Legislative Assembly of Ontario

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

CONTENTS

Wednesday 9 February 1994

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Rosemary Brown, chief commissioner

Neil Edwards, director, regional services and systemic investigation unit

Mark Frawley, acting director, legal services

Scott Campbell, executive director

Minister Responsible for Human Rights

Hon Elaine Ziemba, minister

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)

*Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)

*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)

*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

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

*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)

Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)

Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)

*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:

Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND) for Ms Harrington

Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Mammoliti

Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC) for Mrs Witmer

Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND) for Mr Waters

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Bryce, Donna

Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1007 in the Trent Room, Macdonald Block, Toronto.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): We are continuing the review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and we welcome back the chief commissioner, Ms Rosemary Brown. We're starting today with the official opposition and we'll do 20-minute rotations.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Madam Chair, with your permission, would my staff be permitted to join me?

The Chair: Absolutely.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Also, I was wondering whether it would be possible for me to have, at the very end of the day, 15 minutes to do my closing summary, if that's okay with you.

The Chair: Certainly. The committee members may have some questions on your closing. How long is your statement?

Ms Rosemary Brown: It depends. It would be based on the questions of the day, but I would like to just wrap up with maybe 12 to 15 minutes, if that's okay.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have no problem with the commissioner giving her closing without any questions after.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'd like to have at least five minutes following the commissioner. Then at least we get the last word.

The Chair: It probably is the prerogative of the committee to ask you the last question. You would still end up with the last word. Do you want to start at 2 o'clock doing your 15 minutes? Is it something you're going to be reading?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes.

The Chair: All right. Why don't we start at 2 o'clock with you reading your 15-minute statement? Is that agreeable to the committee? Okay, we'll do it that way. Mr Curling, 20 minutes.

Mr Curling: I want to welcome back the commissioner. I know the efforts she has made. She's an extremely busy person and we know that this is an extremely important review of the Human Rights Commission. Coming back again for some more -- I don't want to call it questioning; it's a review.

Commissioner, we have over the week heard from some rather interesting perspectives of what people believe the Human Rights Commission should be delivering and we have -- I'm sure my colleagues have; I speak for myself and my party -- even a better understanding of the commission after this. I think that's why it's important to have this review: our expectations and what you can deliver with the facilities and equipment that you have.

One of the questions that came to mind as they were making their presentation was in regard to your systemic unit area. I just wondered if you could give me an update about how you're approaching this aspect of it, how many cases have been done through the systemic unit and what strategy you're using, because I know you mentioned in your report that basically is one of the areas at the root of how we can approach any kind of discriminatory practices regardless of what areas the Human Rights Commission involves itself in. I just wondered if you could comment on that area for me in regard to the systemic unit, now that you've restructured.

Ms Rosemary Brown: As you will remember, it's one of the four areas that are covered in the restructuring. The director appointed to that is sitting with us at the table, Mr Neil Edwards, so I'll just make some broad statements about that, and if he wants to add anything to it he can.

The real root of what we do at the commission is to have decisions which are made which would be broad-based and public-interest-remedy focused. We see the difference between individual complaints and systemic complaints as being essentially artificial, that in fact individual complaints of themselves can result in systemic decisions, either from the board or from the way in which the commission handles the complaint.

If I can use some examples, even though one person or two people might complain about the way in which employment agencies respond to them, the resolution of it is to ensure that the decision affects all employment agencies, not just the one, and that the decision is systemic. Also, the way in which the commission is now working with the city of Toronto around the issue of the firefighters and their employment practices is an example of a non-adversarial way in which the commission works on systemic issues.

Another example which I'd like to draw to your attention is the decision that was brought down about the adult-only condos. Again, it was triggered by an individual complaint, but the decision that resulted from that was one that affected the group rather than just the individual.

Systemic remedies can result from board decisions of individual cases because sometimes part of the settlement agreement is that the respondent introduce some practices which have a systemic focus to them and a systemic result. So even though we appear to be, and we have certainly been accused of, focusing on individual cases, that does not mean that we're not dealing with systemic issues. As I said before, we see the division of individual versus systemic as being essentially an artificial one.

Mr Curling: Did you want to make some comment, Mr Edwards?

Mr Neil Edwards: I'm Neil Edwards, director of regional services, systemic investigation branch. I'd just like to give you a bit more information, more specifically in terms of the kinds of initiatives that we have undertaken in the systemic unit over a period of time. We have been engaged in approximately four cases that we felt we were able to obtain major systemic remedies from.

One of them we mentioned on the first day, which had to do with the courthouses throughout Ontario, ensuring that courthouses are accessible to the disabled, not only for persons who may have business in the court but who simply want to go there to learn about what's happening etc. We were able to do that and do that quite successfully. We were also able to ensure that the government implement a telephone line across the province whereby people could call that number to determine if a particular courthouse is accessible within the province. That was one initiative.

Another had to do with two employment agencies, where we learned that these agencies were practising discrimination on the basis of race, colour etc, where they were actually not referring people to certain companies. Someone came forward to the commission with a number of allegations and also brought forward evidence in terms of the practices that were occurring. The commission decided to initiate a complaint against these two agencies, and from that we were able to obtain an employment equity program. At this point we're monitoring that program to ensure that those companies comply with the terms of settlement that we agreed to.

Another had to do with CUPE Local 43 against the city of Toronto, where women who were attempting to get into nontraditional jobs were not being successful because of a clause in a collective agreement. The commission attempted to mediate the issue, to resolve it in an informal way, but we were unable to do so, so the commission had to initiate a complaint. At this time, we're still in the process of attempting to conciliate with the local to remove that particular clause which we find to be discriminatory and which is impacting against women. In fact, it's preventing women from accessing certain jobs in the local.

Those are just three examples of the kinds of initiatives we have undertaken.

Mr Curling: Mr Edwards or the commissioner can answer this. Concerns were expressed that when there are cases that come before the commission on an individual basis and maybe a systemic problem is found, early settlement is seen to be the order of the today, first to get it off the books and, now that the individual wants that early settlement, because they want that individual problem to be resolved. If it goes in a systemic direction, they feel that it takes a long time and they feel their justice is being denied. This was expressed by a couple of presenters. Do you find that? I don't want to accuse the commission of the practice of early settlement in the sense to get it off the books, but it was expressed that it is the feeling that companies want this early settlement because the publicity would be negative to their business and individuals want it because it gives them their money and helps them to go on in their life. Do you find that as the way that things happen?

Ms Rosemary Brown: The reason for the early settlement initiative is not to get the cases off the books; it's because, as one of the presenters articulated, justice deferred is justice denied. It really is simply a case of trying to resolve a dispute as expeditiously as possible. It has nothing to do with our statistics and trying to get it off the books.

But the fact that it has been settled as an early settlement initiative doesn't mean that the commission, if it recognizes that it is a systemic issue, cannot itself deal with it in terms of generating awareness and support around the issue. It can be handled by a public policy or public education around that issue. It can be dealt with that way.

Mr Curling: But you don't find that a company that, say, would have had a case of sexual harassment by one of the managers or so, that the fact is that the settlement would be agreed upon not because of that -- would you say, "Okay, what is it that individual wants?" and the commission would say: "Here is what that individual wants. There is pain and suffering etc and all this compensation to be given." If that's the case and the company decides to pay a set amount of money because of this pain and suffering they've brought to this individual, would the case be over from that point of view, or would the Human Rights Commission continue to pursue the case to find out whether or not it's a systemic problem and pursue to resolve the matter in that direction?

1020

Ms Rosemary Brown: The first thing is that the commission has no option but to endeavour to effect a settlement. That is our mandate. We have to do that. In the process of trying to do that, this is negotiated. It's not simply a matter of the commission trying to force the two parties to come to an agreement. It should be a mutually acceptable decision as to whether the settlement is satisfactory to both parties or not.

On the other part of your question, which had to do with whether the issue is carried any further or not, really, to a large extent we have to respect the complainant's wishes. If a complainant, for example, says that as a part of the settlement we want that this issue not be made public and that it not be discussed further, we have to respect that, if that's part of the agreement.

Sexual harassment, I think, is an interesting one that you use, because it certainly is one of the younger areas of human rights, one of the emerging areas of human rights, and one that we are wrestling with in terms of even being able to analyse it and to identify it clearly in a neutral and unbiased kind of way. So I think that's an interesting one, and certainly an issue that I see the systemic unit using the body of decisions which come down from the board of inquiry as a jumping-off point to examine further within the commission itself.

Mr Curling: Moving on to a new question, presenters here also, Commissioner, felt that the role the commission has been playing as prosecutor, defence, educator, all these, sometimes conflicts with the role that really it should be playing; in other words, it is placed in a very uncomfortable position. As you said, at the time that a complaint is lodged, the companies feel there is a no-win for them, because when the person complains, they feel that they are against the Human Rights Commission plus the person who made the complaint, and they feel that they have to get lawyers to combat the Human Rights Commission.

Is that the feeling of the commission too, that you find yourself in a rather awkward position because you then find yourself defending the complainant in some respect of carrying out that investigation?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No. The mandate of the commission is to be neutral, impartial, and that is the goal of the commission. The human rights officers who do the investigation have to accept that their role is not to take sides either with the respondent or with the complainant, but to be neutral. I was really interested, when I was reading the presentations that were made, that there were respondents who said the investigators were biased on behalf of the complainants and there were complainants who accused the investigators of being biased on behalf of the respondents. So if both sides feel there is a bias, it is quite possible that we are actually doing the right thing and remaining neutral throughout this process.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Commissioner, is there not a presumption on the part of the commission that the person who has been accused has an onus on him or her to prove innocence? In the court of law there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty. It seems to me from the representations I have had made to me by people who have had experience with the commission that it is their assumption, and there was a controversy some months ago about this, that a person must prove his or her innocence when accused.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Absolutely not. The role of the human rights officer is to be neutral and impartial. There is no presumption. The only responsibility that the investigator has is to take the compliant seriously and to begin, as mandated, to investigate it. But there is no presumption either of innocence or of guilt on either the part of the complainant or the part of the respondent.

Mr Bradley: The other question that arises is surrounding how many people will pay simply to get it off the front page. I'm interested in the experience that you would have because I asked a previous witness whether he felt on that occasion that a lot of people paid the money, made a settlement, so that they wouldn't have to go through an embarrassing trial in the media as opposed -- not a court trial, of course, but in the media, and that it would be better for that person to simply pay the hush money and be done with the issue rather than go through an embarrassing public case. As we know, many in the public at the end of the day simply remember, "Oh, yes, that is the company that was accused of being racially biased," for instance, or biased against some group that the commission would deal with.

What has been the experience of the commission in terms of people willing to make a settlement before the final investigation has been completed?

Ms Rosemary Brown: First of all, the commission would not in any way influence either a respondent or a complainant to settle to keep their names off the front page. That is not the business of the commission. The business of the commission is to ensure that fairness is done, that they are neutral and impartial, that they investigate the issue and that at the end of the day, the complaint is resolved in a fair and equitable manner.

The publicity which is generated by this or the impact of such publicity is not part of the concern or the mandate of the commission and the commission staff. The investigators know that they cannot influence a person's decision one way or another in terms of what kind of publicity they will get. They have to remain neutral investigators. That is their training. That is their mandate. That is the expectation that exists of them. That is one of the reasons why one of the initiatives the commission has embarked on is so focused on training our investigators to ensure that at all times they never, ever lose their neutrality.

Mr Bradley: Another witness also made a case for the commission acting as a better gatekeeper than has been the case in the past. It was the estimation of the witness that too many frivolous cases proceed, therefore contributing to the backlog that the commission must deal with and not allowing investigators and other members of the commission the appropriate time to deal with the genuine cases that required the full attention of the commission. It was his suggestion, again, that a lot of the annoyance with the commission would be reduced if the commission would eliminate frivolous cases at the beginning and deal with the genuine cases in a very thorough manner. Would you comment on that?

1030

Ms Rosemary Brown: As you can understand, human rights is a continually changing and emerging concern to all of us, and the commissioners have to make some really tough decisions as to what is frivolous and what is not.

Under section 34, we have a mandate which allows us to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous or that it has not been filed in good faith. In fact, 8% of the cases which were closed last year were dealt with under section 34 of the code. We are very aggressively looking at section 34 of the code and using it once we are completely satisfied that the case either is not filed in good faith or that it was frivolous. But there are difficult decisions that have to be made and, you know, one person's frivolous is another person's hurt.

The only thing the commissioners can do is to continue to take these issues extremely seriously and to give great weight and deliberation to their considerations as to whether a complaint should be deemed to be frivolous or whether it should be pursued. But the commissioners, in making that decision, are never frivolous. They do take the making of that decision very seriously.

Mr Cousens: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let me begin by apologizing if in any way I offended you at the earlier part of the meeting with comments that had to do with one's history --

The Chair: Okay. Don't get in any deeper.

Mr Cousens: -- and how long it is, in other words.

Mr Bradley: Were you abusing the Chair when I was away?

Mr Cousens: I was. I want to be disabused, that's all. I mean, people were ready to start handing her forms to fill out and so I just --

The Chair: Your clock is running.

Mr Cousens: My clock is really running, I tell you.

We had a presentation before the committee this week by the Chinese World Journal, Wei Fu, and he made three recommendations at the conclusion of his report. I'm going to raise these as well with the honourable minister when she comes, but I'd just appreciate your comment on the three points that he had, if I may.

The first: He feels that it would be excellent if crown attorneys, who can already prosecute for fishing, traffic and other provincial offences -- there is no reason why they couldn't prosecute human rights offences. He's sensitive to the fact that crown attorneys and judges aren't fully reflecting the feelings of victims of racism, so he recommends the province put the Ministry of the Attorney General in charge of investigation and prosecution of human rights offences. That's the first one that he raises.

The second one, just so you have a chance to comment on it, because you would have received a copy of his report, is he feels that the Human Rights Commission is rotten to its core, impossible to reform. "The complete dismantling of this institution would only benefit the cause of human rights. The Ontario Human Rights Commission does not work. If racism is like cancer, the OHRC is the wrong medicine to treat the disease." I'd be interested in your comment on his views when he said that.

Finally, he's concerned about the law enforcement section of the OHRC and he feels the last three parts of the bill regarding enforcement really aren't strong enough. He says, "Few would argue that to maintain safety on highways the authority can overlook the law enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act and stress public education. However, when talking about the protection of human rights many people would say that the law enforcement is not important. The priority is public education. It is my view that the respect of the OHRC can be achieved by having public education and law enforcement working hand in hand."

Those are the three points that Mr Wei Fu made. I just wondered if you had any comments on his presentation.

Ms Rosemary Brown: His first comment, about why the crown prosecutors shouldn't deal with the issue with making decisions rather than the board of inquiry, I am going to turn that over to our legal counsel because the finer points of the law baffle me. I'm going to let him deal with that.

Mr Mark Frawley: Again, for the record, Mark Frawley, acting director of legal services branch.

Proceedings at boards of inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code are not prosecutions, so it would be inappropriate to think of them as prosecutions. Crown counsel did act as commission counsel, as I think we discussed before when I was here, and now the commission has its own counsel who act for it at boards of inquiry. So if it's the issue of who acts, whether a crown counsel could be made available, that's a human resources issue presumably, not a legal one. As for it being a prosecution, it would be entirely inappropriate to think of it as a prosecution. There are different rules of evidence that apply, different ways of approaching the hearing, that a criminal trial has as opposed to the administrative law proceeding that a board of inquiry is.

Ms Rosemary Brown: "This institution is rotten to its core, impossible to reform." Clearly, I'm in total disagreement with that. I believe the Human Rights Commission of Ontario is one of the outstanding human rights commissions in the world. I believe the code is certainly the strongest code that we have in this country in terms of dealing with human rights issues.

We have recognized that there are problems, which is precisely the reason why we have embarked on the changes which I discussed on February 1 when I appeared before the commission. If in fact after listening to all of the complaints about the commission and examining and doing an analysis of it, the conclusion had been that reform is impossible, as he said, that would have been our recommendation too. We would have recommended that reform is impossible.

It is because we know that reform is not only possible but that reform is taking place and is moving along successfully -- slowly, but successfully -- that we embarked on these eight initiatives and that we are optimistic about them.

I want to clearly state for the record that a comment which says that, "The institution is rotten to the core" is a very troubling one and an erroneous one -- totally erroneous. The other statement that reform is impossible could only be made by someone who really does not understand the workings of the Human Rights Commission.

The comment he made about the enforcement: Of course we're trying to improve and strengthen the enforcement. This is the reason why again the restructuring of the commission has been embarked upon and why it is we're trying to make the kinds of changes which will improve our efficiency and effectiveness and help us to use the few resources we have more strategically. So I want to dissociate myself from the comments of this presenter.

Mr Cousens: A presentation was made as well from Lou Ronson and Karen Mock -- Lou Ronson, former vice-chair of the OHRC and past national chair of the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith. He made a couple of points here in background when he says: "It is totally unacceptable, in my view, to have several hundred human rights cases lingering for three years or more in the case load. It is equally unacceptable to carry a backlog which, on the average, could take a year or more to resolve." Would you like to make any comment on that statement?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Sure. First of all, the case load of the commission, as I stated earlier, if we are doing our work and if the commission is respected, we're always going to have a case load. We're always going to have a large case load. The goal of the commission is to shorten the time it takes a case to pass through the system. The changes we've embarked upon are definitely focusing on trying to make that happen.

I certainly agree that in the past cases have, for one reason or another, found themselves in the system for seven years, eight years, six years and that kind of stuff. We're trying to bring an end to that. Our goal is to have cases resolved before they even reach the three-year point. As I said, it's going to take us a while to do that, but the ESIs, which we hope to be done in 90 days, we hope to see more of our cases resolved that way. The more difficult ones which have to become formal cases, our goal is to see them resolved within 18 months; two years at the maximum. That's going to take time. It's not going to happen overnight.

1040

Mr Cousens: Mr Ronson also proposed that: "the equivalent of a small claims court be established, with no more than three full-time commissioners sitting as a tribunal on a daily basis, to adjudicate selected cases of lesser importance to the public interest. Such cases would not consume the considerable amount of time now spent on stale investigations by investigators and other members of staff, who are in short supply. The complainant and respondents would be required to appear before the tribunal with witnesses and counsel, if any. Counsel for the complainant would be provided, as now, by the commission. Summary judgement would then be rendered on the basis of provided evidence and/or credibility."

I have real sympathy. That idea comes through in a number of different presentations. I think it's implicit to Mr Fu's thought process. But again, I think when Mr Ronson makes that recommendation, from his extensive background with the Human Rights Commission, it brings credibility to the suggestion. I'm most interested in your comments on it and I'll be asking the minister on this as well.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Sure, I think it really merits consideration. It's one of the recommendations, as you said, that's come up a number of times. Certainly I've heard it in my meeting with community groups and in travelling around the province. It's worth thinking about.

Mr Cousens: I realize it's more our job to change that.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Absolutely.

Mr Cousens: You're also now in a position where you bring a tremendous amount of experience and thought processes to it, and so I very much want to know your thinking before we surprise you with legislation that wouldn't work.

Dr Karen Mock, who is the national director of the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, brings forward a suggestion that I would very, very much like to do, and I don't think it requires any outside legislation to make it happen. She says that we could "make more effective use of existing community organizations, first by giving them better access to the process by granting them standing, to advocate on behalf of deserving complainants, and/or allowing third-party intervention; and secondly, by offering support to community organizations, wherever appropriate, when services are rendered to complainants, respondents or the commission itself."

Her point, to me, would allow certain groups that have staff, organization, committed people and trained researchers available, then, to act not unlike the way Mr McLean has acted when going before the Ontario Energy Board and different other places as a respondent to be in a position to act as one that's monitoring and mentoring within the process. Could I have your comments on that one and maybe on some action that could be taken by the commission to facilitate a closer working relationship with such people?

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think that certainly in terms of intervenor status at the boards of inquiry some community groups already are exercising that.

Interjection: On variety stores.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. I was hoping not to bring up the variety stores, but from what I've been told, certainly that was a good example where community groups could act as intervenors at that stage. Certainly, groups like CERA and ARCH work very much on behalf of the complainant.

The bottom line still is, though, that the commission is not advocating on behalf either of a complainant or a respondent; the commission's role is to ensure that the complaint which is filed is resolved in an equitable manner.

So although it's okay for individuals to go through a community group which will assist them in the process, the neutrality of the commission has to be protected at all times. I'm not sure you can do that if you permit groups, either on behalf of respondents or on behalf of complainants, to use the commission process as a means of battling it out in terms of the groups they represent.

Mr Cousens: I hear you saying two things: on the one part, that we have an intervenor status in a number of situations, which have become causes célèbres, and it seems to be part of that process, and indeed I think it would help in at least clarifying evidence in situations better than if they weren't there.

A group for which I have tremendous high regard is the B'nai Brith organization and its league for human rights. As a member of the Legislature, I have referred to them many times. In fact, they were an inspiration for me in a private member's bill that I've since had to withdraw that would have dealt with continuing hate propaganda that goes on. So I listen to them, and I see them as advocates in a very excellent way within our society.

What I'd like to encourage and ask you to look at, as a carry-home exercise if you can, is ways in which you could recognize certain groups like them and have them in some way as partners or aware or involved or informed where possible so that they are then not on the outside looking in but somewhere close to the inside looking out.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Now a number of these groups that you've named work very closely with our public policy unit around the development of policy in a number of areas. But you're absolutely correct that it is worth looking at maybe new ways of building links with these groups in turn. But it always is going to be in the development of policy. The commission is always going to be responsible for carrying the complaint.

Mr Cousens: Oh, I understand that. That's true with an intervenor in the Ontario Energy Board or any of those places.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, sure.

Mr Cousens: It doesn't cut into the authority or responsibility or accountability of that board in the processing of its hearings.

Ms Rosemary Brown: No. But certainly in the area of public policy, we've actually relied very heavily on some of the experiences of these community groups on behalf of the groups for which they advocate in developing some of our policies around issues.

Mr Cousens: I wouldn't want it just to be policy, though. I would be happier with your answer if you were prepared and willing to look at some of the other ways in which they can have some status in the process. Now, if you take Dr Mock's review, they don't feel they have that opportunity or invitation or welcome mat; so not just the development of policy but in the institution.

Ms Rosemary Brown: And not just at the board of inquiry? They can advocate at the board of inquiry.

Mr Cousens: There are ways in which you can help facilitate that. The recommendation is based on, as I read it, a certain exclusion to their involvement. I think what really we want, not you -- it's us; I mean, it's our commission -- is to make sure that we've got doors open for them to participate. That's really her point. They offer case management expertise and they would like to have better access to the process by granting them standing to advocate on behalf of deserving complainants. I'm supportive of that kind of thinking from them.

Ms Rosemary Brown: As long as we can protect the integrity of the commission's neutral status and as long as our role as a carrier is recognized, sure, no problem.

Mr Cousens: I think you could.

The Chair: Mr McLean, two minutes.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a letter from a lady in Lindsay, Ontario, by the name of Carol Kolmann, who in 1989 was injured on the job and went to WCB.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Just before you proceed any further, can I ask you whether this is a case which is still before the commission or whether it's one that is --

Mr McLean: I will get to that.

Ms Rosemary Brown: But it's important that I not discuss a case which is presently either before a board of inquiry or within the process.

1050

Mr McLean: I want to know what I should do, and that's the question I'm going to ask you, because this individual has been to the WCB chairman, she's been to the Deputy Minister of Labour, she's been to the Premier, she's been to her member. In 1991 she wrote to the Human Rights Commission, and in December 1993 she finally got her papers filed and finalized to go through to the Human Rights Commission.

What do I say to a person like that who comes to my office? She's already done everything that's possible. Why does it take so long, from 1991 to 1993, to get to the Human Rights Commission to deal with that issue? That's the question. There are two years there from when you were first contacted until the papers were signed to proceed.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I cannot speak directly to the complaint. I can simply make a general assurance and say that it is a problem that we've run into of time between when a complaint is filed and when it's actually been dealt with which has triggered some of the changes we've now introduced. An experience of waiting two years for a letter is one that will not happen, should not happen again, because we've now got in place the structure that would make such an occurrence repeating almost an impossibility.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'd like to welcome all of you back here today. I want to begin by asking a question that has already been touched on, but I would like to add to that question of whether or not the commission can be indeed neutral, and of course you said that is your role. The problem is that whether you believe that or not, or whether that is the case, many of the people who deal with the Human Rights Commission believe that is not the case. We all know in politics that perceptions become the reality if that is the case.

A number of people have argued that the officers are biased against the claimants. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association of course argues that the investigator is biased, because he or she becomes the advocate for the complainant. You have a number of different sectors of society that deals with you that has different views of where the bias lies, and of course the commission says, "We're neutral."

You're playing a lot of different roles, as part of what you need to do, and part of playing those different roles creates the difficulty. Some say we should separate investigation from mediation, as part of the fact that you play many different roles, so as not to confuse what your actual role should be.

These are the perceptions that many of the people who deal with you have about what is wrong with the commission. How do you deal with that, other than saying, "They're all trained to be neutral"?

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think I mentioned earlier today that when I was reading the presentations, I also came across a number of advocacy groups that accuse the commission of being biased on behalf of the respondent. So both sides claim that there's a bias, and working on the theory that they cancel each other off, I concluded that we really were neutral. But you don't buy that.

Mr Marchese: No.

Ms Rosemary Brown: In fact, the commission's advocacy role is quite separate and independent from its enforcement role, and there are all kinds of procedural safeguards in place to maintain this separation. The perception isn't going to change, I quite agree with you, until our staff actually do begin behaving in a neutral and independent and unbiased way.

This is part of the training that they have been getting recently, within the last eight months, and part of the training that they're going to continue to get until they're able to go out and obtain evidence and analyse whatever evidence they uncover and to do all of this in a clearly neutral and unbiased way. It's going to take time, but the process is not what's at fault here. It's that the perception is going to have to change, and that will only change over time.

Mr Marchese: The difficulty about the process of course is that many are saying that in spite of the efforts you're making, it isn't enough and you're not getting to the root problems, but that comes back to systemic issues to which you've spoken.

But I wanted to talk about the training that you have touched on. I recall correctly that you've spent about 308 days of training --

Ms Rosemary Brown: Over the last eight months.

Mr Marchese: Quite a lot of days of training. Connected to this issue of training, however, I think it was Mr Baker who said that there is inadequate training on disability issues. He says that the cases are dismissed at times because the disability is qualified as not being severe enough. I think he talks about the need to have accommodation guidelines because things seem not to have clear definition of what a disability is or should be or what is the threshold for that.

So in spite of the training that you have provided, he doesn't see any visible evidence that things have changed with respect to people with disability.

Ms Rosemary Brown: In his presentation he went back quite a number of years, if I remember correctly, in terms of the comments that he made about the commission. The training that the staff have received within the last eight months is just the beginning; it's the kicking-off. There is going to be more training. It's going to be an ongoing process until we do have the quality of staff that we want.

But the complaints about not understanding or not having a clear definition as to what a disability is I think are directed almost more at the commissioners than they are at the front-line staff, because usually when a section 34 is decided on, it's the commissioners who have decided that this is not a case which we should deal with at this time because it's not a disability, or if a decision is made that it shouldn't go to board, again, it's the commissioners who in their collective wisdom have come to that decision. There are going to be instances where we're going to be disagreeing with the advocate groups on these things. I don't think there's any way of getting around that.

Mr Marchese: But you obviously are saying that everyone is getting training on disability issues and that they'll have a better --

Ms Rosemary Brown: Eventually, yes.

Mr Marchese: So they are constantly getting training on issues of disability.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. In the olden days we used to refer to it I guess as a raising of the consciousness around these issues. This is going to be an ongoing process, not just with disability but with all of the emerging human rights issues.

Mr Marchese: Of course. I did ask him whether he had met with you -- he said yes -- and what your response was.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I gather he was very unhappy because I hadn't convinced the government to take the guidelines and make them into regulations. I think if you want him to be happy with me, I'm going to have to throw myself on your mercy and see to it that those guidelines will be incorporated into regulations before we meet again.

Mr Curling: Sounds good.

Mr Marchese: We've got Alvin on our side.

Getting to the issue of early settlement initiative, some have argued of course that these cases are easily resolved through mediation, but they're quite different and they should not be confused with a formal complaint being filed.

When you speak about the fact that 67% of complaints are closed within six months, it turns out the commission includes in these numbers cases in which no action complaint was filed, which were resolved through a telephone call or whatever process that can be easily dealt with, and that's what we mean by early settlement initiative. Is that the case?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, that's what we mean by early settlement, that it didn't move to the next stage, which would be a formal complaint stage.

Mr Marchese: But that still leaves all of the other problems connected to all the other cases, naturally, and that's what people are very concerned about. CERA has put together a whole list of complaints that are still ongoing and need to be addressed, and I'm not sure how you're dealing with that. There are two pages of complaints connected to that which you might respond to, and I want to read them as quickly as I can so that I can get your response.

1100

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think I have the CERA presentation.

Mr Marchese: Page 12. It would be useful to speak to those concerns, because I presume that all of these are based on case histories, and I think this study goes all the way up to 1992 or 1993; appendix A, 1989 to the present.

Ms Rosemary Brown: That's right.

Mr Marchese: If that's the case, we still have ongoing problems to deal with. Training may be getting at it, but they're not convinced that it's worked.

Ms Rosemary Brown: No, but a lot of the CERA cases are in with the task force cases. We gave a commitment that they would be closed. They are a number of the older cases, as they said, and a number of them will be closed by March 31. CERA had a whole file and a graph and all kinds of things -- there, that's what I need to look at. Their cases are old cases, and they're the ones that are being dealt with. By the end of the fiscal year, a number of the CERA cases will be closed.

Mr Marchese: Okay.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Where is their graph? Okay.

Mr Marchese: Ms Brown, let me make some comments about this, because CERA provides a chart showing average length of time for human rights complaints filed with the commission. They say the investigation takes an average of 28 months, 11 months for the commission to make a decision and another 12 months until the first real day of hearings. That is a case history, and presumably you're saying all of this will change.

Ms Rosemary Brown: This is what we're changing. I mean, CERA's talking about since 1989. What we've just introduced within the last seven or eight months are different time lines, so if CERA would allow the new initiative a chance to kick in and to work for a while, they probably would find that they have a completely different graph to deal with.

Mr Marchese: All right. I understand that, and I can accept that. But they're still saying that in spite of the changes you've talked about that are happening in the commission, they still do not address some of the concerns they raise. "Complainants are discouraged from filing formal complaints, even if such would be warranted."

Ms Rosemary Brown: Just a minute. An officer does not have a mandate to discourage a complainant from filing a complaint. Under the code, we cannot refuse to accept a complaint if someone chooses to file one, and the officers are aware of that.

Mr Marchese: I remember you saying that the last time you were here, but obviously this is still an ongoing concern, because based on their history of cases they take on, presumably it still happens.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, which is the reason why I asked the last time I was here that when issues like this are raised, names be attached to them. It's not enough to say officers are doing this. Which officers? What office? At what time? If I'm to look into it and investigate it, I need to know more than --

Mr Marchese: I agree. Absolutely. I often say to people, "If there's a complaint, attach a name and a face to it so that people can deal with it." I agree with that.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Right.

Mr Marchese: "Complaints of an innovative or more complex nature or which do not involve direct discrimination are discouraged." This is a statement they make.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. I've read their presentation, and I really wish they had done a better job of documenting the critical issues which they raised.

Mr Marchese: By attaching specific cases?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. I need to know.

Mr Marchese: I think they would be very wary of doing that in a public way, obviously.

Ms Rosemary Brown: But how do I then follow through on this? When I know the training that the officers get, and the evidence which we get from the officers is that they are behaving in the way in which they are trained to behave, how do I deal with the criticism that says, "If it's a complicated and difficult case, somebody is discouraging them from filing it"?

Mr Marchese: That's fine. I understand. For each comment you would have the same answer, and I accept that. I also understand that they would have a very difficult time putting in writing and in a public way that kind of information. But I would urge all those who have critical objections to what is happening to meet with you, obviously, and to talk specifically about all of these cases. So continuing to read through them, I will leave them with you and then --

Ms Rosemary Brown: Let me assure you that one of the things we're doing is each day at the end of this hearing a report is prepared which is sent out right across the commission staff so they know what issues are being raised here and what comments are being made about them. So we're certainly going to follow this up and ensure that they get the full gist of the presentations, but again, specific items of criticism we can't deal with unless someone comes forward and says mea culpa, mea culpa.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate that. On the other hand, we're not dismissing their complaints --

Ms Rosemary Brown: Not at all.

Mr Marchese: -- because for every complaint I always think there is something attached to it.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, absolutely.

Mr Marchese: So as you wait for them to come to you and talk to you specifically about that --

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, the message is being reinforced continually.

Mr Marchese: Very well. I want to move on to a paper that Malcolm J. MacKillop, a partner in Borden and Elliot, has submitted to us. They've made a number of interesting suggestions about how to deal with all of the case load problem. I think they say that some efforts have been made that are useful; however, serious problems still remain in terms of how you deal with the issues. They speak about a better case management system, and presumably a more effective case management system than you already have in place. I could just refer to the page again, if you want, or ask you to look at that.

Ms Rosemary Brown: What page is that?

Mr Marchese: It all begins on page 3 here, how the commission responded, the investigation process and potential changes on page 4, case load management on page 5, where they talk about creating non-negotiable timetables. Ms Brown, I don't mind having the director respond to some of these. I think it's useful to have him talk to some of these things as well.

They speak about using informal procedures, making them adaptable, prioritizing, having pre-trial conferences and the like. If you had an opportunity to see this it would be useful to get your response to it, but based on what I read last night, by re-reading this, it seems that there's a lot to these suggestions that obviously would improve much of the work that you have begun.

Ms Rosemary Brown: The executive director will respond.

Mr Scott Campbell: Scott Campbell, executive director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Just a number of points, Mr Marchese. First of all, in terms of the points that are raised in this submission, they're certainly worthy of consideration. There's no question about that.

One of the points that I made the last day I was here I will make again. What we are trying to do at the commission is go beyond dealing with case management strategies and deal with an entire organizational change agenda, so therefore it doesn't simply deal with managing the cases; it deals with managing the entire commission itself. By changing it we will make case load management or the management of the case load much more efficient and effective.

So I don't disagree that the points the council has made are worthy of consideration, but I think if we are going to turn the commission around we have to look at things beyond simple case management strategies. We have to put them in a broader context of organizational change.

Mr Marchese: I would argue that you have to do both simultaneously.

Mr Campbell: I don't disagree with that, and in fact, if you look at the eight initiatives that the chief commissioner outlined, one of them was referred to as non-legislative options for enhancing the enforcement procedures of the code, and indeed, the essential components of that set of strategies are to enhance case load management.

1110

Ms Rosemary Brown: Some of the recommendations that are included here are actually already in place. Certainly the pre-conference recommendation is one which is already being used prior to a board of inquiry hearing, and the settlement rate for that is extremely high; it's about 70%.

The other one which he mentioned was that the early settlement initiative didn't have a strict timetable, but that's not true. The early settlement initiative does have a strict timetable and both parties are consulted through it. They have 90 days. You can't be more strict than that, and both parties are made aware of that fact.

Again, what we keep running into in a number of these presentations are critiques of the commission based on practices of 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, those kinds of stuff, and we have not done a very good job to date of informing the community at large of the changes which have been taking place, because the changes have been taking place.

Now that they're in place we're in a position to start sending the word out into the community about that.

Mr Marchese: I accept those internal changes as being very positive and I think that will reflect itself in the end. I also believe that a number of the presentations that have been made are very useful and good and can still add to case management approaches.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Absolutely.

Mr Marchese: Organizational change is critical, because without it case load management is insufficient, although case load management can always be approved.

Of course, many still argue that your role should change from individual to systemic. As much as you've been involved with systemic issues in limited ways, many argue that that should be your prime focus. To a large extent I also agree that those systemic changes need to be the focus of the commission.

Twenty minutes have elapsed?

The Chair: Yes. I'm not doing this; the clock is.

Just while we're waiting two or three minutes for the minister to arrive -- she is here. That's great.

Just to clarify, this document was handed out this morning which is from the OHRC. It's a response to a question by Elizabeth Witmer dated February 8. In the first two lines there's a reference to 1994 which I think should be 1993.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, September 10, 1993. Thank you.

The Chair: And the second line would also be 1993.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. It was effective 1993.

The Chair: All right. If the committee members would note that correction we'll accept this.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Can I express my appreciation to the Chair for bringing these errors to our attention. We really do appreciate it and thank you very much.

The Chair: We just want to have everything accurate, Ms Brown. Thank you. We'll see you this afternoon at 2 o'clock and we'll start with your statement at 2 o'clock.

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

The Chair: Welcome to the minister. We're glad that you're here, Minister Ziemba.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights): Thank you.

The Chair: We only have 45 minutes with you so I'm at the direction of the committee. I'm presuming that the committee just wants to go into 15-minute rotations with the minister. Is that correct?

Mr Bradley: Yes.

The Chair: We'll start with the Conservatives because we started with you first thing this morning, Mr Curling, as you will recall.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Madam Chair, I have a statement first, for about 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr Bradley: That's an old ministerial trick.

Mr Cousens: Bradley was really good at that too.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Was he? You mean I'm following in his footsteps? Oh, Mr Bradley.

The Chair: Minister, I was going to suggest that if you have it in a hard copy, why don't we hand it out to the committee and they can read it? I think in fairness, when they only have 15 minutes each to talk about what they've been hearing for the last seven or eight hearing days, they might like this opportunity to talk to you and they can read your statement. We'll get the clerk to make copies of it.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Okay, that's fair enough, but if I could take an opportunity first of all to say thank you very much. I think it was the Liberal caucus that invited me to be its witness, so I thank you very much for this opportunity to be here this morning, and thank you to the Chair because I know that you've done a lot of work on this particular committee. I want to congratulate and thank you for your initiatives in the work that you've been doing preceding this committee work and also during the time the committee has sat on this issue.

I also want to thank all the members because I know that they have expressed very good interest in what I think is so fundamental to all of us in Ontario, and that's the basis of how we proceed with human rights issues. Of course, as I've always said in the House, we must share in making sure that human rights issues are looked at and make sure that people are protected in Ontario.

We're proud of that record and I want to share with all of you that I thank you for your cooperation. I've had wonderful cooperation from my critics who have worked very hard with me on some of these particular issues. So thank you. That's what I wanted to say. Congratulations.

The Chair: Thank you for bringing copies with you.

Hon Ms Ziemba: You're very welcome.

The Chair: Obviously, your staff are doing their job and now the committee members will all have a copy. We'll start with the Conservatives. Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: The question I have to deal with is a very simple one: When does a case become a case before the Human Rights Commission? When persons submit a form giving their complaint, an investigator is not assigned at that point and it doesn't become a case; it becomes a situation or something else. It doesn't become a case until an investigator is assigned. Am I correct?

Hon Ms Ziemba: That's right.

Mr Cousens: I want to just deal with the time when a person submits the request for action to the time the investigator gets involved. How much time can elapse from the time a person submits the complaint to the time an investigator deals with it?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think because the relationship that a minister has with the commission itself -- and this is a very technical detail -- as you probably know, the minister plays an active role in first of all dialoguing with the chief commissioner, and I've been very fortunate to have very good chief commissioners and good commissioners who run the commission very, very appropriately.

But on a day-to-day operation, if I may just ask the staff to respond to that particular very technical question. The minister does not get involved.

Mr Cousens: It leads to the second question. There's a time lapse from the time it is recorded as received as a complaint within the commission's processes and then there's a time when an investigator is assigned. The lapse between those two is one period of time.

What I want to ask is the second question that ties into it and maybe someone can help us: How many cases are sitting within that gap? Now, you don't call them cases. How many situations are there sitting within that gap? Because that really becomes another number that should go on beneath. If someone could give you some help on that I'd appreciate it. I want to talk further about it.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think before they do this you would probably have to say that at certain times in this process there are different numbers and there are different percentages, because we get a huge amount of inquiries in a year, as you have noted, with only a small segment of those actually becoming cases.

So we might say that in any given time there would be a different number. If we can't give you specific numbers today we can certainly give you that information in the --

Mr Cousens: That's fine. What you may well have is a range of fewer in the summer and more in the colder winter when people are getting cabin fever. Maybe you could answer those two questions or someone could assist you. I'd appreciate it because then I'd like to talk to you some more.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Do you want to attempt now or did you want to come back?

Interjections.

Ms Rosemary Brown: It really doesn't seem fair that we should be cutting into the minister's time.

The Chair: Excuse me, I'm sorry. Anything that is a response, Madam Minister, that you're getting, they have to come forward to the microphone in order to be picked up on Hansard.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I see. I think the response is --

Mr Cousens: It's my time as much as anyone's; I'm prepared to take the time. If it requires someone from the OHRC to come and help the minister answer it I'd be pleased to have that.

Just while they're coming to the table, the issue has to do with, it's a numbers game that we're in in the Ontario government.

1120

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, unfortunately.

Mr Cousens: So we're dealing with cases. We continue to be concerned with the backlog of cases. I don't think that the public is generally aware that there is also another number that should be looked at, and maybe what I'm leading to is that when the OHRC is talking about the number of cases that are actively under investigation by an investigator, that's one number, but then there is another number of those that have not yet reached the stage where an investigator has been assigned. When we're making our report as a committee, this is a whole area that I see as a major issue with the OHRC.

I feel that there is a lack of understanding on the part of legislators and the public at large. We deal only with cases when we're MPPs, and we say, "Oh, there are so many cases before the system," but then, how many are there in the backlog before they even become cases? There is a whole area of understanding that I feel is missing MPPs. I'm most anxious that we begin to have a record of that number, understand what the number is, understand what the time frame is and how many are in that whole box.

The Chair: Do you have that answer?

Mr Campbell: Again for the record, Scott Campbell, executive director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I'm sorry, Mr Cousens, I was outside, dealing with another issue there, but I think I have the essence of your question.

First of all, as the chief commissioner said in her opening remarks, as of December 31, 1993, there are 2,156 cases in the case load. Those cases are broken down into a variety --

Mr Cousens: No, you missed my question. Before it becomes a case, before an investigator is assigned -- I want to know how many are in the pot before a case has become a case. It becomes a case when an investigator is assigned. If a person submits a complaint, it then is received. It doesn't become a case until an investigator is assigned. The minister has just confirmed that. Is that not true?

Mr Campbell: Yes, that's correct.

Mr Cousens: All right. I'm asking, how many are in the system before the case starts? If you were to take any day that you want to choose in the last six months, how many were there that hadn't become cases that were situations that were before you because there had been letters received by people, before you started the short circuit of how much you're going to pay to get out of it? How many?

Mr Campbell: That figure I don't have, but I have the figure that I think you're looking for, which is, how many cases are in our system where there is no activity going on?

Mr Cousens: No, no, that is not my question. My question only has to do with those people who have sent letters to the OHRC, who have a situation where they're asking for an investigation and an investigator hasn't been approved.

The first question I asked the minister is, how much time does it take before an investigator is assigned? Maybe you can answer that one more simply.

Mr Campbell: The answer to the issue of how many cases are pending investigation is 808, just so we have that on the record.

Mr Cousens: No. That's fine. That's not the question I just asked, though.

Mr Campbell: I'm not trying to avoid your question, Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: I only have so much time. I have six minutes left and then I don't have another chance for another two years or something. My question is, what is the length of time before it becomes a case?

Mr Campbell: It varies. We have now established a time frame for ESIs, which is the first part of the process, to be completed in 90 days. So either the ESI is completed in 90 days and people sign off on that or, alternatively, it becomes a formal case.

Mr Cousens: It doesn't become a formal case until an investigator's assigned.

Mr Campbell: It doesn't become a formal case until the two parties have gone through the ESI process and said: "Look, I don't want to do the ESI process any more. I want a formal case."

The Chair: Could you identify that acronym?

Mr Campbell: Sorry, I apologize. Early settlement initiative is the explanation.

Mr Cousens: We talked about this earlier when the commissioner was before us, and the upset that I have with that, is because some people feel the pressures. Does it ever go longer than 90 days?

Mr Campbell: At this point in time, yes, it does. But we are working to bring the ESI closings, if you want to use that word, in under the 90 days. That is our commitment.

Mr Cousens: Okay. I have a situation. I'm most grateful to my colleague who is talking about an individual whose name I will not mention who, on August 6, 1991, wrote to the Human Rights Commission. I have this here: "My complaint forms were just completed and signed in November 1993." So there is a person who was, in August 1991, writing to you and it didn't even become a statistic as far as the numbers that you've been giving us as a commission until November 1993. So you're not talking just two or three or four or five months; you're talking well over a year and a half.

Mr Campbell: That's correct. There is no question that in terms of the early settlement initiative process in the past, there have been a significant number of cases that have sat for longer than 90 days. That is a commitment that we've made to this committee and we've made beyond this committee, to our clients.

Mr Cousens: Madam Minister, the question that I'm asking for you is either to provide to us or have provided to us as a committee to help us understand what's happening in the process -- because if we have a gap in knowledge, the gap has to do with before it becomes a case. It becomes an example of this very person here, and I really thank Mr McLean for giving it to me. I have them elsewhere. But if you're dealing with 18 months or two years and they're not a case, that's another statistic that is part of the undermining of human rights issues in the province of Ontario.

So to the minister I'm saying I would like very, very much to receive from you at the earliest opportunity for this committee to consider in its draft of its report the number of such circumstances there are, the number of situations. We're not going to call it a case, because they don't become a case until the investigator is assigned, and also with that the amount of time it's taking now to make them become a case and how many are outstanding before they have become a case that are in the system now that are backlogged.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, certainly we will provide you with that information.

Mr Cousens: Could it be in time for the committee to be dealing with our recommendations and our report?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I've been told yes.

The Chair: That's tomorrow.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Tomorrow?

The Chair: The initial drafting of the report is tomorrow.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I will take it upon myself to say that we will try, to the best of our ability, to get you all the information that is necessary and needed. Obviously, if we can't get you everything that you request, we will try to do it as soon as possible past tomorrow.

Mr Cousens: Why is it that in the reports of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Madam Minister, we have not had these numbers included in the statistics of the OHRC's activities and work? For example, this person is someone I would have, till recently, assumed -- and I say this to Mrs Marland as well -- was a case. But they're not even on the case load. So what I'm dealing with partially as a legislator is insufficient evidence in trying to deal with the whole issue. I've been going after the backlog and the cases and here it turns out we're dealing with a whole other backlog of situations which are at any different state or status in the system right now. I really challenge the ministry and say, why is it that this has not been more forthcoming as a piece of data?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that when we took office -- and I don't want to make this sound political -- there were a number of situations that we saw as not being appropriately managed within the commission itself. We had looked back at --

Mr Cousens: I'm just choking here.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I know, the water is very hard to drink sometimes.

Mr Marchese: Don't state the obvious, for God's sake.

Mr Cousens: This is fun.

1130

Hon Ms Ziemba: We very quickly identified that we had to work on making sure that there was good client and customer service, if you want to use those terms. The most important thing, as we look at all of the various initiatives that have been undertaken by the commission in the last year and a half, is to make sure that the customer, the client, the person who has a case before the Human Rights Commission is looked after in a caring way, an expedient way, and is dealt with as quickly as we can.

Yes, there have been some managerial problems in the past, and we recognize that and that's why we started to do the initiatives we did. We would not have started to do these initiatives if we had thought that the system was perfect the way it existed. I agree with you that we do have to work on a number of issues, and we will continue to do so as we look at recommendations, as I look forward to what you will be recommending to us.

Mr Cousens: How many months is it from August 6, 1991, to November 1993?

Mr McLean: Two years.

Mr Cousens: It's over two years, and you're trying to speed things up. Here is a person who was making their case towards the Human Rights Commission and they were not even on the case load because an investigator had not been assigned and they were not recognized as a case.

Therefore, as MPPs we were thinking the backlog was such and such. Here is a person who wasn't even part of the backlog that we've been worried about. So when the minister's saying that she's been very expeditious in speeding up the process, I have to say one area that we have not been looking at sufficiently is that whole area before they become a case.

To me, what I'd like to then do as part of our process as MPPs is that when we get the answer, it's something that we as a committee should come forward with some recommendations on how future recording of activity within the OHRC is being maintained and kept, so that when we're reflecting on progress and actions we will know how many there are before they become cases, how long they have been in that file and that status and how many are at certain stages in the early settlement process or any other settlement that is involved. I realize my time has expired.

Mr Marchese: Welcome, Madam Minister. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association made a submission, and one of the comments it made is the following: The investigator is biased and he or she is often the advocate for the complainant. Presumably, they see that as a problem. One of the comments they made is that the Human Rights Commission should really promote voluntary compliance with code obligations as its responsibility. Do you have a reaction to that?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I understand, obviously, that on the respondents' side there has been concern in the past that perhaps they were not ably represented at the commission or during case proceedings. We took that into account as we started to appoint new commissioners. I was very pleased that the CEO from Stelco, Mr Milbourne, agreed to sit on the commission as a commissioner and to work very hard with us as we looked at the realignment, the restructuring of the commission itself and also to work on the numbers game, as Mr Cousens was previously discussing. We are very pleased that we do have somebody from business who has very good experience on how respondents feel to sit and give those viewpoints to the commission and to be very actively involved.

I think that as we look back on the 31 years of the commission itself and why it was set up and why there was a need for the commission, we still realize that there are still incidents out there of discrimination, whether they be based on race or whether they be based on sex or ability. We as a government, as a group of people, as legislators, must always be conscious that we have not wiped out discrimination, we have not wiped out prejudice completely and why we have to still have a commission and why there is still a necessity for us to work on these particular issues.

I guess my long answer to the voluntary process is that we would like everybody to cooperate, to understand the issues, to be well educated, well informed, but there still is very much a need to have a Human Rights Commission.

Mr Marchese: Sometimes these statements surprise me, because I know that for every change that has occurred in society, it hasn't happened because people were simply nice and that because they're such good human beings all of a sudden they realize we've got to change the system because it's too discriminatory. Nothing happens without forcing people in society to change, and in this regard I say, yes, it would be nice to promote voluntary compliance, but we know it isn't happening so we have to make it happen.

In this respect, I argue that we do need systemic changes, and I'm not the only one who argues for that, obviously. Cornish, in her report, speaks to that and many of the people who made the presentations here today spoke to that effect. I agree with them, because I believe that unless you make the systemic changes, which is the general framework, the particulars are going to take for ever and the case load will continue to add and never be dealt with.

Devoting energies to the systemic changes is useful because in the long run it will be cheaper. Many argue that the present system is expensive because we deal with individual case load management that takes for ever to get to, and if you got to the general changes, it would be cheaper in the end.

What is your view of this, given that you've heard the submissions, you've had the Cornish report and so many other people must have talked to you about this?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Obviously systemic change always benefits great numbers of people. One of the reasons we decided to bring in employment equity legislation is that's one form of a systemic change that will certainly proceed and help in the issue of human rights in the workplace. It's a very strong and large component of making sure that we end discrimination in the workplace at every level. So employment equity is an issue and part of bringing about systemic change.

There was one brief time in the former, previous government where the Human Rights Commission played with the idea of only working on systemic cases and putting aside some of the areas of individual cases, where we entered into some problems. There still is a need to look at individual cases.

Mr Marchese: Of course.

Hon Ms Ziemba: There are individual cases that come forward that make great systemic changes in the future, that come to bear on the other cases that we will hear or that we know about, and often create a lot of public attention which brings about those changes. So I think there is still the balancing between the systemic aspect of the commission and legislation that is needed for systemic change, but also to balance out the rights of individuals. The commission has to play that role. I think it's extremely important.

Mr Marchese: Absolutely. I wouldn't ever argue that we separate the systemic from individual cases, in the same way that the director earlier on talked about needing to engage in organizational change, but it doesn't mean that you obviously not deal with case management. We say they need to happen simultaneously. It's a balance, I agree. I'm not arguing for systemic changes and abandoning individual cases, because they both need to happen at the same time.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Welcome, Madam Minister. The report from the commissioner said that changes are being made from the inside out and that these are quite far-reaching, but quite a few of the presenters have still said that we need more drastic changes. I understand that some of the recommendations of the Cornish report are being adopted within this inside-out approach, but it has been suggested to us that some of the problems are not going to be solved in this way, in particular I guess the backlog. I wonder if you could comment on how effective these inside-out changes are going to be and whether they will solve the problem.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think the commissioner in her comments earlier talked about the changes that have already started to occur within the commission. They've been very good changes and I think we've already seen some of those very good results. The backlog is starting to be eliminated. I think that's a good procedure. We're starting to adopt some of those changes on a very good basis.

I think as we look towards the Human Rights Commission, we always have to take into account that circumstances change outside the commission, life changes, demographics change, the world changes, and the commission has to be ready to adapt to those changes, evolve with those changes. I think when we look at the Mary Cornish report, it gives us a very good framework to start to evolve towards making those changes, to start to evolve into a commission that will be far-reaching and looking into the future.

We're very pleased that we've already been able to take some of those recommendations that Mary brought forward, incorporate them into the commission's activities on a day-to-day basis, and then look towards future building and the evolution of the commission to adapt to the needs of the larger community. I feel those changes will come about as we move in time.

1140

Ms Carter: I certainly share with you the feeling that a lot of good changes are taking place and that things will improve.

I was very impressed by one particular presentation that we had, and I think Mr Bradley has already alluded to some of the suggestions in this. There's a criticism that there is no limit to the number of cases that are accepted. So in a sense they're never going to win, because as they appear to be catching up on the case load, more and more people are encouraged to bring their complaints. Of course, now they're discouraged by the fact that often there's a great time lag. This person thought that there should be some tightening up as to what the commission would consider in the first place. Do you have any opinions on that?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think first of all there will always be cases, whether we want to use wordsmith games with whether it's a backlog or whether they're ongoing cases. I would hate to think we are trying to cut down on the rights of individuals or groups of individuals. People should have a place to go to if they feel they have faced any form of discrimination. As we proceed and bring about some pretty good changes and cases are publicized, there is usually an arena then for people to feel more comfortable to come towards the commission, and, as we saw last year, there was an increase in inquiries. One hundred and sixteen thousand inquiries in one year is an awful lot of people who felt that here's a place to go to, that they could share, that they could feel comfortable, that they would not be turned away. I think we would want to have that feeling expanded, that people do feel there is a place for them in our society, that they don't have to not share their experiences and that there's no one out there for them.

Obviously, depending on what your viewpoint is, whether you feel there is a concern about how many cases actually come forward or whether we want to just have a body that is there and hope that the numbers game is low, I would want to think that we in our society want to make sure that everyone is treated equally and fairly, so that there is a good commission for them to come to. I feel very proud when I see how many inquiries come forward, because it gives me a sense that the public at large is responding to our commission and to the good work it's doing. They certainly are trying to make those changes.

Ms Carter: There's the question of whether there should be a more systemic approach rather than individual complaints. Things like our employment equity legislation are going to take a systemic approach to making sure that some of those complaints never arise. Would you agree that rather than saying the complaints should be systemic, we're in fact attacking that kind of problem as it were at the root, as we are doing in employment equity, and there still has to be a forum for whatever complaints are still arising even after all those other things we're trying to do have made a difference?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think in bringing about legislation, when we can identify that there is a need to bring about systemic change in employment equity, it would show that approximately 70% of the cases in the past at the OHRC have dealt with employment issues, which is an incredible amount. So we can bring about systemic change through another format and bring about that change in another way. I think as we look towards the future, there will always be evolution and change in our society, in the way we think and our attitudes, so there might be new issues that arise that we have to adapt to.

One of the things we have tried to do in the commission itself -- and the commissioners have brought about these changes -- is making sure that the staff at the commission are educated and have training as the new issues arise. We've put in quite a good formal procedure to address that training procedure. I think that's a good step as we think about our way of thinking now and as we see the demographic changes.

I guess one of the areas we have seen as coming forward which has not been addressed in the past is some of the cases that come forward that deal with disabilities, that deal with persons with AIDS. These are new things that happen in our society where we always have to be at the forefront. I would think that the commission, as it has been in the past for many years, is a leader and should be a leader in identifying issues, that change in our society, and to bring about that change in a way that will benefit the larger society as a whole.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): One of the points that was made is that there's often seen some kind of tug between what is systemic and whether or not many of those cases should be dealt with in that way or should be individual.

I want to talk about an issue of efficiency. When you have situations where similar cases are arising from the same place of employment, and several of them are found on an individual basis in favour of the complainant, and there are several others to continue in the same light, is there an attempt made to then group those cases, not in a way that would disadvantage them, but approach the employer, talk about the similarities and therefore remove the necessity of going through 11 cases when the first four have been found in favour of the complainant and the others are so similar?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes. I think that's a very good point. Under the new case management that the commission has been working on, first in the backlog track, it took a number of cases that were similar in nature and tried to address them in that particular area.

Because the minister of the day has the responsibility of appointing boards of inquiry for the commission -- the commissioners give a recommendation of which cases should go before a board of inquiry -- I often see cases coming together where it might be one respondent and several claimants against that respondent. So that does occur now.

I know the commission, when it looks at case management, is also looking at having certain officers who might have expertise in a type of area as well, who might have had some training in that particular arena, so that they might have a better understanding on how to deal with certain cases.

They're looking at all of those forms of case management, and I think this is a better way of client service. Although we want to make sure that individuals are protected, this does protect individual rights as well if it's done in an appropriate manner.

Mr Curling: Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing. The Liberal Party thought it appropriate that the minister appear.

Hon Ms Ziemba: That's very kind of you. Thank you.

Mr Curling: We know you are the person who has the responsibility in overseeing the Ontario Human Rights Commission -- at arm's length, of course, I hurry to put on the record.

Your colleagues have quoted the Cornish report all during the review here. Most seem to be quite favourable towards the Cornish report. You yourself, just a few minutes ago, talked about some of the positive things of the Cornish report, but basically you have not come out formally and said anything about whether or not you have accepted the Cornish report and what recommendations in it you see as appropriate. Are you prepared now to make any statement on the Cornish report, whether you're prepared to accept it or reject it or what recommendations within it you're prepared to proceed with?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I'd like to thank you for inviting me to participate today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss human rights and the commission itself, and I welcome this opportunity.

If you look through my statement, and I'm not going to try to find the page right now, you will notice that the statement itself addressed the Mary Cornish report and discussed in that particular statement how we see the fact that Mary Cornish had made some far-reaching and far-sweeping visionary recommendations, some of which we have already started to implement in the commission itself and some of which were being implemented, and we're pleased that we both were thinking on the same lines. Also, as I said earlier, as we work towards an evolution of how the commission will eventually look in the future and will continue to change -- and I don't see the commission as being a stagnant body that should stay in one particular format for ever and ever, but should constantly change with time and with the changing attitudes and demographics. So Mary's report will certainly be always viewed as we move towards that evolution, as we work towards making sure that we have changes that are beneficial to all of our clients and to all of our people.

1150

People have just passed me a part of my statement, and if you would turn to page 7 and to page 8 -- I think you have the statement in front of you -- you'll notice that I did take some time in that statement to talk about the Cornish report, because I too felt that it was extremely important to note the good work that was done on that particular report.

Mr Curling: The scepticism about asking task force reports to be done with a lot of money, the public feels that if money is being spent and they ask people to investigate and come up with a recommendation, at least they would ask of the ministry or the minister who asked for those reports to be done that some formal statement be made. As you said -- we'll get to page 7 and page 8 maybe after the hearing, but there were no formal comments made. I'm glad to hear that you're saying in some respects you recognize some of the recommendations. But formally, you have not done so.

My question, though, having said that: Do you intend at all to introduce any legislation to amend the Human Rights Code?

Hon Ms Ziemba: In the past we've often spoken about the amendments that would be necessary to change the code itself, whether they were procedural amendments or whether they were substantive. At this particular time we will continue to review and to look back on some of the work we've already done with some of the recommendations that, as I said, have already been implemented. I think it's always behooving any government when it starts to implement some changes to take a look at them to see that they are proceeding the way they were intended to: if they are working, if they are getting the results that you expected to get and if that particular move is what you wanted to do. So we will continue to monitor and will bring about those changes as we want to see the timing and make sure they're done in the appropriate framework.

Mr Curling: If I understand your answer, that you are now reviewing the Human Rights Code, you have no timetable to introduce any legislation to amend the Human Rights Code. Am I hearing that from you?

Hon Ms Ziemba: No, you're not quite hearing that. I think that as a legislator -- and you would understand this as well, having been a minister -- you constantly review the legislation that you have in the past. You always review constantly, on a day-to-day basis. I don't think there's a day goes by where you don't look at what you want to do in the future and build towards that and see when it's an appropriate time to bring those changes about. It's not something that you put to one side and do not consider over some period of time. You're constantly keeping it on your agenda to make sure you are doing the appropriate changes that are necessary and that are needed. You're also looking at those changes that have occurred so that you understand what needs to be done in the future.

Mr Curling: I remember so well as a minister that the bureaucrats used to tell me that you're constantly reviewing, and of course as a minister we look at these things and that's why we have task forces to look into these things. I remember so well and I had wanted somehow that you would have said that, "Having reviewed," and that's where the Cornish report would be, "we've got to move forward now." It sounds so similar.

When will the regulation for employment equity be finalized and what date do you see as having the employment equity legislation act proclaimed?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, the legislation itself has been finalized and received third reading and royal assent. What we are doing now is reviewing and amending the regulations as needed because of the amendments that came forward through the legislative process. We're also at the same time working on guidelines, working on educational packages, the supports that are needed for employers and employees. We are making sure that the regulations and the amendments that we're bringing about, the changes, will be workable and effective. So there will be some more onsite testing with some of the employers that we worked with in the past to make sure that this does work and that they can work with these changes. We're also trying to get the commission, its body, formalized.

I would be very remiss to say today and give you an actual date, but I think, as you can see, we are working quickly to get the act proclaimed. It will be in the very near future and as quickly as we can get all of the pieces put together.

Mr Curling: You have had draft regulations before you since 1993.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes.

Mr Curling: When the legislation was being passed through the House you asked for full cooperation for all of us to move ahead and trust you because the regulations will be one piece of document that really gives meat to this legislation. The Parliament has approved this. I am still sceptical about what is in the regulations, because still you are telling me you're trying to get them perfect or trying to get them as best as possible, but they're not here yet. You have no date yet, as you said, when this document or these regulations will be so effective that it will be presented to us.

Could you say within a month? Could you say by June? The individuals out there who want to see results from this legislation are waiting patiently. The companies out there would like to put their plans in place because they'd like to know what the regulations are all about. Could you just put a time frame? Would we have it before the House resumes in March?

Hon Ms Ziemba: First of all, I want to say to you that the form of the draft regulations is there and has been very open and public. So for you to indicate that people are sceptical or worried what these regulations are all about, or that you have doubt yourself personally -- that's why we brought forward the draft regulations in a very public way, so that anybody at any time can review them, talk to us about them, give their input. We had very public input into the regulations themselves.

The amendments that are taking place now are a refinement of what already exists in the draft regulations -- there will not be very much surprise -- and will also build on some of the amendments that we brought forward in time with the legislation so that they will match and coincide. You have to have, obviously, regulations that work with the existing legislation that you have. We are wanting, as I said, to make sure that as we do the regulations and they become finalized, any of the amendments that we are refining or changing in the regulations will work and be effective and will coincide with the legislation. I would think that would be the most appropriate manner in which to proceed.

Also, you probably would share with me that if we are going to have something that is workable, that is effective and at the same time practical, and at the same time make those changes for the designated groups that we want to have, we do have to work in a cooperative manner with all of the people who are interested in both the legislation and the regulations and make sure that those changes are appropriate to them as well as to us as a government.

We will continue to keep you involved and informed, if you would like. We had wanted to give you a briefing on this. The invitation is still open, because we welcome all opinions. If you care to have an intensive briefing we will certainly provide that for you so you can keep informed and tell your constituents how we are proceeding.

Mr Curling: I've been briefed to death but the fact is that I am still prepared to listen and to monitor the regulations. What you have said to me is you don't know the dates, you don't know when, but you are trying your best to make sure that you have proper regulations.

Madam Minister, in the presentations made here over the week the presenters have said to us that maybe there should be an arm's-length approach to the Human Rights. One of the suggestions is, should the Human Rights Commission report to the legislative committee instead of reporting to a minister or to the government?

I made some comments earlier in the week saying that most cases are from the public sector. I was corrected to say that most cases are not from the public sector, but far too many cases in regard to human rights injustices are levelled at the government. Don't you feel that they could operate more independently rather than feel that they have to be subject to the reporting procedures, although they may not use that word, to a minister? Would you support an amendment or a law that would say that the Ontario Human Rights Commission reported to the Legislative Assembly committee?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think the way the code is enforced at this particular time, and the relationship with government being that the minister of the day and the government of the day review the procedures but not the individual cases, it is left at an arm's-length relationship so that all parties, claimants and respondents, will get their fair day in court without political pressure. I think it's extremely important and we would not want to touch that particular area.

The case that you have made in the past, and I think you've made this before, about changing the commission reporting to the Legislature itself, would not give us the opportunity to continue to make those evolution changes that are needed to correct some of the workings of the commission itself. You know that when other commissions report straight to the Legislature, and there's only one body that does, often there are great lengths of time in between. We want to make sure at this particular time that we have a commission that works well, works well for the people, that the clients are served appropriately and that we're making the changes that will bring about effective human rights delivery service.

I think at this particular time the relationship that keeps the commission reporting to a minister and to the government gives the government of the day and the legislators of the day -- all legislators of the day -- the opportunity to review and, as you have so ably done and as my critic from the Conservative Party has so ably done, to be able to raise those questions in the House and ask the minister of the day to make sure that body is working appropriately.

Mr Curling: I don't see how it will impede in any way if they are separate and reporting to a legislative committee. People who violate human rights should be charged appropriately and be accountable in some respect. I'm not saying that you just cut the ties off and that we can't, just because we ask a question in the House, ever resolve any human rights issues. I don't think it does, because we wouldn't have all this tremendous amount of cases still. I don't want to use the backlog, what have you. People are rather sceptical, really, about even the justice system in Ontario because of the long waiting lists. I don't want to get into that kind of questioning now at all.

The Chair: You're out of time.

Mr Curling: Since they've said I'm out of time, I want to thank you for coming. This discussion will continue to go on in the House, as you said.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for being here this morning.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you, Madam Chair. May I just add that this is a wonderful view. I was distracted several times by a squirrel that has a nest out there that keeps going back and forward. It's been quite interesting. Maybe spring is on its way.

The Chair: Hopefully.

The committee stands adjourned until 2 o'clock.

The committee recessed from 1205 to 1400.

The Chair: We are back with the chief commissioner, Rosemary Brown, after our interlude this morning with the minister. We are going to start with an opening -- I guess you wanted it described as a closing statement.

Ms Rosemary Brown: It's a closing, actually.

The Chair: Ms Brown has a 15-minute statement and then we'll start in rotation with questions.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Before I make my statement, I want to say how sorry I am that Mr Cousens isn't here -- oh, Mr Cousens is here -- because I thought what I wanted to do would be to clear up at least one of the questions which he raised just before the end of this morning's session, and that was the question of, when does a case become a case for the Human Rights Commission? I thought I could do that very simply by just walking you through the process.

I will begin by saying the commission has designed the process to assist parties to resolve a potential code violation. We've done this because we found it to be very effective in addressing human rights issues in the province.

First of all, an individual will contact one of our regional offices. This can be by telephone, by mail or in person. This is an inquiry and fits into the statistics which we gave earlier of 116,000 persons who contacted the commission last year. That's an inquiry. The intake officer then identifies whether the complaint which has been received is in fact within our jurisdiction. That done, if the individual wishes to pursue the ESI process, the intake officer will then contact the individual or organization alleged to have infringed this person's rights under the code.

As far as the statistics go, the number we have for ESI settlement, as I mentioned earlier, is 814. We have a mandatory 90-day turnaround time for the early settlement initiative, or ESI, and currently there are 814 complaints at that stage as of December 31, 1993. Those are the figures I am giving you.

Where the ESI does not result in a resolution, the complainant then has a right to file a formal complaint. At the point at which the complainant files a formal complaint and it is signed, then that person becomes part of the 2,156 complaints which we mentioned were in our system as of December 31, 1993. I'm hoping that clears up the question of when a complaint becomes a complaint. It starts out as an inquiry, and then the person --

Interjection.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, it starts out as an inquiry.

Mr Cousens: It doesn't satisfy my question. I asked how many are in that limbo you talk about at any one time, the example of the 25 months.

The Chair: I think maybe what we should do, Mr Cousens, is that you can continue your questions when we get into the rotations for questioning.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Okay, fine.

The Chair: I think if you would maybe get into your statement, Ms Brown, it would probably be better.

Ms Rosemary Brown: If he would mull over my statement, then we could do it.

In my closing statements, I'd like to say that the staff of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and I have paid close attention to the progress of this committee. In particular, I've noted the information and advice that the various witnesses have presented, and in the near future it is my intention to express to each of the participants my appreciation for their thoughtful observations.

I have presented for your deliberation the eightfold path of reform which will renew the commission. The commission has a specific accountability for placing people first. To build an agency which puts people first, you begin with people. Whereas some still embrace the belief that more bureaucracy's a remedy for inefficient and ineffective public service, we know that there is no substitute for personal accountability. As I have assured the honourable members, the buck stops here, and it is here that the reformation must start. Since my arrival at the commission eight months ago, I've underscored the need to take the views of our friends as well as our critics to heart, to acknowledge our professional accountability and to get on with the task of making change happen.

In the intervening months I've had the pleasure of meeting with a great variety of groups, some of which have appeared before you over the past few days. To name a few of the groups, they include the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, or ARCH; the National Action Committee on the Status of Women; the AIDS Committee of Toronto; the Coalition of Visible Minority Women; the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, CERA; the Canadian Jewish Congress; the Chinese Canadian National Council; the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; and the board of trade, and that is an incomplete list. It has also been my privilege to speak to groups in key sectors such as the Canadian Bar Association, labour section. There will be many more meetings of this kind during the course of this year.

As you can appreciate, all the organizations we have met have specific recommendations about how the commission could better serve their specific interests, and these recommendations are often diametrically opposed to those of other groups. It is my responsibility as chief commissioner to reconcile these interests with the best interests of the people of Ontario.

This is why the commission has implemented a commonsense agenda for change. The eight organizational improvement initiatives move us closer to the people we serve, make the best possible use of our precious resources, affirm our accountability for the health of the commission and ensure that the interests of the agency support and advance the primacy of human dignity.

The need for a fundamental, comprehensive and sustainable renewal of the commission is readily apparent. The deputations you have received clearly illustrate the horns of the commission's dilemma. They convey the very issues which inspired and evoked the organizational improvement initiatives, and I would like to review the four key areas which have emerged in these proceedings specifically. They are: (1) the integrity of the commission's enforcement of the Human Rights Code; (2) the commission's effectiveness in promoting public policy; (3) the adequacy of the commission's resources; and (4) the commission's accountability.

Integrity of enforcement: We have been advised by CERA and ARCH that the staff of the commission are biased and coercive in their dealings with complainants. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Malcolm MacKillop, Russell Juriansz and the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario affirm that the agency is biased and coercive in its dealings with respondents. Furthermore, a pathological obsession with case load reduction is said to have made the agency a "killer of cases," and we are told that officers themselves violate the code by telling prospective complainants that they have no right to file a formal complaint.

Let me reaffirm that the staff of the commission are strictly accountable for the neutral, professional and rigorous enforcement of the code. Key reforms have been implemented to ensure that there is neither coercion nor bias in the enforcement of the code. This standard is being upheld in the commission's training and development program, an investment in professionalism which is unprecedented in its scope. The standard is upheld in material detail at each stage of the commission's procedures by the agency's quality assurance system. The standard is being upheld in the commission's customer service program, which places the dignity of the people we serve above all other considerations.

1410

Notably, the commission's commitment to service requires that: (1) the agency provide, on first contact, a complete explanation of the complaint process and the roles staff play at various stages; (2) give guidance and information at all stages of the complaint process without prejudice or pressure; (3) apply clear, fair and objective standards and procedures when assessing and investigating all alleged code violations; and (4) the standard is being upheld and enforced by the institution of clear lines of accountability.

Mary Eberts, in her presentation, suggested that shocking delays and lapses in administrative fairness have made the judiciary intolerant of the agency and risks reversing their sensitivity to human rights.

The commission has set itself to the task of meeting the exacting standards which the judiciary so correctly upholds. Enhancing the reputation of the commission will take perseverance and a scrupulous regard for administrative fairness and for the right of parties to a timely resolution of their concerns. The commission will ensure that its front-line staff receive sound, professional support in their application of both the Human Rights Code and the principles of administrative fairness. The agency will for the next year dedicate half of the time of a senior counsel to provide ongoing training and development in these areas.

On the whole, the organizational improvement initiatives will enable the commission to address its case load in a timely manner. We are already seeing some signs of early improvement, especially in the area of delay. You will recall the commission projects that at the end of this fiscal year, there will be less than 250 files older than three years of age in the commission's case load. Moreover, all files remaining from the task force will be closed by March 31, 1994.

The organizational improvement initiatives will also refine the analytical ability of the staff of the commission. For example, the agency is currently developing guidelines to assist in the investigation of racism.

The organizational improvement initiatives are crucial to the restoration of the commission's reputation, because they cultivate and refine the ability to address a high volume of cases, the ability to provide consistent answers to complex questions of human rights law and the ability to preserve the principles of administrative fairness.

Some of the presenters have suggested that these measures will not make a difference. They hold that the problem of the commission arises from what is said to be a basic and irreconcilable conflict in its mandate. They maintain that we cannot be both an impartial law enforcement agency and an advocate of human rights. Indeed, some of my predecessors have shared this view. I do not. It is my firm belief that the commission can be both an objective and impartial enforcer of the Human Rights Code and a strong advocate of human rights principles.

The officers of the Ontario Human Rights Commission are accountable for investigating individual complaints of discrimination in a rigorous and unbiased manner. This should not dull their sense of justice; it should heighten it. Their heightened sense of justice will enable the commission to advance the principles of human rights law. We affirm the primacy of human dignity by preserving the neutrality of our investigation and by reserving our role as an advocate for matters of public policy.

The second area of issue concerns the commission's ability to promote public policy and effective systemic change. Mary Cornish, CERA and ARCH all stated that the commission is wholly absorbed with individual cases and therefore cannot direct its attention to any meaningful systemic reform. The Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, the Steelworkers and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association hold that the commission could render better service to employers, unions, landlords and service providers by developing useful public policy instruments.

A key innovation of the commission's new organizational design is the creation of a public policy and public education branch. The commission has undertaken the broadest public outreach in its history to fill the directorship of this branch. The director of the public policy and public education branch will be accountable for ensuring that the commission discharges its duty to advance and promote human rights principles as enacted in the Human Rights Code by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Therefore, the branch will refine its expertise in human rights by building partnerships with employers, with unions, with service providers and with community groups. This will lay the foundation for broad public education initiatives which will foster an awareness of the requirements of the code and promote voluntary compliance on a sectoral basis.

As honourable members have noted, the commission, even at this early stage in its renewal, does more than process individual cases. The agency's success in ensuring the accessibility of the province's courthouses, its success in establishing a spirit of cooperation with the city of Toronto in the recruitment and selection of firefighters, and its success with such documents as Teaching Human Rights in Ontario, which will heighten the awareness of public and private secondary school students throughout the province, are signs of a fresh and vigorous approach to eliminating systemic barriers and advancing the principles of the code.

The third area I wish to review concerns the adequacy of the commission's resources. It was suggested to you by Mr Hasanat Syed that the staff of the commission "are doing their work at great personal cost." Mary Eberts noticed that the commission has historically received inadequate resources to answer the increasing demands for its services and the broadening of its statutory mandate. The honourable members will recall again that the agency received 116,308 inquiries last year and made 28,723 referrals.

The organizational improvement initiatives are ensuring that the commission makes the best possible use of its resources. For example, by redesigning the agency the commission reduced its number of senior executives and saved $300,000. These funds will be invested in training, in technology and in employing additional front-line staff. The commission is doing much with less.

However, by the summer of this year we may find that additional resources are necessary. There is a natural limit to the extent one's belt may be tightened. Once this limit is reached we will not hesitate to request additional resources from the government. When that day comes it is my hope that the interest which the honourable members have shown to date in the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission will not have abated and that the commission will be able to depend on your support in our endeavour.

Allow me to conclude by affirming the importance of accountability, both as the key to the commission's effectiveness and as an instrument of social change. The commission remains fully cognizant of the fact that we report to the Legislative Assembly through a minister of the crown. As a sign and safeguard of this reality, every six weeks the commission provides the Minister of Citizenship with a staff report. The staff report is the most comprehensive regular review of the agency's activities ever compiled in the history of the commission.

By ensuring that the Minister of Citizenship is fully aware of the performance of the commission, we acknowledge and affirm our accountability to all honourable members and, through you, to the people of Ontario. But accountability is also an instrument of social change. It is accountability which ignited the renewal of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and it is the personal and professional accountability of the commissioners, the staff of the commission and myself which has made change happen from within.

1420

In the final analysis, as legislators, as public servants and as members of society we are accountable for the health of our communities, we are accountable for our treatment of the least advantaged among us and we are accountable for preserving and upholding the primacy of human dignity. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Brown. That staff report you held up was the book that we asked last week if it could be circulated to members of the committee and you said no; is that correct?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, it has a lot of --

The Chair: It's internal. That's fine.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Internal. If we have finished, I mentioned earlier my habit of changing speeches before they are delivered. I didn't make any changes to this speech and so copies will be available for members of the committee at the end of the day, if they'd like to have them, so that they can quote it back to me a year from now when I see you again.

The Chair: Thank you. That would be helpful when they're drafting their report tomorrow morning.

All right. We start with Ms Akande and Ms Carter, 15 minutes.

Ms Akande: One of the questions that was asked this morning was about repeated or similar problems, let's say a series of similar problems or cases with one employer and the kinds of steps that were taken to make for a more expeditious and efficient conclusion. I wanted to continue with that just in terms of the costs.

When these cases are in fact brought against the Ontario public service or even against the broader public service the view that is expressed by many is that the legal counsel that is afforded the OPS and the broader public sector, the financing of that comes from taxpayers' money, which puts the person bringing the case in a situation where he or she can be seen to be subsidizing the opposition.

We have recently come in with some of the other reviews, such as the rent review; the government has given the courts or the hearing body the right to provide legal assistance to those people who are bringing cases to that review. Would you think that a similar kind of practice would be helpful in people bringing cases to the Human Rights Commission?

Ms Rosemary Brown: The Human Rights Commission has a legal department --

Ms Akande: Yes, I know, but I'm talking about the people who are bringing these cases.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Bringing complaints to the Human Rights Commission? If complainants find the need to do so they can seek legal aid. That is an option which they have.

Ms Akande: It's an option that's frequently refused or challenged or difficult to access for a multitude of reasons that I'd be happy to share with you, except that I know my colleagues have questions too. What then is the process which would give many of the people greater assurance that they could have legal aid? There's a lot of difficulty around that. It's a real issue.

Ms Rosemary Brown: The main position of the commission is that any individual should feel free to come and file a complaint without really finding it necessary to have legal counsel in doing so. They are coming to a neutral and impartial body, and upon investigation, if there is need for carriage of the complaint to the board of inquiry, the legal department of the commission does so.

If complainants believe that they do need legal assistance in order to file a complaint we really are distressed if that is the case. As I said before, they have a right to either seek their own private counsel or to seek the use of legal aid. The inability of legal aid to meet their needs is a problem that the Attorney General has to address. It's not one that the commission can deal with.

Ms Akande: And yet it becomes a real factor in the fairness of the case, the reason being that frequently the group against which they're bringing the complaint is being represented by their legal department or in fact by sometimes some very high-priced, very notable lawyers.

Ms Rosemary Brown: There is a real sense that if the human rights officers are as skilled and as trained as we expect them to be, and maintain their neutrality throughout the process as we expect them to, there really should not be a need for either a complainant or a respondent, for that matter, to need legal counsel.

Ms Akande: Do you prevent them from coming?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No, not at all. But our goal is that the Human Rights Commission should be perceived to be the fair body which delivers on the mandate of the code and should not be seen as a place that one cannot approach unless one has legal counsel.

Ms Akande: Is there some suggestion made to the employer that perhaps that counsel isn't necessary?

Ms Rosemary Brown: We don't make suggestions either to the complainant or to the respondent. The only thing that we emphasize and we emphasize over and over again is that this is a neutral commission which is interested in fairness and in justice, and that is what we strive for. All of the changes that we are introducing, all of the initiatives, all of the training, everything is designed to realize that goal. That's what we're trying to do, but we would not suggest either to a respondent or to a complainant that they should have legal counsel or that they should not have legal counsel.

Ms Akande: I'll pass over to Ms Carter, but I just want to make one comment around that: The frequency with which people must argue or present their cases that are supported by employers' often high-priced and prestigious lawyers, the less the perception of fairness is maintained.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Except that when the case goes before a board of inquiry it's not the complainant who is carrying the case; it's the commission. We do have extremely skilled and competent lawyers who do that.

Ms Carter: After listening to all the presentations and so on I still have a concern that the commission is going to have a problem not incurring a backlog again. Obviously you did reduce the backlog at one point and you're doing pretty well, but there seems to be no belief that you should limit the intake of cases. Therefore, I think you're still open to a possibility of backlogs.

I was interested in the presentation by Russell Juriansz. He said the Ombudsman's report identified a bottleneck at the commission review stage as another factor contributing to delay. He says, "Commissioners: A Good Part-Time Job." He feels that "the commissioners...only meet for two to three days every four to six weeks." They're "unable to carefully review the files.... They have not met and observed the witnesses as have the" direct "investigators."

He also feels that the boards of inquiry are a still "better part-time job...individuals appointed as boards of inquiry are often full-time law professors who try to schedule cases on the days when they have no classes...this often results in complaints being scheduled in blocks of one or two days at a time, with months of waiting in between."

He's suggesting that there should be full-time decision-makers. He's not suggesting that commissioners be made full-time. He's saying, are commissioners necessary, apart from the full-time position of chief commissioner? He's suggesting that "the chief commissioner could be vested with full authority to deal with complaints and could delegate some or all authority to full-time staff." He says, "After all, the process is a legal one and the judgements to be made involve the interpretation of the law and the sufficiency of evidence."

1430

He compares the setup that you have with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which he says has close of 50 full-time adjudicators, whereas your board of inquiry only has a part-time head and one hearing room. I guess he's looking at ways of strengthening the process of the hearings and speeding it up. I'm just wondering what your comments would be on those suggestions.

Ms Rosemary Brown: He's raised a number of ideas which I think are worthy of consideration and certainly I am sure will be discussed at great length by the elected members, and we're going to look more clearly at them.

There are a number of changes to the code which would certainly assist us at the commission in discharging the mandate, we think, more efficiently and effectively, and we are hoping that at some point there will be amendments to the code which allow that to happen.

We have no objections to there being a full-time person in charge of the board of inquiry and those kinds of things. As far as the remaking of the commission itself is concerned, the present situation gives the commissioners ample time to read the cases carefully. That is not a problem, and it's also an unfair criticism. They have ample time to read the cases properly and to be prepared for commission hearings, which occur once every six weeks. It is a much more democratic process than giving the chief commissioner the authority to be judge and jury, so although I would keep an open mind on it, it would be a mind that is not as sympathetic towards that recommendation. But the point at which he or anyone would like to talk about some changes that could be made in the code that would make it easier for us to deal with the issues, I'd be very happy to talk about some of their ideas we have about that.

Ms Carter: I think it was noticeable in the presentations that we had that although people, as did Mr Juriansz, suggested ways it could be improved from the inside out, which is obviously what you're trying to do, nevertheless there seemed to be a consensus that something more was required, and this presentation was no exception to that. So I guess this is the crucial point, if you like: Are the inside-out changes going to be sufficient over time or are there going to be some more radical steps that maybe are going to have to be taken?

Ms Rosemary Brown: We certainly, as I said before, would be very willing to talk about some amendments to the code which we think would make the job that we do a lot easier, but as far as the initiatives that we've embarked on now are concerned, we would like to give them a chance to see whether they work or not. At the sign that they are not working, we would be very happy to come right back to this committee to say, "We've tried and this is not working and more radical measures are necessary." But we are of the firm belief that given the changes that we'd like to see, given the resources that we'd like to have, the changes will be effective.

The Chair: Dr Frankford, there are two minutes left.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): There was discussion this morning about the role of voluntary groups, mostly in relation to their advocacy role, and it seems to me that one commission, B'nai Brith, is an old-established one, and there are a number of others that probably play an extremely valuable educational role. Obviously, as time goes on, we get more new immigrant groups that are going to use their own advocacy organizations. I wonder if you have any thoughts about ways in which you could encourage them or delegate the educational role to such groups.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think what I mentioned this morning was that they're already playing a very important role in terms of development of policy and we'd like to see them play an even stronger role. They're already playing the role of intervenors at boards of inquiry and we'd like to see them do that even more. In the closing comments that I made, I said that certainly the linking with community groups is something which the new director of policy and public education, when she comes on board, we anticipate and expect her to do. We are very appreciative of the role these advocate groups play on behalf of the groups they represent.

The commission is neutral and the commission must protect its neutrality.

Mr Frankford: I think one can look at these groups historically, that they have played a very important role in defining the breadth of problems, besides just what you get from individual complaints.

Ms Rosemary Brown: And some groups, like the B'nai Brith, were responsible for the creation of human rights commissions in the first place, because as you know, they grew out of concerns around creed as well as race and gender.

Mr Curling: I get a feeling, Commissioner, that during this hearing you have listened very carefully and you regard this process as rather useful and beneficial. That is refreshing in some respects because I think in your opening statement you said that you are prepared to listen to any criticism, and many of us maybe only listen but what we do about it is another matter.

However, though, we here and the presenters seem to not have convinced you or influenced you in any way in regard to the commission's double role. You said that of course you're trying to be fair as you investigate and as you try to come about some solutions to cases. Most of the presenters stated that they feel that somehow in playing those double roles you cannot be completely objective. Do you still stand by that, that you can continue to be as effective?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. I'm going to repeat what I said before and that is that the commission's advocacy role is separate and independent from its enforcement role and that we have procedural safeguards in place to maintain this separation. The most important of those safeguards I believe is the training that we give our investigators to be neutral when they're investigating complaints, to be thorough in obtaining their evidence and to be comprehensive in analysing the evidence which their investigation uncovers.

I maintain that there is no conflict between these two roles, that in fact our training efforts are intended to provide our staff with the skill and knowledge to understand the difference between the two roles and also to repeat that in fact we're not dealing with one person who gets the case from intake and carries it right through to the decision about whether it goes before a board of inquiry or not. From the point of entry of a complaint to the point where it reaches the commissioners who make the final decision about whether a case goes to a board of inquiry or not, there is an incredible filtering through a number of people before it actually comes out at the other end with the final decision. So there is no reason why there should be a conflict if the staff and the commissioners behave with neutrality and with independence and with skill in terms of discharging their task.

Mr Curling: As you restructure the Ontario Human Rights flow chart -- and I notice that your emphasis is more on systemic and you said to investigate cases of a systemic nature. The fact is too that I also feel that the Employment Equity Commission, if it ever comes about, which deals specifically with systemic discrimination in the workplace, would be rather helpful and that other areas of systemic discrimination would be dealt with within the Human Rights Commission.

1440

While I feel again that you are moving towards that, I didn't get that impression from the minister when she was here. She said that previous governments tinkered with the process and it didn't work. I hope I understood her properly, and I hope that the Hansard will prove me wrong. That she also would like to see us move much more towards the systemic approach to discriminatory practices, that you have the resources to do so, I didn't get that from the minister.

Coming out of that, I then would ask you still -- and I think in your comments you stated something of the fact, or maybe it was the minister; I could be wrong -- whether reporting to a legislative committee would be much more effective than reporting to a minister. Because again, although they use the term "arm's length," the minister stated here how wonderful it is for us to ask her a question in the House and that that is accountability. To me, I don't find that as absolute accountability. Would you give any support in the direction of having the Human Rights Commission report to a legislative committee?

Mr Cousens: You know the answer to that, Alvin.

Mr Curling: No.

Mr Bradley: You never know till you get the answer.

Mr Curling: Yes.

Mr Cousens: Any bets?

The Chair: Is there a question to Ms Brown?

Mr Curling: I thought there was.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think there are a number of questions, the first one dealing with systemic issues. As I mentioned before, Mr Neil Edwards, who is the new director for regional services and systemic issues, certainly would not agree that systemic issues are not going to be getting priority attention and that they are not going to continue to be an important part of what we do.

As I said earlier today, the division between individual and systemic is, by and large, quite an artificial one because the focus of the commission really is to ensure that the decisions that are made affect as wide a segment of our community as possible.

Your second question about whether the commission should report to a minister or to the legislative committee is really one that I think elected members need to resolve. This is a discussion that should be had by the elected members and a decision made one way or another. In the meantime, the commission is going to abide by the code, and the code is very clear that we report through a minister. We speak through a minister to the House and through the legislative committee to the people of Ontario.

Mr Bradley: I directed a question to others concerning the way the procedure is weighted. In other words, the person who is lodging the complaint seems to have all of the resources of the commission to assist in proceeding with that complaint, but the person against whom the complaint is directed does not have necessarily the financial resources to defend herself or himself against that complaint.

In many cases there are two situations. Where it's a large corporation, the corporation is named, the corporation has the ability to buy itself out of it perhaps. The individual against whom a complaint is launched may not be a person of financial resources that would allow that person to carry out a reasonable defence.

How can we rectify this situation, and I hate overusing the words, but bring about a level playing field in terms of the resources that are provided? Because we always think of it as the big, bad employer who has committed a crime perhaps. In many cases, it may be an individual within a corporate structure or within a public sector structure who is the subject of a complaint and doesn't have financial resources to defend herself or himself against that complaint. How can that situation be rectified?

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think it's interesting that your question, which presupposes a bias on behalf of the complainant, should follow so closely on the question of member Akande, whose question presupposes that there would be bias on behalf of the respondent. This is what happens. Respondent groups --

Mr Bradley: I'm sorry, it's not a bias. It is the fact that the full resources of the commission --

Ms Rosemary Brown: The perception is.

Mr Bradley: -- are available to the complainant and the assistants of the complainant, but those resources are not available to the defendant.

Ms Rosemary Brown: In fact, the full resources of the commission are available to both. In any event, we just have to keep saying this over and over again and practising what we preach, and that is that through ongoing training, through the application of quality assurance standards and through the changes in procedures and policies which we have introduced, there is going to be no bias either on the side of one or the other. The neutrality of the commission is going to have to somehow come to be accepted as a fact and as a reality. There is no other way. We are neutral. We are supposed to be neutral and our officers know that and the staff know that, and that is the way in which we are going to have to conduct ourselves, because that is the mandate which has been delivered to us by the code. We cannot and will not and must not place our resources more on the side of either one or the other party when a complaint has been laid. This is a commitment we're making. I don't know what else we can do or what else we can say, except that when we fail, bring it to our attention.

Mr Bradley: It was simply interesting that previous witnesses, and I don't think they are people who are anti-commission witnesses, seemed to indicate -- one person, for instance, told me that "Well, if you're accused in a court of law nobody runs to your defence with a bag of cash, either, to assist you, so why should you expect that when you're being accused through the procedures of the commission?"

I want to go on to something else that the commission could or could not deal with and within your general purview. This committee deals with appointments to agencies, boards and commissions and on the sheet that people fill out there is a so-called voluntary section where a person must check off -- and there are, I think, five different categories: (1) Male or female? (2) Are you a francophone? (3) Are you a visible minority? (4) Are you an aboriginal person? and (5) Are you disabled? It says "voluntary," but everybody knows what it means when you don't fill it out.

Do you agree with that kind of form being presented to people who are coming before a government for appointment to agencies, boards and commissions, particularly when in my first incarnation in opposition a number of years ago it was considered to be sinful, almost, to ask a person those questions? You were pinned to the wall if you ever asked those questions about a person when you were going to have that person appointed to a position.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. Section 14 of the code, of course, allows the government to do that because presumably the government is trying to ensure that the commissioners are as reflective of the community at large as is possible. So under section 14 of the code they are permitted to do that.

The second point you raised about the fact that five years or 10 years ago if such a form were presented there would be universal opposition to that is, I think, again, another example of the evolutionary aspect of human rights. It evolves and it changes and it's a dynamic. A number of things which in the beginning were accepted as not being appropriate as we become more conscious of rights and how they work and what we need to do in terms of safeguarding everyone's rights, they change too. I think that's healthy; it would be really unfortunate if human rights were so etched in stone that they would never change.

Mr Bradley: You may be interested to know that I directed that question to a woman who is a visible minority and was coming before the committee for consideration for an appointment to one of the agencies of the government. When I asked her if she was offended by it, she said she was offended by it because it would give the perception, perhaps, that she was being appointed because she fit a category as opposed to the fact that she was an extremely well-qualified, capable and good appointment being made by the government.

1450

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think that's her right to be offended by that. I would not have been offended by it because I know I'm qualified; I don't care what colour I am. It wouldn't bother me.

Mr Bradley: Here's a more difficult question. You may not want to answer it because it gets more into a political field a bit, but perhaps you'll be interested in commenting; I don't know.

There's a problem -- and it's not simply the commission; it's a lot of agencies, boards and commissions -- sometimes when people from outside look and see that people who are "friends of the government" are appointed to agencies, boards and commissions, and particularly one is -- I think the Ontario Human Rights Commission is an extremely important commission, one of our most important in Ontario. Do you think that it detracts from the commission at all when the appointments that are made appear to be people who are friends of the government, friends of the New Democratic Party, for instance? I just say that because I hear people outside saying, "We don't trust it because," and it could be, if it's a Liberal government, Liberal appointees, or a Conservative government, Conservative appointees, so I'm getting at it generically as opposed to in a partisan sense now.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I actually think I'd be much more concerned if someone said, "I don't trust the commission because the chief commissioner is an enemy of human rights."

Mr Bradley: So that doesn't bother you then?

Ms Rosemary Brown: I've answered that question.

Mr Bradley: I see.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr Bradley: You must have been in cabinet to answer like that.

Mr McLean: Ms Brown, last year the Human Rights Commission issued a policy paper claiming landlords were practising discrimination by insisting that tenants provide information on income. It said the income earned for rental application was nothing less than a screening tool used by landlords, so it was contrary to human rights legislation. Could this committee get a copy of that directive?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Would you like a copy of the paper?

Mr McLean: Yes.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Would that be possible, Scott? The executive director says it's possible.

Mr McLean: Thank you. The Cornish report: I presume you've probably read some of the recommendations. In the overall, do you agree with most of them?

Ms Rosemary Brown: I agree with the establishing of the Cornish commission, the examination that was done and the general principle that was put through. A number of the recommendations which did not call for legislative changes have actually been incorporated and have been part of the thinking that went into the development of our initiatives. I have a profound respect for Mary Cornish and for the work that she's done.

Mr McLean: I have one recommendation that I would like to read to you and it's recommendation 85 on page 232 of the Cornish report. It says, "The commission should adopt a more open, cooperative relationship with community groups and individuals with human rights expertise and allow them to prepare and develop their own claims, and participate in direction of the investigation, settlement and appointment of the board of inquiry." Do you agree with that recommendation?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No.

Mr McLean: Are there any others in here that you don't agree with?

Ms Rosemary Brown: I haven't got a copy of the report with me and there are actually quite a number of recommendations that she made. I'll tell you, though --

Mr McLean: It's interesting because she doesn't agree with it either.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Is that because great minds think alike --

Mr McLean: It probably does.

Ms Rosemary Brown: -- or fools seldom differ?

Mr McLean: So I'm wondering what the value of the report is when you have a report signed by the chair of the task force that makes these recommendations and then comes along and doesn't agree with what her recommendations are.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think it shows that she has an open mind and she's capable of --

Mr McLean: Why would she put that in there?

Ms Rosemary Brown: She's capable of changing her mind. There are a couple of other recommendations, since you ask, though, that I could probably mention. The recommendation dealing with direct access for all claimants to the tribunal for hearing is also one which I think would need some further thinking about before we would be willing to endorse that.

Mr McLean: So you will be taking into consideration all those recommendations?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, before we would endorse that.

Mr McLean: Are you familiar with the CERA group?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. They met with me, actually.

Mr McLean: Are they a fair bit of your workload? Do they cause you a great workload?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Actually I think it's wonderful the work that they do on behalf of the group they represent, yes.

Mr McLean: I guess the last time we had the opportunity to speak with you was the day you were being appointed and you were before the committee on government agencies dealing with your appointment.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes. I hadn't met with them at that time, but I have met with them since then.

Mr McLean: You were, at that time, going to move to Toronto. Have you moved yet?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes, and I don't know -- actually when I was appointed, I was assured that it never ever got very cold in Toronto and I've been living with 41-degrees-below weather. I'm wondering if I should renegotiate my contract.

Mr McLean: You think you're overpaid, do you?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No, I think I'm overfrozen. That's what I think.

Mr McLean: It's that cold air that causes it.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes.

The Chair: Mr Cousens, 11 minutes.

Mr Cousens: When you're making your report about the buck stops here, the belt will be tightened and financial accountability, in your position as a full-time commissioner how much time would you spend as commissioner?

Ms Rosemary Brown: My day usually starts at about 10 to 6 in the morning.

Mr Cousens: At the office?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No. Well, I have to get up and get dressed to get to the office. It usually ends -- and my bedtime reading is invariably commission reading -- around 11:30, quarter to 12. I am a full-time commissioner.

Mr Cousens: Are you carrying out other responsibilities for the federal government on another board?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Yes.

Mr Cousens: Does that overlap what you're doing?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No, no.

Mr Cousens: Is it a different commission?

Ms Rosemary Brown: The Security Intelligence Review Commission, and this was negotiated prior to my taking this, is that it is a day without pay, which I do on behalf of the federal government. This was cleared by both the federal and provincial governments in order for me to do that.

Mr Cousens: So one day a year is that?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No, no, no. It's one day a month except for July, or if I happen to miss a date because I am appearing before the commission, as I am today, because the committee is meeting in Vancouver today and I'm here or if there's a commission hearing.

Mr Cousens: I guess the only other question which isn't easy to ask but --

Ms Rosemary Brown: I just wanted to tell you that the normal expectation is that I would work, I guess, a 37_-hour week, which I don't. My weeks are much longer than that. I'm not under any sense at all that the commission is being shortchanged in terms of the amount of time that I put into it.

Mr Cousens: The questions I'm asking don't assume that either.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Oh, good.

Mr Cousens: The package that you had to become chief commissioner: Did it include anything other than the salary? Were there any other tea and travel and lodging or other services that are provided with the job or is it primarily your salary?

Ms Rosemary Brown: Just my salary. As far as I know, I am covered by OHIP -- am I? I think I'm covered by OHIP and the usual kinds of other -- I don't know what else I'm covered by.

Mr Cousens: Okay. No, that's fine.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I'm sorry about that.

Mr Cousens: No, no.

Ms Rosemary Brown: I should probably pay more attention to these things.

Mr Cousens: You should.

Ms Rosemary Brown: You never know when I'll need it.

Mr Cousens: One of the questions that came through from Ms Witmer, which to me --

Ms Rosemary Brown: Which one was that?

Mr Cousens: -- and the correction that was made by Ms Marland, the Chair, "The commission's moratorium on public education, which was put into effect effective September 10, 1993" -- is that the corrected date on it? How could the commission have brought in such a moratorium when, in your fundamental tenets of the commission, public education is one of the primary responsibilities?

Ms Rosemary Brown: The commission was faced with a couple of dilemmas. One was we were not totally convinced that the public education process in which we were involved was really the best, that we needed some time to re-evaluate it, look at our strategy and generally fit it into the overall organizational improvement activities to be sure that in fact it is being carried out in the best possible way. I think that with the coming on board of the new director of public education and public policy, we will probably find that we might do things differently.

1500

The other thing was that the moratorium, when it was introduced, was to be effective until March 31 and it was to apply to the regions only, not to the main office. The commissioners and myself, as well as the directors, still do public education under certain and specific circumstances. My own preference is that the commissioners in fact should be doing more of the public education than they are doing at the present time, not less.

I gather that there were three requests which we received which were turned down and three out of four formal requests to the commission for a public education engagement which were turned down, but as I said, as of March 31 the moratorium will be lifted for the regions --

Mr Cousens: We have that information.

Ms Rosemary Brown: -- and when the new person comes on board we may have a completely different way of dealing with the whole question of public education.

Mr Cousens: I want to follow through a little further on the question of Mr McLean's constituent. I'm reading from her letter, "On August 6, 1991, I wrote to Human Rights." I'm keeping all the names of people out of this. "My complaint forms were just completed and signed in November 1993. The contravention ground for discrimination was sex and handicap."

Are there any cases in your files that have been there in that range of time that are already on the pre-case level? What we're talking about is well over two years before it became a case and before it became a statistic that the Legislature would deal with. Would you have any others right now that have been in the box as long?

Ms Rosemary Brown: No.

Mr Cousens: What would be the longest that some have been in waiting before they become a case?

Ms Rosemary Brown: I think the detailed question around time I'm going to turn over to Neil Edwards for him to deal with. I just want to say, before turning over to him, that as a result of the new initiative which we've put in place, there are no cases at this time which are not covered by the statistics which you have in front of you. Every single case in the commission has been accounted for and covered by the statistics.

Mr Cousens: But those are cases that have an investigator on them, but there are people who are not cases. We understand the definition of when it becomes a case is when an investigator is assigned.

Ms Rosemary Brown: No, no, no. You see, this is the reason why I tried to explain at the beginning of my comments what happens. In fact, at the point when a person makes contact with the commission, in any form -- air, land or sea -- that's an inquiry; that is not a case. At the point when an intake worker sits down with the person who has made the complaint and identifies that it does in fact fit into our jurisdiction and indicates that they are willing to embark on an early settlement initiative exploration with us, then it becomes an ESI. At the point where they say, "I don't want an early settlement initiative; it's not working for me. I want to file a formal complaint," then it becomes a formal complaint.

Mr Cousens: What do you call them before they become a case? What's the official term you use?

Ms Rosemary Brown: An inquiry, and there were 116,000 of those that we dealt with last year.

Mr Cousens: If you take the bell curve on inquiries as they come through, I want to deal with the longer-term side of the equation because some could be dropped very quickly.

Ms Rosemary Brown: And some are referred; 28,000 got referred out to other --

Mr Cousens: I've seen those statistics, but what concerns me is Mr McLean's cry for help from someone who had this extended time.

Ms Rosemary Brown: That's possible, you know. It's possible that between 1991 and 1993 that happened. What I'm talking about now is that at this point in time, as of December 31, it isn't happening.

Mr Cousens: What is the longest length of time before an inquiry will become a case and an investigator is assigned to it?

Mr Edwards: If I may answer that, Mr Cousens, once it becomes a formal complaint --

Mr Cousens: When does it become a formal complaint? It's an inquiry I was asking for, to come to the stage where it becomes a case. I'm saying you've got the beginning of the inquiry to the end of the inquiry, when it becomes a case.

Mr Edwards: The inquiry comes in, we determine whether or not we have jurisdiction to deal with it, a 90-day period in which --

Mr Cousens: I understand that. I'm asking the length of time. I understand the steps that are taken in there, but when you have someone who's had this length of time before, so much time -- you see what happens, when a person has a problem, who knows how many things can happen from the time they initiate their inquiry to deal with an action? People in the office may have moved or transferred or closed down. So many things happen as time elapses. So I'm anxious about that whole window of the time frame, from the beginning of the inquiry to the beginning of when it becomes a case.

Mr Edwards: If I may try again, our procedure now requires that someone has the complaint, it's dealt with through the ESI process and there is a 90-day period. If it's not resolved within the 90-day period, it then becomes a formal complaint. After that 90-day period it could sit -- I mean, this is a reality -- for about a year before we actually assign someone to it to investigate it. That is the time frame we're working with at this point.

The Chair: Thank you. That's the end of the time for this round. What is the wish of the committee? Do you wish another round?

Mr Curling: I don't need any more.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): I don't need any more.

The Chair: All right. If there are no further questions, thank you, Ms Brown, for your appearance before the committee and thank your staff who've been in attendance during the review. It's been a valuable contribution to the review of your agency.

Ms Rosemary Brown: Thank you. I appreciate it.

The Chair: For the sake of the committee, I just have a couple of brief announcements. Ms Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré is able to be here at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. You invited her to come back tomorrow at 10, so she will be here for an hour tomorrow. Then at 11 tomorrow we will start giving direction to Mr Pond for drafting the report on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If that isn't finished by 12 o'clock, we may resume again in the afternoon, at 2. That will be up to the committee. Are there any questions?

Mr Curling: I know that the Hansard has been really working very hard, and in order to do some of the recommendations for our report writing, I was just wondering if there's any way we could get some of the Hansard back, even in draft form. I spoke to Hansard and they were concerned about the amount of work they have. Interjection.

The Chair: No, no, but I'm sure Mr Curling spoke to somebody else in Hansard.

Interjection: When will they be ready?

The Chair: They are about a week behind, apparently, at this point.

Mr Curling: Is there any way that we could actually ask for --

Mr McLean: An Instant Hansard.

Mr Curling: Or a delay for the report writing for a week?

The Chair: Apparently it's the Instant Hansard that is behind at the moment.

Interjection: The Instant Hansard takes about a week, yes.

Mr Curling: Could we wait a week to write the report? Is that something that --

Mr McLean: We'll give them some direction tomorrow and then they'll write it anyway.

The Chair: The thing is, tomorrow you're only giving direction for the initial draft. Then you will receive Hansard, and then you can come back and give further direction on Mr Pond's initial draft.

Mr Curling: Okay.

The Chair: So there will be time, I think, to refer to Hansard.

Thank you very much. The committee stands adjourned till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The committee adjourned at 1510.