Chauffeur for former Speaker of the House claims firing was racially motivated, Federal Court of Appeal rules human rights tribunal can hear the case
A chauffeur who was fired from his job as a driver for a former Speaker of the House of Commons will be allowed to pursue a complaint of race discrimination following a Federal Court of Appeal ruling.
In a unanimous decision, the court rejected the argument put forth by the House of Commons that parliamentary privilege exempts MPs from the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Satnam Vaid was the driver for MP Gilbert Parent. Vaid alleged his firing was racially motivated and that Parent had violated his human rights. The decision by the court means the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can hear a complaint of race discrimination.
Both Parent and the House of Commons objected to the initial ruling by the tribunal that the case was within its jurisdiction on the grounds that parliamentary privilege covered the entire employment relationship. The Federal Court Trial Division rejected that argument earlier this year, and the appeal court’s ruling upholds that decision.
“The court has clearly said that Parliament Hill is not a human-rights free zone, and that members of Parliament are not immune to the legislation they themselves have enacted,” said Gail Lem of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. (CEP).
CEP, the Social Science Employees Association and other unions representing workers on Parliament Hill supported Vaid’s case and argued it should be heard by the tribunal.
“This decision is a clear recognition of the existing rights of our members who work on Parliament Hill, and we hope it will lead to a legislative change that will provide them with the same rights as other workers,” said Lem.
In a unanimous decision, the court rejected the argument put forth by the House of Commons that parliamentary privilege exempts MPs from the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Satnam Vaid was the driver for MP Gilbert Parent. Vaid alleged his firing was racially motivated and that Parent had violated his human rights. The decision by the court means the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can hear a complaint of race discrimination.
Both Parent and the House of Commons objected to the initial ruling by the tribunal that the case was within its jurisdiction on the grounds that parliamentary privilege covered the entire employment relationship. The Federal Court Trial Division rejected that argument earlier this year, and the appeal court’s ruling upholds that decision.
“The court has clearly said that Parliament Hill is not a human-rights free zone, and that members of Parliament are not immune to the legislation they themselves have enacted,” said Gail Lem of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. (CEP).
CEP, the Social Science Employees Association and other unions representing workers on Parliament Hill supported Vaid’s case and argued it should be heard by the tribunal.
“This decision is a clear recognition of the existing rights of our members who work on Parliament Hill, and we hope it will lead to a legislative change that will provide them with the same rights as other workers,” said Lem.
