ARCHIVED - Canadian Human Rights Commission

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

The Chief Commissioner’s Message

The repeal of Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) in June 2008 marked a significant milestone in Canadian human rights history. The repeal extends human rights protection to more than 700,000 First Nations peoples living under the Indian Act.

With this victory comes responsibility. We must first increase awareness of the CHRA among First Nations and other Aboriginal people and, in so doing, take the time to listen and learn, and to adapt the human rights system so that it is effective and responsive to the needs of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Recognizing the importance of this first step, we will integrate measures to meet this priority into all aspects of our work well before the repeal is fully implemented in June 2011.

A greater focus on outreach and a modern approach to raising awareness, preventing discrimination and resolving disputes has positioned us well to provide an active and influential role in this transition.

We will raise awareness through ongoing outreach efforts that focus on building relationships and promoting understanding of human rights, thereby reinforcing the Commission’s standing as an authoritative and credible thought leader on issues of the day. Accordingly, it is our intention to further the debate on Section 13 of the CHRA regarding the regulation of hate on the Internet, by presenting a Special Report to Parliament during 2009–2010.

With stakeholder engagement, we will continue to develop modern and effective tools for discrimination prevention, employment equity and dispute resolution to work toward our long-term goal of influencing and encouraging positive and sustainable shifts in the culture of human rights in Canadian society.

Disputes will continue to be resolved in a non-adversarial manner at the earliest stage possible through our fair and transparent alternative dispute resolution process—implemented to protect the public interest through savings in time and money, reduced emotional distress and increased productivity.

Our dedicated and responsive workforce, supported by effective and sensitive leadership, will continue to be the foundation of the Commission’s success.

The Speech from the Throne on November 19, 2008, reminded all Canadians that “Canada is built on a promise of opportunity, the chance to work hard, raise a family and make a better life. Today, it is more important than ever to deliver on this promise and ensure that all Canadians share in the promise of this land, regardless of cultural background, gender, age, disability or official language.”

It is a privilege to lead and represent a team of public servants who demonstrate on a daily basis their professionalism, expertise and unwavering conviction for the work they perform.

 

 

__________________________
Jennifer Lynch, Q.C.
Chief Commissioner

---

Section I – Commission Overview

1.1 Summary Information

Raison d’être

The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s founding legislation inspires a vision for Canada in which “all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have,” free from discrimination.

The Commission leads the administration of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and ensures compliance with the Employment Equity Act (EEA). The CHRA prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. The EEA promotes equality in the workplace of four designated groups: women, Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities.

Both laws apply the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination to federal government departments and agencies, Crown corporations and federally regulated private sector organizations. The provinces and territories have laws similar to the CHRA that address discrimination.

Following many years of debate, the section of the CHRA that denied Aboriginal peoples full access to human rights law was repealed in June 2008. The repeal is a milestone in the development of human rights law in Canada.

Responsibilities

The Commission has a mandate under the CHRA to promote equality of opportunity and to protect individuals from discrimination in employment and in the provision of services. The Commission’s mandate includes receiving and processing complaints, investigating those that are determined to be within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and making a determination as to the outcome: dismissal, conciliation, or a hearing by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Throughout this process, the Commission encourages settlements by providing opportunities for dialogue and mediation.

Under the EEA, the Commission audits federally regulated employers to ensure that they are providing equal opportunities for employment.

A key part of the Commission’s mandate is to engage in promotion and prevention activities that will foster public understanding of the role and activities of the Commission and of its core principle: equality of opportunity.

Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture

 

1.2 Planning Summary

Financial Resources

The financial resources table below provides a summary of the total planned spending for the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the next three fiscal years.

Financial Resources ($ thousands)

2009–10	2010–11	2011–12
$20,651	$20,649	$20,649

Human Resources

The human resources table below provides a summary of the total planned human resources expected to be available to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the next three fiscal years.

Human Resources (Full-Time Equivalents—FTEs)

2009–10	2010–11	2011–12
190	190	190

 

Strategic Outcome: Equality, respect for human rights and protection from discrimination by fostering understanding of, and compliance with, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act by federally regulated employers and service providers, as well as the public whom they serve.
Performance Indicator By 2011, the percentage of public service employees who indicated they were not a victim of discrimination on the job.			Target 84% (1% higher than in 2002 and 2005 Public Service Employee surveys).
Program Activity	Expected Results	Forecast Spending ($ thousands)	Planned Spending ($ thousands)			Alignment to Government of Canada Outcomes
		2008–09	2009–10	2010–11	2011–12
Human Rights Knowledge Development and Dissemination Program	Awareness and understanding of the Acts are increased among federally regulated employers and service providers, as well as the public whom they serve.	3,412	2,725	2,725	2,725	A diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion.
Discrimination Prevention Program	(1) Federally regulated employers and service providers are committed to preventing discrimination and to resolving disputes internally. (2) The employment equity audit model is contributing to audited organizations meeting their employment equity plan goals.	4,138	4,721	4,721	4,721	A diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion.
Human Rights Dispute Resolution Program	(1) Commission involvement in human rights disputes facilitates the resolution of disputes in a non-adversarial manner at the earliest stage possible, ensures that the public interest is addressed and increases understanding of the CHRA. (2) Parties to disputes are satisfied with the dispute resolution process.	8,078	8,126	8,126	8,126	A diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion.
Internal Services	Programs receive timely support from internal services, namely: communications; executive secretariat services; finance; human resources; information management & information technology; legal; and planning, audit and evaluation.	5,683	5,080	5,078	5,078	A diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion.
Total Planned Spending*		21,311	20,651	20,649	20,649

* Details may not add to totals due to rounding.

Contribution of Priorities to Strategic Outcomes

Operational Priority	Type	Links to Strategic Outcome	Description
Increased awareness of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Employment Equity Act (EEA) among Aboriginal peoples	New	Equality, respect for human rights and protection from discrimination by fostering understanding of, and compliance with, the CHRA and the EEA by federally regulated employers and service providers, as well as the public whom they serve.	Since 1977, when the CHRA was passed, First Nations and their members had been prohibited from filing complaints on matters covered by the Indian Act. This barrier was removed with the repeal of Section 67 of the CHRA in 2008. As a result, the Commission has already begun to accept complaints against the federal government on matters related to the Indian Act. The repeal established a three-year transition period before complaints can be received against First Nations governing authorities on matters related to the Indian Act. The Commission has entered into discussions with key national Aboriginal organizations to plan for the full implementation of the repeal. For example, the Commission will need to work closely with Aboriginal organizations to ensure that its dispute resolution system is culturally appropriate. One of the first steps toward building capacity and readiness for the full implementation of the repeal is to raise awareness about the CHRA and the EEA among Aboriginal people. The Commission plans to increase awareness by working toward three outcomes: (1) Increased use of Commission materials developed for First Nations and other Aboriginal audiences. (2) Increased First Nations investment in learning to prevent discrimination. (3) Increased understanding of, and ability to explain, the Commission’s complaint process by staff and leaders of national and regional Aboriginal organizations.
Management Priority	Type	Links to Strategic Outcome	Description
A strengthened management framework	Ongoing	Equality, respect for human rights and protection from discrimination.	Following the 2006 assessment of the Commission against MAF (Management Accountability Framework) criteria, a multi-year action plan was developed. All managers of internal services are involved in this continuing improvement plan in preparation for the next MAF assessment in the fall of 2009. The Commission plans to maintain its value-based leadership, enviable workplace and model workforce, as evidenced by the ratings it achieved in the 2006 MAF assessment.

 

Risk Analysis

1. Risk that the Commission will be unable to fulfill its mandate with current resources. This is a high risk.

Several new, unrelated, demands on the Commission’s resources have emerged concurrently. The Commission is at risk of not being able to fulfill its mandate due to the subsequent strain on its existing resources. The most pertinent factors influencing this change are:

• Evolving society—A progressively more diverse Canadian society (e.g., growing racial and religious diversity, an aging population, changing family structures) contributes to increasingly complex human rights issues.
• Expanded responsibilities—Legislative changes to the CHRA have broadened the Commission’s mandate to include hate on the Internet and to allow First Nations and their members to file complaints on matters covered by the Indian Act. The Commission is also required to monitor a larger client base as the number of federally regulated organizations continues to grow.
• Emerging lines of business—Canada’s acceptance of an expanded leadership role in the international human rights arena has placed additional demands on the Commission’s resources.

The Commission met its obligations for many years by responding to caseloads and reacting to events. The Commission’s capacity to be effective is linked to its capacity to support a human rights culture in Canada. Amongst activities to effect human rights culture shifts, the Commission will process systemic discrimination complaints. While more time consuming at the front end than waiting for individuals in different organizations to come forward with the same kind of complaint, it is more effective in the long term by obtaining far-reaching impacts for a larger group of people.

Likewise, increasing understanding of the Acts, developing or identifying tools and best practices for promoting equal opportunity, and sharing these systematically with federally regulated organizations is more costly in the short term, but will be more efficient in the long term since organizations will be better equipped to prevent discrimination. The Commission is not sufficiently funded for these activities.

To mitigate this risk, the Commission will:

• continue to clearly define its core business;
• build on synergies with government departments and with provincial and territorial human rights agencies and commissions; and
• work to develop a business case to support a request for additional resources.

2. Risk that the demand and heightened expectations associated with the repeal of Section 67 of the CHRA will be greater than the Commission’s mandate and/or access to resources. This is a high risk.

The repeal was truly a milestone in human rights law in Canada. Expectations are high regarding what the Commission can do to improve human rights for First Nations and other Aboriginal people. Even if some of the demands are simply not in the Commission’s mandate to deal with insofar as they deal with matters not linked to a ground of discrimination in the Act (e.g., water quality), there is a risk that a misunderstanding of the Commission’s role and mandate will lead to a loss of confidence.

As the Commission has been restricted in its ability to accept complaints against the federal government and band councils for matters dealing with the application of the Indian Act prior to the repeal, it is difficult to estimate how many new complaints of this nature might be brought forward in the coming years. Likewise, since relatively few complaints have been brought forward by or against Aboriginal people in recent years, the Commission will need to ensure that its dispute resolution model is culturally sensitive. Expectations are high and meeting them will be challenging.

To mitigate this risk, the Commission will:

• work to raise awareness of the CHRA among Aboriginal people so that expectations are better aligned with our ability to act; and
• monitor the effectiveness of these efforts.

3. Risk that the mandate of the Commission is not well understood. This is a medium risk.

If Canadians do not understand what the Commission can—and cannot—do, there is a risk that they will either not seek our services when needed (e.g., when they have been discriminated against) or that they will come to us with unrealistic expectations about our ability to assist them. During the last year the Commission was the subject of high-profile criticism, which may have increased confusion about its role because the commentary was not always accurate in its portrayal of the Commission’s mandate and processes.

There is a growing need to enhance public awareness and understanding about human rights. The quality of the Commission’s reputation is central to its ability to engage Canadians in these debates. At the same time, being a catalyst for discussion opens the Commission to heated criticism, as illustrated by the discussion on Section 13 of the CHRA regarding hate on the Internet.

To mitigate this risk, the Commission will:

• continue to use communication and outreach to raise awareness of its mandate; and
• openly embrace its role as a catalyst and thought leader for discussion on human rights issues. For example, the Commission has initiated a process to better reconcile divergent views surrounding Section 13 of the CHRA, including the commissioning of a comprehensive and thought-provoking expert report to better inform the debate. This expert report will inform the development of a Special Report to Parliament, which the Commission will deliver in the next year under the provision of Section 61(2) of the CHRA.

Expenditure Profile

The figure below illustrates the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s spending trend from 2006–07 to 2011–12.

Commission Spending Trend
($ thousands)

For the 2006–07 and 2008–09 periods, the total spending includes all Parliamentary appropriations: Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and Treasury Board Vote 15 and 30. It also includes carry forward adjustments. For the 2009–2010 to 2011–12 periods, the total spending corresponds to the planned spending. Supplementary funding and carry forward adjustments are unknown at this time and are therefore not reflected.

In 2007–08, the total spending is higher due to the funding received for the development of a new Complaints Management System and Employment Equity Audit Tracking System (this funding sunsetted in March 2008).

Voted and Statutory Items

This table illustrates the way in which Parliament approved CHRC resources, and shows the changes in resources derived from supplementary estimates and other authorities, as well as how funds were spent.

Voted and Statutory Items

($ thousands)     Vote # or Statutory Item (S) Truncated Vote or Statutory Wording Main Estimates 2008–09 Main Estimates 2009–10         10 Program expenditures 18,387 18,478 (S) Contributions to employee benefit plans   2,221   2,173 Total Commission 20,608 20,651

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page