Ontarion media wars downplay importance of Bill 107
Lia Tarachansky
Last April a bill was introduced by the Attorney General which has largely amended the Ontario Human Rights Code. Since, the bill passed a second hearing in June and was finally acceptance in December. In this time it has been considerably changed, and largely so due to its controversial nature. Our office, in coordination with the Legal Resource Room (LRR) has been involved with following this bill and its amendments since September.
Many organizations and individuals, including DAWN (DisAbled Women's Network of Ontario), the PPAO (Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office) and even Barbara Hall, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission have spoken in regards to faults (and strengths) within the bill.
Since these issues have been brought to our attention, we have been planning on running an awareness campaign regarding the Bill and have finally done so at the end of February and leading into the beginning of March.
Though the bill passed in December, unexpectedly to human rights organizations, our office had decided to still run the campaign if for no other reason but to raise public awareness.
I would like to personally apologize. In our original communication we had informed the student body of the impact these legislative changes would have on those living in Ontario, which we should have done more clearly.
In particular, by stating the Ontario Human Rights Commission is being effectively dissolved, I effectively meant that it is being stripped of all its current responsibilities in dealing with individual human rights complaints. I apologize for this misunderstanding. English is my fourth language, and I often confuse words.
During the awareness event, where we had asked Patrick Case to speak, this mistake was brought up. We had intended on first presenting the facts of how the human rights system in Ontario originally worked and how it will be changed, and then follow up with a panel discussion.
Unfortunately, I did not get to speak to a report I had compiled over the previous 5 months regarding this legislation because I did not feel I had the space to do so. Mr. Case spent a considerable amount of time saying that our office started this campaign simply for the sake of enticing the student body, and explaining that Canada has a world-respected human rights system, and therefore the problems with the bill are mostly insignificant.
He also took a substantial amount of time to speak to his addressing objections regarding previous coordinators of our office, which disempowered and left me unable to respond. I apologize I did not find the correct terms to express my concern during the event regarding the bill and the process through which it has passed into law. I had always thought I would be able to be objective and quick to respond, but instead was left feeling
dehumanized and humiliated.
Since it was first introduced, this bill had been largely augmented, in my opinion, due to public pressure from both human rights organizations and legal clinics throughout Ontario. In these augmentations, the issues many organizations had with the Ontario
Human Rights Tribunal have largely been addressed. Originally, the Bill gave right to this Tribunal to dismiss certain cases without a hearing, allowed for it to charge service fees, and empowered its decisions to be final without appeal. Yet, even in its initial stage, this Bill had introduced a significant, positive, and much needed change to an outdated 40 year old system.
In its final acceptance, which was supposed to have taken place after public hearings, the Bill had been largely accommodating to concerns against it, though some problems with it still persevered. The cancellation of public hearings for the purpose of passing the bill with celerity during the holiday season was yet another concern we had wished to address in our campaign.
Personally, I find the recent media wars in the Ontarion to have diluted much of the significance of the Bill and of the issue as a whole. It has been left out for example that in spite of the controversy of this bill spilling over to our campus Patrick Case still argues there is no debate necessary over its content.
The fact that the sub headline of last week's Ontairon article ("Students speak out against the CSA Human Rights Office") adds to the melodramatic appeal of the issue, but leaves out the fact that only 6 students attended the event.
Also the fact that only six students attended an event addressing human rights of everyone who lives in Ontario is disheartening.
Most important though is that in its current legal form the bill still isn't clear about a lot. One major problem is defining how the new Legal Resource Center (which is taking on many of the old responsibilities of the Commission) is going to be funded and staffed (Section 45.6). Another is how the Board of Directors of this Center will be appointed to guarantee independence from the government (Section 45.7). An additional concern is that under this bill the effectiveness of the investigatory power of the Commission and Tribunal depends entirely on whether they interpret their powers broadly and fairly and whether they are provided with sufficient resources (Section 39). This is also true of their role as mediators (Section 41). In short, though the bill in its final and amended form is a positive change, dialogue is never detrimental. It is only when we refuse to talk about that which affects us, that we can easily forget that which is most important.
Lia Tarachansky is the coordinator of the CSA's Human Rights Office.
