JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
FEDERATION OF WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO
BREWERY GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS' UNION
ADVOCATES FOR COMMUNITY BASED TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR WOMEN
COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
CONTENTS
Thursday 16 November 1995
Subcommittee report
Job Quotas Repeal Act, 1995, Bill 8, Ms Mushinski / Loi de 1995 abrogeant le contingentement en matière d'emploi, project de loi 8, Mme Mushinski
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Alan Borovy, general counsel
Transportation Action Now
David Baker, legal counsel
Sam Savona, board member
Gary Malkowski, Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee
Employment Research Analysts
Ann Mirani, consultant
Canadian Manufacturers' Association
Ian Howcroft, director, human resources policy
Sandy Douglas, chair, human resources committee
Omnibus Consulting
Trevor Wilson, president
Renee Bazile-Jones, executive vice-president
Bruce Anderson, executive vice-president
Ontario Nurses' Association
Jane Cornelius, president
Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario
Sheryl Hoshizaki, president
Brewery General and Professional Workers' Union
Shalom Schacter, representative
Ontario Federation of Labour
June Veecock, director, human rights
Pearson-Shoyama Institute
Andrew Cardozo, president
Advocates for Community Based Training and Education for Women
Karen Charnow Lior, coordinator
Committee on the Status of Women
Jane Koster, member
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*Chair / Président: Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
*Danford, Harry (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
*Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre PC)
*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)
*Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)
*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)
*Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)
*Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC)
*Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre PC)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants prèsents:
Churley, Marilyn (Riverdale ND) for Mr Wood
Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC) for Mr Young
Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia
Staff / Personnel:
Kaye, Philip, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Campbell, Elaine, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 0939 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the first meeting of the first committee of the 36th Parliament. The order of business will be that we have a subcommittee report. First of all, a subcommittee has been established, for those of you who are not aware of that, which includes one member from each of the three parties, plus myself as the Chair. Those people are Tony Clement from the government party, Rosario Marchese from the third party and Mario Sergio from the official opposition. We've met twice.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Chair, if I'm not mistaken, I'm the rep on the subcommittee.
The Chair: Oh. Mario was here.
Mr Grandmaître: Mario was replacing me.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Grandmaître: You can have my pay, though.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): The motion said Mario Sergio was the member of the subcommittee, and that was voted --
Mr Grandmaître: You've got a job.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Certainly the motion didn't come from me.
The Chair: So we can correct that?
Clerk of the Committee: Well, we'd have to amend that motion for membership on the subcommittee.
Mr Sergio: If it's in order, then I would so move right now and correct it. You recall we had a number of discussions because -- as long as we had a member to attend. Presumably it was assumed that I would be the whip on our side here, but that was not the case. That was only to carry on with the business of establishing the committee.
Clerk of the Committee: Okay. Is somebody going to move the amendment to that subcommittee motion?
Mr Sergio: I will so move.
The Chair: It has been moved that Mr Grandmaître be the member for the opposition party on the subcommittee. Any discussion on that? All those in favour? It's carried.
Could I ask everyone to turn their name tags around? My memory's not that good.
Now that we've gotten that little bit of business out of the way, the subcommittee has met on two occasions. You have a copy of --
Interjections.
Mr Sergio: This is for the benefit of the public.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: I would like to read through this and then we will have discussion on this report:
Your subcommittee met on November 3 and 9 and recommends the following with respect to Bill 8, An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario:
"1. That five days be allotted for public hearings, the days being: Thursday, November 16; Friday, November 17; Thursday, November 23; Friday, November 24, and Monday, November 27, 1995.
"That of the five days, the committee sit in the evenings of Friday, November 17, and Thursday, November 23, 1995, provided permission is granted by the House leaders for the committee to sit on days other than those set out in the committee schedule, and provided permission is granted for the committee to sit past its normal adjournment time.
"That the afternoon of Monday, November 27, 1995, be set aside for clause-by-clause consideration.
"2. That witnesses be allotted 20-minute time slots, and that witnesses scheduled for evening hearings be allotted 15-minute time slots.
"3. That each caucus provide the clerk of the committee with a list of witnesses to be scheduled along with any individual or organization that phones the Clerk's office requesting to appear before the committee by the agreed upon deadline.
"4. That those individuals or organizations which phone in after the deadline be placed on a waiting list to be scheduled only in the case of a cancellation.
"5. That the researcher prepare as complete a summary of recommendations as possible prior to clause-by-clause consideration.
"6. That the clerk of the committee contact the Chair and/or subcommittee with any concerns surrounding scheduling."
Is there any discussion on the report of the subcommittee?
Mr Grandmaître: Item number 4 of the report of the subcommittee: I received a letter from OPSEU claiming that a fax was sent to the clerk on time on November 8, requesting to appear before this committee, but apparently their fax didn't reach the Clerk's office, or something happened. Again, they are requesting that they should be added to the list of witnesses to appear before this committee. I think OPSEU has a big interest in Bill 8 and I would like to see OPSEU part of the list of witnesses.
Mr Sergio: Are they part of the waiting list?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Clerk of the Committee: They are on the waiting list.
The Chair: If I can just give you the details, I've had conversations with Mr Little from OPSEU. Everyone was apprised of the deadline, and 92 people did come in under the deadline. Mr Little called me and said he had faxed in a letter. I asked him to, if he could, produce the evidence of that. He's not been able to do that. His office is in this same building. I've advised him that he is on the waiting list, along with some other people who also didn't meet the deadline. In the absence of any other documented evidence, I believe that was the fair way to handle that.
Mr Grandmaître: If I'm not mistaken, Mr Chair, they're number seven on the waiting list?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes, they are.
The Chair: Apparently.
Mr Grandmaître: And there's nothing we can do at the present time to change this?
The Chair: I believe we need to have the rules apply equally to everyone. They missed the deadline and were given an opportunity to prove that they did in fact send a fax and they weren't able to do that. There's a good possibility they will be on, because we do have some time slots open. There have been some cancellations, so hopefully we can accommodate them.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you, Mr Chair.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I just wanted to note, Jack, that if you and I had to produce that little slip as proof of sending a fax, I couldn't do it because it's not typical standard procedure in our office. But given the mixup, maybe we can give them special consideration, like perhaps moving them to the top of the waiting list, because there is at least some thought that they have made an attempt to appear. Given that, while you don't want to change the rule, let's add them at the top so there is a great likelihood that they will appear.
The Chair: To put them at the top of the waiting list, we would be moving them ahead of some other large organizations.
Mrs Pupatello: Who would have submitted later than OPSEU, right?
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs Pupatello: So just given that --
Clerk of the Committee: We don't know that.
Mrs Pupatello: Well, I guess we've got to admit, all of us, that it's a significant group that has a high stake in terms of the discussions. So just in terms of that, whether it's going to be generosity of spirit or whatever, maybe we could do something other than just leaving it.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I appreciate the sentiments that my colleagues are expressing on their side, but it would be very difficult if we did that, because that really changes the rules a great deal. The Chair has expressed some sympathy to the fact that they say they made an attempt to do so, but there is no record of it, and what they've done is to put them on the waiting list. That's important to us, to make sure that they're on the waiting list, based on an assumption that they did, although we have no record of it.
There are six other people who were late and are on that list and certainly want to be on that as well, so I wouldn't want to change the rules, because that would complicate life for the Chair and this committee if we did that. So I'm happy that they're on the waiting list and hopefully they'll get on, assuming that some other people may not be as excited to come. So that's that on this point.
I have another matter to raise, Mr Chair. Do you want to deal with this first and then put me back on the list for the other matter?
The Chair: Okay. Mr Clement?
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): The only other point, in furtherance of what Mr Marchese has just said, is that it's not as if we're completely shutting out OPSEU, because there is an opportunity for written submissions as well, but my earnest hope is that we will have an opportunity to hear from them as cancellations become evident.
The Chair: Any other comment? I believe it was the only fair way to handle the situation. There was a set of rules; 92 people understood the rules. OPSEU had an opportunity to prove that they came in within the deadline. They weren't able to do that, so I think that decision probably has to stand.
Mr Marchese: I'd like to add something to this. I want to be clear about the time allocation for all the individuals. If we have five days, we can hear from about 68 people.
Clerk of the Committee: No, all 92.
Mr Marchese: Within the daytime allocation. So 68 or so? And we have three other evenings where we --
Clerk of the Committee: Two.
Mr Marchese: Two. That's right. Tomorrow night and next week some time.
The Chair: Next Thursday.
Mr Marchese: How many are we going to be able to hear during those two night sittings?
Clerk of the Committee: Those two nights? Twenty-two in the evening.
Mr Marchese: So that brings us approximately to 90 people; to the 92, presumably.
Clerk of the Committee: To the 92.
Mr Marchese: All right. So if we wanted to, this committee could agree to sit another evening, an hour or an hour and a half, in order to accommodate the other seven people who are on the list. We could do that.
0950
The Chair: There are actually 16 currently on the waiting list.
Mr Marchese: I see.
Clerk of the Committee: If I could just mention that --
Mr Marchese: Clause-by-clause is something that interests me. How much time is there left for clause-by-clause if we do all of this?
Clerk of the Committee: Monday afternoon.
Mr Marchese: The whole afternoon?
Clerk of the Committee: From 3:30 to 6. The evening of the 17th isn't all scheduled, and we're calling people back and then offering the waiting list, because some people have cancelled and some people don't want to come in the evening of the 17th. So if they're willing to come in that day, they will --
Mr Marchese: We could include a lot of those people on that list.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chair: Any other points on the subcommittee report? Seeing none, would somebody move a motion to adopt it?
Mr Marchese: I move that motion.
The Chair: All in favour of that motion? Okay, motion carried.
There are just a couple of points that I want to make before we get into the beginning of the hearings. We now have a list of the people who will be presenting today. We do have a heavy schedule, obviously, with five days, and certainly, out of respect for all the people who are coming to present and to all of us as members, I would hope that everyone is able to give this as much attention as far as attendance as they can.
Our meetings will start on time. When we have people scheduled in 20-minute intervals, it is important that we do start on time. Each presenter will have a 20-minute time frame. What part of that they choose to allot for questions will be up to them. If they present for 10 minutes and leave 10 minutes for questions, the question time will be divided equally among members of the three parties. We'll recognize the order of questions basically by your putting your hand up, and we'll keep a list as best we can.
Most of us are new to this process, including myself. Let's enjoy it, play out the role that we have been asked to play by our respective parties. Some of the presenters will be new at this too; others will be old pros. I would ask you all to give them the respect to which they are entitled. They do have enough interest in the process to come and make a presentation to us. I think we should respect them, and I would also ask that we respect one another as we go through this process.
That having been said, we have about a five-minute interval here, I guess, until we begin. Is the first one at 10 o'clock?
Oh, excuse me. There's one other issue to deal with. You all have a letter from Andrew Cardozo, who represents the Pearson-Shoyama Institute, basically asking for reimbursement for travel costs. This is an area we have not made any decisions about as far as the committee goes. We should have some discussion on it to see --
Mrs Pupatello: What's the history on that?
The Chair: Maybe Tonia could fill us in on the history on travel costs.
Clerk of the Committee: It would be a committee decision.
Mrs Pupatello: Is there precedence?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Mr Clement: Could I ask the clerk a question? If we do accede to their request, do we have an obligation to offer the same thing to other deputants?
Clerk of the Committee: That would be a committee decision, but you'd have to be able to defend it, whatever decision you choose.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, what is the proper way to get your attention to get on the speaking order?
The Chair: Put your hand up.
Mr Sergio: Or just barge in at any time?
The Chair: No, no. I have some kind of order, of course.
Mr Clement: I apologize if I've been rude.
Mr Sergio: Just one quick question, since we have a couple of minutes. We have received --
The Chair: Is it on this issue, Mr Sergio?
Mr Sergio: No.
The Chair: We should deal with this issue first, okay? Then we'll -- Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Sorry, I was out of the room while this matter was being discussed. Mr Cardozo is asking for --
The Chair: Reimbursement for travel expenses.
Mr Marchese: That's standard for committees, Mr Chair. We have done that in the past. I hope we will continue to do that for members who obviously are far away from here. I would urge this committee to continue with that practice. So I would move that the travel costs for this individual be covered.
The Chair: Okay, we have a motion that the travel costs for Mr Cardozo from the Pearson-Shoyama Institute --
Mr Grandmaître: On the motion, Mr Chair --
The Chair: Okay, any comment on the motion?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes. I agree partly with what my colleague is saying, that we've followed this procedure in the past. But at the same time I think we need to put in place demarcation. I don't think we should be paying travelling expenses for people in Toronto. We have to put a limit on the travelling expenses. I would say that anybody outside of Metro would be paid, but I don't think we should be paying for everybody who wants to appear before the committee.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Much along the same idea, I don't know how we can approve travel costs when we have absolutely no idea what the costs are going to be. I think this has maybe been something that's happened in the past, that we say yes to things without having any type of background on it. If we're going to bring 93 people in at a couple hundred dollars or $300 per person, which in this particular case, with air one way and train another way, you're looking at probably close to $300, and we've got 93 of them as well as possible delegates with them, I don't think that I'm in any position to vote yes on the motion without knowing what kinds of costs we're talking about.
I have difficulty with using, again, the taxpayers' money on something like this where it's an area where some people are for this legislation and others are against it. So I don't believe that all the taxpayers should be paying for this.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I feel very strongly -- we do need to reimburse people -- that we deal with it on a case-by-case basis, so in making this decision today to pay for the travel expenses of this particular person, we're not making a decision on any others. We will be dealing with it on a case-by-case basis.
A lot of these non-profit groups, within a democracy, need to have the opportunity to come and speak on issues that they feel strongly about one way or the other. If we are not in a position where we can be able to look at, on a case-by-case basis, the travel reimbursements for some of these people, then we're eliminating the opportunity for some of the non-profit groups. Especially in this economic climate even more so, when there's less money out there for these groups, then we limit their right to the democracy that we all support here.
So I would like to suggest that we grant the travel expenses for this person and that we continue to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. My understanding is that so far this is the only person representing a group who has asked for these reimbursements. It's also my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong from the record, that generally speaking we don't get huge requests for these kinds of reimbursements.
The Chair: This is the only one we've had this time. Maybe Tonia could comment. Do we generally get many requests?
Clerk of the Committee: Not many, not generally.
Mr Marchese: A few more quick things, just to add some reasonable context to all of this. We have done that in the past all of the time. When we have hearings here in Metro, it recognizes the fact that those outside of Metro are in a difficult position. It also recognizes that if we were to travel outside of Metro as a committee it would be very expensive for this committee to do so. Part of saving money for the public is to have the hearings here. Part of not going out to the various cities is to save money for the public by not going out.
However, to make it impossible for people to come would be a problem. So in those cases where individuals want to come and are asking to be supported, we think it's reasonable so that they have a voice with respect to a particular bill, whether it's for or against.
1000
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm not in support of travel costs. This is voluntary, if they want to come and make a submission; they can send it written or whatever. We're talking about a 20-minute presentation here and we're talking about costs from Ottawa, in this particular case, of travel by air, by train. It's certainly not fiscally responsible to be encouraging the payment of cost to participate in this process when they can do it by written submission and do not necessarily have to do it by travel cost. I don't see the benefit of, or any limit --
Interjection.
Mr Tascona: I've got the floor here. I don't see the limit here with respect to a case-by-case and we say, "Oh, this is fine." We're talking about a 20-minute presentation that can be done in writing and we're talking about fiscal restraints in terms of operating efficiently. I think we should be looking at the government's requirements, not necessarily these organizations'. We're opening up the hearings and we're here to hear them, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in person and it can be done another way, because we're here to hear the submissions.
The Chair: I'd rather we not discuss this all morning. We do have some people waiting to make presentations, so we'll take two more comments and then we'll get on with the vote.
Mrs Pupatello: I think Mr Marchese's point is well taken in terms of us not moving and so the people need to come to us. Maybe we can find some compromise and offer a lower level of payment, so not an air fare but perhaps be prepared to cover train costs, and the individuals or groups would have to pay the balance. So we can set what the threshold is of payment and we'll set the standard, that we're prepared to pay train, not air, for example. At least if it's more inconvenient for them to take the train, that's what they have to give up, I guess, and we're being more responsible in terms of our costs.
The Chair: Are you recommending an amendment to the motion --
Mr Marchese: Can I make a suggestion?
The Chair: -- to put some type of a --
Mr Marchese: Could we --
The Chair: Excuse me. Ms Pupatello, are you recommending an amendment to the motion?
Mrs Pupatello: Yes, because the motion was early on. So if you can repeat the motion for me, I'd be prepared to offer an amendment.
Mr Marchese: That's why I was going to offer a suggestion to the mover of it, Mr Chair. Could we leave it to the Chair to find a reasonable solution to this so that those individuals would not be excluded from coming? So we'll leave it to you and the clerk to find a reasonable solution to this?
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: Based on what we were saying.
The Chair: We've got a bit of a problem here. We've got a motion on the floor to deal -- are you withdrawing your motion?
Mr Marchese: No.
The Chair: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor that we are dealing with. The last comment we're going to have is from Mr Sergio.
Mr Sergio: I was going to ask if staff perhaps can advise the committee on policies. If we have a policy in place that has been used before, it's good to get the advice of experienced members. Do we have a policy in place that has been followed by previous committees, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: As Tonia said, it has always been done on a case-by-case basis. So we have a specific one here now before us. I think that's all the discussion we need to have. Everybody has already had a chance to speak on it --
Mr Sergio: Then, Mr Chairman, I move that we go according to the existing policy.
The Chair: Okay. We have a motion on the floor that Mr Cardozo be reimbursed for his expenses to come and appear before the committee. I call the vote.
All in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Ms Churley: Mr Chair, I'm sorry that we voted on that motion before I got to speak to it again. I wanted to make a suggestion and I'm hoping that people, even though they voted it down, will take me up on this suggestion.
I think we just did a very serious thing here without proper discussion, about the implications of a committee of the government of Ontario sitting in a downtown office in Toronto, having made the decision to not go out --
Mr Clement: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Are we speaking to a motion that has already been defeated?
Ms Churley: But please, I have a suggestion. I'm trying to say for all of us here that we just made a very, very serious decision that breaks with precedent forever in this province that I'm very worried about. I'm hoping, I'm asking, I'm pleading with people to reconsider this for this one case, and then have it come back so that we can discuss it with more of an understanding.
The Chair: We did vote on the motion.
Ms Churley: Well, I hope people understand the implications of what they just did --
The Chair: We will go on to --
Ms Churley: -- for the democracy in this province. They've gotten off to a bad start.
The Chair: Excuse me. Excuse me. We have voted --
Mr Clement: No, no. You said it's case by case. We decided on this case.
The Chair: Mr Clement --
Mr Marchese: You've ruined it forever with this motion.
The Chair: We have voted on the motion. The discussion is ended. Now, the next order of business.
Mr Sergio: Mr Chairman, forgive me. I was going to request at the end of my brief presentation a recorded vote. I'd like to give notice now and, further, if it's still in place, I'd like to move that.
The Chair: It's too late.
Mr Sergio: Otherwise, I'd like to give notice that I'd like to see a recorded vote on every vote that is taken in this committee.
The Chair: You have to ask for a recorded vote before the vote is called, so it is too late to do that.
Mrs Pupatello: Mr Chair.
The Chair: Is it on the same issue or a new issue?
Mrs Pupatello: It's a question of procedure. I was offering an amendment to the motion which would have been offered before the vote, and we would have voted on the amendment to the motion being offered. But I didn't have that on record so I was sort of leapt over. So I'd like to offer another motion, and that is the motion that we offer train fare as opposed to air fare for this individual travelling from this organization.
The Chair: We have dealt with this issue of compensation for this person. The issue is over, so we'll go on to the next order of business.
Mr Marchese: But, Mr Chair --
The Chair: Is it on the same issue?
Mr Marchese: It is, yes.
The Chair: That issue is over.
Mr Marchese: But it's a different motion.
The Chair: That issue is over.
Mr Marchese: No, Mr Chair, you have to listen to my --
The Chair: Mr Marchese, that issue is over. You're out of order.
Mr Marchese: I'm suggesting there's another motion here, and the motion is the following: that we cover travel costs for coming to Toronto by train and plane. That's what this request is all about. That's the motion, right, that we cover the travel costs for plane and --
The Chair: Is this a new motion you're proposing?
Mr Marchese: Her new motion is that we cover travel cost for train.
The Chair: Are you proposing a new motion?
Mr Marchese: That's her new motion.
The Chair: Are you proposing a new motion?
Mr Marchese: I would propose the motion that she's proposing, and that is that we --
The Chair: Are you proposing a new motion?
Mr Marchese: Yes, that we provide travel for train only.
The Chair: For any member? Would you articulate the motion clearly?
Mr Marchese: No, for this individual person who has requested this, that we provide train fare for this individual.
The Chair: Okay. Train fare both ways, from Ottawa to Toronto and back?
Mr Marchese: That's right.
The Chair: Okay. We have a new motion on the floor.
Mr Sergio: I'd like to have a recorded vote on this, Mr Chairman.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I think it would be wise for all of us to -- I think we did the right thing in voting down the previous motion and I think it may be wise for us to refer the whole situation and the question of funding travel expenses to the subcommittee. Perhaps the subcommittee could come back with some kind of a standard recommendation that we could vote on in the future rather than debating each and every one, whether they should get train or whether they should get plane or whether they should get kilometres. Maybe the subcommittee can retire and come back to the committee with some sort of recommendation which we could apply.
Mr Clement: I would like to see further research on this issue as well. I understand the intent of the mover, but there are times when in fact the plane is cheaper than the train and there are times when in fact allowing someone to rent a car is cheaper than the train. I feel quite constrained by that motion and so consequently I'm either going to vote against it or I would like to see it referred back to the Chair.
Mr Marchese: A few things, Mr Chair: We have always done this as a practice, and there has been, I would say, unanimity with all of the members, including their former friends who were here. It recognizes that if we can't travel outside of Metro, to save money we would from time to time, when people requested it because they couldn't afford it, pay for them to get here so they'd have a voice to speak on a particular bill. What you are doing -- all of you -- is shutting those people off, for a not unreasonable cost, I would add.
By past practice, there have only been a few individuals who requested it. We have never had thousands of people saying, "We want you to subsidize our cost to get there." But it recognizes that we're saving money by staying here, because it's easier for us and it's easier for the proceedings to do that. So I would recommend that people reconsider their position; otherwise what they're telling the public is, "When we sit in Toronto, the rest of Ontario can stay home if they can't afford it." It's a serious matter that you're speaking to and that you're voting on. I hope that they will consider that, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Can I just make a suggestion here. Rather than to debate this all morning long when you have people waiting for us, is it possible, Mr Marchese, that the suggestion that this go back to the subcommittee for a general outline of the policy would be the best way to handle this?
Mr Sergio: Mr Chair.
The Chair: Excuse me for a second. Would that be the --
Mr Sergio: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Normally the Chair does not make any comments. Then you have a speaking order. Mr Chairman, you have already gone to the third person and I have requested to speak about three members before my time. I'd like you to keep an order of the speakers and use that order, Mr Chairman, with all due respect.
1010
Mr Marchese: If I can, Mr Sergio, I don't mind bringing this motion back, because that's what this would do. I will bring this motion back once the subcommittee has dealt with it. If the subcommittee doesn't deal with it in the way that we feel is appropriate, I will bring back this motion for discussion at the next meeting.
The Chair: So are you prepared to withdraw?
Mr Marchese: I will withdraw that so that we can get on with the proceedings.
The Chair: Okay. So the subcommittee will deal with the issue. Is this on a different issue?
Mr Sergio: It's on the same issue, this one here.
The Chair: This issue is --
Mr Sergio: No. With all due respect, Mr Chairman, you know, we have had an amendment on the floor which has been debated and not voted upon. We have had a suggestion to send it to the subcommittee, which I totally disagree with. Mr Chairman, let's stop playing games. This committee has the duty, the responsibility, the power to decide yes or no. Let's not fidget with the idea if we should be paying or not be paying, Mr Chairman. You have the responsibility to say to the members of this committee: "Look, let's decide here and today. Let's not postpone it and leave it to the subcommittee so when the matter comes back here it's going to be voted down again."
Mr Chairman, with all due respect, let's tell the people the way it is. Either we do or we don't. Let's not fool around. Let's not waste people's time. Let's not waste our own time as well. So my motion is, Mr Chairman, to decide it here today. Either we go on a one-to-one basis on their own merits, if you will, and we can say up to a limit or by rail transportation alone, but let's not send it to the subcommittee so they can make their own recommendation, so they can bring it here and --
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): What is the specific motion, then?
The Chair: Have you got a specific motion?
Mr Sergio: Yes. My motion is, Mr Chairman, to reaffirm the previous decision and deal on a one-to-one basis, allowing for --
The Chair: No, I need a specific motion on the issue. Have you got a specific motion?
Mr Sergio: I said either the lowest or rail transportation.
The Chair: Okay. Your motion, is that for all requests, or this specific request?
Mr Sergio: That this one here be approved --
The Chair: This specific request, by Mr Cardozo, that we pay for his transportation expenses at the lowest possible cost.
Mr Sergio: The lowest possible. That's fine.
The Chair: Is that okay? Is that the motion?
Mr Sergio: And then, every other request --
The Chair: Everybody hear that motion?
Mr Sergio: -- will be dealt with on an individual basis.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'm getting a little confused as to how many motions we presently have on the floor.
The Chair: Just one. The other one was withdrawn.
Mr Hardeman: We had a motion from someone, at least as I heard it, that in fact they wanted to go back to the rail fare.
Ms Churley: That was withdrawn.
The Chair: No, the only motion on the floor now is Mr Sergio's motion that we reimburse Mr Cardozo for his travelling expenses at the lowest possible rate. Is there any further discussion?
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, I had withdrawn it for a purpose. One, to deal with it in subcommittee so that we could try to come up with some process to deal with this; to also deal with the fact that some of our members will come in front of this committee and will need sign interpreters as well, and we haven't dealt with that. We've always made accommodation for things like that. So the subcommittee should deal not only with sign interpreters, which is something we need to address, but also deal with that particular one, so I will --
The Chair: Okay, can we deal with this motion now and then we'll deal with --
Mr Marchese: I will vote against that motion in order to send it off to subcommittee.
Mr Sergio: A recorded vote, Mr Chairman.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): Speaking to the motion, Mr Chairman, the motion that we defeated on this side was to travel by train one way and air the other way. There's no explanation in the correspondence about why one way would be more appropriate than the other and why the individual feels that is suitable, and that's why I voted against it.
I certainly agree with those opposite who say that in effect it ought not to matter where one lives in Ontario, about their ability to attend and make representations before a committee of the Ontario Legislature at Queen's Park.
We have to be concerned about cost, because we're all familiar with the financial situation of the province. So I agree with the suggestion by the member for Niagara Falls that we need to look overall at minimizing the costs of witnesses coming before this committee, and I hope the subcommittee will do that.
Now, with respect to this specific individual, if he's going to give evidence here, I suppose train is a reasonable way of minimizing the expense.
Mrs Pupatello: Maybe we can, for this case, understand that the Chair will direct the individual to take the least cost to get here, for this case. It can of course be recommended to the subcommittee to discuss further, but policy needs to be struck. That goes without saying. So let's just take care of this case, because in a week and a half we'll be done, so we don't really have the time to get into all of the specifics of a policy. We'll take care of this individual, which is the only request at this point in front of the committee, at the Chair's discretion, and we'll get on to a policy discussion at a subcommittee level. Is that fair?
The Chair: We have a motion on the floor to reimburse Mr Cardozo for his travel costs at the lowest possible rate. All in favour?
Mr Marchese: A recorded vote.
The Chair: A recorded vote is requested.
All those in favour?
Ayes
Churley, Flaherty, Grandmaître, Marchese, Pupatello, Sergio.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Clement, Danford, Hardeman, Kells, Maves, Stewart, Tascona.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Ms Churley: Just a point of information: I want to clarify that the subcommittee will now be dealing with the policy matter, both in terms of interpreters and travel reimbursements.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Sergio: I'm sorry; this document here, it is marked as being confidential. I'd like to ask if this document was made available to the general public. It is marked confidential and I would like to know why it was marked confidential.
The Chair: Mr Clement could maybe answer that question.
Mr Clement: I can't think of anything that makes it particularly confidential, to tell you the truth. I think you as an MPP are within your rights if you want to share that with somebody. I don't think anybody's going to object; I certainly don't object.
Mr Sergio: I realize that, that we can make it available to some of our constituents. However, when we see something confidential, we feel that it is to be kept as such, confidential, and I was wondering -- that is the reason for my question, Mr Chair -- if indeed we did have some requests from the public or groups for the documents and they were refused. I guess that was the reason for my question.
Mr Clement: Not to my knowledge, Mr Sergio, no.
Mr Hardeman: Just a question on the procedure on the previous item, in fact. For the matter to be referred to the committee, does it require a motion?
Secondly, I would just like to inquire as to whether the request that was before us would be reconsidered after the policies were brought back, so it would still comply for funding upon a decision by the committee.
The Chair: We agreed to send it back to the subcommittee to discuss, so whatever they propose will come back to the committee.
Mr Hardeman: I would just question, though, whether in fact Mr Cardozo would in fact be eligible for funding if this committee decided in the future to change the position. Obviously the committee was pretty adamant that it was not going to fund this request. I would like it to be noted that it would still be considered under any future policy.
The Chair: Let's say that's possible.
1020
JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
Bill 8, An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario / Projet de loi 8, Loi abrogeant le contingentement en matière d'emploi et rétablissant en Ontario les pratiques d'emploi fondées sur le mérite.
CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We can now get on to our first presenters, Mr Alan Borovoy, the general counsel, and Mr Stephen McCammon, a field representative, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Gentlemen, you have 20 minutes. How you choose to use that 20 minutes is up to you. Any time you want to allot for questions has to be taken out of that 20 minutes. Welcome to our committee.
Mr Alan Borovoy: Thank you very much. I promised the press to talk slowly, but you have put the pressure on me to talk quickly. Somewhere in between those two extremes I'll try to find a happy balance.
I should say, just by way of an opening remark, that the comments we make about employment equity will focus essentially on issues of race and gender. In our view, there are questions concerning those with disabilities that might be entitled to special considerations that wouldn't otherwise be covered by what I will be saying. I hope to show in the next 10 minutes that we are faced with two unfortunate extremes.
On the one hand there is the legislation that has already been enacted. It appeared as Bill 79 and I will otherwise refer to it that way. That was enacted under the aegis of the previous government. It, in our view, went overboard in one direction, and what we fear is that Bill 8, under the aegis of the current government, is going to go overboard in the opposite direction, and it is our hope in these few minutes to try to persuade you to avoid both extremes.
We have on numbers of occasions criticized Bill 79, and we've criticized it often quite vigorously. At the same time, however, that doesn't mean that the concept of employment equity is flawed because there are flaws in Bill 79. In short, what we're saying is, the proper route to go is to amend, not repeal, Bill 79. I suppose another way of saying this is, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
One of the reasons that employment equity became important is because of the experience with the Ontario Human Rights Code. We have had more than three decades of this legislation in this province, and one only has to examine some of the key statistics to see that it has been inadequate, necessary but not sufficient. I just give you a few examples.
Our organization conducted a survey in Cornwall this past summer. We looked at 750 retail jobs, jobs in retail establishments that employed no fewer than 100 people. Out of those 750 jobs we found only three occupied by aboriginal people -- this in a community with a total population of about 50,000, where you have about 6,000 aboriginal people living in or very close to that community. This mirrors a similar survey we had done, maybe three or four years earlier, in Sudbury and Sault Ste Marie when we looked at 1,200 retail jobs and found only three occupied by native people. The unemployment rate for aboriginal people is twice the national average.
We find also, as of the last census, that with the black community, despite the fact that in numbers of respects the educational background of blacks is not that much different from that of the total community, and in fact in some respects even superior, the unemployment rate for blacks is about 50% more than it is for the total community.
With women, we find that though a United Nations report recently said that Canada was the best country in the world to live in, it nevertheless ranked female wages in non-agricultural jobs 47th in line as far as equality was concerned.
These tell us that the Human Rights Code, though necessary, isn't doing the job. Even when it functions well it's not doing the job and it's not functioning all that well these days. This is primarily because the Human Rights Code is reactive rather than proactive, and it's also because it's very difficult to prove discrimination in any individual case. Even if there is discrimination, it's awfully hard to prove it. When you put all of that together, it's very difficult for the Human Rights Code to accelerate the rate of progress for those who have been disadvantaged for so long.
So it was sensible, in our view, finally to say to employers, "If you can't manage to hire a reasonable number from those constituencies, you explain it." After all, the employers know: They know what outreach methods they have attempted and what they've rejected. They know what candidates they selected and which they rejected and why. So it made some sense to say, "If you can't manage to hire a reasonable number, you explain it."
In short, in our view the essence of employment equity is at some stage to change the onus and require, as a condition of doing business in this province and enjoying the benefits of the public market, that employers explain their practices. That's essentially what the essence of employment equity means.
This means, of course, that the numerical goals have to be reasonable. In our view, Bill 79 went overboard in this respect because it says that employers have to make reasonable progress to get the racial and gender mix in their workforce to reflect what it is in the total community. That, in our view, is an invitation to engage in preferential hiring practices. It doesn't necessarily mean they will, but it means employers can be pressured to do that in order to bring their numbers up as quickly as possible so that their total workforce will resemble the breakdown in the total community. There's no need for that, in our view.
In fact, the best example of where this kind of thinking went wrong was in something that predated Bill 79 at the Ontario College of Art. They had pitifully few female instructors, yet they believed they were graduating so many competent people from their courses that at least half of the available talent pool was female. Well, they wanted to get their numbers up to 50% as quickly as possible, so they formulated an employment equity plan that said women would have the priority on all jobs vacated by retirement in the 1990s.
That, in our view, necessarily discriminates against men. No matter what sophistry you use, you cannot deny that if you say women have a priority on 100%, you are discriminating against those who are not women, and there was never any reason to go that far. In fact, what difference does it make how long it takes for the total workforce to have 50%? What matters is that when they hire, they don't discriminate. If they really believe that men and women are equally divided in the available talent pool, then the numerical goal should be 50%, not 100%.
In short, what we are saying is the act should be changed to provide that employers are required to set numerical goals in this way, to ask themselves the question: If you recruit vigorously among those people who are so underutilized, if you set fair job standards, and if you don't discriminate in your ultimate selections, how many are you likely to hire? This would be a much smaller number than it would be at the Ontario College of Art, but in our view a much fairer one. At that point there's no reason why you can't say to employers, "You justify the failure to meet those targets."
1030
The other recommendation we would make is that, notwithstanding the existence of any employment equity plans, employers should continue to be obliged not to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race or gender. This means that white males, as well as blacks, as well as aboriginals, as well as women, would be able to invoke the remedial facilities of the Human Rights Code in the event that any one individual were bypassed to meet a target or for discriminatory reasons.
In our view, if the legislation were changed in this way, we would be able to strike a fairer balance than either the existing law or the simple repeal of this legislation would do to accelerate the rate of progress for the disadvantaged people on the one hand, and on the other hand being fair to other people in the community, all of which is as always, Mr Chair, respectfully submitted.
The Chair: Thank you. Questions? Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for your presentation. So really your message this morning is that you're inviting employers to continue or establish an employment equity plan. You didn't tell us in your presentation how this would be followed up. If employers do agree to put in place an employment equity plan, will the government still be the responsible policing tool?
Mr Borovoy: Yes. In many other respects the employment equity legislation could function similarly to the way it has been contemplated in the existing act. Many of those enforcement and compliance mechanisms could remain in place. The difference would be that you would have fairer and more reasonable standards than you now do.
Mr Grandmaître: And with fines, if they don't comply to their own employment equity plan?
Mr Borovoy: The answer to that would be yes, remembering that the employers would be off the hook if they were able to establish that they made reasonable efforts to fulfil those goals.
Mr Marchese: The title of this act is the Job Quotas Repeal Act. Do you agree with that title?
Mr Borovoy: I don't really like to occupy my powerful mind with considerations of labels. Suffice it to say that the bill before you is wrong to the extent that it would abolish the very concept of employment equity.
Mr Marchese: I understand that.
Mr Borovoy: And the bill it hopes to repeal is wrong to the extent that it went overboard in the other direction.
Mr Marchese: I understand that too, yes. I'll move on to another question.
Mr Borovoy: I'm sorry if I took too long with that.
Mr Marchese: There will be many others who will answer that question. It's all right.
I disagree with the point that you make around numerical goals, where you say that it's an invitation to engage in preferential treatment. We're talking about reasonable goals; we're not talking about quotas, where it says, "Half of your staff will be women by the end of the year 2000." That's a job quota, and to do that, then employers will do whatever they need to do, and in some cases it could be that such an example could lead to preferential practices.
But to talk about our bill, where we talk about reasonable goals, which is so vague that it could allow employers to do whatever they want and abuse it still, I just don't see that that would lead to preferential treatment, because it assumes that there aren't enough people in all the target groups -- of people with disabilities, aboriginal, people of colour and women -- who would not be able enough, through merit of course, to fill those jobs.
Mr Borovoy: No, I think that's not correct. In fact, if you look at what the Ontario College of Art did, it's a classic case in point, and I know it began before Bill 79 was enacted. But under Bill 79 they could do what they did, and indeed they would be invited to do it, because the objective in the act is to get the distribution in their total workforce to reflect what it is in the outside community as soon as possible.
They said, "Even if we gave women priority on 100% of the jobs, we won't even have 50% by the end of our plan but we will have made a lot of headway to getting 50%," and I'm suggesting to you that very objective is wrong because it invites them to rush as quickly as possible to get it all up to 50%, and that way they're encouraged to discriminate the other way. Why doesn't that follow?
Mr Marchese: Mr Borovoy, I don't see that.
The Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: Time is up?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Borovoy: I'm sorry we couldn't continue that.
Mr Stewart: Because this bill is merit-based and ability-based, I'm interested in the survey that you did in Cornwall, where you talked of 100 retail operators who only had three aboriginal people working for them, and indeed it's a large community of aboriginals down there. What were the comments from the those 100 retailers? I assume, to make a fair survey, you would have to ask them why they were not hiring aboriginals as well. Could you tell me what their comments were?
Mr Borovoy: That isn't quite the way the survey worked, but I can say this to you. A number of them said, "Oh, we haven't had many applications from aboriginal people." We had another one saying: "Well, they don't like to do this kind of work. They don't like to put on a shirt and tie. They're strong people; they like to work outside." We had numbers of answers of that kind.
I think what's important, though, and this is why in our view the concept of employment equity is important -- one question we did ask: "What efforts did you make to recruit among the aboriginal people?" What you have to remember is that there is a gulf between the white and aboriginal communities in so many places. Aboriginal people looking at a number of establishments and seeing nothing but a sea of white faces for generations might well believe, even if wrongly, that they will be discriminated against.
So what we believe is important to do is to require employers to engage in outreach efforts to actually recruit. That doesn't require them to select in a discriminatory fashion when they ultimately select, but it requires them to encourage applications from those they haven't had working there.
Mr Stewart: Does that not --
The Chair: The time has expired for the 20-minute presentation. Thank you very much gentlemen. We appreciate your interest.
Mr Borovoy: Thank you.
Mr Grandmaître: Can I help you in any way with the timekeeping? Would you advise us, Mr Chair, how much time each caucus has in replying or asking questions or whatever? Could you advise us of the number of minutes? Do we have two minutes, three minutes, or whatever?
The Chair: Yes, I will do that. I didn't do that at the beginning of that one. I turned to my right and my leader wasn't here. I will do that.
Mr Sergio: I think, Mr Chair, if I may steal a moment of your time, it's important to tell the deputants as well to be short with their answers so we can get in more questions.
The Chair: Good point.
Mr Sergio: It wouldn't offend the deputants.
1040
TRANSPORTATION ACTION NOW
The Chair: Okay, those folks had a written presentation too. These folks here have a written presentation. I'm a little confused about exactly who we have now. Sam Savona from Transportation Action Now; David Baker, legal counsel of Ontarians with Disabilities --
Mr David Baker: That's right; yes.
The Chair: -- and Gary Malkowski, executive committee of Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee.
Mr Sam Savona: We are all in one group.
The Chair: Okay, you're all in one presentation today. Basically, you have 20 minutes. You can use any part of that you want to allow for questions. When we do get to the question time, I would ask you to keep your answers brief so that the members of the committee can get a chance to ask more questions. The clock is running. Welcome to our committee.
Mr Savona: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You took away my job, which was to introduce our panel.
My name is Sam Savona. I wear three hats today: I am a board member of Transportation Action Now, I am co-chair of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and I am, in my private life, an entrepreneur who consults on accessibility for people with disabilities.
Gary Malkowski, on my left, is an executive member of the ODA committee. He is also serving as director at the Canadian Hearing Society. David Baker, on my right, is our legal counsel for Transportation Action Now, as well as for the ODA committee.
We are here to talk about the Ontarians with disabilities act. One comment I would like to make personally as a consultant on accessibility: One of my American clients has pointed out to me that in order for them to come to Ontario and have their conference in our province, they have to ensure that their ADA law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, is adhered to as well. So in a way, I am losing business by not having a similar act in Canada and Ontario, and as you know, I am not the only business in Ontario.
Anyway, I will go to David.
Mr David Baker: Alan Borovoy said to you that he was concerned about throwing the baby out with the bath water. We're here today to tell you that the baby hasn't had a bath yet, that disabled people in this province have not had an opportunity. The ODA committee adopts the position that they are opposed to the repeal of the Employment Equity Act because it represented a significant advance for disabled people, a significant opportunity for disabled people to have barriers removed and to get into the workforce. The government is talking about equal opportunity, but it's talking about voluntary, non-legislated approaches to equal opportunity. Mr Malkowski will address this issue.
The government has promised an Ontarians with disabilities act, but there is no policy work being done on an Ontarians with disabilities act and the government is not meeting with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee or other representatives of the disabled community to address this kind of issue.
There are problems with the Human Rights Commission, and Mr Borovoy has alluded to some of them. You will be hearing through the course of your process from the Human Rights Reform Group, and we feel those kinds of changes are necessary. But our basic message is this: In Helmut Kohl's Germany, in Margaret Thatcher's Britain, in Ronald Reagan's and George Bush's United States of America, there are stronger pieces of legislation ensuring access to employment for disabled people than there would have been had the Employment Equity Act not been repealed.
The unemployment rate for disabled people in this country is higher than it is in other industrialized countries. The cost to the public of not having disabled people in the workforce is very high, so we urge you to rethink the decision to repeal employment equity and urge also that you proceed with human rights reform and the introduction of an Ontarians with disabilities act.
I'll turn it over to Mr Malkowski at this point.
Mr Gary Malkowski: First of all, I'm strongly opposed to the proposition by the government to repeal employment equity. I would suggest that your intention should be actually to remove barriers. What you would be doing by repealing this is actually creating worse barriers for those who are disabled or deaf. I think you fail to convince us that you are really seriously committed to removing barriers.
For example, there is new technology out there, if you look at blind people who can access computers. Now it's true, there are talking computers, but what about the new ones that are all graphics? There's one called Windows; that's of no use to blind folks. It's the same with other kinds of computers that have voice instructions. Those are of no use to deaf people.
So technology is not always the best answer for us. There are other kinds of barrier-free design that need to be looked at, for example, how one gets a job. How do you advertise for a job? How does one apply for a job? If it's advertised in the newspaper, how on earth can a blind person read that? It's that kind of thing. How are we supposed to have access to the job market? If there's no TTY number listed, how can a deaf person call to get further information as to where to go to apply?
Bill 79 specifically has instructions within it to identify barrier removal to make sure that people at least get the interview. It's to remove the systemic barriers that are in society now. I want to remind all of the government members, if you would remember, our hope as disabled people and as deaf people -- you're taking away that hope. We are hoping for a better society where we will have full participation, especially parents who have young children. You are taking away that hope by removing Bill 79.
I would ask you to reconsider that. I'm asking you to think about barrier removal in society for both disabled and non-disabled people. I can give you an example of that. Think about ramps when you look at a building. It's not only people in wheelchairs who use those ramps. Let's say there are parents who have strollers; they may use the ramps to go up there, or people who are moving furniture. I'm sure you've seen heavy furniture being moved and used on those ramps. It benefits not just disabled folks. When you talk about access, it helps everyone.
1050
Captioning: It doesn't just help those who can't hear. It also helps people who are learning English as a second language because they can read along. Or children who are at home; if the television is on and there's captioning, they can also read along. It's helpful, it's instructive. It's industry that will produce these products, and that means more jobs.
I'm asking you to have a more holistic approach to barrier-free design and to be a little more creative and not repeal Bill 79. We need policies and we need implementation by the government that is proactive, something that will reduce costs to society and remove barriers, not create further problems.
I want to remind you to seriously think about the population, the citizens of Ontario. One of the growing populations is older folks who will become disabled. More and more children who are being helped with advances of technology in medicine are living longer, and some of those children have disabilities. What about them? What about their place? Where's their place in society?
We need a holistic approach that is going to encompass all the citizens of this province, not just some. So I'm asking you to think about not repealing Bill 79 and to think about enacting an Ontarians with disabilities act, one that would encompass all the citizens of this province.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. Each party now has about three minutes, so we'll start with Mr Marchese and the third party.
Mr Marchese: Part of what Bill 79 was intended to do was to be proactive and not reactive; that's the point. The Human Rights Commission is there to react to someone who has a complaint against them, for a number of reasons. The point of Bill 79 was to recognize that we have systemic problems that we have to deal with.
This government says, "Well, we want to restore merit, because Bill 79 kills merit." We said: "No, that's not the case; merit is part of Bill 79. We want to hire people based on merit; not because they're black or because they're disabled or because they're women, but because they have merit and qualifications."
What is your sense of this plan that the Conservative government has that says, "What we want to do is bring about equal opportunity for everybody, bring fairness to everybody"? What do you think about that plan?
Mr Baker: I mentioned that Conservative governments in Germany and in Britain and Republican governments in the United States saw the importance of legislating access for disabled people. The reason is that if merit means market, an individual person in the marketplace is not going to build a ramp, because it's not economic to have that one customer in a wheelchair go next door to someone else or go somewhere else or not even be in the marketplace.
But overall, the cost to society of not granting access is that everybody loses. Disabled people become dependent, rather than being in jobs and independent. That is what is being lost with the repeal of this bill, and that is what is going to be lost if this government talks about voluntary, market-driven action to grant access to disabled people. It won't work, and disabled people do not believe it will work. This has to be addressed.
Mr Marchese: More time, Mr Chair?
The Chair: You have another minute.
Mr Marchese: Can one of you or all of you, if you have time, talk about the title of this document which says, "Job Quotas Repeal Act." What do you think about that?
Mr Savona: By the sound of it, it scares me, because I want to get back to where we were talking before. We need a bill on equity, because a person with a disability such as myself -- I use myself as a perfect example. I apply for jobs. I go for the interviews. The moment I open my mouth, I know that I will be looked upon as having a drinking disorder rather than cerebral palsy. The moment I phone someone, and they ask who you are, they will hang up because they would think I'm drunk.
The Chair: Sam, I'm going to have to cut you off there, okay?
Mr Marchese: I appreciate the answer, because he's speaking to systemic barriers really.
The Chair: Yes, I understand that, so I did give him some extra time.
Mr Tascona: I take it by the solution that you've put in your document with respect to an Ontarians with disabilities act, Bill 79, even in its present form, doesn't adequately address all the barriers to employment and to disabled people in this province?
Mr Baker: The proposal for an Ontarians with disabilities act involves providing clearer guidance or standards, which is following on the American model. Sam mentioned that American conventions are not coming to Toronto any more because they don't meet the American access standards. There are standards that are set for hotels in the United States under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It provides clear guidance and it provides a rational period within which change is to take place.
The Employment Equity Act doesn't address the issue of access to hotels, but it's important -- it relates to employment. So our position has been that the Ontarians with disabilities act addresses issues beyond employment, such as accessible transportation, such as provision of sign interpreters to people appearing before legislative committees. Those kinds of issues are not addressed in the Employment Equity Act, that's right, and we saw the need for an Ontarians with disabilities act to complement the Employment Equity Act.
Mr Tascona: Do you believe that an amendment or revision of the Human Rights Code would be a useful step, if Bill 79 were to be repealed, to address individuals with disabilities on the employment side?
Mr Baker: The short answer on behalf of the committee is no, but I think Mr Malkowski may have something to add.
Mr Tascona: Do you not believe that the Human Rights Code has a role to play in this process?
Mr Baker: I think if you talk to disabled people you will learn that disabled people have no faith in the human rights process in this province at the present time. If you thought of it in terms of how many cases have actually been addressed since disabled people were added to the Human Rights Code in 1981, I believe you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of employment cases that have been resolved through boards of inquiry. That will give you some idea of the total breakdown in the system. People are not eager to see that system perpetuated; they see a need for major changes.
The principal distinction we're making is that the Human Rights Code deals in a very expensive adversarial process which goes on over a period of -- I have cases that are 12 years old. This is not an acceptable way, or a rational way, to address barrier removal.
The Americans have got a non-litigious system of providing standards which are clear to everyone, which take into account the financial realities faced by businesses there and which also assure disabled people that over a reasonable period of time -- the brief, you'll note, talks about barrier-free by the year 2000. The idea is that this has to be phased in over time, that this is the preferred course and that is why the committee is recommending an Ontarians with disabilities act as opposed to going the adversarial, confrontational, after-the-fact route which is set up under the Human Rights Code.
Mr Sergio: Mr Borovoy, the previous speaker, said to amend, not to abolish. Would you have any specific suggestions with respect to amending and not abolishing the bill as it is now?
Mr Baker: Mr Borovoy also used the Ontario College of Art as what he was opposed to. I would suggest to you that the federal government has just passed legislation which is based on the Ontario legislation. It has a clause which says that there shall not be quotas, and effectively does the same thing.
Bill 79 is not quota legislation; it is legislation which says to employers, "Set goals and timetables." The only employers of which we are aware that are practising employment equity for disabled people are federal employers, specifically the banks, which have been subjected to litigation and have introduced hiring goals.
1100
Mr Borovoy said the goal must be set based on -- he used the example of women, 50-50. In the case of disabled people, if there were hiring goals set for disabled people based on representation, that would not take into account that disabled people face 50% unemployment rates. The pool of available disabled people eager to get into the workforce is much higher than their representation within the population as a whole.
For example, the Royal Bank has hiring goals of 12.5% in job categories where representation is 6%. Under Mr Borovoy's formula, the Royal Bank would not be permitted to hire disabled people at twice representation. That doesn't work any unfairness because the number of disabled people who are available to work as bank tellers is far higher than in non-disabled categories because of the high rates of unemployment among disabled people. I think Mr Borovoy has overstated his case, frankly.
Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to ask if you have any way of collecting employment data for persons with disabilities and have you noticed any change in that over the last few years?
Mr Baker: Statistics Canada has data generated on disability. The snapshots were taken in 1986 and 1991. Basically, the employment rates for people for whom employment equity is intended, that is, more severely disabled people -- we all have some degree of disability. I wear eyeglasses, everybody has some degree of disability, but the Employment Equity Act was intended to address those people with more severe disabilities, particularly those who require the kinds of accommodation such as a ramp or a sign interpreter. For that group of people, the employment picture has not improved over the five years of the census.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Savona, Mr Baker and Mr Malkowski.
Mr Malkowski: Mr Chair, if I may ask your indulgence, where would one send an invoice? I had to bring my own interpreter. Where would I send the invoice to have the cost covered this morning?
The Chair: That decision is going to be made by the subcommittee, so send it to the clerk's office. We'll make a decision on it.
Mr Malkowski: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
EMPLOYMENT RESEARCH ANALYSTS
The Chair: The next presenter is Ann Mirani, a consultant with Employment Research Analysts. Have a seat. Welcome to our committee. The rules are basically that you have 20 minutes; you can allot any time you want of that to answer questions that fall within the 20 minutes.
Ms Ann Mirani: I'm not sure what the drill is here, so what do you need to know?
The Chair: Some of us aren't sure either.
Ms Mirani: Okay. Is there any procedure in advance here? Go for it?
The Chair: Basically, you have 20 minutes to use as you see fit, so it's all yours.
Ms Mirani: Okay, that's fine. My intent in coming here today is as a supporter of employment equity. I am a consultant in Waterloo, Ontario, and I'm saddened to see that we're going to lose this piece of legislation. It wasn't my intent this morning to spend a lot of time talking about the repeal itself, since I believe that this will happen anyway.
What I would like to address is my serious concern about subsection 1(5) of the draft bill, which proposes that employers will be required to destroy the data that they have collected exclusively under part III of the Employment Equity Act. I realize that the word "exclusively" has some definitions to it which would imply that some people can get around the corners here, but there are a number of employers who in fact conducted their surveys or conducted systems reviews under the parameters of part III of the Employment Equity Act, and I believe that under this condition they will be required to destroy their data.
I don't disagree with people being required to destroy data if they are not intending to continue the process on a voluntary basis. The information was intended to be collected for employment equity purposes, and I think that you should continue to do it for those reasons, but for employers who do intend to continue the process, I think it's unfortunate to require them to destroy this data. It was costly to collect, they've embarked on programs and I think they should be, where they wish, allowed to continue.
I have a couple of suggestions on how one might go about doing that; they're probably not the only ones. I'm not a lawyer, I don't have or pretend to say that this is the exact wording that it should be, but I think that the bill could provide a bridge from the Employment Equity Act, 1993, to an equal opportunity plan or a return to the Human Rights Code special programs section. That's what I would like to see addressed, is to put the bridge there. Let's not lose the ground that was gained, and let's go forward instead of going backwards.
Mine's short and sweet. If you have questions, please go ahead.
The Chair: We have about six minutes each for questions, so we'll start with Mrs Pupatello.
Mrs Pupatello: You're a for-profit company?
Ms Mirani: Yes.
Mrs Pupatello: I was wondering if you were aware that there has been a growth in your industry as it relates to Bill 79, that because of it there's been a need for your kind of service to business?
Ms Mirani: I'm certain that there is.
Mrs Pupatello: Has your business changed because of Bill 79?
Ms Mirani: My business, as it stands currently, is as a result of Bill 79. I provided research for the owner of my company, Wright, Mogg and Associates, in Waterloo. For the last five or six year, I've been involved in providing them with continuing research on employment equity. But our firm doesn't approach equity as some of the full-service types of consulting firms that you may be thinking of. Where we became interested and decided to go forward was in the research areas, and what we developed in conjunction with two industrial and organizational psychologists was a survey to assist employers in identifying systemic barriers.
I believe that the systemic barrier issue is one of the most difficult to come to terms with. We do understand that statistically there is a difference in demographics from when people enter the workforce to when they leave it, so there is something happening inside our workplaces. Some things are obvious, and we've identified them. The old height and weight requirements, which you all know about, have been identified, and you see where they could impede someone's progress, but there are many other things that we're really not too sure exactly what's happening within it, and that's where we've developed a survey tool.
Mrs Pupatello: In your opinion, how much growth would you say there's been in private industry in terms of your kind of work since the introduction of that bill?
Ms Mirani: I'm not making millions, so I don't know the statistics. I know when pay equity was introduced there were a large number of people who got in pay equity consulting. I have not seen the same type of development in the employment equity field, though there are certainly private practitioners available to people to assist them and give them advice on how to do employment equity. Lots of them are doing it in-house, where it belongs.
Mr Sergio: Ms Mirani, you mentioned that you would like to see a couple of suggestions. Did I miss them or could you repeat them for me?
Ms Mirani: No, I was assuming you had them there. What I had suggested was that there could be a section within the bill that would allow employers to have the right to continue employment equity voluntarily, using the data that they had collected, provided that they continue to use the data in the form they had told their employees it would be used in.
1110
Alternatively, there could be a section that allowed an employer a window of opportunity to apply for approval under section 14 of the Human Rights Code that their plan could then become a special program and they could carry on maintaining the use of the data, maintaining the confidentiality and the reasons for it, as being the way they work.
Mr Sergio: Are you suggesting those suggestions to be included in the new proposed bill or in the existing law?
Ms Mirani: I would suggest that they go into the draft, or Bill 8, the act to repeal employment equity. I don't think both of them belong there. It was just that say that I wanted to make a change. I think you have to offer a solution. Those are two ways that I think could be proposed. Which is the best one? Are there other ways to provide that bridge that I think is important? There may well be. I don't presume to have the only solutions to this, but I think those two are valid and a good option.
Mr Clement: Ms Mirani, if you come at it from the government's perspective and assume that there is a possibility that some of the information that is gathered by the employer from the employee is tainted by the fact that it was achieved through a coercive piece of legislation, so that there is a public policy reason for destroying that information, if you jump that jump with me, what do you see as the additional significant costs, more than incidental costs, associated in the situation where an employer and the employees agree voluntarily that there is a need for some sort of remedial action in this area, and the employer then destroys the old information and simply reproduces the survey, which would then be filled out voluntarily by the employee? Where is the additional cost there?
Ms Mirani: You've got your employee time all over again. There's a recommunication process that will have to go on to explain why the destruction and what was wrong with the previous data.
In my experience, I'm not too sure that you're going to come up with a lot of companies who have done all of the survey work. The March 1996 deadlines applied only to the largest of employers, and many of them had not conducted surveys during that time. I think you're dealing with a small number of employers who wish to continue with the data they have to hand, and I think they should be allowed to do so.
I don't agree with you that this process is tainted, having been involved in the collection of survey data. It's not a coercive process. They were voluntarily filled out in the first place. It required a great amount of communications, in fact, on the part of employers. That was one of the bugbears for most employers, that they had no control over how a person would fill this survey out. So it took very good communications and cooperation between management and union, employees and employers, in whatever context you take it, to make a successful survey, and it's not my belief that the data is in fact tainted. I would say that it's fine the way it is.
I don't say, though, keeping in mind the privacy rules or rules of confidentiality, that one wouldn't provide an employee with the right to withdraw their answer to the question if they wanted to. They had the right not to fill out the form in the first place. They had the right to fill out the form however they so chose in the first place. So I don't see that that is an issue.
Mr Maves: In your one-page brief, one of your suggestions, part 2, is: "Add a section to the bill that would require employers wishing to continue the employment equity process voluntarily to get approval from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to continue their plan as a special program under the Ontario Human Rights Code." That to me assumes that if someone voluntarily continued this process, that the current process is not based on merit and that some would take companies that voluntarily continued to the HRC. Is that the fear there and why you put that section in?
Ms Mirani: No. It's just that the Human Rights Code of Ontario has provided in the past, and it's still a section of the code, for special programs. It was always a wise move on the part of the employer to ensure that their plans met the strict criteria of the commission so that they were not making errors in how they approached the issues, so that if there were complaints, they knew their plan met the criteria that were deemed necessary under the Ontario Human Rights Code. So it's a protective measure for an employer to ensure that the plan they're embarking on meets those criteria, and that allows them the bridge to the Human Rights Commission: Get the approval and carry on.
Mr Maves: And you're a champion of maintaining data. In our equal opportunity plan, which is in its genesis, the previous speaker, Mr Borovoy, suggested that employers perhaps keep track of whom they interview for positions and record their reasons for not hiring them. Would you support that type of data maintenance?
Ms Mirani: Under certain circumstances probably I would. I think unfortunately the numbers game here has turned into an emotional issue, whereas the statistics are the one coldhearted way of looking at things, if you would like. It doesn't go on my side or on your side, because the numbers produce the data. That gives you a suggestion of either there is something fishy here -- statistics would predict that one thing would happen, and something else is happening. All it indicates to you is that we're doing something different here that would produce this type of result, so it gives you a pointer in the direction that we had better look at what we are doing.
I would think from an employer perspective, if you're in Toronto and you only have men in your workplace, as a pretty extreme example, or you only had women in your workplace, one would look around and say: "There's something fishy here. What produced that result?" I think then they might be interested in knowing who applied for positions in your company so that they could examine what's going on in their process. So I think under certain circumstances it's a legitimate way of taking a look at things, and I don't have a problem with it.
Ms Churley: I have a question that's somewhat general, but given your experience and your knowledge of the Employment Equity Act, why do you think it's necessary? Why are you such a strong supporter?
Following that, what would be your advice to this government? As Mr Maves just said, they're in the very beginning stages of their equal opportunity plans. So given what you know, your support for what we were doing, what would you advise them? What is an absolute necessity for them to follow through on for some kind of equality in the workplace to take place?
Ms Mirani: I would have to state that I am a supporter of the legislation at this point in time. I think it comes from a sense of knowing that sometimes we don't do the right thing unless we have to. But once we're doing those things, it becomes habit, and I'm not so sure then that the legislation needs to stay.
I always viewed employment equity legislation as something that should be a dynamic type of legislation, that could change as things alter, so I happen to believe in that perspective. I would also have to state that I am not someone who wanted to see more bureaucracy, more report-writing, more paper-shuffling just to prove that I'm a good guy. But I would think that somewhere in our law, whether it be under the Human Rights Code, whether it be in a revised employment equity law or an equal opportunity plan, there should be a clear statement that "This is right and you'll be in trouble if you're not going to follow the rules. If you're going to discriminate, be prepared for the consequences." You'll have to define what those consequences are.
But I think once we're on that track, you can take a look at how things are going and maybe things will to have be changed. We're in an area that is new. I think that internationally Canada is looked to for its success in dealing with these issues, so let's accept that we may not have all the right answers at the moment or the perfect way to go about it, but let's try it and let's see if we can't manage better and better utilize the resources we have in our communities that aren't being used well.
1120
Ms Churley: So what you're saying is that any new employment opportunity bill has to be more than voluntary. If I understand what you just said, you don't have all the answers to the best approach, but it has to be more than voluntary; it has to have some kind of built-in penalty if people are not following through. There has to be a law in place that people have to follow.
My second question is, this government talks a lot about the Human Rights Code, and I'd like your opinion on how you see that working if it were to come to that. As I understand it, as the Human Rights Code works now, it would be on individual cases and not dealing with systemic, proactive problems. What would you think would have to be changed in the Human Rights Code to get at this?
Ms Mirani: To answer your first question, yes, I still say that I believe in the legislation and I think that a voluntary plan of action would not have the teeth necessary at the front end to produce the results that we might or certain people may expect to see. That kept in mind, I'm a realist too, and if it can't be that way then I would like to see, as I said, a bridge.
My problem with the Human Rights Code -- I'm not an expert in human rights legislation, but the process has proven to be very adversarial and it requires one person to stand up alone and be heard, and that's a very difficult position to put somebody in. It's also expensive. It may cost you your job. It may put you in a position where you don't open your mouth because you're worried about how you're going to survive, so it's better just to bury it and let's just grin and bear it. I don't think that's a successful approach.
The other issue to hand, frankly, with human rights legislation from an employer perspective is it's expensive, very expensive, to get involved in a human rights complaint. Be it legitimate or not isn't the question here. It costs a lot of money to go through from an employer perspective as well. It's just too confrontational. We need a system that allows for mediation or some description of standards that are acceptable in employment so that people understand what they're doing.
Additionally, with the ability to have class action suits in Ontario now, you could find that under the human rights legislation we have class actions brought against employers, and that will be even more expensive. So I'm not so sure that going back to what we had is going to produce a less expensive system.
How do we revamp the Ontario Human Rights Commission to deal with equity issues? I'm not sure, because without doing employment equity and having a section to deal with it, there may be no fast stream through which to deal with those types of issues or properly address the area of systemic barriers. There is case law, though, federally through the Supreme Court that has based decisions on systemic barriers, but it's a very long process and it doesn't produce quick results that are helpful to people today who are trying to get into the workplace.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Mirani. Your time is well used. We appreciate your attendance at the committee and your submission.
Ms Mirani: Thank you very much for hearing me.
The Chair: Is Mr Howcroft from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association here yet? He's not scheduled to be here for another 15 minutes, but since there's probably going to be a division in the House on private members' bills, I would guess some time just before 12, we will maybe just recess for a few minutes until he's here, and then we'll start as soon as he's available so we can be available for the vote. Let's try five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1124 to 1134.
CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Okay, if everyone can take their seats, please, we'll proceed with the next presenters, who are from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr Ian Howcroft, director of human resources, and Sandy Douglas. Have I got that right? Have I got the names right?
Mr Ian Howcroft: Yes, that's correct.
The Chair: Okay, gentlemen, you have 20 minutes. How you use that, how much of that you apportion to questions, is up to you. The question period, whatever you leave, will be divided equally among the three parties, and we ask you to keep your answers short so we can squeeze in more questions. So 20 minutes and it's all yours. Thanks for coming.
Mr Howcroft: We have a few formal comments we'll make in approximately five to eight minutes and we'll save the rest of the time for questions. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our comments on Bill 8, or the Job Quotas Repeal Act.
First, I'd like to say that CMA applauds the government's initiative in this regard. Although CMA is supportive of the intent and goals of employment equity, we have always advocated that a voluntary approach was better than a mandatory or legislated approach. Consequently, Bill 8 is a positive step to eliminate the bureaucratic and process-driven employment equity initiative that had been previously mandated.
Before we provide specific comments on the initiative, it's important to note a few things about the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We're a voluntary organization with members from all regions of the province. Our membership includes small, medium and large-sized companies from all sectors of manufacturing. Further, our membership produces approximately 75% of Ontario's manufactured output, or $121 billion annually. There are approximately 980,000 people employed directly in manufacturing and another 800,000 involved with supporting manufacturing. It's easy to understand why we're referred to as the "engine of the economy."
As I said earlier, we've always supported the purpose and goal of employment equity, or fairness in the workplace. In our view, the removal of overt and systemic discrimination and barriers from entrance to or promotion in the workplace was and remains a laudable goal.
However, we've also recognized that this is an extremely complicated and multifaceted issue. It's not based solely in employment, as it encompasses other dimensions of society, such as education, skills development and training, demographics, family, culture and personality and personal ambition.
We've always argued against the pursuit of employment equity through legislation. Rather, we feel that a more positive and practical way to deal with this was through a voluntary approach which focused on information and education.
We're consequently very pleased that the government has decided to repeal Bill 79. The government has recognized that all hiring and promotion decisions must be based on merit. Equity in the workplace should focus on opening doors to include as many people as possible, rather than breaking people down into segregated groups. It makes good business sense to seek out the best and most qualified person for the job. Consequently, employers will look to the broader labour pool to maximize benefits and ensure that they are as competitive as is possible.
Bill 79 created a numbers-driven system based on process. It did not, in our view, focus on the positive aspects of what employers had done, were doing and could do. Rather, it created a regime whereby employers were shackled by legislative requirements. Employers were forced to follow numerous prescriptive rules in a specified manner within a specified time frame.
Another major weakness was that Bill 79 failed to take into account an employer's unique or individual circumstances. It did not allow for the necessary flexibility by which employment equity could best be realized. Everyone recognizes that resources are limited, and to require employers to meet those requirements under Bill 79 was, in our view, not an effective use of those limited resources. We feel there are certain goals that cannot be achieved through regulation or legislation. In fact, we also feel that by pursuing those goals in that way, it's counterproductive and can even make it harder to achieve. One of those areas is employment equity or diversity in the workplace.
We do feel that government has an important role to play in this area. In fact, it's got several roles. One role should be to assist employers, employees, unions and others to understand the issue and to work towards ensuring that everyone does have an equal opportunity and access to the workplace. Government must work with the various communities to promote the education and understanding that is necessary to realize the goal of equal opportunity.
However, I'd like to say that we feel the most important role for government is to create an economic environment that encourages investment, growth and, hence, opportunity. If the province's economy is expanding and generating jobs, this will benefit all residents of the province, particularly those who've had difficulty accessing the labour market. It's therefore crucial that government do all it can to make Ontario more competitive in the global marketplace.
Again, reducing and removing unnecessary and harmful regulatory burdens is a way to help make Ontario more competitive. Bill 8 sends out a powerful and positive message that Ontario not only wants increased investment, but is taking the necessary steps to demonstrate our commitment to growing our economy.
Recently, CMA released a major paper on the importance of competitiveness and manufacturing entitled Manufacturing our Future. This document stressed that the vital role that government must play is to create a policy environment conducive to long-term competitiveness, industrial innovation and economic growth. I've included a longer passage from the section on government's role in the written materials that you have before you.
I'd now like to ask Sandy Douglas to continue our presentation and make a few comments.
1140
Mr Sandy Douglas: I would also like to bring to the attention of the committee, to further illustrate this point, CMA-Ontario's Policy and Priority Criteria. This document was developed by CMA Ontario's board of directors and it is attached to the submission. It succinctly sets out what government must do to create a prosperous Ontario. Again, it is more beneficial to all if we have an economy which is expanding and creating employment opportunities. Mandated and prescriptive regulatory programs are detrimental to such growth.
To assist governments to conduct the necessary review of their regulatory programs and initiatives, CMA developed a business impact test. This test will allow one to assess and determine the impact or effect of any law, regulation or government program. It is essential that programs that are harmful or detrimental to our economy and its growth be modified or ended.
With regard to equity in the workplace, more can be accomplished through a voluntary program, and in fact much was accomplished prior to the legislative approach. For example, CMA has been providing information and assistance to our members on fairness in the workplace, employment equity or valuing diversity and human rights issues for many years.
An example of this was the 1986 manual entitled Employment Equity for Women -- How Does Your Company Measure Up. This publication was a joint venture between CMA and the Ontario women's directorate. It was well received at the time and is an example of what can be done to productively promote the issues concerning fairness in the workplace. We will continue to provide information to our members in this area.
How Does Your Company Measure Up demonstrated that partnerships can achieve practical, positive and demonstrable benefits. Such partnerships should be encouraged in the future. We understand that the equal opportunity plan will focus on promoting such partnerships and we wholeheartedly support this direction. CMA did participate in the focus groups that the government held in developing the equal opportunity plan, and we look forward to providing further input and assistance as the equal opportunity plan is developed and evolves.
We have long argued that the more intrusive the legislated initiative is, the less chance it will be successful. Flexibility is the key to success. Working with employers to achieve practical results will generate more cooperation from employers. Employers will be more willing to accept any "buy-in" to a program or a plan which is flexible and recognizes their own specific needs, concerns and problems and is one that they had a part in developing.
Over the last few years, most employers and individuals have become well aware of the issue of employment equity or diversity in the workplace. However, there is still a need for useful information and education. A lot of information has been developed or produced over the last several years to deal with equality and equity in the workplace. For example, CMA developed a comprehensive manual on employment equity. Some of this information is specific to the legislative requirements of Bill 79. However, there is still a lot that talks about equity and diversity in the generic or practical sense.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, CMA suggests that government should promote and make available such existing materials. Information could be provided to interested parties as a part of the government's equal opportunity plan. It would include such things as how-to manuals or guidelines, samples of best practices, a guide on barrier identification and removal.
This information should also be tailored to ensure that the needs and requirements of various-sized businesses are appropriately addressed. There is no one "right" way to achieve equality or equity in the workplace. This government has recognized our long-standing position that the goal must be to broaden the options as much as possible and remove rigidities. The government could provide assistive materials that would allow an employer, and others, to understand and productively deal with diversity in the workplace.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that CMA supports completely the direction the government has decided to take with Bill 8. We also support the government's development of an equal opportunity plan and we'll continue to participate and offer input on that important initiative.
We'd now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We'll begin the questions this time with the government. We each have about three minutes.
Mr Tascona: Mr Douglas, what did you have in mind with respect to the direction the government should take with respect to an equal opportunity plan? Secondly, what direction do you think the government should take with respect to the Human Rights Code in any revisions?
Mr Douglas: In three minutes.
Mr Tascona: If you're capable.
Mr Douglas: Regarding the first question, with regard to new opportunity, I believe the government has to be a leader. I believe that they cannot mandate. I believe we have to provide direction and education. There has to be, or could be, a system that is developed where employers identified in the workplace who are leaders in this area, and there are a number of them that have obtained that kind of recognition from all parties, could assist in developing materials to help their fellow companies, if you will, push this out, this equal opportunity or diversity opportunities throughout the workplace.
As far as your broader question, I don't have an answer to that.
Mr Howcroft: I'd just like to comment on the Human Rights Commission. I think it has to be more customer-based and customer-focused. I don't know of any group that's happy with the service currently provided by the Human Rights Commission. There's an enormous backlog. That has to be addressed. We feel that if the Human Rights Commission were to change in the way it deals with some of the issues before it, it would be much more productive.
They have to deal with discrimination, but an important part of their mandate is also education and the providing of information. I don't think they're doing enough on that to make the issue of human rights broader and people more aware of it.
For example, we had a seminar on human rights to let our members know about it, and we invited the Human Rights Commission to participate. They refused, saying although it's part of their mandate, they just couldn't afford the resources to deal with education and speak at a seminar. I think that attitude has to change.
Mr Tascona: Do you think the Human Rights Code is too litigious?
Mr Howcroft: I think the Human Rights Code is too litigious, yes, and the way it's handled and processed, it garners that type of relationship with the parties.
Mr Clement: Have you done any studies as to the cost to business of evaluation of individuals in job hiring practices?
Mr Howcroft: Has CMA done any studies?
Mr Clement: Yes.
Mr Howcroft: No, just anecdotal evidence that we get through our human resource committee meetings. We didn't do any specific costing of that.
Mr Clement: Can you share the anecdotal, or is that just too --
Mr Howcroft: Well, it depends on the company, the size, the sophistication, what they've done. Many companies had already gone a long way to working towards ensuring their workplaces were equitable, and it wasn't as onerous a task for them to make some of the changes they had. Some of the problems were that they had to make changes that weren't practical or weren't going to improve anything but were just to meet the bureaucratic or the paper burden aspects of the equity legislation.
Mr Clement: I guess what I'm getting at is you're pretty confident that the employers that at least are members of the CMA do practise, I would say, extensive individual job promotion and hiring efforts to find out -- I'm trying to get confirmation that they do try to find out who has merit and who doesn't have merit, I suppose is my question.
Mr Howcroft: With the competitive atmosphere that exists today, you have to ensure that you have the best people to do the job. That's one of the tenets of doing business, that you have to have the best person, the most meritorious person, for the job. Otherwise you're not going to be competitive and you're not going to be around very long.
Mr Grandmaître: You say that your membership is from across the regions of this province. What would be your membership?
Mr Howcroft: Large, medium and small-sized manufacturers from all sectors: auto industry --
Mr Grandmaître: What's the number?
Mr Howcroft: I believe we have approximately 2,000 corporate members and 6,000 or so individual members.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you. Also, in your presentation you say that you're dead against the pursuit of employment equity through mandatory legislation, and also that you've been promoting fairness in the workplace. Can you tell me, out of the 2,000 members of your organization, how many voluntarily worked out an employment equity plan?
Mr Howcroft: I can't tell you that, no. We didn't survey our members. We made our members aware of the legislative requirements and we developed an employment equity manual to assist our members in dealing with employment equity and the Bill 79 requirements. We also have other human rights publications, racial and sexual harassment, so we've done a lot on the productive, positive side to educate our members on the issues in general, and also with regard to the specific legislative requirements.
Mr Grandmaître: But you say you've been promoting this fairness in the workplace, and you haven't followed up on the number of plans or small, medium or large businesses that do have --
Mr Howcroft: We've followed up by continuing to update our members on the issue in our newsletters and in special bulletins and in the seminars and workshops we've scheduled.
Mr Grandmaître: But you don't have an exact number of --
Mr Howcroft: No.
Mrs Pupatello: You mentioned in your document that you already do the things that you're requesting government go back to doing, and that is educate, and you list a number of examples where the CMA has worked with government agencies in promotion and education. So you're recommending we do the things that we've always been doing?
Mr Howcroft: Do the things that we've always been doing and do them better and --
Mrs Pupatello: And in your document too you focus in on the merit principle. Would you have been content that the act was amended to focus on merit, as opposed to the quotas?
Mr Howcroft: We had always argued that the act should codify the merit principle, but we'd also prefaced every submission and presentation to the former government that we were against the mandatory legislation. So we would never have been happy with a legislated or mandatory approach, but we had also argued that if you're going to have that, you had to recognize the merit principle.
Mr Marchese: We have a big problem that this bill will not resolve and that in fact it will enhance. I made some comments in the House around this bill where we did a study, the Bank of Canada did a study, 1990 -- this is after the federal government's employment equity bill, 1986 -- and it showed the outdated views that people -- that men -- within the Bank of Montreal have about women. There's a whole list of them, which is too long to get into because we only have a few minutes -- 1990. This is not 1980, 1960; 1990.
Then we have the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which did a 20-year study of employment agencies, and over its 20-year study, it has shown these employment agencies are quite willing to discriminate. If someone calls in saying, "We don't want a black person; do you think you can do that?" they do that.
We have Judge Abella's report, 1986, which became the basis for the federal government employment equity bill, which identified the systemic discrimination that exists for women, people with disabilities, people of colour and aboriginal people.
It's clear, the studies show it, yet what you're proposing is that we have a voluntary system. What you're saying is we need to create a good economic environment, then everything will be okay. But it's not, because the systemic problem that all these studies identify is that these four groups of people, which constitute 65% of the population, are underrepresented or underemployed and never get through the ranks.
It's a problem. Bill 79 was intended just to do that, to correct that. It doesn't say anywhere that you will not hire based on merit. In fact, merit is the key. It's part of what we say.
Mr Howcroft: It wasn't codified or mentioned in the bill. That was our problem with regard to merit on that.
Mr Marchese: But nowhere in the bill --
Mr Howcroft: Mr Marchese, we do recognize your point. That's why we said it's a multifaceted issue and you can't just address it by one way. We're suggesting that the voluntary approach is for employers, but there has to be an important role in providing information and education. It also has to go back to our education system, the skills and training system, because we recognize the points that you've raised, that it is a broad issue that you can't just address by one activity. You've got to do it all-encompassing.
Mr Marchese: But employment equity did that. It addressed all of these aspects. For example, you focus on other dimensions of society such as education. I've looked at studies that show that the black community in particular has high levels of academic education. And yet, in spite of that, they're underemployed. They're not employed in spite of the qualifications. It tells you we have a problem.
We have addressed that. Bill 79 addresses these barriers, and it looks at it and says: "Don't just hire based on a merit system that is biased. We need an objective system that is not biased, and we don't have that. But Bill 79 attempts to bring about some fairness in the hiring practices that otherwise will not be corrected by an equal opportunity plan." Your response.
Mr Douglas: I'd like to draw you back to the point Ian made, that you cannot legislate people to change. It is not possible to do that.
My wife is a teacher in elementary school, and, as a female, she covers any number of grades, and there is a perception among some children, males, in grades 2 and 3 that women are inferior, and they treat her that way, as an adult and as a teacher.
Our point is to come back to education, and education has to be the way. Whether you do it in the workplace or you start in the schools, it is the only way that you're going to get to resolve this problem. Mandating people or quotafying a system isn't going to do it.
The Chair: On that note, your time is up. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation. The committee stands recessed until 3:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1155 to 1532.
OMNIBUS CONSULTING
The Chair: Out of respect for the folks who are here to present, we're going to get started on our afternoon session.
We welcome the people from Omnibus Consulting. We have allotted you 20 minutes -- everybody gets 20 minutes -- and how you use that 20 minutes is up to you; any part you want to leave for questions is at your discretion. So welcome, we appreciate your coming here, and the clock has started.
Mr Trevor Wilson: Good afternoon, Mr Chair. My name is Trevor Wilson. I'm one of the partners at Omnibus Consulting. I'm joined by Renee Bazile-Jones and Bruce Anderson, both partners of Omnibus. We appreciate the opportunity to present to you today and comment on Bill 8.
You may know that Omnibus Consulting is a company specializing in the area of equity and diversity in the workplace. We're most interested in any development in the areas of equity and diversity in the private, broader public or public field. I'm going to ask Renee to read a prepared statement, which we have copies of, and then we'll leave some time for questions and answers.
Ms Renee Bazile-Jones: Good afternoon. Since our founding five years ago, we have built a reputation and a clientele dedicated to the pursuit of fairness in the workplace. Our approach, commonly known as the business case for equity, predates any Ontario legislation and will survive long after the legislation is gone. We do not therefore mourn the passing of Bill 79, but we do believe that some of the aspects of employment equity it contained are worthy of an afterlife in any equal employment opportunity plan. In fact, a survey conducted by Omnibus just after the election indicated that 70% of over 200 respondents intended to continue their diversity initiatives.
The name of our company, Omnibus, is a Latin word meaning all-inclusive. We believe in the creation of equitable employment systems, ones which are based on merit and fairness for all.
The word "equity" means fairness, and you cannot create fair employment systems for certain groups of people. A system which is more fair for me as a racial minority woman, for example, than it is for one of my white male counterparts is not a fair system. A fair system is based on an objective assessment of the bona fide requirements of a given job and an unbiased assessment of the proven skill sets and competencies of the candidates, be it for hiring, transfer, promotion or distribution of rewards.
The meshing of these two sets of information constitutes our working definition of "merit." The title of Bill 8 talks of one purpose of the act being "to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario." While the bill says nothing further on the subject, we would question whether looking back to past practices is necessarily the best prologue for the future.
There have been studies, commissions, consultations and a wide variety of activities over the past 15 years in Ontario, under governments headed by all three parties in the Legislature, which indicate clearly that there has been an imbalance in the employment system in favour of white, able-bodied males. Those are facts which do not need to be examined or debated again. The upshot, however, is that a tremendous amount of talent is being overlooked in recruiting and promotion practices. This is not an overt, discriminatory plot but rather the result of practices which have grown up and become entrenched and taken to be "That's just the way we do things around here."
There is ample evidence that this unintentional, or systemic, discrimination has had an adverse impact in the workplace, with the result that we may not always seek out the best and brightest talent regardless of packaging. We are encouraged that the present government intends to do something to support the carrying out of employment system reviews to root out the bases of discrimination in the workplace.
The Cummings report, in 1988, concluded that Ontario was underutilizing its available talent to the tune of $2 billion a year. In our present economy, where productivity improvement and global competitiveness are essential for survival, we cannot afford the luxury of perpetuating employment systems which ignore available talent. We must seek all the ways and means to maximize the neurons available to all of us for every wage and salary dollar we spend, and that goes for all sectors of the economy -- private, broader public and public.
The demographics of Ontario are there and won't change. The well-known Workforce 2000 study has indicated, for both Canada and the United States, that white, able-bodied males will make up only 20% of net new labour force entrants to the workforce over the next decades. Systems which were seen as fair in the past for a highly homogeneous workforce will no longer be relevant for the heterogeneous workforce of today and the future. Providing direction for the accommodation of these realities is a legitimate role of government. Legislation is not the answer; you cannot legislate fairness. However, education, examples and support can be provided by government, and the equal opportunity plan could be a start. The roadmaps for achieving accommodation and fairness may change, but the landscape -- the realities of both the workplace and the marketplace -- will not.
We are often asked by clients, "How will you know when you've achieved fairness?" Our answer is always the same: "Ask your employees. They are the experts in the fairness of your employment systems." A major problem with legislated fairness programs is that everyone's focus goes to the numbers. Quantitative measures become the yardstick, which then usually results in cries of reverse discrimination on the one hand and tokenism on the other. This was one of the major outcomes of the affirmative action program in the United States. They had quotas, ie, externally imposed targets, as did the police forces in Ontario.
Bill 79 did not call for quotas in the usually accepted sense, but nevertheless the focus was still on quantitative measures and outcomes, which prompts a side comment on subsection 1(5) of Bill 8. All the clients we work with have collected information as part of their employment equity and diversity initiatives. None of them did it "exclusively for the purpose of complying with Part III of the Employment Equity Act, 1993." We are advising them not to destroy any information. The results of an employment systems review, for example, are "information," and it would be ludicrous for the government on the one hand to be encouraging such activities to root out the causes of discrimination while on the other allowing an interpretation of Bill 8 that would tell employers to destroy previous work.
The same can be said for demographic information collected via a self-identification questionnaire. Many employers, with union and employee support, did this voluntarily as part of their diversity initiatives; others did it as part of the federal contractors program. To destroy all this kind of information would truly be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In addition, many employers have spent considerable sums of money to upgrade their human resource information systems to handle diversity-related information. To leave the impression that this work was in vain and money down the drain is hardly a fair reward for honest efforts.
1540
Let's return to the measurement of fairness. This government has an opportunity to light the path away from numbers and towards what really matters: the perception of fairness in the workplace as seen by the employees who live there. Well-designed employee surveys are the most reliable, cost-effective way of approaching this challenge.
Traditional employee opinion surveys will not necessarily fit the bill. The situation requires a survey specifically designed around questions probing the degree of fairness in the human resource management systems. Surveys provide an opportunity for everyone to participate in an anonymous fashion. Respondents are asked for limited demographic identification in order to compare results, for example between men and women. If there are no differences in scores -- ie, both groups see the situation in the same way -- we would say that represents a fair workplace from a gender perspective. If there are differences, the results begin to build an agenda for improvements in the employment system.
Coupled with the results from an employment systems review, based also on employee participation, the employer and other interested parties have an excellent idea of where to make improvements. We believe that there are strong connections between job satisfaction, improved performance, customer satisfaction and the bottom line. The establishment of equitable employment systems can only make sense for every organization in Ontario, profit and not-for-profit.
As we indicated earlier, 70% of our survey respondents intend to continue their fairness initiatives, without legislation. In the absence of legislation, we believe the role for government would be to demonstrate your commitment to fairness by shifting the focus from quantitative measures, and their concentration on the numbers, to an endorsement of qualitative standards of fairness with Canadian norms. These standards would become the floor for fairness in the workplace.
Given that this government can only truly influence those organizations with which it conducts business with the passage of Bill 8, one possibility would be to consider a program of "contract preference," the reverse of contract compliance. Organizations with a proven record of establishing fair workplaces, as measured by such things as employee surveys, would be given preference in bidding on government contracts, a true example of positive reinforcement and a means of supporting organizations that implement the qualitative standards you have defined or identified.
In addition, the government might also create an equal opportunity fund to underwrite research in the development of methodologies to identify the causes of discrimination and the fostering of workplace fairness.
In closing, we would like to emphasize again the importance of establishing equitable employment systems as a means of meeting the expectations of all the workers and potential workers in Ontario. Due to recent events, the expression "employment equity" has become a dirty word. But the results to the economy as a whole and the wishes of individual citizens will not be changed. Workplace and marketplace diversity must be encouraged and continued in order that Ontario can maintain its place as the engine of Canada.
We recently were visited by a delegation from a private sector employer from South Africa which had come to Canada, and particularly Ontario, to find out how to "do diversity" the right way. Just this week we were contacted by a professor of labour law in Japan who is preparing an article for the Japanese ILO Association periodical and is seeking information on Ontario practices. Others are looking to us as models.
Many Ontario employers have embraced diversity as a sensible way to run an organization as we approach the 21st century with, among other things, the shrinking of the world through information technology. We've got some good things going, and we urge the government to more positively and quickly support and encourage the recognition and management of diversity in the workplace and the marketplace.
We'd like to thank you for the opportunity of meeting with the committee this afternoon, and if you have any questions we'd be happy to take them.
Mr Grandmaître: I'd like to refer to page 1 of your brief. "In fact, a survey conducted by Omnibus just after the election indicated that 70% of over 200 respondents intended to continue their diversity initiatives." Can you amplify "diversity initiatives"?
Mr Wilson: For us, diversity and equity are intertwined. Omnibus describes itself as an organization committed to achieving equitable employment systems. The way we do that is by designing diversity strategies for organizations. Not to go into a long educational program about it, but the concept of diversity requires managers to pursue equitable treatment.
Managers in North America have been taught to treat people equally; that is, to treat them just the same and ignore their differences. Equity is about treating people fairly and that means acknowledging their differences, and diversity is about acknowledging differences.
So what we've been designing for organizations are diversity programs, the end point of which would be the creation of an equitable or a fair employment system.
Mr Grandmaître: The second question is from page 3: "...the path away from numbers and towards what really matters -- the perception of fairness in the workplace as seen by the employees who live there." Don't you think we've had this perception of fairness for 50 years; that it's now time to change this perception to reality?
Mr Wilson: The distinction in the Omnibus approach is that we don't think you've ever had merit-based employment systems. You would listen to, let's say, some members of the Republican Party in the States who say, "Let's go back to the merit principle." You were never at the merit principle. You were never there to begin with. There's nothing to go back to.
If you take a look at the inequities that have existed in employment systems, they've existed there for a long time -- for more than 50 years; for hundreds of years. We are attempting to ferret out inequities in employment systems and introduce merit, but we recognize you cannot do that just for one group, two groups or four groups. Thus the name of our company, Omnibus, which means fairness, but it has to be fairness for all, which means inclusiveness, and therefore, fairness for all.
The Chair: Excuse me, I have to interrupt you and move on to the next questioner.
Mr Marchese: I have a question for Mr Wilson and Renee. You obviously recognize that there is unintentional discrimination and sometimes very intentional discrimination going on. You admit, Trevor, that we've never really had hiring based on merit, and we want to return to it. If we return to it, we're in trouble. You admit that and we recognize it's a problem.
You said that past practices are not good practices to look at for future solutions, and that we're underutilizing talent by a couple of billion dollars. You admit all of that, and that you don't mourn Bill 79 and you don't like it necessarily because, although not a quota system, it has quantitative measures, and so you recognize we have systemic problems to deal with. Bill 79 wasn't it.
What you're all looking for is an employment system kind of -- not review, but an equitable employment system which you hope to work with in a nice way with employers to get to solve the questions that you're aware of. I'm not sure we need an equal opportunity fund to find causes of discrimination. I think we have plenty of evidence to do that.
So you're hoping that in this equitable employment system the employers will somehow come to the encouragement of this government and that everything will hopefully in time be all right. Is that what I'm hearing?
Ms Bazile-Jones: I would suggest to you that the organizations that we work with would not be looking to this government to be a role model for an equitable employment system. There's an absolute understanding of issues of systemic discrimination, and they apply to everyone, not just certain groups of people.
If, for example, people are hired and promoted on the basis of who they know, that's an employment practice that applies to everyone, not just certain groups of people. So if in fact I work on strategies that eliminate that practice from the employment system, I am creating fair practice for everyone, not just certain groups of people.
We seem to float around this construct of merit a lot, but it is important to acknowledge that merit has never existed in employment systems. There are plenty of examples out there in workplaces. "I got promoted based on the fact that I'm related to the hiring manager." "I got into the organization because I play golf at the same club as the person who's doing the interview." These are all well-documented cases of unintentional discrimination.
We would also suggest to you that there are two parts to this when we talk about discrimination in workplaces. There are attitudinal discrimination, sexism, racism, agism, halism -- whether or not somebody's able-bodied -- as well as unintentional practices.
What we are suggesting in the idea of the formulation of an equitable employment system is that I try and take those practices and attitudes out of the workplace, but when I take them out I don't take them out selectively for certain groups; I take them out for everyone.
1550
The Chair: I'm going to have to cut off the answer. The answer's taken a little too long. Mr Clement.
Mr Clement: I think you've really struck in your last comments about the nature of the challenge and I am conscious of your comment about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Could it be said, though -- and I want to turn to your contract preference idea and how, to me, government involvement in this area in fact does throw the baby out with the bathwater on a number of different levels when trying to attack this problem. Contract preference: Could you just elaborate on how that is going to be different from contract compliance, because I fail to see the difference.
Ms Bazile-Jones: I'll turn that over to my partner, Bruce.
Mr Bruce Anderson: I think the idea there was to get away from the concept of contract compliance whereby you were going to be penalized for not having done something and to reward people for having done something, albeit voluntarily, and they would get extra recognition in terms of bidding on government contracts.
The basic concept is high road-low road. The companies which are on the high road should get recognition, they should get some reinforcement, they should get some reward, and companies which are on the low road, if they're not going to be penalized as a result of some existing piece of legislation, at least could be penalized by not getting preference for, say, government business. That's the basic idea.
Mr Clement: Because one of the problems they found in the States with contract compliance was that in fact the companies know how to use the system, right? That's what our world is made up of: people who know how to use the system and those who are unfortunate not to do that, especially when government has economic power. So they know how to use the system, so they construct their companies or subsidiaries so that they comply contractually but really it's a sham. You've got the same power structure that is just taking advantage of the system, and the people who were shut out before are shut out now. So I fail to see how this would alleviate that problem.
Mr Wilson: It's all in the measurement. One of the things that we refer to is the push towards qualitative measurement. There needs to be a consistent, scientific way to measure fairness in the workplace. Now, we happen to know what that is. The issue is the government has to endorse similar to an ISO 9000 approach to the measurement of fairness in the workplace and move away from numbers.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Wilson, Mr Anderson, Ms Bazile-Jones. We appreciate your attendance, and your time is up.
For those members of the committee, there is an updated schedule for this afternoon. It has a few changes on it. The other thing, from our discussion this morning, OPSEU has found a place on the list and it will be on on Monday afternoon, I believe. So we did get them on the list.
Mr Grandmaître: What are the changes, Mr Chair?
The Chair: The change this afternoon is the person at 6:10 has cancelled and the group at 4:30 was supposed to have been Women in Transition and is now Shalom Schacter, and you'll see some extra names added in for Friday.
ONTARIO NURSES' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: We now welcome, from the Ontario Nurses' Association, Jane Cornelius, Kim Bernhardt and Noelle Andrews. You have 20 minutes. How you use it is up to you. Welcome. We appreciate your being here.
Ms Jane Cornelius: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jane Cornelius, and as President of the Ontario Nurses' Association I am here representing approximately 50,000 unionized registered nurses and allied health personnel working in Ontario hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged, community health, VON, Red Cross and industry. On behalf of our members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to formally raise our concerns about the government's proposed approach to employment equity.
With me here today to my left is Noelle Andrews, director of external relations, and to my right, Kim Bernhardt, our research officer specializing in human rights.
Our members expect and need workplaces that are free of discrimination and that provide an equal opportunity for all individuals to contribute to their fullest extent possible. The Employment Equity Act currently in effect acknowledges that certain designated groups are underutilized within the Ontario workforce due to discrimination. These groups include aboriginal people, the disabled, members of racial minorities and women.
Not only is this an inequitable situation from a moral and ethical viewpoint, but it prevents Ontario from having a workforce that is truly representative of its society. It also does not make sound economic sense to underutilize and undervalue the vast segment of the workforce.
While other jurisdictions are moving on with the promotion of equity programs, including the federal government, Quebec, and parts of the United States, we wonder why the Ontario government is intent on rescinding the Employment Equity Act. Despite this, many employers in Ontario and elsewhere are continuing with their equity initiatives, having come to realize during the process that inequities exist in their own workplaces. A number of employers we deal with say they will be continuing with their equity programs, having recognized the need for a representative workforce.
To repeal the legislation will leave these employers and ourselves, as the representative union, in a quandary. There will no longer be any criteria, guidelines or enforcement measures for us to carry out this important work. How will we achieve equity? How can employees ensure that they will be full participants in any of their employers' programs?
There has been too much work done and too many heightened expectations for employers and employees to suddenly abandon employment equity at this stage. We urge you to recognize this and not to take this retrogressive step.
Should Bill 8 be enacted, it would effectively stop efforts to proactively redress the inequities that had been found to exist within our workplaces. It will also have a chilling effect on the voluntary efforts on the part of employers to attain a workforce that fairly represents the Ontario workforce.
Why do we need the Employment Equity Act? There is clear evidence produced over the years that although the four groups targeted in the act compose 60% of the population, the members of these groups account for a much smaller and poorer paid percentage of the workforce. The equity legislation ensures that Ontario's workforce reflects the diversity of the population.
To quote Andrew Cardozo from a column of July 8, 1995 in the Toronto Star: "Study after study has proven incontrovertibly that most women are not treated equally by employers, and that immigrants and racial minorities are on average more highly educated than the rest of the population but suffer higher rates of underemployment and unemployment. The status of qualified disabled persons remains embarrassingly low and aboriginal people get crumbs at best."
What this demonstrates is that although the Human Rights Code has been around for more than 30 years, it has not been able to eradicate the systemic barriers. Our members experience these systemic barriers in the health care industry. Nursing is a female-dominated profession; 98% of nurses are women, as is health care in general.
Nursing also has a large component of racial minority members and an extremely high rate of work-related injuries frequently resulting in some form of disability.
Nursing has members in each of the four designated groups and although the problems and issues may overlap, each group faces its own unique problems which the current legislation addresses.
Disparities within the health care system become more apparent in the upper echelons of staff hierarchies which are disproportionately represented by men. Without equity legislation, employers are not compelled to ensure that women in the health care sector are fairly represented throughout all occupational groups. Mandatory legislation would open up training, education and advancement opportunities for women.
Many, if not most, of our members also carry the responsibility for caring for their families. Consequently, many choose to work part-time rather than full-time in order to accommodate both their family life and their home responsibilities. In effect, nurses, not employers, have had to make the adjustment to their special needs, yet equity legislation requires employers to develop ways to accommodate workers with family responsibilities.
The issue of disability and how disabled nurses are to be accommodated in the workplace is extremely important to ONA members. Each year in Ontario more than 2,000 of our members are injured on the job and receive workers' compensation benefits as a result. Many others have their claims denied by WCB even though they are injured.
Although employers are obligated to accommodate injured workers under our collective agreements and under the Workers' Compensation Act and the Human Rights Code, we continue to face an uphill battle trying to convince employers to fulfil their obligations appropriately. Equity legislation provides one more incentive to convince employers that it is against the law to discriminate against disabled workers and encourages their active role in the development of policies and procedures for accommodating disabled workers.
1600
Racial minority groups are well represented in nursing, but primarily at the staff nurse level. They are not equitably represented through the various occupational groups which exist in the health care sector. This is apparent even in hospitals where 30% to 40% of staff nurses may be racial minority group members.
Because of such situations as the investigation of Northwestern General Hospital by the Human Rights Commission, we are aware that racial minority nurses tend to be placed in areas of work that are often considered low status, boring and dead end. Injury rates are high and generally serious because the work is often physically very demanding. Educational opportunities are limited because management often does not perceive the need for staff in those areas to become trained in many procedures that are required for movement into more high-tech, high-status areas.
In terms of aboriginal nurses, there are fewer than 400 nurses currently practising in Canada. We are unaware of how many of these nurses are practising in Ontario. It appears that the most serious barrier to aboriginal people wanting to become nurses is entry into the profession.
It is only through mandatory employment equity legislation that access into nursing or other nursing care professions will improve for aboriginal people. Without set numerical goals and timetables, health care facilities in areas with high aboriginal populations will continue to be unrepresentative of their clientele. We have already experienced the results of health care services that are not inclusive of the aboriginal community: lower life expectancies, higher substance abuse, higher teenaged pregnancy rates and higher suicide rates.
It is because of these and many other real concerns that ONA has welcomed the government's equity initiatives and fervently wishes these initiatives would continue. The fact that this government plans to stop the work that has already begun into resolving those inequities is disturbing, to say the least. Equity, for our members, is not an advantage; it's a basic requirement that enables them to work in this province.
Our greatest fear is that the intent of Bill 8 is to wipe out any trace of employment equity in Ontario. By calling Bill 8 An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario, government is sending the message to Ontario residents who are designated group members that they are lacking in merit. One must question whether we did not enjoy merit as a sole basis on which to hire and promote.
Numerous studies have consistently shown that there's a preference by employers to offer white candidates jobs over black candidates with exactly the same merit. It is precisely because the qualifications, potential experience and ability of people from designated groups are too often overlooked and underestimated that employment equity legislation is necessary. When Ontario finally does utilize the full potential of all its workforce, our competitive edge will increase. This is why so many companies are able to make a business case in support of employment equity.
This government continues to perpetuate the myth that the act contains quotas similar to those found in affirmative action legislation in the United States. At most, the act requires employers to set numerical goals, along with other measures, in order to determine whether or not they are making reasonable progress in their hiring policies to reflect qualified applicants available from all groups. What business runs successfully without measurable objectives? Businesses set goals for every other business function, so why would they not for equitable hiring and planning of underrepresented groups?
Finally, the government has stated its intention to beef up the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the belief that all equity work could be handled through that avenue. It is our experience that the Ontario Human Rights Commission, as it currently functions, cannot properly handle employment equity on its own, despite having the legislative ability.
Given the existing backlog of cases, the lack of willingness or inability to handle more and complex cases, added pressure would not likely produce the necessary results. It seems to us that a switch from a cooperative, proactive model to a complaints-based approach would be inefficient and problematic. As an alternative, should the government still find it necessary to eliminate the Employment Equity Act, the commission would have to be improved in order to fulfil its mandate for providing equity to the province.
In summary, we make a number of recommendations to the committee today, including:
1. Keep intact the current Employment Equity Act, the Employment Equity Commission and the Employment Equity Tribunal.
2. Develop a comprehensive educational program to correct the myths about merit and quotas surrounding the current legislation.
3. Review the act after a five-year period to determine its effectiveness as per section 57.
4. In the alternative, should the government continue with its plan to dismantle the act, the Ontario Human Rights Commission should be properly equipped to effectively handle equity matters in this province.
In summary, on behalf of the organization, the fears that had been raised, we firmly believe that under employment equity legislation qualified white males will still be able to find work, but the competition will be stiffer. Unqualified people from designated groups will not be hired and the workforce in Ontario will be different because the composition of the people in Ontario will be different. As a result, we do not wish to see the enactment of Bill 8.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have a very short period for questions, starting with the members of the third party. Mr Marchese, you have about a minute and a half.
Mr Marchese: I'm not confident that this government necessarily would help the Human Rights Commission to equip it to handle equity matters. The difficulty is the Human Rights Commission, as it is structured, doesn't deal with systemic problems -- that's what Bill 79 was designed to do -- and it's reactive, which means you need a complainant in order to deal with the problem. In the end, we're not quite sure whether those complaints get dealt with. So I'm not quite sure what they would do or intend to do with the Human Rights Commission that will make this any better. So I'm concerned.
I was interested in the comments you made on page 9, which deal with: "Unfortunately, the government's plans have left the parties, employers, unions and individuals, in a vacuum. There are no longer any criteria, guidelines, resources or enforcement measures...."
I was interested in that particular line because what we have with this plan is the complete elimination of anything that would guide people to do something with. We have a plan which we don't quite understand, which isn't quite clear. It goes back to the old plan of equity, which we have had for a long time, presumably, but never dealt with any equity. So we have a problem. Can you comment on this plan?
The Chair: Mr Marchese has used his minute and a half to make a statement, so there's no time for you to answer that question.
Mr Marchese: You can answer my question when they ask theirs, okay?
Mr Stewart: My question will be very short. In your presentation, I did not hear the word "ability," which concerned me very, very much with the profession that you represent. That's the number one thing.
The other one is, I wish you would read again the portion where you said that white males will be able to get a job elsewhere. Is that what you said?
Ms Cornelius: No.
Mr Stewart: Could you read me what you said, please? Just about the white males. I was just a little concerned about it.
Ms Cornelius: I said, "In summary, on behalf of the organization, the fears that had been raised, we firmly believe that under employment equity legislation qualified white males will still be able to find work, but the competition will be stiffer."
Mr Stewart: Are you suggesting, then, but not in your profession?
Ms Cornelius: No, I'm not suggesting in my profession.
Mr Stewart: Okay. The other question I asked was, I did not hear the word "ability" in your presentation, and that would concern me in your profession.
1610
Ms Cornelius: I think if we go back in terms of how to become a registered nurse, one has to successfully complete a program and then apply for registration to the College of Nurses. So ability in the fact that people are registered I think is already inferred.
Mr Stewart: Yes, but that doesn't always hold true, unfortunately.
The Chair: The time has elapsed. I feel like I'm on a quiz show here.
Mr Marchese: She needs time to respond to that.
Mrs Pupatello: In your comments about the aboriginals, you mentioned "the most serious barrier to aboriginal peoples who want to be nurses is entry into the profession." Did you mean entry in terms of being education or once they are educated?
Ms Cornelius: It's somewhat of a vicious circle because, number one, what we were referring to in the act was in terms of getting people hired and then once people are hired and people are seen modelling, then more people will want to enter the profession. So it's kind of that circle, all the way around.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your taking the time to come and make your presentation to us.
FEDERATION OF WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO
The Chair: The next group is the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario and they're represented by Sheryl Hoshizaki and Aida Hill.
Welcome to our committee, ladies. You have 20 minutes and how you use that is up to you. You can leave some time at the end for questions or use it all up in your presentation. Thank you for being here. The floor is yours.
Ms Sheryl Hoshizaki: I'm Sheryl Hoshizaki and I'm the president of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario. With me, I have Aida Hill. She's an executive assistant with the organization, responsible for equity programs, and also she's a dedicated advocate of a just and inclusive society.
We're an organization and we represent 41,000 women who teach in Ontario's public, elementary schools. As an organization, we've been a leader in promoting equal opportunity for women in education since our founding in 1918.
We're pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to present our concerns about the proposed Bill 8 to the standing committee on general government.
First, let us be clear that the very title of this bill is one which insults all of those who have been hired or promoted under the provisions of previous laws and requirements which have been in place, in some cases, for many years. However frequently reasonable people have attempted to establish that goals for achieving equity are exactly that -- goals and not quotas -- this government now is planning to enshrine the misnomer "quotas" in the very title of this bill.
To add insult to this misrepresentation of legitimate attempts to encourage employers to work towards having the workforce more adequately represent the population of Ontario, the title of the bill goes on to state that "merit-based employment practices" need to be "restored" in Ontario.
This title is an affront to every person, whether they are members of designated groups or not, who has been selected or promoted into job positions in recent years. To state that these selections or promotions were given to individuals who were not meritorious is an insult to these employees and to the employers who hired or promoted them. We urge every consideration of the change of name for Bill 8 so that the historical record does not shame the members of this Legislature in the future.
What we would like to present this afternoon is an overview of the women teachers' experiences with promotions throughout the history of Ontario education, so we'll move on and I will just highlight some of the specific examples that we feel were key years in which announcements were made in the Ministry of Education.
In 1973, Thomas Wells, Minister of Education, stated:
"It stands to reason that an educational system that prides itself on offering equality of opportunity to its students should practise the same attitude in respect to those who serve within the system."
In 1976, again Thomas Wells, Minister of Education, pointed out that 69% of elementary teachers were women and only 15% of principals were women and that 30% of secondary teachers were women while only 2% of the principals were women. He directed the school boards by stating, "I encourage you to have a stated equal opportunity policy and to formulate an affirmative action plan for implementing that policy."
Again in 1980 the assistant deputy minister shared further statistics, showing that women were 72.2% classroom teachers at the elementary level but held only 12.4% of the principalships and that women were 34.2% of the teachers at the secondary level but held only 2.9% of the principalships, and you can read what he stated there.
During 1979, 1980 and 1981, the Ministry of Education, the Ontario women's directorate, school board personnel and FWTAO staff worked together on an outline for boards of education entitled Design for Affirmative Action: A Guide for Boards of Education. This resource, along with other publications, was widely circulated and provided to school board personnel through educational programs offered by Ministry of Education and women's directorate staff.
In 1981, Harry Fisher, Deputy Minister of Education, released a statistical analysis of male-female staff in the educational system and he observed, "It is notable that there is a continuing tendency to consider less than half of the potential talent pool in selecting persons for leadership roles."
Then in 1982-83, FWTAO joined with the Ministry of Education, the Ontario women's directorate and 14 other educational organizations in cosponsoring a conference entitled Focus on Leadership. In 1984, the Minister of Education at that time, Dr Bette Stephenson, declared that the Ministry of Education would be "requesting and encouraging school boards throughout Ontario to:
" -- Develop and communicate a formal affirmative action policy to school board staff and the Ministry of Education;
" -- appoint a senior staff member to develop and coordinate an affirmative action plan; and
" -- design and implement an affirmative program covering both academic and non-academic staff and including goals and timetables for the hiring, promotion and training of women employees at all levels."
Then there was a memorandum in 1984 announcing incentive funding made available to employers.
In 1986, at this time only 60% of the school boards had made use of the incentive funding. Again, women in the public elementary system were 69% of the teaching force but only 27% of the vice-principals and 12% of the principals.
In 1986, Sean Conway, Minister of Education, announced the extension of the availability of funds to school boards, again requesting that school boards "plan to demonstrate evidence of significant progress towards the achievement of an environment that exemplifies sex equity." He further established the objective of "raising the number and diversifying the occupational distribution of women to a minimum of 30% in all occupational categories by the year 2000." That was memorandum 92 which this Ministry of Education is proposing to revoke.
In 1987, Duncan Green, again outlined the extension of incentive funding. Then in 1987, FWTAO, using Ministry of Education data, demonstrated that women were 69% of the public elementary teachers, 27% of the vice-principals and 12% of the principals. Very simply, one out of every four men in public elementary schools held a position of additional responsibility, while one out of every 40 women held a similar position.
In 1987, Bill 69, An Act to amend the Education Act, received first reading. It established that the minister would have the power to "require school boards to establish and maintain a policy of affirmative action with respect to employment and promotion of women."
In 1988, Chris Ward, Minister of Education, distributed memorandum 102 outlining the reporting requirements for boards of education stating, "It is essential that affirmative action/employment equity programs become an integral part of the long-term planning and human resources management strategies of school boards."
In 1988-89, FWTAO, along with the ministry and the Ontario women's directorate, organized another conference, Focus on Leadership II. Then Bill 69 was passed in 1989, granting the minister the power to require boards of education to take action to increase the numbers of women in educational leadership.
What was very important was that Chris Ward, Minister of Education at that time, announced he would raise the goal to 50% women in positions of leadership by the year 2000. These intentions were confirmed in memorandum 111 in February 1990 and supplemented by a memo from the Deputy Minister of Education, Robert Mitton, in July 1990.
Then in 1991, the report on the Status of Women and Employment Equity in Ontario School Boards with statistics for the year 1990 was published. It showed that while women were 62% of the successful candidates for principals' qualifications, and 53% of those acquiring supervisory officers' qualifications, women held only 39% of the vice-principalships, 18% of principalships in the public elementary schools and only 14% of the supervisory officers' positions.
1620
Why do we present a history lesson? We have summarized this lengthy process of education, persuasion, encouragement, requirement and data provision by various Ministers of Education to chronicle the laborious and gradually more effective voluntary approach to affirmative action in education for women.
The education systems of this province have been told for two decades that the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions is a matter they should address. During the few years in the mid-1980s when incentive funding was available, the rate of change and the percentage of women in leadership positions increased at the vice-principal level from an average rate of increase of 1.4% from 1980 to 1985 to a rate of 4.1% from 1986 to 1990. This increase meant that there was a cadre of promotable women to move into principalships and that the rate of increase of the percentage representation of women principals has gradually accelerated in recent years.
However, it remains true in 1995 that out of 2,489 principalships in the public elementary system, 1,675 of them or 67.3% are held by men, while women represent 75% of all educators.
During these two decades, our organization has worked with school boards and with our members to encourage and prepare female aspirants and to provide leadership training at the provincial and school board levels. We have produced and distributed a series of booklets on implementing affirmative action and presented them to boards of education. We've advised and assisted school boards on their policies and programs and we've worked in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and Training affirmative action-employment equity contacts in the provincial office and in regional ministry offices.
We want to emphasize that every effort was made to enable the voluntary approach to work and still progress was slow and grudging. The earliest appointees suffered the insults of being accused of being token selections. When the promotion rate of women began to accelerate, we heard the predictable suggestions that the selections were not based on merit.
Nothing is further from the truth. By the time many women were preparing for and applying for vice-principalships, the certification requirement was a two-part course rather than one. The experience and qualification requirements included a minimum of five years of teaching experience and either dual specialist qualifications or a master's degree. Even with these more extensive requirements, women were 66% of those achieving principal qualifications and 53% of successful candidates for supervisory officers' certificates.
These are the employees who have been selected for leadership in our elementary school systems. To suggest that they have not been selected on merit is an expression of stereotype bias and is insulting to all in education.
Further, to include the provision of the Education Act which granted the minister the right to request reports and data from school boards as among those which will be repealed at this time is a proposal which would undermine over two decades of work. Just at the time when school boards should be paying more attention to the equity evidenced in its staffing decisions, this bill would remove the key reporting and information tool which could show progress towards inclusiveness at least for women.
Such action is mean-spirited, shortsighted and unnecessary. Most school boards are quite aware of the distinction between a goal and a quota. Many are anxious to show their communities that they provide an inclusive workplace for their employees in the same manner that they provide inclusive learning places for students. Indeed, several school boards had done surveys, developed programs and established long-term and short-term goals long before there was an Employment Equity Act. Unfortunately, they were far too few.
We urge this committee to ensure that the provisions of the Education Act contained in paragraph 29 of subsection 8(1) and subsection 135(5) be retained and that policy program memoranda 92 and 111 be maintained by the Ministry of Education and Training.
Further, we urge this committee to direct the Minister of Education and training to issue a supplementary memorandum addressing the underrepresentation of racial minorities and aboriginal persons in teaching positions as well as in leadership.
Children have very acute filters which help them determine whether what they hear or experience is truthful or not. In whatever language the Common Curriculum may address and encourage anti-racism and ethnocultural equity, if most racial minority and aboriginal students never meet a teacher, let alone a vice-principal or principal who is of their own race, they have a fairly good idea what the real message is.
The education system has a special obligation to model excellence, inclusiveness and equity, not merely in its curriculum and materials, but also in its staff at every level.
With very few exceptions, most school boards were ready to assess their workforce representation, to consult and work in partnership with their teacher federations and unions and to implement the provisions of the Employment Equity Act. Indeed, some school boards have already indicated an interest in maintaining the cooperative committees and continuing to work on assessing employment policies and procedures to identify barriers and eliminate them. Approximately 60% of the public boards have already carried out extensive educational programs and done their workforce surveys and were already beginning to integrate that information with other employee information to create a statistical picture of their workforce.
Our organization and other teacher federations and unions have spent the past two years preparing and training our members on implementing the Employment Equity Act. Repealing the act and requiring that the information gathered be destroyed, once again in the guise of restoring merit-based employment practices, is an insult to those who have worked so long to eliminate barriers. The goals which were planned were not imposed by any government. They were developed cooperatively among unions, federations and employers. They were reasonable and flexible. If the data are now eliminated it is a shameful waste of the time and money of publicly funded institutions such as school boards.
Our summary of the history of voluntary action on addressing the issue of the underrepresentation of women in educational leadership shows what the equal opportunity approach meant. In 1980, women were two-thirds of the teachers, 15% of vice-principals and only 7% of principals. Even after intervention, persuasion, education and funds provided to the boards of education, 15 years later in 1995 women were three-quarters of the teachers, 52% of the vice-principals and only 33% of the principals. If this slow pace of change continued even with every effort to support and encourage school boards to address gender equity concerns, how much more difficult will it be to address equity for racial minorities, aboriginal persons and persons with disabilities?
The suggestion that the overburdened Human Rights Commission will deal with all complaints about discrimination in employment is indefensible. The dysfunctional state of the Human Rights Commission, the backlog of cases and delays that have resulted from the backlog are evidence that such a route will not provide timely justice to complainants, let alone eliminate discrimination. Further, a complaint-based process is an adversarial one rather than one that is cooperatively developed by employers and employees. It tends to undermine positive attitudes towards diversity rather than enhance them. The committee is urged to consider amendments to the existing Employment Equity Act rather than repealing the act.
We join with many in the communities of Ontario who are shocked at the proposal to repeal the provisions of the Police Services Act which have been in place since 1990. The Ontario public supports the idea of a police force which reflects the community it serves. Both the police force and educators are among the most influential role models for children outside of their families.
Repealing the provisions of the Police Services Act, which supported outreach recruitment, bridging programs, identification and testing of essential job qualification, anti-racist training and the beginning of the creation of a diversified police force is getting rid of a model that works. Such a decision is not merely unwise political action, it is wilful waste of the dedicated work of many in our police forces who have helped to make change happen.
In conclusion, we join with thousands of Ontario residents in urging this committee to reconsider the message of Bill 8. Its very title is inaccurate, a distortion of employment equity and an insult to those who have obtained positions or promotions in recent months and years who are now being identified as without merit.
We urge its rejection and the development of some reasoned and reasonable amendments to the Employment Equity Act and the retention of other provisions in the Education Act and in the Police Services Act which have shown positive outcomes, not only for employees but also for employers. These publicly funded institutions must continue to model inclusiveness and diversity and they must be seen in doing so.
There are four recommendations:
-- Consider amendments to the Employment Equity Act rather than its repeal;
-- maintain the employment equity provisions of the Police Services Act;
-- maintain the section of the Education Act which granted the minister the power to require boards of education to develop and implement policies on employment equity for women and other groups designated by the minister, to submit the policies to the minister and to implement changes to the policies as directed by the minister;
-- retain memoranda 92 and 111 requiring school boards to submit reports annually on the male -- female ratios in their workforce and the actions they have taken on employment equity for women.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've used all of the time allotted to you, so no one has a chance to ask you a question. We appreciate your interest in the process. Thank you.
1630
BREWERY GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS' UNION
The Chair: The next presenter for the committee is Shalom Schacter. You have 20 minutes. How you use it is up to you. You can leave some time at the end for questions, that's your choice. The floor is yours. Thank you very much for attending.
Mr Shalom Schacter: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make submissions to the committee, and if you could note that I'm here on behalf of my union, the Brewery General and Professional Workers' Union.
I'd like to comment on three elements related to this bill. The first is the mandate of the government, the second is its communication strategy, and the third relates to the job market.
With respect to the mandate, I acknowledge that the government did obtain a mandate from the electorate to repeal Bill 8. However, that mandate was part of a package deal where promises were made that there would be an effective employment equity program implemented, and nothing in the bill provides the other element of the package. Simply giving back to the Human Rights Commission responsibility in this area is not to recognize that it was the inability of the Human Rights Commission to deal with this before employment equity was implemented that led to the need for a special bill.
If I could just take a moment to indicate that the government's mandate to proceed in this way is similar to the government's mandate to proceed with the repeal of Bill 7. It did promise to repeal Bill 7. It said it was going to do that because Bill 40 was a proven job killer, and when the government did repeal Bill 40 it presented no evidence that in fact Bill 40 was a proven job killer. So, again, I say here is another example of the government acting without carrying through its election promises.
I also might indicate that if the government doesn't act quickly to bring in some companion legislation that will deal effectively with achieving employment equity, then Bill 8 is liable to a charter challenge under section 15 because by repealing employment equity the Legislature is engaging in discriminatory action that adversely impacts the very groups that are protected by section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I now go on to the communication strategy of the government, and that's in large part found in the title of the bill: An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario. I won't try and take on the job quota element of the title, because I don't think it's going to be possible to convince you that you're mistaken, but I do think it's worthwhile to make some comments about the other element, the restoration of merit-based employment practices. This implies that before employment equity there were merit-based employment practices and therefore they can be restored. The evidence is quite the contrary, that what we had in employment practices was an old boy network.
Decisions were made by people who are predominantly male and overwhelmingly white and that if we really want to have -- and I support the effort to have -- merit-based employment practices. If we really want to have that, then we need to have a grievance procedure that will be applicable for decisions on hiring, on promotion and on access to training. We need to have a grievance procedure in an environment where that procedure will be effective. The only way we can have that is in an environment where there are strong unions and, therefore, if you really want to have merit-based employment practices, the government needs to reverse its decision on Bill 7, bring back Bill 40, and in fact strengthen Bill 40 even further.
Finally, with respect to the job market, we can only have merit-based employment practices that are meaningful to people if they are employed. We therefore need to have a full employment strategy, a full employment goal, one that's going to be achieved. In fact, the steps taken by the government to date in the area of public transit, in the area of non-profit housing, in the area of child care and preschool education, and in the area of the public sector, where you have right now people who are providing important protections to ordinary people in the community, those actions of the government are, in fact, eliminating thousands, if not tens of thousands, of jobs. Clearly, those people are also not going to have merit-based employment practices when they're unemployed.
There is some talk of the government pursuing workfare programs. I want it to be clear that while our object is to have everybody working, if we want to have merit-based employment practices they have to be working at meritorious rates, full labour market rates, not at rates that are going to be below what other people in the workplace are getting for doing the same work.
Our union is asking you to reconsider your entire strategy with Bill 8. In fact, to reconsider the entire strategy that the government has adopted.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Schacter. We have ample time for questions, approximately five minutes per party, starting with the government.
Mr Flaherty: I was interested in your comment about the charter and how the repeal of legislation can be deemed to be discriminatory. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr Schacter: Certainly. Bill 8 is an act of the government, of the Legislature. As such, it must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 52, and one of the sections is section 15 which guarantees everybody freedom from discrimination. The Supreme Court has held that the freedom from discrimination that you have is freedom from adverse impact. In other words, even if an entity, including the government, doesn't intend to discriminate, but if the act in fact deprives people of certain rights and treats them worse than others, then the act is contrary to section 15.
The Employment Equity Act specifically gave protection to women and other groups to overcome some of the discrimination that's been built into our society. When we remove that protection from the very groups that are entitled to that protection under section 15, we have a bill that will not stand -- may not stand up when it's challenged before the courts.
Mr Flaherty: If you make the assumption that the bill that is being repealed, in fact, is discriminatory, then you'll agree with me that it also would violate section 15 of the charter.
Mr Schacter: In fact, section 15 provides a specific section, 15(2), that allows for affirmative action programs. So, in fact, even if employment equity did discriminate against other people, the act would survive the Constitution. I disagree that the act in fact did discriminate against others.
Mrs Pupatello: Specific to the discussion on this bill -- you covered a few in your presentation -- would you say then that you would leave the bill as it is and not repeal it at all, or would you recommend particular changes to the bill?
Mr Schacter: A lot of work went into the bill before the previous Legislature, and the final outcome was a compromise. Many equality seeking groups were seeking strong provisions, and I'm satisfied in my mind that those stronger provisions would draw the ire of the present majority in the Legislature. So I think to in fact strengthen employment equity under this Legislature is not realistic, but I'm asking --
Mrs Pupatello: But your opinion is that you would have actually had stronger legislation as opposed to amending?
Mr Schacter: Correct.
Mr Marchese: Mr Schacter, welcome. One of the solutions that this government has towards dealing with discrimination is supporting the Human Rights Commission in some way. That isn't entirely clear in terms of specifics about how they would deal with that, but in some of the comments they made earlier on, prior to the election, they said they were going to redirect $9 million, they would say, from the commission and apply that to the Human Rights Code.
In a briefing that I have seen around this particular job quota law, there's no reference at all in their notes that they have gotten with respect to money and the Human Rights Commission. So my sense is that that $9 million that was going to go into human rights has disappeared. There will be no money. So I'm not quite sure what they will do with the Human Rights Commission that will help anybody who might be discriminated on.
Do you have a sense of what it is that they might propose, that they're proposing, that would help to deal with discrimination in any way?
1640
Mr Schacter: It's clear that simply relying on the Human Rights Commission, as it is, is unsatisfactory. The Human Rights Commission is overburdened with workload. In order to try to put a handle on it, it is rejecting, without investigating, complaints from any worker who is unionized and has an employment-related complaint. To simply put more responsibility on the Human Rights Commission without resources is not going to result in any good for anybody.
It seems to me that one of the messages I hear from the government is that it wants to get government off people's backs, that it wants to empower people in the community to deal with their own problems. That's exactly what the employment equity bill did. It put responsibility for achieving employment equity on the parties in the workplace: employers, together with their employees, and if those employees had chosen to be represented by a union, then the union would speak on behalf of the employees. Only if the parties ran into difficulty and needed to have some outside independent assistance would they turn to the Employment Equity Commission or to the tribunal.
What this government seems to be saying is, "We don't trust the parties to deal with the problem on their own." In fact, if the parties are still committed to pursue employment equity and have collected certain information, they have to destroy that information. I think there's a lot of inconsistency in the messages this government is putting out.
I would in fact suggest that whether it's going to be the Employment Equity Commission or the Human Rights Commission, the government should restore to the parties, to the workplace, the primary responsibility for dealing with employment equity.
Mr Marchese: The Federation of Women Teachers' Association of Ontario gave an impressive history of how women have been treated in the educational system with respect to positions of responsibility. They outlined over the years how voluntary processes failed, where a number of ministers said, "We encourage the boards." We know that encouraging words and incentives failed for many, many years, and if we leave it to voluntary mechanisms, we're likely never to solve some of the inequities that exist between different people in society.
They've offered a plan. We don't know what this plan is. It's obviously going to be voluntary. They say they're going to achieve some equity for all people through this plan. What's your reaction to that plan?
Mr Schacter: How can I react to the plan when I don't know the details of the plan? I simply pointed out in my presentation that because the government hasn't formalized and concretized its plan and put it into the bill and provided some extra statutory forum for people who have need for protection to turn to, it is running a very significant risk that this bill will be challenged in the courts and will be struck down. That's only going to cost taxpayers money for trying to defend this legislation in court, and then to call back the Legislature to deal with it again. If the government really wanted to try to protect and spend public funds wisely, it wouldn't be setting itself up in this corner.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Schacter. We appreciate your interest and your time today to make a presentation to us.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Chair: The Ontario Federation of Labour, June Veecock. Welcome. We appreciate your being here to make a presentation to us. You have 20 minutes, and how you choose to use it is at your discretion, leaving some time at the end for questions, or you can use it all for your presentation. The floor is yours.
Ms June Veecock: The Ontario Federation of Labour, representing over 650,000 working people in Ontario, appreciates this opportunity to appear before this committee to present our views on Bill 8, an act to repeal equity in employment for aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women. In this submission, we will tell you why we support employment equity; we will give you a sense of how long we have been lobbying for legislation; and, finally, we will respond to your inaccurate characterization of employment equity. Let me say right up front that it is a characterization which we find offensive, to say the very least.
We are fully aware of the strong opposition to legislation to remedy systemic discrimination. Indeed, some of our own members, due to lack of information and the prevailing myths of employment equity, are opposed to legislation to remedy systemic discrimination.
We have observed also that employment equity myths and irresponsible scaremongering are often perpetuated by those who should be better informed. We were dismayed by the tone and misleading information and statements made by your leader during the elections. We hope this process will better inform not only members of this committee but indeed your government.
I want to talk a little about why the Ontario Federation of Labour supports employment equity. There are two very fundamental principles of the labour movement, and these are fair shares and solidarity, but we know that many in our society are denied their fair share. We know also that when workers are divided by race or gender, all workers lose. As representatives of working people, we feel strongly that we have a responsibility not to ignore nor condone the discrimination that some of our members and potential members experience.
We have laws in Ontario to protect people from discrimination, yet some people continue to deny that we live in a society that is racist, sexist, homophobic, and discriminates. Nor is it recognized that we live in a society that places a premium on white skin as well as the male gender. Routinely we make assumptions of others even as we deny them opportunities to demonstrate their competence. We talk about reverse discrimination when there's no evidence to suggest that white males are disadvantaged. As well, references to reverse discrimination ignore nepotism and favouritism. We talk about the lowering of standards, mainly in reference to visible minorities, while we ignore government and other statistics to the contrary.
I want to tell you, members of this committee, that we reject the notion that employment equity is reverse discrimination, and we reject also the notion that standards would have been lowered because of legislation. These assertions often shield racist and sexist views. They fail to take into account employment data available to the contrary.
We support employment equity or legislation to correct systemic discrimination because it's a systemic approach to a systemic problem. A case-by-case approach to discrimination cannot remedy, and will not remedy, systemic discrimination.
1650
The legislation this government is repealing would have allowed those to whom doors traditionally have been closed to demonstrate their competence. The labour movement in Ontario has a long history of lobbying for legislation for the protection of workers and their families. In reviewing our files and policies for this presentation, we have noted that since the early 1970s several briefs and oral presentations have been made to governments in Ontario regarding improvements to the Human Rights Code and, as well, to the Employment Standards Act. Our support for effective employment equity legislation is part of our tradition of struggle to protect the rights of workers and their families and, generally, the vulnerable in our society.
In 1982, just over a decade ago, delegates to our convention passed a comprehensive policy paper, Women and Affirmative Action. This paper outlined in detail the historical discrimination against women, discrimination which has kept women out of certain sectors of the labour force and marginalized them in others and trapped them into job ghettos. The plan of action of this policy paper, which I've included at the back of the submission I gave you, included a demand for legislation to end gender segregation in the workplace.
By 1987 we had moved from affirmative action for women only to include aboriginal people, people with disabilities and visible minorities. That year another policy paper, Equal Action in Employment, was endorsed by delegates to our convention. Again we called on the government to introduce legislation to remedy systemic discrimination.
During 1988-89 the OFL and several of our largest affiliates, plus community groups, worked with Bob Rae, at that time the leader of the official opposition, to develop Bill 172, and through an often difficult process, a process where community and labour compromised and negotiated, there was a consensus in the end that Bill 172 would have been an effective piece of legislation to remedy systemic discrimination.
In 1991, again the OFL was one of the first presenters to the consultations held by the Employment Equity Commissioner, and that is the document you have before you. We informed the commission of the work we had done around Bill 172 and indicated that our vision of effective legislation had not changed.
We also worked with our affiliates to build support for employment equity on the shop floor. We organized several employment equity conferences, forums and educationals across the province to explain why legislation was necessary.
We believe strongly that without effective legislation, workers and potential workers will continue to experience racism, sexism and discrimination due to the reluctance of employers to hire from those groups.
I want to talk a little bit about Bill 8. Your characterization in Bill 8 of Bill 79 is offensive, I repeat, and misleading. This bill continues the inaccurate characterization of Bill 79 which began during the election. One would have imagined that we had seen the last of the American style of politics, which can only undermine the harmonious relations which the labour movement and so many community organizations and individuals have worked hard to achieve in this province.
Your Bill 8 gives comfort to those opposed to remedies for systemic discrimination by asserting that merit-based employment practices will be restored. The bill perpetuates the myth that groups targeted for employment equity generally are not qualified and that Bill 79 would have required employers to give preference to less-qualified members of the target groups. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
This wilful distortion of Bill 79 fans the flames of sexism and racism and generally creates a climate that condones discrimination. It is cheap posturing for short-term gain, with apparently no understanding of the long-term consequences of this government's rhetoric and actions. For all the people of Ontario, it is irresponsible, I repeat, and misleading.
It is time for justice. Equal opportunity is a myth. The evidence is irrefutable: People are not hired solely on the basis of ability; other discriminatory factors, such as gender, race and perceived limitations, are considered.
I'm reminded of a quote by Dr Patricia Williams, an African-American professor at Stanford. She says: "No opportunity is equal. Laws and policies may be gender- and color-blind, but people are not."
Study after study has indicated that many in our society are marginalized because of systemic discrimination. It was very interesting that a few days after the Harris government announced its intention to repeal employment equity, the Toronto Star headlined an article, "Minorities Have More Education and Fewer Jobs." I would suggest that the members of this government read that article if you haven't done so.
Now is the time for you to act responsibly. Gender or race, nor a disability, ought not to determine who gets hired. What is at stake through the repeal of employment equity legislation is the right of aboriginal peoples, peoples with disabilities and visible minorities not to be discriminated against in employment. These are rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and the Ontario Human Rights Code. They must be enforced. Bill 8 not only condones discrimination but will encourage employers to discriminate.
Let me end with what Judge Rosalie Abella had to say during her definitive study on Equity in Employment, as her report is called. Judge Abella said then:
"It is difficult to see how a voluntary approach will substantially improve employment opportunities for women, native people, disabled persons or visible minorities.
"To ensure freedom from discrimination requires government intervention through law. Based on history, present evidence and apprehensions for the future, the elimination of discrimination requires more, rather than less, law."
As well, our experience in the labour movement has shown that trade unions cannot rely on the good-faith efforts of employers, nor governments, to eliminate discriminatory practices without legislative intervention.
I'd like to stop there, and I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mrs Pupatello: I have one quick question. In terms of the Bill 79 as it was, would you have left it as it was or would you have added to it?
Ms Veecock: We would have liked Bill 79 to be stronger in terms of enforcement, but we were prepared to live with it.
Mrs Pupatello: Did you perceive that bill as being "quota" at all?
Ms Veecock: Not at all.
Mrs Pupatello: So what parts of it would you have strengthened?
Ms Veecock: We would have strengthened the enforcement in terms of requiring employers to do more. Instead of encouraging employers to hire fairly from the designated groups, we would have liked to see a stronger enforcement.
Mrs Pupatello: A higher level of fines, you mean, or a quicker time frame?
Ms Veecock: Certainly that too.
Mr Grandmaître: Now that you know that Bill 8 will become law -- and I think your appearance today is worthwhile to the opposition, but to the government, I think you're absolutely right: This is a farce, as far as I'm concerned, because this government is determined to go through with the abolishment of Bill 8. What is the next step of the OFL now that this bill will be in place?
Ms Veecock: Our position has not changed and will not change. I talked about the two fundamental principles of the labour movement. We will now be negotiating or trying to negotiate employment equity. We will put it on the bargaining table and leave it on.
1700
Mr Grandmaître: Leave it on.
Ms Veecock: Leave it on the bargaining table. We'll encourage our affiliates to negotiate employment equity.
Mr Marchese: Every time I talk about the fact that this bill is not a quota bill, the members on the other side say: "Yes, but what about the enforcement, the penalty requirement that you have there which says that if their employers are not doing it, they would be fined up to $50,000? Isn't that a job quota?" I'm not sure how they come to those conclusions, but they refer to it as a way of saying that what we've got here are quotas. I'm assuming that most people you talk to understand this. Is that correct?
Ms Veecock: I certainly don't share that view. My understanding of what a quota is is a fixed amount imposed on the Bill 79 employers who developed a plan of action. They developed how many they would hire over what period of time, and it seems to me there was nothing there saying, "You must." The bill even said, "You make all reasonable efforts to achieve."
Mr Marchese: Yes. It's quite clear to us. On the other hand, I wanted to pick up on a point that you made, because I've seen some studies that show the education levels of people of colour. They're quite high relative to so many other communities. But when you compare the types of jobs that they get, people of colour are usually underrepresented. They either don't get hired or they are underemployed or underutilized and so on. So when we say that, it should give people some kind of hint that there is a problem in terms of our hiring practices, that there is a systemic problem we've got to deal with. Yet even in light of those statistics or those facts, people like members of the opposition here don't quite seem to either understand it or relate to it or reject it, I'm not quite sure, but that's evidence that we have a systemic problem. Could you comment on that from your experience?
Ms Veecock: Let me be very blunt here and say that the myths of employment equity I think are really due in part to particularly white, able-bodied males, to perpetuate the myth of their own superiority. I really do believe that is where that comes from, and notwithstanding any amount of information, statistics, they feel very firmly that they are better than. So if they are better than, there must be lesser than. They feel, notwithstanding their ability to access jobs by true nepotism, that they really do get those jobs by qualifications, never mind that fair competitions are not held and that a large number of people at times are left out of that pool. So I really do feel that it's really inherent at times, this notion of superiority.
The Chair: Thank you. We now have time for Mr Maves.
Mr Maves: Ms Veecock, I really don't agree with your assertion that everyone thinks we have no discrimination in society, everyone who's opposed to the previous legislation. People don't continue to deny there is discrimination in our society, but people do have different ideas about how to address that discrimination, and I think that difference of opinion should be respected.
I want to continue by saying that we just had a submission from Omnibus Consulting Inc, which said that, clearly, affirmative action programs in the United States have not worked. Following along with that, as you quoted several authors, I'd like to quote an author to you, Mr Allan Bloom. He's an esteemed author and professor. His most notable work was Plato's Republic. In a case study that he did of affirmative action at Cornell University, he had this to say:
"Affirmative action now institutionalizes the worst aspects of separatism. The worst part of all this is that the black students hate its consequences. They believe that everyone doubts their merit, their capacity for equal achievement. Their successes become questionable in their own eyes."
I'll go down to the bottom: "Affirmative action is the source of what I fear is the long-term deterioration of the relations between the races in America."
I didn't get a chance to speak to the submission from the teachers' association. The teachers' association said, on page 16, "In 1980, women were...15% of vice-principals." By a voluntary process, in 1995, they are now 52% of vice-principals. I think that's excellent growth. In light of the comments that I've just mentioned and the other people who have testified, why would we adopt a system that hasn't worked elsewhere?
Ms Veecock: I don't know that affirmative action hasn't worked elsewhere, and I don't know who this person you're quoting is -- presumably a white male -- but I find it really interesting that white folks now would like -- and I'm speaking here of visible minorities and in particular blacks in the United States -- to feel somehow that if they got the job through an affirmative action program, that this means ipso facto that they had no ability. I don't know of any affirmative action program that hires without any consideration to qualifications. But this perpetuation that if you had the skills, if you had the ability, you would have been hired, is nonsense.
White males who get their jobs through their fathers and friends and their fathers' friends, they don't feel guilty, but they turn around and make racial minorities feel guilty for getting jobs through an affirmative action program. It's chicanery. You have the ability; they're not giving you the jobs and you implement a program to assist you to get your foot in the door, and then they say you don't have the ability. It's dishonest.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Veecock. Your time is up. We appreciate you coming out and making your presentation.
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Chair: May I make a comment? The statement that Mr Maves used that in fact none of the members of the caucus necessarily feel that there is racism in the repealing of the bill -- I just wanted to quote one of your ministers; Cam Jackson said, "Women don't face any problems of access to jobs in Ontario." I just wanted you to see that because I had mentioned it in the House. I just wanted you to know the comments of your own ministers.
The Chair: Just for your information, that wasn't a point of order.
Mrs Pupatello: A point to mention.
PEARSON-SHOYAMA INSTITUTE
The Chair: The next presenter is Andrew Cardozo from the Pearson-Shoyama Institute. Welcome, Mr Cardozo. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. For your information, before you begin, your letter requesting reimbursement is being referred to the subcommittee for a decision next week.
Mr Andrew Cardozo: Just on that note, I hope that you will be able to have people from across Ontario participate in these hearings and would offer that privilege to people as people in Toronto have who can travel here free of charge.
Thank you for the opportunity to be able to appear before the committee. I'm a member of the Pearson-Shoyama Institute, which is an non-profit national think tank based in Ottawa. We address issues of how public policy is developed, finding new ways of communication and consultation between the Canadian people and our governments and also issues relating to various aspects of diversity. The institute itself is not an advocacy organization except on issues of a more inclusive approach to policy development. Individual members such as myself routinely put forward our own personal views on various issues of concern based on our concerns and our expertise.
I write opinion pieces for various media as well as research pieces, and I've provided you with a couple of them which provide you with some of my views on employment equity. I will try and be brief because I would like to take some questions.
I'm here to give you my views --
The Chair: Excuse me for a second, Mr Cardozo. I'd appreciate it, while our guests are addressing us, that we pay attention, please.
Mr Cardozo: I'm here to give you my views based on the experience I have with employment equity that dates back 12 years, especially at the federal level. In 1983, I was involved with various others in advocating for employment equity at the federal level. As you will probably know, in 1983 the Liberal government of the time established the Abella commission which conducted a royal commission on employment equity. Judge Abella reported in October 1984 to the Conservative government of that time. In 1985, Flora MacDonald, who was Minister of Employment and Immigration, introduced the employment equity bill and saw it pass through the federal Parliament in 1986.
1710
I mention these points just to stress that employment equity is not a partisan issue -- it ought not to be a partisan issue. Indeed, people of three of the traditional political parties in this country have addressed employment equity over many years.
Since 1986 I've been involved in various aspects of monitoring employment equity, talking to employers, providing training to employers about how to implement employment equity, and a great deal of it is really trying to clarify people's views about employment equity and put to rest some of the fears that exist.
In my view, employment equity is simply about sharing privilege, and in that I have an article that I passed around to you entitled Employment Equity Cuts up the Cake Fairly, where in a nutshell I talk about when I was a kid growing up in my parents' house, I always got to scoop up the batter when the cake went in the oven because my siblings didn't care for the stuff. When I grew up more and was married and had kids, I suddenly found that my kids liked that batter and I had to share it with them. It was very difficult to share it with them. I was more powerful than them. I still am, but my wife came in as a government and implemented employment equity in how we distribute the batter when the cake goes in the oven. I can tell you the best way to do it is for me to mix the batter and that way my kids and I have about half the batter before the cake ever gets into the oven. But that's another point.
My view about employment equity is simply that it's about bringing fairness, about bringing equality and most of all about bringing merit. I do not believe that merit has existed. We have tried very hard to bring merit. We've gone a long way to doing away with some of the favouritism that has existed in employment practices, especially in government, over a number of years, but we're still far from merit. Today, it's still a matter of who you know rather than what you know.
When I look at employment equity and where it has worked, it has worked at the federal level in many ways. The Employment Equity Act at the federal level isn't all that strong, but I point to you certain areas, especially areas where employers have to rely on merit and merit alone. They cannot employ people who are sons and daughters of people they know.
The areas where it works well are areas of science and high technology. If you look at the figures of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, they have among the highest number of visible minorities hired than any other employer. That is because they simply cannot afford to hire a relative or a friend. They have to hire based on merit. When you allow raw merit to work, you will find that minorities and others do very well, and that is how it has worked in the high-tech industry, and it works very well in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
It also works well in the banks. The banks have shown a considerable advancement in employment equity, and that is for the reason simply that they are driven by market forces more than others. They have to have a transparent workforce. When you go into a bank, you know who works for the bank, and they have found that for market reasons equity makes sense. They were implementing equity before the legislation. They have found it helpful since the legislation.
I would say to you as well that taxpayers require good public service. We cannot expect that taxpayers will continue to pay their taxes when the public servants whom they pay do not reflect them and do not respond to their needs. Just as in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s our public services were largely white and male and at the federal level anglophone, we have changed those because we saw that that kind of public service did not reflect the public.
With regard to the equal opportunity program, I would suggest that it would've been a lot more useful during these hearings to have the government's equal opportunity program outlined before these hearings took place, because if you're going to withdraw one piece of legislation and replace it by something else, it would make these discussions more meaningful if we had knowledge of at least the kinds of directions you were heading in with regard to the equal opportunity program.
In the second article that I've circulated entitled Equal Opportunity Option, I've outlined a few issues that should be clear in an equal opportunity program. To date one hears things like there may be 1-800 line with a recorded message on the other end which will be the equal opportunity program. I certainly hope it's not going to be that. I'm not making this up; I hear this from various sources.
I hope that it'll be comprehensive. I understand -- I don't agree with it -- that the government is committed to not having legislation, but I hope it will be comprehensive. I hope that will have a policy that is goal oriented. If you don't have a goal-oriented policy, there's really no point in having it. If it's not going to be goal oriented, I would suggest just don't have it.
But if you're going to have an equal opportunity program, some of the issues that need to be addressed by employers are things like how you set job criteria; how you interview people, who's involved in interviewing people; whether you have harassment policies of racial and sexual harassment; requiring or urging, or however you do it, employers to have accessible workplaces for disabled people; and in showing that there is some kind of accreditation of foreign degrees, an issue that has gone on a long time.
I have two final points and they're with regard to the title. First, on the issue of job quotas, I would request that one item be added to Bill 8 and that is the complete outlawing of the quota system that is used in the professions. The professions, especially the medical profession, have a quota system that allows a quota of immigrant doctors to gain access to the medical profession in Canada. If you're serious about abolishing quotas, you must include in Bill 8 a section that will simply abolish and outlaw any quotas used by any professions. If you're not doing that, what you're doing is to sanction quotas against immigrants but removing any kind of program that seeks equality for minorities and others.
On the name of the bill then, I would suggest to you this is not a quota bill. A previous witness referred to a court challenge. Given that in my view, and I think in the court's view in the end, the employment equity legislation is not a quota bill, if you have an act called "An Act to repeal job quotas," you may not in fact have repealed the Employment Equity Act, so just on that basis you might want to be clearer. But I would say that to use the term "job quotas" is a scare tactic and I would urge that in the interests of integrity of governments that you simply call it what it is, and that is, An Act to repeal employment equity.
On the second part, about merit-based employment practices, I would simply say that rather than "restore," you would call it "advance merit-based employment practices" because we are a long way from merit-based practices and the employment equity bill does not do away with merit; it was only going to advance merit.
The Chair: We have about three minutes per party left for questions. We'll start with the third party. Mr Wood.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Just on your last comments, you were saying something very similar to what some of the other presenters have mentioned about the title. One of the presenters here this afternoon said even the title is mean-spirited and misleading. On second reading, a lot of people were saying it's a lie and it was used during the campaign and they just put that on the title to make it more scare tactics. I just want to know if you want to comment further on that.
Mr Cardozo: I certainly don't agree with their characterization of "quotas." The difference between a quota and a target or a goal is this: A quota is a top-down quota that is defined in law; it is inflexible and it is blanket; it applies to every single employer. That is a quota. The quota in a law would have said, "Every single employer shall employ X number of women, Y number of minorities" and so forth. A target or a goal is a bottom-up approach, where the employer along with employees develops its own target or goal; it is flexible and it is tailor-made to the individual employer. If the employer is not hiring or it is downsizing during the next year, it simply does not have to employ anybody. That's the difference between a quota and a target.
Mr Marchese: Mr Cardozo, I appreciate reading your articles when they appear in the Toronto Star. That's a comment I wanted to make. I was interested in Mr Maves's remarks and his allusions to Professor Bloom, who says something to the effect of we're institutionalizing segregation -- I believe that is what he had said --
Mr Clement: Separatism.
Mr Maves: Separatism.
Mr Marchese: -- separatism with the introduction of affirmative action programs, and in addition he adds that affirmative action deteriorates relations between the races, between Americans. I find that an incredible thing for a professor to say. It has nothing to do with power, nothing to do with privilege, nothing to do with inequities, nothing to do with class; it has a lot to do with the fact that we're introducing affirmative action programs is presumably the claim that this professor makes and Mr Maves probably supports him; I'm not quite sure. But you were here when he made those statements. What are your views on that?
Mr Cardozo: I think it's a matter of opinion. I certainly don't share the opinion of that professor at all. I think that when you look at the various parts of the city, you look at who drives the cabs, you look at who the people are who are in every parking booth across Ontario. In Ottawa, where I come from, it's largely Ethiopians and Somalis. I happened to talk to some of them; they had PhDs and all sorts of degrees. In different cities you get a number of particular visible minority groups in professions like taxi-driving and garage cashiers. That to me is where the separation of races takes place, and employment equity is supposed to say, no, everybody has access to be a taxi driver at low-paid wages, not just the Somali immigrant.
1720
Mr Kells: Mr Cardozo, would you be just kind enough to tell me the annual budget of your organization?
Mr Cardozo: It's about $100,000 or less. It's been around about a year and a half, so it's hard to give you a firm figure.
Mr Kells: Are you the only employer or are there a number of other ones?
Mr Cardozo: There are various people who are on contract, including myself, depending on particular contracts.
Mr Kells: But the $100,000 doesn't include contracts, does it?
Mr Cardozo: It's including contract work. We do not get government subsidies, if that's what you're asking.
Mr Kells: Then how do you raise your $100,000, if I may?
Mr Cardozo: We perform contract work, as consultants do, in various areas such as organizing meetings, providing research --
Mr Kells: So your $100,000 budget doesn't carry any kind of an annual guarantee; it's predicated on the --
Mr Cardozo: That's right, on the work we do.
Mr Kells: Could you give me just an example of who would give you a contract?
Mr Cardozo: Yes, we're currently doing a contract for the Human Resources Development department of the federal government to provide an assessment of a particular council of the government.
Mr Kells: You don't have to be precise, but roughly, what would that contract be, in what amount?
Mr Cardozo: Just under $25,000. Could I ask what the relationship is between these questions and the bill we're talking about?
Mr Kells: Outside of idle curiosity, I'm on the committee and we had considerable conversation this morning about your organization. I'm just trying to understand it better.
Mr Cardozo: The contract work we do is very specifically related to those contracts. The rest of the stuff we do is based on voluntary work.
Mr Kells: I don't want to make a false assumption, but would most of the $100,000 annual budget come from the federal government or governments basically?
Mr Cardozo: At this point, yes.
Mr Kells: Thank you.
Mr Cardozo: It's very specifically related to those particular projects. Where there are other things, we do it on our steam, such as this.
The Chair: Okay, we've got 30 seconds for Mr Clement to ask a short question.
Mr Clement: You said that banks and the AECL are driven by market forces to have a diverse workforce? That's what you said?
Mr Cardozo: I said the banks are --
Mr Clement: And AECL.
Mr Cardozo: I said the AECL, driven by merit.
Mr Clement: Right, because of the market forces that require they have a certain standard. So why would that not work for everybody? Why do we have to have a government impose solutions?
Mr Cardozo: Well, you tell me.
Mr Clement: I don't think there should be one, so I think I know the answer to that.
Mr Cardozo: Well, let me just --
The Chair: The question wasn't quite short enough.
Mr Cardozo: Okay, let me just tell you my view.
Mr Clement: The answer wasn't short enough.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello.
Mr Marchese: Could you finish answering that?
Mr Cardozo: Very simply, when a corporation --
The Chair: Mr Cardozo.
Mr Cardozo: I'll be as fast as I can, Mr Chair. Very simply, when a corporation --
The Chair: Mr Cardozo.
Mr Cardozo: Sorry?
The Chair: I've recognized Mrs Pupatello.
Mr Cardozo: Okay, sure.
Mr Marchese: Mr Chair, when he asks a question and you don't allow him to finish the answer, it's not very --
The Chair: We have some time constraints.
Mrs Pupatello: I want to just go on record as well: comments from our government members, when they're making them, if they're speaking on behalf of their entire caucus. Quoting Isabel Bassett, your deputy whip, "This leaves affirmative action as the only viable solution to the problem." It goes on to say, "There is a need for something, something much more binding." Just so you know while you're making comments in committee that I still think of members of your government who published these things, self-published in fact, and I wanted to get your comment.
Mr Marchese: Rein her in.
Mr Clement: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We are individuals in our caucus. People are allowed to have divergent opinions, so don't stuff those words down our throat.
Mr Grandmaître: If you're going to quote somebody, we're allowed to do the same thing.
Mr Marchese: Absolutely.
Interjections.
The Chair: Mrs Pupatello, did you have a question?
Mrs Pupatello: I didn't mean to create such division among their caucus. Excuse me, Mr Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions from the opposition? Mr Cardozo, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate the presentation.
Mr Cardozo: Can I answer that question?
The Chair: The time has expired, thank you.
Interjection: I'll wait if you want to let him answer the question.
The Chair: Which question are you trying to answer?
Mr Cardozo: Just the question from Mr Clement.
Mr Marchese: Yes, please go ahead.
Mr Cardozo: I just basically say that the difference is when for a corporation like CHUM Ltd, the number of visible minorities in one particular year was something like 1.5% and a bank is something like 11%, yes, there is a need to push one along; the other one does quite well. For some reasons the first one at 1.5% isn't doing very well.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cardozo.
ADVOCATES FOR COMMUNITY BASED TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR WOMEN
The Chair: Our next presenter is Advocates for Community Based Training and Education for Women, Karen Charnow Lior. Welcome. You have 20 minutes. We're fairly firm on the time. How you use it is at your discretion. We appreciate your attendance and the floor is yours.
I would really like to suggest, though, if we could, that all of us save our little games for when our presenters are not here and allow them the courtesy of listening to them, please. Okay, carry on, please.
Ms Karen Charnow Lior: Good evening. My name is Karen Charnow Lior and I want to thank you and tell you that I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm part of the public interest. I'm a woman, part of 52% of the population -- losing my eyesight -- a parent and a worker. Funny how business is never identified as a special interest. Maybe we should call them a compound interest group.
I'm here as the coordinator of an organization called Advocates for Community Based Training and Education for Women, ACTEW, which is a provincial coalition of over 60 programs involved in women's training and education. The participants in these programs often come from the disadvantaged groups who have been identified as those who will most benefit from employment equity legislation. We see employment equity legislation as human rights legislation. When those who have been traditionally marginalized or barred from participation stand to advance, then we all, as a society, advance.
Many women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people and racial minorities face discrimination in employment, both in finding appropriate training to access employment and then in finding and retaining meaningful work. The experiences of discrimination go far beyond individual acts of prejudice. They are built into the way the system operates.
Employment equity legislation addresses this built-in or systemic discrimination. It is due to this kind of discrimination that over the years has made it hard for women to enter the workforce, especially into the trades or what used to be called non-traditional work. It is to work to identify and eliminate the barriers women face that organizations like mine exist.
I'm going to give you concrete examples of how women and members of designated groups are disadvantaged in the marketplace. Over the past two years ACTEW has been involved in a study of the situation of clerical workers in Metropolitan Toronto. These workers are the largest occupational group in Metro and they experienced the most severe job loss between 1984 and 1994. Over 80,000 clerical jobs have been lost. The number of clerical workers receiving social assistance has tripled and the majority of them, 73%, are women. Many are men and women of different racial and ethnic origins. Clerical occupations are the largest source of employment for women and salaries in this sector are typically low.
Without legislative mechanisms which ensure career paths and promotions based on length of service, ability and equity, these workers will continue to be disadvantaged in our workforce, people who have skills, ability and the willingness to contribute. Employment equity provided a mechanism for promotion based on qualifications and length of service as well as merit. Employment equity ensures that women, whose incomes are essential to the maintenance of most Canadian households, have equal access to jobs.
1730
ACTEW disagrees with the notion that legislation is cumbersome. Legislation protects all of us. It gives us clear, comprehensive ways to collect and verify information and enshrines a right to appeal, and it makes government accountable to the public, to those who are governed. Contrary to the claims of this government, neither Bill 40 nor Bill 79 created problems in the workplace. Rather, relations in the workplace improved. When people experience fairness they respond in kind; when people experience a lack of fairness they lose hope. This leads to a crisis in legitimacy.
Bill 79 did not demand unrealistic goals and timetables, nor did it put in place an unwieldy and unmanageable quota system. The point of data collection is to identify and explain any underrepresentation of qualified, available candidates from designated groups, then to review these areas for barriers and for employers and employees to work together to plan to eliminate those barriers. Goals and timetables are to be set by employers, not by the law, not imposed by government, and employers were not subject to fines. They only had to demonstrate reasonable progress towards their own very flexible goals.
I would like to ask why this government is in favour of destroying information. Surely we have too many examples of the destruction of books and records. Why are you sending a message that data collection is to be feared and data destroyed? We're in the information age. We understand the need to protect workers and ensure that information remain confidential, but there must be a way to do this without destroying data that people have worked hard to collect and that help employers create a better workplace environment. How can we accurately determine outcomes -- and we all understand how important outcomes are -- if we don't have the information?
Ontario workplaces should reflect our population. Employment equity legislation provides one vehicle for ensuring that all qualified workers have equal access to employment, to promotion and to training for employment and is a step to ensuring that all citizens have equal access. This is crucial for children who need role models, for parents trying to foster values of the importance of a good education leading to a decent job, for teachers who, along with parents and public figures, are important models for our children.
I'm referring here to subsections 2(1) and (2), which repeal sections of the Education Act, which empowered the minister to require school boards to prepare employment equity policies regarding women and other designated groups. There are volumes of studies showing that women teachers are an integral factor in girls' achievement educationally, and there are studies proving the importance of teachers who understand their students' background, cultural beliefs, practice, and who represent various groups.
We came here from Israel. My family and I lived in Israel. I was born in the US and my husband was born in Toronto, one of those rare people born in Toronto. My kids are Canadians but they have Hebrew names. My son, Noam, has been called Norm consistently through high school. It's not a hard name to pronounce; teachers say Noah. It's about resistance to the unfamiliar. How many kids suffer and withdraw when teachers can't pronounce their names? What if it's not about a name but about a skin colour or a tradition?
How many children do we lose from the educational system? How many kids do not succeed due to the existence of systemic barriers? And how much do we have to pay later on because of that? What is our loss as a society? Why in 1995, when we hear of nothing else than globalization, can we not apply globalization to the workplace and the classroom? Without measures that allow for affirmative action for women into promotions as principals and other administrative roles, we are back to the 1950s with Donna Reed and Father Knows Best. At my house we watch North of 60, Side Effects and This Hour Has 22 Minutes -- Canadian TV. My kids watch the Fresh Prince of Bel Air -- okay, it's not Canadian -- diversity, role models.
I want to turn briefly to subsection 4(12), which deals with the police services. To date, there is ample evidence that shows that in cities where the police force is over 20% female, crime is reduced. In areas where the police force reflects the local demographics, crime is reduced. The public supports the notion of a police force which reflects the community. Police are influential role models for our children. We know that in the police force, employment equity has been successful. The elimination of barriers benefits everyone and white men have continued to be hired. According to the 1993 OPP employment equity progress report, "Police standards have not been lowered; in fact, policing standards will be strengthened."
ACTEW understands that the purpose of Bill 8 is to restore merit to the workplace. If we had merit in the workplace we wouldn't have needed employment equity or affirmative action. Facts in the form of studies, polls, documentation, reports and experiences are conclusive. Recruitment for jobs, especially managerial and upper-level positions, is highly informal. There is a correlation between the use of informal practices by employers and low representation of racial minorities and women. All the studies and reports confirm the existence of systemic discrimination. We do not have, nor have we ever had, a workplace based on merit, unless you really believe that only white men should have jobs.
We have piles of information documenting discriminatory behaviour. People with years of experience and professional training from outside of Ontario face multiple barriers, and we waste valuable resources in duplicating training and education. We have the most highly educated taxi drivers in the world. We also have highly educated people working as cleaning staff in hotels. We have women trained as veterinarians on welfare. We have people trained as doctors, lawyers and accountants unable to find work because the system is against them. It's a terrible waste.
ACTEW supports the work of the Alliance for Employment Equity. Only with effective strategy that includes and involves all citizens will Ontario become economically vibrant and able to compete in a global marketplace. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about three minutes for each party for questions, starting with the government. Any questions?
Mr Tascona: Just on I think the third page of your brief, you reference there that there's ample evidence with respect to the police forces. What is the source of that evidence? Is that Canadian or American?
Ms Charnow Lior: The OPP quote is from the OPP 1993 progress report, and the other stuff I got from the police, but I don't have the reference. I can get it for you if you want it.
Mr Tascona: So the reference: "To date, there is ample evidence that shows that in cities where the police force is over 20%" --
Ms Charnow Lior: It was from a meeting with representatives from the police services and the firefighters.
Mr Tascona: So you don't have the source today but you can provide that?
Ms Charnow Lior: I don't have it, I'm sorry.
Mr Tascona: Okay, thank you. The other question I have relates to that the Ontario workplaces should reflect our population. I guess there's a difference in the population between Toronto and, say, a community such as Barrie or a smaller community. Do you think what we're dealing with here is a geographically based problem or is it, as you state, a provincial problem?
Ms Charnow Lior: Well, it's probably both, and I think that it doesn't matter, because if you have legislation that ensures that the workplace reflects the community, it doesn't matter what community it is. It reflects whatever the community is.
Mr Tascona: So as long as the workplace is reflective of the community, that should be satisfactory, rather than imposed quotas --
Ms Charnow Lior: There aren't --
Mr Tascona: -- where the groups that are sought to be protected aren't reflective of, aren't even in, that community.
Ms Charnow Lior: You know, I want to answer it this way. When we did the organizing for the local labour force development boards we had communities that said, "We don't have any women," so I don't know; I find that hard to believe. They really didn't have any women they could find to sit on a local board? I think that if you have legislation guidelines that say it has to reflect the community, then you work to reflect your community.
Mr Stewart: Just a comment, where you are making the point that if we had merit in the workplace we wouldn't need employment equity or affirmative action: I think that's exactly what we're trying to do.
Ms Charnow Lior: Yes, but affirmative action -- are you asking me a question?
Mr Stewart: I just made the comment. If you'd like to make a comment back, that's what the name of the bill is and I think that's what we're trying to achieve.
Ms Charnow Lior: You have legislation --
Mr Len Wood: When are you going to bring in your legislation?
Mr Stewart: I asked the lady a question, sir.
Ms Charnow Lior: I am asking you to have legislation that reflects the needs of the population. If we had had merit in the workplace, we wouldn't have had employment equity or affirmative action to begin with. I cannot believe or accept that people spent 20 years working out policies because we didn't need them.
1740
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. The official opposition. Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: I have a question to the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Clement: For me? Well, I'm honoured.
Mr Grandmaître: I will be referring to the witness's question. This is the third witness, Parliamentary Assistant, who's asking the same question: Why is it that in subsection 1(5) you're asking -- or maybe I should read it: "Section 39 of the Employment Equity Act, 1993, provides that a person in possession of personal information collected from employees shall not be used or disclosed except for the purposes of complying with the act." Then you go on to say subsection (5) of the repeal bill requires employers to destroy all personal information collected.
Why are you asking these people to destroy this personal information?
Mr Clement: Am I permitted to respond, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes, you are, as I understand it.
Mr Clement: I think the government's intention is based on its analysis of the previous legislation. The view of the government is that the previous legislation is a job quota legislation and it is, by virtue of being an act passed by the Ontario Legislature, a coercive tool used by government to enforce its perception of an equitable workplace on both the public and private sectors.
One of the tools used to enforce that perception is the collection of very, very personal information from individuals who are employees, and, to use the lexicon of the third party that I heard with respect to Bill 7, these employees sometimes find themselves in an inherently disadvantaged situation in terms of the balance of power between employer and employee.
Consequently, if an employer, by virtue of its position, is the agent of coercion for the government, the information that is thereby obtained is deeply personal information which in fact employees may feel they have a right to keep from anyone else in the world: a particular handicap, a particular percentage of their background which is perhaps different, or a different nationality.
So, from our perspective, the collection of that information is unjust and tainted and it would be unjust to allow the employer to keep that information except for the provisions of --
The Chair: The question has been answered. I'm not sure whether the question is too long or the answer, but it did use up more than three minutes.
Mr Clement: Oh, I didn't realize I had a time limit. Sorry, Mr Chair.
The Chair: So we go on to Mr Wood.
Mr Len Wood: A number of presenters have said here that the title of the bill, "to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment" -- there were no quotas and there is no merit, so the title of the bill is misleading. People have said it's mean-spirited, it's an outright lie that was used during the campaign to get the 82 members elected and it's continuing on now. If you continue saying it long enough, actually, people might believe it. I just wanted to know what reaction you had to that.
Ms Charnow Lior: What reaction I had to the name of the bill?
Mr Len Wood: Yes.
Ms Charnow Lior: I couldn't put it on my submission.
Mr Len Wood: One of the presenters here is saying that if the title is not changed, it leaves shame on all the members of the Legislature in future years.
Ms Charnow Lior: I wouldn't make statements like that. I didn't think it was a job quota bill. I couldn't find anything that legislated quotas in the bill and I have answered before that I didn't think that we had 100% merit-based workplaces, or 90% or 70%.
Mr Marchese: There was a submission by the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, where they say that in 1980 women were two thirds of the teachers, 15% of vice-principals and only 7% of principals. Then they say that even after intervention, persuasion, education and funds provided to boards of education, 15 years later, in 1995, women were three quarters of the teachers, 52% of the vice-principals and 33% of the principals.
Mr Maves said, "But we're doing fine." Is that your perception, that if we leave it to voluntary mechanisms, if we leave it to what Mr Stewart was saying, getting back to the merit principle, that everything will be fine? Is that your view of things?
Ms Lior: It's clearly not my view of things. I clearly believe that we need to have intervention. I think that government has a role. I think it's wonderful that 52% of the principals are women; I think it's not enough of the vice-principals. I think it's not enough, that 33%.
Mr Marchese: After 15 years.
Ms Charnow Lior: After 15 years. An additional statistic that's interesting for me is that only 7% of the apprenticed trades have women, and if you take out hairdressers and cooks, it's 4%. Those are jobs. Women could do those jobs, and if we don't have ways to get into the workforce, to get into apprenticeships, we can't do them.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your answers and for your presentation. We appreciate your interest.
COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
The Chair: Our last presenter for this evening is Jane Koster from the Toronto Committee on the Status of Women. Jane, welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes which you can use as you see fit. Any questions you want to accommodate have to be fitted into that time. We're glad you're here. Feel comfortable. The floor's all yours.
Ms Jane Koster: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll tell you a little bit first about the Committee on the Status of Women. It's a committee made up of women from the community as well as the women members of Toronto city council. We have co-chairs from the community and we work from a feminist perspective to maintain, improve and advocate an equitable quality of life for all women. "All women," of course, includes women of colour, native women, women with disabilities and lesbians living in the city of Toronto.
The committee was formed in June 1991 by then Mayor Art Eggleton as a means for women to have input to the decision-making process at City Hall.
We hold monthly public meetings. Current issues that we've been considering are the impact of funding cuts on women, housing and women, violence against women, sporting opportunities for women -- that being women's equitable access to hockey rinks, city recreational facilities etc -- and employment equity.
We welcome this opportunity to express our views on the repeal of the provincial Employment Equity Act.
In terms of our recommendations, the committee came in August 1993 when the previous government was hearing submissions around the Employment Equity Act. Our position has changed very little since then regarding the need for legislation to eliminate employment barriers for designated groups in Ontario.
We would like to support the following recommendations:
1. We recommend that bargaining agents and employers be obliged to make every effort to ensure broad representation of members of designated groups in a joint process.
2. We recommend that the act require the establishment of joint employee-management committees in workplaces where employees are not represented by a bargaining agent.
3. We recommend that numerical goals and an employment systems review be required for all employees.
4. Seniority rights should be made on a company-wide basis.
We support meaningful legislation that will address the barriers to full labour force participation by women, and that is all women, including white women and women from a racial minority or native background or women with disabilities.
Your timing, from our point of view, to repeal the Employment Equity Act couldn't be worse. Economic restructuring is having a severe impact in all sectors in this province, especially on members of designated groups. The disadvantage that the designated groups already face has increased. Layoffs, downsizing and bankruptcies have created record levels of unemployment. The Employment Equity Act was designed to achieve employment equity rights for women and other designated groups. We believe that the act was good for the province, good for labour, good for employees and, most of all, good for all women.
1750
Despite the public relations work that has been undertaken by government agencies such as the Ontario women's directorate, the native affairs directorate, the Anti-Racism Secretariat, the Office for Disability Issues, as well as other government offices promoting equality rights in employment for members of designated groups, the statistical and anecdotal evidence clearly points to the desperate need for this legislation.
The achievement of employment equity in Ontario is vital. Demographic trends show that members of designated groups will comprise the majority of the Ontario workforce by the year 2000. Data from 1993 show that women in the labour force are playing a game of catch-up with men. They have comparable or superior levels of education, but they earn less. They continue to be concentrated in few occupations, and they earn 67 cents, generally, for every dollar earned by a man. Over 80% of women working in Ontario in 1989 were segregated in low-paying occupations in the service sector, that being services, public administration, trade, finance, transportation and communications. Women working full-time make 53.2% of the average man's salary in that sector.
The most significantly disadvantaged groups from our point of view are those who face double or triple disadvantage, ie, native women, women with disabilities etc. For these women, one of the problems they deal with is biased attitudes as their major barrier to their full participation in the workforce. Racial minority women, while having very high workforce participation rates, continue to earn disproportionately low salaries. In the clerical field, where 30% of racial minority women are employed, even those women with university degrees earn approximately 32% less than men with university degrees. This is despite the fact that these women, that is racial minority women, hold degrees at twice the rate of racial minority men. Publications by the Ontario women's directorate illustrate these and many more inequities.
The act was an investment in the future of Ontario to ensure effective use of the province's diverse labour force. The economic potential for this province would have been tremendous had we begun capitalizing on the human resource potential that is being squandered through ineffective policies, practices and attitudes that are frankly rooted in the past. The act was good for labour because of the emphasis on a cooperative approach to employment equity. In other organizations, where there are adversarial labour relations, employees would have benefited as well.
The previous governments are to be congratulated for introducing requirements and regulations that, despite the cries of quotas and government interference, were realistic and allowed firms to set goals in proportion to the opportunities for change like other business objectives they set on a regular basis.
However, the governments needed to ensure financial resources and implement a major educational venture on the part of the Employment Equity Commission and other government offices to ensure that information was made available to help firms get educated and get started. I understand that the Employment Equity Commission was in the process of working on public education programs like that.
For women, this act had been long awaited. Previous governments acknowledged that women's equality rights in employment were not being met and they chose to back this up with legislation aimed at making systemic changes in how employees are hired and treated on the job.
Women were given the hope that barriers that may have kept them from realizing their full potential would be struck down. Mandatory employment equity legislation is vitally important. It is the only way women's right to equality in employment will be achieved.
In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate the need for mandatory legislation for all employees, workforce data compilation, the strengthening of section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code which deals with special employment programs, and resources to monitor and resolve all complaints of discrimination for government as well as community agencies, eg, Pay Equity Advocacy and Legal Services, which exists in Toronto, which I understand has recently had its funding cut.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You've left about 12 minutes for questions. We will start with the official opposition.
Mr Sergio: Ms Koster, at point 3 of your conclusions you mention to strengthen section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Can you expand a little bit on that as to the particular reason. Do you have any experience? Do you have any cases that you can mention to the committee here?
Ms Koster: My understanding is that section 14 of the code has to do, as I said, with special employment programs. We would like to see more special employment programs in fact rather than fewer of them.
Mr Sergio: So you're saying it doesn't go far enough.
Ms Koster: That's correct.
Mrs Pupatello: Given that the bill is going to be repealed and this new one introduced, what recommendations do you have for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to handle all of the complaints that are going to be sent to it?
Ms Koster: Sorry, I missed part of what you said.
Mrs Pupatello: The bill has been repealed, this new one is coming in, and the government members feel that the Ontario Human Rights Commission will be able to handle everything. Do you have any recommendations for them to help them do that?
Ms Koster: Yes. In fact, I know a number of people who have gone through the Human Rights Commission process and also a number of people who have worked at the commission. It's tremendously backlogged. I think that is not a secret to anyone. The staff have very unrealistic workload expectations, and I would assume that if this government is going to use the Human Rights Commission as the means of resolving complaints about discrimination, it had better be prepared to hire a lot more people, for one thing, to deal with these complaints.
Also, I think, to initiate a process which would allow these complaints to be resolved much, much quicker. I believe now the typical amount of time that it takes to resolve a complaint at the OHRC is between two and a half and three years for the average case. That's a very long time.
Mrs Pupatello: When you're in this kind of economic climate where people are fighting just to keep their jobs, what is the likelihood that complaints will come forward from individuals to this commission?
Ms Koster: I think it's pretty unlikely. I certainly don't support that route as an ideal route to deal with discrimination.
The Chair: Any other questions from the official opposition?
Mr Marchese: Ms Koster, just a few remarks. You identified on page 3 some of the inequities that still exist for women that I suspect will continue for some time. You point to some statistical information as it relates to women, people of colour, aboriginal people and people with disabilities.
Ms Koster: Yes.
Mr Marchese: Employment equity was intended to deal with some of those discriminatory conditions that exist in the workplace and attempts to bring about some fairness. Now the opposition says those are job quotas and they also say that once they restore this whole thing, eliminate all that and bring back merit, everybody will be equal and everybody will have opportunities again. I don't want to take Mr Stewart's remarks in vain, but that's what he said. If I'm saying something incorrectly he might correct me, or correct himself if he feels that should be the case.
Mr Maves says, quoting Professor Bloom, that we're institutionalizing separatism and, in addition, affirmative action programs are the cause of deterioration between the races. So you have interesting views that they're expounding on and if Mr Maves doesn't agree with those views, I'd like to hear it --
Mr Maves: Can I have a --
Mr Marchese: -- when the opportunity comes around, Mr Chair.
Mr Maves: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think a point of order is allowed when you feel someone's misrepresenting a comment.
Mr Len Wood: No, that's not a point of order.
Mr Maves: A point of privilege?
The Chair: Point of privilege.
Mr Maves: A point of privilege, Mr Chair: The comments from Mr Bloom were simply that affirmative action programs in the case study, as I had said, at Cornell University hadn't solved the problem of discrimination and in fact had enhanced it. I just want to make sure that Mr Marchese not continue to somehow misrepresent my and Mr Bloom's presentations.
Mr Marchese: Mr Maves has added yet another additional comment which I'll try to record and come back to in the future. As soon as we get around, he might comment on these particular views. So it's interesting views we have here. They're proposing all of these things will be solved once they eliminate the employment equity bill. What is your view of that?
Ms Koster: Clearly, that's not my view of that. When you say Professor Bloom, I assume that you're referring to Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.
Mr Marchese: That is the man.
Ms Koster: Yes. A very reactionary book which is also a very anti-feminist book, and this is not someone that I would in any way be inclined to agree with.
I would like to say that from our point of view as a feminist group in the community, when it comes to talking about separatism, I think separatism is what we have existing at the moment. When you go into places like corporations, especially, the white males are the people who are separated, because they're the people in the corner offices, and the women of colour are the women typing at the front.
So in fact what we have already is another kind of affirmative action. This is discriminatory and we don't agree with that at all.
1800
The merit principle has never been at work. It's not that the Employment Equity Act under the NDP took the merit principle away but that, from our position, the merit principle was never at work.
The Chair: Mr Wood, a short question.
Mr Len Wood: Okay, very briefly, first of all, congratulations on your presentation. I noticed that you're saying the other legislation was good for the province, was good for labour, good for employers and good for women. Why would the Conservative Party come up with a title where you're talking about quotas and merit when there never were any quotas or merit in the province before?
Ms Koster: Why would they come up with that?
Mr Len Wood: Why would they come up with that title?
Ms Koster: I think it's a political title, in the sense that that's what they happen to believe is the case, that there was merit at the time, and I'm saying that we disagree with that and I disagree with that title. I don't think that's what it's doing, restoring the merit principle. In terms of job quotas, we never had job quotas, and that was very clear that there were never job quotas. There were goals and timetables set by employers.
Mr Len Wood: So it was a big lie. Thank you.
Mr Marchese: So they just don't understand what they're doing.
The Chair: Thank you very much. The government party.
Mr Flaherty: Did I hear you correctly when you said -- I thought you said -- the merit principle was never at work?
Ms Koster: That's correct.
Mr Flaherty: You're talking about Ontario, the merit principle was never at work in this -- here?
Ms Koster: I'm talking about anywhere, not particularly this province. I didn't single this province out.
Mr Len Wood: It was the old boy's club before.
Ms Koster: What I'm --
Mr Flaherty: I take it then that your point of view is that no women in Ontario obtain their positions on merit?
Ms Koster: I think there are women who manage to make it despite the fact that there were a lot of barriers to their employment in the workplace.
Mr Flaherty: Right, well, that's what I'm suggesting to you, that many people, including people within these designated groups of aboriginal peoples, disabled persons, racial minorities and women, did indeed do well on their own merits --
Mr Len Wood: Aboriginal people are 90% unemployed.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Flaherty: -- in the province of Ontario, that is, that it's unfair to say, and inaccurate, that the merit principle was never at work.
Mr Marchese: Of course it's not.
Mr Flaherty: Don't you agree?
Ms Koster: What I would like to suggest is that there are always exceptions, okay? There are people, and I agree with you, there are aboriginal people in this country who have done very well for themselves and have been able to reach relatively powerful positions. But I'd also like to suggest that that by no means is the majority of aboriginal people in this country or this province. When I leave here tonight and I walk home, I guarantee you that the aboriginal people I see on the street will be people I see begging for money -- people who are very down and out -- on my way home. They will not be aboriginal people who have made it in the world.
Mr Flaherty: We've heard comments here about --
Mr Clement: That's a stereotype.
Ms Koster: It's not a stereotype.
Mr Clement: You're generalizing.
Ms Koster: I'm stating that this is in fact --
Mr Clement: Sorry.
Mr Flaherty: We've heard this several times. As a former cab driver --
Ms Koster: I'm sorry, I missed that.
Mr Flaherty: I say this on my own: As a former cab driver talking about employment equity -- we've heard this reference to cab drivers here tonight.
Ms Koster: I didn't particularly --
Mr Flaherty: No, by several people, and obviously it's a starting position for many people in our society, many people who are born in Canada and elsewhere.
But let me ask you this: Would you agree with me, since you've studied the subject, that regardless of whether one's a member of one of these groups that's designated or not, the primary determinant in Canada today, as it has been in the past, the primary determinant for level of employment, including employability and remuneration, is the level of education attained by the individual?
Ms Koster: No. I think that that's true to a certain extent, but I would have to say that -- okay. It's true to a certain extent, but what happens is that what gets lost in that process is talking about who the people are who get screened out before they get to the point of achieving that education. In our educational system, unfortunately, many children with disabilities were sent off to institutions instead of achieving education, instead of being educated, and with women and people of colour and aboriginal people they were not encouraged in school to the extent that other people were. So what you end up have happening is that people don't go as far in school.
However --
Mr Flaherty: If I were to assume --
Ms Koster: I have to --
The Chair: On that note, can you just wrap it up quickly here because of the time.
Ms Koster: I will wrap up quickly. What I was going to say was that I know, from going in and working in offices, which I have done, that you go in and you discover that the receptionist has her PhD. This is a very strange thing to me. This is something that has happened as a result of this economic climate, for one thing, and she ends up having a lot more, a lot of the time, education than the people who are the directors of agencies. I would say this of the government and of the private sector as well. So I don't think that is the main indicator of level of employment.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Koster. We appreciate you taking the time to make a presentation to us.
Okay, just a couple of items of business. Just for your information, a little bit of good news. Tomorrow night, if you've looked at the list, we have four presenters after 7 o'clock. The presenter at 5 o'clock has cancelled, the presenter at 5:40 has cancelled. We had an hour break in there for dinner. Is it your wish that we ask Tonia to try to move the four people from 7 on up and we just meet continuously and forget about a dinner break?
Interjections: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, the one possibility is that there are three people with whom she's left messages asking them if they wanted to avail themselves of --
Clerk of the Committee: Two or three.
The Chair: Anyway, the wish is we'll work right through if we can reschedule people?
Interjection: Super.
Interjection: What about from 6 to 7?
The Chair: We work right through to 6 to 7, hopefully get finished by 7 o'clock.
Okay, 10 o'clock tomorrow morning the committee reconvenes, and until such time, the committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1816.