EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF SOUTH ASIAN CHRISTIANS
LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
SOUTH ASIAN CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 August 1993
Employment Equity Act, 1993, Bill 79
CAW Canada
Buzz Hargrove, president
Peggy Nash, assistant to president
Lisa Kelly, national legal representative
Harish C. Jain
Committee on the Status of Women
Barbara Haber, spokesperson
Fiona Haapalehto, management services department, equal opportunity division
Tamil Eelam Society of Canada
Selvam Sridas, program coordinator
Ram Selvarajah, program assistant
Nadarajah Sivakumaran, legislation adviser
Gotong Royong Trading
Michael Kerr, representative
Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues
Jacqueline Pelletier, president
David MacKay
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
John Rae, employment equity adviser
Canadian Council of South Asian Christians
Frank Seevaratnam, member, committee on social affairs
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario
Eva Nichols, executive director
South Asia Canadian Chamber of Commerce
George Mathew, spokesperson
Continued overleaf
Continued from overleaf
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L) for Mr Chiarelli
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Mr Malkowski
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Duignan
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND) for Ms Akande
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Mills
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND) for Ms Akande
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Harnick
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel:
Campbell, Elaine, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Kaye, Philip, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 151.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call the meeting to order. I want to welcome the deputants here this morning, Mr Hargrove and Ms Nash.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Concerning the testimony given by Mr Michael Buckborough yesterday afternoon, I have a note here that the OPP reports that it has never had an application from anybody named Michael Buckborough. In 1991 it did have an application from another Buckborough but with an entirely different first name. The application records have been kept on file since the early 1980s.
Their stats show that the most recent graduating class, July 29, 1993, was 50% male, approximately 40% of whom were white males. The other stats are: 50% women, 9% racial minorities, approximately 2% aboriginals and approximately 7% disabled people.
According to Mr Buckborough's information yesterday that he put on the record, this contradicts it, and this was sent to us from the OPP.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Fletcher. I'm not sure it's a point of order, but I think the information is useful.
CAW CANADA
The Chair: Mr Hargrove and Ms Nash, welcome. We have a half an hour for your presentation. You probably know how it works. You might want to leave plenty of time for questions and answers. You can begin at any time.
Mr Buzz Hargrove: We have another member of our delegation who will be joining us -- she had an early meeting this morning -- Lisa Kelly from our legal department staff.
The first six pages of our brief are a summary of the CAW's position on Bill 79. I'd like to read that into the record -- that shouldn't take long -- and then take questions or comments.
The National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada, CAW Canada, represents upwards of 170,000 workers in a broad range of Canadian industries; 70% of our members work in Ontario. Over the past decade, the number of women in our union has doubled. Women now make up approximately 20% of our membership.
CAW welcomes the opportunity once again to make our views known on employment equity and Bill 79 to the Ontario government. We have participated in the development of the Ontario Federation of Labour response and we support its very detailed position. In this brief we will first outline some of our major concerns and then proceed in more detail.
We present our views from the perspective of a union that has some experience in negotiating and implementing employment equity measures since the mid-1980s. These include conducting extensive training in human rights and harassment, creating a child care centre for parents working shifts and participating in workplace employment equity committees.
While we struggle for equality in the workplace, we are painfully aware that racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination continue to plague Ontario workplaces. We also know well that systemic discrimination continues to deny many workers jobs.
We have participated in extensive consultations throughout the development of Bill 79 and the regulations, including as members of the minister's advisory committee on employment equity and on the regulations development advisory group. While we have found the consultation process a lengthy and frustrating exercise, we remain hopeful that our views will be heard by this committee.
Our concern is that consultations seem to have led to an increasingly weak approach to employment equity. Bill 79 sounds progressive and ground-breaking, but in reality it may not make much progress in the workplace and in fact it may weaken rights that already exist in the Human Rights Code and in collective agreements.
The NDP, while in opposition, prepared a private member's bill on employment equity that took a tough and principled stand. However, in spite of the Ontario government's expressed commitment to mandatory employment equity, we find Bill 79 is a disappointing attempt at achieving this goal.
The bill itself is thin and vague. We object to the unusual approach of leaving most of the important content to the regulations. As with other legislation, the bill should include the key provisions, with the regulations providing more technical detail as required.
We are also concerned about provisions in Bill 79 and the regulations which allow employer discretion where it should require mandatory compliance. The bill sets up a structure for employment equity with procedures for gathering information and setting goals. However, this process is undermined in several places by leaving the decision-making power up to the employer, who will determine what is reasonable, and in many cases without the involvement of the union.
For example, in organized workplaces it is not spelled out clearly that the union must play a joint role in developing and reviewing the employment equity program. Bill 79 also allows employers to sunset completed workforce surveys and employment systems reviews even when the union was not involved in developing these. There is also concern that the requirement for employers to make "reasonable efforts" may undermine the "undue hardship" provisions of the human rights legislation. Further, allowing employers to set their own goals and timetables and determine what is achievable really just amounts to voluntary employment equity, or a continuation of the status quo.
Our experience with employers is that they will not make employment equity a reality until they are forced to do so. We know from limited negotiated provisions and from the federal legislation that voluntary employment equity rarely gets farther than the paper it's written on.
1010
If employers were serious about employment equity, they could already have made many important changes voluntarily. They control the hiring, physical workplace premises, how work is organized, the speed of production, the purchase of materials, the job requirements and so on. They could make enormous progress through fairer hiring, making workplaces accessible, eliminating workplace harassment and improving access to training, but most employers do little or nothing to advance equality in the workplace.
To now allow employers to determine whether or not they are making reasonable attempts to achieve employment equity is ridiculous. So too with the lack of public accountability. If employers are not required to make plans accessible in the workplace and to the public, many will not make a serious effort to achieve equity.
We also strongly object to the possible erosion of seniority rights with Bill 79. Given the employer's enormous power and control in the workplace, to suggest that if it were not for seniority there would be greater equality is naïve at best. Management ranks and non-union employers are hardly models of employment equity, yet seniority is the only barrier listed in Bill 79.
We urge the Ontario government to delete paragraph 41(1)5 from the bill. We further recommend that subsection 5(2) of the bill be amended, as detailed later in our brief, to protect existing seniority rights as long as they're in compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Our workplace union representatives fight every day of their lives to advance workers' rights in the workplace against the arbitrary power of the employer. Seniority rights can mean that an aging worker has the right to bid off a physically demanding job to an easier one. It can mean that a worker with a disability has a right to a given job that may become available and then require the employer to accommodate that job even though there might be others in the workplace who might be more qualified.
For the CAW, the issue is not who is the most qualified but whether the person with the seniority has the ability and the skill, with training and accommodation if necessary, to perform the required job. We reject the employer argument that merit, or in other words best qualified, should be the governing principle in the workplace.
We do understand the need for special measures such as lateral entry for people with disabilities and special provisions for women to enter non-traditional jobs in the skilled trades. We want to be involved in determining if and how such measures would be introduced.
We have also placed a priority on bargaining innovative provisions to improve retirement pensions so that the aging workforce can retire in dignity while jobs are created and secured for younger workers. We continue to press the federal government to allow senior workers to go out on layoff based on inverse seniority and to access the supplementary unemployment benefits so that older workers get a break from the workplace with financial security while younger workers keep their security and greater income when they need it most. We have also made reduced work time a bargaining priority in order to create new jobs. These measures will improve the retention of the designated groups in the workplace.
We further call on the government to amend the bill to include smaller workplaces, where the most job growth is likely to occur. In many traditional industrial workplaces, and unfortunately in many public sector workplaces, there will be only minimal job growth for the foreseeable future. It makes no sense to exempt the workplaces that are likely to grow from the requirement to achieve basic equity provisions.
The Ontario government now has, with this legislation, the opportunity to make important progressive changes in our workplaces. We reject the notion that such changes should be postponed because of the recession. Many members of the designated groups live in a permanent recession because of systemic discrimination. We urge the government to make this legislation meaningful and effective while ensuring that the current workforce maintains its security and hard-won rights during these difficult economic times.
That's a summation of our brief, Mr Chair, and I'll be happy to take questions or comments on the brief.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hargrove. We'll continue the rotation of questions and we'll begin with government members. I have Mr Fletcher. We have approximately six and a half minutes per caucus.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I'm just wondering, with all the collective agreements that the CAW handles, has it ever negotiated a clause in its collective agreements to implement an employment equity committee made up of management and bargaining members?
Mr Hargrove: Yes, we have in some agreements employment equity committees.
Mr Fletcher: How does that work? Is it working well?
Mr Hargrove: The employment equity committees for the most part have tried to develop an employment equity plan with the employer. It hasn't got very far, quite frankly. I think the most positive part of the plan so far has been the outreach that these committees have been able to accomplish by going into the visible minority communities, into the schools, into the women's groups, and talking about the opportunities in the workplace and encouraging them to apply for employment that they wouldn't normally apply for because they think they would not be hired.
Mr Fletcher: Is management going along with this? Are they participating?
Mr Hargrove: They're going along with it only in the sense that there's no requirement, there's no pressure, there's no force. We haven't been able to bargain, in spite of the strength of our union, numerical goals and timetables for hiring of the targeted groups. We haven't been able to accomplish that in any collective agreement.
Mr Fletcher: So Bill 79, as far as that part is concerned, is a step in the right direction, as far as numerical goals.
Mr Hargrove: Bill 79 is similar to what we've been able to accomplish voluntarily with the employers, but it's meaningless in the sense that it doesn't force them to take the steps that we think are necessary if you really are going to deal with this important issue.
Mr David Winninger (London South): I certainly appreciated your comments and your suggestion to amend subsection 5(2) of the act. It's my understanding of the bill that if job growth occurs in particular workplaces that right now would be exempt from the provisions of Bill 79, they then, once they reach those levels of employment, no longer are exempt. So I didn't quite understand the second-last paragraph that you read that suggested that workplaces that are likely to grow from the requirement to achieve basic equity provisions should not be exempt. Do we interpret the act differently?
Mr Hargrove: All of the analysts we've talked to say the workplaces from 5 to 20 are the growth areas of the future, and this legislation, as we understand it, would exempt them from the act. The growth would have to go above 100 people and we don't see that happening in a lot of workplaces. That would play a very minor role if you look to just that group in the future.
Mr Winninger: I take your point, but I just wanted to make sure that there was the understanding there that once they reach present levels of employment, they're no longer exempt.
Mr Hargrove: Yes, we understand that.
Mr Winninger: Secondly, there's an indication in your brief that these employment equity objectives should be made mandatory in some way. At the same time, though, we have this struggle between existing seniority rights and the desire to put teeth into employment equity legislation. For example, the Committee on the Status of Women, which has presented a brief, and they'll be presenting here today, has suggested that seniority has been a barrier in going from one sector of an employer to another because they can't take their seniority rights with them and would like to see protection in that regard. I wonder if you could comment on how seniority and the right to employment equity can be dovetailed in a more effective way.
Mr Hargrove: The example you just gave would be so minute in the overall scheme of things that those people who want to try to keep the focus and blame the lack of the targeted groups being in the workplace on unions can point to very limited examples. Some of them, especially in the public sector, as I understand it, have restrictions between bargaining units.
My position on that is quite simple: Where there are barriers between two bargaining units of the same employer, then the union and the company have an obligation to sit down and work those out to allow people to transfer with seniority, as long as it doesn't take away from the people in that unit. In other words, you shouldn't allow someone to transfer from one bargaining unit to another and lay off someone in the receiving bargaining unit.
Seniority is not a barrier. The people who are talking about seniority being a barrier, most of them haven't spent 10 minutes in a workplace. I spent my life in the workplace. I think I know a little bit about seniority.
Mr Winninger: I guess that brings me briefly to my third point in regard to participation of employees in setting goals for companies. As you know, there is some machinery built into the act which is designed to encourage employee participation in setting goals, breaking down barriers and developing an employment equity plan. How would you like to see those provisions strengthened? Clearly, from your brief, you feel they're inadequate. I'm talking now about the joint employer-employee committees.
Ms Peggy Nash: The bill says that there should be joint involvement in most of the major elements of the legislation, but it's undermined by the regulations, which just define most of the provisions with employer involvement. Then there's one clause that says, "Where we say `employer,' we mean also the bargaining agent." We want it spelled out very clearly that throughout the process it should be the union and management, because our experience is that we have had to force the employers to even address, to even look at the issue of employment equity. We've had to force them at the bargaining table to even sit down with us to set up a committee and begin talking about employment equity. We want it very clear that our involvement should be from the very beginning and throughout the process, and that also gets to the issue of the sunsetting of existing workplace surveys and the census etc. It's crucial that the existing workers buy into the process from the beginning with their involvement on employment equity.
1020
Mr Winninger: I see. Certainly, the draft regulation is out there for consultation and I'm sure your comments will be greatly appreciated by the minister.
The Chair: Very well. We need to move on to the next speaker. Before I do that, I want to welcome Ms Kelly to these hearings.
Ms Lisa Kelly: Thank you; I apologize for being late.
The Chair: That's quite all right.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you for your presentation. Some of the things that you mentioned in here are things that my party has been saying all along, that this is weak legislation and that it could do more harm having weak legislation at all. We hope the government will be listening.
It is quite appropriate when you mention about the fact how progressive the government of today was when it was in opposition. It presented a private member's bill on employment equity, and as soon as it got into power it reversed and put itself in a reverse gear and made this rather weak bill here itself.
I'll come to that later on, about your seniority, the seniority situation that has been made provision for in here, in the bill. I'll come to that soon.
I want to talk specifically about your organization itself. Would you say that the CAW itself has had its employment equity enforced and that there are good results there reflecting the community, the geographic region you represent? I'm talking about the CAW itself.
Mr Hargrove: We wouldn't put ourselves up as the model for the country -- there may be some better -- but I would say that we have moved light-years in the last decade on all of these issues. For example, we've hired, in the last decade, staff members for the top positions in our union, and now women reflect on our staff the percentage of women in the workplace.
We changed our constitution for a mandatory requirement to have both women and visible minorities on our 13-member executive board, the parliamentary body of our union from across Canada.
I have been elected president one year now. I have made one staff appointment, and that was a visible minority. I made the commitment at our convention that I was going to start moving on the area of visible minorities. We have native Canadians on our staff. We are working towards full employment equity in every aspect of our union. We're talking about bargaining committee members. We have in place probably one of the most extensive training programs for workers of colour, for assertiveness training for women, special programs for women of colour. We have programs now in all of our local unions that require, by constitution, the locals to provide child care services during all meetings that allow women, including the paying of individual child care providers, if that's necessary.
We may not be the model, but I would challenge any employer in the province to be anywhere near where we're at on the issues.
Mr Curling: That's unfortunate, because I want to see unions as one of the progressive institutions that fight for the rights of all. I think what you are saying to me too is that you have not progressed.
Mr Hargrove: You didn't listen to what I said, Mr Curling. If you read that into what I said, you're at a different meeting than I am.
Mr Curling: In the sense that you're saying that there is still a far way to go in employing disabled and --
Mr Hargrove: No, I didn't say that. We have people of disability on our staff. I said that we may not be the model, but we are working towards and that in most areas we are very close. I don't want to say we're 100% today, but I'll challenge you to find another organization in the country that's any closer to 100% on these issues.
Mr Curling: The idea you're saying is how we define progress anyhow. You're saying that you have maybe the one or two in your organization, and that is progress.
Mr Hargrove: That's not true. That is an absolute misrepresentation of my presentation this morning, Mr Curling.
The Chair: Mr Hargrove, I think you were quite clear. I'm going to ask him to continue with the next question. Mr Curling, go ahead.
Mr Curling: I never even started the question properly.
Mr Hargrove: No, he can't. I happen to be the witness, and you're not going to twist my words, you or him.
Mr Curling: It's just that I want to understand you. One of the worst things to do about listening is misunderstanding what you've said. Did you say that most people do not spend their life in the workplace? I heard you saying that a while ago, and that you have. The fact is, I presume, that most people who are working, they must be in the workplace itself, because the remark you said, "Most people don't spend their lives in the workplace."
Mr Hargrove: Where seniority determines rights.
Mr Curling: I didn't hear that part. But the fact is, though, I'm still concerned. Why would you feel that seniority provision, which I feel is pretty weak as a matter of fact, I feel that seniority shouldn't be a part of it anyhow, in other words, that seniority shouldn't be a part of employment equity, provision made to protect --
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Just chuck out everybody and put in --
Mr Curling: You'll get your chance, Ms Harrington, to ask your question. Could you explain to me, really, where do you see that this seniority provision here would in any way impede your progress in --
Mr Hargrove: In our workplaces, job postings by collective agreement are put up in the department in the plant, and workers bid on those jobs based on their seniority. The seniority does not show the colour of a worker; it doesn't show the sex of a worker, the religion of a worker. It allows workers to move through the system. I would recommend, if you seriously think seniority is an impediment, you should talk to some people from the women's groups, the visible minority community who are working in our shop.
Let me give you one example of a recent happening. General Motors closed down its Scarborough plant. In the auto industry it was the model for employment equity. There were more visible minorities and women in that factory than probably any factory in the province. They would all be unemployed today except we have a seniority provision that allows them to go into the Oshawa facility. There are a large number of them, as a result of our union negotiating a third shift in the truck plant down there, who have jobs today because of our seniority provisions who wouldn't have those jobs if we didn't do that.
I would challenge any member of the committee, in our union, to show where seniority has been a bar to equity within the workplace. The real problem is employers are not hiring the targeted groups. Once they're in the workplace, seniority is the equalizer for all. It doesn't discriminate against any people.
Mr Curling: One quick --
The Chair: Mr Curling, we can't. If we do that then we'll have a problem with time.
Mr Curling: They were interacting on my time.
The Chair: You have been given more than adequate time. Ms Witmer, then Mr Tilson if time allows.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you for your presentation. You indicated on page 5 that you do not believe that merit should be the governing principle in the workplace, and I guess personally I feel very strongly that there needs to be a preservation of merit in order that the best-qualified person should get the position. To me that's fairness and equity, and I guess I hear you saying that you reject that. Those are your words. Could you explain that further for me, please.
Mr Hargrove: Yes. Again, best qualified. If we just took the people in this room, including myself, depending on who made the determination, a lot of us might not be here, including you and I. Einstein might be the best-qualified person to be a septic tank operator, but you don't necessarily need all of those skills. As long as someone has the skills and can grow into the job by training, we believe that person should have the right to this job, not based on the employer who says this person has more merit or more ability. That's where seniority comes in as well. It takes away the unilateral right of the employer to determine who gets the job once you're in the workplace.
Mrs Witmer: I'm not sure that we disagree with one another, by the way. I still hear you saying that the best-qualified person should get the job.
Mr Hargrove: No. Again, maybe I'm not speaking clear this morning. I said the person with the seniority who has the ability and may not be the best qualified but has the ability and with training or accommodation on the job should get that job. They may not be the best qualified out of all of the applicants.
1030
The Chair: Ms Nash, did you want to comment as well?
Ms Nash: I was just going to say, to clarify, if you think of, say, an industrial workplace where there's a job opening coming up. I may be the next person on the seniority list and so I want to apply for that job and maybe I need a little bit of training, but I'm entitled to get that job. There may be someone in the plant who has an automotive maintenance certificate or something who may be objectively the best qualified if you use that as the equalizer, but I'm the next person in line and I maybe don't have that certificate, but I have the right to bid for that job and with my seniority to get it and to demand the training that will allow me to do that job.
Mrs Witmer: But both of you are talking about already being in the workplace, whereas I'm talking about coming from outside the workplace.
Mr Hargrove: Well, the same argument, even more important at that point. There's all kinds of systemic discrimination taking place today in hiring. The auto industry, for example, has these special GATB tests it puts in place, and they clearly provide a barrier to a lot of groups getting into the workplace. Yet history will show: In the plants today we have people who have very little education -- we're doing a lot of training on literacy and we're finding out that people can't read or write -- but these same people are building some of the best cars built in the world; the quality, the productivity is as good as anywhere in the world. Yet if you let the corporations run the show, the workforce in the future will all have at least high school equivalent or up and a high IQ that has absolutely no bearing on how you put together an automobile. It will keep a lot of groups out, especially the groups we're talking about in this legislation, and it will add absolutely nothing to our society.
Mrs Witmer: So what are you saying is not important, that literacy and numeracy skills are not important?
Mr Hargrove: I'm saying that just because people haven't had the opportunity that you and I may have had to go to school, they shouldn't be kept out of the factories by these barriers that the employers put up. They can still do the work as well as any individual who comes in there with a university degree.
Mrs Witmer: But don't we have a responsibility to make sure that people do have the numeracy and the literacy skills?
Mr Hargrove: Yes, we do, and our union is doing that.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Do you believe this bill has systemic discrimination against white males?
Mr Hargrove: No. If you look in the workplace today, there's not much argument that there has been discrimination or will be discrimination against white males.
Mr Tilson: If you're looking at it today.
Mr Hargrove: I said or in the future. If you took a photo of today and you look at the future, you'd have to really be reaching to think that somehow there's going to be discrimination against white males, because that has not been the record.
Mr Tilson: That has been criticism that has come from some delegations to this committee.
I appreciate your thoughts on bringing some of the regulations into the bill. Personally, I'm averse to bureaucrats changing the rules in midstream, or indeed legislators or members of this committee or you or I being unable to properly debate the major principles of the particular piece of legislation. This bill is yet another example of what this government is doing, that we don't seem to have the opportunity to do that at this committee.
The other issue on which I have sympathy with what you're saying is the issue of seniority, that that principle seems to be withering away with this piece of legislation. The question that I have for you is an issue that has been raised at this committee.
As I understand it, a survey or a plan must be put forward by the employer with a goal to achieving a representation of members of certain designated groups in each occupational group. Then the Employment Equity Commission can review that and if it's deemed that it hasn't reached its timetables or that the designated groups don't fit into it, that employer will be deemed to be guilty of non-compliance with the principles of employment equity.
That sounds fine, and there may well be many or some companies that haven't followed principles of employment equity, for whatever reason, to date. The fear I have is, will that result in certain people being laid off in order to meet down the line the timetables that are being imposed by this legislation through the commissioner, through a tribunal to a particular employer? What will that do to existing employees you now represent?
Ms Nash: I just think that's fear-mongering. The point of this legislation -- again, we just wish it were tougher -- is to force employers to hire fairly and to treat people fairly once they're in the workplace. The scenario you're painting is exactly what shouldn't happen, and the legislation is clear that seniority will apply for layoff and recall; that's very clear and we have no quarrel with that. People will not be laid off in order to achieve employment equity. All we're saying is that within the workplace for other job opportunities seniority should also be protected, as long as it's not discriminatory but is bona fide seniority in accordance with the Human Rights Code.
Mr Tilson: I agree that at the outset that makes sense. I'm talking about existing companies which, for whatever reason -- inadvertent, advertent, whatever -- have an unfair distribution. Meanwhile, those people and many whom you may in fact represent could conceivably -- if we're saying, particularly when you look at the preamble of this bill, that there's been widespread discrimination in this province, and that's what this bill says and that's why this bill is being put forward, because there's widespread discrimination, that, by implication, means that down the line we're going to have a number of people laid off to enforce the principles of this bill.
Ms Kelly: If I can address that, if you look at the powers of the commission, the powers of the tribunal, none of them are aimed in that area, and if you look at the history of the courts, in the Supreme Court of Canada and Action travail des femmes, there is some punishment for past wrongs in terms of fines, but the goal is forward-looking: that if you haven't achieved your goals then perhaps you're going to have to report more regularly and your next plan will be audited earlier. But I don't think there's anything in the bill or the regulations that give the tribunal the ability to get in there and force certain people to be laid off. I agree with Peggy. I think that's scaremongering.
Mr Hargrove: We, on behalf of our presentation, are not proposing that, either.
Mr Tilson: I hope you're right.
The Chair: Sorry, we've run out of time. Mr Hargrove, Ms Nash and Ms Kelly, thank you very much for coming and making this presentation to us today.
Mr Hargrove: Thank you, Mr Chair and the committee, for the opportunity of being here this morning.
HARISH C. JAIN
The Chair: I'd like to call Professor Harish Jain.
Mr Harish C. Jain: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I'd like to just go into a little bit of introduction for a couple of minutes and then move to the projection of overhead slides so that we can see in point form because of lack of time.
The workforce in Canada, especially in this province, is changing dramatically. Projections indicate that more than 70% of the new workforce entrants by the year 2000, the end of this decade, will be women and minorities. Therefore, only 15% to 20% will be white males.
The changing demographic makeup of the Canadian workforce in the labour market suggests that increasingly the jobs will be filled by women and by minorities. At the same time, there have been and will be increases in managerial and professional jobs by the end of this decade. Since commerce and trading with other nations is becoming the mainstay of Canada and international competition is on the increase, managers of Ontario and Canadian organizations will increasingly work with their counterparts from different countries, cultures, ethnic and racial groups. Canadian organizations and management must, of necessity, utilize talent regardless of gender, colour, religion etc to be competitive, to survive and to grow.
1040
Managing a diverse workforce therefore has become a bottom-line issue if Canadian organizations are to gain and retain their competitive edge. From the perspective of this province, and from the perspective of the nation as a whole, underutilization and unemployment of women and racial minorities in particular has significant economic costs. There are three different studies available, two in the United States and one in the UK, that show that this underutilization and/or unemployment of these groups can result in an estimated loss of several percentage points of national income, which runs into billions of dollars.
If I have time I'll be pleased to give you details of these studies, but the point I'm making is that in terms of underutilization, significant economic cost in terms of lower national output, labour market inefficiency, high inflation and excessive welfare and penal system costs are the result of discrimination and lack of equity in the workplace.
The clerk's memo said that I should point out some factual information, so let me give you my research that I have been doing over the last 10 years. Serving the parliamentary committee on visible minorities, I was told, "There's no research to back up what you're saying," so I started doing the research.
I have done three studies of the same police forces across this country, 14 of them, the same police organizations including the largest in the large urban centres: one in 1985, in 1988 and then in 1990. Those studies indicate -- and partly as a result of that, under the Liberal government the Police Services Act came about, which was supported by the NDP in opposition and which I thought was a very progressive bill -- the highest percentage of visible minorities in police forces is in Metro Toronto. In 1990 that was 5% of police officers -- in Toronto, as you know, the community representation is close to 18% -- and that's despite the fact that the Metro Toronto police has had employment equity since 1983.
I also wanted to do directly a study on employment equity, so I have done three different studies on employment equity throughout this country. Most of the organizations that participated, private and public sector, are in this province. One was done in 1985, another one was done three years later and the third in 1991. In all these three studies, I found in the same organizations across this country very little progress because employment equity is voluntary, because there is no mandatory bill that says you must have goals and timetables.
Also, under my supervision, a student did a study of newspapers in this country, 10 newspapers which account for 85% of the circulation in this province, and what he found was that in December 1986 three groups -- visible minorities, natives and people with disabilities -- represented only 30 or 1.7% of the 1,731 full-time newsroom employees. The reason I have cited these is to indicate that without mandatory employment equity, there is not likely to be much progress.
In my view, this bill that was presented in 1992 does have some positive features -- let me just go over these -- as well as some problems.
The positive features of the act: In the preamble and in the principles, it is recognized that there is systemic discrimination. The scope and coverage of the act, although I think it's inadequate, certainly is better than the federal bill, the federal legislation.
The employer and union joint responsibility that are listed in the bill need some improvement, but certainly are far better in this than in the federal employment equity legislation. There is a specific provision of the Employment Equity Commission and tribunals which I think is a very progressive step, because we have been asking for that. In my research I have suggested that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not able to cope with the federal employment equity bill complaints regarding employment equity, and we suggested a separate Employment Equity Commission. I think this has happened in this particular case. There are some very important contract compliance provisions that are listed in this bill.
The recommendations I would like to make, which I think are very serious weaknesses in this bill, are as follows.
Everything has been relegated to regulations, and the regulations that have come out are extremely weak. They will set the cause of employment equity, in my view, back. They are not going to be progressive. I would be glad to go into details later on.
I think there should be mandatory filing of employment equity plans and this should be done regularly with the Employment Equity Commission, and that should be put in the act itself. The act is misleading because it suggests that there are specific plans that employers are going to be required to do, and when we see the regulations, that is not so.
There ought to be regular annual public reporting of designated group numbers by levels, salary groups etc, just like in the federal employment equity plans that are required of banks, transportation and communication companies.
There ought to be a standard survey questionnaire so there is not the confusion that exists in the federal Employment Equity Act and the provisions and the regulations under that bill.
I think there should be a clear definition of the designated groups, not in the regulations but in the act. There ought to be minimum standards for goals and timetables in the act itself. In a number of places in the regulations, timetables are not even mentioned, which I think is a serious failure. That is why I think the regulations, if they're adopted, would be a setback.
We should adopt an expedited arbitration model for the Employment Equity Tribunal that exists in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, and finally, we should specify that the Employment Equity Commission and the tribunal, especially the commission, will have 50% or more designated group members, and the rest from the employer and the union groups.
I think those are the main recommendations. Having limited time, I would be glad to answer questions that you might have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jain. We'll begin with the official opposition, six minutes per caucus.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to thank you for a very excellent presentation. I'd like you to expand a little bit, if you will, on your concern that one of the problems, as you defined it, is that the regulation you believe will set the goals of employment equity back. Could you expand on that a little bit for us, please?
Mr Jain: I think the regulations don't really require employers -- I mean, all they have to file is a certificate. There is no filing of the plan. Academics like myself have done research on the federal employment equity plans only because they're publicly available. We ordered them in our library at McMaster University and the students are able to do term papers. The designated groups can look at the numbers and the salary ranges and we can tell whether the employer has or has not made progress.
If you look at the complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, they have been prompted because this information is publicly available. Otherwise, whatever little progress has been made under the federal employment equity legislation would not have been made. That is the reason.
1050
Mrs Caplan: One more question and then I'll yield to my colleague. You made a very strong presentation that the principles and goals of employment equity are good for business, given both the trading nature of our province as well as the reality that 70% of the new labour force will be from the defined designated groups, yet there doesn't seem to be anything in this legislation that provides that kind of incentive for business to come to that conclusion through educational understanding rather than the big stick of legislated approach. Do you have any comment on that? Because I share your concerns about legislation actually setting the cause and the goals back.
Mr Jain: I agree with you. I think there ought to be certainly a very important educational role and funding ought to be allocated to the commission, and as well, OTAB should work far more vigorously in that direction. The proposed Ontario Training and Adjustment Board should really be a vehicle for this kind of training effort.
In these regulations, you'll notice there is nothing that talks about positive action --
Mrs Caplan: Exactly.
Mr Jain: -- which I think is a tremendous failure. You look at the bill, it says "positive action" all the way. When you look at the regulations, not one word. If you don't have proactive -- which is what positive means -- action, why do you criticize the Toronto police and all the other police forces? Why do you have in the Police Services Act such strong regulations that the police chief can be fired, the board can be fired, if they do not implement -- where are the sanctions in this bill? There is nothing. That is very disappointing. Both carrot and stick need to be there, and they go together, in my view.
Mr Curling: I'm hearing you saying that being that this is regressive legislation, you will not support an employment equity bill like this.
Mr Jain: Let me put it this way: When the federal employment equity bill was proposed, I thought it was very weak but I supported it. I went to Senator Marsden saying, "If you do not support it, we will be very unhappy." She did. She changed her mind. I will support the bill because it's a step in the right direction. However, the regulations can be changed with a change in the government, or even this government. I'm very practical in that sense. I don't want to be on cloud nine or academic about these things. I know progress sometimes inch by inch is more important than no progress at all.
Mr Curling: Are you concerned that the non-union people within a company are not at the table planning the employment equity plan too?
Mr Jain: I am very concerned because here we have the pay equity legislation, which has been recently strengthened and amended, yet employment equity -- we haven't learned anything from the pay equity legislation. We haven't learned a thing from the federal employment equity legislation. We have had six, seven years of that legislation and the biggest weakness -- Alan Redway, the chair of the committee reviewing that act, himself recommended to the government -- he comes from the same party -- that you should strengthen this bill. So I am concerned, yes.
The Chair: One final question.
Mr Curling: Another question completely, just your thoughts on this: The Ontario College of Art has announced that it will only employ women in order to historically right the situation that has been bad for a long time. Do you think this is the right direction to go?
Mr Jain: I think that's the wrong thing to do. In my view, we should not expect to change the workplace overnight. I think the qualifications should be considered. I think the people who are qualified, no matter what, whether they're white or non-white -- I think what I am saying and what this bill should be doing is that opportunities should not be limited only to white males, which has been the case in the past. What this bill should be doing is to provide the opportunities so that the pool of applicants the employer is forced to consider is not just white males but also women and the other groups. That's what I'm saying.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation, Professor Jain. You mentioned the preamble as being a positive feature of the act.
Mr Jain: I mentioned that because I think in the preamble there is systemic discrimination that has been acknowledged. The unemployment rates and the inequality that exist for the groups have been acknowledged. I think that's a very important move and should be. I would like to see, in the final paragraph of the preamble, systemic discrimination inserted, which is there above that, but yes, I'm quite happy with the preamble.
Mrs Witmer: I guess I would have to disagree with you. I find it a very negative preamble and I think that if we're looking for cooperation between the employer and employee community, we should be making some positive statements as opposed to what's happened in that past, what it is that we're looking for in the future. I don't see it as being positive, I guess.
You mentioned that you believe the definitions should be defined in the act. Are you happy with the definitions as they are at the present time?
Mr Jain: The act does not define; the regulations do.
Mrs Witmer: That's right. Are you happy with the definitions in the regulations?
Mr Jain: I think there are going to be challenges to those regulations, the definitions. They are in the federal act. As you know, the two banks have taken the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission to court.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, I'm familiar with that.
Mr Jain: That is why I suggested in my presentation that they ought to be very clearly specified. Also, there should be a standard questionnaire so that people don't object, so that people know ahead of time, so that all employers know exactly what to do, and that is the failure of the employment equity act at the federal level.
Mrs Witmer: Okay, just one question: If you had one recommendation for the government as far as making a change is concerned, and if you could persuade it to do that, what would it be?
Mr Jain: Have mandatory goals and timetables -- the word "timetable" is not mentioned in many regulations -- and that should be with strong sanctions to encourage employers to move towards that, because what if the affirmative action doesn't work? That's when the Police Services Act -- there had to be the threat. Now, have you heard any chief of police saying that they are against employment equity? All of them are against it. That's because the governments and the opposition combine to bring a very strong provision -- two sections of the Police Services Act, 23 and 48 -- that goes into it very strong, and now you have a very positive environment. That is what I'd like to see here.
Mrs Witmer: I'm concerned about your word "threat," because I think we should be concentrating on working together cooperatively, and I don't think we should be threatening people.
Mr Jain: I think I am saying that a carrot-and-stick approach would do a better job than simply threats. I agreed with Mrs Caplan earlier that there ought to be educational -- OTAB should take some positive steps, spend some money, so that the groups can bring themselves up to qualifications, those that are not there.
Mrs Witmer: I guess I would agree with you. I think the key is that we educate and train people so that they are able to assume the job opportunities.
Mr Jain: I am in the school of business and I should not be saying the things I am saying, but I have long experience there. You see, in marketing, in production, managers set goals and timetables and they're judged by those goals and timetables. Why should it be so different in this area? That's what I'm saying.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you.
The Chair: Sorry we ran out of time.
Mr Winninger: Professor Jain, I certainly appreciate your support for the general thrust of this bill and some of your specific recommendations for change. I think you've been very forthright with this committee and I would suggest that Mr Curling, at some point, has to come clean on how he would like to see this bill changed, because he agrees with people who say it goes too far and he agrees with people who say it doesn't go far enough. But his government never introduced a bill, and I think it's about time that if they're unhappy with our bill, acknowledging that we at least introduced progressive legislation, he come clean on the changes.
I'd like to come back to your point, though, about some of the requirements that should be made mandatory. Quite clearly, there is a large component of voluntary compliance built into the framework legislation and also into the regulation. There may be companies that will act in good faith. We heard yesterday from IBM, for example, of the great strides it has taken to implement employment equity, and it looks to me as though we don't need a big stick to beat them over the head.
1100
But under the legislation, we do have the auditing function of the commission, we do have a body above that that's mandated to make orders where companies don't carry out their employment equity plans or don't even file employment equity plans. Of course, the commission can require that plans and reports be filed by these companies.
I would suggest to you, on the one hand, we need to respect the diversity of these companies and the need for flexibility. On the other hand, we need teeth in the legislation to truly make it progressive. I think it's that fine balance that we have to strive to achieve, and if you have any constructive suggestions for improving that balance, we'd be pleased to receive them.
Mr Jain: I think what this bill does and the regulations do is to go back to the weaknesses of the Ontario Human Rights Code. We have learned from the federal employment equity legislation, voluntary efforts do not work. IBM's statement yesterday, one token company does not make for what the industry does, and you also saw the opposition from others.
Unless there is a consistent, standardized requirement of all employers, they're not going to do it. I cited to you a number of studies of employers across this country where I was of the opinion the voluntary effort will work, and it hasn't worked. They have made no progress at all, despite seven years of employment equity legislation.
Mr Winninger: Your scholarly research is certainly quite helpful and will serve to refute some of the arguments we heard yesterday, that discrimination is no longer a problem in the workplace.
Mr Jain: That would be quite a shock to me if that is true. In my research, that is not true. Discrimination is well and alive and there is no question in my mind, and it's just not my subjective opinion, it is proved by a number of surveys and my own studies.
The Chair: Ms Carter, one final question.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): First of all, I see that your presentation to us was just an executive summary. I wondered if you had a more complete version with maybe some more facts and figures that would be useful to us in refuting some of the allegations that we've heard and no doubt will hear more of.
Mr Jain: Sure.
Ms Carter: One very specific question. You are suggesting that all plans be filed, that this be mandatory. I believe with the federal legislation there's a relatively small number of companies involved, say in the hundreds, but with this legislation there would be many, many thousands of companies that would have to file and if all these files were to be reviewed, this would be a large bureaucratic undertaking and probably very expensive. I'm just wondering if you have any comments on that.
Mr Jain: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which administers the Civil Rights Act, Title VII, in the United States has hundreds times more employers in its jurisdiction than what we are talking about, and they require the filing of these plans. I think what it will do is, not necessarily for audit purposes, but for public consumption, employment equity, as much as a public act, if the public has no access, you will see no pressure.
It says here, and it's an empty promise, that you can go before the Employment Equity Commission or tribunal. On what basis? I don't have any facts. And if those facts are not public, I am not able to go. This is what I'm talking about.
Ms Carter: So you're saying that it's not so much that the government needs to go through that information as that it needs to be available to anybody?
Mr Jain: That's right.
Ms Carter: I see.
Mr Jain: I think that is a very serious weakness in this bill. So I would like to see that.
The Chair: Mr Jain, we've run out of time. We appreciate your presentation. It was very informative.
Mr Jain: Thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
The Chair: I'd like to call upon the city of Toronto Committee on the Status of Women, Barbara Haber. You have half an hour. You've seen the previous submission; you know how it goes. Please begin any time you are ready.
Ms Barbara Haber: Good morning. I'm here on behalf of the Committee on the Status of Women. We are made up of women in the community as well as women members of Toronto city council, with co-chairs from council and the community. We work from a feminist perspective to maintain, improve and advocate an equitable quality of life for all women, including women of colour, native women, women, women with disabilities and lesbians, living in the city of Toronto.
The committee was formed in June 1991 by Mayor Art Eggleton as a means for women to have input to the decision-making process at city hall.
We hold public meetings monthly. Current topics being discussed include the impact of streamlining activities on women civic employees, housing and women, and violence against women. On this last issue, we met with representatives of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force to discuss its relationship to women in the community as victims of crime and suspected criminals. Twenty-five recommendations of the committee are currently being considered by the police force.
The committee welcomes this opportunity to express our views on the provincial Employment Equity Act. The Committee on the Status of Women extends our congratulations to the government of Ontario for proposing meaningful legislation that will address the barriers to full labour force participation by women -- all women -- whether white, from a racial minority, native or disabled.
Your timing couldn't be better. Economic restructuring is having a severe impact in all sectors, but especially on members of designated groups, by increasing the disadvantage that the designated groups already face. Layoffs, downsizing and bankruptcies have created record levels of unemployment.
This bill brings employment equality rights for women and other designated groups to the fore just when they are needed most. And it is building bridges. The provisions of Bill 79 are consistent in many ways with recent changes in labour relations legislation and changes to other collective bargaining and employment laws, by mandating joint labour-management planning committees and employee consultation.
This bill is good for the province, it's good for labour, it's good for employers and, most of all, it's good for women.
Despite the public relations work that has been undertaken by the Ontario women's directorate, the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat, the Office for Disability Issues and others promoting equality rights in employment for members of designated groups, statistical and anecdotal evidence clearly points to the desperate need for this legislation.
The achievement of employment equity in Ontario is vital. Demographic trends show that members of designated groups will comprise the majority of the Ontario workforce by the year 2000. But now, in 1993, women in the labour force are playing a game of catch-up with men. They have comparable or superior levels of education, but earn less. They continue to be concentrated in few occupations, earning 67 cents for every dollar earned by men. Over 80% of women working in Ontario in 1989 were segregated in low-paying occupations in the service sector, such as services, public administration, trade, finance, transportation and communications, where women working full-time make 53.2% of the average man's salary in that sector.
The most significantly disadvantaged groups, those facing double or triple disadvantages -- native women and women with disabilities -- identify biased attitudes as the major barrier to their full participation. Racial minority women, while having high workforce participation rates, continue to earn disproportionately low salaries. In the clerical field, where 30% of racial minority women are employed, racial minority women with university degrees earn approximately 32% less than men with university degrees. This is despite the fact that these women hold degrees at twice the rate of men. Publications by the Ontario women's directorate illustrate these and many more inequities.
1110
This bill is an investment in the future of Ontario that will ensure effective use of the province's diverse labour force. The economic potential for the province will be tremendous when we begin capitalizing on the human resource potential that is being squandered through ineffective policies, practices and attitudes that are rooted in the past.
Bill 79 is good for labour because of the emphasis on a cooperative approach to employment equity. Collective action has already been taken on these issues in some sectors, for instance, the ground-breaking Respect at Work sexual harassment policy achieved by Toronto Hydro. In other organizations, where there are adversarial labour relations, employees will benefit by the provisions under this bill to undertake employment equity as a joint labour-management cooperative strategy.
However, in prescribing the composition of the joint labour-management committee, the act is silent on the need for representation of members of designated groups. The committee recommends that bargaining agents and employers be obliged to make every effort to ensure broad representation of members of designated groups on the joint committee.
The Committee on the Status of Women is concerned also that non-unionized women will not have the same rights as unionized women to work with management in their workplaces developing and monitoring their employment equity plan. The committee recommends that the act require the appointment of employee representatives to a joint working committee in workplaces where employees are not represented by bargaining agents.
There are many possible models that the government could have adopted in this bill. The government is to be congratulated for introducing requirements and regulations that, despite the cries of quotas and government interference, are realistic and allow firms to set goals in proportion to the opportunities for change like other business objectives they set on a regular basis. Firms have the independence to implement the changes that make the most sense to them, will receive credit for reasonable efforts to meet their goals and have been allowed adequate lead time to prepare. In addition, the requirements are not excessively expensive to implement.
However, this is not going to happen without a major educational venture on the part of the Employment Equity Commission and other directorates in the Ministry of Citizenship. It will be imperative to ensure an adequate financial investment to ensure that information is made available to help firms get educated and get started.
The committee also recommends that numerical goals be entrenched in the act, similar to the requirement to conduct an employment systems review. As one of the obligations, numerical goals will be accorded the same importance as the review of employment systems.
For women, this bill has been long awaited. This government has acknowledged that women's equality rights in employment are not being met and has chosen to back this up with legislation aimed at making systemic changes in how employees are hired and treated on the job.
Women have been given the hope that the barriers that for too long have kept women from realizing their full potential will be struck down.
It is vitally important that mandatory employment equity legislation be passed. It is the only way women's rights to equality in employment will be achieved.
But no bill can please all of the people all of the time, as you well know. A concern of the Committee on the Status of Women is the omission of a regulation on the issue of corporation seniority, establishing seniority across bargaining units, for promotions.
This issue constitutes a significant barrier for women wishing to compete for non-traditional occupations in organizations where separate bargaining agents represent predominantly male and predominantly female occupations. This issue is the subject of a human rights complaint and is currently being considered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The complaint was filed by alumni of Bridges, a city of Toronto program, members of CUPE Local 79, inside workers, against CUPE Local 43, outside workers, and the city. The complainants are women who prepared themselves for positions traditionally held by men in trades, technical and labouring occupations under a specific, special city of Toronto program, namely, Bridges.
When these qualified women from Local 79 applied for promotion to Local 43 positions, they faced the provisions in the Local 43 collective agreement that required that all Local 43 members, even those with minimal seniority, be considered ahead of any other applicant. Some of these women had as much as 15 years' seniority with the city of Toronto, yet were prevented from promotion to another position with the same employer in the same union, CUPE, by those restrictions.
We recommend that the act expand the definition of seniority rights to require the establishment of company-wide seniority.
The committee is also concerned about enforcement measures in this legislation. Bill 79 has allowed every opportunity for employers, bargaining agents and employees to report on any breakdown in the development or implementation of the employment equity plans, and it has provided opportunities for resolutions of disputes. However, when all attempts to gain compliance with this legislation have failed, a fine of $50,000 is merely a slap on the wrist for some of the major employers and unions in this province. Fines should be used as a last resort in this type of legislation but should be a strong deterrent to organizations that are bogging down the process.
We recommend that fines be levied on the basis of $100 or a similar amount for each employee whose interests are not served by the failure to comply with the legislation, with a minimum fine of $50,000. This should be levied on unions and employers alike, with the responsibility for determining culpability on the tribunal.
The Committee on the Status of Women salutes the government of Ontario. Through Bill 79, they have acknowledged the need for fundamental change in Ontario employment practices and have brought in a bill that will achieve this in a reasonable period of time. With the recommendations of our committee and other equity-seeking groups, the province will not only be the first to introduce such sweeping legislation but will be the first to achieve fairness in employment for all workers.
In summary, the following are the main conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on the Status of Women:
(1) The Committee on the Status of Women recommends that bargaining agents and employers be obliged to make every effort to ensure broad representation of members of designated groups on the joint labour-management committee.
(2) The committee recommends that the act require the establishment of a joint employee-management committee in workplaces where employees are not represented by a bargaining agent.
(3) The committee recommends that numerical goals be required in the Employment Equity Act, similar to the requirement to conduct an employment systems review. As part of the regulations, numerical goals are not accorded the same importance as the review of employment systems, yet are just as crucial to the achievement of employment equity.
(4) The committee recommends that the act expand the definition of seniority rights to require the establishment of company-wide seniority.
(5) The committee recommends that the fine structure for failure to comply with the legislation be modified. We recommend that fines be levied on the basis of $100 or a similar amount for each employee whose interests are not being served by the failure to comply with the legislation, with a minimum fine of $50,000. This should be levied on unions and employers alike, with the responsibility for determining culpability on the tribunal.
1120
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Haber. Would you introduce your colleague, please.
Ms Fiona Haapalehto: Fiona Haapalehto.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Five minutes per caucus.
Mr Tilson: I think Mrs Witmer and I each have a question. I understand and congratulate you on your continued efforts to improve the status and life of women. I understand that. A bill such as this, as this committee is finding and as you can well understand, is very complex because it deals not just with women but with at least three other groups.
There's an article that was put forward in Maclean's about a year ago which talked about a fallacy of this type of legislation, that is, that people live many lives in one, whether you be an aboriginal, whether you be a woman, whether you be a visible minority, whether you be a disabled person. I'd like to quote from the article because it expresses a concern that has been given to me in the past, and I'd like your comments. After reading this, my question to you is: How far should a government go in putting forth legislation such as this, when it knows it may be solving one problem yet creating other problems? To quote from the article:
People "live many lives in one. They are wives, husbands and daughters as well as ethnic group members. The black woman whose white husband is turned down for a promotion loses; the wife whose husband's business is ruined by this expensive program loses; the wheelchair occupant who replaces a female receptionist with three children creates another injustice and set of victims."
Then the article goes on, but that was a brief paragraph which I think can illustrate, for example, to take the issue of a woman, that a woman does have sons, a woman does have daughters and a husband or other people who are connected to her, and by mandating rights given to that woman -- I take your example because that's who you are supporting, and again I congratulate you on that. But by doing that, that in turn can quite conceivably, if you look at this article, create even worse problems, whether it be racism or problems for the handicapped or problems for the aboriginal. Of course, you have acknowledged in your own presentation about more rights for the aboriginal woman.
My question is, how far should a government interfere in our lives in trying to solve a problem that may indeed cause other problems?
Ms Haber: First, I don't believe this bill is going to take jobs away from anyone by giving jobs to women. I think the bill is going to give jobs to those who have merit.
Mr Tilson: That isn't what the bill says. It has no mention of merit anywhere in this bill. Subsection 50(1) even says that there will be certain percentages of these designated groups, and "If you don't hire those people, employer, you're in big trouble." That has nothing to do with merit. That's the problem it's going to create for your white husband or your disabled son or your aboriginal nephew or whatever, down the line we may go.
Ms Haber: I think the goals, the timetables, are meant for people who have equal ability to apply for that particular job. That's how I read the bill.
Ms Harrington: It's opening up opportunity.
The Chair: Mrs Witmer, one final question.
Mrs Witmer: We talked about equal opportunity, and that's where I'd like to go. I personally believe, and I've been involved in education for a long time, that one of the reasons the four designated groups have not been able to access employment is because they have not had the appropriate or necessary educational and training opportunities.
This bill does not speak to that, and I think that is an area this government needs to be concentrating on. I would agree that people need to be hired on merit, that we need to have the best-qualified individual for the job, but, as you know, women have been held back because they haven't had the education and the training, haven't had the child care support. There are many reasons why women haven't been able to make the progress. What would you recommend that the government do to help alleviate and overcome the barriers women face at the present time?
Ms Haber: There are a lot of barriers that women face, but I want to mention again that we have a lot of women in the workforce who have the same education and the same qualifications as the rest of the community and they aren't being hired. As I mentioned in my report, women are educated, there's no doubt about that, and they are certainly capable of holding on to jobs, but the opportunity to get into the workforce is more difficult for them.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Haber. On to government members; there are three speakers, Ms Carter to begin.
Ms Carter: Thank you for your supportive presentation. You've raised the question of the need for company-wide seniority rights, and the case that you are involved in does highlight the inequities that can be created by internal divisions. Could you enlarge a little for us on how company-wide seniority rights work and how they would protect the interest of employees?
Ms Haber: I don't know if I can really highlight that, but we're concerned with the barriers and we want to ensure that there is negotiation between all affected bargaining units. That's what we're most concerned with.
Ms Carter: How would that work in the particular case you're involved with?
Ms Haber: Fiona, could you help me on that one?
Ms Haapalehto: In this particular case between CUPE Local 79 and CUPE Local 43, we would foresee that women who have seniority with the employer in the union would be able to bid on jobs in the other bargaining unit and would be considered on the basis of their seniority in the other bargaining unit within the same union.
Ms Carter: So that would, in effect, mean company-wide seniority because you would be merging the two parts of the union?
Ms Haapalehto: Correct.
Ms Carter: Do you have any enlargement on that concept and how it could protect the interests of employees?
Ms Haapalehto: The barriers for women who have the ability to do the jobs -- and what we're talking about in Local 43 are higher-paying jobs because they are outside jobs and because that local has negotiated the pay scales. Traditionally, the trades, technology and operational positions are higher-paying positions. Women who are working on the inside are being paid less, so they look at the opportunity to gain greater income by moving to the jobs that are outside. They have the ability to do it. These jobs do not require a large degree of education. They're generally labouring jobs. Some of them are technical jobs, but that technical training can be gained through various means of training.
These women do have the qualifications to do the job. I don't think it means that they would not be able to do the job as well as a man who has been in Local 43 for less time. They have the ability to do the job, they have the qualifications, and the only barrier to them moving into that job -- and I continue to stress that it's the same employer at the same union -- is just a different bargaining local within the union that causes them not to be able to qualify for that. Men who have been in the job for two years would be considered ahead of the women who have been in the job for much longer.
The Chair: Mr Fletcher, one final question.
Mr Fletcher: I agree with you about the education. Education should be paramount whenever we're going out. In section 41 of the act one of the functions of the commission is to educate the public about employment equity, so there is going to be some education coming through the act itself. I've heard what people say, "There's no education," but it is there in the act and it is mentioned.
1130
I think also one of the things we have to look at is the way we educate, not just through the act but also with groups such as your own, making sure that your membership knows what the act is about and what is going in. I think we can spend a lot of time saying, "The government should; the government should," when in fact we can do it ourselves. I know you will be spreading the word in your group. It just boggles my mind about how much can the government do as far as education is concerned and where do we expand on the education. Do you have some ideas on that?
Ms Haapalehto: It's very important for the education that the requirements of the act -- when you bring in legislation like this, and I'm sure as you're finding in the presentations, there's a lot of misunderstanding about what the intent of the legislation is. I think that, first and foremost, has to be where the emphasis is in ensuring that employers know what the requirements are, what the expectations are and that there are very clear guidelines issued for the employers so they're not going off on a tangent trying to do something that is not required of them under the legislation, thereby negating what they could be achieving by spending their efforts in an area that would be unproductive.
Mr Fletcher: That's why the commission has the power to educate and also the reporting to the commission.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a couple of questions, if I can, regarding your recommendations. Thank you, first of all, for your report. The co-chair of your committee is in fact a councillor in my riding, so I know her quite well.
One of the questions I have is related to your third recommendation regarding numerical goals being required in the act. I was wondering whether you meant that specific goals and targets be put in there, like the actual numbers, or what the content of your recommendation 3 was.
Ms Haapalehto: No, we don't foresee that specific numbers be prescribed in the act. The requirement, though, to set goals and timetables should be accorded the same importance as the requirement to conduct an employment systems review. We feel it is very important that that be undertaken.
Mr Murphy: I'm having some difficulty understanding recommendation 4. That's probably my fault. The question I have is: Are you saying that in essence we should change the current system of seniority we have in workplaces and expand it so there isn't union-specific seniority rights, but rather company-wide seniority rights, regardless of which union you belong to?
Ms Haapalehto: No, I think what we're saying is that we agree with the CAW comment to your question on this issue, that where there are barriers to occupational choice within a workplace, those barriers be struck down.
Mr Murphy: I guess that's the concern I have. The very example you raised -- in essence, there's a provision in one union collective agreement that essentially is prohibiting women in another from gaining access to those jobs. What I'm wondering is how your recommendation fixes that problem.
Ms Haapalehto: Perhaps the recommendation doesn't go far enough in that it should be expanded to include a negotiation where the seniority provisions result in barriers.
Mr Murphy: Just a comment on number 5. I'm wondering whether you've thought about the sort of almost charter implications of this because, as you well know, the bill as drafted has a reverse-onus provision in it, which is that if the commission concludes that you've failed to meet your plan and timetable, then you have to prove as the employer that you have matched it. Basically, the presumption is that you've failed unless you prove otherwise.
My concern is that there would be an unfair burden in a sense, in a fine context, of imposing a fine, of saying, "You could be fined unless you prove that you were innocent." I have a concern about that and I wonder if you could comment.
Ms Haber: We're hoping that the amount of the fine and the idea of a fine should somehow reflect the number of employees in the company.
Mr Murphy: No, I guess I'm focusing more on the idea of the reverse onus. We've recently had somewhat of a discussion about that issue with the Human Rights Commission. I'm just concerned about its application in the fine context here, and I'm wondering if you're expanding that and applying it to the failure to comply with a plan. Would you then recommend that the reverse-onus provision be taken out? Maybe you haven't considered that aspect.
Ms Haber: No, not at all.
Ms Haapalehto: We will consider it, though.
Mr Murphy: The one other thing, and I think you've picked up on it, I haven't found in fact where the unions are given responsibility in the same sense the employer is in relation to that cooperation around negotiating between unions. I think it's section 14 where it says you shall sit down and talk about these and you go to the tribunal. Later on, there are sanctions against the employer if you fail to meet time lines to some degree. I haven't seen the sanctions against the union, and I think that your recommendation here fits into that. I think an important part, if it's going to work, is that if you're going to have the rights, you should have some of the responsibilities. That was more of a comment than a question, unless you do want to comment on that.
The Chair: I want to thank you both for the submission you made here today.
TAMIL EELAM SOCIETY OF CANADA
The Chair: The Tamil Eelam Society of Canada. Welcome. It would be helpful if you introduce yourselves. I don't want to mispronounce your names.
Mrs Selvam Sridas: Sure. I am Mrs Sridas, the program coordinator.
Mr Ram Selvarajah: I am Ram Selvarajah, a summer student working on the program.
The Chair: You have half an hour. Please begin.
Mrs Sridas: Do you want me to read the whole thing or just brief it?
The Chair: We'd prefer that you not read the whole thing because it would probably take a long time. Perhaps some highlights would be better, if you can, so that it would allow for questions and answers. We'd prefer that, but if you want to read it, that's your choice.
Mrs Sridas: We appreciate, at least at this point in time, a bill to recognize that there is some discrimination going on and to prevent it in order to be fair to all the minority groups, so that women, aboriginal groups and all four groups mentioned here will be given equal opportunity. So we should thank the people who have originated this bill.
There are certain shortfalls in the bill that I should say:
(1) The police force has been taken away from the bill. We would like to incorporate them also into the bill so that everybody, without any exception, will be given equal opportunity under this bill.
(2) The definition of "designated group" is not properly done; it's a little vague. "Designated group" meaning, say, for example --
Mr Selvarajah: We have left the designated groups you have mentioned: aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women. What we have a problem with is that aboriginal people are defined by, I believe, the native act, but people of racial minorities, how are we to define that? It is normally generally understood that we take racial minorities as people of colour, and we tend to divide white and non-white and group the non-white as minorities. We also feel there are minorities probably within the white. I don't understand how it could work, but there are Scots and there are the English and Ukrainians and all that. So we want to know how you are going to say that this person belongs to a racial minority.
1140
Mrs Sridas: Also under "women," it has to be defined what the proportion of women means. If you say, "This percentage of women should be taken in," out of women, how many are representing each? So a clear definition has to be given for that.
Third, the small employers: The exemption of small employers will lead to a lot of confusion in the sense that you are excluding quite a large number of employers in that category, meaning around 50% of the employers will fall under that category. There will be two different types of employees: One will be protected under the act and the other one will not be protected under the act, right?
So in that case, we are going to face two different categories of employees. Under the employers, there will be two different categories saying one will not be guided by this bill and the other one will be guided by the bill. So the solution that we are giving for that is to take away "50 and above." So if you include all the employers, then that problem will not arise.
Pardon me for introducing this person, Mr --
Mr Nadarajah Sivakumaran: Nadarajah Sivakumaran. My apologies for being late. I went into the wrong building.
Mrs Sridas: You may continue the paper; fourth.
Mr Sivakumaran: Our submission, to put it very summarily, very briefly, is that the lawmakers, in this instance the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, have quite properly identified and recognized that there is a problem, namely, that there is a discrimination against these four designated groups in finding employment, retaining employment and being promoted in employment. The problem is really a matter which concerns our group as well.
In fact, in the preamble, the Legislative Assembly has further recognized the causes of that problem as well. They say the causes are "both systemic and intentional discrimination." Hence, they proceed to enact this legislation with the purpose of, in their own words, "the amelioration of conditions in employment" for the four groups "in all workplaces in Ontario."
Respectfully, our submission is that a problem must not only be solved but must be solved adequately and well enough so that it may not recur. Our submission is that this piece of legislation, Bill 79, does not solve adequately the problem that is affecting this group.
Therefore the solution envisaged may not meet the requirements intended to be met. However, if the bill has to go through, we have pointed out what amendments we would propose in spite of its shortfalls.
I believe my colleague wants to address the small employer.
Mrs Sridas: You can go on.
The Chair: That's the first three parts of the summary of your submissions.
Mr Sivakumaran: Very well. What actually the bill stipulates is a voluntary obligation on the part of the employers. It makes mandatory a list to be posted, but at the same time it makes it voluntary and obligatory for the employers to prepare the list about the employment goals and the timetables, which is actually leaving it for themselves. Our submission is that those things must be made mandatory.
Yet again we find defences available to the employers, like "all reasonable efforts being taken" or "reasonable progress being made." These two defences are made available to the employers, who can always conveniently avoid action being taken against them. It defeats the purpose of the bill. Therefore, we urge that those defences should not be made available to the employers. That is problem 5.
In problem 6 there is a long delay, we find, in implementing employment equity. We recommend that it be shortened.
The advocacy groups must be given further opportunity to be consulted, as mandatory, by the commission, in light of the flouting, or the code becomes very irrelevant for the minority groups.
I believe those are our submissions unless you want to ask us some questions about them.
The Chair: Yes, I'm sure members do. We'll begin with the government members, five minutes for each caucus.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. One of your points was interesting -- and I asked the same question when we were having some discussions -- about how you tell who is from a minority. If a person comes from Poland, are they a minority? I agree with what you're saying. How do we go about changing that? What kind of definition would you give to "minority" if we could have a definition that would work. I know it's a tough one; we wrestled over it too.
Mrs Sridas: It's very tough.
Interjection.
Mr Fletcher: Alvin has the answer to everything. Mr Curling has the answer to everything. He'll be able to do this. He agrees with one side one day and disagrees with another side the next day. It's a good thing there aren't three sides to a fence, Alvin.
I'm sorry; as far as the definition for "minority" is concerned, where do we go?
Interjections.
The Chair: Don't be distracted by the noise. Continue.
Mr Selvarajah: We have not been able to come up with a definition of "minority" for ourselves, simply because of the same reasons you are citing. That's why we have asked this question, to see how you are going to say that such a person belongs to a minority group in this legislation. We see that as there's no clear definition of a minority group in the legislation, I don't see any group being affected by the legislation.
1150
Mrs Sridas: One way you could look at it is, if you take the numbers in the population, depending on the population, you can see what is the minority there. This is just a suggestion, that with the number you can say minority or majority. I am unable to give any other solution.
Mr Fletcher: In the draft regulation it says, "`member of a racial minority' means a person who, because of his or her race or colour, is in a visible minority in Ontario," and then it excludes aboriginals from that.
Mrs Sridas: But the colour is not the only thing.
Mr Fletcher: No, I agree.
Mrs Sridas: The colour is not the only thing to say, because there are white people belonging to minorities. Tomorrow the Jewish community may come. It's not the colour alone. Colour is one of the factors. It could be the numbers.
Mr Fletcher: In a geographic area where the employer --
Mrs Sridas: That's right, and it could be a number. That's all we could say.
Mr Selvarajah: In a place like Toronto, I would consider everybody a minority. It's a 51% minority in Toronto. But going outside of Toronto to the west or the north or the eastern part of Ontario, we tend to find minorities there of whom we can say, "This is a minority," simply because there is a Scottish- or a German- or a something-originated population that is the majority there.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, one final question.
Mr Winninger: Just briefly, in determining a racial minority the prime criterion is self-identification, as you know, but there may be instances where there's doubt, and that's when the commission can provide guidelines and assistance to use during the consultation and communications that might be of assistance to communities such as your own.
Also, you deal with the issue of small employers. We have to respect that not all employers, particularly small employers, have adequate resources to do the necessary planning, so in the absence of well-defined employment practices it might be more problematic for those very small employers to deal with the implications of the legislation. We naturally encourage voluntary compliance, and when those companies grow to a certain level of employment, they fall under the ambit of the act anyway.
Mr Selvarajah: But I have a problem with that in the sense that when we have 50 employees, I find it difficult to say that employer is a small employer. When you are having 50 employees, your payroll must be significant, which means you're generating quite a lot of revenue, generating revenue of at least $1 million. I find it difficult to say that is a small employer.
We may define small employers to be family-owned businesses run by family members. That is quite acceptable. If a person has a small corner store, we can't say, "We want you to implement employment equity" there when he has only two employees there. That's family-owned. We should allow that. But I don't see any family-owned business being managed and run by everybody belonging to a family in an environment where there are 50 employees on the payroll.
Mr Winninger: I certainly appreciate your point of view.
Mr Murphy: Thank you very much for your excellent report. I appreciate the effort you put into it. I know the Tamil Eelam Society has worked very hard against discrimination and I very much appreciate that. I have one question and then I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Mr Curling, who knows everything, of course.
You've asked for an enforceable definition of "reasonable progress" and I'm wondering if you had a suggestion as to what you thought that would be, in your solution to problem 5 in your written report.
Mr Sivakumaran: At the moment we do not have any reasonable definition as such. It might involve a bit of time. If the commission gives us time, we might be able to give a definition in writing in due course.
Mr Curling: Regardless of what he says about knowing everything, the fact is that I'm seeking to know. That, I think, is where there is confusion is.
I think your presentation, as written, has really highlighted some of the concerns that have been expressed by many presenters before, and you put it so well.
As a matter of fact, let me focus on number 3, where you talk about the exemption of small employers with less than 50. I fully agree with you that the government and the bill are exempting a large number of people who are being subjected to discrimination in access to workplace. Because of the bill's emphasis on paperwork, they're saying these organizations haven't got enough resources to do the paperwork and that is why they want to put that exemption in that respect. But if they were emphasizing people, they would realize that a large number of people have been exempted. I would encourage you to continue to lobby the fact that employers under 50 should be included in that bill. I support that aspect of it. I just wanted to make a comment on that.
Let us examine a bit, because especially in your group, where you speak about the definition of the designated group, you're talking about a subgroup. As a matter of fact, the Stephen Lewis report, which is very much embraced by the government and is an excellent report in some respects, spoke specifically about subgroups, about blacks especially, who have been subject to certain types of discrimination and that programs should be put in place to make sure that discrimination ends.
I remember at one stage that Pakistanis were being beaten in the subway and things had to be done. The Walter Pitman report came out on how to deal with that.
Are you saying this is in the same consistent way, that the subgroups should be looked at, specifically if we're talking about visible minorities and who they are? Is that the direction you want to go?
Mrs Sridas: I think so, yes.
Mr Sivakumaran: Quite frankly, that's what we feel. We're feeling that way as well. Speaking with racial minorities, it has become an inescapable fact that all these things had to be reckoned with.
Mr Curling: Do you feel that some of the concerns you have could be dealt with at the Human Rights Commission? If it can't be dealt with there, do you feel that the employment equity bill will be able to deal with those concerns you have?
Mr Sivakumaran: Over time, we have found that Human Rights was quite inadequate because it doesn't a initiate a system. It only receives complaints and goes into the complaints. It doesn't require an employer, or anyone, for that matter, to adopt a system which is free of discrimination. It only deals with matters when they are taken there as a complaint, which is inadequate.
Mr Tilson: I listened to the remarks of all three of you as you were speaking and I must confess that, although unintentional I believe, I think you've shown in your remarks exactly how unworkable this legislation can be.
There's all kinds of discrimination in our society, whether it be age, colour of skin, gender, nationality, language. There's all kinds of discrimination made outside the workplace and inside the workplace. Many of those discriminations actually have nothing to do with the various groups that are mentioned in this bill. There are other kinds of discrimination, as I think you've said, that apply to whether you're employed or whether you are promoted. Age is one. In fact, until recently religion was one. In many cases there's the issue of religion, and there may be others that I haven't even thought of, so it is difficult.
Then some of the questions that you raised: What percentage? We're becoming a very cosmopolitan society. Colours of skin are starting to blend and all kinds of things are happening. When is one considered an aboriginal? What percentage of one's way of life? It's a very difficult and complex society, and I think the point you raised is, how are you going to define these things?
Whether in the bill or in the regulations, there's no specific definition or guidelines. All we have now is self-identification. Anyone can say they're a visible minority, whatever that is, and anyone can say they are an aboriginal; you could have one tenth percentage of your blood as an aboriginal. It's a very complicated and, I believe, unworkable process. I'd like you to comment.
Mrs Sridas: I don't think it's unworkable because it's only a stepping stone. It may take about 10 years to become an ideal thing. It's hard to put it, but this is a very starting stage and we may improve the bill. We can go on and on and improve it over a period. I don't think it's a useless bill. It's very good.
Mr Selvarajah: Mr Tilson, as a respected member of Parliament -- I'm just a student -- you say this is an unworkable bill. I agree with you, but where do you recommend we start? Where do you recommend we put the first stone? You identified lots of other discrimination. Why don't you ask the government side to include those forms of discrimination in this bill? Why do you say we should get rid of it?
Mr Tilson: I'd love to answer your questions. The very first thing I would do and a Progressive Conservative government would do, with respect to the discrimination you have referred to, is that we would ensure members of designated groups have access to education and training programs. There is not one of those that is being put forward by that government. That's the very first thing we would do.
Mr Selvarajah: Mr Tilson, I'm not asking for me to be employed because I'm a person of colour. I'm asking to be recognized on the basis of my education.
Mr Tilson: I'm glad you're saying that, because that isn't what this bill says.
Mr Selvarajah: I am saying that we have the education. People of racial colour does not mean they don't have education; they have education. I work for a security company that has over 30% of the company staffed by Sri Lankans, and 50% of those Sri Lankans have at least a university degree and they're working as security guards. I see that as discrimination. I do not see that as people not having education to go ahead with some other form of job. I see that as discrimination.
The Chair: Ms Witmer, I will allow a quick question.
Mrs Witmer: I wanted to continue because I think you've raised a very significant point. The point I want to make is based on my own personal experience, because I'm an immigrant as well. One of the problems my parents faced and other people have faced when they have come to this country is language. Written and oral skills prevented them from accessing the jobs they had the education for. Is that a barrier for your community and how can that be overcome?
Mr Selvarajah: Ms Witmer, in my community in Sri Lanka, the university education is done in English. I do not see a degree-holder having a problem of communication either in the form of written or spoken.
Mrs Witmer: For your community; but certainly for other individuals who come here, language is a barrier. But you're saying --
Mr Selvarajah: Language is a barrier for people with not much education. We're looking at higher jobs. We are not asking for a quota system. We don't want people to say: "Okay, Sri Lankans represent 95,000. Because you represent 95,000 and you're 10% of it, you get 10% of the jobs." No, I don't want that, because I know in my community we have the people with education who are equally competent to do any job. That is what we're asking to be recognized for.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Selvarajah, thank you very much. We've run out of time. I appreciate your coming today and participating in these hearings.
Mr Curling: Just a point of information: Sri Lankans have one of the highest rates of literacy in the world.
Mr Selvarajah: That's right.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling.
Just as a reminder, the public hearings will resume at 1:30. You've got a note about another meeting that we will have at 1:10 in this room.
The committee recessed from 1205 to 1329.
The Chair: I'd like to call this meeting to order. I call upon the Landmark Group to make a presentation. Is there anyone here representing the Landmark Group? We'll wait for a moment or two to see whether or not we can find members of that group. No? We'll resume the committee hearings then.
GOTONG ROYONG TRADING
The Chair: Welcome to this committee. You have half an hour for the presentation. You might take as long as you need to make your remarks initially and then allow for questions from the different members.
Mr Michael Kerr: Thank you very much. I apologize for the short delay. I didn't realize it was me you were looking for.
The Chair: Would you like to give us your name, please. We don't have your name.
Mr Kerr: My name is Michael Kerr and on the list of presenters it was indicated that I was speaking on behalf of the Landmark Group. I want to correct that. I am in fact speaking on behalf of Gotong Royong Trading.
Mrs Witmer: Excuse me. Do we have a presentation from you?
Mr Kerr: No, you don't, and I'd like to apologize for the somewhat incoherent or just disjointed remarks that I'll be making, because I received very short notice of being able to attend today. I just received word on Friday evening, actually, that we were able to present.
Firstly, I'd like to just explain, Gotong Royong is involved in sort of community economic development -- grass-roots, cooperatively modelled enterprise in community -- and is very much informed by and consistent with the spirit of the proposed legislation. Within the activities that we undertake, which are import and export activities, more often than not with lesser industrialized countries of the world, we have very much that imperative in mind of achieving equity through those we hire as well as those we trade with.
The main reason that we had requested to appear before the committee was to state our real concerns, our reservations, around what we understood to be something of a retreating on the part of the current government away from what had earlier been discussed and proposed within community as to the model that was being moved forward as far as employment equity was concerned.
We feel very strongly that as part of a sustainable, socially just and equitable framework for society, a meaningful and enforceable -- and therein lies the element or notion of a mandatory or obligatory framework for employment equity that is crucial. It is part and parcel of that framework in terms of creating a socially just and sustainable society.
That's where we enter the discussion, recognizing not only that we are looking at domestic equity issues but that the domestic dimension is inseparable from the larger, the global, the international equity questions.
The current debate, as I understand it, is around the degree to which the proposals are enforceable. I'd like to touch on just some of the environmental circumstances in community that I think are important to be fully apprised of and fully conscious of in terms of decisions taken by the committee proposals, recommendations made by the committee to the Legislature.
I would strongly urge that the vision that inspires the legislation not be lost, because I think there is a growing perception in the community that the political will which informs that discussion is being lost or it's evaporating and being displaced somewhat by perceived political or electoral self-interest or what may be perceived to be more politically saleable.
One has to look at the broader context in terms of what agenda it is that we're trying to move forward on not only within Canada, within Ontario, but also certainly beyond that. We're talking about profound changes in the economy. The structural adjustments that are reflected in Canada in terms of downsizing, or I guess some are now calling it rightsizing expenditure controls, or provincially the social contract negotiations -- they are taking a lead, I think, from a certain global degeneration, where there's this discussion of attempting to create a level playing field, which I think is not fully cognizant of and not fully informed by adjustments that will lead to and allow for a socially just, equitable, sustainable community, society for the longer haul.
What we're falling prey to is a straitjacket of a sort of myopia. That is I guess most clearly reflected, and maybe some of the positions that are being taken by certain individuals and governments, by the so-called backlash that we find in society to some of the proposals in the legislation and some of the earlier proposals which have been diluted in the proposed legislation.
We certainly have all heard of those and the suggestions or the accusations that the merit principle and others are being undermined, or the integrity of such, the suggestion that certain individuals, the white, able-bodied males are somehow going to be disadvantaged in such a system.
All of that is ill informed, it's unaware if not mischievous distortion of fact and an effort to manipulate popular perception, public perception as to the merits and the issues raised as far as maintenance of status quo, failing to recognize and fully acknowledge, fully address the condition, the reality that is so very real that there is in fact profound systemic discrimination currently. That is why the legislation I think necessarily need have more capacity to oblige those workplaces that are affected by the legislation to conform to the requirements.
The question of enforceability, making the legislation mandatory: I think the environment that seems to have been created under the proposals is much too much in the way of voluntary participation. I would think that's probably an effort to ensure greater acceptance, greater participation of the proposals, but I think it's diluting the impact; it falls short of its objective.
1340
In terms of the legislation itself, I'd first like to query the process because of the fact that the notice was so very short in terms of our participation, but as a whole, there seemed to be somewhat short notice and a short time frame, a brief window of opportunity for our community to meaningfully dialogue on the proposals. That's the act itself. But there would appear to have been little if no sort of true consultation process in place in terms of the proposed regulations under the act, which is exceptionally critical, given the fact that so much is left to the regulations as the bill is formulated.
In leaving so much to the regulations, there seems to again have been a drift away from the vision of what it is that we're attempting to achieve in the community. The implications of that or the inevitable result almost is arriving at a lowest common denominator and not something that we hope to put forward or champion as an ideal, whatever the implications of that, or I guess the resistance or reluctance.
The act therefore, I would suggest, requires more in the way of detail and more of an explanation as to the principles underlying it in order that the pre-eminence of the statutory level is maintained or ensured, and whenever there is effort made subsequently to bring changes to the legislation that it would have to have the full sort of scrutiny of the Legislature in order to achieve that, rather than simply through regulation having to go through cabinet. Again, that's where the integrity of the legislation is more ensured, so that the vision again is maintained or can be achieved more consistently over time.
Having within the act the allowance made for mandatory and therefore more effective provisions with clearly stated criteria and implementation measures I think is foundational. Leaving so much to the regulations is in a way belittling or failing to fully acknowledge the barriers, the challenges, that are faced by the designated groups.
If, hopefully, the mandatory conditionality is introduced, there's a need for standard setting, and again within the act. Currently, there appears to be no set standard through which or with reference to which employers, whether it be voluntary currently or otherwise, are able to gauge the degree to which they're effectively conforming with the act.
Through the development of effective standards by the Employment Equity Commission -- and I think that needs to be written into its job description within the act -- setting standards with guidelines for goals and timetables for each of the workplace employers will prove much more effective in achieving the objectives.
Without those standards and without the commission developing them with the guidelines for employers, there seems to be no capacity for the commission to do effective monitoring and enforcement, because there's nothing to serve as a reference point. The reference points can change over time, again without those questions, without that debate coming before the Legislature.
With enforcement, I would think that the commission need require appropriate surveys and plans developed through a commission-guided workforce survey, a full employment system review on the part of those employers who are covered, and through the employment system review an identification of the barriers, not only simply to identify but to oblige the employers. This is where the legislation seems to be lacking. There seems to be no obligation, really, for them to address the barriers once they've been identified.
In many areas the bill seems to fall short on that enforcement capacity. Although there's effort made to encourage employers, the expanded public sector/private sector, as appropriate, there's no meaningful mechanism through which the commission can ensure that the stated objectives are being achieved.
The proposal, I think, was for a three-year cycle as a reporting mechanism, and I would suggest that is too long a time frame. I would think a one-year cycle would be more appropriate and that there be filing requirements under that cycle rather than simply the occasional spot audit being made by the commission. Given the very spartan resources being made available to the commission presently and what one perceives to be in the future, the capacity to spot-audit and to otherwise monitor is very, very limited.
In addition to an expanded role for the commission which would include more active research and monitoring enforcement, I think the bill should also provide for more substantial resources to be made available to allow them to be able to do so.
The Chair: Mr Kerr, thank you. There are about nine minutes or so left, which would leave three minutes per caucus to ask questions. Would you prefer that or do you want to continue with your presentation?
Mr Kerr: I apologize for rambling a bit, because I didn't have a chance to pull things together in a more concise form. Just to finish, I would just like to say that what comes most immediately to mind is some of the frontier areas where we seem to have been retreating, provincially, federally and otherwise. Things such as the court challenges program on a federal level were meant to work in the same way as this legislation towards achieving equity across our society, that broader vision of what we hope to achieve as a community. We run the risk, the bill being as diluted as it is in terms of the original principles and vision, of going that same path, albeit it on a lesser basis. I would strongly encourage that we hold true to the original vision and try to inform the legislation more fully, in concrete terms, with what the value basis is that we're attempting to buttress through it.
The Chair: Mr Curling, three minutes.
Mr Curling: I'm sure you've done justice with the short notice you were given to make your presentation. I picked up a couple of concerns you have. I want your reaction to one or two questions. You mention that the legislation lacks details. Do you feel that the regulations fill those gaps?
1350
Mr Kerr: To be honest, I've not had a chance to fully review the regulations as they've been drafted. But even if they were to be as comprehensive as what I would feel to be appropriate, the fact that they are in the regulation as opposed to much of that being in the bill itself is, I find, very problematic. I think it doesn't have the same substance, it doesn't have the same integrity.
Mr Curling: So you feel that even if the regulation fills some of the gaps, it should be in the legislation.
Let me ask you another question, one of the things that I am concerned about too, that union members and employers form a committee in order to draft the employment equity plan within that committee. Non-union members are not at that table and they are so-called consulted. I don't know what that means. Do you have any concern about that, that those people have been excluded from that opportunity to have more informed input into that plan? Do you have any comments on that?
Mr Kerr: It's a very real concern. I think the legislation falls very short in terms of addressing non-unionized workplaces. Although there are some modest provisions to ensure that unionized shops are brought together through an employment equity committee in the workplace, similar provisions need be introduced to ensure, especially given that many of the designated group members find themselves in smaller workplaces, non-unionized environments -- that's a crucial element.
Mr Curling: My time is up?
The Chair: Three minutes only. Mr Tilson.
Mr Tilson: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your thoughts. I have one question, and that has to do with the ability of the employer to perform the job it's doing. There's been much criticism, particularly by the business community, especially the small business community, that they simply will not be able to have the financial -- that this is yet another layer of bureaucracy, that they're going to have more problems. There's the concern about investment coming in from outside the province, whether outside this country or from other provinces, that people are looking at this as just another layer of grief in operating, particularly small businesses, although IBM, if you heard any proceedings yesterday, did give qualified support for the legislation.
My question is a question that was asked in the Financial Post editorial yesterday, I think it was, and it had to do with the requirements of the employer to do certain things: to develop a plan, and if it didn't develop a plan it had to show it was moving towards the principles of employment equity.
The question that was asked was, how can an employer guarantee that representation in, for example, the category of skilled crafts and trade or supervisors or the three different levels of sales and service?
You're talking about the government shortening down the timetable from what it is, and yet here is an editorial, and it's not alone in this criticism, where the question is, can small business -- and you need small business -- realistically do what this legislation is asking?
Mr Kerr: We've had similar discussions among my counterparts within the small business community. I feel very strongly that it can. I think there's much more made of the impositions, or the intrusions, of the legislation and whatever it may evolve to than is real. In shortening the time frame, it simply is a monitoring mechanism, and I think the data are there and accessible and becoming ever more so, given the degree to which smaller enterprises are applying newer technologies and newer monitoring systems accountingwise and otherwise.
Where the fear arises is the perceived challenges that it poses to their competitiveness, and inherent in that suggestion is the fact that there's a perception that it's going to be a significant incremental cost to whatever systems they have in place at this moment in time, pre-legislation. I think that's something of a red herring.
Mr Tilson: The difficulty is that these businesses are coming forth either outside this committee or inside this committee and are saying: "We don't know anything about this stuff. We're going to have to hire consultants, we're going to have to expand our human resources division, or indeed create a human resources division." They say, "That's just more cost. We're up to here with costs that are being imposed on us by the government," let alone taxes and fees and all of that other stuff that's driving people in this province crazy.
Mr Kerr: That's where I think the question of resources being made available to the Employment Equity Commission becomes ever more significant and pertinent, because there should be some threshold below which staff resources of the commission are made available to the smaller employers to be able to achieve those ends rather than their having to incur those costs of having to create those systems internally.
Mr Tilson: I appreciate that thought, although the --
The Chair: Mr Tilson, there's no more time.
Ms Harrington: Thank you for coming. I really appreciate the vision you put forward today. To me it's a reality of people's lives that you're talking about. You stated that there is profound systemic discrimination, and you're saying that of course it's much broader than Ontario; it's everywhere. You also expressed your sincere desire to ensure the effectiveness of this legislation, and I certainly appreciate that.
I want to mention to you that we are very concerned about small business as well and non-unionized. I don't have time to explain all that to you, but I certainly think we can give you more details about that and maybe look for your feedback on that as well.
I was particularly struck by what you called our unsustainable society. It seemed to me that what you were saying was that if we have a rigid, hierarchical society, it really is, in the end, unsustainable if we have that structure; that what we have to do is have a more equitable society where everyone is included.
So my two questions to you are, first of all, that you mentioned that a white, able-bodied male is not disadvantaged. I think that has to be explained further, because I believe that giving equal opportunity to others and enabling others does not take away from one's own ability to function. That message has to get out there, so can you explain a little further about white, able-bodied males not being disadvantaged by this legislation? Second, because the opposition party does not believe there should be obligatory standards, could you touch on why you firmly believe that this legislation should be obligatory and necessary?
Mr Kerr: On the first question, what I understand to be the sort of posturing takes place around the fact that legislation such as this adversely affects the interests of those who have been the beneficiaries of the status quo is simply that. It's failing to recognize, whether it be just not fully comprehending, the fact that as the system exists at this moment in time -- "system" meaning the working environment as a whole -- simply by virtue of the fact that an individual is of a certain background and characteristic, there are advantages that are to be had, whether it be linguistic facility or whether it be racial characteristics.
But someone who is a white, able-bodied male, understandably, given the historical context of how we've come to be at this moment in time in our community and in our society, has had advantages. To deny that is simply a denial of history. It's so very self-evident. It requires this kind of intervention to ensure that those benefits, those advantages, do not continue to be had.
I guess the most important thing that could be said is that the -- actually, could you remind me of the second question?
1400
Ms Harrington: First of all, why you feel it has to be obligatory, and the first one was about white males, that it is not giving them any disadvantage.
Mr Kerr: As I just had said. But I think the reason for it to be obligatory is that there's every reason to believe -- and this is not holding anything against the employers that would be covered under the legislation -- that, given that their single most important reference point in decision-making within the business environment is the bottom line -- it's the cost-benefit analysis as per their profit-loss statements, and that's something I fully recognize.
But given that, there's a tendency for initiatives such as what would be achieved under employment equity to be pushed down the list of priorities and therefore they would not be fully incorporated into that decision-making matrix as fully as they should be, given where we want to take things.
The Chair: We ran out of time, Mr Kerr. Thank you very much for taking the time to come and make this presentation and participating in these hearings.
Mr Kerr: Thank you very much. I would hopefully reserve the opportunity to submit to you a written submission.
The Chair: Of course.
ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN'S ISSUES
CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE L'ONTARIO SUR LA CONDITION FÉMININE
The Chair: The Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues. I understand this presentation will be in French, so if you haven't equipped yourself yet, please do so.
Bonjour et bienvenue. Vous êtes Jacqueline Pelletier, alors ?
Mme Jacqueline Pelletier : C'est ça.
The Chair: Vous avez une demi-heure pour votre présentation. S'il vous plaît, laissez un petit peu de temps pour des questions et des réponses.
Mme Pelletier : D'accord. Je voudrais faire référence tout d'abord au commentaire éditorial qui a paru dans le Globe and Mail de ce matin et qui était intitulé «Giving Equity a Bad Name».
Je crois en effet que c'est précisément ce que fait ce type de commentaire éditorial. J'ai toujours beaucoup de peine à comprendre comment un journal comme celui-ci, qui se dit le porte-parole du progrès dans le domaine de l'entrepreneurship, n'arrive pas à voir dans ce monde, où tous les gestionnaires progressistes ont compris que les plus grandes valeurs à promouvoir dans l'entreprise sont la créativité, l'audace, le travail en équipe, aplatir les hiérarchies, les équipes multidisciplinaires, ce même Globe and Mail qui se dit --
The Chair: Un instant. Je ne sais pas si tout fonctionne. Attendez, s'il vous plaît.
Mme Pelletier : Je vous en prie. Technology at the service of communication. Ça va ? Tout le monde comprend maintenant ?
The Chair: Oui.
Mme Pelletier : Bien. Mme Witmer aussi ?
Mrs Witmer: Yes, thank you. Oui.
Mme Pelletier : Alors, je parlais de ce commentaire éditorial paru ce matin dans le Globe and Mail et intitulé «Giving Equity a Bad Name». Tout simplement pour résumer, ce que je disais c'est que je suis toujours étonnée de voir que ce journal qui se dit le porte-parole, l'outil journalistique de l'entreprise au Canada, n'arrive pas à voir comment des mesures comme l'équité en emploi makes good business sense.
Tous les gourous de la gestion, y compris Tom Peters et tous les autres qui le suivent, ont compris que c'est en aplatissant les hiérarchies, en formant des équipes multidisciplinaires, en recherchant des gens dont la première qualité n'est pas nécessairement leur formation pointue dans un domaine, comme par exemple le génie, mais bien tout aussi important, sinon plus dans certains cas leur audace, leur créativité, leur capacité d'entrer en dialectique avec des gens avec qui normalement ils n'entrent pas en contact dans leur milieu de travail, les gestionnaires qui travaillent en comité maintenant avec les gens de la chaîne de montage etc, et je vous passe les détails.
Ce même Globe and Mail, qui pourtant nous publie constamment un business magazine et des articles disant, «C'est ça qu'il faut rechercher pour la relance économique de l'Ontario», n'arrive pas à voir qu'en introduisant ces éléments de nouveauté que représente une augmentation de la présence des femmes, des minorités visibles, des personnes autochtones et des personnes handicapées, on atteint le même objectif : forcer la diversité pour forcer les gens à entrer justement dans la dialectique, éclater les schèmes établis et créer un milieu où on est prêt à être audacieux et à inventer.
À mon avis donc, ce projet de loi est tout à fait important et essentiel à la relance économique de l'Ontario. L'équité en emploi, ce n'est pas strictement une mesure sociale ; c'est très directement une mesure de nature économique. IBM semble l'avoir compris en tout cas ; c'est ce qu'on a vu dans leur présentation qui a eu lieu, je crois, hier.
Un autre commentaire d'ordre général : nous avons dans ce pays et dans cette province une grande tradition d'intervention. Pour ceux et celles qui viennent vous dire qu'il ne faut pas que le gouvernement intervienne, pourtant, quand on y pense, depuis la création de ce pays et de cette province, on détourne des rivières pour créer de l'énergie hydraulique, on perce les montagnes avec de la dynamite pour y faire passer des routes et des voies ferrées, on entreprend des campagnes massives pour encourager les gens à ne plus boire de l'alcool lorsqu'ils sont au volant, à fumer moins parce qu'ils risquent de mourir, à porter des ceintures de sécurité.
On a eu beaucoup de résistance mais on a fini par reconnaître les résultats très positifs de ces campagnes pour notre société. On a même un jour, chose que vous ne savez peut-être pas, accordé des terres gratuites à des royalistes français qui fuyaient la Révolution, dont ce Laurent Quetton St George qui est venu faire ses affaires en Ontario à l'invitation du gouvernement ontarien, à qui on a donné des terres gratuites et d'après qui est nommée la rue St-George ici même à Toronto.
Donc, intervenir, ça n'a rien de nouveau ni dans le secteur privé ni dans le secteur gouvernemental. Dieu sait qu'on accorde aux entreprises dans cette province une aide massive sous forme d'exemptions fiscales. Qu'on ne nous dise donc pas que dans le domaine de l'équité en emploi, which makes good business sense, il ne faudrait pas intervenir.
Je veux vous rappeler que lorsqu'on a commencé, en Amérique du Nord, à parler d'action positive -- on n'utilisait pas les termes «équité» dans le temps -- au tout début, pendant les premières luttes pour les libertés civiles, on n'incluait pas les femmes lorsqu'on parlait d'action positive. On parlait des Noirs aux États-Unis, on parlait des minorités raciales, mais il n'était pas question du tout d'inclure les femmes. Ce n'est que plus tard, au fur et à mesure que les années 60 passaient, au début des années 70, qu'on a commencé à inclure les personnes handicapées. Avant 1965, si tu étais handicapé, eh bien, c'était ton problème personnel, et si tu étais une femme violentée ou une femme sans emploi, eh bien, que veux-tu qu'on y fasse comme société ?
1410
Pourtant, il y a eu une grande évolution, et s'il y a eu une évolution, c'est bien parce que des personnes courageuses dans le secteur associatif autant que dans les gouvernements ont bien voulu pousser des mesures qui nous ont obligés à progresser. On est bien content aujourd'hui de se dire progressiste au Canada et en Ontario sur tous ces plans, mais que voulez-vous, nous sommes des êtres humains et nous résistons tous au progrès. Parfois, il nous faut des petites mesures incitatives, et en voici une très intéressante avec ce projet de loi et la réglementation.
Je dois vous dire que le conseil que je représente, que je préside n'est pas en mesure de faire de la recherche maintenant, cet aspect n'est pas dans notre mandat, et que, comme nous ne nous réunissons pas très souvent, ce serait faux de vous dire que nous avons une position claire et précise en tant que conseil.
Toutefois, nous avons discuté du projet de loi, et les commentaires que je vais vous faire représentent non pas une position adoptée en bonne et due forme, mais reflètent plutôt les réflexions que nous avons partagées entre membres et avec notre personnel.
Je veux dire d'abord que dans l'ensemble, les membres du Conseil trouvent le projet de loi 79 acceptable et souhaitent qu'il soit adopté. Il y a bien sûr des commentaires qu'on ferait de part et d'autres, mais dans l'ensemble ce que je dis c'est que ce projet de loi doit être adopté.
Il y a des réticences face à la réglementation, et je vais faire quelques commentaires à ce sujet. Nous avons examiné certains des dossiers qui vous ont été présentés, entre autres par la Women's Coalition for Employment Equity ainsi que par l'alliance sur l'équité en emploi. Je dois dire d'abord mon grand respect pour ces groupes qui ont fait un travail de fond très important pour nourrir votre réflexion et qui connaissent le domaine de l'équité en emploi beaucoup mieux que moi.
Je pense, ayant étudié leurs recommandations, qu'il y a là du matériel très important, des recommandations très importantes qui doivent être étudiées et retenues dans plusieurs des cas pour tout simplement accroître l'efficacité du projet de loi important que vous vous apprêtez à adopter et sa clarté. Parce que moi, je me mets dans la peau de l'employeur, de l'employé, de la personne qui désire devenir une employée, des groupes qui veulent surveiller, au cours des années qui viennent, le succès de la mise en oeuvre de cette loi et de la commission qui aura à juger si, oui ou non, un employeur ou une employeure fait ce qu'il ou elle doit faire. Il me semble que le fameux slogan «Keep it simple» est tout à fait en vigueur, ou doit l'être plutôt.
Alors, voici quelques-uns des commentaires que je voudrais formuler. Ce sont des commentaires plutôt d'ordre général.
Ce qui m'a frappée, et mes collègues aussi, c'est la nécessité de mieux articuler et même de mieux intégrer le projet de loi 79 ainsi que la réglementation. Je dois avouer qu'en lisant la réglementation, je me suis demandée et j'ai dû retourner souvent au projet de loi parce que les deux, séparément, à mon avis, n'ont pas beaucoup de sens... Je crois que dans les recommandations de l'Alliance et de la Coalition, lorsqu'on vous propose d'intégrer certains aspects de la réglementation à l'intérieur même du texte de la loi, il y a là des recommandations à mettre en oeuvre.
Tout simplement pour que ce soit plus claire, mon impression, ayant eu plusieurs discussions et ayant fait ces lectures, est que dans le fond, une meilleure articulation de la réglementation et du texte de la Loi répondrait à certaines des préoccupations exprimées devant vous par certains groupes.
Je crois qu'il y, a dans le projet de loi et dans la réglementation, certaines solutions qui ne sautent pas aux yeux, parce que l'articulation n'est pas suffisamment bien faite. Je suis d'accord, par exemple, pour préciser ce qu'on entend par «mesure positive» et pour l'inclure possiblement dans le texte même de la Loi, pour définir ce qu'on entend par «obstacle» et pour l'inclure aussi possiblement dans le texte même de la Loi, tout ça avec un seul but en tête : quels sont les résultats que nous voulons atteindre ? Quels sont les résultats ? C'est la seule préoccupation dans le fond, et comment allons-nous les atteindre de façon efficace, simple et claire pour que tout le monde sache de quoi on parle ?
Ma réaction générale aussi est qu'il y aurait moyen de simplifier les processus qui sont proposés. Je me demande pourquoi on ne pourrait pas travailler de plus près avec Statistique Canada. Est-ce qu'on ne pourrait pas faciliter la tâche des employeurs en impliquant un peu plus Statistique Canada dans l'étude de la représentation géographique, par exemple ? C'est une suggestion.
En tout cas, chose certaine, le texte doit être simplifié pour que toute personne qui a besoin d'avoir recours à cette Loi et à cette réglementation puisse le plus immédiatement possible comprendre de quoi il s'agit. Pensons à la personne qui se dit : «Suis-je victime de discrimination ? Est-ce à cause de ma race qu'on ne m'a pas donné cet emploi ?» Il faut que cette personne puisse rapidement, avec cet outil qu'est le texte, comprendre si, oui ou non, il y a lieu d'aller de l'avant avec une démarche de plainte.
Il me semble que pour que quiconque, que ce soit la Commission, un plaignant ou une plaignante ou les groupes qui vont surveiller le tout, puisse mesurer les progrès, il faut fixer des résultats très précis. Que les pourcentages varient d'un employeur à l'autre ou d'une région à l'autre, cela me paraît évident et acceptable, mais il me semble que deux choses sont essentielles pour qu'on puisse mesurer les résultats : c'est qu'il y ait des échéanciers plus serrés que ceux qui sont proposés et que des pourcentages acceptables à la Commission soient établis.
Je crois que la plupart des membres de mon conseil seraient prêts à accepter que l'employeur et les représentants des employés, en pourparlers, fixent eux-mêmes des pourcentages dans la mesure où ces pourcentages sont réalistes et acceptables à la Commission, mais qu'il y ait des buts à atteindre qui soient précis afin qu'un an plus tard, deux ans, trois ans, quatre ans plus tard, on puisse dire qu'il y a eu ou qu'il n'y pas eu progrès, qu'on puisse dire qu'il y a ou qu'il n'y a pas de résultats.
Un tout petit détail : parmi les politiques et procédures d'emploi dont vous faites la liste à la page 9 de la réglementation, on ne parle pas de description de poste, «job description», et cela m'inquiète. Je me demande si ça ne devrait pas être ajouté parce que si on parle en particulier de promotion, il faut bien savoir ce que la personne est en train de faire dans son poste pour pouvoir mesurer si elle a bien accompli ses tâches et semble capable d'accéder à d'autres postes. C'est un détail mais qui me paraît important.
Ceci dit, il y a des mesures connexes à l'adoption de la Loi sur l'équité en matière d'emploi et à la réglementation dont on vous a parlé, mais que je répéterai moi aussi.
Vous savez qu'il est essentiel que tous les groupes visés par cette loi aient aussi accès à l'équité en éducation. À quoi bon se faire des idées qu'on va embaucher des personnes, des groupes, si ces personnes n'ont pas un accès sans limites à une éducation qui leur permet d'être compétitifs et d'accéder à des emplois de qualité dans le monde d'aujourd'hui ? Cela veut dire revoir la qualité et la pertinence des programmes qui sont présentement offerts, et cela veut dire l'accès pour tous, y compris un groupe qui m'inquiète beaucoup, les petits et les petites salariés.
J'ai eu l'occasion de lire ce qui sera proposé sous forme de projet de loi bientôt dans le domaine de la réforme de l'aide sociale. Il y a là des idées fort intéressantes, mais je m'inquiète aussi pour les personnes qui ont un emploi mais qui ne peuvent pas se permettre de payer des frais de scolarité. Ces personnes, à qui on veut aussi donner l'accès à de bons emplois et à des promotions, doivent d'abord pouvoir s'éduquer. Cela veut aussi dire si on veut réaliser l'équité en emploi, l'accès aux autres formes d'appui, y compris les services de garde.
Dans un autre ordre d'idée, il me semble que le gouvernement devra investir toute l'énergie requise pour qu'il y ait des campagnes et des programmes d'éducation, de sensibilisation et de formation du public, des employeurs et des représentants des employeurs pour qu'on comprenne ce que ça veut dire, l'équité en emploi.
Cela suppose une commission qui sera bien dotée, une commission qui pourra faire son travail assez rapidement pour que les cas ne traînent pas et pour que tous et toutes puissent voir des résultats le plus rapidement possible. Parce que vous savez comme moi que si on ne voit pas des résultats rapidement, la critique viendra plus rapidement pour vous dire : «Votre projet de loi ne fonctionne pas. On vous l'avait dit.» Il faudra avoir des résultats, donc une commission bien dotée de personnel bien qualifié.
1420
Je pose la question suivante : est-il bien que le même corps, qu'on appelle une commission, fasse d'une part l'éducation, la formation, la promotion, l'appui aux employeurs, et d'autre part, la poursuite, «complaints and compliance» ? Je ne suis pas sûre que les deux fonctions devraient être sous le même toit. C'est une question à examiner.
Un commentaire à côté que je fais en tant que Franco-Ontarienne : je sais qu'à l'heure actuelle, la population franco-ontarienne n'est pas inclue dans ce projet de loi comme groupe cible. Je ne suis pas entièrement convaincue qu'elle ne devrait pas l'être. Les études qui ont été menées jusqu'à maintenant pour tenter de déterminer si, oui ou non, les Ontariens et Ontariennes de langue française sont victimes de discrimination en emploi en tant que groupe, à mon avis, ne sont pas encore complètes. J'espère qu'on demeurera ouvert à la possibilité d'inclure éventuellement l'Ontario français.
Un tout dernier commentaire basé sur mon expérience personnelle : j'ai siégé jusqu'à tout récemment au conseil d'administration de la Cité collégiale, le collège français de l'est ontarien et, il y a deux ans, je présidais le comité de nomination lorsque le gouvernement actuel a décidé d'insister plus que jamais pour qu'on trouve des membres pour les conseils d'administration qui sont représentants des groupes visés, entre autres, par cette Loi.
Je dois vous avouer qu'en tant que présidente du comité, j'ai fait beaucoup de recherches, j'ai sollicité beaucoup d'aide et, après quatre ou cinq mois d'effort, j'ai fini par recommander trois hommes blancs pour combler les trois sièges vacants. Les gens se sont bien payé ma tête parce que j'étais une fière porte-parole de l'équité dans tous les sens du mot. Je n'étais pas fière de moi. Je ne résistais pas, je crois, à la volonté du gouvernement de voir les groupes représentés, mais je n'ai pas réussi à trouver ces personnes.
Cette année, avant la fin de mon mandat, j'ai décidé, puisqu'il y avait encore trois sièges vacants, de redoubler mes efforts et de redoubler ma pression sur mes collègues pour qu'ensemble on trouve une solution, et cette fois-ci on a réussi.
Nous n'étions pas des personnes de mauvaise volonté. En tout cas, je ne le crois pas. Nous n'étions pas contre qui que ce soit, mais il n'y avait pas une habitude, une connaissance immédiate des personnes qui sont actives parmi les personnes handicapées, parmi les minorités visibles et les autres groupes.
Je pense qu'il faudra persister. Il y aura de la résistance, et cette résistance n'est pas nécessairement de mauvaise volonté, quoiqu'elle puisse l'être. Mais il faudra avoir le courage de persister et de continuer à insister, et les résultats, à mon avis, viendront.
Il y a eu résistance lorsqu'en tant que conseil d'administration nous avons dû répondre aux questions pour nous identifier en tant que femmes, francophones, personnes handicapées etc. J'ai personnellement détesté compléter ce questionnaire. J'ai des collègues qui ont refusé de compléter ce questionnaire. Il y a eu une grande résistance.
Mais encore là, c'est après de longues discussions, parfois autour de la table du souper, qu'on a fini par accepter que oui, même si on déteste répondre à ces questionnaires, parfois dans une société qui se veut progressiste et ouverte et tournée vers l'avenir il y a des choses qu'il faut faire parce que ça aide aux progrès. En fin de compte, il n'y a qu'une personne qui a refusé de compléter ce questionnaire.
Donc, là-dessus, je vous souhaite de persister et bon courage ; on va y arriver. Merci beaucoup.
The Chair: Merci à vous, Madame Pelletier. Il nous reste neuf minutes à peu près. On va commencer avec Mme Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed our conversation last time. I think you've made some very realistic and some very honest points about employment equity and some of the other related areas.
We talked last time, and you mentioned again today, that if we're really going to have a full and fair equity in the hiring process -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth -- there are other factors and other barriers that we need to consider. You mentioned the need for day care and you mentioned the need for education, the fact that the government needs to do that in conjunction with the employment equity.
What is it in particular that women are looking for as far as education and training are concerned? We've got people throughout the province who need to access that. What can the government specifically do?
Mme Pelletier : Five years on the board of the college have given me a fair amount of ideas. Comment est-ce qu'on dit «la reconnaissance des acquis» en anglais ? Recognition of acquired skills.
The colleges in Ontario are beginning to implement in their course planning the measures that will allow us to recognize the acquired skills not only of women but of everyone in this province, but specifically in the case of women that is critical.
I think the more we advance along that line, the more we will be recognizing the true skills that women have and that have prepared them for the labour market even though they haven't been active in a job. Okay. That's one area.
The other thing is that sadly a lot of the courses that have been and are still being offered in our colleges do not prepare for quality jobs, and there is a challenge there. A number of people, our brothers and sisters in this province, have been out of the labour force for a number of years and do need very, very basic educational support when they prepare to return to the workforce.
However, I do believe that we need to seriously examine the types of programs being offered in the colleges. The programs being offered, programs such as Jobs Ontario, are they really challenging the people in this province to develop the skills to learn, to be progressive in order to enter the types of new jobs that we are in need of in the province? I'll stick to that for now.
Ms Carter: I really appreciated your very lively account of why employment equity is good for business. I think we needed that and I think that was very impressive. These things are subtle, if you like. The more different approaches we have, the more varied people make their contribution, the more we're going to be ready to face the future.
I just wanted to raise the point that you mentioned that francophones are not one of the designated groups. The minister did address that question, and of course francophones are included, I believe, in the Ontario public service specification. Certainly government ministries have to include their quota of francophones, but I think the conclusion was that it wasn't necessary on a wider front, and I also wonder whether what is necessary there is something that the government is acting on, and that's the provision of better educational facilities for the francophone community, especially the colleges. Could you comment on that?
Mme Pelletier : I think the colleges were critical and that has occurred, and bravo. You have seen the immense success of la Cité collégiale, and I think we're going to see the same thing in the north and south.
I believe what will be important is to continue the studies. Remember that in the early 70s disabled people were not considered a group as a group, a group of people who needed this type of measure. Study after study eventually brought our governments and our society to recognize that yes, something must be done to encourage employment.
It may be that we won't arrive at that conclusion with Franco-Ontarians; it may be that we will. Studies will be important and the francophone associations must do those studies, as should the government, in my opinion. My hope is that we will retain the possibility of opening the law if it is adopted without that change.
1430
Mr Curling: I really enjoyed your presentation, and of course there's no doubt that we need employment equity. Considering the fact that we have had ineffective laws that are able to bring about justice and fairness to people, considering also that we have had a bureaucracy that is just confused and just doesn't work -- the backlog has created all that -- maybe I could ask you, would you then support a law that is weak and vague and not making sure that all these things are tried?
You made some excellent suggestions. Supposing the government does not respond to those kinds of suggestions of tightening up the employment equity bill. I remember my friend Mr Winninger -- if he could just come clean and say that this kind of law continues to create a backlog situation that is now existing at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Could you just comment on that, the efficiency of this?
Mme Pelletier : That is most definitely a fear which I think we all share, that there would be a backlog would, and then that everyone, employers and employees and groups, will say, "Well, you see, it didn't work out."
I would imagine that, having put so much effort in coming up with this law and taking so much critique for it and still going forward with it, the government will be clever enough to adjust it so that it is effective, clear and works. If it doesn't, then I hope we will all be there to make sure that the government is told so.
What else can I say? I will hope that you are listening carefully to the, I think, very sound -- I don't hear that many people -- mind you, I'm a lay person reading papers, such as the Globe and Mail. I don't hear anyone saying, "We're going to lynch" anybody, "we need quotas." I think we hear goodwilled people say, "We want this to work," and the current incredible transformation we are going through in the economy of this province I think has made us all very realistic as to how much demand we can put on each other. We are all concerned about this province moving forward economically and socially, and so I think many of the recommendations being brought forth by the groups representing "les groupes cibles" are fairly realistic, and, sir, I hope the government is listening.
The Chair: Madame Pelletier, merci pour la présentation que vous avez faite aujourd'hui.
Mme Pelletier : Je vous en prie.
Mrs Caplan: Mr Chairman, if I could, just on a point the speaker made on quotas. When the member opposite from the government caucus --
The Chair: We don't have enough time --
Interjections.
The Chair: -- but you'll have another opportunity. Mrs Caplan, you'll have another opportunity.
Merci beaucoup, Madame Pelletier.
DAVID MACKAY
The Chair: We'll call upon David MacKay now, please, for the next presentation. David, you have half an hour. You've seen the proceedings. Leave as much time as you think you would need for questions and answers.
Mr David MacKay: Just let me get set up for a moment, okay?
The Chair: Sure thing.
Mrs Caplan: For the moment he's getting set up, Mr Chair, if you would check the Instant Hansard, I think you'll find that Ms Carter referred to quotas. Obviously that's what's on the government's mind and that's --
Interjections.
The Chair: We're trying to be sociable. I think it's just a sociable discussion here we're having until Mr MacKay gets ready to present.
Mrs Caplan: Would it be possible to get a page from Instant Hansard to see if in fact Mrs Carter has used the word "quotas"?
The Chair: What I'd like to suggest is that at the appropriate time when the Hansard is available people check into that and make appropriate references to it at that time.
Interjections.
Mr MacKay: Order, order.
The Chair: Mrs Caplan, please.
Mr MacKay: I should begin by introducing myself.
Interjections.
The Chair: Continue, Mr MacKay, please.
Mr MacKay: I'm only known to you, Rosario, so I should say a few words of introduction of myself for the other members. When I got the list of the people on the committee, I thought, "Well, at least I know some of them," but they don't seem to be here. I was looking forward to Zanana Akande, who's my MPP and I know she understands where I'm coming from on this issue and I've worked with her, and I don't see her. I don't know --
The Chair: There's a substitution for her. I don't know what she's doing.
Mr MacKay: Okay. Also Gary Malkowski.
In any case, I'm an NDP member. I want to be quite upfront about that. I'm not a happy NDP member lately, but I am an NDP member still and I don't want to hide that. I'm a former trade union officer, and that's where I came to understand and work with employment equity advocates. So I could call myself both an advocate and a practitioner. That's the lingo.
Your senses don't deceive you. I'm white, I'm able-bodied and I'm male, and I'm another white, able-bodied male who's for employment equity. There are a number of us out there. I don't feel threatened at all by this legislation. In fact, I think it's far too weak, and you'll be hearing from me on that as I go along.
The term that's used by some white males is that these principles constitute a form of reverse discrimination, and I think we should deal with that issue directly. I think there is a certain amount of discrimination involved, but I prefer to use the term that they use in Britain, which is "positive discrimination."
I've heard enough about this being a matter of levelling the playing field and it's a question of equal opportunities. It's more than that. There's a certain discrimination involved. We're finally going to give groups of people who have been disadvantaged in our society a boost, a leg up, make it easier for them to gain access to the employment world and to end their marginalization, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
One analogy I'd like to draw at the outset is that I'm also for native land claims. I can remember appearing at a rally at one point where some rather vigorous heckling was being done of Premier Vander Zalm -- I'm originally from British Columbia -- and one agitated white elderly gentleman came over to me later and said, "Why don't you like yourself?" as if I was some sort of traitor to my race. I'm not worried by native land claims. I think that we ought to share Canada with the native people and that we haven't been doing a very good job of it. As a white male, I think I've had advantages and privileges in society due to my race and sex which I shouldn't have, and I'm prepared to share the world of employment with others who are not white or male. I'd just like to say that from the outset.
That's one reason why I came to Ontario in June 1991, because the NDP had been elected and I thought they were serious about employment equity, and I certainly didn't see that happening in British Columbia. At that point we still had a Social Credit government.
So I became an activist within the Alliance for Employment Equity. I'm not speaking on their behalf today, but I'll be saying a number of things about the experience that the alliance has had in terms of the development of this bill and the regulations, and they're basically negative experiences. They will speak themselves to you later on, but what I'm saying is informed by my experience as an activist within that alliance.
As I've said, I feel that the NDP has a policy, it has a position that's not been lived up to. I'm not referring to convention resolutions which may have been passed at previous conventions; I'm talking about Bill 172. As far as I'm concerned, this is the NDP policy on employment equity, and the problem is that although this is a very good bill and was given first reading May 29, 1990, here we are, over three years later, and we're dealing with a bill which isn't even half as good. It's the same party and it's got the same leader. I have a real problem with that. I think that Bill 172 might have gone ahead right from the beginning, but then I understood that the government didn't want to appear to be dictatorial and wanted to engage in genuine consultations with people.
So I'm going to follow, to start off with here, this backgrounder that was part of Elaine's kit that was given to you a few days ago. First it says, "November 1990: The NDP government, in its first speech from the throne, identifies employment equity as a priority."
Then I'm going to jump right down to November 1991. It says that, "The office of the Employment Equity Commissioner releases a discussion paper." If this issue is a priority and it takes one year to issue a discussion paper, then I think you can see that we have a problem. That was certainly my first indication that there was a problem. God help us if the thing is not a priority; one year for a discussion paper.
1440
Anyway, the discussion paper finally came November 5, 1991, long-awaited. I remember us all jumping on it the minute it was released to have a look at it, those of us who were involved in the employment equity business. It was quite an interesting discussion paper. It covered all the options. It was informative. Then we had a number of months of consultations. They did travel all over the province there and that was important. I think, in fact, people were consulted to death. There were 400 written briefs that the commission was given.
Then we get to the point where it took them four more months to come up with a bill. Once again, I don't understand the delay there. I know there was a lot of information to look at, but then when you finally got the bill, which came out June 25, 1992, we had a real big shock, those of us who were upstairs waiting for it to be handed out -- even though the Star got it the day before, we didn't get it till the day it was announced in the House. It was this little, small, scanty piece of work which was sloppily written, as far as we were concerned. All this great amount of consultation, all these wonderful briefs that had been submitted -- where did all the meat of those briefs -- what happened to it? Where did it wind up? It certainly didn't wind up in the bill.
So members of the alliance then thought that we should get back to the Minister of Citizenship and we should say: "Elaine, what's wrong? Your bill -- there's nothing in it." We were told, "Oh, don't worry, it'll all be in the regulations."
Interjection.
Mr MacKay: That's another matter. I just want to say that I don't think -- I want to quote briefly from my favourite columnist, who's Thomas Walkom. He wrote a column the day after first reading of the bill. He says: "Indeed, the government has been slow. Government insiders say its employment equity bill, designed to make it easier for women and selected minorities to get jobs, was delayed for months by the incompetence of those drafting the legislation."
I have to say that I agree. I don't think the people who are experts in the field, who work for the advocacy groups, most of them unpaid, were taken seriously. So as I say, when we saw this bill, which took so long to produce and had so little in it, we went to lobby. I had the job. I was asked by the alliance to focus on one particular issue. I'm going to do that again today. That is the issue of small business not being properly covered in the bill.
One of the things that came out after the consultation process was a very good and long report from Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré called Opening Doors. I just want to quote the same sections of it that I quoted to Elaine Ziemba when we lobbied her last July, after the first reading of the bill and we were so disappointed. Juanita says in her report, "Themes from the Consultations," page 43:
"Obviously, the ability of employers to implement full employment equity is affected by the financial and human resources available. Smaller employers have more limited resources, ability and opportunity to implement employment equity; admittedly, planning may be simpler in smaller businesses. It is important that the maximum number of employers be included in order to ensure that as many workers as possible benefit from the legislation."
On page 48 she says: "Some designated group members and unions opposed a phased-in approach, particularly for smaller employers. They pointed out that smaller employers usually do not have the kind of workforce requiring complex data collection and employment systems reviews. They would not require more time than larger employers to implement employment equity. However, there was some support for giving smaller employers sufficient time, given the current economic constraints on smaller businesses."
On page 57, Juanita says this:
"Employers in northern regions want employment equity legislation to accommodate the unique characteristics of many regions, such as the prevalence of transient population workforces. Designated group members were concerned that exempting smaller businesses from the legislation would mean that many of them, particularly outside of Metropolitan Toronto, would be deprived from the benefits of the legislation. In some areas, smaller employers hire a large percentage of designated group members."
I read these quotes from Juanita's report to Elaine and what happened at the meeting, as I recall, was that she turned her head and talked to the then deputy minister, Stien Lal, for a moment or two and then she came back to me and all she said was this: I'd said, given these comments in the report, "Why have you ignored the wishes of the employment equity-seeking groups in this regard and not made sure that small employers are covered in the bill, and why have you given them more time etc?" because that's where the employment is occurring in this province at this time, whether we like it or not. She had a brief talk with Stien Lal and then she said, "I can't say anything but this, that we put it to the cabinet and we didn't get our way and this is what's in the bill."
Now, what am I to conclude, that this is a weak minister -- if so, she has my sympathy and my support -- or simply that the rest of the cabinet just doesn't listen to her but listens to someone else? That brings up the question of the Premier.
At around the same time, there were what are called the Yonge Street riots and they occasioned the Stephen Lewis report. I want to quote briefly from that. The Stephen Lewis report is dated June 9, 1992, and is addressed to "Dear Bob." He says:
"Part 2: Employment Equity:
"This is a quite straightforward section of my report. There was not a single meeting that I can remember where employment equity did not arise. To my surprise, and perhaps naïveté, employment equity is a kind of cause célèbre for visible minority communities everywhere. They see it as the consummate affirmation of opportunity and access. With the possible exception of education, nothing is so important.
"Somewhat anxiously, therefore, I have to tell you that there is great concern about the progress of the government's intended employment equity legislation. It can't be introduced soon enough. And there may be no other explicit legislative initiative which will mean so much to establishing a positive climate of race relations in the minds of every single minority grouping...."
Stephen Lewis made a specific recommendation flowing from this report. He said:
"The employment equity legislation should be introduced for first reading before the end of June" -- it was -- "and if the session is for some reason prolonged, second reading should proceed. Whatever the timetable for early readings and committee consideration, the bill should be passed by December 31, 1992, to take effect as early as possible in 1993."
Then the Premier responded in the House a few days later to Stephen Lewis's point. He said:
"I share the Minister of Citizenship's pride that she will introduce the Employment Equity Act before the Legislature adjourns for the summer. Mr Lewis has identified employment equity as a fundamental `affirmation of opportunity and access' for visible minorities in Ontario. The legislation" will "be firmly in place by early 1993, after a full debate in the House and discussion in the province."
What happened? What happened was that second reading was delayed and delayed and delayed and this was a source of immense frustration to those of us who are seriously concerned that this legislation be strong and be implemented as soon as possible. In fact, I think it was almost abandoned around Christmastime. It really looked like it was about to be abandoned. I find it quite shocking, and if I were Elaine Ziemba, I'd be really upset. She didn't even get to announce that second reading was being postponed. Tony Silipo got to announce that on a Saturday afternoon at 5 o'clock at an urban alliance conference.
1450
This shocked a lot of us, that the minister herself, who had her staff promising up and down that second reading would not be delayed, that it was coming, and all these promises made by Stephen Lewis and by the Premier of this province -- "Well, no, for whatever reason, we can't do it."
So some of us from the alliance, because Premier Rae won't meet with us -- and we constantly ask him to do that and he says no, he's too busy -- cornered him as he was coming into his office in early December. The issue of the day that the press was all concerned about was this Carlton Masters thing, so we didn't really have much time with him. But we got our questions and we said, "Why a second reading delay? We want to know from you," and what he said to us was this, "A public promise has been made that there's got to be some sort of consensus on the regulations before we proceed with the bill." This public promise had never been made. This is just total whole cloth.
Obviously, a private promise had been made to business, but the promise was not made to the employment equity seeking-groups and we were appalled. We don't believe that consensus can necessarily be achieved. It would be nice if it could.
That brings me to the whole question of what I've been observing the last few days here. There's sort of an air of unreality about these proceedings, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want anybody to take this personally because I don't mean to be personally insulting, but I'm an equal opportunity critic, so I'm going to now criticize everybody here.
The Tory party, it seems to me, is trotting out some real stale red herrings and straw men. I'm not sure whether they're wilfully distorting matters or they just have serious misperceptions, but I haven't heard some of this stuff for a long time, this hoary old merit principle thing. It's hard to believe. I don't know whether to take you seriously or not.
I have to say, Alvin, that I've got to respect your life experience as a black man but I think you're being mischievous and playing politics with this issue. You've raised the question of the merit principle as well, and I don't think you should have a misunderstanding about that. You've sort of tried to stir the pot by raising this basically bogus issue of seniority. The unions aren't upset with this bill. The unions are for a stronger bill. I'm from a union background and I think basically that whole seniority thing is a red herring. It was dealt with pretty well in Bill 172 and it's not dealt with too badly in Bill 79 either.
Then I have to say that the minister comes across to me like Pollyanna. She sits here and says, "Well, isn't it wonderful how we've all collaborated and come to this point?" All evidence points to the fact that nobody likes this bill. The employers certainly don't like it. They don't like being told what they have to do, which traditionally is their affair, hiring and promotion. Something's being taken away from them. They tend to be reactionary. They resist that. The equity seeking groups are really upset. So who's happy with this bill? Elaine Ziemba and perhaps some NDP MPPs; I don't know, but it's all quite unreal to me.
I want to say that I feel employment equity is a matter of justice and democracy for oppressed groups within the workforce who are the majority of it. I disagree with Elaine Ziemba and with the last speaker and with anybody else who makes the point that employment equity makes good business sense. I think that's a moot point, as the lawyers say. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But if it makes so much good business sense, why are the majority of employers opposed to it? Are they ignorant as to their own needs?
I would ask that question and I would answer by saying that I think they just don't want to lose control over the hiring and promotion policy, which is a traditional management right in our society which is hierarchically based and which is a racist and sexist and ablist society. Historically, I would note, and I speak as a socialist now -- there are a few socialists in the NDP -- it has been in the interest of employers to keep workers divided along racial and sexual lines and to ignore the disabled or use them as cheap labour.
So it doesn't surprise me that people will say: "Why are you attacking the employers? Why are you implicitly attacking the employers?" Yes, they are the ones who are to blame. The workers are certainly not to blame for the fact that the workplace is not equally shared by all the groups in society, that some people have privileges within the workplace. Who else are you going to blame? Obviously it is the employer who is racist and sexist; otherwise we wouldn't have such a thing as systemic discrimination and we wouldn't have a need for a bill.
I've gone through some of the more outrageous things that I think have happened, but I want to conclude that part of it by saying that although the minister likes to say that all the groups have been working together and coming up with lovely draft regulations and a lovely bill, I just want to read something to you as a member of the Alliance for Employment Equity. This is a statement signed by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women and the Alliance for Employment Equity. It's dated April 8, 1993. I'd just like to read it into the record. It says:
"We are announcing today that the representatives of the Alliance for Employment Equity, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women, the Chinese-Canadian National Council and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women are resigning from the Ministry of Citizenship's advisory group on employment equity.
"When we agreed to participate in the minister's advisory group last year, we did so because we believed that the government was genuinely interested in designing an employment equity bill that would make a real difference in overcoming the inequality and discrimination faced by women, minorities and people with disabilities.
"Prior to the tabling of the bill at first reading, we engaged in a series of intensive discussions in the group, which included representatives of the designated groups, business and labour. The advisory group reached surprising agreement on a number of issues, including the size of the workplace to be covered, the need for a mandatory bill negotiated with unions in unionized workplaces and that plans should be judged on results rather than attempts.
"Few of these agreements were reflected in the final draft. Furthermore, the minister has been aware from the beginning that all of the designated groups believe strongly that mandatory targets and timetables must be at the centre of an effective employment equity bill.
"Bill 79 was tabled in June 1992. At that time, we expressed our disagreement with the bill, which we thought was an empty shell. We were assured by the minister that many of our concerns would be addressed in the process of developing regulations, some of which could be incorporated into the bill itself.
"Despite our reservations, we agreed to continue with the process. Since June, second reading of the bill has been delayed numerous times. As an advisory group, we have received no explanation for these delays. The group itself has not met since the summer and at least three scheduled meetings have been cancelled, all at the last minute. The latest cancellation was last week.
"We are resigning because we are totally frustrated and fed up with a sham process that has not really taken into account our point of view." This is not me speaking. I didn't even think it was important to go to those meetings.
"Finally, we are resigning because we are no longer willing to give credibility to the minister's claims that the views of designated groups are being incorporated. We call on the government to table Bill 79 for second reading and to open a public debate as soon as the Legislature resumes."
Okay, we're at that stage now and I'd just like to say I'm not trying to necessarily ignore the representatives of the second and third parties, but realpolitik says that if this bill is to be improved, it's going to be improved because the NDP members of the committee want to write improvements into it. Maybe you can get to Premier Rae. Premier Rae says to a convention of the auto workers' union that aliens have not seized his brain, and I quote him.
Mr Curling: Are you sure?
Mr MacKay: Sometimes I have to wonder, because Bill 172 is pretty damn good, but Bill 79 is a hell of a lot weaker and more confusing, and the regulations we've waited so long for don't clarify matters at all. They just muddy things up. They even introduce new terminology and new definitions.
I would like to say to the NDP members of the committee --
The Chair: As a conclusion, Mr MacKay.
Mr MacKay: Yes, this is a conclusion and I invite your questions.
I have this sort of great rhetorical question to you as NDP members, members of my party. Right? It's still my party. If you can summon the will to pass those amendments to the labour code under intense oppositional pressure, and then if some months later you can summon the will to reopen and strip public sector collective agreements and put the boot to the labour movement, as you've just done in Bill 48 -- it takes a hell of a lot of political will and moxie to do that; it's a terrible thing but you were able to do it -- why can you not stand firm against the backlash against employment equity coming from the racists and the rednecks? Or do you think, against all polling evidence to the contrary, that these people will now vote for you in the next election? And why do you persist in the fantasy that there has to be consensus before we can proceed? I don't understand that. Has there ever been a time in history where there's been consensus on something this divisive? I don't think so.
My final point is this: Do you not realize that if you are to retain any shred of credibility you have to stand up for the interests of the target groups, who are the majority of the working class in Ontario, against the interests of those reactionary elements, including some workers and some employers who resist change and progress? That's my question to you.
The Chair: Mr MacKay, I think you've done an exhaustive job of being an effective equal opportunity critic, and we thank you for your presentation today.
Mr MacKay: You're welcome.
Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I notice that you didn't advise the presenter that we'd like time for questioning, and you allowed us to run all this gamut.
The Chair: I used my judgement to allow the speaker to continue, because that's what I felt he needed to do and that's what I allowed. Thank you, Mr MacKay.
Mr MacKay: I thank you, Rosario. I did run over a little, but I wouldn't mind a question or two, if you could --
The Chair: There's no time, Mr MacKay. Sorry.
1500
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
The Chair: Next speaker, John Rae. Welcome, Mr Rae.
Mr John Rae: Can I have some water, please? That would help.
The Chair: Ms Witmer is helping out with the glass of water.
Mr Rae, we have half an hour. You can take the whole half-hour or you can leave some time for questions and answers. We leave that to you. If you want me to remind you about the time, I can do that. If not --
Mr John Rae: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. That's fine. I'll do my best to leave some time for questions. Your schedule has left me with a tough act to follow, but on behalf of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, OPSEU, I'm pleased to be here, and we appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to be here. I myself am part of OPSEU's central employment equity team. I have been an employment equity practitioner for about 15 years and, as you can obviously tell, am a member of a designated group. You will probably notice me drawing upon my diverse background, all parts of it, as I make this presentation on behalf of our union.
As you know, OPSEU represents some 110,000 individuals across this big province: individuals who are white and who are black, individuals who work part-time and who work full-time, individuals who are disabled and who are able-bodied, individuals who are aboriginal and who are immigrants. We represent workers not only in the public service, the OPS, but in the colleges of applied arts and technology and in a variety of workplaces in the broader public sector. We are proud of the work we do in delivering services to the citizens of Ontario.
We are also not newcomers to the area of employment equity. OPSEU was a major player in the development of Bill 172, and I must say we would prefer to be here making a presentation on that piece of legislation, a bill which we consider to have been somewhat stronger.
Our members, in convention assembled, passed a detailed policy and action plan which looks at OPSEU as a bargaining agent, as an employer of staff itself and as an active part of the community. Our human rights officer, Beverley Johnson, was a member of the minister's advisory committee.
We have a history of support for employment equity, and I want to be very clear in reiterating that support today and urge the committee that it's time for -- we want to commend the government for moving the bill through second reading and to this stage. We hope it will be enacted quickly and that the provisions of the bill, as amended -- and I'm going to make some recommendations for amendment -- will soon come into place so we can start to see mandatory employment equity in action across Ontario.
Some people look at employment equity as simply a numbers game; some people are inclined to do that. That's unfortunate because, while changing the representation rate in workplaces is clearly the ultimate goal of employment equity, if we focus only on numbers we are unlikely to succeed. Rather, we must look at a several-pronged approach.
Yes, numbers are important; that's the quantitative side. But also, employment systems are equally important; that's the qualitative side. In addition, the climate in the workplace, the quality of working life, the way in which people are treated, the way in which people are introduced into the workplace, that too is important if people, once hired, are going to be encouraged to stay.
As a practitioner, I know that many employers today, those who are interested have had some moderate success in attracting members of designated groups, are finding that as quickly as they come in the front door they're going out the back door. I can suggest some reasons for that. What that ends up doing, of course, is that results in terms of net gains in representation are minimal.
In order to be successful, in order to bring about the kind of changes that we want to see happen, an organization needs to look at numbers, needs to look at systems, needs to look at the climate, the organizational culture.
It is easy, I suppose, to look at a bill, even Bill 79, in isolation, but we must not do that. After all, in terms of legislation, which is important in this field, some already exists. We already have in place the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its provisions regarding equal treatment and equal benefit of the law. We have in place section 15(2) of the charter which provides for the amelioration of historic disadvantage. We have the Ontario Human Rights Code which speaks to equal treatment in a number of areas including employment, and we have the Ontario Human Rights Code's provisions with regard to both special programs and the duty to accommodate short of undue hardship.
With that in mind, I view any employment equity legislation, including Bill 79, as simply extending human rights legislation. I view it in that context. With that in mind, I think it is critical to see it as simply being the proactive side, the implementation of the sorts of principles that were contained in, for example, the preamble to the Ontario Human Rights Code. Existing human rights legislation has been primarily reactive. Employment equity legislation is intended to require proactive activity to bring about real, significant and meaningful workplace change.
With that in mind, I suggest that the committee look at a couple of possible amendments. One would be to extend the provisions of Bill 79 by giving it at least limited primacy, say, over other workplace legislation. Secondly, this bill and whatever regulations are promulgated to implement it must in no way take away from the existing provisions of the Human Rights Code.
As I read sections 11 and 12 in tandem with the regulations which have been issued, I am very worried that enactment of the bill as currently written, along with the regulations as currently issued, could very well take away from the extent of the duty to accommodate. When I think of the situation particularly of people with disabilities -- and the duty to accommodate goes far beyond accommodating the needs of people with disabilities -- that would be a travesty which must not be allowed to occur. The provisions of the Human Rights Code, especially as it pertains to the duty to accommodate, short of undue hardship, must be maintained and must be written specifically into Bill 79 and any regulations which become a part of this bill. That's a necessity.
1510
Let me move on now to some other provisions. From the standpoint of the labour movement, there are several items in Bill 79 which trouble us somewhat. The first I'm going to refer to is section 41(1)5, which refers to work with employers and the bargaining agent to ensure that seniority not become a barrier. When I read that provision and the fact that seniority is flagged specifically in this bill, the only way I can interpret that section is that there is a view that seniority is a pre-eminent barrier. We in the labour movement reject any such hypothesis and believe that section ought to be deleted altogether from the bill. I must remind you in this connection that it is the employer who hires, it is the employer who establishes training and development programs, it is the employer who promotes, it is the employer at this point in time who develops performance appraisal programs, it is the employer who determines surplus and it is the employer who fires. It is not the bargaining agent who does those sorts of things.
Having said that, you might want to ask me, does that mean the labour movement is disinterested in the idea of partnering with the employer in implementing employment equity? On the contrary. That brings me to section 13, which talks about, "Every employer shall review," and so forth. I have always understood that one of the intentions of Bill 79 was to bring together unions and the employer in a unionized setting to work together to develop and implement an employment equity program within that employer's workplace.
I hope that is in fact the intention of the legislation. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then any reference to "every employer," whether in the bill or in any regulations attached thereto, must be expanded to include language something like -- and there are other ways of stating it that would be equally effective -- "Every employer in consultation with union or unions," if the workplace is unionized.
What is intended by this bill must be very clear to all parties, to all sectors in the community. I want to re-emphasize that this bill must be crystal clear. If the intent, as I believe it to be and as I hope it is, is to encourage partnership between trade unions and employers, then this bill must be amended to clearly state that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
The third area of concern involves section 28(2), in regard to powers of the tribunal and orders. I think the trade union movement is becoming increasingly aware of its obligations. After all, those obligations are already enshrined in law and in a number of court decisions, most significantly the Renault decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Those decisions do in fact indicate that on occasion agreements entered into between the parties, management and the union, can represent some measure of barrier. However, this particular provision, as written, would seem to open the door to giving the tribunal the power and the authority to significantly rewrite a collective agreement. I'd like to say that it would seem to open the door to a significant fishing expedition on the part of a tribunal.
While I don't rule out the possibility that this may be necessary in the rare instance, we believe that rewriting a collective agreement should be a measure of last resort and that it should be done only after other remedies to a particular situation have been exhausted. So we think that needs amending.
The final item of particular concern in a trade union context is section 14(3), involving multiple bargaining agents. This one's a little bit tougher, but it needs some changing. Let me raise some questions. If one assumes that each bargaining agent, when there are multiple bargaining agents present, would have one representative, many unions use a team approach in bargaining. In our union, we have members present but we have a staff person who actually does the bargaining. The coordinator of collective bargaining tends to do the actual bargaining, directed by the members. In other unions, members actually do the bargaining themselves, with support from staff. In either example, more than one person is present. How can that be accommodated in this situation?
A second potential problem involves the respective size of the various bargaining agents that may be present. In some settings, especially in hospital sectors, there can be five, six, seven, eight, maybe even more bargaining agents. Should a portion of an organization that is far smaller than others have equal weight in determining the outcome of a plan? Should we expect that one plan can be determined? Can we expect that the employer will pay for travel costs and so forth in order to let those people come together? You can see there are certain problems. While we do not in any way rule out the possibility that this provision may work in certain situations, I think it requires a more flexible provision, something which is a bit more, in this case, permissive rather than prescriptive, that certain other models might be possible.
How am I doing on time? Oh, good.
The Chair: You have about 10 minutes left.
Mr John Rae: Good. We may have a little left for questions after all. A couple of other things I want to comment on; one is that we see this bill currently as basically an umbrella. Like many others, our concern is that so much of the guts of this bill is contained in the regulations. That needs to be amended.
The definition of "designated groups" is contained in the regulations and not in the bill. I find that really strange. From our context, we see no reason why francophones, at least in terms of the Ontario public service, should not be included within the definition and covered directly by this legislation.
1520
Similarly, the term "positive measures" is mentioned in the bill but defined neither in the bill nor in the regulations. Positive measures are going to be a critical part of an effective employment equity program. That needs amendment. There are some other definitions which could be included as well.
The level of coverage that's discussed in section 19, both in section 19(2) and in section 19(4), where certain exemptions are provided for and where certain differential treatment is offered, we see as being inappropriate. We believe all workplaces in Ontario should be covered. We see no reason why small business cannot provide the same kind of detail as is expected from larger employers. After all, they're smaller; it shouldn't take them as long. They ought to be able to do it as well. We see no reason why these sorts of exemptions should be offered and strongly recommend they be deleted from the bill.
There are some other provisions and recommendations which you will find in our written brief which was couriered from OPSEU's head office yesterday. I hope it has arrived. If not, it's coming.
The Chair: Yes, it has.
Mr John Rae: Oh, you have it. Great.
I guess I want to finish by focusing on one other thing. So far, I have focused upon numbers, I've focused upon systems, I've focused upon workplace culture. Those things are important. But employment equity is a lot more than that to me. It's about people's lives. It's about people. It's about the people of Ontario. It's partly about our economic lives.
There are a lot of individuals in this province who have been excluded from the opportunity to participate in the economic life of this province because of various kinds of discrimination which are still rampant in this province, and that must not be allowed to continue.
If this province is to acquire the sort of economic renewal which we all want and all require, we cannot afford to utilize the talents of only part of the community. In crass economic terms, the more people you put back to work, the more people we take off the welfare rolls. That's an economic gain.
For employers who believe there are some costs involved in doing some of this, I've just mentioned the costs which are accruing to all of us for not doing it. We can't afford to continue not to utilize the talents of all members of the human family in this province.
But it goes far beyond strictly economic terms. We must also think about quality of life. We must also think about the negative effects which unemployment has on people and their lives. The overuse of the medical system, that's partly -- not all, but partly -- a result of the stress and the unemployment that people are facing these days.
There are human costs. They must not be forgotten. To those who say we can't implement employment equity in these times, some organizations are hiring. The small business sector is expanding, and that's another reason why that sector must be covered. That's the area where growth is happening. That's the area where we expect growth to continue.
But more than that, the whole business about employment equity is -- organizations are hiring. Some aren't hiring as many as they were, but people do retire. Some vacancies are filled. Some lateral moves do happen. There are some opportunities for promotion or hiring. That's still going on. And to what extent it is not, this time should be used productively by those organizations to clean up their employment systems so that when better times come -- and God knows, we all hope they will -- they will be ready to hire. Employment equity is partly about fairness; it's partly about removing privilege which has too long existed in our community.
Coming from a group which I think is perhaps most unemployed and underemployed of all in our community, I have to say that we who are disabled have never known anything but recessionary times. We have expectations that the improved attitudes we keep hearing about will be translated into some tangible effect. That means jobs, jobs, jobs, the opportunity to participate actively in the economic life of this province in our communities.
We aren't alone. There are lots of others who have not had that equal opportunity, have not had the opportunity to realize their dreams either. Anyone who comes from a designated group has expectations that this legislation will help make a difference in our lives in our lifetimes. In order for that to happen, members from all sides, this bill needs quick passage, but it also needs strengthening.
The Chair: I'm afraid we don't have enough time for questions. I want to thank you for participating in these hearings.
Mr John Rae: Thank you very much.
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF SOUTH ASIAN CHRISTIANS
The Chair: The Canadian Council of South Asian Christians.
Mr Frank Seevaratnam: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, members of the committee.
The Chair: Hello, Mr Seevaratnam. Are other members joining you today?
Mr Seevaratnam: No.
The Chair: You are presenting alone. Very well. You have half an hour. If you wish time left for questions and answers, please remember that we have half an hour and you might want to leave 10 or 15 minutes for that.
Mr Seevaratnam: We, the members of the Canadian Council of South Asian Christians, wish to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and of multiculturalism and the government you represent for initiating the much-wanted legislation on employment equity for aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women. We endorse the spirit and encourage the will behind your action.
This paper as presented attempts to express in broad form the views of the Canadian Council of South Asian Christians, a charitable organization functioning for the welfare of the communities it serves.
One of its major concerns has been the effectiveness of matters arising out of employment equity as it stands today. Studies on employment reveal that the South Asians, who are about the fastest-growing community in Toronto and Ontario, face more discrimination than other ethnic groups. The Sri Lankans, for example, have a high literacy rate, in the order of 85%. Many who have been employed by organizations like the United Nations Organization, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and private sector companies are today working as security guards and dishwashers due to existing employment barriers.
There is a fear among some mainstream Canadians, which has been reiterated numerous times, that employment equity means hiring less-qualified and less-competent people. It seems to them a foregone conclusion that only white males have the education and skills to perform jobs.
The act versus regulations: The Employment Equity Act in its present form lacks effectiveness in law. The regulations spell out more specifically the course of action necessary to make the act a reality. Therefore, it is imperative that the regulations be part and parcel of the act if the objective is to be achieved.
1530
Workforce survey: Workforce surveys should be made current so as to establish uniformity in implementation. Another concern raised was the monetary effect. The personnel department of any establishment has the machinery already in place to do a quick update of employee records. A follow-up or update can be done on recruitment, layoff or termination of one's service. This will not be difficult in this computer age. Therefore, the three-year period is unnecessary.
Records could be tied to the government income tax fiscal year. These schedules could be easily prepared and form part of income tax returns by each establishment, big or small. Tax incentives could be used as a reward system which will expeditiously put in place the employment equity plan.
Tax incentives to employers should include expenditures on training, safety and attitude education programs which include cultural understanding and sensitivity for both employers and employees and a certificate of recognition be awarded by the Employment Equity Commission, to be displayed by the employer, for successful implementation of the act.
People's actions cannot be changed or controlled by laws alone. Educating Canadian citizens on the justice and fairness of the legislation through media will prepare the right climate of acceptance and reduce opposition; for example, the necessity for immigration in Canada and the economic benefits of immigrants who come with their education, training and skills.
Review of employment practices: The act, to be implemented efficiently, effectively and economically, should speak a common language in that all establishments, big or small, should be covered by the same regulations and act. Recent statistics show that 85% of the businesses are small enterprises. That is growing. Experience dictates that smaller places of work discriminate and abuse legislation more than larger establishments where the union is the watchdog. Exploitation of the racial minority subgroup is, without exaggeration, prevalent.
Revision of employment equity plan: The revision of the employment equity plan by the employers should be an ongoing voluntary process. The employer, by his actions, should cultivate and exhibit the correct climate of trust and openness so as to command the respect of his or her employees for the mutual benefit and growth of the establishment. This revision exercise could take the formation of a committee comprising both employer and employee representation. Similar committees are presently in place in most establishments monitoring safety, health and welfare on the shop floor. These committees have worked successfully and have found large acceptance in industry.
Targets: The employer, having first studied the pattern of his establishment's composition, should draw up a work plan, as required by the Employment Equity Act, that will reflect the designated groups and subgroups in the population of its geographical area. This should be as realistic as possible, numerical targets to be calculated on information gathered.
The timetable for the implementation of the numerical targets thus calculated should be enforced with immediate effect, as and when the first vacancies occur. The vacancies should be publicized internally in the establishment, the advertisement to be in languages of the employee composition of the establishment at that time and external advertisements to be through newspapers and government employment agencies. The progress made on numerical goals should be reported annually with the income tax returns.
Fines should be imposed if negligence in implementing government policy is discovered by the Employment Equity Commission. The employer-employee committees, as suggested by us earlier, could be the monitoring vehicle at the work site.
Hiring: Hiring committees should be representative of all designated groups being interviewed. Those in positions of hiring should have cross-cultural sensitivity training to meet the needs of the racial minority members being interviewed, these committee members to be selected among employers and employees. In the event of unequal representation in forming the committee, the employer should seek outside existence; for example, from multicultural organizations.
Employment: Employment possibilities being explained, the subgroups should be guaranteed training and opportunity for upward mobility so that they can fully participate and contribute to the growth of the establishment.
The process of last come, first go should be circumvented. Otherwise, the whole purpose of the Employment Equity Act will be defeated when seniority is used as the yardstick. Efficiency, education and productivity should be taken into account before the last recruit is let go. The employer should be accountable to the Ministry of Citizenship and multiculturalism for just cause.
Council composition: We request that the advisory council adequately reflect by representation the so-far-neglected subgroup of South Asians.
In conclusion, the Canadian Council of South Asian Christians recommends that:
(1) The Employment Equity Commission recognize the existence and meet the requirements of the fastest-growing subgroup of the decade, namely, the South Asians, by including a representative on the advisory council.
(2) The Employment Equity Act incorporate its regulations so as to convince the general public that the legislation is well defined, well meant and has sincerity of purpose to it being implemented.
(3) The Employment Equity Act and regulations entrench uniformity and conformity for both large and small establishments.
(4) Employers be rewarded with tax incentives for the expeditious and fair implementation of the Employment Equity Act and regulation, using, as recommended, employee participation for the process.
(5) The review, revision and progress of the Employment Equity Act be monitored by the Minister of Citizenship and of multiculturalism.
Last but not least, having seen these editorials in this morning's papers by the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star, we recommend that we educate the media and the public through all avenues available to pave the way for smoother acceptance. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you very much. I believe we have approximately 20 minutes for questions, so that would be about seven minutes per party. I believe we'll start with the Liberal Party. I don't know if Mr Murphy would like to have a question. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: I just want to ask you this. I didn't hear all of your presentation and I apologize for that, but I got the drift of what your intent is all about.
One of the concerns we are seeking some advice on is the way visible minority or racial minority is being stated in the bill. Some are concerned that when we use racial minorities, it is important to have the subgroups placed within it. Groups before us were concerned about that. What is your feeling on that, that there should be subgroups in regard to racial minorities?
Mr Seevaratnam: In fact we have made a request that the subgroup be represented on the advisory council, because, for example, a subgroup, the South Asians, is a fair number, because that's a fast-growing community in Toronto today, and they are going to be part of the main fabric of the province.
Mr Curling: Yes. Should it be placed in the legislation who are the subgroups and who are these people?
Mr Seevaratnam: Yes. Our contention is that we be placed in the legislation, that we be identified.
Mr Curling: Let me ask you a question in general too, and a concern that I have. In the legislation and regulation it talks about, in regard to unions, those who will draft the employment equity plan for the company would be unions and it would be the employer and it talks about those who are not members of the union will be consulted. Do you feel that the non-union people, or people who are not members of the unions, should be a part not only in consultation but in the whole preparation of the employment equity plan?
Mr Seevaratnam: Yes, and I think I will speak for the whole council. We endorse that, especially in light of the increase in small industries in Ontario. Small industries are growing at the rate of about 85%, and as we see it, the days of the large corporations are far gone. The backbone of the province and the earning power is in the small industries. We have here lost our resources, and we are going to see more of the small industries which would not have any unions. Most of these small industries require to be represented and that is one main reason why we say that this registration should cover both large and small industries.
1540
Mr Curling: One of the concerns I have -- and I just want to hear some information on this, to be helpful on this. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has been clogged and backlogged and tries its best to deal with a lot of these problems of racism in our society. This new Employment Equity Commission will be charged to look after certain aspects of it, caused by maybe the inefficiency of the system to deal with discrimination one way or the other. In this bill it's stated in no way about time frames and when these things are to be dealt with. Do you anticipate, as I think already, that there will be also another backlog and there will be also a confusion, when one has a case, where to go in this, whether they should go to Human Rights, the Ombudsman or they should go to pay equity or whether they should go to the Employment Equity Commission to deal with their concerns or the perceived discrimination?
Mr Seevaratnam: In this particular instance, with due respect to the Human Rights Commission, which has a backlog, the Employment Equity Commission, which is getting involved with this whole process, should be the vanguard of the whole legislation and the appeal process, because you are setting up a new process. It's been introduced and implemented by your laws and you are going to give the assistance how the process is going to be implemented and you're appointing the aides to expedite this process by implementation to make it a success, and as such, that is the group which has studied, given birth to and will understand it more than the Human Rights Commission, which is overclogged with other appeals.
Mr Curling: My colleague would like to ask you a question.
Mr Murphy: Thank you very much for your presentation, first of all. I very much appreciated it. One of the points you highlight in your report, right from the introductory section, you talk about many people coming to the country with university degrees and, for example, in the Sri Lankan community, a very high literacy rate, and being employed primarily in manual labour or as security guards, dishwashers. One of the issues, it seems to me, that that goes directly to is the issue of having the skills and the ability to do the job and really just getting an equal opportunity to have access to those jobs and therefore to be reflected.
One of the things that we've been talking about is the idea of merit being fundamental, because, really, the argument is, and I think you agree, that designated groups have the skills to do the job; it's just a matter of getting the equal opportunity to have access to it.
Our caucus has been saying that we think the preamble, for example, could be amended to add the idea that merit continue to be fundamental to the issue of who should be hired for a position. I also think it's important because it goes to the idea, as you quite rightly point out, about educating people, about selling the concept, and I think that idea added to the preamble could be an important part of selling the concept, of saying it's not an attack on merit, it's about saying that people who have the skills should have a right to the job, an equal opportunity to the job. I'm wondering if you could comment on the idea that merit be added as part of the preamble, as part of the selling of this bill, in essence.
Mr Seevaratnam: As I stated earlier, people have the education, people have the experience and people have the knowledge, but they require the opportunity. Reports have said that the immigrants who come in with all these qualifications, as an entrance group, either they are low-profile jobs which really puts them into a depression, a state of depression.
In fact, in a report produced by the Economic Council of Canada, as published in 1992, among its findings it says the proportion of recent immigrants on welfare is extremely small. There is strong indication that education and experience acquired abroad pay much less in terms of earnings than they do if obtained in Canada. Its effect is that it takes all but the youngest immigrants up to 20 years to catch up to the earnings of the mainstream Canadian. University-educated persons account for 27.9% in the case of immigrants compared to 23% for the mainstream Canadian.
The issue, talking from my experience, the council I'm coming from, from industry, sometimes there is the foregone conclusion that qualifications alone won't do; it's the Canadian experience. Even if you have the experience, to cite a very recent example, here is an immigrant who has come into the country with foreign qualifications. He has been a president of an international company abroad. He joins the bottom rung as an engineer, climbs up to be the director of engineering and he's the one and only visible minority in this large American corporation. After 15 years, he's given the golden handshake.
He applies for another managerial job on a board of education. He's selected for the first interview, goes into the final interview and the first question of the final interview that's asked is, "Suppose they refuse to work for you?" Is that a question? That speaks for itself.
Mr Murphy: If I can just briefly follow up --
The Chair: We can't. We ran two minutes over time, actually.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Seevaratnam, for your presentation. I certainly did appreciate it. I actually come from a community where we have a large South Asian population and I can certainly attest to the fact that it is very highly skilled and very literate. I know some of them have been able to access excellent jobs in industry and at our universities, but certainly there are others who feel that their skills and their abilities just have not been used. I understand what you're saying here.
You mentioned something about the need to incorporate and include small business. When you talk about a small business, how small are you suggesting? What number? I'm not sure if I heard you say --
Mr Seevaratnam: You see, when you go by numbers, even one industry of 10 people should follow this legislation.
Mrs Witmer: Yes.
Mr Seevaratnam: You see, you can't expect them to record everybody from different groups, but they should be conscious of the fact that there is law in the land which dictates this, because it's the small industry which really discriminates more than the large industry. They especially pay below the minimum wage level. These immigrants are victims of circumstances and they're compelled and forced, for survival, to undertake these jobs.
Mrs Witmer: So you're looking at --
Mr Seevaratnam: The legislation should be broad, large or small, and Ontario is going to see more small industry than large industry. In Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge is the backbone of small industry.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, I know that, and that's why I was asking you that question. We, for example, had 100 small spinoff industries from our university. So you're suggesting 10, then.
The other thing is that you talked about the designated groups and including subgroupings.
Mr Seevaratnam: Yes.
Mrs Witmer: How would that be monitored? I'm not quite sure how you're suggesting, if we're going to somehow reflect the face of Ontario --
Mr Seevaratnam: When you say "racial minorities," it's a broad brush.
Mrs Witmer: That's right.
Mr Seevaratnam: But then you have to definitely include in the act subgroups like the Southeast Asians, like the Vietnamese, so you've got, in the whole, racial minorities underlined. This helps the groups or you don't hear their voice, and they are part of the economy anyway and they are going to contribute; they are contributing. In the latest publication of the book Amidst Tamils there were 400 industries started by Sri Lankans in the last 10 years and 100 this year alone. Because they have found barriers, they are going out and doing it.
Mrs Witmer: Yes.
Mr Seevaratnam: Even the white male Canadians who have dropped school in three years, why are they looking for jobs? Why don't they create jobs? They have to be innovative. We have to get away from the fact that we are going to be given a job by someone.
Mrs Witmer: That's right.
Mr Seevaratnam: So attitude and approach to employment have to change.
1550
Mrs Witmer: You mention here that we should be providing employers with tax incentives. I think it is absolutely necessary that this be done. Can you just expand on that? You've talked here about helping them with their training and their safety, and certainly attitude. I think the key to all of this, if we're going to see equal opportunity in employment for all individuals, certainly we've seen within this committee and elsewhere that we need to change attitudes. How would the tax incentives operate?
Mr Seevaratnam: Using tax incentives is a motivating factor for any employer to move fast. All companies hire accountants. All companies have personnel departments which have already done the spadework. They know exactly how many are employed, and when they recruit, they can apply this equity plan, as required by the government. That doesn't mean they're going to get rid of people to hold the proportion. Having these tax incentives will motivate the employer that he's allowed to spend money for training and he can get the best, because he also knows that the immigrants work better. They hang on to their jobs. It's a well-known fact that immigrants are dedicated and have the skill. It's a question of giving them the opportunity, as much as you have English in the workplace. It's another program which has been very successful.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, it has been.
Mr Seevaratnam: I don't think there's any employer who would be averse to this. There has been a change of attitude and there has been progress. I think the legislation is well-timed. People are prepared for it. Even the younger generation doesn't see colour, race or creed.
Mrs Witmer: No, they don't.
Mr Seevaratnam: That is your future and that's the way to go.
Mrs Witmer: This would go hand in hand, then, with the bill.
Mr Seevaratnam: Definitely; with the bill.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for an outstanding presentation.
The Chair: There are three government speakers who want to speak to this.
Ms Carter: It seems, from what we've been hearing, that there's a problem balancing requirements for seniority rights with employment equity provisions. The previous speaker wanted more strengthening of seniority rights and wanted us to cut out the part of section 41 that deals with this. You, on the other hand, state that the process of last to come, first to go, should be circumvented, otherwise the whole purpose of the Employment Equity Act will be defeated.
It seems to me that as things develop in the future and minority groups become more established in the workforce, they in their turn will require the protection of seniority provisions so that if those were to disappear now, then that might be counterproductive, even from the point of view of employment equity, as time goes on. I was just wondering how you would resolve this dilemma between these two things.
Mr Seevaratnam: My recommendation would be still to go by what we have said. The last to come should not be the first to go if he has the qualifications and the efficiency and the productivity, which is what all establishments are in. We are in a very competitive world. For that competition, you must have the best in your workplace. Seniority is not necessarily a right. It should not be ignored or bypassed deliberately, but when it comes to the merit of the case, who is more productive and who gives you a return on the investment? I may have been the best person, may have the best qualification, may have been a senior person; I need not be kept. The most profitable person for the place is what is required, because that is the person who is going to be productive to keep the place open.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Even if access to training would make that person just as productive?
Mr Seevaratnam: Oh, yes.
Ms Carter: But it does seem to be the experience of unions that this is not quite so straightforward as it seems, that people might be recalled for a whole variety of reasons and other people might be let go for a whole variety of reasons and that in practice they need this protection.
Mr Seevaratnam: The unions can be educated. Unions are a useful tool. It was the old school concept that seniority always should prevail. But unions understand today that the climate has changed. Unions are very useful in this training program and they themselves are people who are not particularly delinquents in the workplace, which was not so before.
The climate has changed; the climate is right. As long as we explain to them the purpose and objective that the employer wants to keep back somebody who is junior, I'm sure they will appreciate it, because it will keep their jobs as well.
Ms Carter: So your view on that is very clear.
Mr Seevaratnam: I am definite on that.
Mr Winninger: Thank you for your presentation. I should note, though, that we've heard from two union leaders today that they did not believe the seniority principle constituted a barrier to employment equity, despite their very enlightened view towards employment equity.
I appreciated your emphasis on education around employment equity, because I think there's a strong agreement emerging that this is a necessity, both in the workplace and in the population at large. I also found your suggestion for tax credits an interesting one, and I would suggest you submit that to the Fair Tax Commission, which is studying these very issues right now.
Lastly, I need to explore with you a section of your submission, which is number 5 on page 3, where you indicate the recent statistics show that 85% of businesses are small enterprises and growing. I'm in no position to quarrel with that statistic, but I would point out to you that I was concerned earlier as to what proportion of the working population might fall in the category that's 50 employees and less, the businesses that employ 50 and less. There's quite a difference in the statistics for workforce employment and the percentage of businesses that are small enterprises.
I have a table I was given which actually shows that 75% of all employees are employed in businesses that are 50 employees and up. It's true, you may still have a concern around the 25% of employees who are employed in enterprises below 50. I just wanted to point out that the 85% of businesses may not be entirely relevant to what we're concerned with here; that is, covering employment. This bill would embrace, with the strongest requirements, 75% of the working population.
That's not to say the bill doesn't require employment equity with companies less than 50. In fact, there are some sections that are more general in nature, that apply to all companies. Perhaps you can respond to those remarks.
Mr Seevaratnam: If I may suggest, you are bringing in new legislation and if you draw the line at 50 or whatever number, you are going to have a problem of bringing in other legislation to cover those less than 50. It is the exploitation of the employees, and where this equity act is not going to be implemented is the place where there will be the most discrimination. These are things which will be siphoned into the human rights act and on. These are the poor people who cannot afford to go there. So when you bring in a law or legislation, let it cover broadly all human beings who are going to be employed.
Mr Winninger: I don't wish to quarrel with you, but I'm not convinced; I haven't seen the data that show that businesses with employees under 50 are the ones that discriminate the most. In fact, there was some material we've been given this week which would indicate that members of visible minorities tend to be more fully employed in small businesses than larger businesses.
Mr Curling: That's why they should be covered.
The Chair: Please disregard the other comments.
Mr Winninger: I do. Why shouldn't you?
The Chair: Mr Winninger was asking you one final question.
Mr Winninger: I guess I'm asking, is there evidence to show that the smaller companies discriminate more?
Mr Seevaratnam: Statistics is only what is recorded. What goes unrecorded in the small industries, in the small businesses? People work there and want their jobs. They won't go and report for you to get the statistics. But the truth of the matter is, the reality is, there is and there exists. If you don't want to believe it and you're going by statistics alone, you're ignoring the reality of life, what exists out there.
Mr Winninger: I don't disbelieve that it exists. We've had ample evidence that it does.
Mr Seevaratnam: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying there is, and they're required to be covered. You're bringing legislation. Help everybody and don't leave somebody out, because it'll come to a stage that you have to cover these people or these people will go to the Human Rights Commission for sure. They can't afford to and they're afraid to lose their jobs and that is the reality of life.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We've run out of time. Thank you for coming today and making this presentation to us.
1600
LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, Eva Nichols. Welcome to these hearings. You have a half an hour. You've seen the process. Please begin.
Ms Eva Nichols: Yes. I have done this many times before.
First of all, I'd like to thank you and members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to present on this very important issue. The Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario is the principal collective voice of the 800,000 residents of Ontario who have learning disabilities. In other words, we are speaking on behalf of 10% of Ontario's population.
Learning disabilities are one of the recognized categories of disabilities which are included in clause 9(1)(b) of the Ontario Human Rights Code. In spite of this, people with learning disabilities face significant discrimination and a negative attitude in society. The Report of the Interministerial Working Group on Learning Disabilities, released by the Ontario government in October 1992 for public comment and subsequent government action, clearly identified the fact that persons with learning disabilities in Ontario face significant systemic discrimination. In fact, to quote from that report:
"The working group found that inequity is the current reality for people with learning disabilities and those who advocate on their behalf. Systemic discrimination against those with learning disabilities is largely the result of misunderstanding and scepticism. In practical terms, this inequity results in lack of access to appropriate assessment services for adults, lack of focused programming, especially in the areas of vocational training, employment and support, lack of access to benefits and a number of other issues which do not relate to employment."
While this report was focused on government and government-funded programs and services, the situation of persons with learning disabilities who look to the private sector for employment is even worse.
The public consultation on this report confirmed these facts, and we currently await government action on the recommendations of the report.
As other disabilities, learning disabilities may manifest themselves in mild, moderate or severe functional deficits, and therefore the need for support and accommodation measures will vary considerably from person to person.
On the other hand, unlike many other disabilities, learning disabilities are invisible and little understood by the public at large. Further, unlike other disabilities, the identification of learning disabilities calls for the administration of a battery of psychological tests, which are not funded through OHIP or any other government-funded service. While some assessment is available through vocational rehabilitation services, the current waiting period for a person to be accepted as a VRS client and to receive the requisite assessment for programming help is at least 12 to 15 months. Further, the recent budget cuts have severely limited VRS's capability of purchasing assessments from community agencies such as Jewish Vocational Service and others.
In fact, people with learning disabilities are the only group of persons with disabilities in Ontario who are individually held responsible for the purchasing of assessments which will then enable them to access the requisite accommodation.
Because there is such limited understanding of learning disabilities, the assumption often tends to be that if the person with the learning disability wanted to succeed then he would try a bit harder. In other words, whereas we now generally accept that society has an obligation to alter the environment in order to enable the person with the disability to be successful, when it comes to persons with learning disabilities society still expects the individual to conform to the environment.
All of this has a significant impact on the successful implementation of Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.
The Leaning Disabilities Association of Ontario, on behalf of its population, supports the principle of employment equity. The following policy statement was approved by the board of directors of the association and confirmed by the membership as the association's formal policy statement in 1989, prior to the introduction of Bill 79:
"LDAO advocates the introduction of mandatory employment equity legislation in the province of Ontario. Such legislation should contain the following:
" -- Clearly defined target groups, with the target groupings such as persons with disabilities clearly defined according to the nature of the disability as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code.
" -- Clearly defined target dates for implementation and reporting mechanisms.
" -- Clearly defined incentives for compliance and penalties for non-compliance.
" -- Clearly defined targets in terms of outcomes and results.
" -- Targets for training and education for those responsible for implementing employment equity programs.
" -- Adherence to human rights legislation, especially in the area of accommodating special needs.
" -- Targets in terms of entry-, intermediate- and higher-level positions to facilitate career advancement opportunities for the target groups."
Bill 79 clearly includes much of what the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario was looking for in 1989. However, as we review the proposed act, there are some gaps that we would like to address.
While probably most of the organizations addressing this committee will focus on the components of Bill 79 regarding qualitative measures, the numerical goals, the timetables and enforcement measures, we want to focus our comments on the more basic or fundamental issues, the resolution of which are particularly important to our special population.
The bill as tabled assumes that:
(1) Both the employer and the employee will recognize and understand the nature of the disability that the employee has.
(2) The employer and other employees will have an open and accepting attitude towards all disability groupings.
(3) Unions will support all employment equity initiatives and will not launch grievances on the grounds that the accommodation offered to an employee with a disability represents undue hardship for the other employees, especially if it interferes with established seniority rights.
(4) Everyone involved will be able to recognize the barriers which interfere with the employee's ability to be successful in the workplace and (5) how those barriers might be eliminated.
While it may be reasonable to assume that much of this will be in place for disabilities which are visible and where the accommodation calls primarily for physical changes to a plant or an office, such as an elevator, ramps, accessible washrooms, TTD telephone systems or Brailled signs, it is much less likely that the attitudinal, training and performance-related difficulties faced by persons with little-understood, sometimes feared, often invisible disabilities will be as easily accommodated.
How can these issues be addressed adequately?
First, regarding the issue of self-identification in section 17(2), all persons with disabilities should have equal access to assessments such that they are all able to take advantage of the opportunity to come forward and access much-needed accommodation in the workplace.
Persons with learning disabilities, especially individuals who are currently in the workforce and who have not been involved in the educational system for the past 10 or more years, may not know that the difficulties they have in the workplace, as well as possibly in family and social situations, may be the result of a learning disability. Many of them feel quite ashamed of their difficulties and deficits, such as the inability to read or do maths or use computers. Over the years when they were in school they probably were often told and ultimately became convinced that they were stupid and that this had to be hidden from other people as much as possible. After all, society's attitude to persons who are viewed as stupid tends to be very negative. Even today, adolescents with learning disabilities often report to us that it is much better to be bad than to be viewed as stupid.
For those whose learning disabilities were identified, hiding the problem is still one of their principal ways of coping. In this respect, persons with learning disabilities, as well as those who have psychiatric and related mental problems, are unlikely to self-identify under the current circumstances prevalent in most workplaces.
Therefore, to promote self-identification, employers must ensure that there are training and sensitization programs in place such that all employees as well as the employer have a good understanding of and a positive attitude towards all disabilities.
1610
The act is silent on the way that employers will deal with disabilities which are revealed by an employee but for which there is no formal verification offered by a medical or other professional who is legally entitled to diagnose the specific condition which results in the disability.
If such verification is called for by the employer, then the employer should either accept existing assessment results or, if an up-to-date assessment is needed, then it should be paid for by the employer through the employee assistance program or its equivalent.
It is recommended that the report Liberating Support Services, published by the Ontario Advisory Council on Disability Issues in August 1993, be reviewed by this committee and the Employment Equity Commission regarding the issue of requiring verification of having a disability. This is very important when it comes to demonstrating respect for and trust in the consumer with a disability.
Secondly, regarding the definition of "disability," it is recommended that "disability" should be defined in the act, either directly or by cross-referencing the Ontario Human Rights Code. Employment equity is for all persons with disabilities, not just those who have severe disabilities. It is important that all legislation which references persons with disabilities should use the same definitions. Further, it is recommended that the basic entitlements available to persons with disabilities should be based on disability-related need and not on the basis of type or cause of disability, age, gender, ethnicity, presumed competence, labour force status or state in the life cycle of the individual with the disability.
Thirdly, regarding the identification and removal of barriers, as described in section 10, it is recommended that each employer be required to ensure that the employment equity plan for the workplace include training and education relating to specific workplace barriers faced by employees within the target groups. Such training should include information on organizations which may be available to provide advocacy support and information on barriers to full employment for employees within the designated target groups.
Fourthly, regarding the role of the Employment Equity Commission, it is recommended that training, education and dissemination of information about advocacy services and organizations to employers and employees be included within the functions of the commission in subsection 41(1).
Fifthly, regarding the employment equity plan, subsection 11(1), it is recommended that the proposed positive measures for recruitment, retention and promotion of members of the designated groups and the proposed accommodation measures spell out in detail the special measures that the employer will implement in the employer's workplace to benefit employees with the less well understood and recognized disabilities, including learning disabilities.
The goal of employment equity presumably is to ensure that the residents of Ontario who are able to work do so to the best of their ability, in the most enabling work environment possible. This benefits individuals as well as society at large. The population that we represent, people with learning disabilities, is certainly employable, and the majority of its membership is job-ready, provided that the requisite employment equity measures are in place. In a caring and responsible society, we certainly can provide no less. That is my formal presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: We'll begin with Ms Witmer; five minutes.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Eva. I'm sorry I wasn't here for the entire presentation, but I know that as always, you've certainly demonstrated once again your commitment to the learning disabled.
You mention in here and talk about identification. Are you or is the organization concerned about the fact that perhaps the self-identification might result in public release of that information? There's been some concern expressed about confidentiality.
Ms Nichols: As far as our consumers are concerned, there certainly is that issue, that if you identify the fact that you have a learning disability, how many other people are going to know it; but it's more, how many other people are going to understand it?
The concern really is that in today's society people still don't understand what having a learning disability means and that it isn't a developmental disability -- even though one could say, "Well, what's wrong with having a developmental disability?" But as a result, people are very reluctant to self-identify, especially because, to date, our experience in terms of being advocates for adults in workplace situations has been that the follow-up step is that the employer is looking for an assessment.
We are currently working with three individuals where this has arisen, and in each case the employer is saying, "It is up to the employee to provide verification that indeed they have the kind of learning disability they say they do, because you can't see it." One can say, "Maybe if the employer knows nothing about learning disabilities, that's not so unreasonable." But on the other hand, as I know you know, it costs about $800 to $1,000 to get a private assessment from a psychologist to identify learning disabilities which can then be used as part of an employment package. For most individuals, that really is entirely out of the question. In fact, it has been brought to our attention just recently by vocational rehabilitation that it has now had to completely stop purchasing assessment services from outside groups. They say that they do not have people on staff who can assess learning disabilities. So they are looking to us as the charitable organization that works with people with learning disabilities as to what they can do.
We have tried to suggest that perhaps they don't need a full-cycle educational battery of tests, that there are more informal functional-deficit ways of identifying it, but some employers simply won't go for that because they feel that it isn't enough. Especially when they face a possible grievance from another employee, they want to have that piece of paper with the PhD`s signature at the bottom which says that it's a learning disability. It really isn't necessary, but that is what is happening. As a result, many people are walking away from jobs which really they can do and for which they require quite minimal accommodation. But because people don't understand how you deal with something that you can't see, the individual ends up walking on the street instead of working. Then of course the complication that arises is that their access to certain benefits is less than for people with other disabilities, which has nothing to do with employment equity. It just aggravates the situation. Many people with learning disabilities are just opting out of the workforce altogether as a result, and that's a big mistake.
Mrs Witmer: This is really quite commonplace, is it, that they are opting out, Eva?
Ms Nichols: It is becoming quite commonplace. Our consumer advisory group, for example -- and these are adults who have had their learning disabilities identified -- a number of them at the moment have stopped looking for a job because they are finding that, in this economy, if you come in and say you have a learning disability, that's the end of it. If they don't say so and then they have difficulties in terms of the training program or in terms of functional and performance issues, they are let go, because after all, they look just like the rest of us, able-bodied and apparently intelligent and apparently capable, so how come they suddenly can't learn a certain skill?
One of the individuals we are working with, and over whom, on Friday, we have a grievance arbitration, is an employee of the Metro corporation. Metro wants to help this individual, but it doesn't understand that with the kind of learning disability he has, the training program it has put in place for other people is just not possible for this individual. Also, we have come up with a plan which actually won't cost them any money, but they are reluctant to do something that is different because this person looks like the other employees. They can't look at him and say: "Look, there is a wheelchair, there is a white cane. Therefore, everybody should understand that this person is somebody with a disability." Unfortunately, this is happening over and over again. It's a very difficult situation for many people. Some individuals are well educated, well trained, but have these major performance deficits.
The Chair: We're running out of time.
Ms Harrington: I was interested in your comments just now. You mentioned how some people are turning away from the workforce because they have been disillusioned or have given up on the process. Hopefully, this legislation is part of a whole change of mindset in our society to be more inclusive and will be an enabling process to maybe have them gain self-esteem. That's very idealistic -- I'm sure there are lots of other things -- but certainly employment and opportunities and being accepted would be part of building self-esteem.
1620
I know you are probably concerned about small employers being open to people with disabilities, and my question is, do you feel that for employers, and small employers in particular, there would be added costs to this employment equity to include people with learning disabilities?
Ms Nichols: I would think that the most expensive component would be an assessment if they asked for that. Beyond that, it is, generally speaking, extra time and access to assistive devices, such as computers or calculators or tape recorders, that are the most enabling things for people with learning disabilities. In other words, we are not talking about large capital costs, and as much as anything it is attitudinal costs now. I'm sure that some people might say, "That costs a lot of money," but in terms of actually putting out dollars, it really isn't that expensive.
One of the difficulties that consumers have identified to us who in fact function fairly slowly, ably but slowly, is that they are quite prepared to put in extra hours, but then they run into difficulties with the fact that if the workday is seven and a half hours and they need to work for eight and a half hours to carry out the tasks that others do in seven and a half -- and they are quite prepared to do that without extra pay -- they run into collective agreement problems or perhaps grievances from other people as to how this is handled. I'm quite sure that this is a resolvable issue, because I think that that is really what the whole issue of equity is about, that you allow people to be successful the way they can be successful, and if that means extra time, then so be it.
But I think that the attitudinal changes are the big issues, and I think that just an understanding that if somebody comes forward and says that they have a learning disability and explains what that means for them and what might work for them, not to make the assumption that they are somehow trying to cheat the system and get something they are not entitled to.
Generally speaking, people with learning disabilities don't feel very positively about having a learning disability, and it takes a tremendous amount of courage to come forward and say, "These are the things I do differently and these are the ways I think can be helped and these are the ways I'm prepared to compensate you, the employer, and my fellow employees for the difficulties I might represent."
One of the things that when we work with adults we always say is, "Don't just go in there and say, `I'm going to have trouble doing the job the way you've got it laid out,' because inevitably you elicit a negative response, but if you go in there and say, `Look, I'm going to have difficulties with this component of the job, but if I were allowed to do it a slightly different way, then I can be successful,' then it can work."
Ms Harrington: Thank you very much. So what you're saying is that flexibility on the part of society and the employer is the key to it.
Ms Nichols: Flexibility and education and training to understand learning disabilities.
Mr Curling: Ms Nichols, it's quite a thought-provoking presentation, thought-provoking in the sense that I think much more awareness, as you said, must happen about learning disabilities. What I gathered from your presentation is that there are two roles here: one with the recognition of learning disabilities in the workplace and those with learning disabilities recognized outside the general census survey that would be taken. I presume most of your emphasis is within the workplace, because I presume you're not asking anyhow that learning disability people be one of the designated groups, but maybe sensitized to know there are learning disabilities within the workplace and how we deal with it in the promotional process. Do I understand you properly?
Ms Nichols: People with learning disabilities are of course included in that general target group of persons with disabilities, because legislation calls for that. It's just that this particular population, large though it is, often sort of falls off the end of the truck, if you will, because people don't recognize that it is a disability and are much more likely to assume that it is an attitudinal or a social problem.
Mr Curling: Yes. Then I understand it properly, that it's almost a subgroup, if you want to call it that, of the disadvantaged group within that area. The difficulty I would have with that, though, with people identifying themselves outside of the broader geographic area and ticking off that in the survey to say, "I have a learning disability," because the workplace would try to then reflect the outside geographic area within the workplace, and if that's not so, I presume that person, upon entering the workplace, would then have to stop to identify himself as a person with a disability. Did you follow me on that one?
The fact is that people may get into the workplace and, as you say, maybe not realize that they have that learning disability, or started off in a group, in an area, and by moving up, realize that the tasks they are given and the difficulty they are having, the fact is that they start to identify they have a learning disability. This itself then becomes -- and I hear you saying that it is the employer's responsibility then to find the tools in order to teach and get this person to develop himself to be promoted in the workplace, and the fact is that the employer should find that fund to assist that person in his development. Am I understanding you?
Ms Nichols: I think it comes back to the question that I was asked earlier. Accommodating a person with a learning disability is not an expensive proposition. Where the barrier lies for people with learning disabilities is in understanding what the barrier is, and once the employer and the employee both understand what the particular barrier is, and it may be the way the particular factory floor is laid out or it may be the way instructions are given or it may be the way certain things have to be produced, once there is a good understanding of where the barrier lies, then it can relatively easily be eliminated.
If we had the equivalent of the physical demands analysis that is used very widely and very successfully through the Ministry of Labour, a cognitive demands analysis, so that an employer would say, "In this job, people need to be able to read fluently and really comprehend what they read or they have to be able to do math or they have to have a good memory or they have to have good coordination," then I think an individual could either identify that indeed he should not be going for that particular job because his difficulty in that area is too great, or he could say, "Well, if I were allowed to use a calculator, then I could measure up to the particular requirements to do math." It's just that this kind of knowledge is not there because we don't really look at cognitive areas in quite the same way as we do physical things.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Nichols, for your presentation. It was very thoughtful and instructive.
Ms Nichols: Thank you.
1630
SOUTH ASIAN CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The South Asian Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Mr George Mathew: Thank you, honourable Chair and members of the committee. My name is George Mathew. Our presentation is more generalized in nature. We have not spent time studying the act in detail because we are not one of the affected groups directly, but we have an axe to grind as an organization within a designated group community.
I want to start my presentation by going back to a statement made by one of the witnesses here yesterday, "Do you know what it is like to work hard for something and to be told you can't be hired simply because you are a white male?" You heard this outcry from a claustrophobic Michael Buckborough yesterday. "It's wrong because it treats white males like second-class citizens," he further stated.
Honourable members of this committee, Mr Buckborough and his group have clearly stated the need for employment equity. Does he know how many extraqualified or superqualified South Asian males and females had been told in the past, directly or indirectly, "You can't be hired simply because you look different, you wear a turban, or you are in some way disabled or you are a native Canadian or you are a woman"? Even before the law has come into force, he or people like him are expressing the fear of being treated like second-class citizens. May we ask him or anybody who opposes this bill on those grounds to think about the humiliation, the frustration the natives of this land felt when they were treated like second-class citizens in their own land and they had to beg the white male in order to fish in their own ponds for generations?
So employment equity is not about reverse discrimination but it is about reminding employers, even to the point of using a stick, whether they are private, quasi-government or government, that they cannot tell simply, "You cannot be hired because you don't look or talk like me," nor can they fill the majority of the positions by word-of-mouth advertising.
That is not how one can select the best. Our organization is not in favour of lowering standards. We are for maintaining standards, but we do not like to be treated like second-class citizens any more. The first generation of South Asians may have accepted subservience, but my son or daughter, who are as good a Canadian as one can be, are not going to take it.
We will use the word of Mr Allan Bishop, except that we strongly feel there will be "backlash" if the spirit of this bill is undermined from the women of this country who earn half of what males make, from the natives of this country who have been kept as wards of the crown and other groups that were treated like slaves. So let us stop the rhetoric; let us stop the posturing. Let us be good capitalists governed by enlightened self-interest and benevolence, as Adam Smith set it out, not by self-serving greed and destructive self-interest.
The South Asian Canadian Chamber of Commerce is a community-based, not-for-profit business organization incorporated under the provincial laws. Our membership consists of businesses that are owned by people of South Asian origin, firms doing business with the South Asian community and countries of South Asia. Organizations like ours came into being because there is no equity, not only in the workplace, but also in the business organizations and the views expressed by these organizations as the total voice of the business community. For example, the views expressed by traditional business organizations on employment equity or NAFTA do not represent the views of the majority of our business community. The mainstream organizations refuse to accept the fact that there is a new generation of business people whom they have kicked out or suffocated but are bouncing back and flourishing.
As a business organization, we are not in favour of too much governmental intervention in the workplace. We believe the private sector can solve their problems in most situations. However, we are saddened by the fact that the businesses of this province have invoked government action to bring equity in the workplace. As responsible corporate citizens, businesses and their organizations should have brought in a self-governing mechanism to create equity in the workplace and in business practices. Having failed in doing so, our organization fully supports the bill in its present form. We believe it is a balanced approach, given the social and economic realities of the day. We are not in favour of drastic measures such as mandatory quotas that will create animosity and antagonism that will lead to social unrest and economic dislocations.
Opponents of the bill argue that it will provoke businesses to leave Ontario and move to the United States. Our understanding of the US situation is that there are most stringent systems in place to provide equal opportunities for minorities. The present federal equal opportunity commissioner is a South Asian. In the USA, even minority businesses have special privileges such as mandatory percentages of government contracts and loans from financial institutions.
I'd like to add one more thing there, because I forgot it yesterday. Our organization requests this committee to recommend to the government the creation of a business development agency for these target groups similar to the Minority Business Development Agency in the United States, with similar mandatory provisions, as part of employment equity. It should include mechanisms for training and getting contracts by and from businesses and governments. This, in our opinion, will enable these targeted groups to find their own employment, rather than wasting their time and energy going through the self-harassing and gradual suicidal process of employment equity. We will be pressing the government on behalf of our organization on this issue.
A lot of businesses will say, "We'll go down south." What we are saying is, if everybody goes south and produces goods and services for Canada, there won't be enough people employed to buy those goods and services.
In our view, employment equity is not a charity that our community is looking for. Though clear statistics are not available, based on our calculations, we contribute substantially to the gross domestic product of the greater Toronto area. There is nothing wrong in demanding that members of the South Asian community be given an equal opportunity to serve these businesses. If we are good enough to consume, we should be good enough to produce too.
There is no doubt in our minds that there is widespread disparity and discrimination in the hiring and promotion of the members of our community. There is also inequity in business practices, especially in contracts. There are several professionals in our community whose careers have been stagnated at certain levels. This is especially true in the service sectors, such as the financial institutions and advertising firms. The bill, we would agree, does not go far enough to meet the aspirations of the disadvantaged groups. However, it provides the last opportunity for the businesses to work with these designated groups to redress the present situations, if taken positively.
Businessmen and women in our organizations are mainly the product of the lack of employment equity. They went into business for themselves with a small capital acquired through menial jobs after they were told, "You are overqualified, "not qualified," "lack experience in Canada," all euphemisms for, "Sorry, we do not like your colour, appearance etc." But they took it as a challenge and are now running very successful businesses. They have proved to be first-class entrepreneurs and managers.
The fear of the business community that it will be sacrificing merit when they hire a person with all the qualifications from the South Asian community is unfounded, unwarranted and wrong. On the contrary, they will be glad that they hired some of these excellent talents. We will not accept that our qualified community workforce is second to anybody in productivity, loyalty or work ethic.
We support the spirit of the bill in using a mild dose of coercion in drawing up a plan and setting up targets in employment equity. Hiring suitable employees is not only a business responsibility but is also a social responsibility. Business profits are made by selling services or products to the whole community and not to the "employable class." We believe our community constitutes a substantial share of the aggregate demand, and hiring or promoting members of this community is not a favour but a good economic decision. When private businesses fail to discharge their duties, government is within its right to fulfil its social responsibility. It has happened in the past, and we have no doubt this will not be the last time.
The attitude of the business houses, especially in the retail sector and the advertising sector, is not acceptable to the South Asian community: "We like your business, but we know best how we can deliver it to your taste" is the wrong approach. These industries will do a lot better if they have more employees from the communities they serve. A simple example of this attitude is clearly evident in the catalogues and advertisement magazines.
How many times have you see a cosmetic company or a big department store using South Asian models to sell their products? We hope nobody in this committee will argue that there are not enough "model-like" children, men or women in our community. It is simply good business practice to include them in their catalogues, shows or advertisements. They are refusing to do it due to their bias or fear of backlash. While these businesses expect us to buy their products or read those magazines, they have difficulty in employing members of our community.
In conclusion, we would like to urge businesses, labour groups, target groups and governments to work together in such a way that there is social harmony in Ontario. Thank you for listening to our views. We hope it will be useful in the final deliberations of the employment equity legislation.
1640
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mathew. Six minutes per caucus.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. It's interesting to hear you say that you don't agree with the government interfering in the day-to-day operations of business. I agree with you; I do. As far as the need for employment equity legislation is concerned, I wish we didn't have to have it, but unfortunately, as you pointed out through your excellent presentation, the need has been there for a long time.
As far as employment equity is concerned, you say you don't have any problems with it. Is this employment equity plan in any way, shape or form going to mean you can't hire qualified people for your business? Is it going to interfere in that aspect of your hiring practice?
Mr Mathew: The way it is set out now, the number who would qualify, who would come under the employment equity legislation is those with more than 50, I believe, but there are few firms in our community that employ more than 50. I think they would be happy to live with the spirit of the employment equity program.
Mr Fletcher: So it shouldn't get in the way of any of your hiring practices?
Mr Mathew: No.
Mr Fletcher: I'm glad to hear that.
As far as the identification of people who have disabilities or self-identification is concerned, that's not going to be a barrier, that's not going to get in the way of your hiring practices at all?
Mr Mathew: No, we don't think so.
Ms Harrington: It was a very thoughtful presentation. I particularly liked your quote that the spirit of the bill is using a mild dose of coercion. Also, you make a very bold statement here, that "The fear of the business community that it will be sacrificing merit when it hires a person with all the qualifications from the South Asian community is unfounded, unwarranted and wrong," that I found particularly straightforward.
I'd like you to go a little further. In your opening sentences you referred to one of our presenters yesterday and talked about your position, that you're in favour of hiring the best person and that you are in favour of this bill, and that the two go together. I'm wondering if you could explain that a little more.
Mr Mathew: We don't see any reason why both do not go hand in hand. What we are looking for from our chamber's standpoint -- in fact, I was supposed to have another person here. He has a PhD in one of the physical sciences from the University of Toronto, and that man is working as a security guard. He's even being laid off as a security guard. I'm not willing to accept the fact that he will be beaten by another person when he goes for an interview, that he doesn't have sufficient qualifications.
What we are saying is that there is an inequity that has taken place over generations. We cannot, over a period of a few months or a few years, correct it. However, the businesses should understand -- they know it very well; the big businesses here know very well that there is an inequity. That has to be corrected. What we believe is that in most cases businesses always try to bring in their own mechanisms, try to change that. How come business houses here have not taken the leadership in providing that?
If that were done, probably there would be no need to cry out loud that this is going to scare all the business from Ontario and is going to create all kinds of backlash, as Allan Bishop says. I don't think it is going to. If there is going to be a backlash, it is going to be from the underprivileged. They should be the ones who are doing the backlash. Where was Mr Buckborough all this time when all our people were treated as second-class citizens? He all of a sudden realizes it now?
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, with a short question.
Mr Perruzza: You said something right at the beginning, that you didn't see yourself as one of the designated groups covered by the legislation. I was just curious about that.
Mr Mathew: Our chamber is not one of the affected groups because we are not looking for employment equity; we are in fact looking for business equity, if we can get that. We are not thinking in terms of -- I'm not looking for a job. I'm not going to make any complaint; I stopped that 18 years ago. I was humiliated and I said, "No, I'm not going to work for you any more." So the members of our group are in our own employment and I don't think we are going to be affected directly.
Mr Curling: I listened to your presentation very attentively. I just have two questions for you; first, just your comment on, if you're quite familiar with this one, the report of Access to Trades and Professions in Ontario. You spoke about the many qualified people in the South Asian community, and you had the example of an individual who was a security guard with a PhD who is being laid off now. The fact is that many of these people have come -- you said he had a PhD from here, I presume, so discrimination may be of colour or something else, why he's not getting a job.
Access to Trades and Professions was applauded by the government of today, and many of the recommendations there would have released a lot of qualified people in the workplace. Do you feel it is extremely important that the task force report's recommendations be implemented and it would assist very much in employment equity?
Mr Mathew: If I understand you correctly, you are asking me whether we support the position that Access to Trades and Professions recommendations be incorporated as a part of this employment equity.
Mr Curling: I'm saying that that report recommends that recognition be given to many of the professionals who are qualified abroad, that some recognition be given to those professionals. Unions and professional organizations have put a lot of barriers to that. Do you think that Access to Trades and Professions report, if implemented, would assist in the employment equity bill?
Mr Mathew: I would definitely say yes. But the gentleman I referred to does not need to go through that mechanism. He's a product of the University of Toronto.
Mr Curling: That's what I said. I said that there are others in your community who could have these qualifications.
My second question: You said in your brief that having failed to do so, the organization fully supports the bill in its present form. My argument about this bill is that it's vague and it's weak. Having an employment equity bill that is vague and weak -- do you think that in its present form it will be effective at all in bringing about the changes?
Mr Mathew: We had submissions from various interest groups requesting strength in various articles --
Ms Harrington: Where are your amendments, Alvin?
Mr Perruzza: When are you going to propose suggestions on how you can get better access?
The Chair: Don't be distracted by these comments. Continue, please.
Mr Curling: Would you mind letting the presenter give his views?
The Chair: Mr Mathew, please continue.
Mr Mathew: If I go through all these requests to strengthen the bill, definitely, as I said, we would agree that it does not fulfil the aspirations of all the people and it does not go far enough. However, we have certain economic problems in this country; we have certain social problems in this country, just like we don't like to create antagonism. So it may be weak, but it is a good start.
We may have problems. If everybody starts bickering with each other, we're going to have more problems, so what we are suggesting is that business, government, labour groups and target groups should sit down and, as some previous presenters said, there should be some education job done so that people do not go to all these antagonistic statements. Rather than trying to find problems with the bill or the implementation, if everybody worked together, probably we would have a better Ontario, rather than trying to tear it apart.
Our view is that yes, it has debilities, it has difficulties, it may be weak. However, if we can proceed further from a start, then it will be good.
Mr Curling: If the government listened, then it would be a better bill. Yes, thanks.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Thank you very much for your presentation. There are two points in your brief that I'm trying to reconcile, and I'll read them back to you. I know there's a risk in isolating these two points, but I'd like to give them back to you.
"We are not in favour of drastic measures such as mandatory quotas that will create an animosity and antagonism that will lead to social unrest and economic dislocations."
And then later on, "We support the spirit of the bill in using a mild dose of coercion in drawing up a plan and setting targets in implementing equity."
Suppose Mr Curling is right and this bill is not as effective as you would hope and does not achieve the results that you hope in, say, five years' time. How far do you go forward in terms of the quotas and the coercion, as you say, such that it will be successful, without disrupting society?
Mr Mathew: Our hope is that businesses will realize that we are here. My personal opinion is, having invited me here, to tell me, "You're not good for this" or "You're not good for that" is not fair. Understand that we are here. We accepted a subservient stance. My son isn't going to take it.
It is good for the businesses to work with all these target groups and find solutions, rather than push it into a situation where the government has to walk with a bigger stick and impose more conditions. I think this is going to stay even if, as Bishop said, the Rae government is going to be penalized for it; even if another government, a Conservative government, comes into power, I don't think it would be able to scrap this legislation, because South Asians are here.
Mr Perruzza: They're going to try, though.
Mrs Witmer: I doubt it, Tony.
The Chair: Mr Arnott, did you have a second question?
Mr Arnott: No, I'm fine. I appreciate the answer.
The Chair: We have no further questions. I want to thank you, Mr Mathew, for participating in these hearings today.
These hearings will resume tomorrow morning at 10. This committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1652.