HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
CONTENTS
Monday 7 December 1992
Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 15
University of Toronto
John Murray, legal counsel
Dr David Cook, vice-provost
Trent University
John O. Stubbs, president and vice-chancellor
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND) for Mr Wessenger
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel: Swift, Susan, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1533 in room 228.
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
Consideration of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.
The Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice to order. We'll be resuming our public hearings on Bill 15, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code.
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
The Chair: I'd like to welcome our first guests from the University of Toronto. Good afternoon. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr John Murray: I'm John Murray, legal counsel of the University of Toronto. With me are my associate from the law firm, who's also a professor at York University, Shirley Katz; Professor David Cook from the University of Toronto, who is vice-provost of the University of Toronto, and Martin England, who is in the planning office of the university and is familiar with the issues surrounding mandatory retirement in the context of the university.
The Chair: Just for the committee's information, their brief won't come in until later in the month because they have a few other things to finalize, so there won't be any written presentation today.
Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to a half-hour for your presentation. The committee members would appreciate it if you'd leave a few moments at the end for questions and comments from each of the caucuses.
Mr Murray: Thank you, and thank you to the members of the committee for inviting us to speak today. It is a subject of some importance to the University of Toronto and to universities in general. The remarks I make today on behalf of the University of Toronto do not intend to ignore, in one sense, the context in which this bill comes forward; that is, the context of a larger workforce. The elimination of mandatory retirement in that larger workforce would have significant impact, obviously, on the fabric of society and on the organization of the labour market, but our remarks are going to be more precisely related to the University of Toronto and the implications of the abolition of mandatory retirement to that institution. I don't want to appear that we are completely egocentric, but it is the institutional issues which we choose to focus on today.
Let me put our submission in a larger context of institutional purpose. You will know, from your own experience, that the purpose of the University of Toronto, like any other university, is the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge and, to quote from its own enabling legislation, "the intellectual, social, moral and physical development of the members and the betterment of society."
These noble aims are in fact achieved with faculty, in an environment where the advancement of learning and dissemination of knowledge can flourish. It's in the context of that statutory and institutional mission that I would like to address mandatory retirement and the potential adverse impact of mandatory retirement on the institution.
In the context of the university's purpose and mission, I would, on behalf of the university, like to ask the committee to consider the adverse impact of the abolition of mandatory retirement in three specific ways: first, the impact on faculty renewal; second, the impact on institutional planning and on the ability of the university to plan; third, the impact on faculty evaluation, academic freedom, tenure and related matters.
Let me deal first, if I might, with faculty renewal. The university's purpose as a creator and disseminator of knowledge has an important public aspect to it. In this province in particular, it is a public function which the government supports. Through scholarship and research, the universities push forward the frontiers of knowledge and, through teaching, they provide post-secondary education for an ever-increasing and diverse number of students. Faculty renewal is an important component in this mission and is necessary in order to fulfil the mandate they have.
Mr Justice Gray, who at the first instance dealt with the mandatory retirement issue in the Supreme Court of Ontario, said as following with respect to faculty renewal: "Faculty renewal provides the vitality that is essential for institutions charged with keeping pace with changing ideas and student demands," this fundamental concept of faculty renewal and keeping pace which is at the core of this first point.
Dr John Evans, who was dean of the McMaster faculty of health sciences and who subsequently was president of the University of Toronto, dealt with faculty renewal in the context of a changing environment, changing demands not only of the academic environment but change in knowledge. He said as follows:
"The inertial forces to which universities are subject often inhibit them from keeping pace with the rate of change of knowledge in society. An example is the discipline of biology. Fifteen years ago, molecular biology and genetics emerged as an exciting area of research with a disciplinary basis quite different from conventional biology." Today, there is a strong consumer demand in society for graduates, research and development in these subjects.
"Further, the growth of molecular biology is not an isolated event. It affects other disciplines including medicine, agricultural forestry and law, but penetrating these academic disciplines requires faculty additions or replacements. It is difficult to introduce new ideas which would compete with those already in place."
"The turnover time of knowledge in some fields is much shorter than the turnover time of professionals in the universities and exceeds the capability of the existing professoriate to adapt. The gap is widening in disciplines in which the rate of change is rapid."
I won't quote the rest, but the point of his comments, which were in fact given as evidence before the courts in the mandatory retirement case, is that a tenured professor has an academic career of 30 to 35 years, assuming retirement at age 65, and to eliminate mandatory retirement and extend the career of a normal professor would reduce the adaptability of the university to change and would add to the inflexibility and rigidity which already weaken the university system. The point is that mandatory retirement is part of a complex arrangement which does identify at a certain point of time and provide an assurance that resources can be freed up and available for faculty renewal in the same discipline or redirected to another discipline.
1540
So the abolition of mandatory retirement would frustrate, if you will, the turnover of faculty, which would then be delayed by on average between five to 10 years, placing the universities in greater jeopardy of becoming obsolete in rapidly changing disciplines.
This is important also, it seems to me, in the context of a closed economic environment, where the institution itself has very limited ability to change its funding base, as this government and other governments will know. It does not have the freedom to control its own finances: It is dependent in large part on government grants and it doesn't have the opportunity to generate funds on its own to create the renewal. So renewal, to the extent that one can agree it's appropriate and prudent for an institution to embrace faculty renewal, is something which in many cases must come from within, and the economics to provide for that renewal must come from within.
It also seems to us to be important that the university maintain its ability to be at the forefront of knowledge and development in areas which are subject to rapid change.
The demands for change in knowledge and research are also related in part to changes in the student demographics and their interests. Dr Evans has commented that recently there has been a change from physical to life sciences, and the universities must maintain an ability to reflect in their teaching the demands and the preferences of the students which come to them, and that also goes to the point of faculty renewal.
The Bovey commission of 1984 dealt with Ontario universities' options and futures, and also focused on the important point of faculty renewal. The commission report stated, among other things, as follows:
"During the course of our hearings, we heard a considerable body of evidence pointing to the very impressive benefits which would accrue to the system if the opportunity to appoint younger faculty were restored to a more normal level. The abnormal faculty age of distribution which has resulted from a dramatic increase in staffing in the 1960s and 1970s has meant that with currently relatively few retirements there are few openings for the present generation of young scholars and teachers.
"The presence of an appreciable number of talented new faculty would enhance instructional quality and adaptability and also assist in building up desired centres of strength in key developing fields of research and instruction. We would be replenishing our stock of human capital.
"To the degree that a more normal number of new appointments occur, improvement in the proportion of women faculty would be possible. Moreover, the additional appointments would greatly aid in enlarging the capacity of the system to cope with the enrolment pressures to be faced at the end of the decade.
"Finally, these younger faculty, if put into the pipeline now, would be available to replace older faculty in the earlier half of the next decade as the rate of retirement of such faculty begins to accelerate. Such bridging to the 1990s is a most desirable component of sound long-range planning."
The present age structure of Ontario universities and university faculties is unbalanced. It is not anticipated that sufficient funds will be able to permit faculty to remain after age 65 and at the same time recruit sufficient faculty to ensure flexibility and renewal. This, in part, is related to the very closed economic environment in which universities operate.
The government of Ontario has recently offered extensive financial assistance to universities in order to permit older staff members to retire early. Among those projects funded during the 1992 fiscal year by the MCU transition assistance program are 14 projects involving 14 universities and costing the government in excess of $6 million, which funds were directed explicitly at encouraging faculty and staff to accept early retirement.
At the University of Toronto, as large cohorts of faculty members hired by the university during the expansion of the system in the 1960s reached scheduled retirement age in the 1990s, significant opportunities for renewal exist. As positions fall vacant, they become available to the very large cohort of students who have enrolled in PhD programs in anticipation of this opportunity. Doctoral enrolment has increased by nearly 60% over the last decade, and this growth in PhD programs has been financed deliberately for this purpose by MCU.
The impact on youth unemployment is inextricably connected in the university to opportunity for young PhDs and the rapidly changing technical and scientific environment, and is necessary not only to create opportunity for PhDs who have been educated to take advantage of this opportunity but also to stay at the forefront of knowledge and research.
There is also, it seems to the University of Toronto, another fundamental societal objective which can be achieved by maintaining mandatory retirement in the context of universities. The government, and indeed universities and employers in this province, are becoming more aware as the days go on of the necessity of creating employment equity opportunities to those who have not participated fully in society and its opportunities. This is as true for the university communities as perhaps in others. The University of Toronto has an employment equity policy already which does recognize four designated groups which have been traditionally disadvantaged in employment, and those are the same groups which the government of Ontario has recognized.
The University of Toronto believes that appointments of women and visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities enrich the university in its curricular and research endeavours and provide role models for students and for society at large. The abolition of mandatory retirement in the universities will, it is submitted on behalf of the university, adversely affect those opportunities.
To be sure, the Premier's adviser on race relations, the Honourable Stephen Lewis, has made comments relating to governances of universities indicating that those governances themselves ought to more accurately reflect the community in which these institutions live. It is our submission that the faculty also reflect the changes in society and in the student body which attends the University of Toronto at present.
In conclusion on the first point, mandatory retirement at 65 permits and encourages faculty renewal and flexibility with respect to new appointments which address a number of vital concerns. As new appointments are made, the face of the professoriate will change gradually through the 1990s. The opportunity exists to hire proportionately more Canadians into the professoriate, to redress gender imbalance, and to increase the numbers of those who are not at present well represented in the professoriate. The abolition of mandatory retirement would jeopardize, if not eradicate, the opportunities that now exist with respect to faculty renewal as a result of retirement of those over 65.
The second and third points I am going to make on behalf of the university re the adverse impact will not be so lengthy. Let me just touch on them briefly so as not to encroach on the time allotted.
1550
The second point is financial planning and the adverse impact the elimination of mandatory retirement would have on the university's ability to plan. The University of Toronto, like other universities, can respond to financial exigencies and to fiscal restraint in large part by retirements and term appointments.
As in the case of all universities in Ontario, the U of T is in the process of implementing stringent budget reduction strategies to reflect the new fiscal reality in Ontario and the level of grants it receives from the government of Ontario. Universities are labour-intensive organizations, and faculty salaries, at least at the University of Toronto, constitute well over half the total cost of program delivery.
To give you an example of what's happening at the University of Toronto now, the existing budget plan through 1995-96 calls for the reduction of approximately 135 academic positions, primarily through the non-replacement of scheduled retirements of faculty and others at age 65. The transfer payment freeze will demand even greater restraint and deeper reduction than those already planned.
Absent the flexibility afforded by mandatory retirement and scheduled retirements that flow from the university's policy regarding retirement at age 65, it will exacerbate the problem, compromise existing budget reduction plans and create uncertainty for the future.
With respect to the third point -- that is, the adverse impact on academic freedom and the evaluation of faculty -- it is necessary to keep one thing in mind, which I think is sometimes forgotten by the outside world, if I can refer to those outside the university as "the outside world." A fundamental and core value of universities is academic freedom which, as most of us will know, is an imperative in a free and democratic society.
A well-known academic administrator, Dr Sibley, has said this about academic freedom: "The principle of academic freedom is the central animating principle of a university and is crucial to its mission. Academic freedom ensures that the university can maintain within itself a healthy balance between orthodoxy and dissent, established knowledge and untrammelled exploration."
Connected to that and fundamental to that in the university system is the concept of tenure, and tenure has really meant that universities have, in order to protect the value of academic freedom, given up the right to terminate except for egregious misconduct of faculty, the theory being -- and the fact being -- that faculty must be allowed to explore without consequence their valid areas of research and scholarship.
In the absence of mandatory retirement at age 65, one of two things will happen: Either tenure until death will be the option of faculty, which will not, in my view, enhance the academic mission, or second, if tenure is not a given until the individual elects to leave the institution, then the university would have to address the question of how to evaluate, for purposes of determining continuing employability, the performance of the faculty. In a world where 65 is not a cutoff, there will be no age-related performance evaluation permitted for purposes of determining employability.
The concerns that the university, and I hope its faculty, would have over this are the potential adverse impacts on the institution. Faculty go through a rigorous examination before they are given the protection of tenure, and that rigorous examination serves the institution well. The abolition of age 65 would, I think, require an assessment of the possibility of performance-related evaluations, which would take up significant time and effort of the institution and distract from its mission.
Perhaps more importantly, there could be a significant adverse impact on academic freedom. On this point, I can't make it better than Dr Mustard did. Dr Mustard, as you know, was previously an academic vice-president at McMaster University, and his concerns about performance-related evaluations were expressed as follows:
"Assessment systems tend to have a steering effect; that is, work or projects will be selected which can be counted on to be completed successfully within a period of review. The optimum cycle is between three and five years. Short-term considerations will therefore come to drive research priorities and selection and thus impair our capacity to engage in long-term basic research. Research which requires a long-term commitment or which is speculative is less likely to be undertaken. This would have a detrimental effect on the quality of scholarship and research in Canadian universities and thereby on the technological developments important to Canada's future."
There have been, I'm sure, in the discussions that relate to mandatory retirement also discussions about the adverse impact on men and women who are reaching the end of their career and the potential less humane and perhaps less tolerable review process that may then be visited on those who do reach the end of their career. In short, the harshness of review could not only in the universities have an adverse impact on scholarship and research and therefore on academic freedom but also, as with many other places, could lead to less tolerance of those who are senior in the professoriate and therefore interfere with the dignified exit that in fact serves an institutional purpose in some cases.
In conclusion, on behalf of the University of Toronto, I would submit to this committee with respect that mandatory retirement serves goals of the university well and ought not to be abolished. Without mandatory retirement, the university risks becoming an outdated institution of higher learning and will adversely affect the ability of the university to renew itself and to be in the forefront of intellectual innovation and to strive for fairness and equity in the workplace.
I thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's interesting for me to note that almost two thirds of the people who have come before this committee in one way or another have been affiliated with universities or are affiliated with universities at the time they come here. It's interesting to note the nerve that obviously this proposal has struck within the university community.
What I wonder, and what no one has been able to really tell us, is how many professors within the University of Toronto are in fact asking to stay beyond the age of 65. What proportion of your faculty wants to stay beyond age 65?
Mr Murray: I don't know. I can certainly undertake to find out for you and report back if we have that statistic. At the University of Toronto some are continued on past age 65 and make an extraordinary contribution. One needs only to remember Professor Frye to be aware that this is certainly something that can happen and does happen, to the benefit of all of society in his case, as well as the University of Toronto and its students.
Whether the environment creates an expectation that requesting will in fact lead to ongoing employment is something that may determine whether people ask to be carried on or not. The only thing I can say is that I would report back to the committee if we do have a statistic and advise you how many individuals ask. My suspicion is not very many, but I don't know.
1600
Mr Harnick: One of the things that concerns me about this bill -- whether I'm for it or against it is really quite irrelevant -- is that this bill is now in committee, and I gather it's received second reading in the Legislature. Because it has proceeded via the private members' process, I have some concern that this bill may ultimately become law without too many people knowing very much about it. You notice that we have virtually no press here, and this is a pretty big issue. I don't know what the government's intentions are in terms of the passing of this legislation. Most private members' bills die after second reading. I have no idea whether this bill is just one of those that's going to slip right through without a lot of people noticing.
I have some real concerns, not so much with the substance of the issue but with the procedure this bill is taking. I don't know what the government's intentions are. I suspect that you at the University of Toronto don't know what the government's intentions are. Normally, a bill that proceeds via the public channels is a lot more up front in the mind of the public than a bill that proceeds in this manner. I wonder if you can tell me, because I know and respect the authority with which the University of Toronto is perceived, whether you know anything about the way in which this bill is going to proceed and what caused you to be here.
Mr Murray: I don't know anything about the government's intention with respect to this particular bill. If anyone at the University of Toronto knows, I can assure you that they have not told me. What causes me to be here is that this private member's bill was noticed and, because of what we think is its very significant impact on the university, has resulted in us making submissions.
As you know, the universities have already been required to invest very substantial funds in this cause, if I can use that word, because of the constitutional challenge to mandatory retirement which occurred in the Ontario courts and went through the Supreme Court of Canada, where the Supreme Court of Canada said that the policies of the universities with respect to mandatory retirement were justifiable in a free and democratic society.
The articulation of the institutional perspective was made in that case and the institution, at least certainly the University of Toronto, remains dedicated to that, particularly in an environment where the university is going to be asked to respond not only to changes in society, changes in disciplines, changes in science and learning, but also is going to be asked to respond and will respond to employment equity commitments, which it has undertaken as a matter of policy and which will be reflected in statutory obligations.
We feel at the university that the potential impact of this legislation on the university is extraordinary and is detrimental to the community it serves, both the internal community it serves and also Ontario. That's why we're here.
Mr Harnick: In my lowly station in this place -- and I tell you, it is lowly -- my suggestion to you would be to speak to the president of the university, who I know is a friend of Premier Rae's. Maybe he'd better ask Premier Rae what his intentions are with this particular piece of legislation, or all of you people may be very surprised at the end of the day. This may just slip by with nobody noticing, no unions, no academic institutions or any other of our so-called stakeholders in these kinds of issues. I certainly don't know what the intention is of the government; they don't tell me those things. But if I were you, I'd be real concerned about that. Knowing your president's close relationship with the Premier, I suspect you better ask your president to get him on the telephone -- because he wouldn't answer our questions in question period about this -- and say: "What are your intentions about this? Are you really going to slip it by?" If you find out the answer, if you could let me know, I'd really be obliged.
Mr Murray: I certainly will pass your suggestion on to the president of the university. I'm not sure it would be the president's expectation that the Premier would disclose his intentions, if he knew them, to the president of the university. I'm not sure their relationship is that way at all.
I am here on behalf of the university and its president to say to the government and to this committee that we as an institution are opposed to the abolition of mandatory retirement, for the reasons we have suggested. If we were invited to comment on the larger societal issues that may have impact on the trade union movement, on collective agreements, on pension planning, which may have a consequence for people in the workplace and may make pensions more or less available, I don't know whether the university would feel it was appropriate in the context of this committee to make those larger arguments.
But we are here to talk about the university, and if anyone wanted us to talk about the other issues on behalf of other groups, I would certainly have to take some instruction on that, because the university is not necessarily going to feel it appropriate in all cases to comment on policy objectives of government just because we're invited to do so. I don't know what the president would say to the Premier apart from asking me to come here, but I will pass that on for sure.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'd just like your opinion on two points. I think we both agree that we'd like to see more women on university faculties and more job equity in a general way. Some women and other people who become available may be what you call late starters, people who have done other things in life and then maybe got academic qualifications at a later age, so they might reach a relatively advanced age yet their qualifications would be up to date, just as those of a younger person might be. It seems hard that somebody like that should be arbitrarily chopped off at age 65 although they may not have made their full contribution. Do you have a comment on that?
Mr Murray: I agree. One cannot disagree with your general observation that there will be individuals at age 65 who have much to offer, for sure, whether they have been qualified recently in their lives or whether they have not. This is a tremendously variable thing.
Ms Carter: Another aspect of that is that somebody who started late would not have qualified for a pension, so they could be in financial hardship if they were forced to retire.
Mr Murray: This is absolutely true, although I think it would be a very unusual situation if a first-time employee at age 60, say, who comes to any employer may or may not have had the benefit of pension plans before. It would be unusual, I think, to conclude that the employer of the older employee can or should do anything about a lifetime with no pensionable earnings. I'm not sure that can be remedied by the employer of the day who is in fact doing something about that.
Ms Carter: We had a presentation from an older women's group and this was something of a great deal of concern to them.
Mr Murray: The university, by the way, doesn't make any distinction, as you would know, between men and women in any benefits, including the accrual of pension entitlement.
Ms Carter: My other point is your observations about up-to-date knowledge and so on. In scientific subjects that's indisputable, but I'm not quite so sure about some other subjects such as classics, history or literary specialties, where you might have somebody who actually might be very hard to replace.
1610
Mr Murray: Undoubtedly, you're correct on that. I think the difficulty is that one is not going to easily distinguish between disciplines for purposes of determining a policy on mandatory retirement, but I think your point is probably a valid one.
On the other hand, there is much to be said for renewal, different perspectives, different focus on the same discipline and opening up a discipline. Aboriginal history, for example, in 1950 may receive a very different treatment by the institution than it does in 1990. Similarly, I suppose, African-American, African-Canadian history, Jewish history, a number of other things, will have changed. Even where we don't traditionally consider rapid change in terms of scholarship, if you will, there may well be very important reasons why, even with history and other subjects, we ought to be opening up departments to others who will bring different perspectives and different scholarship to a changing environment.
Ms Carter: I'll yield to one of my colleagues.
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have to apologize for not being here right at the beginning of your presentation, but I have appreciated the part I heard, and I'm sure I would have the rest.
I have to say, though, that this is probably the worst-kept secret that could have been put out there. More than 2,000 notices were sent to various interest groups, and it was advertised in each of the daily papers. I want to assure you that your being here and your knowing about it isn't an accident. It was deliberate, so that we could have a comment.
Mr Murray: No, I know I'm not here by accident.
Ms Akande: Yes, and I know you're not too, so we're both agreed on that.
My experience has taught me -- and that's also teaching at the universities, as well as elementary and secondary school -- that people most likely teach in the way in which they were taught, rather than in the ways in which they were taught to teach; which would, for me, almost contradict the argument that new blood would necessarily make for better or new perspectives in education. Would you disagree with that?
Mr Murray: I honestly don't know whether I'm in a position to comment on that. I don't think I would feel comfortable as a lawyer making a comment on that. It's nothing I have reflected on and certainly wouldn't have an institutional opinion on it. I'm quite happy to defer to my academic colleague if he wants to respond to that.
Dr David Cook: If I might just make a short comment, if you look at our women's studies program, for example, by setting up a focus on women's studies and then having positions available, which fundamentally come from retirements or vacancies in the other part of the faculty, you do bring in new blood, if you want to call it that, with a new perspective, because that's what you're advertising for. I think that's very important. The president's committee on anti-racism has noted a number of areas where the university should have a presence, a number of fields we are not doing at present. We will again try to open up those positions, which will come from the various faculties but will be brought together in a way in which a new focus will come about. So I think the new blood's quite important, and even if the teaching methods may be quite similar to what they've learned, the focus is important.
Ms Akande: I consider it somewhat unfortunate that we put in opposition, or at least in competition, two groups of people, both for very good reasons, and I don't think the reasoning necessarily supports that. Let me take your example just a little bit further.
We had a presentation here just last week by the Older Women's Network, women who were well beyond the age of 65, who demonstrated a grasp and an ability to discuss women's issues that would be envied by many who are much younger, and who are graduates and who may be applying for positions in the university.
I don't necessarily see that the age of 65 is necessarily a convenience that's going to bring about the hiring of people who would have a better view or even a different view. It just means that younger people are asked to express those views rather than older ones.
Dr Cook: Again, if I could make a short comment, we do have many people past the age of 65 who continue to participate in our programs; they're very valuable. We indeed offer to all the retirees some privileges to stay in the university community, and from time to time we employ them for courses or specific duties. So it's not that when 65 arrives, the curtain comes down and you're severed from the relationship to the university, but the relationship changes.
I can see your point, as Ms Carter raised earlier, about the pension and the financial viability of people. On the other hand, there is still a continuing involvement for many people; where there is a financial burden, that's lessened. So fewer dollars to the individual but the opportunity for the university to renew itself.
The Chair: Ms Katz, Mr Murray, Mr England and Mr Cook, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time this afternoon to bring us your presentation. We'll be looking forward to your written presentation also.
Mr Murray: Thank you very much, and thank you to the members of the committee.
TRENT UNIVERSITY
The Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter from Trent University. Good afternoon. You'll be allowed up to about a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd keep your remarks a little briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.
Mr John O. Stubbs: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is John Stubbs, and I'm the president and vice-chancellor of Trent University. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.
I'd like to begin by saying that many of the things that you heard from the University of Toronto, which is of course the largest university in the system, hold true for the smallest university in the system. We'll soon be the second-smallest, when Nipissing receives its charter.
We have approximately 3,800 full-time undergraduates, 70 graduate students and about 1,800 part-time students. We have about 360 non-academic staff, 240 full-time and 70 part-time faculty. My remarks today will focus on the impact that the abolition of mandatory retirement would have on the faculty workforce at my particular institution.
The proposition I would put forward is that for faculty colleagues in the university setting, certainly in the Trent setting, mandatory retirement is not a hardship. It is the quid pro quo that has allowed us to provide a compensation system for faculty that rewards excellence and provides career incentives in an employment situation where one's duties are not expected to vary from the day a professor starts working until she or he retires. I'm talking about members of the faculty who remain for most of their career in the role of teaching and research. They may for brief periods of time assume some administrative responsibilities, but the vast bulk of their time is spent as active faculties in the creation and dissemination of knowledge.
I would suggest that for my institution, and I think for most universities in Ontario, there are a number of values of mandatory retirement. I would list six, and then I'd like to comment a bit more on some other matters.
First of all, mandatory retirement, as presently exists, allows us to employ the number of faculty we currently have. In other words, we can plan with certainty. We know where we are.
1620
Second, it provides us with one of the very few concrete and absolute planning tools we possess. We actually have the schedule and know when people plan to retire.
Third, it permits faculty renewal through the replacement of senior faculty with junior colleagues in an orderly and predictable fashion, and it allows for the development of new academic fields that provide great societal benefit. You've already had some discussion, and I'd like to talk a bit more about that later.
Fourth, it allows us to provide a career earnings approach to faculty compensation, and this is something that the faculty associations and the unions support.
Fifth, it provides a concrete and discernable feature around which employees can plan their lives and their careers.
Finally, as Mr Murray indicated, it enhances academic freedom and the honesty and integrity of research.
Let me say something about the current and prospective environment in the university I work for. It is clear -- and this is not a partisan statement, but simply a fact -- that funding has not kept pace with inflation for a number of years in the university system, so in effect our income has been declining over a period of time. Many members of the House are familiar with the data we have generated as a system.
Despite this fact, Trent University has, through careful planning, generated a great deal of momentum on a number of fronts which enjoy a high degree of societal value today. Specifically, let me instance our program in native studies, programs in environmental and resource studies and in women's studies.
One third of our current faculty have been hired since 1986, and this has only been possible through the combined effects of positions vacated by mandatory retirement, by voluntary early retirement and by the special government funding for faculty renewal which flowed from the Bovey report that the University of Toronto referenced. By offering nearly half of these appointments to women, we have been able to increase the number of women faculty at Trent by 117% in the last six years.
Currently, the government's attempts to create a secure financial planning -- the 1-2-2 scenario we were promised in January -- have now failed, and the potential consequences are extremely serious. We are attempting at Trent to eliminate a deficit and at the same time to find new ways to deliver services. The one concrete thing we have left now, as we try to deal with the new financial reality, is the known pattern of faculty retirements.
In Trent's case, the numbers are very small. Between now and the end of the decade -- and this is a reflection of the fact that we made a major effort to increase the number of new faculty, fully one third in the last six years -- we will have 34 faculty members retiring at the age of 65 between now and the year 2000. With these 34 positions, we will first of all reduce our base budget by replacing about only half of those individuals who retire; we will rationalize our academic programs by building on our strengths; we will continue to address the various employment equity and other equity agendas; and we will bring fresh, new individuals, who we need to keep us at the leading edge of research and teaching.
If mandatory retirement were abolished through Bill 15 as proposed, what would happen? The evolution of mandatory retirement in this current difficult period of financial restraint would introduce massive uncertainty in our academic and human resource planning and practices. We are a small institution: There are not four of us sitting here making the presentation; there is one person. We don't have the resources. We are very pressed to undertake our fundamental mission.
The current three-year fiscal restraint plan, which we developed at great cost last year through a very wide consultative process, would be abandoned. If mandatory retirement were abolished, we would have to think very hard about the fiscal plan we've developed over the last year, and much of the momentum that we've gained through the new appointments which we have been able to make over the last six or seven years would be slowed down, as hiring would have to be frozen or close to frozen.
Many of our programs are very small -- we have 26 academic programs at the university -- and the loss of even one faculty member would have a serious impact on quality if we did not have the planned certainty of retirement. When we can plan, we can anticipate these particular situations. If we were not able to plan because people might be able to stay to the age of 71, the uncertainty would be very difficult in a number of small academic units.
We would also have to think very carefully about the concept of career earnings approach to faculty compensation. That could have the potential of breaking faith with those who are currently in midcareer, who are counting on higher salaries later in their working lives to compensate for the lower salaries they receive in the early years of employment.
I would suggest that there will also be considerable unrest within the faculty associations and unions in the university sector as we try to figure out new ways to compensate faculty and assess performance. I won't repeat what the University of Toronto said about assessment in the later stages of a faculty member's career, but I do think there would be very serious difficulties in that way.
There is no guarantee that we can find a new or affordable way to compensate and assess faculty which will provide the kind of protection around academic freedom that currently gives society the benefit of research that might take years of work before quantifiable results materialize.
While we are sure that the proponents of Bill 15 are well motivated, it must be understood what the spinoff effects of the abolition of mandatory retirement would be, not only for the few who may enjoy a short elongation of their careers once legislation has been enacted but by all the colleagues who are currently employed in the universities and all those who hope to follow in our sector. In my view, the results, particularly in the current dismal financial climate, would be extremely negative and therefore very unproductive for Trent University and for the university sector as a whole. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr David Winninger (London South): Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. My question has a couple of parts to it. First of all, you're aware, Professor Stubbs, that several other provinces and territories have already made the kind of amendment I'm seeking through my private member's bill.
Mr Stubbs: Yes, I understand.
Mr Winninger: So the first question is, why would Ontario differ in its ability to plan from the other provinces and territories that have already implemented the kind of change that my bill would seek?
Second, I have some difficulty with the notion of tying employment equity initiatives to mandatory retirement. In those jurisdictions where the age has been lifted, 1% to 2% on average of all people who reach the age of 65 choose to stay on, and some of our US data indicate that of the 1% to 2% who stay on, nine out of 10 of those individuals are gone by the age of 67. I know the number who choose to stay on is a little higher in terms of academic appointments. We had some Manitoba data, I recall, presented by the Council of Ontario Universities, indicating 4%, if my memory serves me correctly.
If 96% of academics choose to retire at the age of 65, and the 96% of academics were replaced by employment equity target group members, surely your figures for increasing employment equity would be in the thousands of percentiles rather than in the hundreds. I have a great deal of difficulty justifying in my own mind how women and the other target groups would be held back simply because 1% to 2% or even 4% of academics choose to avail themselves of employment beyond age 65.
1630
Mr Stubbs: I understand very much the drift of your question and what you're trying to suggest. But let me suggest that in a very small institution, if 4% decided not to retire, that would eliminate the potential for hiring. I think it's extremely important to understand the very narrow line that universities are walking down now at the present time. I'm not here to debate the funding scenario, but we are in a very difficult position.
For example, with the 34 faculty who are scheduled to retire at Trent, if some percentage of those individuals decide not to retire and choose to stay on, as I know is the case in Manitoba, to the age of 71 -- it seems that some federal constraints kick in at that particular point -- that's six years. Even if it's a relatively small number of people who stay for an additional six years or potentially up to six years, that really does, in our case, eliminate a tremendous potential that we do have now for very much hiring. It really does circumscribe that quite dramatically.
We're not talking about an institution that has a huge turnover at any one point in time. It's a very small turnover, and there is a kind of certainty now in the situation that I think is accepted by most members of our community.
As Mr Murray and Dr Cook indicated in the case of the University of Toronto, in a number of cases at Trent we have rehired individuals, after they've retired, to teach individual courses, which is often very much what they want to do: They would like to teach one course or they would like to be involved in one research project; in fact, we facilitate continued involvement in research projects.
Mr Winninger: But this bill would not take away that opportunity in any way. Your figure is 34 people who will retire in this year --
Mr Stubbs: No, no, in the next eight years.
Mr Winninger: So 34 people retiring over eight years, and if 4% decided to stay on, that's one or two professors out of 34 people. Surely that's a very marginal effect.
Mr Stubbs: With respect, I don't think the data show that. I don't think the Manitoba data show that at all. I think it shows a significant number of individuals who reach 65 and then stay. And when many individuals take early retirement -- we have an excellent early retirement program at Trent -- if people choose, they tend to choose that at 62, 63, 64. It seems to me that the data in the COU report, with respect, for both Manitoba and York say there is a considerable amount of uncertainty if people stay past 65. My point is that we don't have the flexibility at present to plan in that kind of situation with the present funding we have. That's where I would rest my argument. Certainly personal conversation with individuals at the University of Manitoba would suggest that in some cases a very difficult situation arises.
Mr Winninger: I think I understand your position. I may not agree with it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Winninger. Ms Akande.
Ms Akande: Thank you; I didn't think I'd have an opportunity. How much in advance of their retirement are you notified by those who wish to retire early?
Mr Stubbs: The faculty early retirement program was bargained collectively. Faculty can signal their interest in early retirement, I believe, in their 59th year, and then there is a window each year where they advise the provost's office that they're interested in taking it up in the following period. They can also take partial early retirement through that process.
Ms Akande: So it can be as little as a year in advance. You don't really need to be way down the road before this decision is made and the university --
Mr Stubbs: I think I'm right, but I may be wrong; it may be 18 months. But it's 12 to 18 months.
Ms Akande: Because in a lot of those collection of data, one of the things that seems to be true is that it balances out. As a matter of fact, it often balances in favour of early retirements, which would give the university greater leeway in implementing the new programs you've referred to.
I did want to mention one thing, and I'd really appreciate understanding this better. With the new programs that are very important to be presented now that weren't presented in the past -- native studies, women's studies, African history, environmental studies, all of these -- when you mention those particular courses, within your planning and within the numbers you know you'll have and the budget you'll have, do you then decide how many of which courses you will need to accommodate the numbers of students you have? You have to do some kinds of projections, is that right?
Mr Stubbs: Yes, we do.
Ms Akande: When you're doing that, does it ever occur that there are courses that have been offered traditionally that seem now, in the numbers they're offered, redundant?
Mr Stubbs: Yes.
Ms Akande: What is done with those people who teach them?
Mr Stubbs: Nothing's done with the people. The courses are dropped and faculty take on new responsibilities.
Ms Akande: In the new courses?
Mr Stubbs: It depends on the area. It depends on whether people can move into new disciplines. Even in a small university like Trent, where the smallest academic unit is four -- we feel a minimum of four faculty are needed to offer an honours or general three- or four-year program -- in many of those cases when courses disappear, faculty would pick up new courses.
Of course, faculty -- I want to be clear about this -- are creative people. I know where we're going on this question, but faculty are continually bringing new courses on stream. It is often a faculty member who will begin to lead the university in new directions. Native studies is a perfect illustration of that, and so is women's studies.
Ms Akande: Yes, I know. So sometimes it is an older professor who begins a new course.
Mr Stubbs: On occasion, but it is equally the case that we will hire -- I want to get this point back -- a young faculty member into a "traditional" department and that person will lead the breakthrough into a new area. Women's studies is a perfect illustration of that; that's how it came about at Trent.
Ms Akande: I appreciate your position. I just don't agree.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Akande. Mr O'Connor.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Just a short question. Tomorrow the committee is going to be hearing from the Ontario Federation of University Faculty Associations. In preparation for coming here today, did you happen to have some discussion with your faculty? What might have been their opinion on this issue?
Mr Stubbs: I'll be very honest with you. Despite the notification that Ms Akande drew to our attention, I only became aware of this when the Council of Ontario Universities advised that hearings were being held. We contacted Ms Freedman and this was the only slot available, so I have not had time to consult with the faculty association. I would imagine, knowing our faculty association, that there would be a wide range of views on this matter within the association. That would be my guess.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr O'Connor. Mr Stubbs, on behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for taking the time out this afternoon and bringing us your presentation. Thank you very much.
Mr Stubbs: Thank you. Could I add just one item? There was a question about York, and Mr Murray, who is also legal counsel at our university on some items, has advised that at York, when it introduced flexible retirement, no employed faculty member went on early retirement; they all stayed. So the initial York experience suggested that they were going to continue.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, thank you very much for that piece of information. Seeing no further business before this committee this afternoon, the committee stands adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow afternoon.
The committee adjourned at 1640.