Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod Asks Critical Questions: Not Satisfied With Answers For Immediate Release August 21, 2008 (Queen’s Park) - The Liberal Government used the summer lull to its advantage and stacked its controversial Human Rights Tribunal by appointing 11 new members with only Conservative MPPs offering dissension.PC MPP Lisa MacLeod, lead the Opposition questioning, asking appointees about freedom of the press, offensive vs. discriminatory conduct and access to the Liberals’ new human rights system.“The change in the human rights system in Ontario as a result of Bill 107 is one thing, but now the legislature is confronted with deeply held philosophical views of the new appointees,” said MacLeod. “This is an important moment in human rights in Ontario and I don’t think the questions we raised with respect to freedom of the press, offensive vs. discriminatory conduct or access to the Liberal human rights system were answered satisfactorily.”MacLeod was disappointed that many of the appointees declined offering their opinions over the controversial human rights complaints against Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn and Kenny vs. Spenny. MacLeod was also concerned that one of the appointees qualified freedom of expression which is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.“I think the jury is still out, so to speak, on how this tribunal process will impact the residents of Ontario. But I think there are still legitimate questions that need to be answered and a fulsome debate is still needed on the philosophy of human rights in Ontario, not just the process.” MacLeod concluded.-30- To schedule an interview with MPP Lisa MacLeod please contact Jad Haffar at 416-553-4858 For more information, please see the attached statement and key quotes. MPP Lisa MacLeod offered the following statement at Committee: “Our biggest concern in the official opposition is that this is happening in the middle of the summer-and not only that this public appointments process is happening in the middle of summer, but this process started in 2006 with respect to the overhaul of the human rights system here in Ontario, and we're now going to start to see the fallout of that decision by the Legislature in 2007. I think that it would behoove all of us to reflect on the types of folks and the philosophy we would like to see in the tribunal. A process is one thing, but a major philosophy in how we deal with human rights in this province is quite another. I wanted to bring forward as many of these folks as possible to ask them the critical philosophical questions so that I would have an idea of what we're going to expect, whether it' s two months down the road, three months down the road or six months down the road. With the changes in the Ontario Human Rights Commission and how the system works and, ultimately, now that the tribunal has more power than, arguably, it ever had, the individuals who are appointed to this tribunal will effectively shape the human rights system in Ontario. That's why I asked the questions of the difference between offensive conduct and discriminatory conduct. That's why I asked the deputants whether they agree with Chief Commissioner Hall over whether or not they would like to see, like she does, human rights complaints in Ontario spike. That's why I asked them if it was a good or a bad sign that the number of complainants in Ontario has declined over the past several years despite our population growth. That's why I asked them, what is the standard of proof that a complainant should meet to have a complaint upheld? Many of them said it should be the balance of probabilities. That's why I asked them, if Chief Commissioner Hall has said that there are known and unknown causes of discrimination, do you think it's your job to discover new types of discrimination? That's why I asked whether or not they thought it was possible for non-minority groups to be discriminated against. The media is a very important component in any democracy, and in the last year and a half we've seen cases right across Canada, and right here in Ontario, be the subject of human rights complaints. I think it is a legitimate question to ask if the tribunal applicants in the intended appointments believe, as Chief Commissioner Hall does, that the media should be seen through the filter of human rights. I think it's also a legitimate question to ask about false complainants and what happens to those who are acquitted. It's not that I have a particular bent on either side, but I think it's legitimate that as a member of a standing committee deciding who these appointees are, and so many of them-we know that there have been over 20 people appointed this summer to the human rights tribunal process-it's legitimate for any Ontarian and any member of this committee to ask the critical questions, because this is a defining moment in human rights in this province. We are embarking upon a new system and we need to make sure that the system works and that the system doesn't hurt the people it's supposed to protect. We have some legitimate questions on whether or not this is going to be the privatization of human rights. Those issues came up during the discussions of Bill 107. It's interesting to think that in the last Parliament we dealt with Bill 107, but now we're dealing with how this system will be defined. I think it's legitimate to ask: Will only wealthy complainants have the ability to seek a tribunal hearing? I think it's legitimate to say: If you're underprivileged, are you going to have access to a lawyer? Those questions have never been answered, and I think it's legitimate to ask each one of them. Does discrimination trump free press or does free press trump discrimination? We don't have to have that answer today, but we have to have that discussion in Ontario. That's why we brought forward the intended appointees; that's why we work with our critic, Christine Elliott, who stood very firmly opposed to Bill 107 and worked very hard in bringing the views of all sorts of different Ontarians to the table during the hearings. That's why we were vigilant in the last three days in wanting to hear everybody; we wanted to hear where they stood on them. I've got to admit: They' re great people; they're great Ontarians. But you can't just take a public appointment and not know where you stand. So my vote today will be cast in opposition, not so much for the individuals we saw in the last two and a half days, but in opposition to this new tribunal process, which my party disapproved of. I think the jury is still out, so to speak, on how this tribunal process will impact the residents of Ontario. I want to thank my colleagues. I know that many of them had other things that they could have been doing this summer and I want to thank them on all sides for coming, for allowing us the opportunity that is so fundamental in democracy: to air differences of opinion. And I look forward to getting on with the debates and listening to my colleague from the official opposition. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the staff here who've worked so hard.” (Hansard, August 20th, 2008)Key Quotes:Alan Whyte, intended appointee as member and vice-chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: “In general, I would support media having the broader, freer right to report stories as they see fit. The basis of that from a legal perspective is the protection of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, having independent media in our society is extremely important, I believe. Having said that, if there is some sort of discrimination that comes out in the reporting that is arguably contrary to the code, then I would also feel that it would be open to a complainant to challenge the reporting as being discriminatory on the grounds of race.” (Hansard, August 18th, 2008)MPP France Gélinas: “There have been six of the new appointees coming so far, and none of them have said that they are in a position to do hearings in French.” (Hansard, August 19th, 2008)MPP Randy Hillier: “I also believe that it is fundamentally important and an obligation of every member of this committee to scrutinize these appointments and determine their competencies, determine if there are conflicts of interest and determine if there is undue bias within those individuals which may impair their judgments, which we and all Ontarians will bear the consequence of. So it disappoints me that, on the opposite side, there was no scrutiny, there were no questions.” (Hansard, August 20th, 2008) |
