Legislative Assembly of Ontario

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

IRANIAN COMMUNITY IN ONTARIO

ONTARIO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

MAYOR'S RACE RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF HAMILTON

ONTARIO COUNCIL OF SIKHS

LOCAL ORGANIZING COALITION ON WOMEN'S ISSUES IN TRAINING

GROCERY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS OF CANADA

COMMUNITY AND RACE RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF PETERBOROUGH

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS AND TREASURERS OF ONTARIO

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION

RATNA ARYA
HELENE AND MAIR SARAGA

NICOLE CONSTANT

CONTENTS

Tuesday 24 August 1993

Employment Equity Act, 1993, Bill 79

Iranian Community of Ontario

Bijan Hassanzadeh, spokesperson

Ontario Restaurant Association

Paul Oliver, president

Constance Wrigley, manager, municipal government affairs

Mayor's Race Relations Committee of Hamilton

Marlene Thomas-Osbourne, co-chair

Michael Webber, chair, advisory council

Mark Haas, chair, media subcommittee

Ontario Council of Sikhs

Manohar Singh Bal, secretary

Local Organizing Coalition on Women's Issues in Training

Jo-Ann Shreve, administrative coordinator

Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada

Bill Frakes, chair, human resources council

Murray O'Brien, chair, government relations committee

Helen Wakely, member, government relations committee

Community and Race Relations Committee of Peterborough

Allison D. Ksander, executive coordinator

Tony Njoroge, adviser, anti-racism education and community development

Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario

James McQueen, president

Robert Heil, chairman

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation

Pat Wright, executive officer

Stephanie Burke, executive assistant

Ratna Arya; Helene and Mair Saraga

Nicole Constant

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)

Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)

Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)

Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)

Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)

*Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)

*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)

*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)

*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr Chiarelli

Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Mr Malkowski

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Duignan

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Winninger

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Harnick

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Bromm, Scott, policy adviser, Ministry of Labour

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Bryce, Donna

Staff / Personnel:

Campbell, Elaine, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Kaye, Philip, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1005 in room 151.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Consideration of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.

IRANIAN COMMUNITY IN ONTARIO

The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome the Iranian Community in Ontario delegation and wish to say to you that we have half an hour for your presentation. Delegations tend to leave about 15 minutes at the end, possibly longer, for questions and answers from each caucus. You may want to consider how long you want to do your presentation. Please introduce your colleagues and begin at any time.

Mr Bijan Hassanzadeh: First of all, I'd like to thank the panel for giving us this opportunity. I'd like to introduce Mehrangese Shahmoradi on my left from the Iranian association, Mehdi Dashti and Nazer Nadernejad. Each one of them has been in Canada for a number of years and has experienced a different degree of difficulties that we associate with. We strongly believe that employment equity, if it's made stronger, would tackle a lot of these typical problems.

I'd like to start with my presentation, which is a selected aggregate of more submissions to yourself.

The Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms both require equal treatment without discrimination. They further state that activities undertaken in order to improve the conditions of disadvantaged groups are not a violation of the right to equal treatment. In other words, it is justifiable to use remedial measures to reduce the disadvantages experienced by employment equity designated groups. These two fundamental Canadian laws both recognize the need for employment equity and make provision for it.

The Iranian community, by virtue of its experiences, recognizes the need for strong, mandatory employment equity legislation to be implemented in the province of Ontario without delay. Such legislation would enable individuals to compete on equal terms, and as such would not compromise the merit principle; rather, it would enforce and ensure it.

Our brief is not meant to be a full analysis of the act and regulations, as we do not have the resources to complete such an undertaking. We have concentrated our efforts in translating the details and implications of the act for publication in our daily and weekly community newspapers. In addition, we have plans to continue to raise awareness of the importance of strong employment equity legislation via our community newspapers and radio and television programs across Ontario.

We have also examined the analysis undertaken by the Alliance for Employment Equity and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, OCASI. We have been able to identify with their analysis and recognize the importance of the issues being raised to the effectiveness of employment equity legislation. We support the stance taken by the aforementioned groups and the suggested amendments they have proposed.

We understand the contents of the act and its implications for our community. In this brief -- the submitted brief -- we intend to address some of the areas of specific concern to us in light of the employment experiences of members of our community.

Iranian men and women seeking employment in Ontario find themselves unfairly and adversely affected by employment systems and practices. Like other disadvantaged groups, they face employment barriers which have impeded their ability to maximize their economic contribution to their adopted homeland.

A significant proportion of the Iranian population in Ontario are competent and experienced professionals who have been educated to university level. The lack of recognition by Canadian institutions and employers, both public and private, of their previous work, experience, education and training is consistently identified as posing one of the most significant systemic barriers preventing full participation in the labour market.

They are further frustrated to find that barriers such as discrimination, racism, racial stereotyping, language and lack of recognition of professional credentials earned abroad have severely limited their opportunity to contribute fully to the life of the province. Iranian women are particularly disadvantaged, facing discrimination on both gender and race.

As a result, large numbers of our community have been marginalized in low-paying jobs, are underrepresented in many occupations -- or in areas where they are represented, it is at the lower levels -- endure unnecessary financial difficulties and suffer emotional hardships. In addition, the Ontario economy has failed to benefit from the skills and has suffered the loss of technical expertise, underemployment and inhibited economic productivity and growth.

This type of systemic discrimination goes beyond individual acts of unkindness or prejudice and is built into the organization's way of doing business. It's very difficult for individuals to combat this type of discrimination via the Human Rights Commission of Ontario, because individuals are vulnerable to reprisals and retaliation from employers.

Sadly, we have seen many cases of discriminatory practices which originate within the Ontario public service itself. If the existing role model is failing, then it is clear that left to their own devices, employers will not implement or be accountable to enforce employment equity.

Only strong mandatory employment equity legislation will improve the situation for individuals who by virtue of their belonging to a particular group find themselves unfairly and adversely affected by employment systems and practices. Only strong mandatory employment equity legislation will tackle the problem of systemic discrimination. Only strong mandatory employment equity legislation would end the waste of skills and talents brought to this province by discriminated Iranian men and women. Only strong mandatory employment equity legislation will result in a stronger and more prosperous Ontario for everyone.

With regard to the act, I have the following comments to make: Within the act, there should be clearly stated criteria and implementational measures, especially those fundamental to advancing the principles of employment equity. In particular, we recommend that the definitions of the designated groups, numerical goals and timetables, qualitative measures, reporting mechanisms and compliance measures be included in the act.

Within the act, the issue of subgroups should be dealt with specifically. It should be dealt with through the definitional provision and also as a reporting and monitoring issue.

With regard to the employment systems review, I have the following comments to make: To achieve employment equity, the employment systems review should provide the minimum requirements for identification and elimination of sources of overt and systemic discrimination in employment policies, practices and procedures.

It is also necessary to replace the identified discriminatory barriers with positive and supportive measures, procedures and practices, and to develop an action plan with a strategy for organizational change which reflects the needs of existing and prospective employees.

With regard to the employment equity plan, I would like to make the following comments: The existing federal employment equity legislation has been in place for some years, with little or no progress towards achieving employment equity within federally regulated workplaces.

Bill 79 and its accompanying regulations allow employers to set their own goals, pick their own population data and define their own timetable to implement the employment equity plan. We will show that this legislation with its voluntary employment equity plan will not significantly alter the employment situation for the discriminated designated groups.

We believe it will take more than the goodwill of employers to fight barriers such as prejudice, racism and racial stereotyping, and to eliminate systemic discrimination. We believe only strong mandatory employment equity legislation which incorporates specific measurable goals, timetables and methods for removal of identified barriers will effect the required change in the status quo. This would enable an evaluation of employment equity plans to determine and adjust the levels of representation and utilization of designated groups within the workplace.

With regard to the enforcement and monitoring, I would like to make the following comments: Laws create rights, but rights are worthless without ways to ensure that those rights are upheld. To have strong mandatory employment equity legislation, the proposed act must provide for strong enforcement measures and clear and broad power of the Employment Equity Commission to monitor employers' progress. The act and regulations as they currently stand fail to set up the requisite mandatory framework for enforcement and monitoring.

Specifically, the regulations do not require employers to file any reports whatsoever with the commission. In the absence of any reporting requirement, it will be impossible for the commission to monitor the progress of an employer or to enforce compliance. Many members of the designated groups are employed in low-paying, non-unionized workplaces.

The fear of dismissal, minimal understanding and knowledge of their rights as they relate to employment equity and the lack of resources will cause overwhelming barriers to effective participation in the development, implementation and monitoring of workplace employment equity plans.

In conclusion, the Iranian community strongly supports mandatory employment equity legislation and applauds and supports the government of Ontario's political commitment to this principle. The implementation of employment equity would end the waste of resources, skills, talents and technical expertise of members of designated groups. Such legislation would enable individuals to compete on equal terms and as such would not compromise the merit principle; rather, it would enforce and ensure it.

We urge the committee to give careful consideration to the points raised in our submitted brief and to effect the changes required to ensure that this act will succeed in its goal to effectively eliminate both systemic and intentional discrimination, and ameliorate conditions of employment for aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women in all workplaces across Ontario.

The Chair: We'll begin with the government members, Mr Winninger. There are four minutes and a few speakers on the government side.

1020

Mr David Winninger (London South): Thank you for your excellent presentation. I'm just going to deal with one specific issue that you raised, and that's the issue of subgroups being dealt with specifically.

I think you accept the fact that the mechanism called for in this act is one of self-identification. Self-identification allows a certain flexibility in what we define as a racial minority. If we were to itemize or list all of the different subgroups, are we not running a danger that we might be excluding people who are of racial minorities that may not be part of that list, or how do you see this working?

Mr Hassanzadeh: I can see not attacking that problem and what sort of problems it can pose through the experience that we've had. We have cases that are being currently investigated where the employer is putting forward an argument, "To look at my workforce, you see another 20 people within this section, 15 of them are racial minorities," and this particular person who doesn't belong to that group -- incidentally, 15 of them are from that one particular subgroup -- is being discriminated.

The argument is very simple. The fact that you uphold employment equity principles does not guarantee you will not discriminate against other racial minorities. If it is not addressed, the result of it is what we are experiencing, that certain racial minorities are not recognized to suffer discrimination and are underrepresented in the workforce.

Mr Winninger: I think I agree with what you say, but how would we as a government go about collecting data on subgroups? Do you have any recommendations there?

Mr Hassanzadeh: I do believe that, through my own experience, most of the racial minorities are well aware of their situation within the community and have formed advocacy groups. I believe having a communication link with them is a starting point and I think it would very much enhance the understanding of discrimination and barriers these advocacy groups can put forward. That's my suggestion: connections with the community, connections with advocacy groups that represent them.

Mr Winninger: I see. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr Mills, one question.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen -- lady and gentlemen -- for the presentation and being here today. I found your concerns very far-reaching.

I know that the government is committed to fair and equitable legislation and I'm just wondering, what to you is the most important part of the legislation in so far as equity is concerned? What do you think that legislation has to contain most importantly to your association?

Mr Hassanzadeh: If you mean what sort of effects it's going to have within our community, I have --

Mr Mills: The strength of the legislation: What do you see?

Mr Hassanzadeh: The strength of legislation, as I was stating, should be really very simply -- our belief is that numerical goals are very important.

Mr Mills: Numerical goals?

Mr Hassanzadeh: Are very important. Our belief is that a thorough understanding of barriers faced by designated groups are very important. Our belief is that monitoring implementation of employment equity is very important.

We are currently facing some cases within the Ontario public service where voluntary employment equity procedures are being implemented but it's not being enforced properly, and we are finding an upheaval fight in order to make them understand what the real problem is. It's left to the individual managers to take proper steps to reduce the stress that these guys are going through by being subjected to discrimination.

So I believe numerical goals, properly resolved, and in fact every aspect of employment equity are important. I cannot emphasize one against the other. I believe it can't be one against the other.

Mr Mills: They're all important to you. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr Curling and then Mr Callahan.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to comment quickly on Mr Winninger's question to you, just that you give it some thought. I would maybe recommend to all the groups who come in and suggest about subgroups just to think about it a bit, about how many subgroups there are within Ontario and how one could deal with that. It is a very important question to this committee.

But I'd like you just to comment a bit and help this committee and help me to define what is called mandatory employment equity.

Mr Hassanzadeh: You want me to define it for you?

Mr Curling: Yes. To you, when you speak of mandatory employment equity.

Mr Hassanzadeh: As I just explained a few minutes ago, we are not emphasizing this mandatory employment equity just for mere saying it. We're saying it through the experiences we are having within the community. There's already federal employment equity legislation -- it's one in three -- and it's not working. Another example of it is that under this government, which is more committed to employment equity than any other government, you have one-in-three employment equity being exercised in OPS, but we are still experiencing discrimination. These are real cases and they're being investigated, and they're not being investigated because of settling claims but because the existence is recognized.

I think mandatory implementation of employment equity can be achieved in many ways, and I think advocacy groups like Alliance and OCASI have put an excellent list of measures that we can make it mandatory, if that's what your query is.

Mr Curling: I don't feel that this government is committed more than any government to employment equity. I think all parties are committed to fairness in the workplace and I think they would like to see the potential of all being utilized. It's just the way one goes about it. I think that's what you're talking about. Some people feel they have a hold on all the good things of life and nobody else has. I think the Conservatives and the Liberals are just as committed as the NDP to this.

Mr Mills: So why didn't you do it when you were minister?

Mr Curling: And then you will get this, "Why didn't you do it?" As a matter of fact, it brings me to this point: There are certain things that must be done in order to bring about fairness in the workplace. Studies have been done, like Access to Professions and Trades, a study that has been done, and been praised by the present government too that it was needed, and when the time came it has not been implemented. Some wonderful recommendations are in there which would utilize some of the professional skills that you talk about in here.

Do you feel that that task force and recommendation should be implemented, because the fact is it would have released up quite a few of those professionals into the workplace, where the employer can say, "This qualification, this certification, is recognized not only by the government but by the professional organization; this recommendation has been done." Do you feel that this should be implemented immediately in order to get employment equity on the road?

Mr Hassanzadeh: You've made a long speech and I found some of the things that you're saying are very important that I'd like to address. There is very little time, but I think my stance is quite clear. We are not saying that the NDP only should implement employment equity, or Conservatives only should implement employment equity, or Liberals. If you're committed, if the Liberal Party is committed, if the Conservative Party is committed, all the better. What we are saying is the need for that mandatory employment equity. If it is recognized by all parties, let's put hands together and help each other. Let it pass through and let it make it stronger than it is. Why then put forward barriers in order to make it weaker?

If you have other suggestions that can be implemented in order to make employment equity legislation stronger, by all means. You have the support of all designated groups that have been suffering for years because of the lack of this mandatory employment equity. We support Liberal government, we support Conservative government, we support NDP, as long as they go along that path. Let not the majority of the people -- workforce -- suffer any more, because it's not a myth. It's not something out of the imagination of certain politicians. It's tangible and it's real, and if in this global economy we really want to be competitive, we have to use the best resources available within our population. I believe it takes some time for politicians to recognize how things have been done wrong, and I believe if mandatory employment equity is implemented, the result of it would be excellent. It would be so good for the economy, for the employers, for these private sectors that keep shouting merit principles are being compromised. They'll see otherwise.

1030

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate your sincerity as you put forward your argument.

We've been hearing from individuals who appear before the committee that they don't want special favours, what they're looking for is fairness and equity in the hiring and the promotion process. Would you agree?

Mr Hassanzadeh: I agree with that, and I think it's not just sufficient, the ones that you have listed. The problems are a lot more than what you have just mentioned. Barriers are extensive and the consequences of them are tremendous. I believe my submission elaborates on that further.

Mrs Witmer: Yes, you've done an excellent job in elaborating the barriers your particular community faces and I appreciate that.

Mr Hassanzadeh: Right. I don't believe it's just specific to our community.

Mrs Witmer: That's right.

Mr Hassanzadeh: What we've said in our brief is real experiences. This is exactly what we have experienced, and I believe it's not specific to our community. I strongly believe it's common to the designated group.

Mrs Witmer: I would have to concur with my colleague from the Liberal Party. I do believe very strongly that all three parties are very, very committed to equal employment opportunities. However, I think we have to remain cognizant of the fact that we can't suppress somebody else's opportunity in the interest of, you know, giving somebody else special privilege, because then we're introducing a new set of inequalities and discrimination. So it's a very, very fine balance. I'm not sure that this legislation is really going to achieve equal employment opportunities for everyone in the province and I do have that concern.

Mr Hassanzadeh: I see, really, contradiction in what you've said in saying that you have to follow what your colleague said. I saw more commitment from your colleague with regard to the importance of employment equity.

I made it quite clear that employment equity is not an issue of discrimination.

Mrs Witmer: No.

Mr Hassanzadeh: It's not an issue of compromising merit. On the contrary, you're ensuring merit principles are observed that so far have been ignored. I believe the merit principles of designated groups for some time, for years, under the current federal government employment equity legislation had been ignored.

We're not just saying that. We can put cases before you that merit principles have been compromised. So I cannot agree with you that this employment equity is compromising merit principles, and as I said, existing --

Mrs Witmer: I didn't say anything about merit principles.

Mr Hassanzadeh: Right. You're saying that merits of one group against the other.

Mrs Witmer: No, I'm just saying we have to be very careful there's a balance here and we need to make absolutely certain that we don't suppress someone else's opportunity. It's a very delicate and sensitive issue, and I guess what I want to make sure is that at the end of the day everyone in this province is feeling very positive.

Mr Hassanzadeh: Oh, yes. That's why the emphasis is on the education of employment equity.

Mrs Witmer: Yes, and I would never suggest -- but I'm glad to hear you say that the merit principle is extremely important because I would agree with you, and I know that people have been denied opportunities when they've certainly been very capable of assuming the responsibility. So I'm just saying it's a very delicate, sensitive issue and we have to tread very carefully.

The Chair: Ms Witmer, before you respond, Mr Tilson would like to ask a short question.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Yes, a very brief question. You've spent some time on visible minorities and subgroups, and issues have been raised within this committee and outside this committee as to what a visible minority is. There are some Iranians who do not believe that they are a visible minority. There are some people of Greek ancestry, Italian ancestry and Israeli ancestry who up until now did not believe that they were a visible minority; now it's been predicted they will. Do you have any comment on that?

Mr Hassanzadeh: Yes, I do. I disagree with you. I think what we are really escaping from is the principle of employment equity. What it is: You create designated groups when you impose discrimination. You create visible minorities when you do not make them included in the workplace.

Mr Tilson: But is someone a visible minority because of their nationality or because of the colour of their skin?

Mr Hassanzadeh: No, there are different criteria. If you want to say that somebody is not going to be discriminated against because their skin is lighter than another, I cannot agree with you. The visible minority definition needs to be addressed a lot more accurately than the way it is. We're not just talking about shades. We recognize very much the shade is very important as well.

Iran itself, the climate of it is such that at one place you have minus 40 degrees centigrade and at the same time you have plus 40 degrees centigrade. So you have a wide spectrum of light-coloured skin and dark-coloured skin. If you have spoken to the people in the north, they are white and they don't feel they're a visible minority. Just on that basis, that their skin is lighter, they're not a visible minority. But if you ask them, "Have you been discriminated against?" they will say, "Oh, yes, I am part of the designated groups."

Mr Tilson: But they're not --

The Chair: Mr Tilson, I'm sorry, we've run out of time. Mr Hassanzadeh and other members of the delegation, I want to thank you for a very informative presentation that you made to us today.

Mr Hassanzadeh: I'd like to thank the members of the panel for giving us this opportunity.

ONTARIO RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Next is the Ontario Restaurant Association. I want to welcome you both. You have seen the previous delegation in terms of structure: half an hour, leave plenty of time for questions and answers, because I think we get the best dialogue out of that. Please begin any time.

Mr Paul Oliver: Thank you. The Ontario Restaurant Association welcomes the opportunity to discuss with the standing committee how Bill 79, an act to provide for employment equity, will impact our industry. As well, we would like to outline a number of recommended changes which we believe will improve the implementation of this legislation within the small business community and in particular the foodservice and hospitality industry.

I am Paul Oliver, president of the Ontario Restaurant Association. With me today is Constance Wrigley, our manager of government affairs for the association.

The ORA is a non-profit industry association which represents the restaurant and foodservice industry in Ontario. The association was founded in 1931 and currently represents approximately 4,500 members, representing 7,000 foodservice establishments. We represent both licensed and non-licensed restaurants, contract caterers, accommodation establishments, quick-service restaurants and many other foodservice establishments as well as educators within our industry.

The ORA and the foodservice industry have had a long-standing interest in the development of human rights and employment equity policy in Ontario. The foodservice industry has historically taken a leadership role in providing employment opportunities to unskilled and low-skilled workers and those individuals having difficulty entering or re-entering the workforce. The foodservice industry is one of the largest employers in the province of Ontario and is one of the largest employers of designated groups, especially women and visible minorities.

The restaurant and foodservice industry plays a very unique role as an employment training ground for the broader workforce. Approximately 30% of all members of Ontario's workforce today have had work experience in the restaurant and hospitality industry and in doing so have received important and valuable skills training. Very often members of the designated groups use the foodservice industry as an important entry point into the broader workforce. We believe it is important that the burden of government legislation does not become so great that employers are forced to reduce employment and job opportunities in Ontario.

1040

In addition to being a major employer of designated groups, many owner-operators within the hospitality industry are themselves members of these groups. The foodservice and hospitality industry has one of the highest levels of ownership and management responsibilities for women and visible minorities of any sector in Ontario. Because of the traditional ease in which individuals can open a foodservice establishment, as well as the supportive role played by franchising, many members of designated groups utilize the foodservice industry as their gateway to self-employment and business ownership which is denied in many other sectors of the economy.

As well, many members of designated groups look to the foodservice industry ownership as an opportunity to integrate family and work responsibilities and to employ family members. This is an important component of the foodservice industry management. However, it could be threatened under this proposed legislation.

We are proud of the positive employment and hiring practices that have been accomplished thus far in the foodservice industry. However, we share the recognition that there must be more done in Ontario's broader workforce. In particular, in areas where systemic barriers prohibit employment for some members of our society, we believe that it is important that everyone be made aware of the barriers, both intentional and unintentional, which may disadvantage some groups within our society. We are concerned, however, that Bill 79 may not effectively address these problems and may have an unintended impact within small workplaces.

The ORA, while supportive of the objectives and principles of Bill 79, has a number of substantive concerns regarding the implementation of this legislation. In particular, we are concerned about the potential administrative cost placed on small and mid-sized employers, the potential for substantial confusion created by the implementation of this legislation and the limitations it may place on an employer's ability to hire the most qualified prospective employee based on merit.

The ORA believes that a number of these administrative problems need to be addressed prior to the passage of Bill 79. The ORA is committed to working with the government of Ontario to address these administrative issues and implement a positive, responsible and respected employment equity program.

Ms Constance Wrigley: Thank you. Good morning.

Members of the restaurant industry are concerned that the employment equity plan outlined in Bill 79 has a number of implementation problems relative to the foodservice industry. Many of these problems are related to the industry's unique characteristics such as high turnover rates, seasonal workforce adjustments, a high level of part-time workers and its geographical diversity.

These characteristics create a number of unique issues for foodservices operators such as the definition of "employer" versus "workplace"; the reliability and relevance of the workplace audits in workplaces with less than 50 employees; the legislation's treatment of mobile and seasonal workers; the failure to distinguish between full- and part-time employees; the implications of self-identification by employees; and the lack of clarity regarding hiring on the basis of merit.

The Ontario Restaurant Association believes that small business operators should be exempted from the cost and administrative burden created by implementing a formal employment equity plan. We believe that small business employers should be encouraged to adopt employment equity hiring practices, but not be legislated to implement a formal program. The ORA supports the decision by the government of Ontario to exempt employers with less than 50 employees from this legislation.

We are concerned, however, that this threshold does not adequately accommodate seasonal adjustments and the high degree of part-time employment. As well, this employee-based ratio is not compatible with the geographical diversity of the foodservice industry. We believe the threshold should be redefined as either 50 equivalent full-time employees or 100 full- and part-time employees.

The ORA is concerned about the potential confusion created by a terminology ambiguity contained in Bill 79. Currently, Bill 79 uses the definition of "employer" for the determination of employment equity. Since "employer" is a vague and confusing definition, it will create a number of unique problems within the foodservice industry.

In the foodservice industry there is a wide variety of ownership structures which do not clearly overlay the definition "employer." In the foodservice industry ownership comes in many forms including limited corporations, partnerships, franchisers, franchisees, temporary trust ownerships, umbrella corporations, joint family ownership and various other combinations of ownership structures.

This legislation fails to address or clarify how these various ownership structures, which are predominately representing the small business community, will be administered. To solve this serious problem, the ORA recommends that the legislation be amended so that "employer" is replaced with the term "workplace." By using "workplace," a clearer and more recognizable entity will be used for the application of the legislation.

Many multi-unit foodservice operations are comprised of individual operations of less than 50 employees but collectively are a larger employer. For example, how is a part owner of several individual and geographically distinct restaurant partnerships to be defined for the purposes of employer? Will this individual or corporation be considered the dominant or secondary owner if they are involved in several locations as a significant non-participating owner? Or how is a franchiser holding several locations in temporary trusteeship to be treated under Bill 79?

The use of "workplace" as a legislation definition would better and more clearly define the parameters for employment equity and will reduce the potential for confusion. Much of this confusion will be created by the geographical and ownership diversity that is characteristic of the foodservice industry.

As an example, if an owner had six or seven small coffee shops throughout Ontario, it is likely that he or she may employ over 100 full- and part-time employees, but at each location less than 20 employees and fewer than five full-time equivalent employees. Yet under this legislation, since each store is individually managed, the owner would be required to undertake seven workplace audits, undertake consultation with the employees in each workplace and develop seven different employment equity plans which would be reflective of each of the geographical regions in which each one of the stores is located.

Unlike most other economic sectors, the foodservice industry is very geographically diverse. Many operators have various autonomous restaurant locations spread throughout Ontario. These locations are often individually and locally managed and have different hiring practices and a different workforce composition which is reflective of the local community. Attempts to impose a province-wide, multiple workplace employment equity plan on a wide and diverse collection of autonomous foodservice locations would be impossible.

The current wording and interpretation of the act and regulations will create a situation where the administrative and financial burden of this legislation will be placed on small workplaces far smaller than 50 employees. Within our industry, it is conceivable that workplace audits will be required in workplaces with as few as five or 10 employees. The validity and reliability of this undertaking would be marginal at best.

The administrative and financial burden placed on this type of small operator to comply with this legislation is astronomical. Because of the problems created by the geographical diversity of operators in the foodservice industry, we encourage the committee to amend the legislation so that "workplace" rather than "employer" is used to determine the application of this legislation.

As well, the geographical diversity of foodservice operators creates problems for resolving potential employment equity complaints. Bill 79 suggests that employment by an employer must represent the local community. A restaurant chain of 25 locations, each with less than 50 employees, would find it impossible to do one collective employment equity plan for all of their individual establishments, especially if they were located in several very ethnically diverse communities. The plan in each of these locations would need to be done individually as per local census data; otherwise, employment hiring would not be reflective of the local community and hence would place the employer technically in non-compliance with the legislation. The cost, however, of doing individual plans would be prohibitive.

To avoid these difficulties, the ORA suggests that employment equity plans be required on an individual store or workplace level. This also could be addressed by redefining "employer" as "workplace," as previously mentioned. Employers who have central administrative or centralized employment hiring, however, should not be excluded from doing a multiple workplace plan provided it is viable and reliable.

1050

In the restaurant industry, due to daily and seasonal fluctuations in sales volumes, it is very common for an employer to have many seasonal or part-time workers, which would artificially make the workplace appear larger than it actually is. If only raw employee numbers were used to measure the size of a workplace for the purpose of compliance, as is currently proposed in Bill 79, restaurant operators will be systematically disadvantaged. To eliminate this potential unfairness, the Ontario Restaurant Association recommends using only full-time employees to determine if an employer should be classified as a small business. This calculation should also be used to determine employment levels for seasonal workplaces or workplaces with significant seasonal adjustments. We would hate to see a situation arise in which employers are encouraged or forced to eliminate jobs for students as a result of Bill 79.

In foodservice operations, there is a very high level of employee turnover, which is a result of easy entry and exit from the industry, part-time workers, part-time second income and seasonal adjustments. This high attrition rate casts serious doubt on the reliability and credibility of the workplace statistical audit required under Bill 79. It's highly probable that staff turnover can reach 40% or even 50% within the six-month period after the audit is completed and the reliability of the audit becomes void. Special consideration needs to be given to high turnover and seasonal workplaces.

The ORA is concerned about regulations contained in Bill 79 which require an employer to accept the self-identification provided by individual employees. While this is a positive initiative, it will create major implementation and compliance problems for employers. For example, if an employee who is a member of one of the designated groups chooses to not identify himself or herself as being a member of that designated group, the employer is placed in a difficult situation for compliance purposes, because even if they have undertaken positive hiring this will not, statistically, be reflected in the workplace audit. If employees refuse to identify their ethnic heritage and instead classify themselves as Canadian, for instance, which is common in census identifications, this legislation does not provide for this potential problem.

These difficulties associated with self-definition will also be prevalent in the area of categorizing disabled workers who, because of their outlook or as a result of existing workplace modifications, do not see themselves as disabled. Under the employee self-identification concept, employers who have already undertaken costly modifications to accommodate employees with disabilities will not be given credit for this self-initiated positive step. Provisions must be included in the regulations which would allow for double classification: one classification by the employee and another by the employer.

The last major concern of the Ontario Restaurant Association revolves around Bill 79's failure to clearly state that this legislation will not overrule merit-based hiring. Government officials have indicated that this legislation will not override or pre-empt the hiring or promotion of the most qualified candidate. Unfortunately, Bill 79, as written, does not reflect this concept.

We believe that the legislation must be amended to clearly state that the hiring and promotion of employees will continue to be based on merit. Without this provision, we fear that the government and the groups it is designed to assist will face a severe public backlash.

We understand that the government of Ontario has decided to move forward with Bill 79, but because of the potential for significant implementation problems in the foodservice industry, the Ontario Restaurant Association strongly encourages the standing committee on administration of justice to take adequate time to address potential implementation problems before passing this legislation. In particular, we encourage the committee to amend the legislation to replace the term "employer" with the term "workplace." We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you today and we welcome any questions you might have.

The Chair: Thank you very much. There are only three minutes left per caucus, which means one or two questions maximum per each. Mr Callahan to begin.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'm interested at page 4, where you have stated that visible minorities actually earn about 25% more on an hourly basis than non-minority workers in the restaurant sector. Why is that? Are you saying there that the visible minorities are full-time as opposed to non-visible being part-time?

Mr Oliver: Generally, what we find in the industry -- and that came from an employment study that we had done, performed by an outside consulting firm -- is because they're in the industry longer and they're able to move up to more senior positions. Also, they're not as represented in the part-time employment; they're more represented in the full-time employment.

Mr Callahan: I know this would probably be self-serving if you were to answer this question, but does this mean that within the hospitality industry, in any event, quite apart from any of the others, that visible minorities actually do not face barriers keeping them from moving up the ladder?

Mr Oliver: The statistics we've compiled would suggest that, yes.

Mr Callahan: Just finally, if I could, with the question of disabled people, you've raised what to me is a serious concern: that I don't think that people who have, say, a learning disability or perhaps a mild psychiatric problem are about to list that on their application for employment. Would you think that's a reasonable statement?

Mr Oliver: In that category, yes, but also -- my father is disabled, but he certainly doesn't look at himself as disabled. He walks with a cane, but he can get around; complete mobility. His workplace has modified the workplace so that he can do the job as well as anyone else. If you were to ask him whether he was disabled or not, he would certainly say no because he has no impediments in the workplace.

Mr Callahan: So this legislation wouldn't do anything for him?

Mr Oliver: If the employer came to him and said, "Are you disabled?," his answer would be no because he can do the job as well as anyone else, even though the employer's gone to great expense in modifying the workplace and modifying the job so that he can perform at 100% capacity.

Mr Tilson: Your comments are excellent, and I hope the government looks at some of your thoughts for potential amendments. I know our party certainly will.

I have one question for you. You have pointed out the uniqueness of the restaurant business or the entertainment business, specifically when you look at Chinese restaurants, Italian restaurants and so on, where part of the presentation is that culture. To enforce employment equity on some of those restaurants will be difficult for them.

I have one question for you, and that is specifically with how this will affect business, because some of the business groups have said that this legislation will indeed affect business. Your organization has come to us before, with the former Bill 40 legislation and similar pieces of legislation, and has been concerned about some of the tax legislation. Your presentation didn't deal directly with that. Could you comment?

Mr Oliver: Our presentation touched on it by addressing both the cost and the administrative burden, and that's of great concern to our members. It's actually becoming the top issue that members are identifying to us. They're spending more than 50% of their time now filling out government forms. They don't get into the hospitality industry or they don't open small business to become a servant to the government.

A lot of time it's getting to the point that we're either having people leave the industry because of it or just wholesale non-compliance with government legislation and they're waiting for the regulators to come and knock on their door. We've seen this with other legislation. They just can't keep up with the burden of paper and paperwork that they're expected to.

To tell an operator who's working 70 hours a week to keep the family business open that they've got to fill out this form and that form and a dozen other forms -- it's filed away and it's never even looked at. We're seeing that now in the small business community, but it's growing even to the mid-sized establishments now.

Mr Tilson: This legislation will be a great boon with respect to the consultants, because most firms do not have human relations staff to fill out all these funny forms and now they're going to have to hire consultants.

Mr Oliver: In our industry, they won't hire consultants. They just won't do it.

Mr Tilson: What will they do?

Mr Oliver: They can't afford to go out and hire a consultant. The average restaurant in Ontario does less than $500,000 in sales. We're talking a 2% or 3% profit margin today on those sales. That's barely enough money to support one individual, let alone hiring a contingent of consultants.

The Chair: Mr Tilson, sorry, no more time. Mr Fletcher, there are two other speakers in the event that you want to leave time for questions.

1100

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Then I guess I'd better start.

Thank you for your presentation. I understand the restaurant association's concerns about the administrative costs. I also recognize the fact that you probably hire more designated groups than most other organizations, and also a highly educated number, from what I understand from different groups which have come in to present. You are not at fault in any way, shape or form for where we are, and it's unfortunate that we have to introduce legislation to promote and ensure employment equity. As I said, it is not your fault; it's just been happening over the years.

When I look at the administrative costs, that I agree with. But if, as you suggest, we did break up the individual workplaces, can you see that also adding to the administrative costs of each location, if we break it up and each location is doing its own plan?

Mr Oliver: They will have to do their own plan now because most of them have autonomous hiring practices. For example, it's very common in our industry for a husband and wife who own a restaurant to own 75% of their son's restaurant and their daughter's restaurant, so the family will collectively own five or six, but they're run completely differently. An operator would hire in Ottawa very differently than they would in Kingston. They're going to have to have a different plan and the administrative cost of doing that is just astronomical. Or, with the example of the coffee shop with 10 employees per location, having six or seven coffee shops they're going to have to do six or seven plans.

The statistical validity, though, of doing a plan where you have the equivalent of five or six full-time employees and maybe 15 total employees -- I don't know. Once you audit your workplace and you find out that you are weak in one area, how do you solve that? Do you then get one person for this group, one for another? You're at such a small level. I don't think the government's intention ever was to be doing the small coffee shop with 15 employees, but the way it's written now, that's what will happen.

The Chair: Ms Akande, one last question.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I think the government's intention, actually, to follow along with what you were saying, is to affect employment in the province in every area in such a way that the employees would reflect the population that's there. When you talk about having many branches, many small coffee shops that are actually owned by one owner, who would ultimately make the decisions and the profit?

Mr Oliver: I would have to disagree about the owner making the decisions. As I said, it's very common for a family to start setting it up for relatives or their children, but it's also very common for an owner who has a successful restaurant and has a manager or an assistant manager who wants to go out on his own to buy in and put the money up for that person to get into the business. They may be a silent owner with 60% or 70%, but on the day to day they have zero management control over the establishment.

Ms Akande: But they are part owner and therefore would receive some of the profits.

Mr Oliver: Yes, but they wouldn't have any management control over the establishment; they would be a silent partner with in excess of 50%. They may have three or four establishments where they're the silent partner, owning more than 50% in three or four restaurants, but they have no control over them. This legislation doesn't deal with how a partnership structured that way would be accommodated.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Oliver, Ms Wrigley, for the submission you made here today.

MAYOR'S RACE RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF HAMILTON

The Chair: The next submission is by the Mayor's Race Relations Committee of Hamilton. I want to welcome all three of you. Please leave plenty of time for questions and answers, if you can. Marlene Thomas-Osbourne, please introduce your colleagues.

Ms Marlene Thomas-Osbourne: This is Mark Haas, the chairperson of the mayor's race relations media subcommittee, and Mike Webber, the chairperson of the advisory council, also of the mayor's race relations committee, and I'm Marlene Thomas-Osbourne, the co-chair. We're all from Hamilton.

Our brief is going to be short as we were only given 30 minutes instead of 15 minutes, so we've made it as short as possible.

On behalf of the Mayor's Race Relations Committee of Hamilton, the committee and the advisory council endorse the employment equity bill as it is heading in the right direction where all Ontarians and indeed all Canadians will benefit from the implementation. But in order for this to happen, though, there should be more accountability and, as you said, more teeth to the bill. It should not be left to the employers to decide when they should implement this bill but how, which would be the most effective way.

Some of the recommendations we have made, and we're going to be specifying mostly on implementation, enforcement and training:

Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure the implementation of the bill not on a volunteer basis by employer but by regulations set by the government.

Enforcement should also be regulated in the same manner as the implementation.

Training is crucial if Bill 79 is to be successful, and that's training for the employers. Employers should be trained in the most effective way to introduce Bill 79 to their individual place of employment.

It is also crucial that the employment equity plan, in accordance with the regulations, provide for the implementation of positive measures with respect to the recruitment, retention, promotion and training of members of the designated groups.

Movement should be recognized in the form of promotions, and we stress placements not only at the entry level but also at the senior levels.

Auditing of employers should be clearly stated.

We have in here monitoring, and monitoring we think should be done at least every six months to see that the bill is being implemented in the proper manner.

Bill 79 does not go far enough as it does not include employers with less than 50 people. All employers should implement some form of the bill in their workplace.

A small employer we believe should be identified as a company with a minimum of at least two people as it is agreed that they do have fewer requirements to meet in developing employment equity plans anyway.

For the bill to be implemented successfully and to ensure all employers are following the plan, a basic guide should be set by the government for all employers, where each employer will be allowed to modify the plan based on the number of employees.

Employers who complain of reverse discrimination should be educated in the hiring practices that have been used for centuries called "nepotism" and the fair and equitable form of hiring known as "employment equity"; ie, based on ability, not on colour, creed, sexual orientation or disabilities.

There cannot be a more suitable time to introduce this bill as employers, because of the recession, have more time to spare and therefore should take an in-depth look at the workplace and start the implementation so that when they start back in making profits again, things will be in place.

There are employers who will bring the argument that government has no right to dictate who should be hired in their establishment. For those employers with such arguments -- example, "This is a family-run business" -- we would answer, "Families will operate, but without the masses to carry the business through, the business will fail and the masses always will include members of the target groups."

A timetable should be set by employers and they should be held to this timetable with respect to the employment equity plan.

Employers should be encouraged to have a job skills bank inventory of employees.

We should encourage employees to update their skills in the event promotional positions become available.

Though we encourage lateral entry, every effort should be made to promote and use the skills that are available within the employer's present workforce.

Training should also include a proviso, a section, that training puts the onus on employers to bring to existing employees of the organization an understanding of employment equity.

Last, but not least, we would also like to include among the designated groups reference to gays and lesbians, who are also left out as one of the target groups.

1110

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have seven minutes per caucus. We'll begin with the third party. Ms Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. So you are a committee that reports to the mayor and the council?

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Mayor's race relations; yes, we do.

Mrs Witmer: Yes, okay. So this presentation then has been seen by those individuals and you're representing the entire community.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: The mayor's race relations committee, yes.

Mrs Witmer: You've indicated here that training is crucial if Bill 79 is to be successful and that training needs to be provided for the employers, and certainly that is going to be necessary. How do you see this training occurring, and who would provide the training? What type of mechanism would you see in place?

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: We have thought a lot about it, in very long terms, where workshops could be set up: The government could set them up, private companies could set them up, just so that the employers have some outlet where they could get some form of training to implement the bill, the way it should be done. But the onus should really be put on the government to give some form of training to get it going.

Mrs Witmer: Yes, I think if you're going to have some uniformity and also address some of the concerns, it's going to be the government, and also you've indicated you'd like to see this implemented in a workplace that has two or more employees, and obviously those people would have to access that type of -- you've said that enforcement should be regulated in the same manner as implementation. What would you see being done more than it presently is indicated to be done?

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: An employer should be given enough time and everybody should have a timetable etc, by what time the policy should at least be set to take place. If that's not done during monitoring, the employer should be charged because it is against the law; it's a bill and it's like any law. If it's not followed you're charged. They should be brought before the law.

Mrs Witmer: Okay, and you're saying the bill should not be voluntary, it should be mandatory?

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Mandatory.

Mrs Witmer: Okay, you've indicated that you would like to see one more designated group added here. Did you give any consideration at all to including the francophone community?

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Yes. We may have left some of it out. We're talking about anyone and everyone who would be discriminated against by that bill.

Mrs Witmer: Okay. What about the term "visible minorities" and also "disabled"? We've heard from some people within those two groups that they'd like to see subgroupings.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: In the sense of?

The Chair: Mr Webber?

Mr Michael Webber: In terms of subgroupings, disabilities is a rather broad group, quite broad. Actually, our discussions centred around a group of people we commonly call small people and extremely tall people. I don't know who set the standard for average, but I imagine that in a day and age like this a person standing six feet or thereabouts would be, as a man, average, and a woman I guess would be five feet, seven inches or thereabouts.

Ms Akande: I don't know what's wrong with five foot ten.

Mr Webber: I really don't know myself.

Mr Winninger: I don't know if I agree with that.

Mr Webber: I certainly don't, but that's the general conception, of course, and we would like to protect those who don't seem to fall under those general ideas, but especially small people. We don't want to be called midgets or dwarfs or whatever. Let's just call them small people, and because of their obvious height disadvantage, in some instances, they certainly should be given special consideration. We don't have too many extremely tall people. I think of the basketball teams and all that. Of course, they have a special sector in which they fit in very nicely, to my disadvantage. But in a normal, average workplace, persons standing seven feet tall and seven feet five are certainly going to be disadvantaged and we'd like to see them considered.

Mrs Witmer: When you were taking a look at some of the barriers that we presently face in the province, did you give any consideration to the fact that seniority rights could be a barrier within a unionized workplace?

Mr Webber: It was mentioned. We didn't go into it in depth. The provisions as they stand today with regard to seniority don't seem to be too awkward, from my point of view and our point of view. The regulations as they are today with regard to seniority and retirement requirements seem to be quite adequate for us.

The Chair: Mr Tilson, two minutes.

Mr Tilson: The issue of cost is mentioned periodically throughout these proceedings. The estimate for the budget for the Employment Equity Commission will be $6 million. We've now witnessed controversial social contract legislation, the effect on municipalities' budgets, the effect on school boards' budgets; we know that with this legislation there will have to be either a human relations staff with respect to the city of Hamilton, possibly the school boards; we know there will be appearances before tribunals; we know there will be costs for surveys, all of that sort of thing. Have you advised, in your opinion, what the effect of this legislation will be on the taxpayer of the city of Hamilton for particularly the municipal area and the school board area as to, will this have an effect on the mill rate in the city of Hamilton?

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Coming from the perspective of the mayor's race relations committee, any taxpayers' money that is spent to benefit Ontarians, Canadians, on the whole, is money well spent, and that includes anything that has to deal with employment equity, because we're talking about humanity.

Mr Tilson: I'm not asking that question. I'm asking whether or not you've had any estimate as to what this is going to cost the taxpayer of the city of Hamilton.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: No.

Mr Tilson: You have no idea.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: I don't work for the city of Hamilton, so I don't know. We're the mayor's race relations committee. We're not the city of Hamilton; we're not from the city council.

Mr Tilson: But you're advising the council of the city of Hamilton.

Mr Webber: Not necessarily the council.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Not necessarily, no.

Mr Tilson: Who are you advising?

Mr Webber: We're speaking on behalf of the mayor's race relations committee.

Mr Tilson: In other words, your thoughts have not been directed towards what this is going to cost.

Mr Webber: No. We have to make it very clear that we're not speaking on behalf of the city council or the people of Hamilton as such.

Mrs Witmer: But you give advice.

Mr Webber: Yes, we will advise.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Tilson. Ms Carter.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Thank you very much. Following on from what was just said, I'd like to hear what you have been able to achieve in Hamilton. I take it that the city, as such, has made employment equity efforts. I'm wondering how these have so far benefited members of designated groups and what effect this has had on the quality of employees in Hamilton.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: I'm an employment counsellor. I put people to work and I work directly with employers. I notice that with employment equity, with the employers who have done it and are doing it voluntarily, it is very successful and it's a win-win situation. That's what I personally have to say about it, because I am sort of front line because of my job.

Mr Webber: In regard to me, I have some connections with the school boards and I do know that their policies are in place. The Hamilton public school board has had theirs in place for a number of years, maybe two years. The separate school board has just recently accepted and passed theirs at the level of the board and it's going to be fully implemented, or at least steps are going to be taken to have it fully implemented.

But the record, on the whole, has been reasonably good in terms of employment equity. From that point of view, I believe that the city council, on the advice of, very often, the mayor's race relations committee, has done a great deal to ensure that these kinds of policies are already under way.

Ms Carter: Given the experience that you've had, information held by municipalities is available to the public under the freedom of information legislation. I wondered if you had any opinions as to what the effect of this has been so far, whether there's been any problem with the freedom of information as regards employment equity.

1120

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Not that I'm aware of.

Mr Webber: Not that I'm aware of either.

Ms Carter: Just one final point: You mentioned that gays and lesbians would like to be among the designated groups and we did in fact have a presentation to this effect. The problem there seems to be that a lot of gays and lesbians are not ready at this point to self-identify so, even if they were included, it might not benefit them very much. I wonder if you have any opinions on this whole question of self-identification.

Mr Mark Haas: We discussed that at length. We're not aware of the history as to how we developed four targeted groups. I'm assuming they were developed along the lines of being identifiable in the community and then we wrestled with the issue of gays and lesbians. What does a homosexual look like? Obviously, we don't know that answer. But then, when we looked at other things, such as aboriginals, what does an aboriginal look like? There are many people who are part of that targeted group who couldn't be identified as such. So we brought this group forward as probably another major group that's been discriminated against, although perhaps not on the basis of appearance. I look upon this, eventually, as maybe the targeted groups growing, maybe from four to any amount. I think in the end, the goal, the way I see it, would be that we wouldn't have any discrimination based upon any difference at all, whether they have to be identified in a formal way or whether they can be --

Ms Carter: Hopefully, that will be the effect of the legislation without having to bring in all the short and the tall and everybody else.

Mr Haas: Yes, that's right. We use that simply as an example. We discussed that if you asked someone who was a small person whether they were part of the four targeted groups as being disabled, I'm sure many people in that category would say, "No, I'm a small person, but I'm certainly not disabled." The similarity could be made for someone who's tall. We use them only as an example. Many people who are actively discriminated against are not part of the four targeted groups. So we added this fifth one with the hope of expanding that in the future.

Ms Akande: Thank you very much for your presentation. I noticed on page 3, where you mentioned training, "Training should also include" etc -- certainly, we've recognized that the training for the employers is extremely important. However, one of the things that's also been mentioned frequently is the expense. I'm interested in your ideas around the focus of funds, whether in fact it should be in training and education or in the areas of implementation and monitoring.

Mr Webber: With regard to training, my idea as it jumps right out at me here is that employers have been given credit and concessions when they have been called upon to do specific things by law. This might be a method that could be employed to encourage employers to apply some of their profits, or what else, to ensure that this particular policy is well developed in their workplace. It's up to the Legislature, the government, the rule-making body of the province, to provide incentives along those lines. Employers, I am sure, will be very happy to have those benefits coming to them if necessary.

Ms Akande: So the incentives to comply with the legislation, then -- let me not put words into your mouth -- you would see as more important than the government actually putting funds into training.

Mr Webber: I don't think it's necessary to differentiate in terms of quality or quantity or size, but let's say it's as important.

Ms Akande: As important.

Mr Webber: As important, yes.

Mr Curling: Let me just pick up from Mrs Akande, on page 3. I just want to move up on the first paragraph. You said, "Though we encourage lateral entry, every effort must be made to promote and use the skills that are available within the employer's present workforce." The question was asked to you about seniority and you said you hadn't looked at it in depth. I want to ask you just to comment, or if you can't, just when you leave here to look at that, because we find and I find that seniority flies in the face of the principles of employment equity. We have challenged that. For a moment, just for a thought, would you see that as conflicting with the principles of employment equity, that seniority is what comes first, before we look at other things in promotion?

Mr Webber: I would love to agree with what you're saying. I have been in the workforce for a while until recently and I grew accustomed to the idea that after a number of years of application to the particular employer I would be given some form of recompense. It's a comfortable situation for most of us: As we grow older, we just hope and expect to move on and to move on, regardless of whether we upgraded ourselves or otherwise. Granted, most of what we learn in universities and in workshops can be gleaned from the workplace on a day-to-day basis and experience, although not usually certificated and put on the wall someplace, is of course a tremendous teacher.

We have a workforce today in which people are highly qualified. Young people are going through all kinds of training and it's not good enough to ask them to stand in line. It's not good enough. If they are going to be given the incentives to move on and to accomplish as best they could, they need to feel that they could achieve a little bit faster, rather than waiting in line.

I came from a situation as a young teacher in which you fell in line. The seniority list was built up. No matter how brilliant you happened to have been at the time, you joined the seniority list. Not only that, worse than that, you joined the seniority list alphabetically. You know, that made for a lot of laissez-faire, laid-back terms of attitude. "My turn will come. so what? And it better come when it comes, or else you're going to hear from me." That's not good enough and we hope we can do something with this bill that will ensure that the brilliant, hardworking ones are given an opportunity of skipping over.

Mr Curling: It's a very, very --

Ms Akande: Challenging?

Mr Curling: No. The fact is that you looked at it in a way that I think the labour movement and the unions should take a very serious look at what you just said, and that is true. Gone are the days that, because I've been around here a long time and nepotism was taking place way back when I got in, that I just sit there and expect it without even being trained. Training is another matter within the workplace that should have taken place. Therefore, I'm glad the way you look at it.

You seem to emphasize --

The Chair: Mr Curling, just as a reminder, Mr Callahan would like to ask a question after you've done, so remember that.

Mr Curling: Yes. You seem to emphasize somehow, correctly so, about employment equity in the workplace. There are a considerable number of things to be done about employment equity and access to the workplace. Without having access to the workplace, then employment equity in the workplace cannot be effective, because the point is, too, that people are shut out. Even with how qualified they are, they don't get in. You cannot deal with systemic discrimination unless you look within the workplace and without the workplace. Would you mind commenting on that?

Mr Webber: I have to give it some thought and I hope, if my fellow panellists here have thoughts that are right there in front of their minds, that they can jump in. How do you get them in?

Mr Curling: That's exactly it.

Mr Webber: I don't know if this is entirely relevant, but we looked at the police force in Hamilton, for example. Naturally, from the mayor's race relations point of view, we thought that perhaps sufficient evidence was not there to show that minorities were being moved along, women, blacks etc and whatever else. The question of placements from the outside into senior positions or to advanced positions, of course, met with a great deal of opposition, mainly because of the nature of the workforce I'm talking about. It's not easy to maintain morale and whatever else by bringing people from outside inside.

1130

I don't think that is entirely relevant to the question you have asked, but it's a question of inserting at certain levels people of stature and quality and qualifications, just to ensure that equities are being dealt with and that people are being put in a situation commensurate with their qualifications. Other than that, how do you enforce or how could you regulate getting people into a work situation? I'm not so sure I have the answers to that.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: I'm not going to be very long, just short. Dealing with entry level, one of the ways we dealt with this in our mayor's race relations committee -- we have a dinner every November to, I guess, recognize businesses in the area that are participating in employment equity etc. One of our incentives is to give an award, plaques etc. Maybe something like that could be looked at. There are several ways we could be looking at it to get people into the workforce. There's not only one way.

The Chair: Mr Callahan, a short question?

Mr Callahan: It's going to have to be short. I look at two things -- and it's going to have to be a statement. You can agree afterwards or disagree with me. First thing, I look at this as a lawyer and I think this tribunal is a field day for lawyers. If you think the Human Rights Commission was a lengthy delay and a backlog, you wait till you see what this is.

The second thing I would say is that I can't find anything in this legislation that penalizes an employee who maliciously or improperly alleges that there's been lack of employment equity. That gives me a bit of a chill, because it means that people could, for whatever reason -- we're all human beings -- decide to bring an application to the tribunal and allege something that's totally inappropriate, drag them through the proceedings. There's not one penalty in here, even in costs, that if that happened costs should be awarded. In fact, what you're doing is denying the opportunity to people who legitimately have a claim under that tribunal. I'd like to see that type of amendment put in there so that you don't have bogus claims. Let's face it, in a place of business, you can have people who will, for the strangest reasons, try to create a problem for their employer. Every one of those that's bogus, if there's not some sort of a thing, will detract from the jobs that will be available for people who even apply for them.

The Chair: Response?

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Very shortly. I'm going to respond. I would disagree. I think the onus should be put on employers. That's the whole reason behind employment equity. It's because of the hiring practices of employers from eons, centuries ago. So in case you have the odd employee who comes -- it's like everything else in every walk of life -- then you deal with it when it comes to that time. But we are dealing now with employment equity. The onus has been on employers opening up so people can get into work, period.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Osbourne. I want to thank all of you for coming from Hamilton to take part in these committee hearings.

Ms Thomas-Osbourne: Thank you very much.

Mr Webber: It's been our pleasure. Thank you.

Mr Callahan: I have a question of the parliamentary assistant. Is the parliamentary assistant here?

The Chair: Not at the very moment.

Mr Callahan: Maybe I can ask it of our researcher.

The Chair: Or the ministry staff.

Mr Callahan: Or the ministry staff.

The Chair: In the meantime, I'll call upon the Ontario Council of Sikhs as the next deputant. You have a question of the ministry staff?

Mr Callahan: Yes, because I think it's of some importance. I notice here -- where are you?

The Chair: Who do we have? Would you like to come forward for a second?

Mr Callahan: It's a very quick question, but I think it's one that maybe I'm missing because I've just gotten on this committee. Subsections 34(1) and (2) give the tribunal "exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceeding before it and to determine all questions of law or fact that arise in a proceeding." If that's the case, what does the Human Rights Commission do from this point on?

Mr Scott Bromm: The Human Rights Commission would still retain its jurisdiction with respect to issues that come up under the Human Rights Code. What this provision does is give the Employment Equity Tribunal the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any issues that arise under the specific sections of the Employment Equity Act.

Mr Callahan: At a business -- employment and employees?

Mr Bromm: If an issue comes up with respect to the Employment Equity Act or an employment equity plan, generally they will go to the Employment Equity Tribunal. But if an individual has an issue under the Human Rights Code, the Human Rights Code provides far broader protection than the Employment Equity Act and provides protection to more groups than the employment equity bill does.

Mr Callahan: I appreciate that, but my reading of this says that a person who has a claim that they've been discriminated in the workplace will no longer be able to go to the Human Rights Commission. Is that right?

Mr Bromm: No, that's -- I mean, it's partially correct. The amendment that you're referring to in the bill at the present time, in section 51, says that if an individual goes to the Human Rights Commission with a discriminatory complaint and it happens that that complaint arises from a practice that is addressed in an employment equity plan, then that complaint is referred to the Employment Equity Commission for review.

If the Employment Equity Commission in that review determines that the practice is addressed in the plan and addressed in a way that is in compliance with the Employment Equity Act, then that complaint will not proceed. But if the commission determines that the plan does not address the matter in a reasonable manner, then the matter is referred back to the Human Rights Commission because the Human Rights Commission retained its jurisdiction.

Mr Callahan: Holy moly.

Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Why are we delaying the public presentation to have a dialectic between one of the members of the Liberal opposition and administration?

Mr Curling: Come on.

Mr Callahan: It's important to us.

Mr Winninger: But why now?

Mr Callahan: Because it's important to the people who are coming before us that they understand that this may become the bouncing rubber ball, as near as I can figure.

The Chair: Mr Callahan, I've allowed the question to be posed. I think he has answered your question. Do you want to continue with that?

Mr Callahan: Just one further thing, if I could. Why does the section --

The Chair: Mr Callahan, there is a deputant here. I would like to hear from that --

Mr Callahan: I appreciate that.

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I raised this question before to you about when we could deal with the government.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Curling: You said to me that at times they are here and we can ask that question to the government members. My colleague is asking this question.

The Chair: Mr Curling, I've allowed that. We're in the process of it. What's your point of order?

Mr Curling: Let me finish my point.

The Chair: But what is your point of order?

Mr Curling: If you would allow me, I will --

The Chair: But come to it. We don't have all the time in the world. Come to it.

Mr Curling: This is it exactly. When we're asking the question, we seem to be rushed to say that we are impeding the presenter here when we want to clarify a point. It is extremely important that these things are clarified.

The Chair: All right.

Mr Curling: I feel that you've taken the position somehow --

The Chair: Mr Curling, it is not a point of order. That's why I asked you to get to the point of order. I have allowed the member to ask the question of the ministry staff. He's doing that and you're taking more time for unnecessary points of order. Mr Callahan, do you want to complete that question?

Mr Callahan: How can you say under section 34 -- this may be very important in terms of its being amended -- the tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction if in fact the person is allowed to go to Human Rights Commission first, and then if it's determined there that it's a matter for the Employment Equity Tribunal, they can bounce back to the Employment Equity Tribunal. I think you should look at it. I think it's creating two parallel bodies. We've already heard what it's going to cost -- and the time of the individual, by the time they get the decision made, they'll be retired.

Mr Bromm: That's really two issues. The first issue with respect to the exclusive jurisdiction, most statutes which establish tribunals of this nature give that tribunal the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the matters before it. The Human Rights Code has it, the Labour Relations Act has it, the Pay Equity Act has it.

It doesn't say that they have exclusive jurisdiction to determine any matter that arises. It simply gives them the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the matters that are brought before the tribunal, and employment matters under the Human Rights Code will not go before the tribunal, so they do not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine those.

Mr Callahan: I hope you'll look at it because I think we're creating a monster.

The Chair: Fine, Mr Callahan. Thank you for the answer.

1140

ONTARIO COUNCIL OF SIKHS

The Chair: Mr Singh Bal, would you please come forward. We have 22 minutes for the presentation. Take as much time as you need for the presentation, leave as much time as you can for the questions and answers in the 22 minutes left. Please begin.

Mr Manohar Singh Bal: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody, ladies and gentlemen.

We, the Ontario Council of Sikhs, are a community-based organization that has been working on various issues affecting the development of the Sikh community since our inception in 1987. Among other areas of interest is employment equity as well.

Over the last many years we have been working with many institutions and helping them in developing employment equity plans for the Sikh community. There are about 100,000 Sikhs in Ontario. A large number of them live in Metropolitan Toronto; however, there is a sizeable population in the other cities and towns across the province.

Although a large number of our population is well educated, the majority of them are stuck in low-paying, labour-oriented jobs. There are many reasons for it, but one reason which supersedes all is racism, the existence of systemic racism in our institutions both in the public and private sector.

Many qualified people and many professional people upon arrival in this country expect to find a job in their respective professions. Once they arrive here they find a lot different world. Nobody want to give them employment in their respective fields. It is a fact of life that gold-medallist graduates work as general help and PhD individuals drive taxis in the province of Ontario.

They do this because they have no choice. Society has discriminated against them. They have been refused the opportunity to establish themselves in their respective professions, not because they are not educated or don't have adequate experience but because they look different. They, in some people's minds, are not mainstream. Some might say they don't fit well. Let me give you an example.

Many members of our community, along with other visible minorities, work as supply teachers in various school boards. Many of them have applied to become full-time teachers but they don't even get a call for an interview. I personally know of some people who have taken many additional qualification courses to upgrade themselves and have applied and reapplied for full-time positions without any success.

Some of them have expressed their feelings by saying that under the present biased and discriminatory system now in place at various school boards, they don't stand a chance. Let me say that many of these individuals have master's degrees, have many years of experience both in Ontario and outside Ontario and have upgraded their education by taking these additional qualification courses.

On the other hand, mostly white administrators of various schools boards hire fresh graduates from various universities as full-time teachers. These fresh graduates have no classroom experience. This is an example of plain and simple racism which exists in our society with respect to hiring teachers and the educational system.

Let me give you another example about the civil service. It is the feeling of the community that unless you know somebody inside you don't stand a chance. This is especially true for middle and higher management and even at the entry level. It is a general feeling in the community that once you attain a certain level all doors for promotion are closed, and after that you either are removed or demoted.

There is an urgent need to address the issue of employment equity. If we believe and preach equality to others, let us practise it here in our home, in the province of Ontario.

It is a fact that over the last many years visible minorities, along with aboriginals, women and people with disabilities, have been systematically discriminated against. They were not given jobs and opportunities to establish themselves as full and complete citizens of this province. They were purposely and intentionally kept at the bottom of society. If ever they had been given a chance, even at the lower entry level positions, they would have contributed to the development of the society.

Now is the time to address this past mistake. Let us correct this historic injustice first by admitting it and then by doing something to rectify the situation.

We recommend that either through this legislation or via a regulation a specific enforceable plan with targets and timetables be developed to address these past historic discriminatory injustices and, through this plan, four designated groups be made full and complete partners in both public and private sectors at all levels.

I would like to address one myth which is being spread around about employment equity, that is, that somehow employment equity will lower standards and therefore the principle of merit will be compromised. This false myth is purposely being spread by those who in the past did not apply the same principle of merit themselves or by some organizations and institutions with deep-seated racism. Had they been fair and equitable in the past, there would not have been a need to introduce this employment equity legislation.

The fact was and still is that well-educated and well- experienced members of visible minorities, along with other disadvantaged groups, were not and still are not being hired. They are being discriminated. We as a society must act to stop this blatant discrimination.

Stephen Lewis, who served as adviser on race relations to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, after riots on Yonge Street, says this about employment equity in his final report of June 1992:

"This is a quite straightforward section of my report. There was not a single meeting that I can remember where employment equity did not arise. To my surprise...employment equity is a kind of cause célèbre for visible minorities everywhere. They see it as the consummate affirmation of opportunity and access.

"Somewhat anxiously, therefore, I have to tell you that there is a great concern about the progress of the government's intended employment equity legislation. It can't be introduced soon enough.

"And there may be no other explicit legislative initiative which will mean so much to establishing a positive climate of race relations in the minds of every single minority grouping: black, South Asian, East Asian, Chinese -- it matters not, public and private sector alike."

Mr Lewis further suggests some specific and special initiatives in the Ontario public service so that the OPS can serve as a role model of employment equity for other employers. In the end, he suggests that employment equity legislation be introduced in the Legislature and be passed.

My objective to quote Stephen Lewis's report was to state the following: employment equity was supported by all those who were consulted by Mr Lewis during his deliberations; employment equity which will bring equality and fairness is essential for a positive race relations climate in the province of Ontario.

Over the last many years we have witnessed education campaigns and various affirmative action programs of different levels in government and other institutions to increase the representation of disadvantaged groups in the workforce. It simply did not work and, quite frankly, has been a major failure. Therefore, it is imperative that government show leadership and take a bold step to bring equality and fairness at the workplace both in the public and private sector.

In our opinion, Bill 79 does that. It brings fairness and social justice for all people. We support this bill and we would like it to be implemented as early as possible. We will endeavour to educate the society. We are confident that as a result of the implementation of this bill we will become a just society.

Sikhs also face religious discrimination while searching for employment with respect to wearing of the emblems of Sikhism, that is, the 5Ks. One of the requirements of the Sikhs is to wear the 5Ks which are listed on page 6. The overall importance of the wearing of these five emblems is clearly stated by the 10th prophet of the Sikh faith. He says:

"Know these 5Ks to be the emblems of Sikhism,

"Under no condition can one be exempt from these,

"Kirpan and bracelet, drawer and comb -- these four

"Without hair, the fifth emblem, are all meaningless."

From time to time various employers, public service agencies and other organizations have discriminated against Sikhs and did not allow them to wear the 5Ks while they were at work, hence did not allow them to practise their religion. All the time members of the Sikh community brought these matters to the attention of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and other authorities, and all the time were granted the right to wear the 5Ks.

Some time ago the Peel Board of Education fired two teachers who were wearing the 5Ks. Eventually, the Peel Board of Education lost the case at the Ontario Human Rights Commission and was forced to change its policy about the wearing of the 5Ks. Similarly, some examples of harassment and occasional firing of those employees who wear the 5Ks have been brought to our attention.

It is a widely held feeling among this community that it is very, very hard to find a reasonable and compatible job with turban and beard. Therefore, while we enshrine and promote equity and the accessibility principle in society and through Bill 79 trying to seek equality for those who have been historically discriminated, it is important that religious discrimination be also addressed and steps be taken to eliminate it.

Various laws and policies of the government of Ontario need to be changed to accommodate the wearing of the 5Ks. Therefore, we recommend that this committee in its final report recommend that various legislations and policies of the government of Ontario be amended whereby Sikhs are allowed to wear the 5Ks at the workplace.

1150

The Chair: Thank you, sir. Five minutes per caucus: Mr Winninger, and then Mr Fletcher.

Mr Winninger: Thank you for your presentation. You make a point very convincingly, which was also made persuasively earlier this morning by the spokesperson on behalf of the Iranian community association, that what we have in the employment equity legislation is actually an affirmation and declaration that merit will be the all-important principle in the workplace, and that regardless of the colour or tone of your skin and your gender and your physical disability, you should be hired and promoted and retained based on your qualifications and skills. That seems to be a lesson that's lost on the opposition members, particularly the Conservative members, who keep harping on the fact that this bill will somehow compromise merit through employment equity. I wonder if you could comment further on that.

Mr Singh Bal: As I said in my presentation, the principle of merit is no problem to us as a community and I think to other communities which have been suffering over the last many years because of the hiring practices of big businesses and big machines out there. I gave you one example of teachers, but the same could be said about many other professions and trades. Even if there is a need and it is somehow felt that the principle of merit be included either in the legislation or in the regulation in some shape or form, I don't think we will have any problem. What I'm saying is that let's first go out there and apply this principle of merit and then see who comes at the top, and then we will see if there are any flaws in it.

Mr Winninger: I was also interested in knowing how the 5Ks would fit into this legislation. Was it your intention that other legislation, such as the Human Rights Code, be clarified, or were you somehow thinking that this legislation would contemplate dress codes?

Mr Singh Bal: This legislation per se I don't think should have a clause to accommodate the 5Ks because some issues related to the 5Ks -- for example, from the police perspective, wearing the helmet instead of the turban has to be addressed through separate legislation in which we get exemption from the Highway Traffic Act; with respect to wearing a helmet versus a turban at the job site, there's need to make some amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We are working with various ministries on all these matters to be addressed. In this legislation, if in your report you recommend that concept, that religious emblems be accommodated at various levels and endorse that principle, then I think that will be a boost to us to go on working with other ministries, which we are doing, and also kind of lobby the government by saying, "Start doing something more on it."

The Chair: Mr Fletcher, one final question.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. You've given some fine examples of how things have happened; people not getting a call back. With Bill 79, as we progress through the bill and we take a step, each step we take is to knock down barriers. Is it your experience that the barriers are not so much with getting the job but that it's getting the interview for the job or getting into the door to even get an interview? Is that where it starts? Is that the first line of discrimination, of racism? You talk about the teacher who doesn't get a call back even though they've applied. After filling out the application form, is that where it starts, at the interview stage, where people are not getting in the door for an interview?

Mr Singh Bal: I think it depends on what aspect you want to look at. If you want to look at it from the point of view of those people who are not even in the system, then it starts at the entry level. But those people who are at some level within the system have problems with promotions and proper opportunities for training and development.

Mr Fletcher: Do you see Bill 79 helping people get the promotions, get the interviews, to start removing the barriers?

Mr Singh Bal: My hope is that Bill 79, and also the regulations, which are still at the developing stages, will help people at all levels, because we want to see representation not only at entry level and not only at higher management level but throughout the system. Many of the problems which we as a society feel with respect to social integration are there because there are not enough people of various cultures and linguistic backgrounds at all levels of, for example, public service and in other institutions of society by which they can understand their clientele and deliver the best service. So I see it at all levels, although not everything happening in one shot, but if we have a timetable and if we have a work plan in front of us, then in x number of years we will get there.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Curling, then Mr Callahan.

Mr Curling: Mr Singh Bal, a very effective presentation. I just want to pick up on what Mr Winninger said; I'm glad he has come to the realization that merit is a very extremely important part of employment equity. The fact is that it has been stated over and over by groups like yourself: "Please do not patronize us. We are equipped, we are capable and we want to participate. We are not here on rhetoric or poetic lines. What we are here to do is to write legislation, to put in place things like merit is the principle we base it on and that we should not be discriminated against, because we do have the capability."

As a matter of fact, I'll go right to that and ask you a question. You quoted Stephen Lewis, a man I respect, who has done a very good job at stating the things that have been said all along, but he said things so well at times. He stated here, talking about employment equity, that the visible minority community, everywhere he went, sees it as "the consummate affirmation of opportunity and access." Having said that, we have to write legislation that makes that happen. In other words, if we write weak legislation, I think we'll be worse off than in having no legislation.

Do you see that this legislation, Bill 79, needs a lot of improvement to be effective and to bring about the type of access in promotion and hiring that your community wants?

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Where are your amendments, Alvin?

Mr Tilson: They're coming, Margaret.

Ms Harrington: Bring them forward, Alvin.

The Chair: Please continue.

Mr Singh Bal: First, let me say about the merit principle that unless otherwise stated, when it comes to hiring, whether private or public sector, a small or big company, the merit principle is always there. Who doesn't want to hire the best candidate out there?

Mr Curling: We wondered too.

Mr Singh Bal: As to the second part of your question, nothing is perfect in this world. As I quoted earlier, a number of years ago we had these memos going into various offices, that "The face of Ontario is changing, so let's give opportunity to those who are coming new to the country," and, as I said in here, it failed. It did not move the decision-makers to change their policies and attitudes.

Then came affirmative action; again, nice principles written on the wall, but it didn't mean anything because they were not being implemented into the workplace. But at least we went a step forward. Rather than just saying word of mouth, let's put affirmative action in a policy statement. In the same way, there are a number of race relations policies available out there at various school boards, various companies, but they have categorically refused to even implement the very first principle which they wrote themselves. But at least that policy is there. Before there was no policy, so maybe that policy did some accountability.

From a public education campaign we came to affirmative action with a bit more teeth. With this legislation I think we are going to step 3. How far we will succeed and how far we will fail -- I mean, we can use our senses, but history will tell. But from our perspective and from other people's perspective, at least it is a move in the right direction. We are going from step 1 to 2, from step 2 to 3. From our point of view, we are hoping that this legislation and the regulations, when they are developed, will be developed and implemented in such a way that we will see change, as I said, at not only one particular level but all: the lower level, the middle level and the higher administration level.

1200

The Chair: Mr Callahan, one minuscule question.

Mr Callahan: Just very quickly, following up on it, the thing we've been hearing from some presenters to this committee is that the seniority aspect will prevail. It doesn't matter what type of credentials you have, certainly in a unionized shop; you won't move up beyond the next level until you've gained the seniority to do that. Clearly, that's not meeting the needs of what you've addressed in terms of fairness and being able to have entry and promotion up the ladder on the basis of merit, yet that's what we've been hearing from union presenters before us, and that's what this bill does in fact: It preserves seniority as a sacrosanct obstacle beyond which you cannot go.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. Your answer.

Mr Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr Chair: What Mr Callahan just said about this bill holding seniority sacrosanct is not true.

Mr Callahan: It is.

Mr Fletcher: It even says in the act and in the regulations that seniority --

The Chair: I think you've made your point. It's not a point of order, but we understand what is being said. Please, your answer to that question.

Mr Singh Bal: In a way I agree with you, and in a way I don't agree with you, because we -- and when I say "we," I mean the visible minorities -- have been out of the system for x number of years, and there hasn't been any opportunity for them even to go in at an entry level, never mind taking seniority and going to higher management. Even if we start today and, for example, say with the help of this legislation we get in, then in x number of years we will pass that test of seniority and go up there. But if we don't even get in, which is happening right now, never mind the seniority and never mind anything else. The unions themselves and anybody else who preaches this don't practise that. Even if you look at the unions, how many of the unions have members of a visible minority within their own staff and within their own executive and within their own committees and so on and so forth?

With respect to ministries, with respect to government, with respect to political parties, with respect to unions and so on and so forth, what we have to do is practise what we preach. Written on a piece of paper doesn't mean a thing if we're not willing to do anything. Even if we do less or little, whatever we say, that's implemented, then within x number of years we will get somewhere; we will be better off five years down the road, what we have then, than five years before. In my mind, that will be progress.

Mr Tilson: Sir, your organization has spoken before about several of the issues you have raised in this paper: discrimination not only with culture but with religion, with colour of skin, with nationality. Those arguments have been made before. You're obviously saying that the Human Rights Commission has been ineffective, that it hasn't solved or adequately dealt with many of your concerns, whether it be in the workplace or anywhere else.

We're now going to have another layer of bureaucracy, another new bureaucracy which is going to cost the taxpayer of this province very dearly. My question to you is, do you feel that the Employment Equity Commission is going to do any better a job than the Human Rights Commission, as opposed to amending whatever the act is that creates the Human Rights Commission; as opposed to amending that legislation and giving it more teeth, giving it more tools to adequately deal with the discrimination you speak of?

Mr Singh Bal: I'm not expert in how the laws are set up; I'm a layman of the community. But let me give you an example of the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Code. In some respects it has been ineffective, but in some respects it has been effective. I'll give you an example. Whenever discrimination happens, for example, to me because of my turban, I can go to the Human Rights Commission over and over again. The commission will decide about that particular case but it will not result in any policy or legislative change. That is why in our community there have been a number of cases on the same matter, on the same issue over and over again.

We have been working with the previous government and then with this government, and also made a submission to the task force on the Human Rights Code review that makes it some kind of a system that if, due to one particular reason, discrimination happens and the second time it happens again due to the same reasons and under the same circumstances, there be a policy that under these kinds of circumstances this cannot happen a third time. So in that respect, the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Code have been ineffective, because they has not been able to enforce their own decisions in some other cases.

Mr Tilson: I think my line of questioning -- Mrs Witmer has a question, but very briefly, I guess I'm concerned with creating another bureaucracy.

Mr Singh Bal: No, I'm coming to that.

Mr Tilson: Why can't we improve the existing system that we have as opposed to creating yet another system?

Mr Singh Bal: I think that's why we have politicians, and they decide what they want to do and then tell us, the public. What I'm saying is that with the employment equity legislation now, and as I said earlier, how effective it will be, how effective it will not be, maybe five years, ten years down the road we'll find it out. But we are the public and we are the group that is being affected. Whether that would be done through the Human Rights Code or whether that would be done through employment equity legislation or any total legislation which combines both of them will be fine with us. But I guess the politicians have all the resources and money and expertise on their side to see how best to serve the communities.

The Chair: Ms Witmer, one final question.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much. I'm pleased that Mr Winninger has acknowledged that merit is an important principle, and now all three parties agree and there should be no problem. I'd just like to follow up. You've indicated here, and I think you've made an excellent presentation and I would certainly agree with you, that the discrimination you face is real. I know there is religious discrimination and I hope we can address that issue.

You talk about discrimination within the educational system. I guess I would like to say to you that I don't believe this bill is going to see much of a change and I'll tell you why. If you take a look at the paper today it indicates that because of the social contract negotiations and the ramifications, teachers in Ontario who quit, die or retire will not be replaced in the next three years. So there really are not going to be any entry-level jobs into teaching, and I would suspect throughout the public sector.

Do you see any way of dealing with that particular problem, because it's still not going to give the designated groups an entry into those positions even if this legislation were passed, because the positions just aren't there.

Mr Singh Bal: I don't know what I can do about that, but what I can say is that under the financial problems which we do have in this province, everybody has to pay their share and take responsibility for it. But even if we have here this legislation or any other legislation which somehow addresses those problems which we had earlier with respect to the hiring of the visible minorities and other groups, and even if nobody's going to be hired, say, in one year or two years, there will be some hiring in the third year and the fourth year and the year after that.

When we were in the boom, we thought we were going to be in the boom for ever, but that's not what life is. If the tariff goes up, it's bound to come down, and now the tariff is down and it is going to go up. It might take one year or six months or two years, but once that tariff goes up, even if by that time we have the system in place in which everybody is treated fairly and equally, I will say we have made some progress.

Mrs Witmer: Okay, Mr Singh Bal, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming today and taking the time to participate in these hearings.

This committee will adjourn to 1:30 pm.

The committee recessed from 1209 to 1333.

LOCAL ORGANIZING COALITION ON WOMEN'S ISSUES IN TRAINING

The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order. I would invite the Local Organizing Coalition on Women's Issues in Training to come and present their deputation. Good afternoon. You have half an hour for the presentation. You may want to read it or not read it and allow plenty of time in that half-hour for questions from the three different caucuses.

Ms Jo-Ann Shreve: I thank you for the opportunity of being able to address this body. The Local Organizing Coalition on Women's Issues in Training was established in 1992 directly in response to the announcement of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. The purpose of the organization is to respond to women's issues in training and employment. We're currently in contact with over 400 women in organizations which represent women in the Windsor-St Clair region.

Mandatory employment equity legislation is not only welcomed in Ontario but is absolutely needed. Employment equity is not an arcane quota system. It is a system instead of management development within a company and a workplace that will help to bring out any potential in the workplace without ignoring the abilities of the workers and their future hope. It is unfortunate that even today, inequality is embedded in our present-day reality.

It is a reality also that corrective measures are needed to remove the systemic discriminatory policies and practices that have served as barriers to the targeted groups. It is also a reality that people need encouragement to act in the best interests of others. It seems hard to believe that at this juncture in our society that prides itself on fairness and on a sense of equality, there are those who would promote the abandonment of this legislation or the dilution of it.

In 1991, the Women's Incentive Centre of Windsor, Ontario, made a presentation before the commissioner on employment equity and proposed three manifestations of opposition to employment equity:

(1) "Should structural changes to the employment policy be advanced in a time when we are in great recession?"

(2) "The targeted groups are already making advancements. Do we need any more to be successful?"

(3) "Corporate managers need more time to do the job." It is now 1993. Unintended I'm sure, but surely a prophetic utterance.

Let me make a quote from the Windsor Star, August 1993, "Ottawa Only Pays Lipservice to Women's Issues," in which the writer, who is a woman and a recent grad from a trades and skills program, is unable to obtain work in the field as do her male peers. "I have been rejected by the best." This woman apparently sent out over 600 applications to various employers across Canada. "This became all the more frustrating when I discovered that some of the men in the same course who did not do as well as myself, including one in particular who didn't receive his certificate upon completion, had been working for some months." There's no need for us to go into the stats; I'm sure you're familiar with all of them. The difference between 1991 and 1993 is minimal. There is one bit of stats that I'm sure, however, has changed to the further disadvantage of women, in particular in the Windsor area.

The 1989 Women in the Workforce task force report was done, at which point it was reported that the women in Windsor had a higher rate of employment in either full- or part-time work than women in the rest of Canada. However, since 1989, untold numbers of companies have closed out and shut their doors or moved out of Windsor. We need employment equity legislation, and we need it just as expeditiously as the government can proclaim that law.

There are four thoughts that I would like to leave with you with respect to delaying the legislation:

(1) Will those in opposition to the bill further slide behind and become more entrenched in their opposition if the bill is delayed any further?

(2) What of the quality of the existing workforce? Will the postponement and delays further impact them negatively, since then there would be an appearance of a fractioning in the proponents of the bill?

(3) Would this lead to the passing of a watered-down version of the bill, something that's not even worth the paper that it's written on?

(4) What incentives would there be for employers to practise equity, or would we be subject to "whosoever will"?

I do leave with you six suggestions on behalf of the Local Organizing Coalition on Women's Issues in Training:

(1) Education of the general public as well as the labour force partners is absolutely needed to deal with the myths, misconceptions and false perceptions that exist surrounding equity.

(2) Resources must be made available to labour market partners to assist them in moving successfully into equity. Joint initiatives could be undertaken.

(3) Employment equity is a process. Legislation will help that process along, and we need to reach the unconverted.

(4) All companies should set goals and timetables to see what the measure of their success is. There must be built into the legislation some means of establishing reasonable progress to reach standards set.

(5) It will be important to see that built into the legislation are measures that ensure proper monitoring and compliance to the intent of the law.

(6) It would be important that the legal decision-making be consolidated through tribunals to give guidance to and acceptance of the law.

1340

Most major employers either have employment equity contracts or plans in place. Unions pride themselves on solid, enforceable contract language in the workplace. Government places great emphasis on the need for change in a changing world. There is no greater need than the one facing us now: to provide for, facilitate and encourage the press towards equality without delay for all our citizenry.

On a personal note, my family has been in this country for over seven generations on both sides. We have children who have a rich heritage in this land which has not always provided the opportunity to their forefathers that it should have. Our struggle has been a long one. It is my hope that the generation to follow will no longer be subject to the inequities of the past, and I know that I voice the hopes of millions of native-born Canadians and transplanted Canadian residents when I express this hope.

The Chair: We'll begin with the official opposition; six minutes per caucus.

Mr Curling: I want to thank you for your presentation, Ms Shreve. You got right to the point, and I think especially four of the concerns that you raise here are extremely important. I just want you to assist me in some of them, in explaining a bit more.

In number 2 you said, "What of the quality of the existing workforce?" We are confident you are saying that even those not in the workforce, those outside the workforce -- there are qualified people outside our workforce who are able to come into the workforce, so access is important. And within the workforce, even when they are there, we speak of the designated groups, their mobility, movements, and that their education and training is not sufficient for them to compete. That is what I presume -- the systemic discrimination so often seen in those places should be eliminated.

The part I want to emphasize: "Will the postponement and delays further impact them negatively?" I don't think right now that either the government or the opposition have any intention at all to delay the legislation. The intent here is to have good legislation that is worth the paper, as you said, it is written on. I have concerns that the legislation is vague and needs to be more targeted and specific. Do you have those kinds of concerns too? Because it's important what your concerns are so we can get that into the bill.

Ms Shreve: Yes. In talking with my colleagues, those who have had an opportunity -- you have to realize I have not had quite yet two weeks to read over all of the information pertinent to this particular situation, but in reading over as much of the legislation as I have read, I was concerned with what I consider to be vagueness in the legislation. I don't think there are areas where it is direct enough, especially when we're talking about monitoring of employers: who's going to, once an employer says he's set standards, determine that he has actually reached the standards that he says he's set.

Mr Curling: Because you spoke so eloquently and so directly, I'm going to ask you a direct question. It's something that concerns me all along. As we know, pay equity and affirmative action, when that came about, especially for pay equity, to say it is to address equal pay for work of equal value, it ended up being gender-specific, to be women. As a black woman, and you mentioned that in here, are you concerned too that even the issues of women being addressed in here, do you think that black women, or women -- I don't want to just say black women, but any other women outside the other mainstream women -- will be compromised in any way by not getting their leg up or foot in the workplace, or whatever the case might be, by legislation?

What I'm trying to hint is that I was disappointed about pay equity because it became so gender-specific that it lost really its focus and I'm just wondering if employment equity is leaning towards that in any way.

Ms Shreve: That is my hope, that it doesn't lose its focus. I realize that we all come from a different focus when it comes to what we anticipate legislation doing for us and my concern is that, whether we be women, visible minorities, aboriginal people or disabled people, legislation will become so non-specific that it will not do us any good at all.

Mr Curling: Groups have come before us and spoken about grouping in different areas. They say that groups should be further identified, which they are calling subgroups. Are you familiar at all with that expression, that people should be grouped? The fact is that sometimes there's a visible minority -- even the aboriginal people, in the regulation, have shown where it has broken down, what do they mean by that.

Do you feel in a visible minority that is to be a subgroup dealing with that -- do you see any problem in doing that aspect of it?

Ms Shreve: In a subgroup to what or who?

Mr Curling: Well, for instance, I would say -- that's exactly it, and how many subgroups. People speak -- if they are Asians, what Asians?

Ms Shreve: A visible minority is a visible minority. You can look at me and you can tell I'm a visible minority. You can look at other people in this room and you can tell that they're a visible minority. There are some people that you can look at in this room and you will not know they are disabled in any way, shape or form, but that does not change the fact that they are. So the difference between breaking it down to that kind of category seems to me innocuous.

The Chair: Last question.

Mr Curling: Last question, the Chairman is telling me. The question I've been wrestling with and have been asking people -- and they've given me some wonderful explanations -- is about seniority in the workplace. The unions have negotiated with the government to maintain seniority in the workplace as sacred and not to be touched. Do you think seniority rights conflict with employment equity principles?

Ms Shreve: I do not think seniority rights have to conflict with equity principles. What I think the union has to do and what government has to do is to sit down and figure out how we work this out to the best benefit of all that are involved.

Mr Tilson: You've mentioned your own ancestry and I think we're all proud of our own ancestry. I can go back a number of generations in my particular -- both sides of my family and they happen to be Irish. There's no question in the early years there was discrimination against the Irish, for whatever reason, and we've seen --

Mr Callahan: I think it was something about your former life.

Mr Tilson: Mr Callahan, of course, jumps in at this point -- but we also look at discrimination with respect to certain religions. It wasn't so long ago that if you were a Catholic, there was great discrimination with respect to Catholics and Jews.

My question has to do with something outside of the visible minority or the other groups, because it's a concern I've had with respect to discrimination against people with accents, no matter what the colour of your skin, your gender. From my observations, from people who have spoken to me at least, there is a certain discrimination against people whose mother tongue may not be English, it may be something other than -- or it may be English, maybe Mr Mills, for example, but --

Mr Mills: I've been discriminated against.

Mr Tilson: Yes, indeed, Mr Mills says that -- but it's a concern that's been drawn to my attention. My question to you is whether you think that allegation of discrimination with respect to language is that serious?

Ms Shreve: I don't speak with an accent unless I choose to and I speak with several different accents. I don't have a problem with people discriminating against me on the basis of my accent.

When we look at discrimination and the history of discrimination in our country, it has been and is the history of this country that we discriminate most definitely on the basis of race and colour. Accents can be gotten rid of. We can train ourselves to speak without an accent, in which case we can eliminate the barrier if that were to be a barrier against us.

Can I do anything about the colour of my skin? Don't want to do anything about the colour of my skin. Can I do anything about my race? Don't want to do anything about my race and I should not have to.

1350

Mr Tilson: Are there other groups outside the four groups that are mentioned? I don't know whether you've been following these proceedings, but are there other groups, whether francophones, gay groups, individual nationalities or religious groups that these four groups, you feel, should be expanded into?

Ms Shreve: My concern is for the groups that have been most disparagingly treated unfairly through generations, and that happens to be the visible minorities, aboriginals, people with disabilities and women.

Mr Tilson: So you're satisfied that those four are adequate and it need not expand beyond that?

Ms Shreve: I look at what happened to the Ontario Human Rights Commission when it started expanding and expanding to include everybody. You can't cover everybody adequately. What we need to ensure is that the groups that are most needing protection are the ones that are taken care of first.

Mr Tilson: That leads to a further question. There was an article in the Fraser Forum in July which said that by the year 2000, 85% of new job entrants would belong to at least one of the four targeted groups: aboriginal peoples, the disabled, visible minorities and women. Then it went on to say that when 85% of job candidates fall into categories which are eligible for preferred treatment, the benefits to individual members of the preferred categories will necessarily be small, since 85% of their potential competitors will be receiving similar considerations. In other words, this type of categorization into these four groups could itself lead to discrimination among the various subgroups.

Ms Shreve: Are you asking me to respond?

Mr Tilson: I'm just asking you for a comment as to whether you're concerned by that allegation or whether you feel the Fraser Forum is full of bunk.

Ms Shreve: I think it's a red herring.

Mr Tilson: Okay. I do appreciate some of your thoughts. I think of the first two points, recommendations that you were talking about, specifically with the issue of education. This government, of course, seems to have chosen to require the private sector to assume responsibility for employment equity, rather than addressing the educational issues that are primarily, I believe, the province's responsibility.

The other issue is, it's fine to mandate things, but how do we encourage private enterprise, in particular, to undertake, whether it be training or all the bureaucracy that goes with it -- at least, that's what I think you were saying, and you could perhaps correct me. In the public discussions that went on prior to Bill 79, many participants in those discussions recommended the use of financial incentives and grants and the provision of low-cost technical resources to employers to ease the financial burden of compliance. Those recommendations appear to have been ignored. Is that what you meant with your second recommendation?

Ms Shreve: Those are some of the things I was speaking of and I do believe government and industry need to go hand in hand in this whole area of education to get the resources.

Mr Tilson: Thank you for your presentation.

The Chair: Mr Fletcher and then Ms Carter.

Ms Carter: Thank you very much --

The Chair: First Mr Fletcher.

Ms Carter: Oh, sorry.

Mr Fletcher: After listening to some of the other comments and the process that's been happening in Ontario when there was discrimination against certain groups, there was legislation and there was something enacted -- the Human Rights Commission -- to try to get rid of some of the discrimination that was going on in society; pay equity, affirmative action passed by Liberal and Conservative governments, I must admit. I think we all share the same concern when it comes to employment equity. It's how we get there.

I think Bill 79 is a step in that direction. I think, along with all the other equity legislation that has been passed by ourselves and previous governments, that we're moving in the right direction. I don't know if we're moving fast enough; I don't know if we're strong enough, but I do believe we are moving in the right direction and I hope we do continue to move.

In your presentation on page 2, "Employment equity is not some arcane quota system," -- I'm quoting you -- "it is instead a system of management development within a company or workplace." Can you expand on that for me, please?

Ms Shreve: You know, there are a lot of people who have a whole concern about quotas and establishing quotas. What I believe employment equity does for us is to allow for those in our community who have been impacted most with discrimination to receive a fair and equal opportunity to get in the door. Once having entered the door, then there is the opportunity to move in all directions within that company.

What has happened in the past, as you get your foot in the door and you stay at that level, whatever it is for the next 15 years, discrimination still works against you based on someone's perception of what you are or are not able to do, given your race, colour, your ability or disability etc.

Mr Fletcher: Just another point. We on the government side are not fighting with the opposition over this. We all agree there should be employment equity. Again, I'm just saying how we get there.

I'm looking on your page 5, where you say, "Education of the general public as well as the labour force partners" -- again I'm quoting you -- "is absolutely needed to deal with the myths, misconceptions...." Is that through the legislation or is it working with our partners, the labour movements, business consortium and people to promote the education that way and also the commission's role as being an educator is part of it? How else do we move on the education?

Ms Shreve: Those are areas that I'm speaking of in particular. The commission, I believe, because it has the expertise in the area of employment equity, would lend itself to assisting employers into moving into equity at all levels of the employment process.

Ms Carter: Thank you, Mrs Shreve, for your very emphatic support for this bill. I assure you, we're not contemplating delay; we want to get on with this as fast as we can.

You said that your organization originated in connection with OTAB which, of course, is an initiative the government is taking in the area of training. Also there's an access to professions and trades initiative to fund demonstration projects, so we are working in that field. Do you think these initiatives that we've brought forward meet the needs of the people in the designated groups in terms of labour market fairness?

Ms Shreve: I can only hope it would do that. Again, that's why we're making this presentation, because we realize the difference between what actually exists now in our society and what we hope the legislation will bring about and will actually take place.

Ms Carter: That's the other component. We're looking at equity in hiring in this bill but, although the training is to some extent separate, that has to be part of the piece as well --

Ms Shreve: Yes, it does.

Ms Carter: -- and I wondered what you felt about the adequacy of what's being done in that field.

The Chair: Mrs Harrington, one last question.

Ms Harrington: Thank you very much for coming. We had hoped to be going to Windsor but we couldn't because of the opposition. It's always amazing, I find, the number of red herrings that come up during these discussions, but it's great that we actually examine them and you see them for what they are: irrelevant. The people watching can actually look at them as well.

I wanted to point out also the three things you mentioned that I hear in my own community that are justifications which are totally irrelevant: that the recession is on now, we can't do it; that we have already had success for women; and also that we need more time. You can always use those things and they mean nothing.

My question is, you mentioned here: "Resources must be made available to the labour market partners to assist them in moving successfully into equity; joint initiatives could be undertaken." I don't understand what you mean by the word "resources" and to "labour market partners." Can you explain that?

Ms Shreve: Okay. Resources: meaning whatever the commission would be able to offer to assist employers, whether it be its own people coming into a company and showing them how to go about establishing policies, showing them how to set targets and goals for this type of movement within a company, showing them how to move people out of where they are and bridging between where people want to be, where they are and where they would like to be. Labour market partners are going in with your unions, because you have such as thing as the strata within the union, seniority and showing and working along with union, management and the government to determine how we can keep our seniority intact and at the same time move towards equity.

Ms Harrington: So it's an educational process and we then are responsible for making sure that the resources are there?

Ms Shreve: Yes.

Ms Harrington: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms Shreve, we ran out of time. I want to thank you for coming here today to share not only your experiences but your ideas.

Ms Shreve: Thank you.

1400

GROCERY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS OF CANADA

The Chair: I'd like to call upon the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada to present. Mr Frakes, you have half an hour for your presentation. You've seen how the previous delegate has dealt with the time. If you want time for the caucuses to ask questions, please leave plenty of time at the end for that.

Mr Bill Frakes: We shall.

The Chair: Would you introduce your colleagues.

Mr Frakes: I shall. Sitting directly to my right is Helen Wakely, and to my far right is Murray O'Brien.

Good afternoon. My name is Bill Frakes. I am vice-president of human resources for Unilever Canada. As I've just indicated, sitting next to me are Helen Wakely, the manager of human resources with Colonial Cookies, and Murray O'Brien, who is the manager of human resources for J.M. Schneider Inc. We are here representing the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada.

The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, known as the GPMC, is a national organization of 175 companies that are engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of brand consumer packaged goods generally sold to retail and foodservice outlets. In Ontario, our members total more than 90,000 people within their workforce.

In the brief presentation that will follow, Murray O'Brien will first comment on the principles of employment equity that are endorsed and supported by GPMC, I will then speak as to the process that has occurred to date and, along with Helen Wakely, will speak about some key issues that remain within the legislation as we view it.

Mr Murray O'Brien: As Bill indicated, I'd like to comment on GPMC's guiding principles for employment equity that were developed more than two years ago. First, let me underscore that GPMC members recognize the competitive necessity of ensuring that there is equity in employment. Grocery manufacturers in particular understand the importance of a representational workforce on a company's ability to market a diverse consumer population. Additionally, members are aware that a company's ability to attract and retain qualified personnel will have a significant impact on its viability. I note that the Minister of Citizenship previously stated that employers will always have the opportunity to hire the best-qualified persons and that these people can be found in the designated groups.

With reference to the principles that GPMC has endorsed, GPMC supports the principle of employment equity and recognizes the need to remove barriers to employment for specific target groups.

GPMC is also committed to a practical and progressive employment equity policy which takes into consideration the realities of today's workplace and does not undermine the merit principle. Quotas and numerical targets can become ceilings and therefore undermine this principle.

GPMC believes that the key criterion for determining whether there is equity in employment should be driven by placement opportunities within each company and the availability of qualified individuals within the labour pool. As such, efforts and results should be the benchmark for success, not the process.

Employment equity or workplace diversity should be a core value of organizations and seen as a strategic business and economic imperative.

Employment equity legislation and definitions must be harmonized with other government initiatives. Legislative requirements should not be administratively onerous or costly.

Disclosure of information should be non-proprietary in nature.

GPMC believes the achievement of employment equity is a shared responsibility between employers, government, employees, employee representatives, specific target groups and educational institutions.

We believe government has a key role to play in ensuring that the educational structure and funding are available to ensure that the labour pool is qualified to fulfil performance expectations. Government should also play a part in providing information on the status of the labour market.

Unions and other employee representatives have a key role to play in communication and consultation with other employees and employers.

Consistency of definitions among employment equity programs at all levels of government is also essential.

Mr Frakes: As Murray indicated, these principles that were developed by the GPMC were drafted over two years ago. Over the past 18 months, I've had the opportunity to work with the minister, the commissioner and their respective staff in the drafting of the regs and the statute itself.

I'm a member of the minister's advisory panel on employment equity, I have participated in the commissioner's advisory panel for consultation, I participated in the advisory panel on the drafting of the regulations and I'm on a working group on employment issues for persons with severe disabilities.

Throughout my involvement in employment equity, I have repeatedly heard one overriding principle expressed by both the minister and the commissioner, and that is that the legislation must be fair, it must be effective and it must be workable.

As a business person, I endorse the principles of employment equity, and I say today that the legislation that is before you is fair, it can be effective and it is workable.

Now, there are aspects of the proposed legislation that concern us. Those aspects are relative to specific language within the act that can impact on the effectiveness of the legislation. We are not concerned that the language is burdensome; it is not. Nor are we concerned that our businesses will have to act in a different manner. We are concerned, however, that there is language which can be detrimental to the foundation of employment equity, a foundation which is formed by the creation and maintenance of jobs in Ontario.

Our concern centres around the requirement that business share confidential and proprietary information. Specifically, subsection 14(6) would require the employer to "provide the bargaining agent with all information in the employer's possession or control that is necessary for the bargaining agent to participate effectively in carrying out their joint responsibilities." This language is far too broad. It will create situations of conflict and controversy.

It must be remembered that the employment equity plan will cover all employees in a workplace, not just those in a bargaining unit. Any information that should be required to be available to the bargaining agent should relate only to those individuals and jobs within the unit itself, not "all information that is necessary." This could put an employer at a significant disadvantage during contract negotiations.

1410

Secondly, safeguards must be provided as to access of information that may be requested by the commissioner's office under section 22. For a plan to be effective, it must be part of the business's long-range strategy. Elements of that strategic plan must be incorporated into the employment equity plan itself. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, any information that would be provided to the commissioner can be obtained by the general public and specifically business competitors.

A business located in Ontario would be placed at a distinct disadvantage if proprietary information or the business's long-term strategic plan is required to be provided under either subsection 14(6) or accessible to the competitors, either inside or outside of Ontario, under section 22.

Miss Helen Wakely: I would like to address accommodation. Subsection 20(2) of the regs requires employers to include in their plan the types of accommodation for "(1) communication and human support services; (2) technical aids and devices; (3) job design, including work-hour flexibility and work restructuring; and (4) workstation modifications and physical access to the workplace."

Many employers question if it's appropriate to raise the above specific accommodation requirements in the legislation. Because of the broad range of disability issues, we believe each issue should be dealt with on its own merit, in its own case, within the reasonable accommodation guidelines already established under the Human Rights Code, which is also identified in section 20 of the act.

An example of our concern would be, suppose we have a receptionist who must work from 9 in the morning to 5 at night. Do we have to accommodate our flex hours when hours worked is a requirement of the job? This is not reasonable. The act specifically spells out, however, flex hours as a type of accommodation. On the other hand, if we have a blind receptionist, then it would be reasonable to accommodate with a Braille switchboard and the necessary equipment.

Let the employer and the employee find appropriate and reasonable accommodation within the existing parameters of the Human Rights Code. We recommend that subsection 20(2) be deleted.

The next item I wish to address is education and communication. Government should take a long-term strategic approach to the issue of employment equity. While barriers to employment equity may be removed at the company level, it is essential that the labour pool be qualified to fulfil performance expectations. Sound education and training policies across the country are required.

Government has an important role to play in ensuring that an effective educational structure and funding are in place.

Government also has a role to play in changing the way society views some members of the designated groups. Employers must have active and extensive support through government efforts in this area if we are going to be able to carry out our responsibilities effectively. We recommend that education and communication be a cornerstone of the commission's role.

Mr Frakes: To summarize, GPMC is committed to employment equity because it makes good business sense. We believe that employment equity is not only the right thing to do but it can represent a strategic and competitive advantage.

The consultation process that has been coordinated by the government has been fair and open. The government has demonstrated a commitment to introducing workable and practical legislation. This can be achieved if specific attention is paid to limiting access to propriety information, as outlined under subsection 14(6); deleting subsection 20(2); the limitation of access to confidential information provided to the commissioner under section 22; and strong, supportive education and communication programs by the government.

The process of employment equity is not a short-term project. The legislation will have a long and lasting impact. The GPMC wants to ensure that this impact reflects the overriding principle that has been voiced by the minister and the commissioner that it be fair, that it be effective and that it's workable.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll begin with the third party. Miss Tilmore will begin. I've done it again.

Mr Tilson: Someone's at the wrong meeting.

Mr Callahan: Something's going on over here.

The Chair: Mr Tilson, when you put up your hand, I confused the gender. Five minutes per caucus. Ms Witmer, please begin.

Mr Tilson: Who's asking questions?

The Chair: Ms Witmer will begin the questions.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Marchese.

I thank you for your presentation. You've indicated that you are committed to the principle of employment equity. You've also indicated, however, that hand in hand with the employment equity policy there is a need for the government to take a long-term strategic approach and that sound education and training policies are going to be required and that the government has a role to play. What exactly do you see that role being?

Mr Frakes: In the area of education, I think you have to view it from an employer's standpoint in that our feeder groups, if you will, are the general population. We have a responsibility. once a person has entered the workforce, to ensure that they have all the necessary skills required to perform their job. We're talking before that. We think it's incumbent upon the government to ensure that as they come into the workforce they have the basic skills to work with, the old-fashioned 3Rs, if you will. They've got to be able to read, they've got to be able to write, they've got to be able to understand basic math. I think that is one of the foundations which the government must look to in the area of education.

Specifically, then, in the area of employment equity, I think there is a tremendous job of education that's going to be required by the commissioner and by all levels of government to let people know what employment equity is. Equally, they must let them know what employment equity is not. It makes good business sense for us to have employment equity. We need to let that be known.

Mrs Witmer: So, obviously, the educational component on both those fronts is going to be extremely important for the success of this legislation.

Mr Frakes: Yes, for the success of employment equity.

Mrs Witmer: That's right, and I guess the success and the feeling of fairness and equity throughout the entire province, among the people in the province. You also indicate that you are "committed to a practical and progressive employment equity policy which takes into consideration the realities of today's workplace." You say, "Quotas and numerical targets can become ceilings and therefore undermine this principle." Could you explain what you mean? It's on the first page; it's one of the guiding principles.

Mr Frakes: Yes, I'm familiar with it. The difficulty you get into is that what we should be doing is looking for the most qualified individuals to perform a task, if you will. The concern is that if a quota is set, a number, a target, then what happens once that target is achieved is that people will stop. The objective of achieving employment equity shouldn't be, in any one environment, the end goal. This is ongoing. We're changing the way we look at business. I think the difficulty is that if you set a quota, then it's very possible someone will say: "Fine, I've got my numbers. I don't have to worry about it." A very qualified individual among the targeted group may apply for the job, but they've hit their number.

Mrs Witmer: Actually, that's a concern we've heard expressed by some of the other presenters as well.

Mr Tilson: I appreciate your comments with respect to subsection 14(6). I think one of you -- I forget which one -- said that if you left it up to the employer and the employee, they would work it out. The difficulty of course is that people are coming to this committee and saying that there has been discrimination long enough, that there has to be mandatory legislation. Mr Hargrove from the Canadian Auto Workers, for example, said that our experience with employers is that they will not make employment equity a reality until they are forced to do so. In other words, the words of many employers are simply words. Do you have any comment on those comments?

Mr Frakes: Probably several, but I've got only about 11 minutes. First of all, I think the comment which was made and which we referred to, that it should be left to the employer and the employee to find appropriate accommodations, was in reference to accommodations specifically. It wasn't in reference to general working of a plan, so it's not applicable.

Secondly, I guess I would take issue with the comment, the generalization, that if left to their own devices the employer community will not practice employment equity. As I said, it makes good business sense. All one has to do is look at the demographics as to what's happening in this province, and if an employer wishes to have employees in the future, the demographics are going to take care of that. I don't think the comment that there is a systemic approach to discrimination that's practiced by all employers -- as I said, I would take great issue with that.

1420

Mr Mills: Thank you for your presentation. I represent the riding of Durham East. Lots of manufacturers and small businesses have come to me over the weeks and said, "You know, what Bill 79 will do is force us to hire unqualified people." I just want to know what your thoughts on that are. Have you, obviously representing a huge employer, got any thoughts on that? Do you have any concerns about that?

Mr Frakes: In one word, no.

Mr Mills: That's good.

Mr Frakes: It goes back, I think, to when we talked about the responsibility of education. With or without employment equity, we want to have a qualified workforce. A person's gender or the colour of their skin does not determine whether or not they're qualified. Their background, their education determines whether or not they're qualified. It's essential for all of the working force of Ontario to be qualified and to have the basic skills and the necessary tools, if you will, to take with them to the workplace. No, I don't see employment equity creating the situation in which an employer is required to employ unqualified people.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Just very briefly, I'd like for you to expand just a little bit on a comment you made about rendering business more competitive. If I read your comments correctly the first time, would that advantage still continue if you were to reduce some of the restrictions in the legislation and make employers who have fewer than 50 employees subject to the legislation as well?

Mr Frakes: I'm going to try to take your question one point at a time and start at the end. Part of the question, I know, that arose in the regs -- we're not here to discuss the regs, but I think it's important -- is that if you start talking about an employer with fewer than 50 employees, you're talking about a very small entrepreneurial type of operation. Whether we like it or not, there will be paperwork involved in this.

The example was used several times that we're not talking about a large office complex they work in. They do their books, they do their paperwork at night at the kitchen table. This is part of the reason why I don't think it's necessary to go below where we're at. You have to look at the impact upon business. As the gentleman said, I represent a large corporation. Obviously, it will have an impact on our business, but it's not an overburdensome impact. If you're talking about a small employer, then it can have an overburdensome impact on them. No, I don't think it should go below that level where it's at right now, sir.

Mr Perruzza: Uncompetitive?

Mr Frakes: I'm sorry?

Mr Perruzza: You render business more competitive. You made a comment to that effect.

Mr Frakes: It makes good business sense, and the reason it makes good business sense is, first of all, in our industry you have to look at who our consumers are. I mean, those consumers out there are the targeted groups, if you will. We target the consumer. The demographics are changing within Ontario. It makes good business sense that we make sure that our workforce is representative of the community in which we operate, where we sell our products.

Mr O'Brien: If I could add to that, that helps in our decision-making. Part of our viability is our ability to make good decisions, sometimes very short-term in our industry as well. Being able to make those decisions based on the talent that we have working for us means that we have to reflect our marketplace, and our marketplace is diversified. Just to be viable, we have to remain diversified in our decision-making as well.

Mr Perruzza: Just to play devil's advocate, last question: If it makes good business sense, why do we need legislation?

Mr Frakes: That is a good question. Next question.

Interjections.

The Chair: He's going to answer. He understood your question.

Mr Frakes: I think that from our standpoint we have to look at what is happening in the marketplace. Not all businesses may view it that way. Again, remember what we said we were looking at, the overriding principle: fair, effective and workable. Other businesses may do it differently. We're talking on behalf of our businesses. The principles are good; it's the right thing to do. I don't know if that answered your question to your satisfaction, but it is the right thing to do.

Mr Curling: As a matter of fact, Tony just asked the question I had. If it made good business sense and business people, as they are all along, are concerned about profits and running an efficient company, they never did do any good business sense by recruiting the best, meaning that they did not go on merit completely when they were recruiting, because today we have legislation that is asking that those designated groups that have been excluded should now be included by law and that it will be mandatory. If you don't do that, you'll be fined accordingly.

Do you feel that the merit principle -- because you sat on that committee -- should be enshrined in the legislation, considering that all along it made good business sense and they did not do it and then therefore we would put it there that merit is one of the primary things to be considered? Many of the designated groups are saying they are qualified and they were excluded and they're prepared to compete. Do you feel that merit should be included as a part of the legislation here?

Mr Frakes: Merit must be included in the real business world; that's one of the basic rules. We must have qualified individuals. If we want to compete, we must have a workforce that is competent, we must have a workforce that is committed to do what the needs be and we've got to work together. If you're asking, is merit an essential part of the employment equity plan --

Mr Curling: And include it in the bill.

Mr Frakes: Yes, sir, it must be.

Mr Curling: You sat at the table. The seniority issue came up when you were helping to draft the legislation with the minister. What agreement did you come to, realizing that seniority conflicts with the principle of employment equity?

Mr Frakes: First of all, we didn't make that assumption. Secondly, part of the difficulty is that you cannot sit here and try to draft a piece of legislation that is going to cover every specific situation that's going to occur in the greater public and the private sectors. Part of the difficulty, I think, that we wrestled with so much in the regulations was trying to get language that fit every situation. You cannot do it. You have to have language broad enough to cover as many situations, still with the goals, the overriding principles, in mind. I can't sit here and answer that, because how will I answer your question? Are you talking about the public sector, the greater public sector or the private sector? Then, within the private sector, what's been the history of the bargaining? I mean, there are so many factors that enter in to try to answer that. Regardless of your best efforts, you'll never have a piece of legislation that ever covers every situation you're going to encounter.

Mr Callahan: I notice in your statement that you say: "GPMC is committed to a practical and progressive employment equity policy which takes into consideration the realities of today's workplace and does not undermine the merit principle. Quotas and numerical targets can become ceilings and therefore undermine this principle." Then, in the next paragraph, you go on to say it all depends upon there being an "availability of qualified individuals within the labour pool."

Do you believe this legislation does see quotas as opposed to merit, at the exclusion of merit, and, even if it does support merit, but there's nothing to provide the qualified pool, but you're still required to meet the target groups, are you not going to have a reverse, negative reaction on the basis of what you've said, that it won't be merit, that it will be targets? They're two totally opposite questions.

1430

Mr Frakes: You have to look at the available workforce. In the example that I used at one point, if I am looking for a PhD in microbiology, then my available workforce is those individuals who have a PhD in microbiology. It's not the general public. So if the available workforce, my feeder group, if you will, has representatives of targeted groups within it, that would be what I would look for that I would draw from. It would not be the general population.

One of the difficulties with the act is there's a belief that the general population is where we draw all of our workers from. We don't. It depends on the specific skills and educational background we're looking for.

So no, I don't have any problem with that. I'm going to look where the qualified individuals are. It would make sense that if half of the college graduates are females, then half of my recruits should be females. If not, then I'm going to start asking questions why not.

The Chair: Mr Frakes, Mr O'Brien, Ms Wakely, thank you for participating in these hearings.

COMMUNITY AND RACE RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF PETERBOROUGH

The Chair: Community and Race Relations Committee of Peterborough. Just for clarity, Allison Ksander? Very well. You both have a half an hour for your presentation. You've seen how the process works. Please leave as much time as you can at the end for questions and answers, and would you introduce your colleague as well.

Ms Allison D. Ksander: Yes. My colleague is Tony Njoroge. Tony works with my organization in anti-racism education and community development. My name is Allison D. Ksander and I'm the executive coordinator of the Community and Race Relations Committee of Peterborough. It really is an honour to be here and I thank you for your time.

A wise man once said that, "The road to failure is often paved with good intentions." Efforts to eliminate systemic discrimination and barriers for members of the designated groups in the workplace have been well intended and they have failed. Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, racial minorities and women see the Employment Equity Act as a commitment by the people of Ontario, for the people of Ontario, to absolute and positive results aimed at eliminating systemic and intentional discrimination in employment and irreversibly improving the quality of life for all Ontarians.

The act extends beyond the efforts of (1) affirmative action, which is prescriptive, and (2) equal employment opportunity, which is not goal-oriented. Employment equity entails active planning through surveys, research, goal-setting and evaluation and will afford partners in the labour market the opportunity to bridge historical gaps which threaten, if not limit, growth and success. Practices in employment equity are economic and social assets to Ontario. This is our time to grab the brass ring and run with it. Employment equity makes it possible for all Ontarians to be potential recipients of equal results.

Because the distinction between systemic discrimination and intentional discrimination is so blurred in our society today, it is not surprising that many will try to discredit and sabotage this whole process of the implementation of employment equity. However, those of us who advocate for fairness will gladly continue to support good work in this direction.

My submission, of which I assume everyone has a copy, attempts a clause-by-clause analysis of Bill 79 and the regulations. Today I would like to highlight a few of the supporting arguments and recommendations.

In its approach to the problem of systemic discrimination, employment equity addresses process. It forces employers to look at and examine the way they do things in the areas of recruitment, hiring and promotion. Self-evaluation can sometimes be a forceful tool in the implementation of change. The ultimate effect would be that employers would learn that the best person for the job is not necessarily the white male.

At this point what comes to mind is an example of something that happened in my own area, my region of Peterborough. There was a situation where one of our employers who has a mechanics shop tried to get a mechanic desperately. There were three calls for applicants made over a six-month period, and each time a white male was chosen for the job. The first person could not handle the work. The second person was totally incompetent. He showed up for work late and was often intoxicated when he did show up. At the third try, they realized that they were lowering their standards if they were to take the next white male on the list.

Finally the person who was in charge of that particular recruitment went to the one racial minority who was employed in the company and asked just to discuss the situation, the problem that they were coming up against, because they were left with one applicant who was qualified on paper. The only reason that was given for this person not being called for an interview was that they could not pronounce his name. He was Vietnamese.

The person who was approached did encourage the recruiter to try the Vietnamese, give him an interview. There was nothing to lose because they couldn't find anyone. That applicant was hired. This was three years ago, and the company has not regretted its decision.

A process like employment equity will force employers to identify just who is the right person for the job by looking at: What is the job? What is required? What are the specific skills that are required for the job?

Though forceful on its own, the Employment Equity Act will be most effective accompanied by supportive mechanisms such as the Human Rights Code, anti-racism initiatives in the form of policies and practices, access to trades and professions and equity in education and training.

Basically, the bill assumes that most Ontarians want to act equitably, so in my view I see it as forcing the attitude and later the action that existing barriers to employment need to be removed. It supports the view that for us to wait for employers to come around and that equity in the workplace will happen naturally is for us to continue to bury our heads in the sand.

When we consider specifically the racial minority youth of today, the situation is critical. Racial minority youth will no longer wait to be granted their right to equal treatment. They will not accept the hardships and frustration they have seen their ancestors experience. The level of frustration is extremely high in this part of our society. It is our responsibility as parents and leaders to finally allow for all sectors of our Ontario to fully participate in the workforce.

Because all of Ontario will ultimately benefit from employment equity practices in the long run, I strongly recommend that the preamble to the act, the juice or the spirit of the act, should contain a statement of the positive effects of employment equity on Ontario's mainstream population. Members of designated groups in general and racial minorities in particular need not be continually perceived as being done a favour by the government. Even though mainstream Ontario may admit that we all would benefit from fair hiring practices, it should be stated in the act, not only as a reminder but as a source of encouragement.

1440

Another important necessity, in my view, is the need for clarification of some of the definitions as presented both in the act and in the regulations. In particular, I believe that the term "racial minority" is not clearly defined. I can just see opponents to this act trying to trivialize the intent of the existing definition, which I must say to me was quite confusing upon first reading. I suggest that it be clearly stated that a person is a member of a racial minority in Ontario when that person is non-white, non-Caucasian and non-aboriginal. As I've suggested in my submitted brief, the definition should go further in saying just who is a racial minority. It goes on to say that a racial minority may be black, and we talk about what that might be, East Asian, South Asian and on and on, and of course a person of mixed heritage. Such a definition would serve to clarify for all just who is being targeted for making right the wrongs of the past.

Though employers may recognize that employment equity will have to be implemented somewhere down the road, as the bill stands now, the only incentives for employers are avoidance of punitive measures. Taking the defensive position is a natural reaction. Thus, to encourage employers to implement change as quickly as possible, incentives in the form of tax breaks are recommended. It is not productive to perpetuate an atmosphere of animosity when implementation of employment equity is supposed to be a cooperative process between employers and employees.

In my view, the regulations should be such that the commission is allowed more space to manoeuvre and do its work in enforcing the act. That employers set their own goals and timetables is troubling enough for members of designated groups. However, more distinctive wording is necessary in areas like subsection 14(3), where it says that the employer "may" identify employment policies and practices. My suggestion is that this should be changed so that the employer "shall" identify policies and practices.

A recommendation which addresses specifically small-town Ontario is that statistics for setting numerical goals should not be limited to geographic boundaries. Racial minorities in areas outside the Metro area suffer frustrations and hardships most of us cannot perceive. In Peterborough in particular many of the racial minority community are refugees and other very new comers to Canada. Many qualified people remain at home wasted as their children try to cope with an ethnocentric, Eurocentric education system. Experienced social workers end up being part-time sales clerks at secondhand stores while other professionals end up being truly professional volunteers.

In my region, employers and other white males have committed themselves to ensuring that the Employment Equity Act is not realized. For example, in Belleville a member of the city council has made a public call for support just to fight employment equity, and the intensity with which he made that call makes some of us shudder. In Peterborough the manager of our chamber of commerce says that the law is unnecessary, that it would lead to reverse discrimination and that if employers are forced to implement the changes, they would have to leave Ontario.

This type of talk is not at all encouraging, but organizations like the Community and Race Relations Committee of Peterborough and other supporters of Bill 79 across the province vow to work with the commissioner in achieving justice and equality in Ontario.

Racial minorities in places like Peterborough do not see much hope for change in their community. They do not look forward to their children having a chance at employment in these types of communities, and families are not hopeful.

The proposed Employment Equity Act, I must say, does not address the racial minority community in small-town Ontario. It is my belief that the Employment Equity Act, however, will propel Ontario into a future of economic and social success that is second to none. It is our hope that the Employment Equity Act will be totally unnecessary and will be abandoned and abolished some time before my generation of activists and advocates leave this place for ever.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Carter, five minutes.

Ms Carter: I would like you to welcome you warmly, Allison and Tony, to Queen's Park and to thank you for taking the trouble to come and also for your very thoughtful and effective presentation.

Now, you have told us something about the situation in Peterborough as regards race relations and employment equity. I wondered whether you could add to that and whether you could tell us something about the kind of work that your committee is doing.

Ms Ksander: With respect to employment equity, our committee sees employment equity as an extension of anti-racism initiatives. In that aspect, we have conducted several workshops and information sessions on employment equity and we continue to do this in our community. We've spoken with people from the business community, people from the labour unions and also other equity groups. We work with our aboriginal community and in very close contact with them and we continue to -- what should I say? -- charge ahead in the name of employment equity.

Ms Carter: You say that you don't think the act applies too well to a community like Peterborough. I wonder what, if anything, you could suggest that could make it apply more effectively.

Ms Ksander: I think that some more forceful wording with respect to looking at the barriers to entering the workplace should be included in the act so that people in small-town Peterborough cannot continue with the type of arguments they use now. To use an example, the public school board constantly says it is doing fine in the numbers that it hires. Those numbers are close to zero, if they're not zero. They use the Employment Equity Act as their excuse, because they say that we have a small population of racial minorities in Peterborough.

However, in addition to the fact that the population is small, we do not see the act of hiring racial minority teachers in the system as being beneficial only to racial minority parents and students, and that's why I think the preamble should support this type of thing by showing that this type of exposure would be good for all people, all students, because our city is an island unto itself. We seem to live in sort of a bubble there.

Ms Carter: Though it is changing. We found with the Ministry of Natural Resources coming, it has many different employees. Most specifically, you seem to feel that the role of the union in developing employment equity plans should be limited, and I'm just wondering why you say that. You recommend limiting joint responsibilities for bargaining agents in the development of the plans. I just wondered why you would say that.

Ms Ksander: I don't remember why I would say that. Which page was that?

Ms Carter: I couldn't tell you exactly.

Mr Tony Njoroge: What's the number of the recommendation, please?

Ms Ksander: Which recommendation was that?

Ms Carter: All right, can I try on a different one, if you want to look that up?

Ms Ksander: Yes.

Ms Carter: You want to change -- this is your recommendation 7 -- to say, "Every employer shall ensure implementation of employer's equity plan" --

Ms Ksander: Yes.

Ms Carter: -- which is stronger than the wording that we have at the moment. There just is a thought there that if that requirement were tightened up as you're suggesting, an employer might say to himself or herself, "If I make this target too difficult to achieve, if I'm too ambitious and I fail, then I'm going to be in trouble because I haven't met my goal." But if we left the wording as it is at the moment, then the employer might be encouraged to be a little bit more ambitious.

Ms Ksander: Yes, I agree with that. However, I think we should look at the whole picture, because if the commission is allowed more room to see and to monitor just what type of targets the employers are setting and to monitor just why they're setting those targets, then they're having a statement which says that the employer shall ensure implementation of their plan that works in with that. I don't think we should take things just out of context there. There are a lot of changes that need to be adjusted to make it all stronger and more efficient, and I think giving a little more leeway for operation of the commission would help in that area.

1450

Ms Carter: Do I have more time?

The Chair: No, we ran out. Thank you. Mr Curling.

Mr Curling: I dislike the question Ms Carter asked first, but I won't ask you that question. I think that your presentation is excellent. I think the format you've laid before us is something that we can use later on. It brings me to the point to ask you this: I presume when you went through in that detail and had so many recommendations -- you seem to be someone very strongly committed to employment equity, like all of us here, and the base of it is to have effective employment equity legislation.

Would you say that the bill, as the legislation sits at the present, is a bit weak and vague and your recommendations here would strengthen it and put some meat to it, where one can implement a better employment equity bill?

Ms Ksander: That's why I made some recommendations, in the hope that we could make the bill more forceful and more effective, yes.

Mr Curling: Yes, that's the concern --

Mr Perruzza: He's going to introduce that as amendments. I know it.

Mr Curling: Definitely. The basic idea, taken up from Mr Perruzza's question that we may use this as our recommendation, precisely so. What we are trying to attempt to do here is to listen to the public and, when recommendations like these are made, to take them into consideration and present them as ours and say, "Yes, we have listened, the Liberal Party has listened," and present them to the government of the day. Hopefully, they will amend it accordingly.

Did you see while you were going through this that any part of it, and I haven't had the chance to look, whether or not some things in the regulations should have been placed in the legislation? You don't have to be specific in any way.

Ms Ksander: There are some things that are in the regulations that are already in the legislation.

Mr Curling: You think there are some duplications?

Ms Ksander: There are some things that are in the regulations that are in the legislation already. Are you trying to say that --

Mr Curling: No, I'm just --

Ms Ksander: Are you asking me if there are additional things?

Mr Curling: Yes. You see, when we got the legislation, I really felt there was not much to debate there. But lots was in the regulation that made the legislation a bit clearer.

Ms Ksander: Yes.

Mr Curling: I just wondered if you felt that things that are in the regulation could be transferred to the legislation.

Ms Ksander: I'm not sure if I understand the whole mechanics of what that would mean or the ramifications of that. The only thing that comes to mind with respect to regulations and the bill was my recommendation of clarity in the definition. I think that should be clear in the regulations as well as in the bill.

Mr Curling: And that is precisely the question. Good answer. But what I want to ask you too is that I notice in here you spoke about the Human Rights Commission.

Ms Ksander: Yes.

Mr Curling: We have concern that, in establishing a commission of employment equity at a tremendous amount of cost the concentration is not of a bloated bureaucracy getting nowhere as a matter of fact. The fact is that at the present for people who have concerns about human rights issues it takes two to three years before their case could be heard. They're establishing an Employment Equity Commission now and we hope that it will expedite matters. As a matter of fact, it is clear what it does.

Do you feel that the definition of the Employment Equity Commission and its role is clear and there are no duplications in the sense of the Human Rights Commission and the Employment Equity Commission?

Ms Ksander: No, I have no confusion in the role of the Employment Equity Commission as opposed to that of the Human Rights Commission. I think the Human Rights Commission, as it stands, addresses individual rights and it is complaint-driven; however, the Employment Equity Commission focuses on employment equity. It is also strengthened by the Human Rights Code and that commission, and I do not see any type of duplication in that area at all. Actually, I think it just serves to make the whole thing better and stronger.

Mr Curling: All right. I have no further --

The Chair: You have time for a short question.

Mr Curling: A very short question. One of the other concerns -- and I'll just continue with the Human Rights Commission and the Employment Equity Commission. People who have come before us and have spoken to me outside of the committee say that the length of time that it would take to deal with a case is rather frightening.

As a matter of fact, a lot of people believe that as soon as the employment equity law is in place, immediately they can be addressed. I presume the first case would come about in the year 2000 and something before you can really put it to the test. Did you find that as you walked through the bill: "When will they hear my case? I've waited so long." Did you find that it would take a long time to hear those cases?

Ms Ksander: Actually, yes. I forgot to put that in my thing there. I thought you had overlooked that. But one of my concerns was that we do need a complaint procedure that is uncomplicated. One thing I say about that too is that it should be as sensitive as possible. However, with respect to the length of time that it would take, that's one reason why I think the commission needs to be stronger and needs to have more room to manoeuvre and to take hold of things, take a handle on things, to move ahead with complaints.

Mr Njoroge: Let me just add to that, about the procedure being long and what have you. I think if a lot is put into the education also of the employers about I guess the positive effects of employment equity, then that reduces the number of cases you have on the other side. I mean, we've had a lot of people here saying that it makes good business sense.

I think from the work I've done in Peterborough, there is some perception that a lot of the people from the equity groups don't merit certain jobs. So it's feared that then people will have to hire people to meet their targets. That's not the case. There's one thing about the whole process that's really good, and I've been involved in part of it, in one of the organizations there that's part of federal contractors, and that's the employment systems review.

The things you find out in that process, it's like looking at yourself in the mirror and finding out exactly where the systemic discrimination lies. With commitment from management in any organization, if you're really serious about being competitive and hiring the best people, that's the best mirror you can ever have.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. You obviously have consulted with many people in your community and come up with some concerns. Also, I appreciate the fact that you've put your recommendations into the paper as well.

You indicate here that there is a need for a strong statement in the act's preamble on the positive effects of employment equity on Ontario's mainstream population. I would agree. I think there is a need for a positive statement.

I have personally expressed my concern about what I perceive to be one paragraph which blames systemic and intentional discrimination in this province totally on the employer community and totally fails to recognize that there are other factors, such as historical, social and demographic reasons as well, and I believe that particular paragraph is very damaging.

I think if we're going to have cooperation in the province, we all need to work together. I think the preamble should be positive and talk about what can happen. What kind of statement would you suggest that would be positive, that would really encourage us to work together cooperatively and in consultation?

Ms Ksander: I do not have a draft of the preamble here. I didn't prepare one. However, I do not think we should take out the fact that systemic barriers -- the reasons for implementing employment equity. I think we need to have that in there; it's necessary.

Mrs Witmer: That we would blame employers?

Ms Ksander: If the systemic barriers that are being addressed by this act are barriers that exist in the workplace and employers are responsible for those. It is systemic, it is historical, and I think we need to put that in there also. I don't see why that should be taken out. I think it should be added. Something should be added there in an effort for members of designated groups and also for employers to recognize that they too would benefit from this type of act. I do not see why we should take it out. I wouldn't want to take it out.

1500

I think we have to acknowledge why these things have happened, we have to acknowledge why we have to have this act. It's embarrassing for members of mainstream Ontario, but we have to face up to some of these embarrassments in order to move ahead and be progressive. It's time to throw the embarrassment behind us, look at it, renounce it and then move ahead.

Mrs Witmer: I guess I would have a question for you, because you used the term "mainstream," and I've heard it used by probably two other groups today and yesterday. I'd like you to define for me who or what you determine to be mainstream Ontario.

Ms Ksander: In my community we define mainstream Ontario as white males.

Mrs Witmer: My definition would have been other than that, so I'm glad I asked you for that type of clarification. I appreciate that.

The Chair: Mr Tilson, one question.

Mr Tilson: Along that line, I interpreted from your presentation that this bill is more a Toronto bill, that it doesn't adequately deal with the communities outside of Toronto; I interpreted it that way. My question to you, continuing what Mrs Witmer was saying, is whether it is possible in the way we have been moving, slow as it may be, to legislate non-discrimination without creating a backlash. It may be possible in Toronto, but is it possible outside of Toronto?

Ms Ksander: I don't think we can legislate people's consciences; we cannot legislate personal beliefs. We can legislate actions and reactions. The part of the bill that does not speak to small-town Ontario is the part which talks about the quota -- sorry, the numbers and the percentages --

Mr Tilson: That's what we say it is.

Ms Ksander: -- that have got to be looked at by the employers. However, what the bill does speak to, and I have seen some effects in our community in that area, is that it forces employers to really re-examine themselves and to examine their practices, because what employers do feel is that they are being watched. Even though they argue against certain things and kick up quite a fuss, they recognize that they are being watched, and they are uncomfortable.

People from my community, a racial minority community in small-town Ontario, specifically Peterborough, are not striving to make the employers feel comfortable in perpetuating their discriminatory practices in hiring. We would like to be there and we'd like them to know that we are there to see and to recognize what they are doing, and I think they too are recognizing it.

Our college, Sir Sandford Fleming College in Peterborough, has attempted doing its own evaluation and so has Trent University, even though it might not have been on a large level. But what has been done has been very revealing, and the barriers and the discrimination have been so shocking that people who are in the positions of power and positions of control have been basically blown away by what they have discovered. This is where this act, even though I have criticized one certain part of it with respect to the numbers -- the effects of something like this are already trickling through our community.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to thank you both for taking the time to come from Peterborough to make this presentation to us today.

Ms Ksander: Thank you.

Mr Fletcher: On a point of clarification --

Interjections.

Mr Fletcher: Well, on a point of order.

The Chair: A point of order I'll take.

Mr Fletcher: On what Mrs Witmer has said about the preamble saying that the employers were the problem, it does not say that in the preamble. What it does suggest is that people do have a problem in employment practices, but not --

The Chair: It is not a point of order. Thank you, Mr Fletcher.

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS AND TREASURERS OF ONTARIO

The Chair: The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, welcome. You have half an hour for the presentation. Please leave as much time as you possibly can for the questions. Would you, as the chair, please introduce the others.

Mr James McQueen: Thank you, Mr Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jim McQueen and I'm president of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. When I'm not doing this volunteer job, I'm treasurer and director of finance for the town of Milton. With me today are, on my left, Janice Platt, and Janice is manager of human resources for the county of Peterborough; to my immediate right is Robert Heil, who is the chief administrative officer for the town of Lincoln; to Bob's right is Kathryn Ironmonger, who is administrator-clerk for the village of Erin. The three people I have introduced have been part of a project team that worked together to put the paper on the table that you've received from our organization.

I would like today to begin by giving you a little background about our organization, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario; for the sake of brevity, from now on it's AMCTO. AMCTO currently represents approximately 2,300 municipal professionals across the province. The association's membership is largely drawn from the supervisory and managerial level in municipalities.

As part of their jobs, the association's members are responsible in whole or in part for the human resource function within their municipality. As a result, our members have expressed a strong interest in Bill 79 and its effect on the municipal sector. I'm here today to put forward the association's position on this bill and to try to explain to you why the association has a number of serious concerns with regard to the legislation in its present format.

In order to conduct its review of Bill 79, AMCTO struck an ad hoc project team composed of representative members of our association. By way of information, two hold the position of clerk, two are town administrators, one is a clerk-treasurer, and two are from the area of human resources in the municipal sector. This team reviewed the bill with an eye to determining its impacts on AMCTO's members and the municipal sector in general.

Let me begin my presentation on the bill by stating emphatically that AMCTO is completely committed to the concept of fairness and equality within the workplace. Having said this, however, AMCTO has conducted its review of this bill with the hope that objectives of fairness and equity could be met through the administration of the bill's requirements.

AMCTO conducted its review with three general principles in mind. The first principle is that all bills, not just Bill 79, should be written in such a manner as to be as inclusive in nature as possible. What I mean by this is that AMCTO believes that pieces of legislation should not rely upon regulations in order to explain and clarify their meaning.

This belief is a natural one for the association's members, as they must administer a variety of acts on a daily basis as part of their jobs. Moreover, municipal bylaws don't have the luxury of being able to rely upon regulations to clarify their meaning. In a municipal setting, a bylaw must stand on its own. Staff must get it right the first time.

In the case of Bill 79, AMCTO believes that the proposed legislation relies too heavily upon regulations to explain its intent and to provide for its administration. AMCTO believes that Bill 79's reliance upon regulation is not only inappropriate and administratively cumbersome but is also genuinely undemocratic. Since regulations can be changed without going through the open legislative process, they are more likely to be unworkable, in the municipal setting at least.

The second principle is that AMCTO objects strongly to any form of mandatory goals, quotas, timetables or objectives. The association feels that such measures are, in general, unfair, and in particular, not appropriate for the municipal setting. Such measures have met with mixed success in other jurisdictions, and AMCTO would not like to see this divisive issue become part of this legislation.

1510

Finally, AMCTO must disagree with the assertion made in the bill's preamble that discrimination exists in the private and broader public sectors due to systemic and intentional discrimination. No one can deny that discrimination exists, but it is AMCTO's view that discrimination and a lack of opportunity may exist in part due to intentional and systemic discrimination, but certainly not totally. There are many factors which may play a part in limiting someone's opportunity for employment; therefore, AMCTO simply cannot support this blanket assertion contained in Bill 79's preamble.

I would like to move on to provide the committee with some of the highlights from AMCTO's brief on Bill 79, keeping in mind the association's overall principles of analysis. Based upon these principles, AMCTO has been able to identify 10 key items which it feels must either be changed or made explicitly clear in the body of the legislation itself if the legislation is to prove effective.

These key items or terms are the following: aboriginal people; racial minority; employee/employer; positive measures; occupational categories; person; community; designated groups; disability; and accommodate/accommodation. In each case, AMCTO believes that clear, consistent and workable definitions are required.

To give you an example of this type of thing that AMCTO objects to, I would like to briefly discuss the question of the definition of "disability" and "disabled." While AMCTO supports the advancement of disabled individuals within the workforce, the association believes that such terms as "disability" and "disabled" should not be left to the regulations for definition. Without the inclusion of these terms within the text of the legislation, it is extremely difficult for anyone reading legislation to say that the definition is appropriate.

AMCTO believes that this issue could easily be dealt with by placing a definition within the legislation itself. In doing so, the government would not be hiding behind the use of regulations to be prescribed later.

Consequently, AMCTO would like to see a clear, concise and workable definition introduced into the body of the legislation so that the term can be made visible to the association's members and so it can be workable within the municipal setting. The Workers' Compensation Act, for example, includes just such a definition. Certainly this bill we're talking about today could do the same.

AMCTO is also concerned about the general tone of the legislation with regard to the responsibilities of employers. The legislation appears to try to keep employee responsibility and bargaining agent responsibility to a minimum.

For example, employees are only required to return the workforce questionnaire; they are not required to answer any of the questions. The obvious difficulty with this is that employees may not participate or may choose not to answer certain questions. These actions will lead to inaccurate survey data and will make it more difficult for the employer to fulfil its obligations.

AMCTO believes that employees should be strongly encouraged in the legislation to correctly answer the questionnaire to ensure that employers can meet their obligations under the legislation.

Likewise, the bill should be amended so as to make it possible for the implementation committee to be composed of an equal number of employer and bargaining agent representatives. As currently written, subsection 14(3) of the bill should be interpreted as allowing more bargaining agent representatives to be on the committee than employer representatives. AMCTO believes that equity should work not only for designated groups but for the employer as well.

Another issue of concern to AMCTO is the determination of the number of employees within the workplace. Municipalities across the province often rely extensively upon part-time, seasonal, temporary or casual employees at different times of the year in order to conduct the business of municipal government.

The bill does not adequately define the term "employee," nor does it seem to contemplate the difficulty that a municipal employer will have in applying employment equity, given this lack of clarity.

In addition, municipalities as employers have at their disposal a number of long-term tools which can be used to train, retrain and promote employees. Such tools include training and apprenticeship programs and short-term municipal internship programs from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. However, such measures are largely ineffective with temporary or seasonal employees.

Furthermore, it will be extremely difficult for the municipalities to implement the requirements of the legislation for positions which are unique to the municipal sector. For example, volunteer firefighters are just such a group. The voluntary nature of their jobs and the fact that many receive no compensation for their efforts make it extremely difficult to include them with the municipalities' employment equity plan. It would be difficult for municipalities to make retention and promotion policies for workers who are not likely to become full-time. Furthermore, most if not all of these volunteers already have full-time occupations elsewhere within the community.

The association would also like to see this committee recommend that Bill 79 be amended by having the same time frames and requirements apply to both the broader public sector and the private sector. AMCTO can find no reasonable explanation as to why the broader public sector should be treated any different than the private sector in the application of the legislation.

A change in this treatment would mean, for example, that municipalities would have the same implementation schedule as the private sector, ie 36 months, and the municipalities would be governed by the same requirements as the private sector employers with regard to the application of the legislation.

The current shorter implementation deadlines for the public sector unfairly burden the municipal sector at a time when municipalities are downsizing and restructuring in order to deal with reduced transfer payments through the social contract and other means that have come about from the provincial government.

The provincial government's own actions and policy initiatives will make it extremely difficult for municipalities to comply with the legislation. The imposition of this legislation on municipalities and the association members may prove to be simply too much for them to cope with during these difficult times. If the private sector is to be accorded such consideration in this regard, so too should AMCTO's members.

To continue on with the administrative aspects of Bill 79, the association must state strongly its opposition to the creation of the Employment Equity Commission and the Employment Equity Tribunal. AMCTO believes that the last thing Ontario needs is another commission or tribunal. The creation of these bodies is simply a waste of money. Notwithstanding AMCTO's objection, the association recognizes that the government probably has no intention of eliminating these bodies based upon our recommendation.

As a result, AMCTO would recommend, as a compromise position, that the functions to be carried out by the commission and the tribunal be given to the Pay Equity Commission or some already-existing associated body in order to eliminate duplication of effort and to save taxpayers money.

With regard to the tribunal itself, AMCTO believes that the tribunal should not be given the sweeping powers that are currently part of the legislation. Subsection 26(1) of the legislation opens the door to abuse of the complaint mechanism to any person or group that may wish to challenge an employer. Municipalities have already suffered through a similar problem with frivolous complaints under the freedom of information act. They do not need to go through this again with regard to employment equity. Moreover, the tribunal should not have the authority to impose any employment equity plan upon the municipalities or AMCTO members. Once again, the association believes that this is simply inappropriate.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize AMCTO's desire to see changes made to Bill 79. The association cannot currently support the legislation in its present form. The association believes that employment equity is a laudable concept. However, this proposed piece of legislation is deeply flawed, in our minds, and would have negative consequences for AMCTO's members and municipalities.

It is our hope that you will take the time to read our brief in full and consider that our recommendations are made with the interest of our members and the municipal sector in mind. Thank you for your time and consideration.

1520

The Chair: Thank you. Three minutes per caucus.

Mr Callahan: I'd like to congratulate you for your brief and for having the guts to come before this committee. I found it interesting that a lot of groups are not prepared to come forward and say what you're saying because they'll be, I suppose --

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: Mr Chair, do you suppose you could keep the member of the government quiet while I ask my questions?

I find it interesting that you'd come forward, because a lot of people feel sort of intimidated in coming forward and even speaking on this matter, and I want to applaud you for it. I think your brief is one that shows a good deal of thought.

I suggested earlier this morning that the enforcement mechanisms in this bill are going to do nothing but create a very long number of jobs for lawyers as they flit back and forth between the Human Rights Code and these tribunals. I'd like to know what impact you see this having on the --

Mr Perruzza: I'm using this to support the amendment that you're going to bring forward.

The Chair: Please, some order. Continue, sir.

Mr Callahan: I'd like it if you can give us some idea, being treasurers and clerks of municipalities, of the impact, if any, the setting up of this, the carrying out of this and so on will have on the cost to taxpayers of various municipalities, if you've given that any thought. I don't know whether you have or you haven't.

Mr McQueen: I'll give you a scenario that will likely occur. As you know, in the municipal sector, like a lot of other public sectors these days, having our financial bases eroded in one way or another either through economic downturns in our own communities or through such things as the social contract and expenditure control plans, when you have that kind of revenue base loss coming your way it means you have to do with less horses, you might say, in the operation of the municipality. You have to realize that this whole area of human resources for a lot of us is done on a part-time basis, so there isn't the time to be devoted to a lot of new pieces of legislation that have fairly lengthy processes to them.

This piece of legislation seems to be one of the kinds of pieces of legislation that will cause a lot of administrative work in the municipal sector that we really don't need when we're suffering fiscally right now.

Mr Callahan: And just finally --

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr Callahan: That was it?

The Chair: It's three minutes. Mrs Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: You've indicated that you would like to consult with the minister. Am I to assume that up until this time you've not had an opportunity, as representatives of the municipal sector, to discuss this legislation with the minister?

Mr McQueen: I'll refer to one of my colleagues to respond to that question. The project team has been working diligently for some months now, and maybe Bob could deal with that question about involvement of the project team with ministry officials to date.

Mr Robert Heil: Our involvement, we received the legislation, and through our association we establish and draw on our expertise throughout the province. Those people are specialists, as we consider them, in our field. They sit down and begin reviewing draft legislation. We have a lot of discussions with Municipal Affairs people. They even attend some of our own meetings on a regular basis.

With this one the legislation was drafted. We struck a task force that began working with the legislation and only recently the regulations and this is our response. There has not been a great deal of discussion with this staff, so to speak, on that matter.

Mrs Witmer: I think you have here an excellent presentation. I think you've raised some very valid concerns regarding the legislation and its operation.

I guess I have another question for you, and that regards the expectations that have been raised by this legislation. We've had people make representation and indicate that if this legislation is passed there will be tremendous employment opportunities for the various designated groups. I guess if we take a look at the impact of the social contract -- I indicated this morning that in the teaching profession there will be no new teachers hired in the next three years -- are there going to be many job opportunities within the municipal sector in the next three years?

Mr McQueen: That's a difficult question to answer because it has a lot to do with the age of the employees in the public sector; it has a lot to do with how each individual municipality will deal with cutbacks. I would suspect that there will be job opportunities like there always have been, but they won't be to the same degree.

Mr Mills: Thank you for appearing. I want to put the record straight before I begin, and I'm not exactly a greenhorn in so far as municipal politics -- I was a municipal politician for many years and also I have been the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I have great concerns with some of the things that you say here, but before I get to that, I just want to read something out of the newspaper yesterday. You're all aware probably of the report that's come down from the legal profession, by Bertha Wilson, the former Supreme Court of Canada justice.

It says in this report, "Canada's legal profession is dominated by rich, old, sexist, white men who discriminate against women and ethnic minorities." That's one of the things she said. Then she goes on to say:

"Included among the findings:

"Women and ethnic minorities encounter discrimination at all levels of the profession starting in law school where there is a `poisoned environment' of pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination.

"Female lawyers are pushed out of certain areas of practice and pigeon-holed into `pink ghetto' areas such as family law, regardless of their personal aptitudes and preferences."

Now, sir, in your principles of analysis here, you say you strongly object "to the imposition of mandatory goals, timetables and quotas for employment equity." So ask me to pose the question to you, to your association, what makes you think that it's different in the municipal sector than it is in the sector of the so-called professional, élite legal profession? What makes you think that those problems are not there in the municipal sector for municipal workers as they are in the legal profession, which we look up to as being somewhat above all of this? What's the difference?

Mr Perruzza: If IBM can do it, why can't you?

Interjection.

Mr Mills: I like Tim. He's a wonderful person. But I want to know what gives here.

Mr Heil: Mr Mills, I think there's one thing that's very important that we noted. AMCTO is completely committed to the concept of fairness and equity in all cases. We, as municipal employees, represent through our councils the general public, as provincial government employees, county, and it is absolutely imperative that everything we do is not only fair and equitable but perceived to be fair and equitable. We in no way object in any way, shape or form to the basic principles behind it. In fact, we applaud any action in this regard.

Our problem is our declining resources, the difficulties we have in adherence to very strict timetables. We do want to implement, we do want to proceed with the implementation of what we may consider to be one of the most important pieces of legislation dealing with equity and fairness in this province as it affects designated groups. Our concern is that it's being treated by regulation, which is to me a secondary way to produce and deal with legislation. It also sets up some time limits which we are going to have great difficulty to comply with and it will create perhaps a great deal of employment for the lawyers trying to interpret and sort this material out, and we don't want to get into that. We want something --

Mr Callahan: Wearing the robes you're talking about.

Mr Mills: What?

The Chair: Please complete your thought.

1530

Mr Heil: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Our concern is that if the legislation were clear and precise from start to finish, similar to the province's Drainage Act, there's less likelihood of it being tied up in courts and tribunals and less likelihood that implementation would be a problem. In municipalities, and I'd like to say that we are more public than the legal profession, our hiring practices, hopefully -- and I'm not saying there's not discrimination; I'm certain there is -- with proper legislation, we will be able to implement. I'd like to say as a public organization I believe municipalities are not better than the legal profession, but perhaps more public and hopefully can resolve some of the discrimination problems.

Mr Mills: Time limits me from a response.

The Chair: We ran out of time. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for taking the time to come here and to participate in these committee hearings.

The next presenter is Mike Alexander. Mr Alexander is not here. The next presenter is Ratna Arya.

Is the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation here, by any chance?

Interjections.

The Chair: Very well. What we'll do then is to allow the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation to begin. In the event that Mr Arya comes, we'll have him present after that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Could I have a little order, please? I'm talking through both members here at once.

Mr Tilson: I don't want to interrupt. I am simply asking, are you saying Mr Alexander is not present?

The Chair: I believe Mike Alexander was on the list, but he may have cancelled. In his place we have Ratna Arya, who is not here.

Mr Tilson: Okay, I understand.

Interruption.

The Chair: Given that we have Mr Arya here as the person who is presenting, I'd rather wait for the person to come and then you could join him, but in his absence we'll continue with the others.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION

The Chair: Welcome. You have half an hour for your presentation. Leave as much time as you can for questions and answers. Some previous presenters have taken a great deal of time to read their presentations but have left very little time for questions and responses, so I would urge you to do that if you can. Please begin any moment you're ready.

Mrs Pat Wright: First of all, I can say how very pleased we are to be here representing the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. We do apologize for not getting our brief to you earlier so you could had time to look at it. However, we believe that it quite clearly states our position, so it shouldn't give you that much difficulty in quickly looking through it.

We have fought as an organization for the principles of equality since 1919: this year we'll be celebrating our 75th anniversary. While we agree with the concepts and proposals contained in the bill, while we believe that the direction the bill takes is laudable, we see some great problems with the bill as it is presently constituted.

You see, within our organization we represent about 46,000 educational workers, 48% of whom are women. We have to balance the interests of our members with the interests of the students whom we serve. We believe that Bill 79 in fact weakens some of the rights that our members have through their collective agreements and through existing legislation.

We also believe that matters of substance which are presently placed in the regulations should actually be placed in the bill and subsequent act when it is passed. We believe that these clear definitions must be contained within the act. We believe that the specific responsibilities of bargaining agents and employers must be designated in the act and in the regulations and we believe that section 3 of the regulations must be deleted and necessary changes made throughout.

The three main areas of concern which we have are areas which hinge around the role of the bargaining agent, the rights of individual members and the whole matter of enforcement. What this bill does is that it assigns to bargaining agents a joint responsibility without making any proviso for authority within which to exercise that responsibility.

The bill is silent on the role of bargaining agents, specifically in sections 15, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 31. Bargaining agents are placed in a position of having a responsibility without authority to ensure that the responsibility that they exercise towards their members, both present and future, can be carried out in a manner that will provide appropriate representation.

We also believe that, in giving the bargaining agents joint responsibility with management, the bargaining agents are being placed in a quasi-management role, and that is a flaw.

We believe that within this bill, should bargaining agents and employers have a dispute, there is no resolution mechanism provided with appropriate time lines. Yes, there is something provided in section 27, but it's not time-definite.

Bargaining agents are supposed to work with employers in acquiring information. However, the bargaining agent is excluded from access to raw data which would allow them to make a meaningful interpretation of what that data says. Therefore, they will be unable to fully participate in the development of employment equity plans.

Section 15 allows employers to bypass the bargaining agent completely in their consultation with their employees. Employment equity legislation must provide mechanisms that allow employers and bargaining agents to work together for employment equity in the workplace without compromising the ability of the bargaining agent to represent his members in a manner which is appropriate.

There are settlement mechanisms allowed in section 23 without input from the bargaining agents. This we find unacceptable. The representation of bargaining agents must not be compromised, and when we look at the individual rights and the protections from discrimination, what we find is that the net effect of section 51 of this bill will be to destroy the employment equity sections contained in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and we find that appalling.

Is it the intention to completely destroy those fundamental rights that have been guaranteed to the populace of Ontario? Then after this bill has gone ahead and destroyed these rights, what it does is to accept a minimum standard of reasonableness. This standard of reasonableness is far below that which is found in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and it's far below that which is acceptable to us.

When we think about seniority rights, which are guaranteed to many of our members through collective bargaining and free agreements between bargaining agents and employers, what we find is that seniority rights could be placed on a barrier list as indicated in paragraph 41(1)5. The employment equity legislation should not and must not override freely negotiated seniority rights if those seniority rights comply with the Human Rights Code. Seniority rights are a standard of the labour movement.

1540

When we think about enforcement, what we find is that contained within this bill are mechanisms for the establishment of a tribunal, a tribunal which has complete jurisdiction, arbitrary jurisdiction, and is in fact the be-all and-end all of any questions concerning employment equity. The tribunal can rule on those matters which were not even brought before it. We believe that the tribunal should rule only on those matters which are in dispute between the parties.

One of the other concerns that we have about the tribunal is the constitution of the tribunal. The tribunal could be limited to one person. Now, in standard labour relations and in pay equity we tend to have tribunals made up of one neutral party, one representative of the employer and one representative of the bargaining agent. This proposed bill does nothing in that area.

The other concern we have is that the very nature of the tribunal and the matters that can be brought before it would allow a number of different parties to make all sorts of applications to the tribunal. It's going to cost money. The designated groups have waited for a long time for this piece of legislation and they don't have the money necessarily to go before the tribunal. None of the parties, including the government, can afford the enormous costs of the enforcement of this bill. That gives us a problem, because who pays is not spelled out.

The bill contains serious flaws. Employment equity legislation must protect individuals and provide mechanisms to ensure that the human rights guaranteed under the Human Rights Code of Ontario are not eroded. The notion of joint responsibility of bargaining agent and management is one which I believe is unworkable. The traditional role of bargaining agent, as described in Bill 79, has been altered without providing the bargaining agents with mechanisms that will enable them to represent their members appropriately.

The goal of the government, we believe, should be for full employment for its citizens and for an equitable distribution of jobs at different levels and across all sectors of the population. This bill is unworkable and we can only view it as being purely cosmetic.

The Chair: We will begin with the third party. Mrs Witmer, there are approximately six minutes per caucus.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your very interesting presentation. You have brought some concerns to the table that have certainly not been voiced by others, and you've obviously done a very thorough examination. You indicate here that you're concerned that individual rights, as guaranteed under the Human Rights Code, are going to be eroded. Could you specifically address those rights?

Mrs Stephanie Burke: If I may. You all have your Human Rights Code handy, no doubt. Subsection (5)1 of the Human Rights Code says:

"Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or handicap."

If we look at section 51 of this bill before us, it amends the Human Rights Code in such a way that those rights no longer apply because there's a new subsection now, 34(1), and also in subsection (5) of section 14 of the Human Rights Code, and it makes any employer's employment equity plan a special plan for the disadvantaged, so that anyone seeking employment while those plans were in place would not be able to pursue that because no person's right is infringed under section 5 if it's a plan under section 14, and section 51 of this bill does that.

So, for instance, as I read this legislation I'm very much afraid that sexual orientation is no longer any reason, or family status: A single parent might be told that jobs couldn't be had because this was a special plan under section 14 of the Human Rights Code. What we look at there, then, is that first of all we have only the four designated groups; secondly, whether the employer is making reasonable progress, not the standard of undue hardship but reasonable progress. Basically, we have removed from the Human Rights Code the right to equity in employment.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you for that explanation. I think there has been a concern expressed that there is some conflict between the two acts that will create some problems in the future.

You mentioned that the role of the bargaining agent is changed. You've made some very good observations here: the fact that the advocacy role of unions is going to change and be assigned to individual employees and also to third-party advocacy groups. Could you expand on that? Do you want those sections eliminated or do you want them changed, sections 28 and 26?

Mrs Wright: While we would not prevent third-party advocacy groups from making their presentations in those areas where they have jurisdiction, one of our problems is that if you have a bargaining agent holding joint responsibility with an employer, then should that bargaining agent represent a member under the terms of agreements within the constitution of that bargaining agent, the bargaining agent has a right to represent that member in areas of dispute, including human rights, including all different disputes between themselves and employers.

You have a bargaining agent. You've placed that bargaining agent in a position of holding joint responsibility with the employer, and then you say to this bargaining agent, "We're going to allow your member to take you through the tribunal." The problem then becomes, what is the position of the bargaining agent in that regard? Bargaining agents are supposed to represent their members, so how can you represent your member in a situation where you already hold joint responsibility? We see that as a conflict.

Mrs Witmer: Do you have any further suggestions as to how it can be changed?

Mrs Wright: In, for instance, health and safety, employers and bargaining agents have worked together to establish mechanisms whereby health and safety can be achieved in the particular area. But the bargaining agent does not hold joint responsibility. What then happens with the bargaining agent is that, should a problem arise, should health and safety not be achieved, the bargaining agent could then say to the tribunal or whomever, "This has not been achieved; this is what we need to do," and it is the bargaining agent who has the representation rights for that member who can take it forward -- without placing the bargaining agent in a compromising position. That's what I feel this legislation does.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much. I did appreciate your presentation.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr Tilson; we'll go over time if you ask another question.

Ms Carter: Welcome. I was a one-time member of the OSSTF, so I have some feeling with you. I'd like to discuss the question of seniority, which evidently you favour very strongly. First of all, there's a possibility that seniority provisions might conflict with employment equity. That has been suggested to us, and I just wondered what your thoughts would be on that.

Mrs Wright: First of all, we do not see seniority rights necessarily as being conflicting with employment equity. I know that's different from presentations you may have had. What we see is that legislation of this type should smash systemic discrimination. Once systemic discrimination has been smashed and the barriers have been removed, then you have freely negotiated seniority provisions that are in collective agreements that should be allowed to work, because seniority provisions are actually gender-neutral and race-neutral and disability-neutral. Anybody in the job who can do the work and has got the seniority and has fulfilled the other requirements can progress.

We do not see seniority provisions as necessarily interfering with the employment equity provisions, but first the legislation must smash systemic discrimination; after that, once people are employed, are in the system, then they can move forward.

Ms Carter: So it's only possibly in the early stages while we're approximating to equity in the workplace that there could be a conflict. But supposing there were a conflict and the seniority provisions caused a breach of the Human Rights Code; we might be faced with a complex and slow means of resolving this. Some groups have suggested having a board of inquiry to determine whether seniority provisions do constitute such a breach. I just wondered if you could suggest any easier and faster way of dealing with this than just leaving it to the individual to file a complaint.

1550

Mrs Burke: We see the goal of employment equity legislation as getting rid of systemic discrimination. From the time we made our very first input to the commissioner, we said it is essential that we separate the path for equity for the individual from the path which destroys systemic discrimination, because we believe that the Human Rights Code is the correct place to have complaints brought forward by individuals. We suggested even then that this whole thing be made much less expensive and much more expeditious, and that it be kept out of employment equity legislation.

What we find instead is that it's been removed from the Human Rights Code and shoved into the employment equity draft legislation. The result of that is going to be that in the attempt to get rid of systemic discrimination, the system will be clogged with thousands of cases of individuals. You cannot do both, getting rid of systemic discrimination and protecting the rights of the individual, under the same process.

The Chair: One final question.

Ms Akande: I'm interested in your response. You believe that seniority should be taken into account when addressing promotion. Recognizing that in education promotion is very much hiring for a different level, very much a job application and interview process, not just a natural process of promotion, could you please describe to me in a little more detail exactly what you mean by "taken into account"?

Mrs Wright: One of the things that I know employers, that is, in this particular case, boards of education, have been doing with the bargaining agents is that they have been working on committees to look at promotion mechanisms, from classroom teacher, for instance, to department head, from department head to principal.

One of the reasons we said "a consideration for promotion" -- because a lot of things are represented in that whole mix, in agreements that have been worked out between bargaining agents and employers when we sit on the joint committees -- is that we look at a whole bunch of things, not just promotion. One has to look at qualifications, one has to look at areas of expertise, one has to look at the particular needs of the system, one has to look at the seniority provisions within that context. You cannot just look at seniority, purely and simply seniority, for the purposes of promotion within education. One has to look at seniority as part and parcel of a whole group of things, which bargaining agents and employers can work out in the educational sphere.

In addition to that, we have other units we represent who are non-teachers, and the seniority provisions are more critical for them. I think Stephanie would like to say a few words too.

Mrs Burke: It's a standard provision in non-teacher agreements in our sector that all other things being equal, the senior applicant gets the job, and that is the type of thing we are not keen on losing without having studied this a great deal more. The seniority matter is not such a critical issue for promotion for teachers, but it is a critical issue within the non-teaching units.

The Chair: We've run out of time. Mr Callahan.

Mr Callahan: I want to applaud you for this brief; I think it's excellent. I notice that you appeared before the Employment Equity Commissioner in February 1992. Unfortunately, I don't think he or she, whoever it was, listened to one word you were saying, but I think they should have.

I've had a fear right from the start of this legislation, although I totally abhor discrimination of any type, particularly in the workplace, that they talked about it in terms of legislation almost building a duplicate tier to the Human Rights Code, rather than looking at it, as you've said and as has always been my belief and my colleagues' belief, that the Human Rights Commission, if it were properly funded and the procedures were set up in such a way that people would get prompt justice -- because the old adage is "Justice delayed is justice denied" -- then you wouldn't need this parallel system to do it other than to deal with systemic discrimination.

I think you're right on, and if this government were smart it would listen to you. I've said before that I think this is going to be a lawyers' delight, that this is going to create work for lawyers that will keep them in business for a long time. I can see people scooting back and forth between the tribunal and perhaps the Human Rights Commission or vice versa and thinking they are getting some sort of fairness; in fact, all they're going to be doing is paying the high price of those lawyers and perhaps reaching retirement before they get some justice. So I applaud you for your suggestions in that regard.

We've also heard from some groups that the number of regulations in this bill is absolutely astounding. It seems as though the cabinet of whatever government is in power can change the whole set of circumstances, that people think they're protected and it's safe -- I don't mean to make light of this -- to go back into the ocean, but it can be changed on them immediately by just an executive order of cabinet.

That's frightening. I'm a lawyer by profession, and I can remember that back in law school they said that any legislation, to be clear and enforceable, should not be regulations but should in fact be legislation that has to go through the House to be changed so the free and democratic process is fully working, and that regulations should be used just to cover the things that perhaps are day to day or irregularities. You didn't put that in your brief, but I gather that would be supportable as well, would it?

Mrs Wright: I think we did make the comment that substantive matters from the regulations should be placed in the legislation. For instance, we note that within the regulations is the definition of "aboriginal." Within the legislation, there's no definition for "aboriginals," "racial minority" or "disabled person." The definitions aren't in Bill 79. We noted, for instance, that there are substantive sections in part III of the regulations which we think would be better placed in the bill; that the qualitative measures contained within the regulations should be more correctly placed in the bill; that the sections contained in 40(1) and 40(2) about information re posting in the workplace should be more correctly placed in the legislation.

Mr Callahan: As opposed to regulations.

Mrs Wright: As opposed to regulations. We believe that what has happened is that we have a very unwieldy set of regulations which are full of substantive matters which would be better placed in the bill. In terms of our presentation in February 1992, I was not yet elected to the provincial office of OSSTF so I will defer to Stephanie, who made the presentation at that time.

Mr Callahan: They should have listened to you. I think the comments you make --

The Chair: I think she's going to respond to that.

Mrs Burke: No, I was not going to respond.

Mr Callahan: Another thing that struck me when this bill was in the mill was that if you're in favour of something, you're obviously against something else. By doing what you've suggested, by strengthening the operation of the Human Rights Code, as you indicated, I think, you are advancing all of those causes that are in the Human Rights Code and you can't be accused, whether it be correct or not, that you're favouring one group over another, because you're in fact giving all of those rights that are encompassed in section 5 of the Human Rights Code their due and their opportunity to be heard. I think that's very important, at least from where I'm sitting.

The other thing, and then I'm going to defer --

The Chair: There won't be time for that afterwards.

Mr Callahan: Then I'll defer to my colleague right now. You can ask your question.

Mr Curling: Is the time up?

The Chair: No. There would not be time to pass it on, but there is time for one.

Mr Curling: Just a quick one then. I wasn't in for all your presentation, but you spoke about the seniority rights in regard to tenure in the system for teachers. Do you think that tenure would conflict with the principles of employment equity?

1600

Mrs Wright: One of the problems one faces in education is that before somebody can become employed in education, there's a whole bunch of hoops that they have to go through, namely, they have to get out of school, graduate, get into university, graduate, get into teachers' college, graduate, and then get employed.

One of the problems, and I think this is a problem that the Minister of Education will have to grapple with after employment equity legislation has been passed, is how to ensure equity within the educational sector so that we can provide for our visible minority students, and in fact for all students, suitable role models so that we have a sufficient distribution of role models throughout the education system so that students of all types, of all origins and of all backgrounds can have access to teachers who cross the entire spectrum that we have in Ontario. That is a problem, and that is a problem which specific employment equity cannot address in legislation as such. It is something specific that I think the Minister of Education will have to address.

The Chair: I want to thank both of you for your presentation and your participation here today.

RATNA ARYA
HELENE AND MAIR SARAGA

The Chair: Mr Arya? I want to welcome you to this committee. You have half an hour for the presentation. Would you please introduce your colleagues?

Mrs Helene Saraga: Helene Saraga.

Mr Mair Saraga: Mair Saraga.

Mr Ratna Arya: First of all, let me thank you, Mrs Witmer, and this entire committee for the opportunity that you have given me to make my presentation this afternoon, and thereto with the speed with which you have made this possible. It was only yesterday afternoon that I made my request that I be given this opportunity to make a presentation and it is very heartening that here I am right in front of you.

Ms Harrington: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are these presenters on our agenda?

The Chair: Yes, they are. If you recall, what happens is that when people cancel we go through the waiting list, and that is why Mr Arya got short notice for coming. So he's on our list, but not on the one you have seen. The person who was on the list, Mr Alexander, has cancelled out. We then go through the waiting list, and Mr Arya was available to come, so he's legitimately here as part of the waiting list.

Mr Mills: We just wanted to know what group he was with.

Mr Arya: I'm just an individual, and passionately interested in the administration of justice in this province.

Let me also apologize for being late. I got held up in the traffic jam on Highway 401.

If I had had more time, I would have liked to further chisel and polish my presentation, but what seemed more important to me when the opportunity was offered to me was that I be here and break the silence of years rather than wait and wait, as I have done in the past. If, therefore, you discover any deficiencies in my presentation that could have been rectified by revisions of drafts, please bear with me and also pardon me.

Dear Chair and other members, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed that every citizen of Canada has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, to be deemed equal before and under the laws and the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination, and in particular without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. I'm sure you have heard this over and over and are already familiar with all this.

Once upon a time, and that was prior to 1978, I used to look upon Canada as a model for our entire global village in which each and every person maintained his or her own ethnocultural and other identities and yet each was encouraged to make his or her exceptional contribution to the wellbeing of self and of others. The concept of multiculturalism to me was a panacea for our entire world, torn apart by the barriers of race, religion, colour of skin, language, accent, gender and culture. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to me was the ultimate statement of all humanity's struggle for beauty and harmony in our interpersonal relationships, not only in the workplace but also in the conduct of our everyday life at home with our families and with the world at large. Everything about Canada had the aura of the tender, loving care of lovers who had fallen in love for the first time.

My wife, Uma, and I, together with our 39-day-old son, Akfhaya, arrived in Canada on 3 September 1962. I had a master's degree in English, from India, of course, and I had a bachelor's degree in teaching. In the manner of a typical first-generation immigrant, it was not just the spirit of adventure but also the ambition to make a new beginning in a brand-new country that had brought us to this land of opportunity. It was magic to have arrived here, and that magic has still not disappeared from our minds in spite of the ordeal that has brought me face to face with this committee this afternoon.

The theme of my presentation before you this afternoon is that our democratic institutions remain hostage to an institutionalized bigotry and stereotyping based on race, national or ethnic origin and so forth that have been mentioned in the charter, in spite of the charter and other legislations that have been enacted to root this evil out.

In the brief space that I had for preparation, and in the brief space that I was here, I heard over and over again the echoes of, what is important for the administration of justice is a mechanism for conformity with the law.

Mechanisms for conformity cannot be obtained so long as individuals in charge of these mechanisms do not have a commitment to them. Justice is delivered not only by laws but also by personalities who are supposed to carry out the mandate of the legislators and of the mechanisms.

Therefore, what I'm going to indicate to you this afternoon is that fully entrenched in the administration of justice in the form of due process is a system of hierarchical equality, as a consequence of which those in higher positions of responsibility are deemed to be more equal in the conduct of due process than those in subordinate positions.

What I'm going to do next is, with reference to my own experience, explain what exactly the nature of this hierarchical equality is in our system.

I was the head of the English department of Wiarton District High School from September 1969 to June 1987. I have reason to believe that as far back as 1978, when Doug Nickel, who had been my principal from 1969 to 1978, retired and Paul Cole was appointed principal of that school, the institution of stereotyping had determined that, being non-white, I did not have the right image for my position.

1610

Paul Cole attempted to employ several different kinds of tactics to force me to quit. I stood my ground. He backed away. When Paul Cole transferred to another school in 1980, I expected that my chapter with Paul Cole had closed.

A year later, Paul Cole was elevated to the position of superintendent of personnel in the system. On December 9, 1982, I had an inkling that all was not still well with my professional career.

On June 7, 1983, an education officer of the Ministry of Education, Earl Knickerbocker, having visited my classes, having checked the notebooks of my students, having reviewed my program, having talked to my students, exclaimed, "You might be the best English teacher in the province." Obviously, what he also indicated to me was that I had the potential of making a unique contribution, not only to the cause of teaching English but also to the entire educational system, because of the strategies I had developed to make my program a student-centred learning system based on individualized critical thinking.

This official was so impressed with my program that he, first of all, suggested to me that I prepare to make presentations, to address conferences and so forth.

Then he didn't stop there. He was so impressed that he decided to take this evidence to my principal. He helped me, and both of us carried some of the notebooks that I, at his instructions, collected from each of my three classes that I taught during that semester to the principal's office.

But 15 or 20 minutes later, when this official came out of the principal's office, no doubt was left in my mind that there remains the weighting of our system of administration of justice, even after a definite identification is made, that the weight has some species of merit to recommend it to the system. That was June 1983.

On January 25, 1984, after my principal, this new principal, visited all three of my classes that I had taught during this new semester, I received a report on my teaching competence that started out with the sentence, "Planning and preparation are seriously flawed."

One of the statements used in support of this above assertion was that I had spent six weeks on the teaching of Shakespeare in each of my three classes, thereby leaving insufficient time for the coverage of other units of the course.

That premeditation with malicious intent had been the presiding deity of this report is established by the fact that it had been my practice to spend the first six weeks on the teaching of Shakespeare in each of my classes, but only in the semester prior to this one, and I used Shakespeare as the core of my program. But because of certain new perceptions, I had changed my program, and in this semester I had spent only 3, 8 and 13 class periods respectively in each of those three classes under review.

When I confronted my principal with the evidence of the above, he offered to revise the report.

Since I had identified not Mr Koshan, the present principal, but Mr Cole as the real author of the report, I had every intention of accepting a proper report if one acceptable to me was written, but only after putting enough fear of the law into Mr Koshan's mind to make sure that he would not dare do something similar to this again with me or with any other colleague of mine. But enough falsehoods were retained in the revised report that I refused to accept the same. He asked me to return the original report because this new report was better than the other, but upon counsel from a grievance officer of the district OSSTF, I declined to do so.

This was the point at which the hierarchical system of equality took over from the specifics of my case. Obstacles were created in my pursuit of excellence by recommendations made that went contrary to the ministry's guideline. The choice that was given to me was to be condemned either by the ministry for not following the ministry's guidelines or to be condemned by the principal for not following his directives.

My students were exploited and manipulated, not only to my detriment but also to the detriment of their pursuit of learning in my classroom.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Excuse me, sir.

Mr Callahan: I have a concern. It may be an unfounded concern, but I'm hearing things that -- perhaps we should have just a moment in camera and I'll tell you my reasons for raising the point of order. Perhaps we could just have the Hansard turned off and the cameras turned off.

The Chair: Can we quickly arrange that?

The committee continued in closed session from 1616 to 1619.

The Chair: As a brief explanation, we went into camera very briefly to simply assure ourselves that whatever he's saying in public was something that he felt comfortable in doing and communicating that concern to him, and if there were, he, in knowing that, was prepared to proceed in whatever way he needed to. So Mr Arya, I apologize. Please continue.

Mr Arya: I apologize too for the concerns that I raised as a result. But I am absolutely confident that what I have to present should be of interest to this committee.

On December 3, 1986, I was put under review as department head because I had been unable to put courses of study on file. Included in the report I received on December 3 was a statement that Earl Knickerbocker of the Ministry of Education had assisted me with my program and with my courses of study on three occasions. I have yet to be provided the dates of the reported visits, even though I have requested them over and over again. I requested Mr Beamer, the superintendent, to have Mr Koshan, the principal, provide me the dates of those three visits. Mr Beamer, the superintendent, told me he did not want to get involved in this matter because that was a matter between the principal and me. I just cannot understand what the function of the superintendent is in our system if not to assist in this kind of professional difficulty.

I would also like to have obtained the circumstances that required Mr Knickerbocker's intervention for assistance and also the details of the assistance. But I did not even get to first base, so the other concerns of mine were never addressed.

Premeditation of malicious intent is contained in the fact that one of the components mandated for me for my courses of study was that I was supposed to prepare, not only for me but also for the other members of my department, daily lesson topics. I am sure some of you are educators or have been educators and some of you have been involved in the system of education in one capacity or another. Apart from questions relating to the educational validity of daily lesson topics, please note that I was supposed to come up with the daily lesson topics, and I have a letter to that effect, whether or not other members of my department gave me any input into those courses of study. I am not God. I had to come up with courses of study that were relevant to each and every member individually.

On April 30, 1987, I had a so-called review meeting at the board office. I had gone to this meeting, in spite of the fact that the OSSTF field secretary who had been assigned to represent me could not be present for that meeting because he had to go somewhere else, because I had faith, trust and confidence in the system. The purpose of this review meeting was the difficulty that I had in coming up with those courses of study. But as I started to indicate why I had difficulty in putting the courses of study on file, the director of education stopped me by saying -- and the concern was similar to the one just expressed -- that if I had allegations to make, I must be accompanied by a lawyer.

Twelve days later, the director invited me to explain to him why I should not be demoted. If I had wanted to make a presentation, I had only three days to do so. The OSSTF field secretary assigned to assist me advised me not to do so on the grounds that the federation had been fighting my case on the grounds of faulty process.

When I suggested that I would even consider making a presentation to the board of education, this representative advised me not to do so because the meeting at the board office would be a "kangaroo court". Since I had already had a taste of a kangaroo court on April 30, I had no choice but to take this recommendation seriously.

The Chair: Mr Arya, I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but we only have five minutes for your presentation, so you may want to reflect what you want to say in those five minutes.

Mr Arya: Okay. I wish I had more time, but anyway.

I think in essence all I wanted to present to you -- with reference to the rest of my story, because I had evidence of manipulation of my students. I took that to the director's office. The director made certain statements to the effect -- number one, the innocence of children must be preserved; that if I brought to him a case of professional misconduct, even on the day of arbitration -- and my case was before arbitration by this time -- that he would not hesitate to take serious action against that employee. Nobody else lost a job; I did.

First of all, what I would like to do is, if I had more time, to indicate to you the stratagems and the terror tactics that are used by those in higher positions of responsibility to the detriment of the subordinate. My feeling remains that it is a curse to be a subordinate in our system of administration of justice.

Those in higher positions of responsibility, because of their superior powers, are able to determine what goes on record and what doesn't, in view of the fact that those in higher positions of responsibility not only have the power to create the record but also are the keepers of the record. This gives them the power to give no dignity to the case of their victim by manufacturing evidence behind closed doors, as I have indicated, in support of their own case and to the detriment of the victim, and the falsehoods remain the unchallenged record, let alone their wanting to dignify the concerns expressed by the victim with a response.

Secondly, even as the victim starts to feel a sense of security owing to the fact that it has recourse to the guarantees contained in the delineation of professional standards and practices and so forth, what happens is that they have the ability to collude with those in higher positions and thereby turn the guardians of the professional standards and practices into adversaries of the system. The victim may next attempt to seek succour and support from the checks and balances of our system, as incorporated, and I have already indicated to you what happens to him.

Since the application of the checks and balances of our system of justice is hostage to the divine rights of those in higher positions of responsibility, those in higher positions of responsibility keep coming to the aid of the perpetrators by elevating them to the position of the judge, jury and the executioner in a diabolical plot, as it were, to create the revolving doors so designed as to lead the victim from one blind alley to another in an attempt to shatter the sense of security that the victim may have derived from the justice system.

If the above is not a description of violation of each and every one of the guarantees contained in the charter, what else is? If you have a passionate interest in ensuring that our constitutional, civil and professional rights are not just decoration pieces, the sole purpose of which is to be framed and hung in the glorified offices of those in positions of responsibility, as you were suggesting, sir, that the legislation should be clear and enforceable, is it too much to expect that you will not allow an Ontarian such as me knowingly to be disciplined without a just cause and be denied access to the due process by the so-called custodians of checks and balances and so forth?

If this committee has the courage, honour, integrity and willingness, appoint a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario to conduct a judicial inquiry into this case and a couple of others that I'm going to mention, and if you are genuinely interested in securing justice for all Ontarians, make your unique contribution to all humanity's collective struggle for beauty and harmony in the realm of interpersonal relationships in the workplace by making violators face the questions relating to their accountability for their prejudiced crimes of omission and commission and for their betrayal of faith and public trust. Earn the gratitude of countless victims who have had to abandon their struggle for justice for one reason or another and restore the faith of these victims in the justice system so shattered in their respective cases as to make them feel cursed and condemned to an inferior status in their own eyes and the eyes of others for the rest of their lives.

1630

The Chair: Mr Arya --

Mr Arya: In closing --

The Chair: I wanted to give you the time. I know Ms Mair wanted to make a comment, and I wanted to leave time for that comment to be made.

Mr Arya: I will take not more than one more minute.

The Chair: Okay. I wanted you to sum up your thoughts as well.

Mr Arya: Okay. I can assure you that the details of stratagems rehearsed behind closed doors singly and in collusion with others will be found blatant even by the most sceptical of the members here. It will take your breath away in disbelief. But obviously I can't go any further in this. If you have interest, please give me the opportunity, and if you have interest, then I think I deserve what I have just suggested: a judicial review of this case and others. Otherwise, in what ways would the conduct of this committee be different from the conduct of the stout men in Heart of Darkness who had torn down to the river and had gone back to extinguish a fire in a hut, and then Marlow, the protagonist, noticed that the pan that he had carried had a hole in its bottom?

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Ms Mair?

Mrs Saraga: My name is Helene; this is Mair. We are husband and wife. My husband speaks four languages, but English is his fifth and he has asked me to make my brief presentation to you.

The fact is that we are all teachers or former teachers who have been victims of abuse of process and power by certain individuals who run school boards. I'm not going to make a case for this issue, but in section 28 of this particular bill, I would like to stress that mainly we want to say that we hope this tribunal will give a forum for individuals and that the employer and bargaining agent must carry out their joint responsibilities in good faith.

If a teacher is brought to a hearing at a school board and his contract is terminated, he must, as I understand -- I'm not a lawyer, but is it not natural justice to give an adequate, full and fair hearing to an individual? This was not done to this man, my husband, yet the Wellington school board in Guelph -- Mr Fletcher, you're aware. A union must support a member in good standing, hopefully. If management threats are ignored by the school board, is the union not supposed to support the member? What is good faith? What is acting in good faith? Abuse of power and process can destroy, can sabotage a career. Mr Arya is an example and Mr Saraga is an example.

I was a teacher at the Wellington school board by accident after my husband was fired. It's a long story that I will not go into but, Mr Chairman, members of this committee, please, this bill must enforce what you are presenting here: that they are not just nice things on paper, that they are enforced, that when a victim comes to a tribunal, there will be some means of making sure that people are accountable -- in school boards in our case -- in respect to employees, that they must follow rules and have empathy and humanity for individuals and not look at who they are, what their background is, if they come from Morocco, India or whatever. I think that is the bottom line of this committee, and we hope that this document will be enforced. I believe that's what we have to say.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Callahan.

Mr Callahan: I just want to clarify something so this gentleman doesn't go away without that. The gentleman asked us for a judicial --

The Chair: I was going to comment on that, to say that we have no authority --

Mr Callahan: I didn't want to leave him feeling that we could do that.

The Chair: I do want to say that we don't have, as a committee, the authority to do a judicial review of your personal story.

Mr Arya: I seek the guidance of this committee as to how to go about things, because what is important is that unless there is a mechanism in place, there is no point in holding hearings.

The Chair: Mr Arya, I wanted to say that we don't have that kind of judicial authority.

Mr Arya: I do understand that.

The Chair: I do want to say to all three of you that we appreciate hearing your personal stories and appreciate the difficulties that you have faced. Your stories are in Hansard. I might suggest that you go to your local MPPs, in fact, to direct you to the appropriate place for dealing with this matter, but beyond that, I don't think we can do much more as a committee.

Mr Arya: I just want to add one last remark with reference to the incident that I cited from Heart of Darkness and what was said towards the end as this stout man with the moustache tore down to the river and so forth, and he said everybody behaved splendidly, splendidly. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, sir. Thank you for coming.

Mr Arya: You're welcome.

M. Saraga : Est-ce que je peux dire un mot ? Vous parlez français ?

The Chair: Oui, mais on n'a pas --

M. Saraga : Il y a juste une citation ici que je voudrais bien --

Mrs Saraga: He just wants to read a brief, one-line sentence.

M. Saraga : On juge une société à l'effort qu'elle fait pour son système éducatif et juridique. C'est ce qu'a dit Albert Jacquard. C'est un grand philosophe français.

Mrs Saraga: A great philosopher.

M. Saraga : Je pense que la plupart des gens qui connaissent ce philosophe savent qu'il ne parle pas à travers son chapeau parce que c'est la vérité. On ne respecte plus les droits des individus dans ce pays-là. On traite les gens comme des ordures et alors on oublie le principe judéo-chrétien, on oublie la religion, on mêle la politique avec l'éducation. On dit: «La politique, c'est la discorde. L'éducation, c'est l'harmonie.» C'est la vérité.

On ne respecte plus les droits ; c'est pour ça qu'il y a des massacres. Pourquoi ? Pourquoi ça ? Parce que l'individu ne cherche pas à comprendre, à établir une harmonie avec l'autre personne et dire, «Je veux écouter ce que l'autre personne a à me dire,» et ensuite je fais ma conclusion, mais si on vous saute dessus avec un revolver et on vous tire dessus et après vous dites, «Okay ; je suis innocent,» hélas.

The Chair: J'apprécie les difficultés, mais ce n'est pas l'endroit pour résoudre ces types de problèmes. Mais nous avons entendu les histoires, votre histoire et l'histoire de M. Arya, et je vous remercie d'être ici et de parler avec nous de ces problèmes que vous avez cités. But we have to end. I'm sorry, we've heard it --

M. Saraga : Nous voulions seulement --

Mrs Saraga: We just wanted to present --

M. Saraga : Il y a une personne ici qui s'est sauvée -- elle n'est pas là -- et nous voulions que cette personne sache --

The Chair: Ça va. Il le sait.

M. Saraga : -- qu'on n'a pas le droit de traiter les gens comme ça. Voilà. On est au XXI^e siècle ; on n'est pas --

The Chair: Merci, monsieur.

Mr Arya: Thank you all from the bottom of my heart for this opportunity.

1640

NICOLE CONSTANT

The Chair: I call Nicole Constant to present. I want to simply and briefly indicate that she's not here on behalf of Black Creek Anti-Drug Focus Coalition Family Support, but rather as an individual to present her own thoughts on this matter. We have approximately half an hour for your presentation. Please begin any time you're ready.

Ms Nicole Constant: Mr Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Nicole Constant. I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on Bill 79. As a black woman, I belong to two of the designated groups, and I cannot be employed in my profession in Ontario.

Before coming to Canada in 1980, I was employed for eight years as a medical doctor in Europe. I worked as a resident physician in major hospitals of Spain and France. I was a general practitioner and had begun studies for specialization in endocrinology.

When I joined my mother in Canada, I expected, as immigrations officials told me to expect, that I would continue the same type of employment here. Naturally, there would be some examination, and of course I would need to repeat all or part of an internship that is necessary, for each country standardizes its procedures in different ways.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons gave approval to my academic qualifications, which authorized me to sit for its examination. Bear in mind that the exams are not open to everybody; my credentials were assessed first. I proceeded with the first of the two rounds of examinations. As I will explain later, I regard these exams as biased. Then I learned that I would never be licensed as a medical doctor in Canada.

To be licensed, one must first be employed as an intern in a teaching hospital. At the time I was seeking such employment, hundreds of qualified foreign doctors were wait-listed, but only a handful, less than 20 per year, were granted this employment. In medicine, you cannot separate employment and certification. The two processes work together to create systemic inequity in the profession.

If you want to do your job right, you must give some attention to systemic inequities in employment which relate to systemic inequities in licensing. The problem is not limited to a few hundred doctors. Employers are often required by law to hire licensed or certified professionals. This is the case in medicine, in teaching, in engineering, accounting and so on. No law, no quota and no kindness of heart will give you equitable employment in these areas if you do not get rid of systemic racism in the certification processes. At the same time, as you can see in my case, certification depends on employment. By separating employment from certification, you perpetuate a catch-22.

By telling you more about my own case, I think I can also show you how you can extend the present bill to solve some of the problems.

My European licence was good for the entire common market. When I went from Spain to France, I did not need to repeat my examinations nor my entire two years of internship, but I did have to repeat one year of the internship. I am mentioning this to point out to you that requirements could be more precisely adapted to specific conditions than they are in Ontario.

I recommend that you institute the same statistical measures for certifying and licensing bodies which you propose for employers. I recommend that you require these bodies, just as you will employers, to file plans which remedy demographic bias unfavourable to the designated groups. I recommend that you incorporate into Bill 79 the recommendation of the Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades. If you do that, you will empower the Lieutenant Governor to issue licences where evidence of individual qualification and evidence of demographic bias combine to warrant such an action, just as you now propose to empower the Lieutenant Governor to impose plans on employers. If you put the entire onus of the reforms we need on employers alone, ignoring certification processes, our legislation will not achieve its objective. You must attend to both sides of the problem. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The office for access to profession and trades was created by order of the government last December. It has a mandate to talk with licensing and certifying bodies, just to talk. There's no supporting legislation for action. Also, medicine is not included. Everybody can find excuse to wait for the other guy. We need a remedy, not a strategy. Recognize the connection of certification and employment in your file.

I myself have also run into parallel barriers linking employment and certification outside of medicine. I spent a good deal of time and a great part of my savings pursuing a medical licence in Canada before I learned that the road was blocked. It did not take long before I was nearly trapped in a spiral of welfare dependency. Fortunately, I worked in a number of community volunteer organizations in my Toronto neighbourhood, Jane and Finch, which bolstered my morale.

I also lobbied the Ontario College of Naturopathic Medicine to open a special stream for foreign MDs and, with the assistance of OSAP, entered its two-year program. I am a registered naturopath. Unfortunately, few people in my own South American, Caribbean or African communities can afford that service. My small practice is supplemented by employment in social work. I work for the Black Creek Anti-Drug Focus Coalition and, on subcontract, with black students and parents at C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute. I think any of the vice-principals who call on me continually will tell you that my work is extremely effective, but of course all this employment is poorly paid and without security.

What can the principals do? The schools participate in the same double binds as the hospitals. My counselling work with students and parents is effective because I have a decade of professional experience with patients. However, in Ontario, being well qualified is not the same as being well certified. Employment in the school cannot be equitable, because licensing ties it up. Therefore, if you want your legislation to produce equitable employment, you'd better not disregard the bias against experienced immigrants in the certification process.

Although my present work offers many gratifications, I cannot deny my bitterness about the barriers to professional standing. Recently, for two years I served as a co-chairperson of the committee which organized the Jane-Finch Community Health Centre. When the centre was inaugurated, the board wanted to employ me. Despite their efforts to find a way, they could not. OHIP cannot employ people except according to their category of licence.

I know it will not be easy for you to deal with the issue of certification, because the groups which control certification claim the authority of expertise. They always claim to be protecting standards. You must keep your heads and not be afraid. Nobody has a monopoly on standards.

Certainly, the examinations ought to be revised. They are biased towards new graduates, which means, unfortunately, a population demographically unfavourable to racial minorities. The bias arises because the exams are rather in the style of the Canadian board game Trivial Pursuit. If you were to give these examinations to the average 45-year-old licensed MD practising in Ontario, I think you would make him quite uncomfortable. Why give that to the foreign graduates? They have little to do with professional experience and a great deal to do with cramming. The present exams are a barrier to candidates who are not well off economically because of their arbitrary demands for preparation.

One remedy I think legislation should be amended to encourage is the following: An employer -- for example, a hospital -- should be able to provide a conditional offer of employment to a person such as myself. Assuming that I then pass appropriate preliminary exams, the hospital should be able to ensure that there is an internship position available. With such a mechanism, employment equity in my profession would be achieved much more quickly. The present system is not only weeding out minorities; it is weeding out new ideas and new perspectives.

1650

Although there has been some talk of an oversupply of doctors in Toronto, I do believe that I, as a black woman, a female medical graduate who could work in French, Spanish and Creole, would make a valuable contribution. I wish I could do so.

I resent being unable to earn a salary which is not more appropriately related to my education. Even more, I regret not being able to make a fuller professional contribution to society and to offer stronger public leadership on behalf of the designated groups to which I belong.

The legislation as proposed would not tackle the problems I've pointed out, but it could, with a few changes. I would hope you can tackle this problem. Your legislation will not relieve the designated groups of their second-class standing in employment. You will fail to assist them in the basic area of self-esteem and self-image. Therefore, I urge you to go all the way. Thank you.

The Chair: We have five minutes per caucus.

Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Ms Constant, for your presentation. You've made some very valuable points here, because as you said, it seems to me that the immigration laws of recruiting are inconsistent with the practices of the country itself, as it recruits trained and skilled people from abroad, bringing them in here, with those skills, to say: "Welcome to Canada. Because of your professions, you're able to be employed according to the needs, sometimes, of the country." That's the only way they recruit, if there is a shortage of certain sorts of professions. So I'm sure that to migrate to Canada and the acceptance of the country was based on your qualifications.

I fully agree that they have emphasized to the government here over and over that the Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades has recognized these inequities within the system and addressed them with very strong recommendations. I thought that when you mentioned -- the part that I really like is to say where those professional organizations are supposed to be able to present too to the Employment Equity Commission an employment equity plan. I thought it was rather interesting, something that I will try to pursue.

Did I understand you correctly when you say, for instance, that the medical association or the engineering association, as they recognize engineers or doctors, or all the professional associations, should show some employment equity plan of how they are having the acceptance of those designated groups within the Employment Equity Commission? Am I hearing you right when I interpret it that way?

Ms Constant: Yes.

Mr Callahan: I have to tell you that this is a problem that has just recently been exacerbated, to some degree, by Canadians who are receiving their medical training outside of Canada being cut off from the ability to be able to bill OHIP without sunsetting them, as it were, and sort of working into it and saying any more who go to foreign medical schools won't be able to bill OHIP. They just cut them off completely. A similar thing occurred with the question of internship, as I understand it, and I don't understand the rationale for it being a $30,000 cost to a hospital, but apparently it is.

These impediments are systemic. They in fact deny you the opportunity or have denied you the opportunity. They've also denied a number of other people who had credentials from outside of Canada and also Canadians who were born here who had been educated in medical schools in, say, Ireland or whatever, because they couldn't get into the medical schools here. They were in the same position. Some of them had to travel to the United States and intern in United States hospitals and then return to Canada in order to be able to qualify and meet those tests.

I agree with you that there should be some other method of doing it, because by having these systemic barriers we are perhaps turning away or not allowing qualified medical people or, if it occurs in other fields, qualified people in those fields too, to be able to contribute to what we need here in Canada. So there's no question that it's a problem that I think governments have left on the back burner too long and they should get busy trying to rectify the inequities that arise out of those problems.

The Chair: This is a statement.

Mr Callahan: Yes.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've certainly drawn to our attention, once again, a problem that is shared by individuals throughout the province. I know I have a large group in my own community whom I meet with on a regular basis who are being denied the opportunity to make the contribution that they're capable of making. Many of them are medical doctors and others are people who have been trained in other professions.

I've been communicating with the government, I've been communicating with the professions and I have to tell you, we have constantly come up against a door that seems to be closed in our face. I'm not convinced, however, that this legislation that is before us is going to help the particular situation that individuals such as yourself and the people in my community face.

What do you feel needs to happen in order to ensure that you do gain access and that your skills are used to their fullest potential in the same way that other people have access?

Ms Constant: The licence. The problem is the licence. You have to have the right to get that licence equivalent.

Mrs Witmer: That's right.

Ms Constant: But the thing is, they are saying they don't need medical doctors and this and that. After the news on the French channel -- not 60 Minutes --

Interjection: Radio-Canada.

Ms Constant: Yes, Radio-Canada at night-time. You know, after the news they --

Interjection: Le Point.

Ms Constant: Le Point. One month or a month and a half ago, they reported there is a new group of people, in Saskatchewan I think, who are making come medical grads, foreign graduates from South Africa to work here. Why don't you use the people who are here instead of going to South Africa to bring people up here? It's not really that they don't need. I was believing that before until I saw that on the French TV in the month of July, and they did two nights presentations with it. People come out and talk. A woman has started an agency in the basement and now she's got a big agency outside, you know, making foreign graduates come here to Canada, but all from South Africa. Why the difference?

Mrs Witmer: This is just recently?

Ms Constant: Recently, Radio-Canada.

Mrs Witmer: It's unbelievable when we have individuals within our own country who are quite capable. I thank you for your presentation, and as I say, unfortunately I don't think this bill is going to totally solve the problem.

Ms Constant: Yes, but I think they can get a step from it because it's a right to employment we're asking for.

Mrs Witmer: Yes.

Ms Constant: Because I don't know how many black women are here in Toronto who do speak French who are MDs.

Ms Carter: I think what I have to say is more in the form of a statement than a question, because I think the power of your story is in a sense unquestionable. All I can say, really, is that the Ontario government is responding to the broader picture of the difficulty of access to trades and professions, and Minister Elaine Ziemba made an announcement on December 10, 1992, to that effect, which I believe was the 44th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So there is a strategy that the government has adopted to improve access to trades and professions and address the systemic barriers which do prevent many people who were not trained here from working in their respective fields, and as a cornerstone of that, the government has allocated $2 million over two years towards a demonstration project fund which is going to address some of the problems.

Now having said that, I have to say that the medical profession is not included in that, and as you say, there is considered to be an oversupply of doctors, which again is an historical thing, that the medical schools right here took in the numbers of students on the assumption that the population of Ontario would be greater by now than in fact it is, so that we do have an oversupply.

Having said that, I don't think that in any way answers your points that you have very particular contributions to make, and I'm sure there are other people in your position or a similar position who have contributions to make which cannot, maybe, be made by some of those people who are trained here and constitute part of that oversupply.

So I don't feel in any way I'm answering your case. I think what you've come up against is not to be condoned and I certainly hope that we can work to remove those barriers for people in the medical profession, as in other professions.

The Chair: Ms Constant, thank you for coming and sharing your personal story and thoughts on this issue with us.

Ms Constant: I hope you can include it somewhere in the bill, because everybody should have access to work.

The Chair: Thank you. This committee's adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1701.