The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met at 11:05 a.m. this day, in Room 306, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Dave MacKenzie, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

The Chair called Clause 1.

The witnesses made statements and answered questions.

At 12:01 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:11 p.m., the sitting resumed.

Clause 1 carried.

On Clause 2,

“2. Section 13 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

“(4) No proceedings in relation to a discriminatory practice referred to in this section may be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“2. Section 13 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

“(4) A proceeding in relation to a discriminatory practice referred to in this section may be dismissed, in whole or in part and with or without a hearing, if the Commission determines that the complaint, or one substantially similar to it, is the subject of another proceeding, including a proceeding before a human rights tribunal established under the laws of a province.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Clause 2 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Robert Goguen, Brian Jean, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback, Stephen Woodworth — 6; NAYS: Françoise Boivin, Sean Casey, Raymond Côté, Pierre Jacob, Craig Scott — 5.

Clause 3 carried.

Clause 4 was negatived.

On Clause 5,

“5. (1) Paragraph 54(1)(c) of the Act is repealed.

(2) Subsection 54(1.1) of the Act is repealed.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition and because it was inconsistent with a decision taken by the Committee on a previous clause, as further provided on page 767.

5. Section 54 of the Act is replaced by the following:

54. No order that is made under subsection 53(2) may contain a term

(a) requiring the removal of an individual from a position if that individual accepted employment in that position in good faith; or

(b) requiring the expulsion of an occupant from any premises or accommodation, if that occupant obtained those premises or accommodation in good faith.

Debate arose thereon.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was inconsistent with a decision taken by the Committee on a previous clause, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Whereupon, Robert Goguen appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Sean Casey — 1; NAYS: Françoise Boivin, Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Robert Goguen, Pierre Jacob, Brian Jean, Brent Rathgeber, Craig Scott, Kyle Seeback, Stephen Woodworth — 9.

The question was put on the amendment of Robert Goguen and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 11; NAYS: 0.

Clause 5, as amended, carried.

Clause 6 carried.

Clause 7 carried.

The Title carried.

The Bill , as amended, carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay, Robert Goguen, Brian Jean, Brent Rathgeber, Kyle Seeback, Stephen Woodworth — 6; NAYS: Françoise Boivin, Sean Casey, Raymond Côté, Pierre Jacob, Craig Scott — 5.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill , as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-304, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 12:49 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 12:51 p.m., the sitting resumed in camera.

It was agreed, — That in relation to the study of Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom), the proposed budget in the amount of $5,000, be adopted.

It was agreed, — That the Committee hold three meetings to study Bill 309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity); that two meetings be alloted to hear witnesses and one meeting for the clause-by-clause consideration.

At 12:57 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.