STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION -- ONTARIO
URBAN ALLIANCE ON RACE RELATIONS
CANADIAN ETHNOCULTURAL COUNCIL
SUDBURY MULTICULTURAL/FOLK ARTS ASSOCIATION
CAUCUS FRANCOPHONE POUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN EMPLOI DANS LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ONTARIENNE
CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CENTRE
CONTENTS
Thursday 2 September 1993
Employment Equity Act, 1993, Bill 79
Canadian Bar Association--Ontario
Erica James, past president
Lynn Bevan, co-chair, employment equity committee
David Wakely, co-chair, employment equity committee
Jamaican Canadian Association
Erma Collins, first vice-president
Janet Neilson, executive director
Urban Alliance on Race Relations
Antoni Shelton, executive director
Kamala Jean Gopie, board member and past president
Ontario Hospital Association
Brian Siegner, vice-president, hospital-employee relations services
Jill Miller, employment equity consultant
Canadian Ethnocultural Council
Emmanuel Dick, vice-president
Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association
Ramdath Jagessar, employment assistance coordinator
Voice for Equity
Carolyn Blaind, representative
Rennie Marshall, representative
Jacqueline Jean-Baptiste
Retail Council of Canada
Peter Woolford, vice-president, policy
Kenneth M. Eady, chair, employee relations committee
Pat Mackie, member, employment equity subcommittee
Caucus francophone pour l'équité en emploi dans la fonction publique ontarienne
Christian Martel, représentant
Sylvia Martin-Laforge, représentante
Cross Cultural Communication Centre
Kyle Pearce, board secretary
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest 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:
Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND) for Ms Harrington
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Duignan
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Harnick
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L) for Mr Chiarelli
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Winninger
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel:
Campbell, Elaine, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Kaye, Philip, research officer, Legislative Research Service
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
THURSDAY 2 SEPTEMBER 1993
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.
CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION -- ONTARIO
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I call upon the Canadian Bar Association: Lynn Bevan, David Wakely and Erica James. Welcome. You may have witnessed the proceedings already, on television or otherwise, but I would ask you to leave time within the half-hour for questions and answers.
Ms Erica James: Good morning. My name is Erica James, and I have with me David Wakely and Lynn Bevan. I'm the immediate past president of the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario. The Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario is an autonomous branch of the Canadian Bar Association. We're a voluntary organization representing about 15,500 lawyers, judges and law students in Ontario. The objectives of our association include the improvement of the law and legal systems.
We're really pleased today to comment on Bill 79. We consider it a very important initiative of the government, and it contains a principle which our association supports. In our submission, we have made some references to the draft regulations, where appropriate, not just the bill.
Lynn Bevan and David Wakely are co-chairs of our employment equity committee, which was established specifically for the purpose of reviewing Bill 79. Members of that committee represent business, labour, corporate counsel and native justice sections of CBAO.
Kadir Baksh, who is the chair of our association's equal opportunity committee, had hoped to be here too, but unfortunately he is in Trinidad on a trial at the moment. His committee's mandate is to monitor and report on inequality of opportunity in our association, in the profession and in the justice system.
I'm now going to turn the microphone over to David and Lynn, who are the authors of the submission which you received yesterday.
Ms Lynn Bevan: The process we're going to follow this morning is that I'm going to provide you with a brief overview of some of the points contained in our submission, and then we would ask that you direct your questions to both David Wakely and myself, Lynn Bevan.
As you've heard from Erica James, the CBAO supports the principle of employment equity. Our purpose today is to express some of the concerns we have about the form that this bill would use to make employment equity a reality in Ontario. Specifically, we are concerned that many of the key elements have not been included in the law itself but instead have been relegated to the regulations.
As we say in our brief, why would this be of concern? In short, law should reveal the government's policy and be subject to legislative scrutiny. Regulations serve a different purpose. They can be easily changed and they should not be the vehicle to include the main points of the law. The regulations should simply clarify how employment equity is to be implemented, not what it will look like, and we believe that such an approach, with clear guidelines and a clear educational component, would encourage all organizations to achieve employment equity.
I think it is important for the government to realize that most Ontario workplaces do not understand what is necessary to do employment equity and, rather than providing layers and layers of difficult bureaucratic approach, we think it's important to have a simplified approach with great government support.
The critical issue of whether employment equity is imposed by quotas or by goals is not clear from this bill. There are those who would argue that the objective of the bill is to have employers and organizations, in conjunction with unions, to set goals and timetables. We believe that is not as clear as some would say.
The reason we say this is that there is the overriding authority of the Employment Equity Commission to substitute its own views for what organizations and their bargaining agents have concluded is appropriate. This leaves the door open for the imposition of quotas. The very fact that it is necessary to go to the regulation to find out exactly what is a goal or timetable and how it will be implemented, again, is sufficient proof that the act is incomplete and requires reference to a secondary legislative vehicle called a regulation.
In our brief, we have identified other parts of the bill that we believe are ambiguous. We believe that there is no real definition of "employer." Any definition that requires reference to the common law is not helpful or clear. Just look at what happened with pay equity, where the first year and a half of tribunal jurisprudence was devoted to one question: Who is the employer?
Any law that hinges on something as important as one term -- who is the employer and what organization will be subject to the law? -- should be supported by a clearly understood definition. If it is not, this will just encourage litigation.
1010
We also believe that the bill and the regulation are in conflict on another very important part of the employment equity process. Specifically, section 15 of the act directs employers to consult with their employees. However, when you go to section 35 of the regulation, that consultation is confined only to unrepresented employees. This point becomes more important when you hear our submission with respect to the two-tier system that the act establishes for employee participation.
Represented employees are given full rights of participation through the creation of what is known as the joint responsibilities section. They have the right to participate, prior to each step in the process having been completed, in everything from identification through the workforce survey, the establishment of goals and timetables, the employment equity plan to the monitoring itself. The other, given to unrepresented employees, is simply a right to be informed, in many cases after the fact.
We believe that this two-tier system will have very serious implications, not only for organizations that are used to a different form of collective bargaining where there is a clear separation between unionized and non-unionized employees but on something which is quite central to employment equity: the creation of the employment equity plan.
The act contemplates just one plan being created for any workforce. I ask you to tell me how it will work. If you allow one segment of the workforce, and in fact impose an obligation on one segment of the workforce, to be an active participant for its membership, the unionized employees, and give no similar right to unrepresented employees, how will that result in one plan? We would suggest that the impact, maybe the unintended impact, will be that unionized workplaces alone will be the ones driving the employment equity plan. Whether that is a desirable or possible outcome is something which is to be determined, but if it is the objective, then it should be clearly expressed in the bill.
On another point, we would like to say that we support self-identification as the primary means of identification by employees of their designated group status. However, we are concerned about the incompleteness of employment equity records that can result, and we would only note that there are other models available, including, as you are aware, at the federal level at present, employer identification to supplement self-identification. The reason that this has been done is in order to create complete employment equity records. If you do not have complete employment equity records, we ask how there can be made valid comparisons between any one employer workforce to the community standards that are contemplated by the bill.
The last point that we are going to raise is with respect to the creation of yet another administrative tribunal. We are very concerned about the creation of yet another rights tribunal. It raises the very real possibility of inconsistent findings that are associated with the multiplicity of hearings that can result from workplace grievances and complaints.
In our written brief, we have also raised the question of where proceedings can go. At present, they already can go to a variety of tribunals on the same set of facts that arise in the workplace.
Not addressed in our written brief but which ties in with our concern about using a collective bargaining model as the primary means of achieving employment equity and our concern about the creation of another administrative tribunal is the use of a litigation model for resolving complaints that really refer to human rights.
The committee should give serious consideration to examining alternative systems of resolving disputes. The potential for litigation is made greater, in our view, when the only way to resolve disputes, or the only effective way, is to either go through a commission process where an officer has the right to make an order or to go to a tribunal. There are other models available which have been shown to be very effective. For example, in the United States, which has had a contract compliance model for over 50 years and has litigation-based models for enforcement of its form of employment equity, the studies have consistently shown that the contract compliance model of enforcement is most effective in obtaining employer cooperation because they do not have the ultimate threat of having an order imposed on them on something which is really addressing fundamental organizational change.
With respect to another aspect of the enforcement, we are concerned about the potential for conflict between this audit-based approach of the commission found in Bill 79 and the right of individuals to have hearings prior to orders being made against them. The concept of an audit is a cooperative, education-based approach, but we would suggest that it is undermined by the Employment Equity Commission's right to make orders based on its own auditor's report and then to submit that auditor's report as evidence at any subsequent tribunal hearing.
We believe that any order should be made only after those who can be named in the order have been given the benefit of a hearing. We are aware of the pay equity model that exists now that does not provide for a hearing, but it does not lessen our concern.
We would submit that if employment equity is going to become part of the reality of workplaces of Ontario, the government must provide resources and education to help organizations carry out this important new policy initiative both in the form of education and as a source of necessary data and information.
We thank you for your time today, and we would be pleased to answer any questions that you have concerning our presentation.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Thank you for your presentation. You're talking about after-the-fact consultation, and yet I know that in non-unionized workplaces the regulations do require some pre-education of the employees before, some education during the process and some education and also some methods after the process. But I'm looking at involvement of employees in consultation. If an employer, someone who owns the famous widget factory -- everybody knows about the widget factory. That widget employer could say in a five-minute meeting with the employees: "This is what we're going to do. What do you think? Thank you." Then somewhere else along the process, another five-minute meeting: "This is where we are. Thank you."
We could be in the courts. First, a definition of "consultation," then the definition of "involvement" of employees. There are so many definitions that we could be putting in. I know that lawyers just could make a good buck out of this one if that were the case. Are you proposing that every definition -- of "consultation," of "involvement" -- that we have to go right down the line? Is that what you're suggesting?
1020
Mr David Wakely: If I might reply, sir, you've raised a number of issues. The consultation issue that our paper speaks to is to highlight the difference between the nature or quality of discussions that are prescribed by the regulations -- realizing we're here to talk about the act -- as between unionized and non-unionized groups of employees.
There is certainly a consultative process. I don't think we're suggesting that a definition is required. We're suggesting that there is a difference in the treatment of unionized and non-unionized employees that may or may not be intended, with the result that a negotiation process of some sort is anticipated or contemplated by the scheme of the act in the case of unionized; however, more simply an advice-type of process is contemplated for non-union employees.
Where we say there is an anomaly is that as there can only be one plan, and that plan presumably will be the one that is negotiated or arrived at through the consultative process with the unionized employees, this virtually forecloses or precludes any in-depth discussion with the salaried people. One possible way of resolving that, if I might suggest, is to ensure through the regulations that the unionized group that has joint responsibility include salaried employees so it's an inclusive type of situation, so that when the one plan which results from the process is arrived at, the salaried people will have some ownership in it and will have had some involvement in the process.
Mr Fletcher: Thanks. That makes clearer what you were saying.
The Chair: Mr Mills, one minute.
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): One minute, eh? Crumbs.
Thank you for coming and for your presentation. I thought you had a different perspective on this, Ms Bevan, in one of your earlier presentations for TEEPA, but that was then and this is now, so I'll jump over that. I thought you were more supportive of it than you are today.
We know that the legal profession is under some great scrutiny from the report of Bertha Wilson. She seemed to highlight in her report that merit alone had never formed the basis of an employee's hiring or promotional decisions. We've heard from some presentations here, particularly in the opposition, that merit seems to be the most important sort of et al of everything. I'd just like to know what you feel about the merit principle, given in fact former Justice White's position.
Interjection.
Mr Mills: Wilson; I'm sorry. I keep calling her White because I know a Bertha Wilson and I keep thinking of that lady. I beg your pardon; it's Wilson.
Ms Bevan: First of all, let me comment about my having presented in a different forum. I'm glad you remember.
The second thing I'd like to say is that the very first thing I said today, and, as you'll recall, last time the same, is that we support employment equity. My concerns here today are expressed in a different capacity. As a lawyer, I recognize that litigation could be perceived in the interests of this profession, and here yet we are saying get away from that model. We believe that it is entirely not in the interests of Ontario workplaces to deal with human rights on the basis of conflict, so that we are here today in a different capacity and perhaps a surprising one to you.
Mr Mills: Yes, but --
Ms Bevan: The second thing I would like to say is about the merit principle. Employment equity is completely consistent with the merit principle. That is one of the reasons that I think there is such widespread support for employment equity. If anything, what employment equity tries to do is to break down artificial barriers to people advancing on their merit. It's trying to take away employment decisions being made on irrelevant factors. So we see absolutely no conflict.
Madam Justice Bertha Wilson's report, without getting into that in any detail, is simply saying the same thing, which is to say, let's get away from irrelevant factors in employment decisions, including very important characteristics over which someone has no control: their gender, their race. Those should not be factors in employment decisions.
Mr Mills: Okay. Thank you very much. My time's up.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to thank you for your presentation. Page after page in your presentation reflects what people have been saying about definitions, about things in the regulations that could be put into the legislation. People spoke in fact on how the democratic process should be worked. In other words, things in legislation can be debated and have public input; things in regulations are just in the cabinet fiat, and there we are not having any participation. So I want to commend you on that.
There are so many things in here that we'd like to do, but five minutes won't do that. I want to give my colleague an opportunity to speak, but before I give him the opportunity, could you comment on something that was in here? Maybe it would be helpful, because I could read your brief afterwards and put quite a few of these things in some of the amendments that we're looking forward to put forth.
On seniority and tenure, many people have come forward and find that seniority seems to conflict with the principle of employment equity, and tenure too, especially there, where there's no more growth really in that industry of employing teachers and what have you. What would be your comment about the conflict of that principle and employment equity?
Mr Wakely: I agree with you there's an apparent conflict there. The act attempts to address that by saying that seniority will prevail in certain circumstances, specifically layoff and recall. It's silent on how seniority is to be weighed or factored into other employment-type decisions. I think if the bill is to be meaningful, then the whole weight that should be given seniority in all employment decisions ought to be dealt with expressly, because it leaves up for debate that very important matter.
It would defeat the collective bargaining purposes of trade unions to say that seniority is a totally irrelevant consideration. That is something that would be very disruptive in the workplace, not just to the unions but also to employers, and I act for employers. Employers have a tradition of making decisions that take into account, among other things, seniority. To totally remove that as a criterion would be disruptive. The question is what balance has to be achieved between seniority on the one hand and employment equity initiatives on the other. I think that's something the bill falls short of doing. How that can be reconciled in the final analysis is really going to be the challenge that has to be met.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm in fact a member of the organization.
Mr Curling: Have you paid your fees?
Mr Murphy: No, I haven't yet, not the latest.
I want to follow up on the question of "employer" and "employee." I have some real problems with that. The definitions don't mirror each other, which I think can pose some problems. I was thinking, for example, about the report of Bertha Wilson and the application of a bill like this to law firms. I worked in a large law firm. In terms of the partnership at a firm, when you have a large number of partners, and the decision about who is going to be a partner in a firm, which is a significant number of people in a law firm, I'm wondering whether this bill would apply, for example, to who becomes a partner in a law firm.
Ms Bevan: I'd like to comment in a more generic way than just simply responding to your question about law firms. I think one of the things the bill will have as a very positive impact is requiring all organizations to review what are job requirements. One of the reasons that so many hiring decisions have been made without thinking in the past is that there's been a presumption about who should have the job. What employment equity requires is for organizations to go back and say, "What is needed for this job?" not who only is needed, who would we like to see there. It requires people to say, "What are we looking for for this position?"
With respect to something like partnership or any other job where there's a perception that relationships and the ability to get along are just as important as job qualifications, that is going to be a much greater challenge, because the question is always going to be, what is a goal or an objective or a quota for a type of work where the getting along part is considered to be equally important?
The only thing I can say in consolation is that this bill is not directed at that very small percentage of workers. As long as this bill deals with the vast majority of workplaces, then there are other mechanisms built into this bill right now that allow an organization to explain why they have set the goal and objective they have.
Mr Murphy: If I can follow up with one --
The Chair: It will have to be very, very quick.
Mr Murphy: That will depend on the answer. I want to follow up on the question of education and training as part of employment equity. I'll take an example from my own background as a lawyer. I can see the effect of having a greater number of women and visible minorities and aboriginals in the law schools as having an impact upon who is practising law, and I'm wondering whether you see enough of this bill being focused on the issue of education and training and developing the skills necessary to be able to compete for the jobs in the marketplace.
1030
Mr Wakely: If I might answer that, Mr Murphy, the subject you raise has been dealt with specifically by the report of Madam Justice Wilson. Underlying her whole approach on the issue is the whole notion of accommodation, so that when making employment-type decisions within a law firm, whether it be for partnership, promotion, remuneration, anything of that sort, there's even a very positive obligation implied in her report that accommodation be part of the decision.
The whole question of representation of these four groups in the legal community is going to be affected greatly by the ever-changing demographics of law schools. As the graduating classes come forward that are made up in larger numbers of the four designated groups, it's almost automatic that to some extent the demographics in firms, large and small, will change with it. The question is whether they're changing quickly enough and to a great enough degree. It strikes me that the Wilson report is much more focused on that subject than is the employment equity initiative here of the government.
Mr Murphy: One more quick question?
The Chair: Mr Tilson.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to ask some questions with respect to your topic, because you've raised a multiplicity of hearings and I'm looking through the notes to see more on the US contract compliance model of enforcement. It may or may not be here and I'd like to hear more about that.
One of the areas, the themes of questioning that I've been asking delegations, is whether the Human Rights Commission works. Most people say it doesn't, that the proceedings are too long. We all know what the Workers' Compensation Board does, whether as lawyers or whether as politicians. The complaints are just terrible, aside from all the political issues that are surfacing.
The budget of the Employment Equity Commission has been estimated as $6 million, so there's the issue of cost. There's the issue of all the issues you've raised of what all these words mean throughout the regulations in the bill. What does "reasonable" mean in section 12? The lawyers are just going to have a wonderful time. They're going to have a field day, and it'll take years for many hearings to be heard because it'll take you that long to figure out what all these words mean.
I guess when I look at all the different boards and all the different pieces of legislation being heard by different boards and different tribunals -- you probably haven't got time to talk too much about the contract compliance model of enforcement or US systems, but if you could elaborate more on what you said, or indeed if you could provide members of the committee with further documentation that might assist us in looking at that, I personally would be interested in looking at that, because I find that, to use the lawyer's words, beyond a shadow of a doubt, this thing isn't going to work.
Ms Bevan: I would be happy to provide some backup material on that. It's part of my own research for my own writing. Perhaps we can arrange that after. But, very briefly, what it gets down to again is a policy decision, whether the government is going to proceed on the basis that the only way you're going to get cooperation, as opposed to compliance -- I never have any difficulty, we never have any difficulty as lawyers, with saying that if people fail to do what they are required to do, there must be some effective means of enforcement. That is quite a different case from using litigation as the primary means of obtaining cooperation and assessing whether efforts are reasonable.
If you think about it, and you have, evidently, from your question, you combine the question of reasonable efforts with a litigation model and it's an invitation to people to argue about what those words mean.
What an enforcement model does in a very simplified form is it says, "At any time you can be subject to a random audit, and we are going to assess your efforts according to a known set of criteria." So the employers and organizations and bargaining agents who are responsible for achieving employment equity in the workplace will actually have a set of criteria to which they direct their own efforts and against which they can direct and challenge their own efforts, and ultimately someone can come along and say, "Criterion number 6 says" -- whatever -- "What have you done in support of that?" rather than saying, "Do employment equity, and good luck to you, and if it's not good enough, we'll come and fight about it in a litigation setting." That's a simplified statement.
Mr Tilson: Thank you. I appreciate it's difficult to make a simplified statement on something like that, but, as I say, and I'll ask the question to you, to any of you, we have a board that deals with discrimination, the Human Rights Commission. My question is whether or not this government could not give that board more teeth, more funds, as opposed to creating -- I mean, if I were an employer, number one, I probably don't even know what board I'm going to have to go to -- you've listed off some of them -- let alone know what to do with these things. My question is, could an employment equity system work through the Human Rights Commission?
Mr Wakely: We are of the view that there is very little to be gained in a proliferation of the number of statutory tribunals created to deal with employment-related issues. There are at least five in existence now, and without subscribing to one or other -- the Ontario Labour Relations Board, for example, may not be the appropriate body to deal with it, but it has a very high level of performance in terms of dealing with matters expeditiously, and although people will always complain about any tribunal, it's generally regarded well in the labour relations community. The Human Rights Commission and tribunal hasn't achieved the same level of acceptance or respect in the employer-unionized community. Perhaps the proper way to go about it is to take a hard look at what is being done right and what is being done wrong by that tribunal and make the necessary changes, rather than create yet another tribunal.
The Chair: I'm sorry, we're out of time. Thank you for a very informative submission.
1040
JAMAICAN CANADIAN ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Advocates for Community Based Training has cancelled and in their place we have the Jamaican Canadian Association, Erma Collins.
Ms Erma Collins: First of all, I have to say that I am breathless. I was phoned at 9:30 and asked if I could be here at 10:30. I live at Warden and Steeles. So I still am breathless.
I'm Erma Collins, the first vice-president of the Jamaican Canadian Association. It's a volunteer position. My colleague is Janet Neilson. She is the executive director of the Jamaican Canadian Association. I called her at 9:33, and she's also here.
I want to say that I am not practised in making briefs to legislative committees. I'm more comfortable writing, and I think you have my written brief, although there are a few typos. I'm not a typist either. I didn't have the time to take a scholarly approach to give you facts and figures, but I think my long history of volunteer work in the community, dating back from the 1960s, and my constant being in touch with people do give me a feel for what the thinking is in the community.
One of the things that I think seems to be a weakness with the bill is that the exemption rules seem to be rather generous. I'm just looking at the summary that I gave you. When I read the act, it is not clear to me that the employers have to do anything but plan for employment equity. I'm not saying that they don't have to, but the wording in the act just tells me they have to have their survey, they have to plan; I don't see that they have to execute. So we are also saying that the wording should be crystal-clear so that they can go beyond planning.
I am assuming that the tribunal will include members of the target groups, but again that isn't spelled out in the act or in the regulations as I read them, and I'm saying that if the government is saying that other people should be including members of the target group in their workforces, then it should be made clear that the tribunal will also have members of the target group.
One of the fears that we have is that minority -- visible minority, ethnic minority, whatever the term is -- doesn't separate out black people. From the Stephen Lewis report, from all kinds of reports we are familiar with, we know that the anti-racist sentiments in the community are mostly directed against black people. We fear that employers will fill their quotas with other visible minorities and black people will still be at the bottom of the heap, so we are hoping that you can gather racial statistics on blacks separately from the statistics on other minorities. Also, when the employers have to report, we're hoping that they can do that sort of report.
I put number 5, "Get white males to also identify themselves in workplace surveys," only because my experience where I work -- I'm a professor at George Brown College -- is that when surveys are done, if white people feel they're not being asked questions, they're not being counted in, they feel left out, they don't feel inclined to be cooperative, they don't feel inclined to support whatever it is one is trying to do. I feel they too should be counted and I think that also will give the government a clearer picture of each employee's workforce.
I put number 6, "Develop for employers' guidance a roster of minority job placement consultants," because my experience also tells me that many employers have the will to get people from target groups. They hire consultants to do Canada-wide searches, but the consultants don't do anything except perhaps send a letter to community groups such as the JCA, which is mostly made up of volunteers who don't see those letters until weeks or so after the deadline. I'm saying that many employers make an effort to find target group people but the consultants they use are not skilled in finding these people and perhaps the employers need some help and guidance in having minority job placement consultants.
It probably is meant, but I wasn't sure that when employers and union representatives are asked to make up committees in their workplaces, it wasn't clear to me when I read the documents that members of the target groups will be among these representatives.
Number 8 says "Step up public education," because I have found that in the circles in which I move -- meaning not just Jamaican Canadians, but my colleagues, educated people -- I hear more people saying that employment equity means lowering standards than I hear people saying employment equity means levelling the playing field; employment equity means hiring from a greater pool of people. I don't think I've heard anybody say that. If I have, it's perhaps a very small percentage. Everybody that I've heard speak about it thinks that employment equity means lowering standards. I'm sure that isn't what the committee means; I'm sure that isn't what the government means. I'm saying that more needs to be done in public education.
I have just spoken from the summary. I don't know if you want me to go through the brief itself or if I've said enough.
The Chair: It might be useful for questions.
Mr Curling: Thank you, Ms Collins and the JCA, for that presentation. It's extremely important to hear from organizations like the Jamaican Canadian Association that have a wide experience, especially dealing with immigrants of a wide variety coming from the Caribbean.
You mentioned somehow about the subgroups and this has been raised many times in the committee here, that people see that visible minorities be designated in subgroups so that representations and those who have been shut out constantly, especially, as you said in the Stephen Lewis report, where the targeted blacks had been subject to more racism and shut out from jobs and economic opportunities.
Do you see, and this might be unfair in a way, unfair because it is another area that the disabled groups also spoke about having subgroups within their areas, about severe disabilities, and they should be identified accordingly. Do you see them, also, having a subgroup identification?
Ms Collins: I don't want to speak for the disabled. I think you should listen to the disabled. I don't have any experience with disability, so I really wouldn't be able to speak for them. I think if enough of them are saying they need subgroups, then you need to listen to what they have to say.
Mr Curling: We hope the government is too.
I'd like you to comment on this: You know a study was done and a task force was done on access to trades and professions. While employment equity debate and submissions mostly talk about in the workplace, we talk about access to the workplace, things that have denied people from coming into the workplace, and that study has identified where people who have been trained outside of Canada and are professionally skilled are being denied access.
The government -- I'll just bring you quickly up to date -- has thought that it would just do a pilot project in order to look at that recommendation. Do you feel that in itself -- I'm sure you're quite familiar with that -- that the government implementing the recommendations -- not all, whatever they would choose to be, but on a wider scale -- would assist in employment equity to access to the workplace?
Ms Collins: Definitely. The employment equity bill to me is just one plank in levelling the playing field for the target groups and perhaps even other groups that are not targeted. We all know that educational reform is very much needed where minority students feel that they are included in the curriculum and grow up having healthy self-images.
1050
One of the intangibles why a minority may not get along in the workplaces of the nation or get promoted is that they don't feel as if they belong; they don't feel important; they don't feel valued. Therefore, they don't even push themselves when opportunities come along. So I'm really saying that, yes, employment equity to me is just one plank and all these other planks, especially educational equity and giving access to people who were trained elsewhere, all of these to me will help in making our province a little bit more --
Mr Curling: Systemic discrimination is the key to this employment equity, to identify systemic discrimination, identifying the barriers and breaking that down. There is a lot of confusion as to where someone who has been discriminated against should go. Is it to the Human Rights? Is it to the Employment Equity Commissioner? Is it to courts or whatever it is? All these long lines that are being -- long queues that are there.
Are you aware too that the first case that could ever be brought before the commission -- whoever they are -- under the employment equity plan would be about 10 years? Do you feel that this process could be shortened? Some people ask for it to be extended to bring the plan into place.
Ms Collins: I didn't follow that. You are saying it will take 10 years for the first case to be brought?
Mr Curling: Yes.
Ms Collins: You mean because of the time frames during which the surveys and reporting have to be done?
Mr Curling: That's right.
Ms Collins: So your question is?
Mr Curling: My question is, do you think that is adequate?
Ms Collins: No.
Mr Curling: Or do you feel it should be shortened, it should be extended?
Ms Collins: It should be definitely shortened. How I don't know.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I want to talk about this issue of accommodation and opportunity for employment for visible minorities. In your capacity at George Brown College, let me raise some questions about academics. It's clear from the Lewis report that our education system discriminates against young people of colour and, by extension, their teachers.
Today in the Star I read that with further tuition increases -- and, you know, an 80% average may not even get you into the front door of most universities or community colleges. As an academic and as an advocate, can you speak to this committee about this problem of how we can assist with education in order to be ready for the opportunities that present themselves with employment equity because there have to be certain levels of training and ability in order to be successful in seeking employment? It isn't simply the colour of one's skin; it's a combination of the target group and having levels of ability.
Do you have any advice with respect to increasing opportunities academically so that these students have an opportunity, because all we're hearing is their disenchantment at not being able to get an education, having access to an education and therefore not having the training in order to go and compete for these jobs.
Ms Collins: That's a tall order. I know, for example, that at George Brown we do have a good mix of students from many ethnic backgrounds. I know that, say, among the administrative level they see no role models. I know that our current administrators have used consultants in filling recent openings in the administrative ranks.
Mr Jackson: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm not worried about the role modelling. I'm trying to get more students into the institution so that they can see these role models, but you're talking about once they get there --
Ms Collins: Okay, but I'm actually --
Mr Jackson: I'm trying to get them in the door.
Ms Collins: But I'm actually saying that in some instances, in community colleges, they are there. But they quite often feel disenchanted. That takes a toll on their work. They drop out (a) because they don't have role models, (b) because although we have, for example, a race and ethnic relations policy, it still is not really implemented. We have a nice-looking policy, but --
Mr Jackson: Can I pursue that with you then?
Ms Collins: They don't know where to turn, that sort of thing.
Mr Jackson: Yes.
Ms Collins: There was a time when I was a chair and black students would come to me and say -- Chinese students too, and East Indian students -- "Such-and-such a teacher, I believe, is prejudiced against me." I would say: "What do you want me to do? Do you want me to speak with the teacher?" "No, I don't want you to speak with the teacher because the teacher's going to fail me." Okay? So they still don't feel comfortable. They don't feel that they have a place in this college, that if they complain, their complaints are going to be heard and they're going to get justice, that sort of thing.
What I'm saying is, it's pointless to get students into the colleges if it's not a comfortable atmosphere. I don't know how governments can work at the atmosphere; I don't really know. I'm only saying, I don't think it exists.
Mr Jackson: With your knowledge of Bill 79 as a model, do you not see -- because there have been examples of this where different timetables were approached for pay equity, for example. What about employment equity as it relates to higher-education institutions where you fast-track the employment equity to address the very issue you're saying? Either you allow students of lesser ability to enter so that you can increase their opportunities or you skew the employment practices of the institutions so that their mix of teachers directly reflects not the community at large but the academic community they serve. Those are the two questions and the models that have been suggested.
Yesterday we heard from the Catholic community, saying they wanted their numbers from the Catholic community only, so that they could hire accordingly. Do you not see a parallel argument between your academic institution, that if you have 35% visible minority students, that you must almost immediately have 35% visible minority teachers to address the very issue you've raised?
Ms Collins: Yes. I'm saying, not only do you need to have visible minority teachers and you probably need to fast-track teachers through the teachers' colleges -- although I don't know that community college teachers necessarily are graduates of teachers' colleges; quite often they are people just skilled in the fields in which they teach, technology, business, that sort of thing; I'm also saying that the teachers who are not from the visible minorities perhaps need some mandatory training in most of the colleges in dealing with diversity. That's what I'm also saying.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I think the opposition is laying a trail of red herrings here, so I'd like to pursue a similar point.
I think we've got three separate problems. One is access for people with qualifications from overseas, which the government is working on, but that is a relatively small number of people because most of the people in the designated groups have actually been raised in Canada.
The second is inequity in education, and there again the government is working on that separately. We have the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, we have the Ministry of Education and Training's curriculum revision, anti-racism and ethnocultural equity initiatives and role-modelling programs, and initiatives to promote designated-group access into the building trades and to encourage continuation of math, science and technology training carried out by the Ontario women's directorate and so on.
But what this bill is aimed at is the situation of people who are already perfectly well qualified. There are lots of members of the designated groups who have all the qualifications necessary for jobs which they are just not getting because of barriers. So that is the issue that we're trying to address here.
Ms Collins: Actually, I was very uncomfortable when the words "lowering standards" were used over here.
Ms Carter: Yes. So, as I say, this is part of the government's package for dealing with this whole spectrum, but we're only dealing with the one aspect in this particular bill. Would you like to comment on that?
Ms Collins: You said a lot of things. I'm not sure what I'm to comment on.
Mr Jackson: Why don't you give her your briefing note?
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): We wanted to give it to you, Cam.
Ms Carter: Although there are problems in education, there are problems with access of people who are qualified and have come from other jurisdictions, the main problem is that people who are qualified are not getting jobs.
1100
Ms Collins: I agree. That's what I was saying earlier, that in my experience there is a good mix of people from the ethnic groups in the college in which I work. Perhaps there is more difficulty with people who are trained overseas, their qualifications not being recognized, and that's for all ethnic groups, not just black people. I am agreeing with you that there are many qualified people already out there, although we're not saying there shouldn't be more qualified people, and I am particularly anxious that there be more role models in the education system at all levels.
What I see the bill as doing is saying you have lots of qualified people. You have a larger pool to draw on. You're not drawing on that pool. You're sticking to the one group from which you're accustomed to draw. We, the government, are helping you to access this larger pool.
Ms Carter: Thank you.
Ms Janet Neilson: I might add also that I'm fairly familiar with the university system. I've taught both as a teaching assistant and recently as a lecturer. To me, employment equity means hiring women professors, and that's a concern because there are people who are qualified, who are of the visible minority, and they are not being considered for positions of professorship because to them employment equity means just women. That's what they're trying to fill their quota with recently. So I think it's important to state that there are qualified people in our community who are not being considered.
Ms Collins: And it doesn't mean women, it means white women.
Ms Neilson: That's what I mean.
Ms Collins: That is what has been happening at my college. We have equity candidates but equity candidates always means a white woman. It doesn't mean anybody else.
Ms Akande: I'm interested in your statement about subgroup identification, and of course that's one of the points that's been made by many of the groups. But I'm most interested in your reasons, beyond those that you stated, for including white males information in the survey.
Ms Collins: Recently our college did do a survey, and I happened to be in the staff room with about a dozen other people. I heard non-white people, not necessarily black but non-white people, saying, "I wonder why they want information on me and they're not asking for information on mainstream." I knew at least two non-white people who didn't fill out the survey because they felt that they were doing something that everybody wasn't included in, okay? I heard the white people also say, "They are leaving us out. This is reverse discrimination."
So I guess I am looking at it from both points of view in saying, "The target groups alone can't make employment equity work." It takes everybody to make employment equity work. You want people to feel included. You want them to feel that they are part of the process.
Ms Akande: I think it's an excellent suggestion. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Collins and Ms Neilson, for making this presentation on short notice. We do call upon people when cancellations occur, and sometimes it means very, very short notice, and we appreciate that you made it here on time. Thank you.
Ms Collins: Thank you. The reason I was available is that they're renovating my college and I have no office space.
URBAN ALLIANCE ON RACE RELATIONS
The Chair: I call upon Urban Alliance on Race Relations, Antoni Shelton. Welcome.
Mr Antoni Shelton: Thank you very much. On my immediate left is Kamala Jean Gopie, board member of Urban Alliance and past president, and next to her is staff member Kimberley Graham. Thank you very much for having us come in front of you this morning.
Hopefully, you have a four-page brief which we submitted some time ago to your committee. My intention this morning is not to read our brief verbatim but instead to highlight and expand on areas that we deem to be most important to meaningful employment equity legislation. I also intend to leave adequate time for questions so that my colleagues can assist me in responding to your questions.
Let me begin by saying two very important things. Passing any employment equity bill, so long as it is passed, is not good enough. The federal employment equity bill proclaimed in 1986 is a good example of a bad employment equity bill. Why is it a poor bill? Largely because it is a docile bill.
Let me also say that I do not see Bill 79 in the same light as the federal bill. Bill 79 goes much further down the road of ensuring employment equity is a reality in Ontario. However, we submit to you today that Bill 79 does not go far enough. Indeed, it does not even go as far as the Premier's own private member's bill, Bill 172. Bill 79, in short, must be strengthened.
I also submit to you today on this last day of the hearings that the community is often divided and subdivided on contentious issues, but with regard to the necessity for progressive employment equity legislation the community is unified. Indeed, many employers are supporting employment equity legislation, and why not? Progressive employment equity legislation is not only about what is fair, it's also good economics. Numerous demographic studies tell us that in Ontario we are experiencing a rapid expansion of a talented pool of visible minorities.
Moving on to the content of Bill 79 itself, there are three key areas that I would like to highlight this morning.
The first relates to the filing of plans. It stipulates in the regulations that employers are required to prepare an employment equity plan and then file a certificate verifying this plan with the commission. We see this as wholly unacceptable. A certificate endorsed by a CEO or equivalent senior officer is not a comprehensive substitute for an employment equity plan. Employers must be required to file plans with the commission.
The filing of a certificate is flawed in its present form because it implies that a filed certificate represents a measure of achievement on the part of the employer, when in fact it relies on the employee or group to raise and report concerns. The responsibility is then shifted to the victim. It is unrealistic to put such expectations on equity-seeking groups who may be least vocal due to their vulnerable positions. The legislation, in effect, will then place the people it is intending to protect in the most isolated of positions.
This complaint-driven process does not take into account the burden which is placed on employees who may be concerned with the threat of reprisal. The integrity and accuracy of the process will be greatly improved as the filing of plans will ensure a measure of control by the commission.
I would also like to add on this point that the present legislation and regulations allow non-employees of a workplace to contest an employer's performance regarding implementation of Bill 79. But without sharing of plans with the commission, we envision a process that will be driven by litigation in order to access information that should be made public via the commission.
Urban Alliance consistently returns to the need to ensure the commission is given the necessary information, resources and authority to be proactive. What I mean is if the commission is not given the power to order employers to comply with the file plan, then again the onus will be on equity-seeking individuals and groups to appeal to the tribunal, with the commission simply serving the role of an information clearing house.
1110
Item two that I'd like to cover is the issue of orders to comply in itself. The act currently allows the commission the power to order employers to comply with the development and filing of a certificate or employment equity plan but does not grant this body, the commission, the power to order compliance with the filed plan. The commission's powers must be expanded to include ordering an employer to comply with its filed plans.
This recommendation ensures that it will be the employer who is required to appeal to the tribunal. It will be the employer instead of the victim who will be required to hire a lawyer and bear the expense of an appeal. If the commission is not given this power the process becomes complaint-driven, which is especially problematic in workplaces where few racial minorities and other members of equity-seeking groups are employed as there will be no one to complain. The commission must have expanded powers that will allow it, without a hearing, to order an employer to take specified steps to achieve compliance with the plan if it considers the employer is failing to meet the requirements of the act.
The third and final area that I would like to highlight moves from the results side of the equation to the process, that is, the inclusion of target-group members, particularly visible minorities, in the decision-making process with regard to meeting the requirements of Bill 79.
Bargaining agents in composition must include members of equity-seeking groups, most likely those familiar with employment equity issues or those offered supportive mechanisms to become familiar with matters that affect all designated groups in employment. In the regulations, it outlines that employers must consult with employees from the four designated groups.
This consultation process, I submit, is insufficient for conducting the workforce survey, review of employer's employment policies and the development of a plan. This, again, places the onus on members of equity-seeking groups to develop a plan in favour of their own group. The regulations are based on the incorrect assumption that these people will have the expertise to represent the interests of said designated group.
Members -- and I underline -- of equity-seeking groups must be directly involved in the process. The commission must be the primary resource for the employer and employers must be required to consult with the commission, bargaining agents and designated-group members to obtain the necessary information. I think, in a word, we are looking for employment equity not to be done to us but with us.
In summation, Bill 79 and its regulations do not follow and do not allow for timely and effective implementation of employment equity in workplaces across Ontario. This government has acknowledged the existence of racism and other forms of systemic discrimination in employment but has yet to acknowledge with this legislation that systemic barriers must be removed. Urban Alliance asks this government to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of employment equity by strengthening Bill 79 and considering the recommendations we have brought forward.
Mr Tilson: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to ask you some questions on the topic of the commission ordering to comply, which is on page 4 of your presentation which you gave to us this morning. I believe the system now is that only when there's a complaint will the commission get involved. If I understand, what you're recommending is that all employers must be required to proceed to the tribunal. Is that what you're telling us?
Mr Shelton: No.
Mr Tilson: I may have misunderstood what you were saying or what your paper says.
Mr Shelton: I think you may have misinterpreted me in the sense that if an employer is meeting the requirements under its own plan, then through audit by the commission there would be no need to proceed to a tribunal. However, if the converse happens and there isn't adequate meeting of the requirements under the said company's plans, then the commission should be given the powers and resources to act proactively and not wait for a complaint to drive the process, but have the power to say to that company, "You must comply with the legislation, and these are the criteria which you need to apply, given your own plans and your goals and own timetables, without ending up in front of the tribunal."
Mr Tilson: I guess one then asks the question with respect to the cost of achieving employment equity as to whether it's achievable financially by a government, whether it's achievable financially by an employer, the cost to the employer for preparing plans, for the overall cost of proceeding with all this. I'm dealing specifically with the small employer, the employer who employs people from 50 to 99 or 50 to 100. There has been much criticism of this bill as to whether or not the small employer will be able to bear the cost from start to finish of an employment equity plan without substantial assistance from the government.
Employers are saying: "It's one more level of bureaucracy. We have so much money to operate our business. We've got taxes, we've got paperwork, we're up to here, whether it be whatever regulation a government is giving, and so, all right, if you're telling us to do that, we simply will have to cut back." Is there a risk in becoming too bureaucratic?
I guess I'm following along the position you are taking on page 4.
Mr Shelton: I take your point. I think there's a lot of empathy for small businesses in Ontario and the need to have them become productive and globally competitive. But what we are submitting to you this morning is that indeed we can achieve both an effective Bill 79, employment equity legislation, and an increasing, effective small business sector. One of the ways that this government has attempted to go about that is through the modified requirements that are part of the bill. For many in the community, we think that these modified requirements are so loose and voluntarily driven that maybe they go too far in terms of covering off small workplaces.
But having said that, we also see the need for recognition that the federal government and other jurisdictions have already had in place employment equity legislation, practices and policies. It has already been accepted that this is good business, and many progressive employers have already taken steps down the road of designing plans.
Mr Tilson: I'm not asking the question as to whether or not it's good business because we've had several delegations, several business groups, that have come and told us that; I guess what I'm getting at, the issue, aside from whether it's going to work, and to be quite frank, with the vagueness of the definitions and the fact that a government, any government, at a whim could change the regulations and redefine things overnight, aside from all of that, I'm looking at another level of bureaucracy that the small business person, between 50 and 100, is going to have to deal with. Because the average person won't know what to do with all this stuff, they're going to either have to hire someone, a human relations person, or they're going to have to hire a consultant.
Again, I get to the issue as to whether or not you fear that with respect to enforcing this mandatory employment equity, this in turn is going to result in, particularly with the small business person, a loss of jobs.
Mr Shelton: Just one point. I think I would pick up on Mr Borovoy's presentation yesterday. The sad fact and reality is that voluntary employment equity does not work in our country, and Mr Borovoy and others called for principled employment equity and affirmative action. At the same time, we have systemic discrimination and we have such reports as the Lewis report saying that it's time to confront this issue on all four corners. With all due respect to small business, there is a social responsibility with this government to be progressive and to go beyond profit margin and look at what is good for the province, not only today but tomorrow. We're saying that in terms of the demographics and the talents that already exist, perhaps we're not doing as well as we could be if certain systemic barriers were removed.
1120
Ms Akande: Thank you for the presentation. How are you?
Mr Shelton: Good.
Ms Akande: It seems to me when you talk about the plans taking a great deal of money and a great deal of time and a great deal of expense for small business, one of the things that immediately comes to mind is, would it be helpful if the government were more specific in its guidelines to all business about what those plans should include and what they would look like?
Ms Kamala Jean Gopie: Yes. I think when we're entering a new field, the people who are making the proposal, if in fact they have a model, that will remove some of the fear, some of the apprehension about what it is we need to do. Therefore, any kind of model I think would encourage people who are hesitant about filing plans. They would exactly know what requirements are necessary. Following up on what Antoni said earlier, it would then make it possible for the commission to quickly look at the plan that has been filed and see where the gaps exist, because they would at least have something that would be a pattern, that you would then see where the gaps are. If you're expecting a percentage, for argument's sake, of 2% and something comes in at 15%, or vice versa, you could very quickly spot where the gaps exist.
I think one thing the government could do is certainly work on a model. That would relieve also the expense required at the small business level, because you could do it in a more cost-effective way than everybody attempting to find consultants to come up with a myriad of designs.
Ms Akande: Thank you, because it was the expense that I was really looking at. The expense would be reduced if small business did not have to hire a consultant to explain to them or to help them through the process. Of course, the other thing is that you would get something useful, in that there would be a greater similarity. So I'm glad you agree with me on that. I have no further questions.
Mr Shelton: Ms Akande, I'd like to just pick up on one point, and that is, the contradiction that many employers have asked for an extremely flexible bill. In asking for such a flexible bill, grey areas are presented and in those grey areas we find bureaucrats, technocrats and lawyers.
Mr Mills: Thank you for your presentation. We've been here about three weeks now and we've heard a lot of people say that in this new, warm, fuzzy Ontario, in 1993, lots of people are coming to realize, "Hey, we have got a problem with equity in this province, but we can handle it." Only yesterday we had a presentation from the Ontario Separate School Trustees' Association. From their brief, they said that employment equity is both a means to an end and an end in itself. They say this will only occur naturally without any compulsion. So I'm saying to you, what about Bill 79? Can you see this wonderful love-in happening without Bill 79 as far as equity, or do you see that this is absolutely unachievable in Ontario in 1993 without Bill 79?
Ms Gopie: Are you asking if employment equity is achievable without Bill 79?
Mr Mills: Yes.
Ms Gopie: Well, history would say to us that employment equity is unachievable without legislation that has compulsory components. If that were not the case, we would not be having the commission.
Mr Mills: Why I'm asking you this is because I want to get it on the record, and I also want to get straight that you're not entirely happy with Bill 79 as it is, but nevertheless it's a start.
Ms Gopie: Anything is a start, but at the beginning I think it is our intention to have as good a bill as possible, to block all the gaps as much as possible. I don't think that whatever we do will ever be perfect. In addition, once it is in place, then perhaps other kinds of inadequacies will appear. As committee groups, when we see inadequacies, we'd like to think we provide that information to you which would help you to ensure that the bill you present is as comprehensive as possible, and that it does leave room for changes in the future that would allow it to be even better than it currently is.
So our idea is not to say that we don't need Bill 79; yes, we do, but we need something that's comprehensive, that is responsive to the concerns which we and other groups have identified.
Mr Mills: I subscribe to that view. Thank you very much.
Mr Curling: Thank you to the Urban Alliance for making this presentation. Such qualified people coming before us, I'm tempted to ask many questions. The fact that Mr Mills was following up about whether we need Bill 79, there's an old game I presume we all know from when we were kids called Simon Says. I think Simon said that they should have Bill 172, and it looked like there were four steps, and then Simon didn't say anything. Now we have Bill 79, and they take four steps back.
However, the fact is, should we have employment equity legislation? Yes. You're perfectly right. Should we have bad legislation? No. Should we have it all placed in regulations and not in legislation? Even the lawyers who have come before us said, "It would be quite a rainy day for us, things would be growing well, if you put it in regulations, because you'd be using us lawyers to define all this vagueness." People came in here after, many presenters came in and said: "Listen, this bill is vague; it's ill defined. We must make sure that we have proper legislation."
I really thank you for coming in to make that point to Mr Mills and the rest of the government here. One of the things too that I'd like your comment on is that the concern we have is that creating another commission, which I think is necessary, having an Employment Equity Commission, and don't get me wrong, it's important that we have an employment equity plan --
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): That's the first time you've said that, Alvin. Every other time you've said different.
Mr Curling: He's having one of his spells again.
Mr Perruzza: You knocked my socks off right there and then.
Mr Murphy: We've just got to get his brain working at the same time.
Mr Curling: Could you comment on whether or not we should have one tribunal, maybe putting the pay equity and the Human Rights Commission together, where people can put their concerns when they are being subjected to systemic discrimination so they could go to one place instead of being not quite sure if they should go to the Employment Equity Commission, the Human Rights Commission or wherever pay equity would be? Do you support that?
Mr Shelton: Unequivocally no. The Human Rights Commission has a track record of not dealing with systemic discrimination. As such, we believe the expertise to be found in enforcing compliance with Bill 79 must be unique and must be acute to the field of employment equity specifically. This is one of the reasons we spoke of a proactive commission that can look at systemic changes apart from the experience of an individual, complaint-driven process. Employment equity, in many aspects of the regulations and the bill, looks at systemic discrimination, constructive discrimination. I think it is our submission that if you blend this important and significant core of the legislation with other legislation, you do a disservice to the principles and the mandate of the bill as it stands even.
1130
Mr Curling: I want to get back to Mrs Akande's question to you in regard to small employers. My question will be slightly different. The exemption here is that 50 employees and under are exempt. Some people have argued that 100 employees and less should be exempt. As you know, in the legislation or the regulation, the onus or the responsibility placed on the small employers is not as great as on the larger employer. Do you feel that they should have an exemption of 100 or less, that the threshold should be increased or that it should be like the government or the public sector employment equity, that all come under employment equity? I say that because if it works for the goose, the government, it should work for the gander, the private sector.
Ms Gopie: I just want to make a comment that we've heard or we've learned that the fastest-growing sector in the private sector is in fact in small business. I mean, that's where business is these days. I think that if we have an employer with 50 or more, then there's an onus on them to be able to tap the greatest employment pool which exists, and that means that using employment equity will be beneficial for them. If indeed this government in the regulations is able to provide a model, then there will be no excuse for saying that we cannot.
The Chair: Thank you for your submission and for the contribution you made to these hearings.
ONTARIO HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: Welcome, Jill Miller, Sarah Quacken-bush and Brian Siegner.
Mr Brian Siegner: Thank you very much for the opportunity to present on behalf of the hospitals of Ontario. My name is Brian Siegner. I'm the vice-president of hospital-employee relations services for the association. Jill Miller is the director of employment equity for the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and a consultant to the OHA on employment equity. Sister Sarah Quackenbush is the administrator of St Joseph's General Hospital in Elliot Lake and the chair of OHA's advisory committee on employment equity.
You have received a copy of our brief in advance. We would like to have Jill go through the executive summary with you, which we think will take about 15 minutes, leaving the last half for questions and answers.
Ms Jill Miller: Overall, the OHA commends the commission and all parties involved for their tremendous efforts with respect to employment equity. The OHA fully supports and endorses the principles of employment equity in the workplace. We do, however, have some concerns with certain aspects of the proposed legislation and the process for consultation.
With the release of the regulations, the OHA is pleased by the request for written submissions. However, it was disappointing to note there will not be formal public hearings as well. Considering the importance of securing input on the regulations from the various interest groups, we would support full public discussion and consultation concerning the regulations, much in the same way that there was excellent consultation on the discussion paper Working Towards Equality.
Originally, the concerns of the OHA with respect to Bill 79 were set out in a letter to the Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba, dated September 4, 1992, which is attached as appendix B. These concerns, because the legislation has not been altered from first to second reading, remain. We intend to highlight today the concerns expressed in that letter, with some discussion on the related sections of the regulations. A more detailed response to the regulations will be submitted to the Minister of Citizenship by October 29, 1993.
We would start off by talking about the employment equity plan. Section 11 of Bill 79 required the development of a single plan for the organization. Section 28 of the regulations allows for the development of many plans for separate components of the workforce.
Given that hospitals have at least three types of bargaining groups, such as nurses, office or service employees, plus a significant non-union employee complement, difficulties in reaching consensus are likely. This difficulty will be most evident in a hospital where it is common to have a full-time and a part-time separate bargaining unit, each of which will be entitled, pursuant to the regulations, representation on the joint coordinating committee.
The OHA recommends the development of a single employment equity plan in each workplace.
Employment equity principles: Subsection 2(2) of Bill 79 uses the phrase "in the community" with respect to availability of designated group members. The regulations in sections 22 and 24 translate this to mean census metropolitan area with other factors to consider with respect to availability, including working-age population.
The act should be amended to ensure clarity with respect to the type of comparison data to be used in the setting and evaluation of the employment equity plan goals. Section 24 also appears to require implementation of a skills inventory system to be able to determine the numbers of designated groups in the workforce with necessary skills or that could reasonably be expected to train to be so qualified.
Recommendations: The OHA recommends revision of subsection 24(1) to read, "In setting a numerical goal for a designated group in an occupation group in a geographic area, the employer may consider the following factors if appropriate to the occupational group under consideration."
Already faced with diminishing resources, it is hoped that the government would facilitate this requirement by providing the necessary software designed with the specific needs of the hospital industry. Otherwise, this appears to be another requirement that will impact on the quality of health care that can be delivered in Ontario.
General -- Definitions: Subsection 3(1) of Bill 79 did not adequately clarify the effective date of this legislation. This was somewhat addressed as a projected effective date of January 1, following proclamation in the document Planned Employment Equity Implementation Schedule.
Recommendations: The OHA recommends that this definition be included directly into Bill 79. We would also submit that 18 months is insufficient time to meet the extensive requirements of the legislation and recommend a period of three years to put in place a well-designed, comprehensive program.
Joint responsibilities: Subsection 14(2) of Bill 79 provides for joint responsibilities to implement employment equity in unionized workplaces while other sections, such as 8, 16, 17 and 18, hold the employer solely accountable.
As previously stated, the potential of dealing with many bargaining-unit representatives -- full-time, part-time each of clerical, office, service, technical, nurses and engineers -- poses difficulties in obtaining consensus and could lead to hearings before the tribunal or the commission resulting in delays in implementation of employment equity.
Recommendation: OHA recommends consultation with employee representatives, including non-unionized employees, with final responsibility with respect to the employment equity program remaining with the employer.
Joint responsibilities -- More than one bargaining agent: Subsection 14(3) of the bill provides for a committee consisting of one representative from each bargaining unit and one employer representative. Section 35 of the regulations requires consultation with non-unionized employees.
This unfair balance of power was amended in section 32 of the regulations, which requires employers with more than one bargaining unit to form a coordinating committee with one representative from each bargaining unit and an equal number of employer representatives.
Hospitals already have a number of committees dealing in all areas of operations from fiscal planning to labour adjustment matters. The OHA is concerned that an additional committee will only increase the complexities of trying to conduct operational planning in the most effective manner possible without such committees working at cross-purposes. Any duplication of effort between committees relates to an increase in cost to the public, probably in the form of reduction in services or quality of health care. This proposed joint employment equity committee should not be allowed to operate in isolation because the nature of the committee's task will impact on other committee work, such as that of the operational planning committee or the fiscal advisory committee.
1140
Recommendations: Since employment equity represents equity for all, the OHA submits that non-unionized employees be awarded the same status as unionized employees on this committee and recommends consultation with this committee of worker representatives.
The OHA recommends adopting proportional representation, as this seems to be the best method available to accomplish a more equitable representation of employee interests.
Given the already complex nature of the committees within hospitals, the OHA recommends that the legislation provide the flexibility for hospitals to adapt their existing committee structure to accommodate the requirements of employment equity. One such alternative would be to allow for the formation of a subcommittee under the existing hospital committee structure to fulfil the legislative mandate. This would ensure the consistency and integrity of the committee's conduct and eliminate the potential for conflicting operational planning.
Amendment of collective agreement: Subsection 14(5) of Bill 79 requires the employer and bargaining agent to amend the collective agreement if they elect to do anything which is in conflict with the collective agreement provisions.
Amending a collective agreement during the term of such agreement, although permitted, is a rare event and not a simple matter. It requires not only the agreement of the parties involved, but it is also subject to ratification by the union membership and the hospital board. Another difficulty with this proposal is the fact that the proclamation of the bill will not coincide with the collective agreement expiry dates. This problem is further compounded by the nature of many collective agreements in the hospital industry. It is not uncommon for most hospitals to participate in negotiations at a central level, with standard central language resulting. Since the employment equity plans are to be developed on a local level, it could prove most difficult to amend the central language where it may conflict with hundreds of individual plans.
Recommendation: If changes are required to the collective agreement, the OHA recommends that it should be a "deemed clause" forming part of the legislation. At the expiry of the collective agreement, the parties could then choose to incorporate that change while negotiating a renewal agreement.
Right to information: Subsection 14(6) of the bill requires an employer to provide the bargaining agent with "all information...necessary for the bargaining agent to participate effectively."
Section 42 of the regulations outlines the type of information that shall be provided to the bargaining agent. Release of this information would also not respect an individual's privacy, even in amalgamated forms with less than five. In very small occupational groupings, individual employees could still be identified.
Recommendation: That access to data be limited to information that is required in the development and administration of the employment equity plan, as long as this information is relevant to the occupations covered by the collective agreements and as long as individual identification is not possible.
Workforce survey -- Voluntary giving of information: Subsection 9(2) provides for voluntary completion of the workforce survey by employees.
Clause 5(1)(a) of the regulations requires employees to return the survey, but still there is no provision to complete the survey. A requirement for employees to complete the survey is not, in our opinion, an unreasonable request, given the obligations of the employer under this act.
Recommendation: The OHA submits that the reporting regiment on the number of surveys returned should be amended requiring only a report on the number of usable surveys.
Reporting requirements: Section 18 requires employees to submit reports and other information to the Employment Equity Commission in accordance with the regulations. This section of the bill was amended in sections 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the regulations to require employers to prepare detailed reports, with no requirement to submit reports. However, section 49 of the regulations requires employers to submit a certificate with statements including where the commission may obtain copies of these reports.
Recommendation: The OHA repeats its recommendation to reduce the requirement for such onerous reports and direct these resources to plan development and implementation. We would also ask that the software referred to by the commission and minister being developed for reporting purposes be made readily available as soon as possible. We also recommend that this software be available for operating systems other than DOS.
Enforcement -- Complaint procedure: Subsection 32(1) provides that the parties to an application under the act include the applicant, the interested employer, the interested bargaining agent and such other persons.
The ability for anyone to complain should be limited to those parties directly affected by the plan to preclude other bargaining agents within the same hospital from initiating similar complaints and to make the various bargaining agents a party to the complaint. We ask the government to examine the recent Social Contract Act, Bill 48, and in particular sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30 and 31, which we believe is consistent with our submission that there should be only one employment equity plan per hospital. Additionally, the act specifies that complaints against a plan or program are only permitted within a finite 10-day period. Once the complaint is adjudicated, the act precludes the introduction of all similar complaints.
Recommendation: The OHA urges the government to adopt similar provisions for Bill 79 as found in Bill 48 relating to the adjudication of complaints and avoid any unnecessary and costly adjudication.
Numerical goals in plans: Subsection 50(2) speaks to the development of a regulation which would govern the content of employment equity plans to contain numerical goals determined in a manner prescribed by the regulation.
The OHA is pleased to note that our recommendations to avoid quotas and to ensure that goals reflect the available pool of qualified designated-group members by occupation and region have been addressed in sections 21, 22, and 24 of the regulations.
Recommendation: In order to close the back door for possible implementation of a quota system, the OHA recommends including these sections of the regulations directly into Bill 79 while deleting subsection 50(2) of the bill. It is also recommended that specific language with respect to preserving the merit principle be included in Bill 79.
Other regulatory concerns -- Recommendations: The OHA recommends that the regulations be clarified with respect to the concerns listed throughout this presentation in order to assist employers to successfully meet the extensive requirements of this legislation within the tight time frames provided. The OHA was disappointed to learn that our request for representation in the regulations development advisory process was not received. Given the size of our membership and the fact that our sector is the largest in the broader public sector, it would seem reasonable to have included representation from this sector and allowed us to have made a significant contribution.
Funding concerns: With respect to funding, the government should recognize that employment equity has cost implications, especially to hospitals at this time. The costs of employment equity could translate into negative effects on jobs and potentially on health care service levels and therefore should be recognized by the government with its funding allocations.
Recommendation: The OHA suggested a thorough impact analysis be conducted by the ministry, the details of which are made known publicly before this legislation is passed. Now we would be pleased to entertain questions.
Ms Akande: Thank you for your presentation, it was very good and very efficient. I'm pleased to see the inclusion of the letter from Dennis Timbrell speaking of the involvement in the consultation around the development of the legislation and the contribution in that.
Let me move to the question of different bargaining groups within hospitals. We recognize the complexity of many of the workplaces and this is why, in fact, we have allowed for the consultation with union. Certainly consultation with non-union would also be effective and that's something you mention also.
It has not been shown that this would in any way compromise the development of a comprehensive plan, the fact that you have many different bargaining groups within the workplace. That is why in fact we have allowed for the chapter division, and it's referred to as "chapters." Can you describe to me what you think the difficulties would be?
Mr Siegner: I think I'd be glad to respond to that. As we pointed out in our brief, we are an industry that's heavily unionized. About two thirds of the workforce is unionized so we think first of all it's important that non-union employees have the same kind of status in terms of this kind of consultation as unionized workers.
It is also common for unionized hospitals to have at least three bargaining agents, as we pointed out, and each of them probably has both a full- and part-time bargaining unit, but we have some hospitals where there would be as many as eight bargaining units with the corresponding number of part-time and full-time units. That process can be very complicated.
1150
I can tell you, having just come off four months of discussions under the social contract and having just completed our last major pay equity plan with the Ontario Nurses' Association, that different bargaining agents very often have somewhat different agendas and so when we sit down individually that may end up producing different pressures on the employer in terms of responding to a plan.
We believe it would be very helpful if the notion of one plan per employer were reinforced so that we could get everyone sitting down at the same table, because we don't see the employer -- in this case being a hospital -- having more than one policy or more than one approach to trying to implement employment equity. We think it's too important for that. You have to look at the big picture, so to speak. I guess our concerns really revolve around the mechanics of doing that.
If I can move on to the bit about bargaining, the difficulty is that consultation versus bargaining in our sector on an issue like this can ultimately mean arbitration. When you get to arbitration, once again you have a variety of individuals who would act as an adjudicator and might come up with a different interpretation as to what an appropriate plan was, how it ought to be implemented etc.
Ms Akande: Except that this does not allow for the bargaining around employment equity. This is a point that, when you were discussing it, either I misunderstood or I felt you misunderstood that we are not bargaining or are permitting that employment equity be a bargaining topic. It is for consultation around the development of the plan and I think that's key to what you're discussing in the paper. This is why I wanted to bring that out.
If I may, another brief question: You talk about the time being very short in order to produce this plan and that you're requiring more time. What would be your response to the suggestion of an action plan which in fact you begin to move towards effecting even as you design it?
Ms Miller: I'm sorry, towards an action plan that --
Ms Akande: I'm sorry, perhaps you're not familiar with the term. An action plan means that as you begin to design it, as you get to the initial draft stages of design, you also begin the process of implementation so that you are setting your process in place as you are looking at the difficulties you have to encounter. It's a term that's used widely in sociology.
Mr Tilson: "Winging it" is a good word.
Ms Akande: No. It's a term that's used widely in sociology, Mr Tilson, if I may educate you.
The Chair: I think we understand that. Go ahead.
Mr Tilson: You don't need to educate me, I can tell you, as to what this government is doing with this --
The Chair: Order, please.
Ms Akande: Would you like to discuss it outside at some other time? Right now, let's give some respect to these people.
Ms Miller: If you're asking me about developing an action plan in terms of the time frames -- if that's what you're asking me, what time frames would be necessary in terms of developing an action plan for employment equity -- is that what you're asking? We submitted three years in our brief simply because of the amount of time it takes to develop, for example, a comprehensive communication strategy prior to implementation of a workforce survey. For an employer to take the time to develop a strategy that would clearly communicate and alleviate the concerns of employees in responding to a workforce survey, to encourage them to complete it, to alleviate their concerns with respect to the confidentiality of the data and the purposes of the data, communication is clearly needed. It takes quite some time to develop a program like that and this is for just one component of the other requirements for this legislation. That's why we looked at three years. That's just one example.
Mr Murphy: You've raised some issues that have been raised as well by some other groups that have appeared before us, and I wanted to get at a couple of them if I have the time. One of them is the question of a single plan for a workplace. I note that you emphasize "workplace" in your recommendation, because we have heard concerns about employers who are large employers in this province who have, for example, a considerable number of workplaces and have quite different operations within their umbrella, everything from meat packing to paper production, in which they're arguing for separate plans for each of those operations. In a hospital situation, at least, everyone's working within a hospital. I'm wondering, is your idea that it would be a single plan for a workplace and that if you had a second workplace there would be a separate plan for that, or does what you were talking about really apply to the hospital sector in and of itself?
Mr Siegner: Of course, we're only speaking on behalf of the hospitals and it's with rare exception that a hospital would have more than one site, although there is at least one example of that. We were thinking in terms of the employer being the hospital and having one plan, and in almost every case for us that means a single site.
Mr Murphy: Going at the point of some flexibility because, obviously, the hospital sector is going to be different than the manufacturing sector in terms of how it's going to work out and to some degree, the degree of complication.
I want to talk about the idea of an employment equity committee. We've been talking a bit in this committee about how to have the unrepresented or non-unionized employee involved and I'm very glad to hear you make that point because I think it's an important one. It's been a concern raised by us and by my colleague Mr Curling.
The specific question I have is, how do you see the representatives of the non-unionized or unrepresented employees being chosen so as to sit on the committee you've recommended?
Mr Siegner: We haven't really, I suppose from my perspective, addressed that in detail because we think that's an item that could be left to the discretion of the employer at an individual site. I can imagine that in some cases they might ask for volunteers within that workforce. In others, they might try to be, shall we say, a little more selective in terms of different departments that are primarily non-unionized. So I'd want to give them some flexibility. I think the principle, however, is that we think all employees ought to be appropriately represented when this most important matter is being discussed and a plan developed.
Mr Murphy: Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more that I think there's a real gap in this bill for unrepresented employees. Would you have any opposition to the idea of the employees who are unrepresented having some form of election for their representative on the committee, and would you have any opposition -- because you make reference to the amount of bureaucracy involved in creating reports that you then don't have to file -- to the idea of once you have the plan, just filing the plan?
Ms Miller: I'll answer the first question. With respect to elections from non-union employees, we would likely have no objection to that. There are some employee associations that are not formalized into bargaining units that could perhaps put forward a representative to this committee. That would work, in our opinion.
With respect to submitting our plans to the Employment Equity Commission, that would be a process I'm not sure would fulfil any particular objective on the part of the commission, receiving thousands of plans from employers across this province. The submission of a certificate signed by the chief executive officer, in our opinion, is fine.
Mr Jackson: Very briefly, I guess a concern that I have about the OHA and its response to this bill is that the OHA has not had a particularly leading-edge record dealing with issues of sexism in particular. I think about the important move to include nurses on your management boards and so on and, sort of, you've reluctantly come to acknowledge it. Although I'm a little off topic, I am dealing with the issue of equity and sexism on hospital boards. I'd like to know just how far along OHA is now with implementing mandatory access for nurses, because it strikes me that if in the first one or two rounds of employment equity type issues OHA was deemed to be lacking, how much confidence can we have whether you'll be equally as enthusiastic about Bill 79?
1200
Mr Siegner: Perhaps Jill and I can both try to address your question. I would suggest to you that actually hospitals have been very progressive in terms of the involvement of employees, in terms of the operation of the hospital. You refer specifically to nurses being involved on the boards and on the fiscal advisory committee etc. Employees are not, as a rule, members of boards of hospitals, which is a whole separate issue under the Public Hospitals Act, but in terms of the advisory capacity with respect to fiscal advisory matters and operational planning, in fact most hospitals took the fiscal advisory committee regulation that focused on nurses and expanded that, so that representatives from all the unionized groups within a hospital, and non-unionized groups, were invited to sit on this committee. In many cases, that committee has been expanded to deal with issues of operational planning, which are now covered by guidelines, in terms of the hospitals' budget preparation.
We see that committee, which is one we referred to in our brief, as being one that's very important, because it does in fact have employee involvement in an area that's obviously very important because it's looking at the fiscal state of the hospital and the operational planning. In that respect, I think it's been rather progressive.
Mr Jackson: As I recall, the numbers indicated that two years after the Liberals implemented this, fewer than 10 hospitals in Ontario had complied. Three years into it, the numbers still were terrible. Do you have any numbers to share with us where hospitals have actually complied? We're dealing with sexism here, not employee relations.
Mr Siegner: I did not bring those kinds of statistics, I don't have them, but I would say to you that my impression, my understanding is that the compliance, if you will, of employee involvement in these hospital matters is in fact far better than you're indicating.
Mr Jackson: I know my colleague wants a brief question, so I'll make this --
The Chair: He won't be able to do that.
Mr Jackson: That's too bad. I'm yielding to my colleague. I wanted to get into hospitals blocking female physicians.
Mr Tilson: My question is this: On your comment that you would anticipate certainly a loss of jobs, and possibly a reduction of care, adding up all the costs of implementing employment equity, have you estimated what the loss of jobs throughout the hospital system might be?
Mr Siegner: No, we have not and we're certainly not trying to be alarmist. We're simply pointing out that as with any other matter of social policy that the government is enacting, whether it be pay equity, employment equity or whatever, inevitably a hospital has a fixed budget and has to cope with implementing these various acts, policies etc, and that takes resources. To the extent that this is not recognized in funding, then that puts added pressure on hospitals which obviously must come out of somewhere which ultimately can have an effect on employment.
We think that's a very undesirable effect, whether it's this program or any other, and we're simply saying that whatever inherent costs are there ought to be recognized and funded.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your submission and for participating in these hearings.
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, may I just bring to your attention two matters that I would like to raise this morning before you bring that gavel down.
One is that some time ago I asked you to get some statistics from the government, that since 1990 there were visible minorities and disabled who were employed by the government, and it was as to those who were actually laid off in that time. I realize that today is going to be the last day of hearings and we had hoped to have gotten those statistics. Could you give me, when we get back, the progress of that request? That's one.
The Chair: Okay. We'll get a sense of where that is. I don't recall that request, but if you made it, we'll get an assessment of where we're at with it. Okay?
Mr Curling: It's unfortunate you don't recall it.
Mr Tilson: I believe Mrs Witmer echoed that request.
The Chair: Very well.
Mr Curling: Number two, since our motions have failed over and over again in requesting commissioners to come before us, especially the Employment Equity Commissioner, I wonder if the Employment Equity Commissioner will be appearing without any motion, upon a voluntary request, before the hearing is completed today and whether or not too the minister will be appearing today or will be in attendance in clause-by-clause. It could be very helpful as we move along with clause-by-clause in the proceeding week.
The Chair: As you know, you have an agenda before you in terms of who is appearing for this afternoon, which means all of our time is allocated to those deputants and we're not likely to get the minister or any other person to come and appear before this committee. As to whether the minister is likely to be here for clause-by-clause, I am not sure that she is --
Mr Curling: Are you saying no for the minister now? Are you making a decision that the minister says she won't be here?
The Chair: I'm not speaking for the minister, nor do I know, but perhaps the parliamentary assistant might have some other information.
Mr Fletcher: What would you like to know, Mr Curling?
Mr Curling: I'm sorry that the parliamentary assistant wasn't attentive.
Mr Fletcher: I wasn't listening to you again.
Mr Curling: He wasn't listening again, and I hope that he does some listening. I'm saying that there is a half day of hearings left, and there are some cancellations and you quickly called people at 9:30 to come, for which I commend them.
The Chair: For this afternoon, there are no other cancellations that we're aware of.
Mr Curling: No, no. You asked me to relate to him, Mr Chairman. Are you defending him or what? He said he wasn't listening.
The Chair: Let me just ask. This member was saying: Will the minister be here for clause-by-clause this next week? That's the question he asks. Do you have any information, Mr Fletcher?
Mr Fletcher: Mr Curling, how about I ask the minister if she is going to attend clause-by-clause? I don't think she is, but I will ask and I will give you an answer at 1:30. Is that all right?
Mr Curling: All I ask is how much she cares about this bill, as it progresses.
Mr Fletcher: I will ask the minister if she is going to attend clause-by-clause.
The Chair: Thank you. This committee is adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1207 to 1344.
The Chair: I would invite Mr Emmanuel Dick to come forward. That represents a substitution for the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India.
Mr Mills: A substitution for what, Mr Chair?
The Chair: At 1:30 we would have had the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India.
Mr Mills: I see. I get it.
The Chair: In their place we have the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, represented by Emmanuel Dick. Before we begin, Mr Dick, if you don't mind, Mr Fletcher was going to answer a question that Mr Curling had posed earlier on.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Chair. As far as the commission coming, no. As far as the minister coming next week for clause-by-clause, no.
Mr Curling: What did you say? She told you that she would not come here for clause-by-clause?
Mr Fletcher: That's right.
Mr Curling: She won't appear at it. She will not appear today at all?
Mr Fletcher: No.
Mr Curling: In other words, she'll won't come to clause-by-clause.
Mr Fletcher: No.
Mr Curling: And neither will the Employment Equity Commissioner come here either.
Mr Fletcher: No.
The Chair: You're repeating the same thing now, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: I just want to understand it properly. Thank you.
CANADIAN ETHNOCULTURAL COUNCIL
The Chair: Mr Dick, you have half an hour for your presentation.
Mr Emmanuel Dick: It will take just a fraction of that.
The Chair: Leave time for questions and answers later on. Very well, please begin.
Mr Dick: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Emmanuel Dick and I am the vice-president of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. The designated presenter of this paper has just relayed a message to me -- that's about 11 o'clock this morning -- that he will be unable to be here. So my presence here today is just to provide one basic function and that is to place on the record the presentation of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
Some of you may have heard about the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and some of you may not be familiar with it, so let me start by saying a few words about this organization. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was created in 1980 by leaders of national ethnocultural associations. They wanted an advocacy group which could give them a voice that would be heard in the policymaking process.
Presently, the council has a membership of 38 national ethnocultural organizations which in turn represent over 2,000 provincial and local ethnic organizations across Canada. Some of our members are the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the German Canadian Congress, to mention a few.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council is incorporated as a non-profit organization. It is financed through membership dues, government funding and fund-raising endeavours.
Since its creation, the council has been serving as a united voice for ethnic minorities nationwide, promoting a vision of multiculturalism which is based on a respect for the different ethnocultural groups in Canada and equality for them in all aspects of Canadian life.
The council has consistently supported and advocated for policies such as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Employment Equity Act, the heritage languages institute, the race relations foundation, the inclusion of section 27 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the establishment of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and of the standing committee on multiculturalism and citizenship.
I would first like to congratulate the government of Ontario for taking such an important social initiative for recognizing that it is in difficult times such as these that disadvantaged groups are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of economic downturns and, hence, in need of a redress mechanism such as that presently proposed.
We also commend you for providing community groups the opportunity to take part in the consultation process with regard to the implementation, enforcement and structural issues. As the largest organization representing ethnocultural groups in Canada, we are pleased to provide our input in the hope that we can collaborate and ensure in the success of this initiative by providing an effective remedy to designated group workers within the reality of the present economic and social context.
In the absence of my presenter, who brings a specific knowledge and expertise in this field, I would very much prefer not to read the paper because I do not think I will be equipped for answering questions in any degree of detail. So my function is just simply to place this paper on the record. If there are any questions that are not specific but just simply extremely general that I feel confident in answering, I'll so do. I've given your clerk copies of our presentation, and so I came here to make that basic statement.
1350
Ms Carter: Well, if you'd read it then it's on record, then it gets into Hansard.
The Chair: It's up to you. If you wanted to do that, you have the time.
Ms Akande: Is it possible to accept the paper as though it had been read on record without having Mr Dick go through that process?
The Chair: Of course. Ms Carter was suggesting something else, but your point is kind of different. I was just giving him the option of reading it or not reading it, and if he didn't then we could get to the questions.
Mr Dick: I would like to propose that I would like you to have this read into the record in place of my reading because in reading this that was just faxed to me an hour or two ago, I have observed a few glitches and in reading there are some grammatical errors that --
Interjections.
Mr Dick: So I would like to have it just simply --
The Chair: We will exhibit that as part of the record.
Mr Dick: If there are any questions of a general nature, only then I would attempt --
The Chair: We'll do that right now.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Dick, for coming here. As a matter of fact, it's much better effort than the minister who can't get here for weeks, and in such short notice you are here and we have to commend you for that. But knowing you, and knowing your expertise and familiarization with the community, maybe you could help us in some respects more than your trying to react to this bill basically.
Maybe you could help me along this line: Today, when one of the presenters placed their submission here and spoke on it, I informed them that having gone through this bill, realizing that anyone who puts a case before the Employment Equity Commission because they've found their systemic discrimination, the first time such a case may reach them is about the next 10 years. They were quite surprised at this. Do you think that 10 years' time before the first case of systemic discrimination could be brought before a commission is an adequate thing, or can that community wait that long before we have employment equity? What's your feeling on that?
Mr Dick: I say justice delayed is justice denied, and I think that 10 years will be justice delayed and therefore it will be justice denied.
Mr Curling: That's the way I feel too, actually. One of the concerns that many of the people do have when they come before us too is that the definition aspect of this bill is quite vague, and most of the meat, as they would say, of this bill is in the regulations. As you know, as you commended the government for having the community come before them to debate the legislation, we're not able to debate the regulations. Most of the definitions and some substance at all to this bill is in the regulations.
In your experience, would you rather see most of the definitions, most of that substance -- we have laws, you know, for people to adhere to -- be in the legislation rather than a sort of cabinet fiat, whereby some day some cabinet colleague may just be unhappy about certain things, may bring it before cabinet and have that regulation changed just like that? Would you rather see more of the substance in the legislation than the regulations?
Mr Dick: Not having caucused with my committee I would not want to give a definitive answer in order to implicate my organization, but I think that my organization is on record indicating that -- first of all, you spoke about definitions. Definitions must be clear and must be precise, particularly when referring to the designated groups so there will be no ambiguity when the terms of collecting data and all data could be manipulated and all data can be used, but if I were to hazard a guess I would say that as much as possible they'll expect to see much inside the legislation of itself as opposed to the regulations. That will be my guess.
Mr Curling: Thank you. Those are my questions.
Mr Tilson: Obviously, the purpose of employment equity is, I would hope, not the instant monitoring or mirroring of a specific community mix. Hopefully, the purpose of it is to avoid discrimination from now on. Would you agree with that?
Mr Dick: My understanding of the intent of this legislation is to provide a level playing field for all. Statistics have shown that there are particular groups that have been disadvantaged, and the question is to make a road by legislation and other means whereby those barriers are eliminated. You speak about community; I speak about the whole of the province.
Mr Tilson: I would agree. In other words, I would hope that this legislation isn't to mirror or be some sort of instant copying of a particular community in a workforce. The purpose of the legislation is to stop discrimination.
Mr Dick: Your opening line disturbs me, in that you are putting a bent in your opening lines that is not my reading of the intent of the legislation.
Mr Tilson: Well, I don't know. That's what I'm asking you, sir.
Mr Dick: I think the legislation is to address the question of equity and it does not have anything to do with the singling out of groups. It is just a matter of addressing the question of equity. The concept of singling out groups to me does not arise.
Mr Tilson: But isn't that what the legislation is doing? The legislation is taking women, visible minorities, aboriginals and the disabled as they are represented in a particular community and guaranteeing that they are represented in the workforce.
Mr Dick: What the legislation is attempting to do is to make sure that for those groups that have been observed to be disadvantaged, barriers that inhibit them from full access and participation are addressed.
Mr Tilson: But to do that, you have to look at a community, as to what is in a particular community, and make sure that community is being represented in the workforce.
Mr Dick: Yes. That's the reason why I think in the workplace they have the whole concept of identification, looking at any workplace and seeing whether or not all the people have been identified, so you can have a good mirror image of what your population looks like and see whether the population itself and so on addresses the issue of equity.
Mr Tilson: That's my problem with what it's doing; in other words, what the quota system is doing. The quota system is looking at a particular community, whether it be a visible minority or aboriginals or whatever, and making sure that group is represented in the workforce in certain percentages, which we don't know, because neither the act nor the regulations have spelled that out. That to me is mirroring the community. I ask you, is that actually going to avoid the real problem, which is discrimination?
Mr Dick: Your preamble is very troubling in that you use the word "quotas." You speak in your preamble of quotas. I do not remember reading anything about quotas.
Mr Tilson: Let me just read the section to you. Have you had an opportunity to look at the bill?
Mr Dick: I've had a cursory look at the document.
Mr Tilson: When you look at subsection 50(2), it talks about regulations.
"A regulation governing the content of employment equity plans may require plans to contain numerical goals determined in a manner prescribed by the regulation. It may provide that the goals shall be determined with reference to percentages approved by the commission that, in the opinion of the commission, fairly reflect the representation of the designated groups in the population of a geographical area or in any other group of people."
That's quotas.
Mr Dick: That's your definition; that's not mine.
Mr Tilson: What do you call these? What are certain percentages? For example, what percentage of people in your community should be for your particular geographic area?
Mr Dick: I do not know.
Mr Tilson: Neither do I. Neither does the government, because it hasn't told us. That's the problem.
Let me ask another question, sir.
The Chair: Sorry, we've run out of time. Ms Carter, and if there's time, Ms Akande.
1400
Ms Carter: I agree with you that there's nothing about quotas in the legislation or anywhere else.
You represent an organization that has a lot of different ethnic groups in it, I guess, and you state in your presentation, "Specific goals should also be established for all subgroups within the designated groups, the doubly disadvantaged groups, as well as set separately for female and male workers within each designated group."
I'd like to ask you how these categories would be arrived at, the subgroups, and what they would be, and also I just comment that where people belong to more than one designated group, for example, if you have a visible minority woman who is maybe also disabled, that person does count doubly or trebly towards the employer's goals and therefore that should help make sure that they are not doubly or trebly discriminated against. I think there is a built-in safety factor there, so could you comment on all that?
Mr Dick: I understand the question, but I do not think that I will be in a position -- those are the kinds of details that I'd prefer not to answer because one leads to another, and I don't know the paper in sufficient detail to respond. If you were to take the question to a second level, I do not think I'd be in a position to continue the argument.
Ms Carter: Would you, knowing the people in your organization, be afraid that some minority groups would be hired more readily than others so that there could still be an unfairness in representation in the workforce if the subgroups are not separately accounted for?
Mr Dick: I missed one essential line in the question and I'm very sorry.
Ms Carter: Some presenters have said to us that if visible minorities are only registered as visible minorities, then some groups might be hired more readily than others so that there could be a problem there.
Mr Dick: Again, I'd rather not comment on the details.
Ms Akande: Thank you very much, and thank you for reading this into the record.
One of the things that has been discussed this afternoon is the fact that much of the regulation should be in the legislation, and it is a point that's made by the opposition quite frequently and certainly by Mr Curling, and by many others who come and represent this group.
I would also like to ask you: If in fact we had to decide upon having this legislation, which has some definitions etc, much of it in the regulations, and having absolutely no employment equity legislation at this time, which would you choose?
Mr Dick: The position is quite clear. It's most important to have the legislation as it is than to have none at all, because at least by having the law, one has a benchmark and so on to articulate a case before the courts, so I would say legislation rather than none at all.
Ms Akande: Thank you, and may I try once more to refer to Ms Carter's question. It has frequently been referred to in research and studies that have been done that in fact when people are posed with the question of employment equity and have to hire the designated groups in the same relationship, or at least have to employ them as they do others, there is a preference shown for certain designated groups. Are you aware of that research?
Mr Dick: Yes, I'm aware of that.
Ms Akande: Are you in agreement with it?
Mr Dick: That there is a preference shown? Yes, I am in agreement. With the practice?
Ms Akande: No, in agreement with the statement of research.
Mr Dick: With the statement, yes, I am.
Ms Akande: Therefore, would you consider it necessary to have subgroup identification?
Mr Dick: You've answered the question. Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Dick, for your submission and for participating with us today.
SUDBURY MULTICULTURAL/FOLK ARTS ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next group is the Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association. Mr Ramdath Jagessar, welcome.
Mr Ramdath Jagessar: Mr Chairman, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ram Jagessar and I am representing the Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association, where I am the employment coordinator. I will be speaking in support of Bill 79 with special reference to racial minorities and immigrant women in northern Ontario.
The Sudbury Multicultural/Folk Arts Association is an umbrella organization representing over 40 ethnic and cultural groups, racial minorities and women.
Sudbury itself has residents from over 65 ethnic groups, including several racial minorities. With those of English origin making up approximately 30% and those of French origin just about 25% in Sudbury, the ethnic groups with close to 45% are in fact the largest sector in the community.
In Sudbury, as in many other parts of Canada, and in northern Ontario, we have been seeing changes in the patterns of immigration. Many of the new arrivals are from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. They find when they come to the north that they do like the north. They like the open spaces, they like the lakes at 10 minutes distance, and the fact that there are still free parking spaces. You can start snowmobiling and cross-country skiing sometimes from your backyard. You can leave your car running and unharmed, and unlocked in the winter. There's a different pace of life and they find that they just love the north.
But one common experience for many of them is that they cannot find the jobs that will enable them to stay in the north. Racial minorities and immigrant women are facing additional problems compared to the other groups in the society.
For example, employers have declined to consider them because of their colour or their names. Some potential employers refuse to consider them because of their accents or the places where they have gained their qualifications and experience. A few quick examples will give you an idea of what I'm talking about.
An employment counsellor has told us of being advised by employers in our region on several occasions, "If you can't pronounce their names, then don't bother to send them."
I myself remember an African woman, a highly experienced executive director's secretary, with loads of experience and qualifications, who went for about a year with no offers of employment at all, not part-time, temporary, nothing at all. The only possible reason I could see was that she had a slight accent to her English.
A racial minority job seeker called from our offices about a position as a telemarketer and was told all the positions were filled. One of our staff called right afterwards and was offered the job promptly on the spot.
Earlier this year, a young man from the Dominican Republic tried for a solid month -- I helped him -- to get a minimum-wage job as a dishwasher and had no luck at all. He was a visible minority and his English was a little bit weak.
One of my clients is an Hispanic woman with a degree in psychology who is trying hard to get a living as a day care worker. I have a radiology technician from Yugoslavia who is washing floors, and it goes on.
For example, the Sudbury Regional Police Service has one single racial minority on a staff of over 200, and to my knowledge, the Sudbury Board of Education has not hired a racial minority teacher in over 20 years.
I'm not saying all the employers in Sudbury are like this, but we do have this problem in some areas. For even though most of the racial minorities and immigrant women seeking jobs are highly qualified, they cannot seem to get invited to interviews or to win jobs. If they do find employment, these jobs are usually temporary and poorly paid service jobs.
Discrimination and systemic barriers do exist in Sudbury and in northern Ontario. There is a need for employment equity legislation, and we strongly support Bill 79 in the goal of trying to give these designated groups a reasonable chance at getting into the job market. Note that we aren't asking for special favours, but only for a fair chance at the jobs without additional barriers. I think the immigrant women, the racial minorities, want a swing at the ball with a regulationsized baseball bat and not a toothpick, as it is now for some of them.
1410
We would like to make the following recommendations:
There should be clearer definitions of the words "racial minority" and "visible minority," which at the moment are rather vague in Bill 79. A good model, I think, would be the guides offered by something like the Human Rights Code, which give definitions, which give categories, and also others in case a person's category doesn't fit. We find that sometimes groups like the Latin Americans and the Arabs are not always considered visible minorities, but they do face barriers in employment.
There should be a reliable method of determining the population of racial minorities in an area. Our experience is that the figures given by Statistics Canada and the Canada Employment and Immigration centres are usually inaccurate and too low.
There should be a properly organized skills inventory list of members of the designated groups with marketable skills, because in time, and very shortly, we will be looking at those who have the skills to be given the employment. We must have a system of designating these people, because at the moment it does not seem as if the existing agencies of the Canada employment centres have adequate lists. We wouldn't like to find ourselves with employers saying, "We are willing to hire people from these designated groups but we can't find them."
Clear direction should be given about the numbers of members of designated groups for use when employers are setting numerical targets. We have some concerns about the numbers game; for example, the number of racial minorities in northern Ontario. At the moment we believe it's about 1.3%. This may be considerably less than the number of racial minorities in Sudbury itself, which could be two or three times that amount. So, you know, which figure will the employers be allowed to pick, or will they be allowed to pick?
Next, there could be a speedup of the timetable for implementing employment equity without putting any unnecessary strain on employers. For instance, a private employer with 50 to 99 employees has three years to develop a plan and a further three years to file a review, or six years before having to show progress on employment equity, which means that such a person will only be reviewed seriously by the year 2000. They have six years to show if they have compiled a plan, done the proper survey and are in fact making any progress towards the goals that they themselves have set. I'm not sure if six years is not too much in some cases.
There should be regional centres to work with the Employment Equity Commission in Toronto in places like the north, northeast and northwest. Such centres may be useful in giving accurate information, the skills base, the populations, and they would work much better with employers than a 1-800 number in Toronto. I want to emphasize that giving employers of racial minority groups a 1-800 number to call in Toronto will not work. It does not operate like that. They will have to have some kind of interfacing with some organizations or some representatives of the Employment Equity Commission in their area for it to work properly. If regional centres are not possible in some small areas, perhaps local organizations representing designated groups could be contracted to provide the necessary services.
The bill and the regulations should emphasize the principle that numerical goals set by employers are minimum levels of employment. There should not be a perception that once an employer has hired the correct proportion or filled its numerical goal, no more members of that group need be hired.
All interested parties should appreciate that northern Ontario will need somewhat different models for delivery of employment equity than southern Ontario. We have found that models based on high-density urban populations in the south don't always work in lowerdensity areas with somewhat different populations and physical and geographical configurations.
Finally, public education has to be a critical part of the program in northern Ontario, where three of the designated groups tend to be smaller and less organized than the ones you are familiar with here in southern Ontario. Employers, trade unions, community groups and designated groups all require a strong educational program if Bill 79 is to work properly.
As we were coming here, I was walking around. I could see visibly in Toronto the presence of visible minority groups. For instance, if you take one of them, you can see them physically. Every corner you pass, you see visible minorities. In northern Ontario it doesn't operate that way. You can drive around Sudbury for a whole day and perhaps see two visible minorities. Even though there are more than that, they are not part of the perception of the community. Therefore there are smaller numbers and fewer organizations to represent them. The pressure on employers to recognize that there are visible minorities, for instance, and that they need employment is not as great as it is here in Toronto and some other southern cities. Therefore we may in fact have employers who are stuck in a time warp of the 1960s or the 1970s, when there were possibly no visible minorities, or very few. They are not aware that there is a problem, that there are people here who need this kind of help. This is why I'm saying that the public education may need to be stronger in the north than in some other parts of Ontario.
Mr Tilson: I'm interested in your observations of discrimination in the north, and all over the province. Your observation in your paper is: "Many of the new arrivals are from Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. They like the north and want to settle in places like Sudbury."
I guess my question is a concern that our party has with the preamble and the general tone that the government has put forward in this bill, particularly the preamble, which says essentially that there is rampant discrimination, that all employers discriminate, those types of remarks. I guess my question to you is, whether it's in the hiring or whether it's in the seeking of promotion, whether that is the sole factor and whether the government is overlooking other things; for example, the operation of seniority principles and collective agreements that talk about seniority. In other words, obviously new people who have arrived from the various countries that you've spoken of are not on that list because of the seniority principles of many collective agreements.
As well, many of the people who may have been hired in an employer's workforce may have been hired at a time when the composition of the community from which the workforce is hired is different than it is today. There may be social conditions such as the unavailability of child care or a lack of transportation for the disabled, getting into the disabled group, which I appreciate that you're not speaking of although I'm sure there are disabled people in your community whom you represent.
In other words, is it solely discrimination, as this government has suggested, or are there other factors that the government should be looking at when we start dealing with employment?
Mr Jagessar: There are a whole lot of factors. Discrimination is one. The systemic barriers, to my mind, are perhaps even more important, because you're talking about pay scales and promotions and so on. Many of them don't get to pay scales and promotions. They can't get to play for the simple reason that people look at them and say, "I don't know where this guy is qualified from. Maybe he came from the University of Delhi or the University of Kenya."
Mr Tilson: Sir, the collective agreements won't allow it.
Mr Jagessar: No, I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that to be considered even for an interview, there is an extra barrier for them. People find: "Their English isn't too hot. Let's not bother with them. I don't know where this guy got his qualifications. His name sounds strange. I don't know. Will he be a good worker? Perhaps not. Maybe. Let's not take any chances. Let's take the guy we know." This is the systemic barrier that they're facing.
Mr Tilson: Should the groups be expanded to linguistic groups as well?
1420
Mr Jagessar: I don't think so. "Linguistic groups" confuses the whole matter considerably. For instance, I know many immigrants who come to --
Mr Tilson: But isn't that what you were just saying, that people with accents have problems getting jobs?
Mr Jagessar: Across the board?
Mr Tilson: Yes.
Mr Jagessar: I thought you were saying something else.
Mr Tilson: No, but do all people with linguistic problems have difficulties getting jobs, or is it strictly non-whites who --
Mr Jagessar: No. Remember, I'm speaking also on behalf of immigrant women. Many of the immigrants from Europe whose first tongue isn't English have a lot of difficulty.
Mr Tilson: Yes, they do.
Mr Jagessar: They stumble; they speak slowly. They are trying to learn, but while they are trying to learn, they are simply not getting anywhere. In spite of the fact that many of them have considerable experience, considerable qualifications, they're not even being considered at all. So language is just one of the problems; then there's colour, then there's qualification, then there equivalency. There are a whole lot of them who have considerable --
Mr Tilson: You've indicated the inadequacy of the definition of "visible minority," the proper definition. Have you thought out a more appropriate definition, or a definition that might assist the government in defining what a visible minority is?
Mr Jagessar: In the act it says a person who considers himself to be a visible minority because of colour or racial minority -- I haven't worked out the full details, but that is a little bit vague. I think perhaps with some guidance you could say, "Look, these are some of the categories that we can accept," and also leave room for others, for people who may be of more than one visible minority, who may be black and Indian.
Mr Perruzza: I want to go back to a comment you made earlier and I want to try to understand it a little better. I understand the difficulties in getting at a piece of legislation that is all-inclusive and that protects essentially everyone. For example, you used Latin Americans as an example, and I want to use an Egyptian Muslim who perhaps has a name which is difficult for many of us to pronounce --
Ms Akande: Like Zanana.
Mr Perruzza: -- who may be white and may not have any distinguishing or overt distinguishing characteristics that would place him or her in one of the designated groups. If I understood your comments correctly, you said that person could be potentially discriminated against.
Mr Jagessar: It is possible, because if it is true, and I think it is, that some people see a name or they talk to the person on the phone and they feel, "I'm not sure about this person," then the person doesn't get called to an interview. The person doesn't get a chance, as I said, to get on the field, to take a swing at the ball. I know there are a lot of problems with employment all over Canada. I'm not trying to hide that. Nobody's having it easy. There are also Canadian-born, mainstream people who are washing floors and who are having a lot of problems; I'm not denying that.
What I'm saying is that some of the designated groups, like the immigrant women, some of the visible minorities, have an extra burden which is not really fair to them. It's preventing them from getting in on the ground floor before we can even think about matters like promotion and seniority and pay raises and pay scales. Their qualifications are defined to be of very little value. People can't get approximations of what their degree or their experience is worth. There's a lot of difficulty with licensing and then there's the visible matter: the colour, the English, the names, the background.
Mr Perruzza: Yes, exactly that. I just wanted to ask if you had any suggestions that you could make that would prevent employers from using employment equity rules to discriminate against individuals who may be coming forward for a job and have a very visible accent or they're from a country or belong to a specific ethnic group that is a minority group but they may not fall into one of the categories that's outlined in the legislation. Do you have any suggestions on how we could make the legislation more inclusive?
Mr Jagessar: This is why I'm suggesting that we pay a bit more attention to the definition of "visible minority" and "racial minority." There may be some people who are racial minorities who are not visible minorities. They are people from the Arab world and from Latin America, some of the Hispanics, they may not seem to be visibly different, but they are in fact racial minorities, whereas some of them, you can just take a look at them; one glimpse and you can see maybe they're from Mexico, El Salvador, something like that. So if we tighten it up a little bit, perhaps through the judicious use of the regulations, we could get rid of some of this problem.
The Chair: Okay, Mr Mills. One last question.
Mr Mills: I'm not going to ask a question, Mr Chair. Thank you, sir, for coming down here from the north. And you know why you had to come down here, don't you? But I'm not going to get into that.
Interjections.
Mr Perruzza: It was because the opposition refused to go to the north, that's why. I'm not afraid to say it.
Mr Mills: But I'm very pleased to see you and hear what you had to say, and I just want to take up on your comments that you spoke about the reality of seeing so many ethnic people in Toronto. I can tell you that you only have to go right to the Scarborough Town Centre, walk through that shopping plaza, and you realize the face of Canada is changing and changing very fast, and for the good, I might say. I just want to say --
Interjections.
The Chair: No, we don't have any more time.
Mr Mills: I just want to get this on the record. It's a quote from the paper, from this fellow Derek Nelson, and it's scary. He says, "In direct contrast, North America's preference system benefits everyone except the `white male' ruling group, a state of affairs that seems to violate the normal workings of the world." I think that's disgusting. Thank you, sir.
The Chair: Mr Curling, is it?
Interjections.
Mr Curling: No, we are so anxious -- thank you very much for coming down -- to ask you so many questions in five minutes, you know. We know that coming here from the north -- a wonderful place. I was up there a couple of weeks ago. I saw Fred Upshaw. He was quite upset about other things too.
Anyhow, you mention about the definition, that it should be much clearer in the regulations. First thing, I'd rather see it in the legislation. I don't want to get into that battle again, but I would too. People like yourself and many other presenters have complained that this legislation is rather vague, lacks definition and all that. So you're consistent in what we are hearing all along.
I just want to ask you one question, though, and then give my colleague the opportunity to ask you the rest. People are very concerned that setting up this new bureaucracy to address systemic discrimination, which is so needed to address systemic discrimination -- we know we need that -- whether or not if justice would really be addressed if there's a long queue in order to get your issues addressed. In other words, right now the Human Rights Commission has a long queue. And this government basically does a lot of studies, like the Mary Cornish one, to reform things and never looks at them. Access to trades and professions, recommendations about professions that you talk about who are here, who are trained in other countries, and recommendations are made that they can make a good contribution -- this is real employment equity -- never look at it -- and have a task force on that.
Now, as soon as employment equity is set up, do you realize too that first it would take you about 10 years before the first case? You were rather discreet when you said six. It will take about 10 years before maybe the first case will be heard. Do you feel that maybe they should have an area where they have equity commissions put together in order to deal with these situations more effectively?
Mr Jagessar: We have an equity commission, but perhaps it might be useful to allow the equity commission to make random samples of some of the progress that has been made by some of the groups to keep them on their toes, because giving somebody 6 or 10 years, relying on their good faith that they will employ people of X or Y designated group, is really pushing it a bit far.
1430
One way of making sure that they are on their toes is by giving the commission the power to make random checks to see that people are not just doing the surveys at the last possible minute and hiring somebody in the year 1999 just to make sure that they have achieved their targets, which in a sense is defeating the spirit of the legislation. This is a possible option.
Mr Curling: Equity fighters like yourself who advocate, who want to see justice done, that they have a rightful place in society, not that it be tokenly given to you, but it's the rightful place for people to play a role in this society. Some of the government people would advocate that a bit of crumbs is better than a slice of bread. In other words, even if the legislation is weak and vague and is not effective, it's better than not having legislation at all. What are your comments?
Mr Jagessar: I hope you don't have the choice of not having any legislation at all. But this is a good step and I hope you will be able to improve on it as we go along, depending on experience.
My point is I don't think there'll be a problem because most of us, the experience is that once given an opportunity, people from the designated groups generally show that they are good workers, they deserve the confidence placed in them to get employment and generally they work like crazy. All they want is the opportunity to get in, and many of the employers who are initially reluctant to hire them find to their surprise that these people who have been kept out, marginalized, are sometimes their best workers in the long run.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Just to follow up on something Mr Mills indicated earlier. You've travelled down from Sudbury. I'm just wondering, has there been any assistance offered to you as a presenter coming from the north to present to this committee?
Mr Jagessar: I'm only accepting the travelling.
Mr Miclash: But there has been assistance offered to you to come down from the north as a presenter.
Mr Jagessar: Yes.
Mr Miclash: You were indicating that both Stats Canada and the figures from Canada Employment and Immigration were inaccurate as far as you were concerned. What kind of suggestions would you have in terms of collecting that kind of data?
Mr Jagessar: Some of the groups on the ground -- that's why I mentioned that some regional centres may be better able to pin these numbers down. Some of these Statscan designations are a little bit strange. They look by language, for instance, by mother tongue. For instance, I think Statscan says there are 40 Hindi speakers in the greater Sudbury area out of 150,000 people. I'm in the India Canada group. I personally know nearly twice that amount of Hindi speakers alone. Is this an indication that using some of these categories is not always helpful? There are many people from designated groups who say that their mother tongue is English, like mine, or maybe French. I know people from the Zaire area, and you ask them what's their mother tongue and they will say "French." But they are visible minorities, they are racial minorities.
That's why I say some of these things are not designed to give the accurate numbers for racial minorities in particular. Women may not be so much of a problem or perhaps people with handicaps, but racial minorities, I think, and perhaps aboriginals. You know, there are some problems in determining exactly who is from that group.
The Chair: Thank you for coming from Sudbury, a town that many people actually like, and making this submission to this committee today.
Mr Jagessar: I would like to invite you gentlemen and ladies to come up to Sudbury. We are saving some of that wonderful snow, lakes and fishing for you. It is a good place to come and visit, and a good place to live, as long as people get a reasonable chance.
VOICE FOR EQUITY
The Chair: I call Voice for Equity, Rennie Marshall and Carolyn Blaind.
Ms Rennie Marshall: We're here speaking on behalf of Voice for Equity, a coalition of the equity-seeking groups in the Peterborough area. We are a collective voice committed to actively promoting equity issues to ensure full participation within a community. While our membership is comprised of representatives of all the designated groups, our focus today will deal specifically with women.
In spite of the gains of the feminist movement, women are routinely passed over for training or employment, are less likely to be promoted, get paid less than men, do the majority of unpaid work in the home and many live below the poverty line.
Educational segregation and the segmentation of the labour market have meant that men and women seldom compete directly against one another, and since men have traditionally had the power to insist on the value of what they do while women have not, many of the fields in which women predominate remain grossly undervalued, yet women find employment in non-traditional areas closed to them.
The barriers women face in both traditional and non-traditional employment are not due to a lack of education. Girls are now more likely than boys to have a high school diploma, are more likely to go on to community college, and as of 1986 are more likely to go on to university. In fact, in 1986 women earned 60% of all master of education degrees and 51% of all PhDs in education awarded in Canada, yet they represented only 17% of university professors. It should be noted that the average woman with a university degree earns barely more than the average man with a high school diploma.
This has created a job ghetto for many woman, and according to a 1989 report, 67% of all minimum wage earners are female. Women also make up about 72% of the part-time labour force in our country.
The consequences of this become evident when one takes into account the changing dynamics of the family in this province. Women continue to care for children in 85% of all divorces, yet after a divorce a woman's income drops by 30% to 40% while a man's income increases up to 70%.
These statistics are even worse for the approximately 18% of women who are disabled. Women with disabilities are twice as likely to be separated or divorced and 74% of disabled women are unemployed. Research has shown that women who are a racial minority or aboriginal are also doubly disadvantaged in labour force participation.
The needs of the women in this province cannot be met through the provision of services or the redistribution of income alone. The issue of dependency needs to be squarely confronted and the legal goal of independence firmly established. Women have a right to the same choices and opportunities currently enjoyed by men.
Many years of voluntary initiatives have been unable to accomplish these goals, and in these recessionary times of fiscal restraint in both the public and private sectors the time has come for the government of Ontario to legislate equitable treatment for all its citizens. Barriers, whether systemic or attitudinal, must be removed and supports like flextime for child or elder care and accommodation for persons with disabilities must be put in place to create an equal playing field for all Ontarians.
Bill 79 is a win-win piece of legislation since in aiding the designated groups the government is in actual fact legislating effective human resource management. Proper recruitment and selection techniques and the regular examination of job requirements to see whether or not they are bona fide -- unlike the historical height and weight requirement of police forces -- simply mean that the employer selects from the largest possible pool of qualified candidates, thereby increasing the chance of getting the best person for the job.
A policy dealing with all aspects of harassment and discrimination should be standard in every workplace since a poisoned work environment results in uncomfortable working conditions for all employees and can spread to the point where there is an effect on the quality of service. Maintaining a comfortable work environment is simply good business.
A great deal of consultation and work has gone into both the bill and the accompanying regulations, and both should be passed as soon as possible. We would, however, like to recommend the following for consideration.
First, the goal of this act is to eliminate the need for it in the first place. To this end, we recommend that the bill and the regulations contain a stronger educational component whereby the principles of employment equity be taught to all students in the province beginning at an elementary level.
Secondly, labour force education on the principles of employment equity should be the joint responsibility of the employers and the commission and must be a collective undertaking.
1440
In keeping with a collective approach, it is imperative that employment equity plans be posted where all can see them. This is especially true for the broader public sector who are accountable to the public.
The commission should take a proactive approach to assisting employers by providing information on designing and implementing equity plans. In this respect, we would prefer that "reasonable effort" be changed to read "showing demonstrated progress."
Finally, we would like to address the issue of self-identification. We see this as the only rational course. Historically, people have refused to self-identify because of the possibility of punitive consequences. Women who are members of more than one designated group must have the choice as to whether or not they wish to identify a disability like dyslexia if such a disability is not pertinent to job performance. No one wants special treatment and therefore many people may choose not to self-identify.
In closing, 78% of Ontario workers will be covered because of the inclusive nature of this act. For this reason Voice for Equity supports this bill and we hope that our recommendations will be given serious consideration.
Ms Carter: I'd like to welcome you both very warmly to Toronto to make this presentation. I don't think the committee ever planned on travelling to Peterborough, but I think maybe we should've done because we've had so many people from Peterborough coming. I congratulate you on the work you're doing.
Your presentation is a splendid vindication of Bill 79. Some people have come here and told us that we don't need legislation because it's all putting itself right over time anyhow, and I think you've shown, particularly with your figures about female employment, that educational levels are not translated into employment. Of course, there's the different rating financially of jobs that are traditionally done by women and I think it's very useful to have that underlined.
You say on the last page of your presentation, "It is imperative that employment equity plans be posted where all can see them." There's no provision at the moment for that to happen and, in fact, employers are asked only to send a certificate to the commission, not the complete plan.
We have been told that there are some concerns about doing that because there might be potentially sensitive business information contained in the plans or just that they might be bulky, so handling them or storing them or whatever would be a problem. Could you comment on that?
Ms Marshall: Of course. The bulkiness, the draft regulations, unless I'm mistaken, have outlined the length of time that an employment equity plan has to be in force. As far as the sensitive business information, I think if the plan were based on job description or job position, that would be an issue. But when you're posting a plan that says you're going to hire so many middle managers, that middle manager could be in design, it could be in word processing, it could be in just about any department in your company, so I fail to see how that could really become an issue.
Ms Carter: So it really depends on how detailed the information is going to be?
Ms Marshall: The regulations have laid out the job categories and I think they're really well done. I think once employers realize just how many jobs in their firm fall into a middle management category or a senior management category, or whatever skill level, that this will become a non-issue.
Ms Carter: Okay. You also suggest that "reasonable effort" be changed to read "showing demonstrated progress." Could you elaborate on that?
Ms Marshall: The word "reasonable" makes me very, very nervous in any document. What you consider reasonable may be very different from what someone else considers reasonable. I think it raises a second concern as to whose definition of reasonable we are going to follow.
Ms Carter: Also, you've expressed --
The Chair: I'm sorry, there are two minutes left so if you want to give Ms Akande an opportunity.
Ms Carter: I'll concede to Ms Akande.
Ms Akande: Thank you for your presentation. "Reasonable" is a subjective definition. You make a strong case for women. In fact, that's the focus of your group. Would you also accept that it is important to identify subgroups under the category of women, just as it would be under the category of visible minority?
Ms Carolyn Blaind: No.
Ms Akande: Why not?
Ms Blaind: Why do you need a subgroup?
Ms Akande: Under the category of women?
Ms Blaind: Certainly.
Ms Akande: Research shows -- and it has certainly been demonstrated within the public service -- that where women have been able to gain access to positions and make gains, those women have been disproportionately white women and other women have been obviously omitted. It has come to us from many groups, visible minority women among them, that it would benefit the legislation if in fact there were subgroups detailed under the classification of women.
Ms Marshall: I think my concern in detailing subgroups would be that when you become too specific you begin to exclude people. I would hate to think that some group of women at some time down the road are going to be hit with, "You're not included because you're not listed." Either you're female or you're not. We're including all women. But subgroups -- I think at some point down the road we could wind up with not listing someone or missing someone and wind up excluding, which is against the very nature of the bill in the first place.
Ms Akande: And yet it's my observation and the observation of others that some large numbers of other groups have already been excluded. But I appreciate your response. May I ask -- oh, I'm sorry.
The Chair: Sorry.
Ms Akande: I'm sorry, go ahead.
The Chair: It's only two minutes.
Mr Curling: How quickly time runs out. Thank you very much for your submission too. On the first page you mentioned in regard to education that Canada -- you say that, of PhDs in education awarded in Canada, 51% of those PhDs are awarded to women. You went through the masters degrees and you said yet women represent only 17% of university professors.
Could you then just comment on the fact of how you see tenure in this -- it's only 17% are there and that there's a tenure system there. I presume you are saying here that many of the white able-bodied men are clustered at the top. Do you find that tenure would be in conflict with employment equity?
Ms Marshall: In a perfect world I guess we'd be able to right all past wrongs. I think in reality what we have to look at is -- whether or not it's in conflict, we have to start somewhere. The equity bill is certainly better -- that we go on in the right direction from here rather than continue on the path we have been taking.
Mr Curling: And protect tenure?
Ms Blaind: Yes.
Ms Marshall: Yes. I think you'd have to.
Mr Curling: One of the presenters here spoke about role models and needing someone within the school system who, since we have a diverse population and culture -- that having maybe other ethnic groups as being teachers would assist of course, especially in motivation, aspirations and dreams being realized, qualified people of course.
Having tenure there, there's no hope. We have to wait until all those white males who have tenure there die out. The little trick about this is that those on the second level who are waiting are the same age, so they will all die too. So you don't see at all that it is in conflict.
Ms Marshall: Depending on the field, a lot of the human resources statistics I've seen are predicting an actual labour shortage by the year 2000. I think if we keep in mind that that's only six years away -- the reality of statistical information is that the front end of the baby-boomer generation are going to be starting to retire and there are going to be openings coming up, and we have to start with new hires.
1450
Mr Curling: You said we must have a stronger component about education in the bill. When we say education we are not only speaking about within the workforce, we're talking about the government making a better commitment and having sensible plans about training and skills.
Ms Marshall: No --
Mr Curling: Do you think what is in place right now is adequate?
Ms Marshall: That particular comment doesn't deal with training and skills. I'm dealing specifically there with the Education Act and the curriculum in our elementary schools. I think that if we allow our children to -- our girls believe the Cinderella myth, our males believe the Cinderella myth. I think that by the time they reach an adult age it's getting a little bit difficult to change that. Beginning at a very young, elementary school age we need to start educating our children about employment equity because you can't teach an old dog new tricks and if things like harassment and discrimination are okay up until they're 18, you're going to have a very hard time changing that after.
Mr Curling: You said a great deal of consultation and work has gone into this bill and we should immediately pass it as soon as possible. You seem to be aware that, yes, the minister has set up a consultation body, of which about half have quit anyhow because they felt the advice that was given was not even taken or looked at. And you're saying, even though those consultations have happened, even though we can't get the minister here to see how she thinks about this, that even although they've disregarded the consultation process, we should go along anyhow with this.
Ms Marshall: I wouldn't say the consultation has been ignored. I was talking more about the grass-roots consultation where they travel to communities. Certainly the majority of the groups I have spoken to in our area are reasonably pleased with what's going on. I know at a forum the minister attended in Peterborough, one of the concerns raised was the availability data, where was it going to come from. I was very pleased to see that concern had been addressed in the draft regulations.
Mr Jackson: I happen to agree with almost everything you've indicated. I feel very strongly that women have not been well served in society and you've hit on some key points and one, of course, is education because that's where the discrimination begins, at that early an age. I had occasion to sponsor an amendment to the 15th goal of education in Ontario, that it should recognize the unequal position of women and that our curriculum and everything should be modified to acknowledge that; that women are guaranteed equal access whether it's the resources in a school or access to programs, unlike what's occurring today.
I applaud you for that. I want to focus in on the issue you raise, though, that this legislation alone is like the sound of one hand clapping; it requires additional things to happen. People need the training in order to position themselves, to present themselves, to have this opportunity of employment. It's not simply: Show up because you fit the target and you're guaranteed a job. This bill clearly will not allow that.
Part of that also -- not only is it training but it's opportunity. I guess we refer to it as accommodation and the social accommodation, of course, is child care and elder care, and I'm glad you raised the two, because under elder care, especially now that the government has brought in this new community-based care for the elderly, more and more of our senior citizens must stay at home in the community. In the last stats I saw, 94% of the primary care givers were women, and it discriminates terribly because men just don't stay at home and take care of their mother or their grandmother. It always falls on the woman's shoulders, about 94%.
Ms Blaind: Do you know why?
Mr Jackson: Oh, I'm quite familiar with this.
Ms Blaind: My husband would get a pension better than mine if I retired earlier than he did.
Mr Jackson: It's all part of the added discrimination. Even the government has now, calculating the grandfather's income with his three pensions separately from the grandmother's pension and she's left at home to try and carry her house and her mortgage and taxes and everything. It discriminates badly.
I wanted to ask you very specifically about child care, because the flexible arrangements in child care that we can look to in the future have to be just that, flexible, in business, in situ day care situations, flexible arrangements and not ones that are so totally institutionally based.
I'd like you, if you can, to comment about whether or not you support a more flexible access model for child care, because this government doesn't support industrially- or business-based day care; it supports school-based institutional. That presents further barriers to women because they have to find transportation, they can't arrive at work with their child and so on and so forth. I'd like you to expand on both those two points, because although they received the merit of one sentence, they speak volumes about a hidden form of discrimination against women seeking employment.
Ms Marshall: I think there's a danger of kind of shooting ourselves in the foot in identifying child care or elder care as a solely feminine responsibility; it shouldn't be.
Mr Jackson: But it has been.
Ms Marshall: More and more men are nurturing, and I'm quite impressed with a lot of the changes I'm seeing, but I think it has to be a joint responsibility. There has to be some institutionally based child care available. There has to be more flexible child care within business. I think there have to be more flexible arrangements within the family unit, which again, as I said, are slowly coming. But also issues like flextime, where you have a core hour that you would have to be there but beyond that you can alternate so that you can get that kind of flexibility; where instead of working the traditional 9 to 5, you may alternate and one work 8 to 4 and the other work 9 till 5 so that there is someone home with the children. I think probably a flexible benefits package is going to be the way of the future.
Mr Jackson: Have we run out of time?
The Chair: We will if the question is long and the answer is long, yes.
Mr Jackson: Let me then just simply ask you, aside from the flexible arrangements that can be negotiated -- I mean, two of my employees have flexible working conditions built around the circumstances of their children, because they change. But I'm talking more about the issue that we as a society can't afford universal child care, but for families in need or sole-support women it's almost essential that the day care model be flexible so that they can access it at their workplace or in the local school or at a private centre or at the church at the corner. That's what I'm getting at. I wanted to know if your coalition supports the flexible model or the rigidly defined government model, which is simply school based or non-profit based, which isn't as accessible as the old models have been.
Ms Blaind: But that's a better model than it was when my children were young. You have to start somewhere. Yes, certainly we would endorse flexible time in the future when we can get there and do it properly.
Mr Jackson: You know, there are 6,000 fewer spaces in Ontario since your kids were there, so I don't consider that a good model by any definition if there are few spaces for mothers. That's all.
The Chair: Thank you for taking the time to come from Peterborough to make this submission.
1500
JACQUELINE JEAN-BAPTISTE
The Chair: Jehudi Consultants Inc?
Mrs Jacqueline Jean-Baptiste: It's Jacqueline Jean-Baptiste. I had to give the name of a company because it seemed at the time that they insisted on the name of a company. So I gave the name of my company, but I am here as an individual.
Another point I want to make right at the beginning is that I am a French-speaking person, and when I asked to speak in French -- it was on the Thursday before this started, before the 16th -- they asked me if I had to. I will speak in English, but I want to point out those little things that are happening. They told me if I have to do it in French it must be the first week, from the 16th to the 19th. That's what I have been told.
M. Jackson: M. le Président parle français.
Interjection: You can do it right now. You can speak in French.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: No, but I did prepare everything in English. Then I came here and I saw it. But I wanted to make the point. Sometimes those little things, they slip out and they become inequities.
The Chair: That's too bad. We regret that. Our feeling is that if any community or individual wants to do this in French, we have the services for that.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: Yes. I noticed that when I came here last time for other things. So I'm going to read my paper.
I thank you for the time allowed to me to speak with you today. My name is Jacqueline Jean-Baptiste. I am presently neither an employee nor an employer. I've been an employee, however, since 1973. I am an educator actively involved in anti-racist education and equity issues. My non-political concern for coming here is that I am a student majoring in policy. It's a stimulating activity for me, along with my concern as an educator. I feel that it is my duty to bring my contributions to the debate around Bill 79 and its regulations.
As a member of a racial minority, I support the bill. I also think that it contains many flaws which must be addressed. Consequently, I strongly recommend that this bill does not enter last reading as is. I am also willing to participate in making it the most effective legislation that it can be. I will watch it from now on, critique it every step of the way, until aboriginal people, people with disabilities, women and visible minorities feel that they can live with it and it is of benefit to them.
I was here last week, so I heard many concerns of other people that I already had, and I choose not to repeat them for the sake of effectiveness.
As we can see, a legal remedy is being brought about to solve a major social problem, discrimination in the workplace. Ethnocultural, racial and sexual disadvantages in the fullest sense are outside the law entirely. By disadvantages, I mean material and psychological inequalities bearing disproportionately upon racial, ethnic, class and other minorities; for example, underachievement in schooling, higher rates of unemployment or residential concentration in decaying neighbourhoods. Discrimination is both a major element and a continuing, long-term cause of disadvantage.
Legislation is capable of dealing not only with discriminatory acts but also with patterns of discrimination, particularly what we call here systemic discrimination. But the legislative framework must be right. It must be comprehensive in its scope. Its enforcement provisions must not only be capable of providing redress for the victims of individual injustice but also of detecting and eliminating unfair discriminatory policies and practices. Employment equity must also reflect the meaning that no one is denied training or a job or a promotion for reasons that have nothing to do with their competency and capacities.
To be effective, anti-discrimination legislation cannot operate in a vacuum. It must be accompanied by positive governmental programs designed to eliminate the social problems which cause and exacerbate racism, ethnocultural inequalities and other prejudices. In simple terms, what we are talking about is not for some people to be squeezed so a designated group can sit. We must rearrange the place to make room for others.
The pursuit of equity in employment and attempts to attack discrimination in employment should not be examined in isolation from a variety of other issues and situational or contextual factors such as:
(1) The current recession in the national and international economies.
(2) Recession-related factors increase power of employers and diminish power of trade unions. Heightened competition for available jobs enables employers to be increasingly choosy in whom they hire in many areas.
(3) Strains and difficulties in restructuring of many workplaces.
(4) The recruitment process itself is fundamentally, intrinsically discriminatory. It is the employer alone or the system which chooses the job-seeker according to its own criteria.
(5) Racism as an ideology, deeply rooted and pervasive, is a brake upon the legitimate aspirations and goals of designated, historically disadvantaged groups.
The prevalence of inequalities in employment becomes clearer if one looks at two areas: first, the overall structure of labour market organization and control and, second, the nature of systems of appointment and promotion.
In the first case, we can easily observe that within large and small firms there is likely to be a structure of relatively advantaged and disadvantaged jobs within the same context. Within this structure, there are clearly defined job territories associated with relative levels of advantage and disadvantage linked to earning capacity, occupational classification, working conditions, lines of promotion and so on. The maintenance of these job territories is not only determined by employers, but is also the result of employee actions.
Employees divided by professional association, trade union, workplace or occupational groups are likely to seek to defend their job territories against other groups of workers, whether it is men seeking to exclude women in some kind of job, whether white women seeking to exclude minority women, whether the skilled seeking to exclude the semi-skilled, the professional seeking to exclude the para-professional or a work group resisting changes in duties or recruitment methods. They are all engaged in what amounts to a form of employment discrimination, operated not just by employers but also by workers against workers. It is easy to observe this in a workplace when you call someone to do something and he or she tells you, "That is not my job, that is their job," blah, blah, blah. Sometimes it's some insignificant things. That's a way to exclude orders.
I remember when I was a teacher at Jarvis Collegiate there was a caretaker who had a PhD, but he was trapped in being the caretaker. There was no way he could move, because of those exclusions put by those associations that workers and employers built.
Secondly, in regard to the nature of appointment and promotion systems, this factor is associated with the assumption of the employer authority. It is the employer who decides the quality of and between employees. Once decided, criteria are used to make appointments and decide on promotions. That is the process used by the white western man to organize his territory. It is a process of exclusion. So every designing of policies or legislation must take into account how people operate before being able to see what we can do.
1510
Now I'm going to a more detailed critique of the bill itself.
There is not a definition of "employment equity" in the bill. What does the government mean when it talks about employment equity? What does the union mean? What do I mean? If each of us has something else or something different in our mind, I think there is something to be fixed here. My recommendation is that there should be a clear definition of the term "employment equity" in the law as well as in the regulations.
Then there are all kinds of employment. There are many ways of people getting money for a living. I think the legislation must deal with a typology of all kinds of access to employment and of the movement inside a company or an organization. I think that should be put in to make the bill effective.
When you read the bill and you read the regulations, they seem to be two different documents. I would like measures to be taken to ensure that they use the same terminology.
In part I of the bill, "All people are entitled to equal treatment," I have a little concern about the definition of "equal," because people use "equal" and "equitable," "equality" and "equity" interchangeably, and sometimes by giving the same treatment to two persons, you can become unfair to one of them. I think here the real term should be "equitable."
When we go to section 12, "Every employer shall make all reasonable efforts to implement the employer's employment equity plan and to achieve the goals set out in the plan in accordance with the timetables," the term "reasonable" here can give some problem, because what is reasonable for you may not be for me. I think the person before me talked about that. I would recommend, "Every employer shall implement the employer's employment equity plan."
Subsection 19(2) talks about over 50 and under 50. I don't know what that means. There would be nothing wrong if a workplace of 25 persons has one or two minorities if a workplace of 40 can have some minorities in it. I would recommend that the number 50 should be eliminated.
One thing I don't have written here is that the designated groups do not start at the same point. What happened in the United States, for example, is that there has been allocation of some portfolio for designated groups, and when they are evaluating who benefits, white women benefit for 85% of the allocated benefits. There is a kinship selection theory that can go here, as when the white male gives it to his sister and his daughter and his mother and his neighbour. Maybe that should be taken into consideration in the balance of the distribution of equity between the designated groups.
I can add, for example, the black male, who is considered like everybody's smashing him. They have to be considered. I think that's maybe where the individual can -- because if you keep about the groups and the groups, I think there is a little problem here.
Now for the regulations. They talk about resurveying. For an effective implementation, nine years is too long. Attrition by staff turnover and retirement changes the workplace rapidly. I would say a three-year delay for resurveying is to be considered. I think that would be more reasonable because of those changes. If you wait 10 years to resurvey, then I don't know, that doesn't make any sense; 10 years is a long time for people to wait to see if things are going well.
Then in part III of the regulation, I think there was not identifying, things to be identified. We suggest adding, "A need to identify conditions under which employment patterns change."
Then in regulation 15 we suggest defining what we mean by barriers in the context of access and retention or promotion before attempting to identify them.
In regulation 21, the plan of every employer other than small employer, we suggest the deletion of "other than small employer," because we talk about being against the number 50.
I support the numerical goal, because what happened was those goals in other countries are being developed because various non-numerical, equal employment remedies failed. In industry, programs related to voluntarism, education, plans for progress and informal plans failed because standards for measurement of progress were not imposed. There could be a danger with goals. For example, an employer might say, "Our goal was to hire one aboriginal person, so now we are not going to hire a second one."
Then in regulation 26, the monitoring process, we suggest adding, "Systemic monitoring must lead to specific remedial action on the basis of the findings of the monitoring exercise." The white majority, if left to its own, is not likely to do much about the social and economic disadvantage experienced by other minorities.
Recommendations for social remedies:
Where the population is diverse, governmental actions should encourage new industry and employment. Government policies must emphasize job creation.
Education and training: Removal of barriers in access to training opportunities in general and provisions of specialized compensatory programs such as industrial language training should be initiated.
The location of a population may be as much a result as it is a cause of unemployment. Unemployed persons or persons living in subsidized housing may be displaced from one area to another where job opportunities are limited. All nuances of the mutual interactions between population growth and redistribution, changing transportation systems and industrial as well as nonindustrial growth and location trends need to be explored carefully for a better understanding of their implications for minority group employment trends.
I have two tables here. I think they are quite graphic by themselves, and I would suggest that you take a look at them.
Mr Curling: Thank you, Mrs Jean-Baptiste, for your presentation. On page 2 you mention, "It must be accompanied by positive governmental programs designed to eliminate the social problems which cause and exacerbate racism, ethnocultural inequalities and other prejudices." Do you want to just elaborate on that, what other government programs you feel should accompany to assist?
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: No government cannot consider it like pass the law and think it's going to happen, because the law is a legal remedy to social problems, so legal remedies must be accompanied by social remedies to help in social problems. That would be good, but it's not enough.
Mr Curling: So you're feeling that employment equity on its own, this legislation put in place without substantial programs -- for instance, the disabled who have made presentations here stated that while there may be accommodation made within the workplace, if the government hasn't got proper transportation systems to bring them to work --
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: Exactly.
Mr Curling: -- the fact is that regardless of the great intention by employers, this will break down itself. And as you speak about the other areas of people who want to access the workforce, it seems to me the emphasis of the government all the time about employment equity seems to be saying in the workplace, and the fact is that the problem of access, meaning more than arriving there with the qualifications -- some people can't even arrive there -- so proper education programs, proper training, proper transportation, day care and all these things that women and all of these designated groups are faced with. It doesn't seem to address this adequately, would you say?
1520
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: I think they must start to address those things between the legal and the administrative things, because if you take, for example, black kids or minority kids who are put in basic-level classes, even those people who get the opportunity, if you cannot do the job, you don't have any opportunity. So you have to start the remedy here. As people are saying -- I don't like to repeat people -- if a woman is alone, even if the job is there, she cannot do it with those babies if she doesn't have a place to put them.
Mr Curling: The previous presenter was asked a question and her comment was quite interesting in that we talk about subgroups. Maybe I'll be putting you on the spot here, but it's I think a reality you have lived with. They asked about whether there should be subgroups for women. You are of course French-speaking, your first language is French, you are a woman and you are black. Do you feel basically that you are subjected to almost three kinds of discrimination because, as a matter of fact, you could identify here with all three designated groups that seem to be subject to discrimination, systemically too? Do you feel that women should have a subgroup?
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: I think there should be a kind of effective monitoring system for who gets the jobs, because I was saying to someone, when the governor of the Bank of Canada came to Canada, I was already here. You see where he got, and I am fighting to keep my job. I was here before him, and I am a very, very qualified person. So there is something wrong to be dealt with in terms of the designated groups. If I was a white woman, I would maybe be a little ahead.
Mr Curling: If you weren't black, you may just be there too.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: A little ahead, and if I was not francophone, I would be -- so I have all those -- and that is ridiculous. I am sick and tired of identifying myself with being black, being French, being blah, blah, blah. It's awful and it's ugly.
Mr Curling: But it's a reality.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: It's the reality, yes. But I'm sorry, I did not think I would have to think about, "I am black and I am French." I am a complete human being.
Mr Curling: This is what we all felt, that one would not -- are you trying to tell me to wind down a bit here, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Well, you can complete that.
Mr Curling: Yes, of course, and that is why it is unfortunate that we have to have legislation to do this.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: Yes, but you won't do it with legislation.
Mr Curling: If we don't have effective legislation, it could work in reverse. But thank you very much.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: You're welcome.
Ms Carter: You say in your submission on the second page that equity programs cannot operate in a vacuum, there have to be other things happening to back them up. I think we would agree absolutely with you on that, that this is a complex issue and that this legislation is just part of the answer. We feel that as a government we are taking other initiatives in the field of education and training to counter that. Do you feel these other things we are doing complement and support employment equity.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: Bill 21, yes. That's the Minister of Education as to the school boards. That is a very good initiative.
But as an intellectual, I feel that there are a lot of people who are poor who would not be able to access anything. Sometimes you don't have a suit to go to an interview.
Ms Carter: Right.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: So how are you going to get there? Or sometimes you have not got access to an education enough to know how you behave and everything. Every little thing: That's when it's a global process. It's a holistic thing.
Ms Carter: So a lot of our social legislation, for example, could make a difference. Something we're very well aware of is that something like adequate housing can make an enormous difference to whether a person can function well in society.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: Yes, absolutely.
Ms Carter: So it is something we can't address all in one bill; it has to be a multipronged effort.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: It's long-term. I think it's a nice beginning, because I see it like you have a big wall in front of you, and I see myself seeing the bill as a little crack. I'm not going to say I don't want the crack; I'm going to push to open it. You see where I stand?
If I said "Cement it to give me a bigger crack," I don't think that would be a good thing. But I'm going to put even a piece of paper into the crack, and I'm going to push so I can get a bigger crack, then I can get in. For heaven's sake, why can't I have a job? Do you think that makes sense?
Ms Carter: Yes, I do. We have to work hard to open up the possibilities. In nature sometimes you see maybe there's a pavement of stones and there's a little crack, and a plant will grow through and will come up in a way that's like a miracle.
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: Yes. I hope --
Interjection.
Mr Perruzza: He's committed to bringing in amendments next week that make the bill stronger.
The Chair: Sorry?
Mr Perruzza: We're just saying that Mr Curling has agreed to propose amendments next week to make the legislation stronger.
The Chair: Right, and the deputant is here and she's looking for questions. If there are none --
Mr Mills: Can I ask you a question?
The Chair: I just want to make the deputant --
Mrs Jean-Baptiste: I did not use my time. What happened?
The Chair: We have used up our time. It was half an hour. We started at 2:57 so, in essence, we had our half-hour. I want to thank you for your submission and for your participation in these hearings.
Mr Mills: I'd like to ask a question. I don't want to be partisan. That's not my nature. But I'm wondering if we can get a handle on the numbers. There have been an awful lot of cancellations. I'm just wondering, is it possible to get a handle on the people who cancelled because they couldn't get here from places hitherto that we should've been. That's what I want to know.
The Chair: We have a sense of the numbers of people that would like to come and speak, and the number of people we have included since. As a rough estimate, I would say there are about 22 or 23 people that would still like to get on the list.
Mr Mills: You've missed my question.
The Chair: And a lot of the people who had slots have cancelled in fact, so that list of 23 or 22 would probably be diminished to fewer.
Mr Mills: My point was I'd like to know how many have cancelled that had said they were coming who couldn't get here because of the distance and we couldn't go to them.
The Chair: That information we don't have.
Mr Curling: I know one was the minister.
The Chair: I understand, Mr Curling.
RETAIL COUNCIL OF CANADA
The Chair: The Retail Council of Canada: Peter Woolford, Ken Eady, Pat Mackie, welcome.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, I'd rather move on, if you don't mind.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, on the same point of order.
The Chair: That wasn't a point of order, however.
Mr Perruzza: Can I make a point of order?
The Chair: If it's a point of order on a point of information, then it wouldn't be a point of order. I would rather go on, Mr Perruzza, if you don't mind.
You have a half an hour for your presentation. Please leave as much time as you can for questions from the different caucuses.
Mr Peter Woolford: On behalf of Retail Council of Canada, I'd like to first of all say we're pleased to be here. I'm very conscious that this is your last day of formal hearings, and I have the sense that the committee is feeling like a bunch of kids in school on the last day waiting to get out, and the teacher's still keeping you in your place and wants to lecture you for a little while longer. I hope our lecture's not too painful for you to put up with.
I have here two of my members this afternoon: Mr Ken Eady from Sears Canada, who is also the chair of our employee relations committee, and Ms Pat Mackie from K mart Canada. She's been active on our employee relations committee and on the employment equity subcommittee as well.
A couple of small notes of thanks first of all to the clerk of the committee, who very kindly gave us the time that allowed me to finish my holidays and then write the submission. I'm grateful for that and certainly so is my family.
Secondly, I'd like to note the cooperation of the minister, the commissioner and their staffs throughout the process of consultations on this bill. We found all of the public servants, both elected and professional, to be very helpful, open, accessible and responsive to the concerns we've raised, and we're very grateful for that.
1530
I'd like to spend just a moment talking about Retail Council and the membership that we represent and then come to the substantive points that we'd like to raise. Retail Council's direct members are representative of virtually every sector of retailing, all of the specialties, and together we account for about 65% of Canada's retail store sales. Our sister association, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, represents virtually all of the major wholesale and retail distributors and they too support the views in our submission.
The retail trade certainly is a large part of the Ontario economy. We account for about an eighth of all of the employment in the province. As a relatively employment-intensive industry, we will certainly be a major participant in implementing the new law.
From the beginning of the public discussion on this matter, Retail Council has made it clear that we support employment equity. Our principal interest, and indeed many of the remarks that I'll be making to open here, focuses on helping the legislation to work better, to achieve its objectives better. The key theme I think you'll see going through all of my remarks this afternoon is flexibility. Not flexibility so that employers can evade or avoid their responsibilities, but flexibility so that the intentions of the law in fact can be carried out right in the workplace.
I'd like to talk first of all about Bill 79 and then a couple of remarks about the draft regulations. The act quite properly, in our view, places responsibility for the implementation of employment equity on the employer. We are concerned that section 14 does pose a danger to the clear allocation of this responsibility. It appears to make employment equity a matter for collective bargaining in unionized workplaces.
There's no question about the importance of close consultation with employees and union representatives in the development of employment equity, but if the employer is to be responsible for implementing practices and policies, the decisions that he or she makes simply cannot be the subject of collective bargaining. Our suggestion simply is that section 14 be amended to require a meaningful consultation process to take place between the employer, the employees and their elected representatives.
We are also concerned about the scope of information an employer must provide to the bargaining agent. We are concerned that the bill could require an employer to reveal data on individuals, plans for change in the size or structure or nature of a unit of the firm or the firm itself, financial documents or other information of a proprietary or strategic nature. The section should be amended to allow firms to keep sensitive corporate and individual information confidential. As well, we believe that it's proper that bargaining agents be given information only for that part of the workforce that they represent.
Perhaps in contrast to some other business representatives, Retail Council supports self-identification as the means of carrying out the survey for the purposes of this act. Both the employer and the government, however, as a natural concomitant to that, will have to ignore the variations and inaccuracies that will creep into this approach, unless they're particularly blatant. In that sense, if you're going to trust the employees to identify themselves and they make a mistake, we feel that both the employer and the regulator will have to live with some of those natural, human mistakes.
We also agree that employees should have the right to decide whether to answer the questions or not, as proposed in the law. We do want to see, though, a form of wording on the questionnaire that encourages employees to respond. We feel it's very important that in order to achieve the objective of employment equity there be an extensive effort to make employees understand the value of responding accurately and properly to the questionnaire.
Indeed, as I was talking to Ken and Pat before we came up here this afternoon, this might be a very useful function for the commission to take on very early on after the legislation has been implemented, that is, to educate the general public about the value of employment equity and to encourage everyone to respond positively to the questionnaires that they'll be receiving in their workplaces. That would certainly help employers to bring the questionnaire and employment equity into the workplace in a positive way.
I'd like now to address a couple of aspects of the draft regulations. The first point here I think is the most important thing we really want to say this afternoon, that is that when surveying the workforce and when designing a plan, retailers are going to face unique challenges by the nature of the workplaces that they have. They're highly disaggregated and highly geographically dispersed.
I think the best example I could give you of that is the firm that runs the kiosks at each of the subway stations here in Toronto. Each of those kiosks is staffed by one or two people, they often don't even see each other, yet they are part of a firm that probably numbers in the hundreds of employees. It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to have to produce an employment equity plan for each kiosk on the subway line.
Instead, what we're asking for is the flexibility within a firm for it to agglomerate together in a way that makes sense to that company, units of the firm, so that it can do a proper employment equity plan. That may be on the basis of a geographic region, it may be on the basis of a specialty within the firm or something else that makes sense to the firm.
But it's very important that the company be able to put together groups of employees that make sense for the firm in a business sense. If they can't do that, you'll see many instances, especially in the retail trade, where you've got units where the kinds of things that we want to do and that the legislation requires us to do simply could not be done. We feel that if that kind of flexibility is there, it will make employment equity that much easier to implement in the workplace.
A second point with respect to the plan is the requirement that employees with the firm for more than three months be surveyed for the purposes of the plan. That causes some substantial problems for the retail trade, because it is common practice to hire part-time staff for the period over Christmas, and typically we will hire in stores people for a period of about three months. If the legislation were amended to make that period of required service four months, that would solve a lot of problems for the retail trade.
Finally, on the side of employee participation, the regulation requires a single coordinating committee of employer representatives and bargaining agents in unionized workplaces. We would simply suggest there that that be changed to require a joint mechanism that makes sense to the firm. There are a lot of firms where there's a culture that you do not have committees; they're not seen as being a fruitful way of operating. You wouldn't want to then say that they must put in something that's alien to the way they operate; instead, simply require that employer and employee representatives work out a joint mechanism where both parties can work effectively.
In conclusion, I want to stress once again that Retail Council is supportive of employment equity. The principal concern that we have this afternoon is that we be given the flexibility to implement it effectively. Thank you very much for allowing me to make the opening remarks. We'd be happy to take questions. I have my two members here, both of whom are experts in this area, and I'm sure they can respond quite precisely to the questions.
The Acting Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Thank you very much for your presentation. I think for the remaining portion we have six minutes each. We'll ask to start off with the government side with its six minutes.
Mr Fletcher: One of the things I was interested in seeing was section 14, the sharing of information with the bargaining agent. Do you see that as being a hindrance, or should the information pertain only to the plan or only to the employees that are represented by the bargaining agent, or what is the objection? Is it just the corporate plan that you don't want to give out?
Mr Woolford: We have two concerns there. One is we feel that where the bargaining agent represents a portion of the labour force, they've organized one store or a distribution centre or a portion of the company, they should certainly have information in relation to those employees that they represent. We don't feel it's proper they have information relating to other employers whom they do not represent. That's the first point.
The second, then, is that firms often have plans that they're making to close units, to expand them, to move into new areas of business, and that information they like to keep confidential. It's a very competitive business in retailing and firms don't want that kind of information out in the public until they are ready to release it. We could see a number of instances where that kind of information could be released if it were required to be handed over in the course of developing employment equity plans.
Mr Fletcher: Do you have a problem also with the ownership or the liability when it comes to the plan? Do you think the bargaining agent should be as liable, have the amount of ownership that the employer has? Should it be a joint ownership of the plan? In other words, if the commission is finding someone in abeyance of the regulations or of the act itself, that the bargaining agent and the employer share responsibility, or with your scenario before about not giving information, that it would just be the employer who has the responsibility of the plan.
Mr Woolford: Our sense is that it is an employer responsibility. The bill certainly reads that way now and we support it. I'm not sure that you could design an obligation on unions that in fact would be effective. It is a management responsibility; it probably should stay there. I don't know if my members have any additional comments to that.
1540
Mr Kenneth M. Eady: No, but I do agree with that. It's a management responsibility.
Mr Fletcher: Do you foresee any problems with the self-identification process as far as employees who are not willing to identify -- the collection of the data itself.
Mr Woolford: That's a substantial concern. As I said, we are in favour of having self-identification. We are concerned that employees be strongly encouraged to respond to the questionnaire. We are concerned that if the wording of the right not to reply is not couched properly, employees may feel there's something wrong with responding; they may be discouraged from responding; they may be afraid of responding. Instead, it's very much in the employer's interest to get as high a level of response to that as possible. I turn again to my colleagues here to give you a sense of that in their workplaces.
Mr Eady: I would agree that it is necessary for the employer to encourage the employees to participate, but it may also be necessary for the government to encourage the participation of the population in the survey or surveys so that people are aware that participating in an employment equity census is good for the community and good for them.
Ms Carter: As the act stands, there are modified requirements for smaller employers, particularly those under 50, because of administrative and financial concerns that the business community has raised. Some presenters have suggested that the act should be extended to cover all employers with 10 or more employees. I just wondered how you would respond to that suggestion.
Mr Woolford: If anything, we feel that in a trade like retailing, the number 50 is too small. There are a lot of independent retailers around who would have an employee base of 50 employees when you include Sunday specialists, part-timers, students and so on and who are still operating a very small retail operation. There are drugstores; there are hardware stores; there are many, many grocery stores with more than 50 employees when you include all of the individuals who work there over the course of the year.
To move it down to 10 would take it down to really, really very small organizations in the retail trade which wouldn't remotely have the capacity to deal with the requirements, even the amended requirements and reduced requirements you're planning to put on stores or other businesses with more than 50 employees. We're concerned that in fact it will be a burden for many of our smaller members who have between 50 and 200 employees because, again, in a relatively employment-intensive business, you will find a company with a lot of employees but a very limited management structure and very limited management human resource information systems.
The proper implementation of employment equity is going to require quite a sophisticated human resource information system. In many, many cases of retail firms with hundreds of employees, those systems don't exist today. They're going to have a great deal of trouble and a fair measure of expense in implementing the requirements of the law.
Ms Carter: Okay, do you want to go, Gordon?
Mr Mills: No, I was just going to -- my question you already answered. I was going to ask you: What do you think about all kinds of little equity plans for businesses, you know, this umbrella? You said you supported that. So I jotted down to ask you: Do you support this? You've said, yes.
Interjection: You need all the support you can get.
Mr Mills: No, we don't.
Mr Curling: I just wanted to look at where you talked about employment equity as the responsibility of the employer. I presume you're talking about joint responsibility. Somehow I don't quite feel as if you got into joint liabilities too. There's two parts to this question: One is, who participates as a committee where there are non-bargaining agents or unionized people and non-unionized people plus their employer? You didn't make any comment -- maybe I missed that -- whether or not non-bargaining agents or non-union people are part of the committee and when that responsibility to bring the plan about, as a joint responsibility make the plan -- do you see in any way, a joint liability also in this process?
Mrs Pat Mackie: I think we already expressed that we saw a problem with having one joint committee.
Mr Curling: So you're saying no, we shouldn't have a committee at all because you said your structure doesn't call for that.
Mr Woolford: No, I think the case is that the committees work in some companies; they don't work in others. The second point is that we believe implementing and being responsible for employment equity is something that attaches to management and we cannot conceive of how you could attach the responsibility to a trade union or to a group of employee representatives.
We agree with the legislation in that implementing and being responsible for the carrying out of the employment equity plan rests with management, but we don't know how you could attach responsibility for what happens to either union representatives or employee representatives.
Certainly, there's a responsibility for the two parties to come together to discuss it and to agree on the plan and on how it will be implemented, but at the end of the day it is the employer who is responsible to the commission for what actually happens.
Mr Curling: Let me get back to the initial stage then. You're saying, yes, you agree that the two parties should come together to make the plan. What about the other part that is excluded? I'm talking about the non-union individual who is in your group. Would they be a part to help to bring the plan about?
Mr Woolford: Yes.
Mrs Mackie: Absolutely. That is normal business with most of our corporations that we involve the non-represented groups in committees to implement change.
Mr Curling: It begs the question then, that while it is left so vague about consultation and not defined properly -- I don't even want to get into the fact of how vague and ineffective some of the legislation and the regulation is. Do you find that the word "consultation" is adequate enough to incorporate those who are non-union?
Mr Woolford: Yes.
Mr Curling: That's good enough for you?
Mr Woolford: Yes.
Mrs Mackie: Yes.
Mr Curling: In other words, you will see the person around the washroom and say: "We're having an employment equity plan. I've consulted with you and that's okay."
Mr Woolford: I don't think that will be a problem, Mr Curling. I think you will find that the commission will be able to look at the consultation process as firms have put in place and judge whether they're reasonable or not. If, for legislative reasons, it's necessary to put a couple of modifiers in front of the word "consultation," "adequate" consultation, "proper" consultation, "responsible" consultation -- the key point is you want to be sure the two parties in the workplace do come together and have a meaningful exchange and out of that arrive at an agreement on how to do the plan and how to implement it.
Mr Curling: You're very convincing to me that you would do that.
Mr Woolford: Thank you, sir.
Mr Curling: I'm not quite sure we can leave it up to all the employers or the legislation to say it is implied, as many times people say, "Many things in these laws are implied, why put it in?" Even when that was implied about consultation with this legislation, some people weren't even listened to, some people weren't even given an opportunity to consult properly.
I'm just saying that -- and I'm not going to belabour the point -- you feel that what is in there as consultation is quite adequate from that point of view.
Mr Woolford: Yes. I would also note that there are provisions in the bill for appeals to some form of tribunal or for employees or others who are concerned about the plan, and that gives people who are not happy or have concerns with what's going on the chance to appeal to the authorities to ensure that what's taking place is in fact fair and responsible.
Mr Curling: The time frame that is in place in order to bring this plan about or to bring this legislation to be operative -- operative to me means that when there is a case that can be brought before the commission it is approximately 9, 10, 11 years, all depending. Do you think that is adequate?
Mr Woolford: I'm not sure that is going to be the time frame. I would think that if someone in a company saw that the plan was not being carried out in a proper way or had problems with the way the survey was being operated, they could make their views known to the government much faster than that.
Mr Curling: That is what's going to happen by the time this goes into place. That's the time frame before anyone can bring their case for systemic discrimination before the commission.
1550
Mr Jackson: I appreciate your brief. I would like to talk a bit about the retail sector, if I might, and employment equity generally. I do so having been involved in your sector in a variety of ways. My spouse was involved in it for 14 years and her family for 28 years.
Let me start by saying that I think the retail industry has done extremely well hiring women. That's the good news. The bad news is, it's because it has been a traditionally moderate to low-paying profession.
Mr Woolford: If sales keep on the way they are, it will stay that way.
Mr Jackson: There is a clear corollary there, that retail sales are not noted for high pay. You are currently in a recession and you're downsizing. I'll come back to that in a moment.
To focus in on this notion of employment equity -- frankly, I might say I get a sense that you score relatively high as an employer demographically for hiring visible minorities, because it's good merchandising to hire the people you meet every day across the counter. My understanding of the retail industry is that your largest single challenge is with the disabled community. I was wondering if you could respond to that. You seem to have accommodated disabled shoppers. Without getting into that, I prefer we deal with how we are doing on the employment end. I don't think you're subject to a lot of criticism with respect to whom you hire, more how much your bottom lines will allow you to pay.
Mr Woolford: I don't have a sense of where any of my individual members are at in terms of hiring members from the disabled community. I know that individual companies have made some efforts in some instances. I'm sorry, I simply don't know.
Mr Jackson: Is there a mechanism within your council which has made this some sort of priority in terms of discussions or dialogue within your group?
Mr Woolford: That has come up as an item at our employee relations committee. A couple of years ago, our president, Alasdair McKichan, was working with a number of representatives from the disabled community under the aegis of the Niagara Institute, talking about trying to build links into that community, because it is one that has been hard for employers to reach. That's really the extent of what we've done right now. I know again that firms are thinking actively about the need to reach out to that community.
Mr Jackson: Yes. Alasdair has been before this committee on many occasions.
I want to get into another area and this has to do with seniority. Again, this is not meant as a criticism, but the retail sector is not noted for its union involvement. That's okay, but it does allow you flexibility. In a recent downsizing that occurred within a large firm -- a competitor of yours, Mr Eady -- my wife and I were going over the people she had worked with for years. People with 16 years' seniority had been laid off, people with 5 years' seniority had been laid off. It was apparent that merit was determined. There was nothing sinister about it. It was just that certain people were let go and certain people stayed.
Do you see that management activity as an assist to maintaining employment equity goals so that you are able to maintain a workforce that reflects the characteristics of your community, or would you see a rigidly adhered-to seniority -- you're one of the few groups that have been before us that have the flexibility now, for whatever reason, and you have the ability to maintain a workforce that more closely adheres to this. You don't have to wait 10 years, because you can work on it in the front door and the back door.
Mrs Mackie: I think it certainly is an assist, in a time when there's not a lot of hiring, to make some strides towards employment equity. I think in the ideal world, everybody's operating at 100% efficiency, so it doesn't matter whether you have seniority or not. Everybody would be promoted or terminated based on seniority if everything else was equal. But I do think it is an assist not to have that seniority issue.
Mr Jackson: Thank you very much for your candour. I do hope to see some more initiatives with the disabled community in detail.
Mrs Mackie: I think individual corporations have taken many initiatives and outreach and contacting agencies.
The Chair: I want to thank you for participating in the deliberations of this bill.
CAUCUS FRANCOPHONE POUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN EMPLOI DANS LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ONTARIENNE
Le Président : I call upon the Francophone Caucus on Employment Equity in the Ontario Public Service. Bienvenue.
M. Christian Martel : Merci.
Le Président : Vous avez une demie-heure pour votre présentation. Si vous pouvez, laissez beaucoup ou assez de temps pour des questions et des réponses. Commencez quand vous serez prêts.
M. Christian Martel : Le Caucus francophone sur l'équité en emploi dans la fonction publique ontarienne et son mandat : alors, je vais faire une courte présentation. Le Caucus a été mis sur pied par la Direction de la planification des ressources humaines et d'équité en emploi du Secrétariat du conseil de gestion. Le Caucus est le porte-parole officiel des fonctionnaires francophones du gouvernement ontarien, et tous les francophones de la fonction publique peuvent être membres.
C'est à la suite d'une rencontre du comité interministériel des coordinatrices et coordinateurs des services en français que le comité provisoire du Caucus a vu le jour au mois de mars 1992.
Le Caucus francophone a eu l'occasion de rencontrer plus de 700 francophones de la fonction publique lors de trois forums en février et mars 1993. À ces sessions, les francophones ont exprimé leurs inquiétudes face à l'équité en emploi dans la fonction publique de l'Ontario, identifié les principaux obstacles à l'équité et discuté de stratégies pour y remédier.
Un rapport complet exposant les barrières en emploi identifiées par les participants aux forums et faisant des recommandations au gouvernement sera disponible à la mi-septembre.
Les francophones font partie des groupes désignés au chapitre de l'équité en emploi dans la fonction publique de l'Ontario depuis 1987. Malgré cette mesure, pour les francophones il subsiste un fossé appréciable entre les principes de l'équité en emploi et leur mise en application au sein de la fonction publique.
Les 700 francophones qui ont participé à trois forums régionaux sur l'équité d'emploi organisés par le Caucus ont témoigné du caractère tangible de la discrimination sous toutes ses formes : directe ou systémique, soit dans la dotation pour les postes désignés et non désignés, la rémunération, les possibilités de promotion, l'accès à des programmes de formation professionnelle en anglais ou en français et plusieurs autres.
Face aux inéquités que subissent encore ces francophones employés du gouvernement, nous réagissons fortement à l'exclusion des francophones dans le projet de loi 79. Il est important pour nous de sauvegarder des droits acquis dans la fonction publique et aussi de s'assurer que ces mêmes droits sont étendus aux francophones de l'Ontario dans les secteurs parapublic et privé.
Les Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens ont toujours dû lutter pour avoir recours aux tribunaux et à la loi pour assurer leur place dans la province et pour contribuer pleinement à la croissance économique générale de l'Ontario.
Une difficulté principale pour nous, francophones de l'Ontario, est le refus de la majorité de reconnaître jusqu'à quel point les Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens ont été et sont encore victimes d'un système établi par le groupe dominant. La première phrase du rapport annuel, 1992, de la fonction publique ontarienne, préparé par le Secrétariat du conseil de gestion, souligne clairement que nos revendications sont incomprises lorsque nous lisons, «Les francophones d'Ontario se considèrent comme un groupe ayant depuis toujours dû se battre contre les inégalités de toutes sortes.»
1600
Je vais maintenant donner un aperçu historique. Si l'on regarde objectivement les événements historiques marquants de l'Ontario, nous découvrons que dès 1885, l'anglais fut imposé aux francophones alors que les manuels scolaires de langue française ne sont plus autorisés dans les écoles de l'Ontario. En 1890, la loi scolaire impose l'anglais comme langue de communication, «à moins que l'élève ne comprenne pas l'anglais».
Certains événements, dont les séquelles se font encore sentir aujourd'hui, sont venus perturber l'essor de l'Ontario français. Le Règlement 17, adopté par le gouvernement de l'Ontario en 1912 et amendé en 1927, interdisant l'enseignement du français dans les écoles de la province, a largement contribué à l'érosion de la langue et de la culture franco-ontariennes. Ce ne sera qu'en 1944 qu'il sera rayé des statuts de l'Ontario.
Après des années de lutte pour assurer l'enseignement du français au palier élémentaire, c'est en 1969 que la première école secondaire française, financée à même les deniers publics, voit le jour. Il importe aussi de souligner que l'utilisation du français à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario n'est autorisée que depuis 1968.
En matière d'enseignement, il y a eu des progrès importants, mais la gestion franco-ontarienne demeure très incomplète au palier élémentaire dans la Loi 75, encourageante au niveau collégial et toujours inexistante au niveau universitaire.
L'année 1986 constitue une autre étape significative dans l'histoire de l'Ontario français. Après de nombreuses luttes, rapports et études, le gouvernement de l'Ontario adoptait la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français. En somme, le gouvernement reconnaissait 350 ans de présence française en Ontario et s'engageait à préserver le fait français et son patrimoine culturel, comme le dit le préambule de la Loi.
Lorsqu'on parle de la situation économique, malgré l'amélioration du système éducatif, les Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens sont loin d'avoir atteint un niveau de bien-être aux plans social et économique. Le manque d'accès à des institutions de niveau postsecondaire et à la formation en cours d'emploi empêche les membres de la communauté franco-ontarienne de rattraper le retard sur le marché du travail.
Par exemple, encore aujourd'hui le taux d'analphabétisme fonctionnel est deux fois plus élevé chez les francophones que chez les anglophones. Aussi, on déplore toujours un taux de chômage supérieur à la moyenne, surtout chez les jeunes entre 15 et 24 ans, où on retrouve un taux alarmant de chômage de presque 20 %. Par ailleurs, les femmes francophones se retrouvent souvent sous le seuil de la pauvreté et occupent en grande partie des postes sous-rémunérés. En effet, 70 % des femmes francophones gagnent moins de 20 000 $ par année. Cette situation, due en partie à un manque de formation, est amplifiée par le fait qu'il existe peu de garderies françaises ou de services sociaux capables de répondre aux besoins spécifiques des femmes d'expression française.
Toujours sur le marché du travail, les francophones appartenant à des minorités raciales et ethnoculturelles récemment installées en Ontario se heurtent à des barrières linguistiques et culturelles. En plus de devoir lutter contre des obstacles associés à la discrimination raciale, ces groupes doivent surmonter les énormes difficultés que pose leur choix du français comme langue d'intégration en Ontario.
Historiquement, ce n'est que grâce à des lois que les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens ont eu accès à des services et des programmes. Lors de l'introduction de la Loi 79 en juin 1992, la ministre des Affaires civiques, Mme Elaine Ziemba, a déclaré aux membres de l'Assemblée législative que «les francophones font face à de la discrimination.» Elle ajouta que bien qu'il n'était pas question que les francophones soient inclus dans la Loi maintenant, elle mettait sur pied un comité de sous-ministres adjointes et adjoints en leur donnant le mandat d'étudier toute la question française et de lui faire des recommandations.
Sans l'inclusion des francophones dans la Loi, il est illusoire de penser que les barrières en emploi disparaîtront pour les Franco-Ontariennes et les Franco-Ontariens. Cette Loi est essentielle pour faire en sorte que les francophones de l'Ontario aient des chances égales en emploi.
Elles et ils ne pourront avoir accès aux leviers du développement social, culturel et économique que par l'inclusion de leur groupe dans cette Loi, et la province sera ainsi enrichie.
Je laisse la parole à Sylvia, qui va vous donner les recommandations.
Ms Sylvia Martin-Laforge: I'd like to continue in English. I'd like to give you the summary and recommendations and start with a quote from George Drew, Conservative Premier in Ontario in 1943.
Interjection: The Conservative Party?
Ms Martin-Laforge: The Conservative Party.
"It is not unfair to remind the French that they are a defeated race and that their rights are rights only because of the tolerance by the English element who, with all respect to the minority, must be regarded as the dominant race."
Given that the historic oppression of Franco-Ontarians is well documented and that its impact on access to education and employment sectors has been proven;
Given that, notwithstanding the designated group status of francophones in the Ontario public service, systemic discrimination continues to be a reality for francophones in the OPS;
Given that the Minister of Citizenship has recognized that Franco-Ontarians face systemic barriers in employment in the public and private sectors and has set up an interministry committee to study the whole French matter and report to her in 12 months' time;
Also given that non-inclusion in the legislation, Bill 79, will further contribute to the marginalization of francophones in society;
The Francophone Caucus on Employment Equity in the Ontario Public Service therefore recommends that Franco-Ontarians be included as a designated group in employment equity legislation.
We welcome questions.
Mr Curling: Thank you very much for your presentation. You were giving your presentation in French and you came immediately after a visible minority, a woman and a francophone, had to give her presentation in English. I wondered, when is it that the province itself will fully recognize the francophones? When I saw the employment equity legislation that excluded the francophone community, I was a bit concerned. The rationale given by the government was to say that there were not enough statistics to indicate how best we could deal with this.
You rightly, of course, pointed out that the Franco-Ontarians suffer a high rate of functional illiteracy. So do the natives. As a matter of fact, systemic discrimination has continued to plague especially those two communities. If we have legislation that is going to address systemic discrimination and exclude that community, it tells us that they're not quite serious in addressing employment equity and I have concerns about that.
You mention too, in your historic overview, the neglect of education to those communities. Would you feel that there's enough progress made? It is hard to use that word -- when the minister gathers, within her 12 months, statistical data so that we can address the system of employment equity with the francophones, meaning from the educational point of view, I think it's being done and ready and able to accommodate. I hate to use the word "accommodate" to address the employment equity situation in the francophone community.
Le Président : Vous pouvez, si vous voulez, répondre en français.
1610
Ms Martin-Laforge: Merci. I think I will answer that one in English, though. It's a very important question that I think I might be able to address in English.
I think that, historically, francophones have been working very hard to gain momentum and progress in education. I think that in Ontario, francophones have not addressed themselves as much to the labour market because the fight was so great on the education side, so the link between education and the labour market has not been made sufficiently except in the last few years. While progress in education in terms of curriculum, equivalencies in curriculum, getting their own schools and moneys -- and of course the French Language Services Act did do a lot for education in terms of services -- there still is a lot to do. But more and more, we are seeing the necessity of making a very, very strong link between education and the labour market.
In terms of studies in the labour market, historically there has been not a lot around francophones. I pinpoint that specific problem because there is no tradition for studying francophones in the labour market in terms of employment equity. The federal employment equity law does not have francophones in it, and so there are no historical data available and there are not enough of them and there are not enough sociological studies to go one way or the other.
Le manque de statistiques ne devrait pas empêcher que les francophones soient inclus dans la Loi. Ce n'est pas une bonne raison. On pourrait dire qu'il manque des statistiques, et en attendant, qu'on fasse des études comparatives poussées. On pourrait inclure les francophones dans la Loi pour ensuite regarder la Loi de façon plus précise dans cinq ans, mettons.
So not having the statistics is not the best idea. That's not a good reason to say they can't be in the law.
Mr Curling: They have associated, of course, employment equity. Many times the business community comes and makes good economic sense, so it is tied in with the labour market and tied in with the economy. They speak about, and we all -- government legislators -- speak about participating in this global economy, and the global economy means different languages, and of course for different cultures the opportunity is there.
Do you feel, actually, the rhetoric itself will ever fit the legislation in the sense that, is there an opportunity for us as Ontarians to seize that opportunity in the global economy, utilizing the francophones efficiently? Or is it that the situation is so far back that there's a lot more work to be done in all aspects -- in the support systems, day care -- and, as I said, an indication, in order to utilize that resource properly on the global scene?
M. Christian Martel : I guess it's never too late to improve. I guess legislation on employment equity is really the first step to do that.
When we talk about the advantage of many languages, we can look at New Brunswick, for example, which advertises its services as bilingual services as an edge on entering the market in Canada because there are two official languages and all its systems, its education system and everything, are available in both languages and all of its labour market is also qualified for that.
I guess it's a good example when we look at how many countries speak French as a first language and how we can take this opportunity to really take an edge on any other country. So I guess if the francophones are not included, we'll never know really how they can improve the Ontario society in that sense.
Mr Jackson: Your brief poses a series of very interesting questions. I wonder, since I've been around in this building for the last four elections at least, the rhetoric on employment equity has always included francophones. At what point, in your mind, were you dropped from the target groups? I'm not saying in the legislation; I'm talking about in the rhetoric.
Ms Martin-Laforge: In the Ontario public service --
Mr Jackson: I'm not talking about this bill. I'm talking about --
Ms Martin-Laforge: In this bill? No?
Mr Jackson: At some point you were dropped from the rhetoric around employment equity issues. This was debated in 1985 and in 1987 and in 1990 by politicians of all three stripes. At what point, in your mind, were you dropped from the target group? You're not in it now; we've established that.
Ms Martin-Laforge: I don't know this; I'm taking a guess. Probably we were dropped as a target group when they gave us the French Language Services Act.
Mr Jackson: Who's "they?"
Ms Martin-Laforge: Government. They gave us this act which, according to a lot of people, would fix the problem of francophones.
Mr Jackson: That was the Liberal government.
M. Christian Martel : Yes.
Ms Martin-Laforge: Yes.
Mr Jackson: But the rhetoric hadn't been dropped by the current Premier at that point. I want to get to the point of asking you, what was the exact reason Ms Ziemba gave for your non-inclusion?
Ms Martin-Laforge: There are a number of reasons that we hear. One is related to language. If they give it to francophones, will other people from ethnic minorities be requiring to be spoken to in Italian or Greek? Language is an issue. Another is that there seems to be a problem around the fact that statistics don't prove -- that's another one. Those are two. Those are the two, I would think, and the people point to the fact that in the OPS, francophones are overrepresented in terms of -- we are an employment equity group in the OPS.
Mr Jackson: Yes.
Ms Martin-Laforge: And now if you look at the statistics, you will see that we are overrepresented, but nobody has taken the time to look at those statistics and see that, I would say -- and this is a guess because nobody gives us statistics -- at least 80% of the designated positions that are not only meant for francophones have francophones in them. So we are ghettoized in French-language services positions. I think there are two main reasons around the issue of language. You see, language is not a motive of discrimination of the Human Rights Code either, which is problematic for me. It is in Quebec but it's not here, so we can't use the Human Rights Code as a motive of discrimination as a language.
M. Christian Martel : To redress discrimination.
Ms Martin-Laforge: To redress discrimination. So I think it's a complex problem why we're not there.
Mr Tilson: What is your response to the minister on the two issues that the minister gave?
M. Christian Martel : Mainly, we will never know exactly what place we have in the private sector if we are not included as a designated group, because when you're setting up your planning to set up an employment equity program in your business, you have to look where designated groups are in your workforce. If we are not included, we'll never know exactly what place we have in the workforce.
Mr Tilson: I am interested specifically in a comment about "other languages," of which there are quite a few.
Ms Martin-Laforge: To define francophones simply in terms of language is a grievous mistake. I think the francophones have to be looked at as a common language and culture. There are francophones in Ontario of different cultures, but we have historic links, des antécédents historiques, that link us in terms of culture: We speak one common language. But a lot of people would say that the reason that we are discriminated against is on the basis of language. The issue around language and culture has to be addressed very carefully. No one that I know of -- maybe you can tell me -- has said that other ethnic groups have been discriminated against on the basis of language.
1620
Mr Tilson: They have, actually.
Mr Jackson: Yes, lots of people, but isn't this an issue of discrimination, purely and simply, and sort of an attempt to remedy that where it exists? I don't want to get into political theories why, in post-Meech Lake, an Ontario Premier refuses to get into a head-on-head debate with the Premier of Quebec on minority language rights. Frankly, I think that's where the Premier is running for cover.
I do think it begs a larger issue in terms of immigration, which is an issue which flows around this whole issue of employment opportunity for new immigrants, and Ontario gets a disproportionately lower francophone immigration because of the skewed arrangements with the province of Quebec. They get to select their immigration by language. I don't wish to debate that. That is a cultural preservation issue. But your numbers are declining here and you have no mechanism by which to sustain that.
Yet the largest grouping of discrimination is occurring with visible minority and disabled members of the community which, at least in the visible minority, is a growing sector of our population. Mrs Jean-Baptiste was here earlier as a presenter, a woman, a black and a francophone, and it's not her language impediments that she expressed to us, and perhaps not her gender.
Ms Martin-Laforge: Different people will have different ideas around if they are discriminated against on the basis of what. But historic discrimination in terms of natives is recognized, historic discrimination in terms of women and in terms of employment is recognized and I think that historic discrimination in terms of francophones should be recognized, and we still have the impact of many years of discrimination in this province. Whoever comes in new and adopts French as their language of integration in this province joins a minority group that is not well represented in all the occupations and in all institutions of Ontario.
Ms Carter: Bienvenue, et merci pour votre présentation. Vous dites dans votre présentation à la page 6 que, «Le manque d'accès à des institutions de niveau post-secondaire et à la formation en cours d'emploi empêche les membres de la communauté franco-ontarienne de rattraper le retard sur le marché du travail.
«Les statistiques démontrent que le taux de chômage est supérieur à la moyenne chez les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes et relatif au niveau éducationnel de ce groupe. Il paraît donc que, pour les francophones, les barrières en emploi sont toujours et surtout des barrières éducationnelles.»
Il y a aussi des barrières linguistiques, bien sûr, mais il paraît que les francophones bien éduqués ne sont pas désavantagés en matière d'emploi. Selon vous, qu'est-ce qu'il faudrait faire pour améliorer les inéquités d'éducation et de formation que subissent les francophones en Ontario ?
Ms Martin-Laforge: Pour améliorer le système éducatif, d'après moi, et je me place par rapport au marché du travail, il faut qu'il y ait une demande sur le marché du travail et une acceptation que des francophones vont, sans parler français sur le marché du travail, pouvoir accéder à des postes auxquels ils n'ont jamais eu accès. Qu'il y ait une demande.
Les francophones, en ce moment, vont souvent dans des occupations réservées ou pas réservées de tradition aux francophones parce que les francophones sont dans des endroits où on utilise ces occupations-là. D'après moi, ce qui va améliorer le système éducatif, c'est vraiment que le marché du travail fasse une place aux francophones dans les industries : des scientifiques, des ingénieurs, des techniciens de toutes sortes.
Mais tant qu'on va parler de l'accent des francophones, de leur façon de penser, tant qu'on va parler d'où ils viennent, les francophones, jeunes francophones, vont continuer à aller du côté du secteur anglais pour aller se faire éduquer parce qu'ils vont se dire, «Quand je vais sortir de l'université, je ferai mieux de parler très bien anglais et de bien comprendre la technique en anglais parce que je ne réussirai pas comme francophone sur le marché du travail.»
Alors, c'est une façon pour moi, l'équité en emploi, d'assurer que les gens aient accès, qu'il y ait une demande pour l'emploi et que les francophones, par rapport à cette demande-là, se perfectionnent. Alors, je ne sais pas si ça répond à votre question.
Ms Carter: OTAB donne déjà aux francophones une voie directe dans la réforme du système de formation en Ontario, n'est-ce pas ?
Ms Martin-Laforge: Oui. OTAB est en voie d'être formé, alors il y a encore énormément de questions par rapport à la question professionnelle, à la façon que ce sera organisé pour les francophones. Effectivement, ça a fait énormément de discussions par rapport aux francophones, comment la partie francophone allait être gérée, comment les programmes francophones allaient être gérés.
Ce n'est pas clair pour plusieurs personnes comment effectivement il va y avoir la mise en oeuvre ou l'appui aux francophones par rapport à OTAB. Alors, c'est un pas dans la bonne direction, mais ce n'est pas tout à fait assez pour assurer que des jeunes francophones ne sentiront pas le besoin de se faire assimiler ou de s'assimiler pour continuer leurs études ou pour avoir accès au marché du travail.
Le Président : Avant de terminer, merci pour votre présentation et participation ici aujourd'hui.
CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION CENTRE
The Chair: We move on to Cross Cultural Communication Centre, Kyle Pearce. Welcome, Mr Pearce; you have half an hour for your presentation.
Mr Kyle Pearce: Thank you very much. I don't think I'll be using an entire half an hour for the presentation, however. I understand I'm the last presenter, so we have a long weekend coming up, I take it.
The Cross Cultural Communication Centre is pleased to be presenting its position on Bill 79, known as the Employment Equity Act. We have a long-standing interest in employment equity legislation, particularly as it pertains to the struggle against racism. We have published two books on the subject. One is called Combatting Racism in the Workplace and the other is called Employment Equity: How We Can Use It to Fight Workplace Racism.
In the latter publication we have outlined an ideal employment equity approach which requires that legislation be one, proactive; two, mandatory; and three, comprehensive.
I'd like to read the summary of our main points and recommendations in our submission, and then go on to a deputation which summarizes our broader position on employment equity.
First of all, comprehensiveness:
(1) The special exceptions which small workplaces have in the legislation will render the legislation less than effective. Racism exists in all areas of life and workplaces with fewer than 50 -- or 10 for the public sector -- employees are no exception. Furthermore, the notion of a small employer is defined inconsistently in the act and the regulation. The exclusion of these small workplaces also allows employers to restructure in order to avoid the perceived problems which arise from what are, as yet, unclear guidelines for employers.
We recommend the deletion of subsections 6(2) and (3) and to remove the small employer exceptions from both Bill 79 and from the regulation.
(2) The regulation differentiates between employers with more than 499 employees and those who have between one and 499, for the purposes of reporting the number of employees in each salary group as determined by section 47. Exclusion of employers, in our view, with fewer employees is inconsistent with the intent of employment equity.
We recommend that employment equity include all employers, regardless of size, in all provisions.
1630
(3) We have some concerns over the clarity of the bill and the regulation as well. With regard to qualitative measures, neither the act nor the regulation gives clear guidelines which would allow employers to make an assessment of barriers in recruitment, employment and promotion practices and policies. As a result, the review process remains a mysterious process for those who have no training or previous awareness of or interest in these issues.
We recommend to replace sections 10 and 11 in the act and sections 14 and 15 in the regulation with a detailed checklist of barriers which would enable both internal and external verification and evaluation.
We would like also to recommend anti-racism and anti-oppression training for all employees, including management.
(4) We have another concern over the time guidelines. The time guidelines for both qualitative and quantitative change are unclear. Without clear guidelines and deadlines for the accomplishment of the goals of eliminating barriers, achieving quantitative goals and the implementation of positive measures, the legislation remains, again, ineffective. The benefits of clear time guidelines would accrue to all parties involved.
We recommend that the commission set out an enforceable definition of "reasonable progress" along with clear guidelines for the accomplishment of employment equity goals.
(5) While the preamble to Bill 79 and the Honourable Elaine Ziemba show a consistent commitment to employment equity as a positive step towards preparing Ontario's economy for the future, the inconsistencies, limitations and exclusions of this law present a mixed message to employers and to the public. While the act does present some goals to achieve and ways to achieve them, it should be consistent in coverage, obligations, timetables and enforcement.
In this deputation, I will outline why the three characteristics of proactiveness, mandatory and comprehensiveness of an employment equity plan are necessary and some ways in which Bill 79 falls short of these requirements. I will make direct reference to the recommendations put forward by the Cross Cultural Communication Centre. However, instead of approaching such suggestions from the position of a potential employee, I want to address potential problems from an analysis of the employer's position. I will make use of current research into racial domination, research which brings racial privilege into clear focus, and which therefore addresses the central characteristics required by an effective employment equity program.
First of all, the proactive nature of employment equity: It is a principle of law that whatever is not specifically prohibited is, in effect, permitted. So when we look at statistics we find that what is permitted seems to be discriminatory. Research shows that:
(1) In Toronto, whites have three job prospects to every one for blacks with the same qualifications and experiences.
(2) West Indian immigrant women earn $6,000 less per year than Canadian-born women of British ancestry with comparable qualifications and experience.
(3) Aboriginal peoples have lengthy service records within the Ontario public service but are among the least well-paid servants.
These and other statistics are telling of the situation which exists in Ontario workplaces. They also highlight a context in which white people in particular can take their dominance in the field of employment for granted.
Richard Dyer has analysed the characteristics of white people. He uses the term "whiteness" to describe those characteristics. Perhaps his most important finding is that "power in contemporary society habitually passes itself off as embodied in the normal as opposed to the superior." This means that the dominance of certain groups is taken, by them at least, to be a normal state of affairs, and those privileges which accrue to, say, white people are taken for granted. Those advantages, because they are so commonplace, become invisible to those who benefit. Peggy McIntosh, a white writer, has created a list of privileges which white people in Canada can count on every day. Among them is this one: She can be pretty sure that if she asks to talk to the person in charge she'll be facing a person of her own race. The statistics on the underrepresentation of designated groups in upper levels and management bear this out, and we can be certain that if the four designated groups are underrepresented, then those with the opposite characteristics, those of male, white and able-bodied, will be overrepresented. They highlight the need for proactive measures to be taken in order to eliminate both the barriers faced by the designated groups and the privileges which white people benefit from.
Opposition to proactive legislation often comes in the form of, "These measures are reverse discrimination." But this opposition must be considered in two contexts: First of all, the proof of discrimination is already there in the statistics and in personal testimony. Second of all, this proof of discrimination against women, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal people is the same proof that historical and contemporary social practice has been proactive in discriminating against these groups and therefore in favour, in general, of white, able-bodied men.
Therefore, proactive legislation must be seen as a necessary step to counter both widespread systemic discrimination and the privileges which accrue to those who benefit. Proactive legislation is necessary but will not resolve, by itself, employment discrimination.
Employment equity legislation must also be mandatory because not only do discriminating employers usually take their privilege for granted; they usually do not want to change a situation from which they benefit. I'm certain that the commission has heard arguments like: "This is not the right time for employment equity. We'd be glad to do it, but not now." In response to this, I want to quote a survey done almost 10 years ago which was a time of economic prosperity in comparison to these recessionary times: "A 1985 survey of managers and personnel directors in 199 large companies in Metro Toronto indicated that 74% did not want any policy changes requiring them to eliminate discriminatory workplace practices."
Given this fact, it is unlikely that employment equity can be achieved when any workplaces are excluded from the legislation, for these workplaces are unlikely to implement employment equity on their own. For example, in our submission the Cross Cultural Communication Centre has drawn attention to what we feel are glaring loopholes which will render employment equity legislation less than effective.
In our submission, we point out sections 1 and 2, problems with the exclusion of small workplaces from parts III, IV and V of employment equity, and in section 1 of our brief, we point to the contradictory definitions of small employers in the act and in the regulation.
Although the exclusion of large numbers of workplaces fall into both the category of concerns over the mandatory and the comprehensive nature of Bill 79, we also have concerns over the lack of clarity which Bill 79 perpetuates in terms of the identification of barriers and creation of plans and the preparation of timetables.
In all three areas, the commission has left the definition of workplace barriers up to the employer to determine in conjunction with employees. The epitome of problematic wordings comes in section 10 of the act, which suggests that employers are able to review their own employment practices and policies in conjunction with employees.
As I suggested above, many employers are not aware of the barriers which are constructed to maintain the privileged position of whites in Ontario, and research shows that they are not willing to take the initiative to figure out what is meant by a barrier.
The Honourable Elaine Ziemba said on June 16, 1993, that acknowledging that we carry out discriminatory employment practices is something that "no one wants to do." We believe these words are true and we therefore need clearer guidelines and stronger enforcement mechanisms as per sections 3 and 4 of our brief.
If barriers are identified, then the problem remains of when they will be dismantled. Few employers are likely to show great enthusiasm for dismantling these barriers, and therefore Bill 79 needs to be clear and strong in determining time lines and deadlines for the elimination of those barriers and the achievement of numerical goals.
The commission has the services and experiences of many community organizations at its fingertips should it decide to suggest specific guidelines for the determination of workplace barriers and time lines for achieving the goal of employment equity.
1640
Lastly, comprehensiveness requires that barriers to employment are brought down, that numerical goals are achieved and that positive measures are put into place across the province. For this reason, I want to reiterate our concern with the exclusion of small or other employers from any part of this legislation.
The Cross Cultural Communication Centre holds employment equity legislation to be one great step in the elimination of racial discrimination in Ontario. But in order to be successful and lead the way, such legislation must send out a clear message to all of the people of Ontario by being applied in all workplaces across the province.
Employment equity legislation must be strong in the face of those whose interests are served by the present system of discrimination on the basis of gender, disability and race. It must lead the way to a better understanding of discrimination and privileges, which are two sides of the same coin. It must serve as the basis by which both barriers and privileges can be overcome.
For the Cross Cultural Communication Centre, employment equity is the first step towards institutionalizing anti-discriminatory practices. In order that such a step leads us towards a society which achieves the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family," as it is put in the preamble, employment equity legislation must be mandatory and comprehensive across the province without any exclusion from the requirements of obligations, enforcement or administration.
We are grateful for the opportunity to present our point of view and we are more than willing to work together with you in order to make Bill 79 stronger, more comprehensive and more effective.
Mr Tilson: Thank you, sir. Many of the people who have come to this committee have been very critical about whether or not this bill will work. They've criticized the vagueness of it, the lack of definitions and a whole range of other things. I'd like you to comment on that.
As we start to look at these draft regulations, which conceivably could change tomorrow, specifically there's a section, and you may or may not have had a chance to look at the regulations, but I think it's an example of the vagueness and the uncertainty of this bill. I just don't believe that this bill is going to work. In other words, if you're going to have an employment equity bill, have one that's going to work.
I refer you specifically to section 21 of the regulations. I'm going to read that to you because you may not have that with you.
Mr Pearce: Go ahead, please.
Mr Tilson: Subsection 21(1) says: "The plan of every employer other than a small employer shall set out numerical goals for each of the designated groups in each occupational group in the employer's workforce." Then if you turn to the schedule, they list off 14 occupational groups. I must confess I don't know how an employer is going to be able to guarantee the representation, for example, in item 8, which is sales and service -- skill level III, and item 11, sales and service -- skill level II, and item 13, sales and service -- skill level I. Very complicated stuff to understand properly.
I've just given you an example of confusion in the bill, but I'd like you to comment specifically to the regulations and the bill as to whether you generally feel that this piece of legislation will work.
Mr Pearce: As it is, the Cross Cultural Communication Centre feels that it's a step in a positive direction. As we said before, it has to be made more clear, and I think some of the points that you outlined are examples of this. I don't have the technical qualifications to determine what a skill level is, but I would suspect that somewhere there are guidelines that suggest what skill level I, II and III mean. I feel that it is essential for the commission to make clear these kinds of definitions and these kinds of guidelines in the legislation and in the regulations. That's where the Cross Cultural Communication Centre stands.
If you can identify, as a commission member, some of the complexities and some of the vagueness of these terms, then I think we can probably work together to overcome the vagueness and complexity of the terms, because recognition of the problems is really, as far as we're concerned, a first step to overcoming those problems.
Mr Tilson: I guess my point is, sir, that if there is discrimination in the workforce -- and there is; I think everybody says that -- the question is, how are you going to solve it? This government's come out with this piece of legislation, and I hope it's not creating a false sense of security to these groups of individuals, that the discrimination that's gone on is going to be solved, because it's not. There's no way that this bill is going to solve that discrimination.
That's my fear, that there's going to be a myriad of litigation, gosh knows where, whether in the courts or in the commission or in the tribunal, that's just going to stifle the whole thing.
Mr Pearce: Do you think it's going to make it worse, though?
Mr Tilson: I guess it's going to give a false sense of security. My view is that if you're going to try and solve a problem, have a bill that's going to solve the problem. Don't just make a statement that acknowledges a problem and then really does nothing about it.
I understand your coming forward to this committee and saying, "I understand the principle. I like the idea that they recognize there is a problem," but I really have a concern with the cost. This thing is going to cost the taxpayers of the province of Ontario a minimum of $6 million and it's not going to work.
Mr Pearce: When we look at the employment equity legislation, we haven't had enough time, person-hours, to go through it point by point, but this legislation is not far from what we've outlined in our previous publications. It sets out goals; it discusses timetables; it discusses qualitative and quantitative measures. These are steps forward. This piece of legislation is not a regressive step, and I think the fact that you can recognize that there are problems means that instead of working towards scrapping the legislation, we should be working towards resolving and eliminating the problems and making it effective. If there is a general consensus that it isn't effective, well, let's make it effective. That's my point of view.
Ms Akande: Thank you very much for your presentation. It's very concise and direct and to the point. You and I seem to live in the same world, a world a little more hopeful that people will be less oppositional to change. But having said that, let me ask you about the question of public education.
While I agree, as I'm sure we all do, that public education is always necessary, would you also be in agreement that legislation, first and primary at this time -- though it's not first; it really comes at the end of 30 years of the move towards employment equity -- but legislation is quicker in that people tend to operate and then later support ways in which they know they must operate according to legislation?
Mr Pearce: I would agree with that in the sense that people undergo daily practices. We all have daily lived prejudices which really don't come into focus until it's really necessary for them to come into focus. I agree with that. I think the time is right to take steps to identify these kinds of practices that you're talking about to ensure that people are made aware of the problems and to act on it in ways that are appropriate.
Ms Akande: Your point about making people aware of these problems, you did mention that sometimes people don't necessarily identify the barriers that are preventing them from achieving and to ask them to do so is difficult. Would you consider that specific plans, specifics and job descriptions from the workplace appended to those plans would in fact be helpful to the employer and cheaper in terms of his or her not having to hire consultants?
Mr Pearce: I think that's essential, and my point about checklists is directed exactly towards this. The experience of the Cross Cultural Communication Centre is that we deal with these kinds of issues, workplace discrimination, all the time, and there are some commonalities between different situations of workplace discrimination.
Every job site differs, yet there are general tendencies towards certain forms of discrimination, and yes, I feel that if we can provide a specific checklist of things that an employer and their committee can look for, it will reduce time, it will reduce energy and it will reduce the amount of money that employers have to put into following this regulation.
1650
Ms Akande: Thank you. I think I'll stop there. I'm on a roll.
Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. I agree with you that there is some hope and that we should continue to go along the line. I think if you look at the Conservative employment equity plan, it's to coerce people into quitting their jobs and going on welfare. I think we have to understand where the third party is coming from and that the other parties over the years have had the rhetoric that "Yes, we need employment equity." What I've heard is that a time of recession is not the time to do it. Do you go along with that fact, that this is not the time?
Mr Pearce: No. As I stated in my presentation, I think the exact opposite. I think that employers look for reasons to avoid having to do extra things. I think that for people to face up to the kind of barriers they present to other people, there is never an appropriate time for those people to face up to barriers that they present for other people. There are always going to be reasons that people present to avoid having to face up to those kinds of barriers.
One of the problems I have with the kind of differences between the public and private sectors as they're outlined in the regulations is that I was always told that private sector employers are much more efficient and can accomplish things much more quickly. So when I look at the regulations I don't quite understand why private companies are given two or three times as much time to develop plans and to implement the goals of employment equity.
I think there are problems. I think employers do need help in recognizing what a barrier is. I think the Employment Equity Commission has to be much more clear in providing guidelines to make the work smooth for both private and public sector employers. But we don't understand why there is this big difference between public and private, large and small. As far as we're concerned, a smaller firm has fewer statistics to gather. Most organizations are going to be doing this with computer software at any rate. These are the kind of computations that can be done at the exact same time as payroll computations.
The Chair: Mr Malkowski has an invisible question to ask.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Actually, I don't have a question. I would just like to make a comment. I would like to thank you for your presentation. I think it was very educational and very informative. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to educate or to encourage the member for Dufferin-Peel to also take note of the comments that were made.
Mr Tilson: Give me a break.
Mr Curling: Mr Pearce, thank you very much. I'd hoped that my colleague would have made some other contribution, giving him a little time to comment.
Your presentation here seemed to be very well researched, and I fully agree with Mrs Akande that it's targeted and it was easy to follow. I just want to make one other comment here before I maybe ask you a question. The idea behind all these hearings -- even of the opposition, I'm talking about the Liberal Party -- is to improve the bill. We feel that of course employment equity legislation is very necessary in this province. Nothing will happen if we don't have legislation. It is so important to have legislation that is effective and that is defined.
As a matter of fact, the Canadian Bar Association came in and said to us that it is important that it's not left up to lawyers to be wrestling about definitions, because you know what will happen, and you rightly stated it, that the people who are suffering most, especially with the exemption of small business, where the clusters of those designated groups are found, don't have the money to find lawyers to define it. Therefore legislation which is weak could work in reverse for eliminating discrimination and have large companies getting their legal forces in place to fight the discrimination.
You made a very good point when you said you recognize the statement made by the minister saying that some companies don't even have the ability to recognize what the barriers are, and to leave it up to them, really, to say, "Okay, you tell us when we should do it," and not even recognize what the barriers are is rather dangerous.
I also want you to comment then, after making that statement, that there are a couple of exclusions from this that bothered me tremendously, and some people made those presentations here. Francophones are excluded and the construction industry is left for the regulations, to be done later on, and other groups too. Even in the regulation here, most of the definitions are left to regulations. Does that concern you as having an effective employment equity legislation that includes all people, recognizing those designated groups that face those barriers? Does that bother you?
Mr Pearce: Yes, in many ways. You're talking about two different things there in one sense. You're talking about an additional group that may be designated and you're also talking about a particular industry that is at this point excluded.
I think the legislation has to take into account the kind of complexities that both the workforce and employers are facing these days. The legislation in one sense is brought about by changes in the workforce itself, which are going to require changes in the workplace, which is the changes in the composition of the workforce.
I haven't researched the position of francophones in Ontario. I heard part of the deputation previous to myself. I think that we have to recognize that there are many groups other than these four groups that face systemic discrimination. For instance, gays and lesbians are another group. The ways of dealing with it have to be developed that are appropriate for each group. So I don't have the answer.
Yes, I am bothered that there are groups that do suffer from systemic discrimination that aren't addressed in the legislation whatsoever. However, I can't tell the committee or the commission exactly how to include those groups or exactly how to account for the complexities that are involved when you have a workforce that's only employed on an itinerant basis, for instance, the construction industry.
Mr Curling: My last comment, and I know you're looking to me to end at this time --
The Chair: No, we've got lots of time.
Mr Curling: I have lots of time. You are the last presenter here. I'm optimistic that the government will listen. They do have the ultimate power in what amendments they will accept. They have the numbers, and definitely my optimism is because as I sat here for the last three weeks, I have seen some changes in the government side, saying that they will change things or like looking specifically at having a preamble that is very positive and not adversarial and controversial.
Mr Tilson: This is great news.
Ms Akande: We'll buy you that soapbox yet.
The Chair: We're running out of time, Alvin. The light is on.
Mr Curling: I've also seen that they say amendments will be considered. The minister didn't come forward, and neither did the Employment Equity Commissioner come forward, to explain some of the confusion. So I want to thank you very, very much for coming forward, putting some light into it and bringing some more optimism that they will listen and change.
The Chair: Mr Pearce, we've run out of time. I thank you very much for taking the time to participate here today.
Mr Pearce: My pleasure.
The Chair: Would members please wait for a moment after I adjourn so that we can discuss a matter that is private. It will be very brief.
Mr Jackson: It's an in camera matter?
The Chair: I would prefer it that way, yes.
Mr Curling: Could I ask whether or not we will have clause-by-clause on camera?
The Chair: Yes, it will be televised. There is an understanding that we will meet Tuesday at 1:30. If that is the case and there is no opposition to it, I will adjourn this committee until Tuesday at --
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, we did have an amendment which called for an adjustment in the date. Is there any update as to where the amendments are from the government?
The Chair: All I know --
Mr Jackson: It's generally customary to advise through the Chair what's happening with amendments.
The Chair: We'll get Mr Fletcher to give us a sense of that, if you'll wait a moment.
Mr Curling: Can I wrap up my speech then?
The Chair: Which one?
Interjection.
Ms Akande: All you need is a torch.
1700
The Chair: Mr Fletcher, with respect to amendments, when are we likely to give it to the members?
Mr Fletcher: Soon.
The Chair: Soon today, soon tomorrow morning, soon tomorrow?
Mr Fletcher: With the logistics, hopefully tomorrow or Saturday.
Mr Tilson: OPSEU won't allow you to work Saturday.
The Chair: We are hoping that they will be given to the members tomorrow?
Mr Fletcher: Hopefully tomorrow, tomorrow evening at the latest, this time tomorrow at the latest.
The Chair: It is my understanding they're doing their best to give it to the members for Friday so they can have plenty of time to do all the necessary reading Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I would like to move that we give it to them first thing Tuesday morning.
Mr Jackson: Mr Perruzza makes a good point. That may very well be what happens. Unless the Chair is directing the clerk to be available to have this material distributed, it can be submitted to whomever they wish on Saturday or Sunday, but it begs the larger question if, having spent considerable sums of taxpayers' dollars to get to this point, we're anticipating the government's amendments. If we do not receive those on Tuesday, I wonder how productive we can be.
The Chair: But, Mr Jackson, our intent, the intent of the government, is to give those amendments to all the members and the opposition members, hopefully tomorrow, and if that isn't possible, I'm assuming that Saturday will be the day and we'll make arrangements for you to get them.
Mr Fletcher: If we can't get them out to you tomorrow -- and by all accounts we should be able to have them with you tomorrow -- I'm just saying a Saturday faxing to you or your office is a possibility. But tomorrow should be the time that you get them. There are some amendments where the language has to be worked out, and that could possibly be a holdup. Other than that, you should have them tomorrow.
Mr Jackson: I'm not attempting to be argumentative. I'm simply indicating the government's not challenging this committee's right to have a reasonable amount of time to respond and to work with these amendments in order to do justice to this bill. I'm not here to castigate or draw doubt as to why the amendments aren't ready. I'm simply saying that if for whatever circumstances -- and there's reasonable doubt been raised -- the amendments may not get to us until midpoint of the weekend or Monday or Tuesday, then I'm asking the Chair why we are subjecting the taxpayers to an inordinate expense to bring us together on Tuesday, simply to say, "We're not ready to meet today." If we're not ready to meet on Tuesday, we're talking savings to taxpayers in the thousands of dollars not to appear, because if we appear, we engage these expenses.
Earlier in the week, when our amendment was presented, it was reasonable to listen to the government say, "We hope to have them ready by Thursday" -- at this point -- "or tomorrow." We're now hearing that it may not be tomorrow, that it could be the weekend. I still submit that it's probably in the taxpayers' best interests and the best interests in coming up with a good bill in time for us to analyse all the responses --
The Chair: We understood. We're doing our best.
Mr Perruzza: Give him another 10 minutes to say the same thing over and over again.
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, you're not defending whether the government has them. As the Chair, you're charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the members' rights are protected in order that we can culminate this bill properly and effectively. That is all I'm appealing to you for.
The Chair: I understand that, and what I had said earlier and I will say again, if it's acceptable to Mr Fletcher, is that we're getting a sense or a commitment here that if not by late afternoon tomorrow, if that doesn't happen, we'll make arrangements somehow to get that stuff to the members for Saturday. Is that acceptable?
Mr Jackson: And what I said to you, Mr Chairman, was that if that doesn't occur, I want to know from you, sir, if we're going to spend thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money if we're not ready to proceed on Tuesday --
Mr Perruzza: On the same point of order.
Mr Jackson: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman -- because what you had hoped would happen didn't occur. We feel and we've indicated that on Tuesday we can prepare and complete our amendments, analyse the government's amendments --
The Chair: Let me ask Mr Fletcher whether or not we can get a clearer commitment, okay?
Mr Fletcher: One of the reasons that amendments are not going to be ready right now is because we've just heard the last presenter and we had to get all of the input from all of the people. We can't do amendments until we've heard everyone. That's the first.
Second, there are going to be some problems with some of the wording. That's the other part, and you know what it's like with some of the technical wording.
So, yes, we will try and get these to you tomorrow. If we can't, we'll try for Saturday.
Let me make a suggestion that, rather than start this committee meeting at 1:30 on Tuesday, perhaps we can have a technical briefing on Tuesday morning which will go through the amendments and we can start off that way.
Ms Akande: May I ask a question here in an attempt to clear this up, please?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms Akande: This is the way I read the question. If in fact we do not get these amendments on Saturday at the latest, then will we be meeting here on Tuesday?
Mr Fletcher: Yes.
Mr Tilson: Good question.
Ms Akande: Isn't that the question?
Mr Tilson: That's the question.
The Chair: Our intent was to do so, yes.
Ms Akande: Even if we don't get the amendments on Saturday?
The Chair: Yes, it does present problems, obviously, to all the members inasmuch as they will not have had much time to do the reading. Yes, it's true.
Mr Perruzza: On that point of order, Mr Chairman: The time for this committee, the sittings for this committee, were essentially set by the House leader and essentially approved and agreed to by the members of the subcommittee, where we were going to go, where we were going to sit and how long we were going to sit for. The Conservative caucus asked that we not sit Tuesday because apparently their critic, Mrs Witmer, isn't going to be here.
Mr Jackson: She's here. Don't imply that or mislead this committee.
Mr Tilson: That's not true at all.
Mr Perruzza: That poses a bit of a problem.
Interjections.
Mr Perruzza: That may not be true any more, but I understand that it was at one point.
Mr Tilson: Well, that's just bunk.
Mr Perruzza: That may have changed.
Mr Tilson: It's absolute nonsense. The fact is you're not ready with your amendments.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, I'm sorry. Did you complete your thought?
Mr Tilson: You're scrambling around. You don't know what you're doing, as usual.
The Chair: Mr Tilson.
Mr Perruzza: Do I have the point?
The Chair: Please finish.
Ms Carter: No, forget it.
Mr Perruzza: No, I'm not forgetting it. The point is this: We want to have ample time to go through the clause-by-clause next week for the three days that we have available. My suggestion is that we stick to the timetable that we currently have and that we come back and meet Tuesday -- we have three days at that point to go through clause-by-clause and to go through all the amendments -- and that when the amendments are ready, the amendments be distributed to the opposition members. If they're ready tomorrow, that's fine. If they're not ready tomorrow, they can be distributed on the weekend. If they're distributed late and they don't have ample time, that's something we can debate come Tuesday. This isn't the time or place to do this kind of grandstanding, you know, sort of in the eleventh hour to scuttle the whole thing.
Cam, I understand exactly what you said and I understand exactly what you're doing. It's something that you've been doing all along throughout all of the hearing, and the Liberals have been guilty of it as well.
The Chair: At this point I think people are raising questions. They are trying to be helpful here. We are making an effort at this. Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: The government has got to get its act together. The fact is that at the time we had made the presentation, we had indicated to the government that the time frame of listening and getting the Hansard and making recommendations was so near that we needed that time, and Mrs Witmer had made that suggestion that maybe the fact is that we don't have the amendments, so therefore maybe some time should be given so we can make a proper amendment and present it to the government.
The fact is the government itself, which has more staff, and they are capable of producing an amendment, has not done so, and a simple question was asked, when will these amendments be ready? The parliamentary assistant cannot answer that definitely. We understand the implications because we said to the last moment we have to listen to the last presenter, then make notes of that and make our amendments. Your amendments are not ready. Therefore, you can't tell us when you will have that.
You said maybe on Tuesday. If you give it by Tuesday, there's no way we can meet in time to make a proper presentation and give our amendments.
1710
Mr Perruzza: You're going to raise that again on Tuesday --
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, could you get some order in here for me, please.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, please. He's got the floor. If I could just ask the members, we're trying to be helpful and let's speak to those matters that will help us to finish this.
Mr Curling: If you get the yapper to shut up, I would be able to put my point across. The thing is that I'm saying my party is prepared as soon as we have those amendments --
Interjection.
The Chair: Hold on, Mr Fletcher, you can make that point in a second, but he just needs to finish. With these interruptions, we'll never finish, you see.
Mr Curling: I think we should give him some recess to give him some time to get his head together.
The Chair: Please complete.
Mr Curling: As soon as we get those amendments and as soon as we can get a time to know when those amendments will be before us, I think it will easier for us to determine when we could meet again to address that. The question we ask of you is, will we be meeting at 1:30 on Tuesday if we get the amendments Tuesday morning?
The Chair: Yes. The effort that is being made here through the parliamentary assistant is that you will get the amendments, if not tomorrow, on Saturday. Somehow they will make that arrangement. If there are problems with that, and in some eventuality you get them on Tuesday, if that happens, then we may be in this committee discussing whether or not we can accomplish the work we have set out to do in those two days and a half. It leaves it open to discuss how we deal with it at that time. I am saying that at this moment, Mr Fletcher's giving a commitment that if you don't get them tomorrow, arrangements will be made for you to get them Saturday at some point.
Mr Perruzza: Stand by your facts, Alvin.
Mr Tilson: Mr Chairman, I understand the difficulty you're now in, but what alarms me now is that Mr Fletcher has put us on notice that there may be some substantial technical changes that may require consultation with solicitors and others. I fear, as Mr Jackson has indicated, the cost of putting this whole thing together. We've now gone through three weeks of hearings. We're now about to hear -- obviously, Mr Fletcher has warned us -- some very technical changes to this bill that are going to require considerable consultation. We may possibly get that information tomorrow. We may possibly get it Saturday. When in the world our respective caucuses, the Liberal caucus and the Conservative caucus, are going to have an opportunity to receive counsel ourselves as to these technical changes, I don't know, to adequately do this job. To suddenly show up at 1:30 on Tuesday gives me great worry that this committee is not going to be adequately able to do the work that it should.
The Chair: I understand your concern. This is why I said that if we don't get them by Saturday, then we can legitimately have a discussion in the committee on Tuesday to talk about whether or not you've had enough time to deal with that.
Mr Tilson: What are we going to do, have a chat?
The Chair: We can discuss the timing of our discussions, whether it should be that week or other days.
Mr Perruzza: I move that we extend this meeting until 8 o'clock so that we can debate this thoroughly.
The Chair: No, Mr Perruzza, please.
Mr Tilson: I have a question simply as to what your discretion is as Chair. If you suddenly realize that members of this committee are unable to -- I don't know how they're going to get the -- they're going to talk about faxing changes to it to our constituency office? If you, as Chair, come to the conclusion that we're not going to have adequate time to prepare for the amendments, aside from the amendments of the Liberals or the Conservatives, do you have the discretion to cancel that meeting on Tuesday afternoon?
The Chair: No. I wouldn't necessarily cancel it. We would meet anyway, it would be my recommendation, and then we would talk about it.
Mr Tilson: Do you have the discretion to do that?
The Chair: I would not cancel that meeting on Tuesday. I would have the meeting and then we would talk about what we need to do, and we would adjourn at that time if necessary, then but not before.
Mr Jackson: And that's fair.
Mr Fletcher: If you would like, we can start on Tuesday at 10 o'clock in the morning, as we should, unless you want to start at 1:30, and we can have a technical briefing from 10 until noon and then you can have all the information from the people who can tell you what the technical changes are.
The Chair: Is that helpful to the members?
Mr Jackson: First of all, let me thank Mr Fletcher. It is helpful to have the ministry lawyers here to explain the technical points. That is helpful and it's appreciated. There's no question that if we start at 1:30 and we can get that explained to us, then that is a help to us, because you must admit that not all the caucuses have lawyers on their committees working on these.
Then we'll leave open the question of if we're able to proceed in a very immediate fashion, but when all is said and done, a briefing on the changes is extremely helpful to us and we're not off running around chasing lawyers to interpret it for us. We can get it directly from the ministry.
I want to thank Mr Fletcher for that. I think a 1:30 start would be sufficient. We commence with the briefing, with the amendments, whenever. We're in the hands of the government as to when we get them.
The Chair: Mr Jackson, it was recommended that we meet earlier to do that.
Mr Jackson: I just responded and clarified that I think 1:30 with the technical briefing would be helpful.
The Chair: Okay. That's fine then. We'll adjourn until Tuesday at 1:30 for some technical briefing, with some time allowed for that at that time.
The committee adjourned at 1716.