CONCLUSION

96. For the reasons stated above, the Commission submits that :

a) Parliamentary privilege does not apply to the management of parliamentary employees and in the alternative, this privilege does not apply to functions, such as chauffeur to the Speaker, that are far removed from the legislative functions of the House of Commons.

b) The scope of parliamentary privilege does not extend to protect distinctions based on discriminatory grounds, such as race or gender, as those grounds are unrelated to the needs of a legislative body.

c) The Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act does not oust the applicability of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

PART IV - SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS

97. The Commission does not seek costs against the Appellants. In light of the importance of the issues raised in this appeal, the Commission submits that whatever the outcome of this appeal, the Appellants should bear their own costs.

PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

 98. For the reasons stated above, this Honourable Court ought to dismiss the Appeal.  The constitutional questions should be answered as follows:

Is the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6, constitutionally inapplicable as a consequence of parliamentary privilege to the House of Commons and its Members with respect to parliamentary employment matters?

Answer: No

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

This 16th day of April, 2004.

________________
Philippe Dufresne

________________
R. Daniel Pagowski

Solicitors for the Respondent,
Canadian Human Rights Commission