person or organization that has been found to have violated a complainant's human rights to do anything the adjudicator thinks necessary to ensure future compliance with the act, potentially going beyond the particular grounds of discrimination dealt with by the adjudicator in the complaint being adjudicated. Committee expressed the concern that this language was too permissive and could result in over-reach by the adjudication panel.

Accordingly, committee moved Motion 6 to amend Clause 24 to restrict the proposed power of the adjudication panel such that it may only order remedies that may prevent future contraventions that are the same as or similar to the contravention that is the subject of the adjudication.

Mr. Speaker, I now pass the reading of this section to honourable Member for Hay River North.