AGHR Speech May24

8/6/2019 AGHR Speech May24

1/8

Ya

m-Y

g

Righ

f ndln

Hu".

JV

-

.

V..

V.

~

;

V

V

VV

..

V

r

m.V

IV_ .V

.

.

.

.. .- VV

.

=

V

V

V.

V

V

V

.

V

_ -

V

..

VV

V

V

;V

Vi:

.

V .

;

:f

V

V

V

_

.

V

-

V

V

-V

V

V

.

V

Ve

V

-VVV

~

V

_

_

VZ

1

V

._

__

V


2/8

Human Rights in Ontario

Overview

l am delighted to join youtoday at the Canadian Club. Delighted to join you

in Ontario, the best place to live in the World. We are very fortunate in

many ways. Ontario is a very special place. We are themost diverse

place to be found anywhere. Peoplefrom all over the World live here.

Every country, every language, every faith and ethnic grouphave joined

our Founding Peoples in Ontario. Over 200 countries,with as many or

more ethnic origins, and over 150 languages. The magicthat is Ontario is

that people from all over the Worldlive, work and play together,

peacefully. This does not happeneverywhere rn the World. You would be

hard pressed to find any other similar place.None is as diverse as we

are. We find strength in our diversity. We celebrate ourdifferences. We

work hard to make our Society inclusive.

What we have in Ontario is not inevitable. lt didnt just happen.lt was not

an accident. We are a place unlike anywhere else. You canfind people

who have left conflict in one part of the World, and yet in Ontario are able

to live, work and play side-by-side with the very relatives of peoplethey

were in conflict with. We are a unique, special combination. Some can

trace their ancestry back centuries. Others, just minutes. Infact, every

year, over 100,000 new people arrive.

You might ask why Ontario has such a successfully diverse society? Youmight ask how? There are undoubtedly many reasons. l suggest

that

Ontari0 s approach to protections for human rights, the rights of those

around us, is one of them.

It would be easy to take where we are for granted. lt would be easyto

believe that things will always be as they are. ln fact, the experience from

elsewhere in the World suggests that we are unique. Every day we are

challenged by something new. We must work hard at addressing the

challenge, or not only will we not improve, but we risk losing ground and

joining so many other places in the World in their struggles.

When such diverse people come together from all over theWorld,

questions will undoubtedly arise. Some will befounded in curiosity, others

will be less benign. Change can sometimes be difficult. lt often requires

effort to leam, understand, and adapt to change. Grievances and

complaints will inevitably arise.

Page 1 of 7


3/8

Whether you address the questions, andhow you do, will often be as

important as the answers. The approach is critical. That we arewilling to

hear people out is an important start. Ourwillingness to ask questions, to

challenge ourselves and to address the questions, sometimesinformally,

sometimes formally, strengthens and helps legitimize theanswers we

reach.

Of course, human rights issues do not only involve thoserecently arrived.

Some of the most important changes involve those who havelong been

here. Society s development, our refusal to accept what has alwaysbeen

simply because it is, has given rise to substantial andsignificant changes.

The rights of women are one example.

Ontario s approach to human rights has developed over the yearsthrough

social, political and judicial engagement andactivism. Part of that

development is a specialized Human Rights Commission and a Tribunal toconsider, examine and hear human rights issues. This year

the

Commission celebrated its 50th anniversary. I would like to recognize its

Chair, Barbara Hall. The issues we face are increasingly complex, and our

approach must keep up with that complexity.

What is most important is that it works. Oh, I agree: there are some

issues that still need to be addressed, or addressed better. Some are

recent, others longstanding. Dont let my comments today suggest

anything but a continued determination to move fonrvard. The constant

desire to do better must be the guiding principle. No, what I am speakingabout today is part of the foundation for Ontario, part of

why it works. Our

collective approach to human rights is part of that foundation.

Many people and many different organizationsrightly see themselves and

their work in the strength and the magic that is Ontario today. They rightly

see their contribution, whether through a singular event or ongoing work,

for the important part it played in who we are. I acknowledge andthank

them all for their work. I want to refer to one.

Hugh Bumett

His name is Hugh Burnett, and all he wanted to do was to get coffee. Hugh

Burnett was a Second World War Veteran. He wanted coffee. He wanted

to be served at a place called Mckays restaurant in Dresden. Dresdenis

the terminus of the Underground Railroad, that great transportation

corridor which in the 1800s saw so many lifted from the bonds of slavery to

freedom.

Page 2 of 7


4/8

The people of Dresden had a reputation forwelcoming people and getting

them started in their new lives. Mr. Burnett went for a cup ofcoffee at

McKay s restaurant, but he was not served You should also know that Mr

Burnett was a carpenter. On his return from the Second World Warhe

established himself as a carpenter. By all accounts his carpentry business

was successful, so Mr. Burnett could pay for his coffee. You should also

know that Mr. Burnett was a resident of Dresden. He lived inthe

community, so they knew him. He was no stranger to the communitywhen

he presented himself in the restaurant and askedfor coffee. Veteran,

tradesman, community resident. None of it mattered. Mr. Burnett wasnot

served. He was not served because he was a black man They drdnot

serve to black people. He didn t think that was right.

Today everyone can look back and say of course its not right. Why would

anyone think that it would be right? Of course, at the time many

restaurants and other establishments refused to serve people because ofthe colour of their skin. It happened throughout Ontario. Colour was not

the only reason people were denied service, or housing, oremployment.

Mr. Burnett started a journey. It was a long and difficult journey.He

organized a referendum in Dresden, but lost. He could not look to the

Courts, because they were not particularly helpful or friendly to the issues

at the time. The law was not supportive, and neither was the government.

So, he started to agitate. His motto was agitate, agitate, agitate . Many

took up the cause. Some whose names you might recognize, like Bora

Laskin and David Lewis, many others who remain anonymous. Some ofthose who joined the struggle did so at great risk to

themselves, their

family or their work. Mr. Bumett had to move to London because residents

in Dresden stopped using his carpentry business.

He won the right to be served in the mid- 50s. We can marvel at the

strength of this man and his determination. We can acknowledge the

simplicity of his request, and stand in awe of what it gave rise to. His

joumey was recognized on July 31,2010 with a Heritage Dedication

ceremony in Dresden. By 1962, Ontario had a Human Rights Code and a

Human Rights Commission.

I am pleased that his daughters, Patricia and Cheryl, havejoinedus today.

The years that followed saw the strengthening ofour human rights

protections. Both the protections themselves, andthe approach to

examine and hear complaints, were added to by successive

govemments. From Premier Frost to McGulnty, through8 Premiers from

Page 3 of 7


5/8

all three political parties, the resolutionto strengthen our human rights

system has continued.

The years have seen the recognition that complaintscan be heard by a

Board of Inquiry, and that the Board is subject to review by theCourts.

This is important, because it means that the checks and balances that

characterize our system of justice also apply tohuman rights cases. The

years have seen the development of aHuman Rights Tribunal dedicated to

hearing human rights cases and, today, that Tribunal allows directaccess

to those with a complaint.

Why a specialized Tribunal? The issues are unique, and ever- changing.

They reflect the increasingly diverse society in which we live. Theissues

need to be addressed. People need the right to have their grievances

heard. The Tribunal is founded on the principles of justice that

characterize our judicial system, but it does not have all of the formality ofa court. In many ways it reflects those who come before it- people who are

not all Iavvyers, who often do not have the money to retain one, many of

whom are not familiar with the specifics of court procedure or the rules of

evidence. Issues need to be heard, and heard as effectively as possible. It

is often when issues are not heard that problems arise.

Where From Here?

It is against 50 years of human rights history in Ontario, 50 yearsof our

Society s approach to protecting and strengthening human rights, that callsfor reform are judged. Not for a moment would I claim the system

cannot

be improved. 50 years of recent history has conhrmed that it canbe. Our

recent changes to the system confirmed that. The question that any

proposed change or reform will face is,is it consistent with the approach to

strengthening human rights that Ontario has taken? ls it consistent with an

approach that has enabled us to build and be part of this uniquely diverse

Province. This is where I have a few comments and observations about

the proposals made by the Leader of theOpposition Mr. Hudak.

Mr. Hudak has spoken of these issues at two different periods oftime.

First, when he was running for Leader of his Party, when he spoke of the

issues many times, and more recently in a speech he delivered in Ottawa.

I will respectfully suggest that his approach has not changed.

Two years ago Mr. Hudak proposed scrapping the"human rights tribunal

and replacing it with a court" . He spoke of the tribunal system being a

Kangaroo Court too often.

Page 4 of 7


6/8

Kangaroo Court. Strong words Words you do not often hear in Ontarioabout our institutions. Words which suggest a complete rejection of theapproach taken in Ontario over the past 50 years to protect human rights

He continued by suggesting that"

politicaI advocacy" was jamming up the

system. Political advocacy. What does he mean? Why does he suggestpolitical

advocacy is jamming up the system? Where is the evidence to

justify the charge? Remember, when Hugh Burnett wanted coffee, it wasnot a popular request in that restaurant in Dresden. By their very nature,human rights issues often involve a degree of advocacy. Just recently theCommission issued its report and recommendations into the allegedharrassment of Asian anglers in the Lake Simcoe region. Was that politicaladvocacy, or was it a report to reduce conflict?

Now I know what you might do. You might point to a case or a series of

cases to justify whatever action you propose to make. Well, havingpracticed law for 25 years, I can assure you that it wouldn t take long to

produce a list of cases anyone doesn t like from any Court, Tribunal, Boardor Commission. That is why there are checks and balances in theseadjudicative systems. I suspect everyone in this room could produce a listof cases or decisions they disagree with, whether for what was decided orhow it was decided. It would be interesting to see if everyone has thesame list.

Sometimes it is easy to look at an issue and make a judgement about it

before the case is heard and the evidence is in. What judgement did thepeople make in 1948, when Mr. Burnett wanted coffee? Today s difficult

case might be tomorrow s obvious answer. We might not know until

tomorrow. We must let tomorrow come.

You dont throw out an approach to human rights protections developedover 50 years by many people from many different backgrounds becauseof a decision or series of decisions. Depending on your point of view, youmight not have much of the judicial system left by the end of the week.

You certainly dont throw the approach out because a case can be heard,

and does come before an adjudicative body. A fundamental principle ofjustice is the right to be heard. Being heard does not mean you will

succeed.

I am concemed. Concerned because what we have in Ontario is special.

Ontarios approach is the result of a lot of work over the years. If it is to be

rejected, then what will replace it?

Page 5 of 7


7/8

Mr. Hudak returned to the theme in a recent speech. He characterized his

approach as fixing the system. That is much less controversial a

statement than eliminating it. Interestingly, however, Mr. Hudak has never

rejected his original position. He has never withdrawn thesuggestion that

the system is a"

kangaroo court" . He has never withdrawn the assertion

that the approach is "poIiticaIIy motivated" . Indeed, he has said that his

approach will achieve what he was talking about during the Leadership

campaign. So the new statement of approach must be seen as a

continuation of the old. Indeed, when confronted that this was a flip flop,

Mr. Hudak specifically rejected that notion. Should we take him at his

word?

One of the fixes he suggests is to give the power to dismiss cases quickly

when they are without merit. That has already been developed by the

Tribunal and became effective July of last year. In addition, the Tribunal

uses a variety of approaches to resolve cases that might be resolvedquickly.

Another statement of his is to clear up the backlog, which he put at 4000

cases. Well, in fact, the Tribunal receives about 3500 applications every

year, and has been clearing about thesame number every year- so it is

broadly current in numbers. In addition, it has cleared up almost all of the

old cases it received from the previous approach, which took too long from

complaint to hearing.

As an aside, there is a lot of work underway at the moment to speed up thecourt system. That work is moving successfully and in the right direction.

However, let me just say that Courts are not generally thought of as"fast" .

The recent reforms we introduced also allowed direct access to the

Tribunal or hearing panel. That means you no longer need permission

before you can get your case before the Tribunal. People have theright to

be heard. lf it is without merit it can be quickly dismissed, but you do have

the right to be heard. Cases are moving a lot faster as a result.

And for those who are not Iavvyers, or are withoutthe funds to hire one, we

established the Legal Support Centre, to make sure there is access to

specialized knowledge for those with human rights questions.

Page 6 of 7


8/8

Conclusion

There are differences between Ontario s approach in protecting human

rights over the past 50 years, and Mr. Hudak s approach. We are

continuing the development and strengthening of a system consistent with

the approach taken over 50 years in Ontario. It is an approach taken

through 8 Premiers, from Frost through McGuinty. It is an approach taken

with a lot of hard work and advice from many people, recognizable and

not, who, together, have built the most diverse and successful community

in the World. It works here.

We will always work hard for improvement. We will never rest on the past,

but always look to build a brighter tomorrow. The approach we have

taken, together, is not easy. It is and can be hard work, requiring much

effort, but the results it has produced are undeniably the envy of the

World.

We are a unique society. People from all over the world live, work and

play together. Peacefully. Ontario has been builtby the hard work and the

determination of many. Ontario s approach to human rights is part of our

foundation. We must continue to strengthen it. We must continue the

work of those who have gone before so we can build and see an even

brighter tomorrow.

Chris Bentley

Page 7 of 7

AGHR Speech May24

Documents

Transcript of AGHR Speech May24