(Ottawa) A federal court is asking senators to disclose emails it considers relevant to determining whether an employee was fired for racial discrimination, in a case that pits allegations of unfairness against the rules governing Parliament.
“The Senate is not just a chamber that passes our laws for the country. I think he also needs to set a standard,” Paul Champ, the former employee’s lawyer, said in an interview.
His client is Darshan Singh, who served for two years as the Senate’s director of human resources and was the first person from a visible minority to join the Senate’s senior management team of civil servants.
The Senate extended his term by a year, but then reshuffled senior management in a way that Mr. Singh said left him open to being sidelined by a supervisor who he said undermined on the basis of racial prejudice.
The Senate fired Mr. Singh in December 2015 without cause, in a letter citing “the breakdown of trust that is essential to the viability of your employment,” and specifically Mr. Singh’s “attitude and behavior.” .Singh towards his supervisor.
Mr. Singh complained in an email to the supervisor, alleging unlawful and discriminatory treatment, an inadequate investigation into the allegations and that he was fired in retaliation for raising allegations of discrimination.
Senator Leo Housakos, a Conservative senator from Quebec who was speaker of the upper house at the time, led an informal investigation involving discussions with Mr. Singh’s supervisor, 12 other senators who had worked with her and various office staffers. human ressources.
Mr. Housakos concluded that Mr. Singh’s allegations of discrimination were unfounded.
Insufficient investigation
The Federal Public Sector Labor Relations and Employment Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal that handles disputes within the federal public service and Parliament, noted that the investigation did not involve speaking with a person of color, including Mr. Singh himself.
However, an arbitrator dismissed Mr. Singh’s case in January 2021, on the grounds that he had failed to establish that the investigation was insufficient.
In June 2022, the Federal Court ordered the commission to re-examine the evidence, saying Mr Housakos’ investigation was insufficient because “the most basic requirements of even an informal investigation had been ignored”, including the obligation to hear Mr. Singh’s point of view.
In the new hearings, Mr. Singh is seeking access to two emails, each sent to Mr. Housakos, on November 30, 2015, by Senator David Wells and George Furey, who was a senator at the time. Mr Housakos has previously told the court both emails were relevant to Mr Singh’s dismissal.
Emails protected by parliamentary privilege?
Senate lawyers say these emails are protected by parliamentary privilege, a constitutional concept that gives Parliament certain rights to maintain its independence from the executive and judicial branches of government.
The committee rejected the claims, saying the Senate failed to explain in detail why the emails would be shielded from a legal process aimed at establishing the truth.
In July, the Senate rejected the order to produce the emails, writing that its Standing Committee on Internal Economy, which oversees the administration of the Upper House, would “refer the matter to the (full) Senate at the start of the fall session of the Senate.
The Labor Relations Board issued another production order on September 28.
Normally, the Federal Court would decide whether an institution should be found in contempt for failing to provide the documents necessary to establish the facts. Still, Mr. Champ says legal conventions would likely not allow such a finding against the Senate because it could undermine parliamentary supremacy and the separation between legislative bodies and the courts.
Instead, the court asked the House and Senate to each decide whether the upper chamber should comply with the commission.
Last week, the commission wrote to all parties involved in the matter, saying it anticipated its request for documents “would be submitted to Parliament” by Tuesday.
It is still unknown whether this means an individual parliamentarian in each chamber will file the request for documents, whether a committee will be asked to study it or whether either chamber will ignore the request.
Mr. Champ says he will seek representations to the House and Senate on why they should seek disclosure of the emails. He believes that this is the first time that this procedure has been applied.
“It is troubling that the Senate is attempting to hide behind procedural rules and parliamentary privilege, to avoid an open and transparent hearing on this matter,” he said.
When you see this important institution not taking complaints of racial discrimination seriously, I think it really undermines respect for our human rights laws in this country.
Paul Champ, the lawyer for the fired employee
The Senate declined to comment on these claims.
“Since this matter is still before the arbitration commission, the Senate will not make any comment,” wrote Senate law clerk Philippe Hallée in a press release.
Mr. Housakos was not immediately available for comment on the situation Monday.
These cases raise principles of parliamentary privilege established in another decades-old case, which involved an allegation of racial discrimination by someone working on Parliament Hill.
Satnam Vaid spent a decade working as a driver for various House speakers, but was fired in 1995. Mr. Vaid accused the House administration of discriminating against him because of his race , color and ethnic origin. The House argued that it was not subject to human rights tribunals because of parliamentary privilege.
The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in 2005 that parliamentary privilege can only apply to matters relating to duties to hold government to account and deliberate on laws, not to its entire operation.
The country’s highest court also ruled that parliamentary staff cannot refer cases to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and must instead bring the matter before a federal board, in accordance with the Labor Relations Act. Parliament. It was under this law that Mr. Singh filed his complaint with the Labor Relations Commission.