Transcription du comité 1995-nov-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Job Quotas Repeal Act, 1995, Bill 8, Ms Mushinski / Loi de 1995 abrogeant le contingentement en matière d'emploi, project de loi 8, M^me Mushinski

Miziwe Biik Aboriginal Employment and Training

Terry Douglas, projects officer

Kato Badry, projects officer

Black Educators' Working Group

Bev Salmon, co-chair

United Steelworkers of America

Brian Shell, Canadian counsel

Alliance for Employment Equity

Daina Green, chair

Margaret Hageman, coordinator

Tony Ojo-Ade, board member

Toronto Community Access for Persons with Disabilities; PUSH Central Region

Andrew Cummings, outreach worker

Marilyn Ferrel, member

Ontario Women's Reference Group on Labour Market Issues

Jane Larimer, Metro Toronto regional representative

Annamaria Menozzi, director and representative on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board

Eleanor Ross, member and representative on the Workplace Sectoral Review Council of OTAB

College Committee on Equity in Education

Susie Vallance-Macias, provincial chair

Business Consortium on Workplace Democracy

Maureen Geddes, chair

Black Advisory Committee

Faith Lindo, representative

Toronto Board of Education

Janet Ray, senior superintendent of human resources

John Doherty, trustee and chair of personnel and organization committee

Susan Cook, superintendent of personnel services

Organization of Black Tradesmen and Tradeswomen of Ontario

Michael Carter, board member

John Brooks Community Foundation and Scholarship Fund

Dr John Brooks

Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario

Rafia Haniff, chair

Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario

Nick Mulé, spokesperson

Nobody's Non-designated Group Canadians

Anthony Nolan, representative

Bill Owen

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

*Chair / Président: Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)

*Danford, Harry (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

*Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre PC)

*Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)

*Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)

*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

*Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)

*Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)

*Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC)

*Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre PC)

Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants prèsents:

Churley, Marilyn (Riverdale ND) for Mr Wood

Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC) for Mr Young

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L) for Mr Grandmaître

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Staff / Personnel:

Bromm, William, policy analyst, Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation

Campbell, Elaine, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Kaye, Philip, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1003 in committee room 1.

JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Bill 8, An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario / Projet de loi 8, Loi abrogeant le contingentement en matière d'emploi et rétablissant en Ontario les pratiques d'emploi fondées sur le mérite.

The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, everyone. Take your seats so we can be no more than five minutes late getting started.

MIZIWE BIIK ABORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

The Chair: Our first presenters this morning are from Miziwe Biik Aboriginal Employment and Training, Kato Badry and Terry Douglas, project officers. Have a place at the table. You have 20 minutes of time allotted to you. You can use that as you see fit. Any time that you want to allow for questions has to be in that 20 minutes. Welcome. We appreciate your attendance and the floor is all yours.

Mr Terry Douglas: I'd like to wish everyone a good morning. As I was introduced, my name is Terry Douglas, and I'm a special projects officer at Miziwe Biik Aboriginal Employment and Training. Part of my portfolio includes employment equity as it applies to aboriginal people, and in the brief amount of time that I have here I'd like to basically give a brief outline as to employment equity from the aboriginal perspective.

First and foremost, employment equity was not about quotas. There's no dignity or respect by being a number. Aboriginal people did not want to be a number, nor do they want to be a number now. Aboriginal people wish to be respected for who we are and what we are. We wish to be recognized for our skills, abilities, experience, knowledge, education and training. In short, we wish to be recognized as equal partners within Canadian society, and that includes equality in the workplace.

The new legislation is being introduced to restore merit, but I don't think that merit was ever disposed of with the old Employment Equity Act. Rather, it was actually removing barriers, which allowed different forms of merit, equally valuable, to be brought forward by different people. With the barriers in place, there were narrow interpretations as to what exactly merit entailed. With such narrow interpretations, a homogenous workforce was created which excluded many people and denied the diversity of people and of the skills they could bring to the workplace.

I believe that at the heart of the matter are actually two misrepresentations. One misrepresentation was of what aboriginal people are and who they are, and the other misrepresentation is as to what a successful candidate should look like and what skills they have.

Psychological tests have actually shown that the perceived appearance of a person affects the judgement of another person. Similarly, a person who has desirable outer qualities characteristic of someone who is good-looking or whatever the case may be is attributed positive inner qualities. In regarding employment, it follows that if a person fits into the physical picture of what a successful candidate should look like, that person will be attributed positive inner qualities as well even though they don't possess them. Similarly, if a person does not fit the physical picture of what a successful candidate should look like, they will be attributed negative qualities.

As an example, as an aboriginal person, if I went for an interview and the person who was doing the interviewing had negative misperceptions about what aboriginal people are, even though I have two university degrees and some very good experience with what I do, those misperceptions would override either consciously or subconsciously the decisions that person will make. In fact, I might not get the job just based on that.

The Employment Equity Act allowed for the dispelling of these negative misperceptions and allowed for aboriginal people to display their skills, abilities and education. Through the Employment Equity Act, my colleague and I were able to go to employers and present workshops on aboriginal people, culture and issues. What that allowed was a greater understanding of who we are and what we are and the skills we can offer to the workplace. As my colleague will explain shortly, these workshops were well received by the employers. We went out to a number of large companies and organizations to give these presentations.

With the information obtained at these workshops, employers were able to gain an awareness which enabled them to change their old perceptions about aboriginal people and understand the contribution that aboriginal people can make to the workforce. This awareness and understanding of aboriginal people was the first step in filling the void of aboriginal people within the workforce. It also allowed for employers to recognize the valued skills, abilities and experiences that aboriginal people have to offer.

With the dismantling of the Employment Equity Act, the opportunity for educating employers is lost; hence, changing negative perceptions of aboriginal people is lost as well. It is imperative that any new legislation or so forth permit the continuing education of employers on aboriginal people and to implement measures whereby equal opportunity does not continue to be defined by misperceptions of what merit is and by the type of people who possess it. Basically, understanding is more of a goal than anything else at this point in time: understanding who we are, what we are and what we do have to offer, and understanding that merit is not a narrow-minded thing. There are lots of things out there that can be included as merit.

I'd like to hand it over to Kato to continue on.

1010

Ms Kato Badry: Good morning. My name is Kato Badry. I have worked in employment and training over the past two years and have had the opportunity to get involved with employment equity. It hasn't been something that our organization has mandated us to do, but we have taken it on as our own initiative because, myself, in working with employers -- we manage an employment agency for native people here in Toronto at no charge, at this point, to any company or corporation. What we found was that we were getting swamped with calls for native people to come in and give a presentation or some cultural training. It was, of course, because people were being legislated under employment equity to put together some type of employment and recruitment plan in the native community.

We found it to be very interesting, though. What happened was we were meeting with all these human resource professionals, and none of them had ever come in contact, face-to-face, one-on-one, with an aboriginal person before, and they had very little knowledge of the diversity even within the native community. We're another culture within a culture. So we found that people were really, really fascinated and interested. I think one thing Canada hasn't provided in our educational system is the true history of our culture and our heritage. We found that this certainly was lacking, and it's been a wonderful opportunity to be able to go into these companies.

We're really pleased to be here today to present to you a snapshot of how much employment equity has truly benefitted the native community and how diversity training can be and has been applied into the workplace.

Ontario certainly has set a precedent for a diverse workforce. I'm from Alberta and I've lived in Ontario for 12 years now. I just came back from Calgary actually yesterday, and once again it brought back the emotions and feelings that I had growing up there in growing up with racism and the unacceptance of aboriginal people.

When I came to Ontario once again I never had to deal with the label of a "native person." People thought I was from some other country, which I thought was just wonderful. Ontario really is a diverse province and it's unfortunate that we have to be sitting here talking about the fact that employment equity needs to be in place, but it's a reality. We have advanced so far in the last couple of years with employment equity that it would be a shame to see what we've built on basically destroyed.

What we found is that there must be a clearly stated commitment from the top, and that means from our government, in order for the principles of employment equity to be passed on throughout an organization from the managers right down.

It is really important to make available cross-cultural training materials for managers to learn about aboriginal culture. I think one thing that we find in recruitment is that what we don't know, we're afraid of. Working especially with native people, sometimes we find that there is that little bit of a reserve because people are unaware of who we are.

The last point I wanted to make was that the integration of aboriginals into the workplace is not an instant transition based on numbers. It is a process that requires a long-term commitment and accountability by the entire organization. It encompasses all facets of the personnel function in an organization, such as recruitment, acquisition, training and development, to ensure that aboriginal employees have access to the same opportunities of advancement as other employees within an organization. This approach is not accommodation. It is a good-practice initiative to overcome previous perceptions that aboriginal employees do not have the knowledge and commitment to progress upwards in an organization.

The growing number of aboriginal graduates from post-secondary institutions across the country in a variety of fields makes that perception obsolete. With proper diversity management and quality control, the transition for aboriginal employees into any organization can be achieved and will enhance the overall competitiveness of the organization.

There's no excuse to avoid change in a period of a changing workforce that has become part of the Canadian reality. It may be necessary to establish a change agent within our organizations with sufficient corporate and government support to make managing a diverse workforce the norm. This is going to be, and it has been, a slow process, but with commitment and accountability we can see this evolution of a diverse workforce come into reality.

We would like to open up for any questions that you may have for us.

The Chair: Beginning with the third party today, so we're fair -- that's where we left off last night -- we have about two minutes each.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): There is a great deal of unemployment in the aboriginal community. In fact, the unemployment rate -- I'm not sure whether it's 80% or 85% -- is quite high. A number of people would say, and I'm not one of those, that it's because of the culture, it's because the community may not want to work. There are a whole series of misrepresentations of why it is that aboriginal people are not employed. We think that keeps a lot of people away from work. They don't have the opportunity therefore to be working. Bill 79 was intended to address some of those inequities. Can you speak to the unemployment rate, to the misrepresentations and, again, why Bill 79 would have worked and why this other equal opportunity plan is not going to be helpful in fact?

Mr Douglas: Bill 79: Once again, I believe the gist of my presentation was that there was an understanding. Many of the aboriginal people I talk to are willing to work, and they do have the skills to work, but unfortunately, especially coming down, say, from a northern reserve which is really remote and perhaps hasn't had the contact with the urban setting until very recently, they come into a situation where there's a total clash between the two cultures.

Many of them get into a position and perhaps get a job, but unfortunately, due to just the business culture and, say, their culture, there are discrepancies there that cannot be reconciled; for instance, for an interview. For most aboriginal people to look someone directly in the eyes is a show of disrespect, so when going for an interview such things like that would interfere with a proper interview taking place. With education of aboriginal culture and so forth, this would be understood by employers and would facilitate a bit more aboriginal people within the workforce. Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, allowed this education to take place so that these instances could happen.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Mr Douglas, you talked about workshops with private sector companies that you've been conducting to break down barriers and misconceptions. Is your company doing more and more of these?

Mr Douglas: We were doing quite a few of them when the Employment Equity Act was out there. Since, I guess, the new government stated that they were going to repeal the act, a lot of the companies are taking a "Let's wait and see what happens" approach to employment equity. We were doing quite a lot, as I had stated, and the people were more than enthusiastic about participating, because as Kato had mentioned, a lot of them were just simply unaware. With unawareness comes, basically, misrepresentations and so forth. But I would imagine that if there was something there that had some sort of pull towards getting these aboriginal people into the workforce, these workshops would continue, and I believe they would be very well received.

Mr Maves: We had a group, the Omnibus Consulting Co, yesterday that told us that I think 75% of the 200 companies they had talked to were going to continue their initiatives, so I think there might be still some openness to those workshops. They seem to be very valuable. I think that's a great idea and I would encourage you to try to continue those with companies.

Ms Badry: Once again, there has to be a willingness for the company to want to do it. Like you said, there are a lot of people who would like it, but the people who feel they were forced have immediately pulled away. It's certainly something we have seen.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): When you started speaking, you mentioned that there were various forms of merit that should be considered. What were those kinds that would maybe be unique to your group?

Mr Douglas: When I speak of various kinds of merit, this can be a large spectrum, not only towards aboriginal people but all people. For instance, I'll given an example of, say, a mother who's been at home for so many years looking after children, a budget and so forth. To me, that's perfect time management. I can barely cook for myself, let alone do anything else, and if they can do all that, that's time management and good management skills. However, that would not really be recognized on a résumé by a corporation or an employer. These types of things should be taken into consideration when an employer is looking at a résumé and so forth. That's just a brief example that comes to mind at the moment, but those types of things are alternative types of merit.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): That's a great one.

Mr Douglas: You like that?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Ms Badry, you said you moved to Ontario 12 years ago. You've lived the merit system, and also the employment equity system since 1993. Can you briefly give me some examples or a simple example of how the introduction of Bill 79 improved your employment opportunities?

Ms Badry: For myself, I have been employed, so I can apply it to our client base. We have brought and incorporated approximately 120 people into entry-level and management positions. We've gotten people into companies where the doors would have never been opened. You know, we've dealt with, and we still are dealing with, all of these companies. They've been working with us really closely.

I guess the thing that we've been finding is that we aren't up to the educational level that's required for a lot of the positions, but we are a training facility or we provide funds for training. Now that we've been working closely with the companies and we know what types of jobs people need to get trained in, that's what we're focusing on so that we can continue a better match.

For instance, some people who have moved from the reserve are now working in banking institutions, having to wear a suit, which has been a major problem for these people, but they've managed to integrate with the support. We're the bridge, I guess, between the corporate culture and the native community. We try and keep that relationship going. But we have placed about 120 people and it's been very successful.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Time for questions has expired. Ms Badry and Mr Douglas, thank you for your interest in our process. We appreciate your being here.

Ms Badry: Thank you very much.

The Chair: The next group is the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, Kerry McCuaig. We'll recess for five minutes. The next presenter is not here just now. We'll give them five minutes or so.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Will the next one be here?

The Chair: They're not here either, no.

The committee recessed from 1024 to 1037.

The Chair: We're not exactly sure what happened to the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, but they have not put in an appearance.

BLACK EDUCATORS' WORKING GROUP

The Chair: Bev Salmon from the Black Educators' Working Group is here just a couple minutes early, so we're going to allow her to get started. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any part of that that you want to leave for questions is up to you. We welcome you here. I appreciate your interest in our process and the floor is all yours.

Ms Bev Salmon: I submit this brief on behalf of the Black Educators' Working Group. My co-chair, MacArthur Hunter, is a school principal and is unable to join me this morning, but he's certainly available if anyone wishes to contact him on any of the contents the brief.

The members of the Black Educators' Working Group have reviewed Bill 8 with great dismay, as we strongly believe that any attempt to dismantle the Employment Equity Act, 1993, is a serious setback to women, the disabled, racial minorities and aboriginal people, and indeed to all workers in the province of Ontario.

1040

Many major employers in both the private and public sector have embraced the principles of the Employment Equity Act, and in fact some have set the example by implementing employment equity a decade ago: Union Gas, IBM, National Grocers and the corporation of Metropolitan Toronto are examples. Numerous contractors have been covered by employment equity legislation from as far back as the mid-1980s under the Mulroney government, and they continue to be covered to this day.

Employment equity has been embraced as a business imperative in managing diversity. Employers know that broadening their pool of applicants and fostering the abilities of all workers makes good business sense. Active measures outlined in the Employment Equity Act are essential in overcoming the barriers to employment experienced by the target groups. The workplace discrimination they continue to face is a proven fact. The disabled, aboriginal people and racial minorities continue to be underrepresented beyond the entry and service levels of Ontario's workforce.

The Employment Equity Act is the most recent in a series of legislation put in place by governments in Ontario. I'm not going into complete detail. I'll allude to some, but attached appendix 1 goes in greater depth.

In 1944, anti-discrimination legislation was intended to address social inequities. In the 1950s, the Fair Employment Act and the Fair Accommodation Act continued the process. By 1960, the aforementioned proved to be the precursors of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the enactments governing its existence. As a result of the Fair Employment Practices Act, there was acknowledgement by the Ontario government of the day that employment practices based on merit had been affected by personal and institutional racist attitudes. The Employment Equity Act is an acknowledgement that at times in Ontario, fair employment practice was more of a dream than a reality. We support the Employment Equity Act because it also acknowledges that some of us are limited not because of our abilities but because of other factors.

In 1984, the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment was considered the federal watershed in recognizing that certain sectors of Canadian society have been disadvantaged in employment. Pursuant to this report, the federal government enacted the federal Employment Equity Act, 1986, regulating agencies and those with whom the federal government does business. I repeat: That was under the Mulroney government.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1985, sets out the "equality rights" which allow for affirmative action programs. I've gone into greater detail by attaching appendix 2 to this brief.

Shame on the government for perpetuating the fallacy by calling Bill 8 An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario. Anyone who has read the Employment Equity Act, 1993, knows that this act was never based on quotas. We defy anyone to show us any reference to quotas in that act. Furthermore, it was clearly based on merit-based employment practices. To say otherwise is a deliberate attempt to mislead the general public and thereby gain their support.

The Oxford dictionary defines "goal" as a destination, object of effort; "target" as objective, the minimum results aimed at; "quota" as share that a company is bound to contribute to. Quotas have punitive measures, are inflexible and, once achieved, mark the end of the process. They are open to abuse by encouraging multiple placements, for example, disabled black women. Goals and targets encourage progress towards reaching objectives and are flexible, not punitive.

If merit-based employment practices in Ontario are a goal, then the Employment Equity Act must remain. The government is falsely interpreting the principles of the act, which was carefully crafted to ensure accountability based on measurable goals and targets, not quotas. Merit was the basic tenet of the act, and that is why it was so widely embraced by well-meaning employers.

We are outraged when opponents of the Employment Equity Act perpetuate the myth that due to this legislation, white males cannot get jobs. A cursory observation of both the public and private sector workplace dispels this myth. Where are the targeted groups represented in the workforce, and at what levels?

The truth is that due to this legislation, white males will now have to compete for their jobs along with the disabled and women, racial minorities and aboriginal people. A level playing field is imperative if we are to have an effective workforce in this province. I refer you to statistics that allude to the participation and employment rates, appendix 3, from Employment and Immigration Canada.

The inference that the targeted groups are unqualified is also highly offensive. The committee must be aware of the changing demographics of this province. In 1993, over 70% of Canada's immigrants came from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean while fewer than 18% came from Europe, the traditional source. I refer you to appendix 4. By the year 2001, it is projected that the population of Metro Toronto will be well over 50% racial minority.

Ontario's workforce must be reflective of the population and able to compete in the global economy. This will not be achieved with a passive approach but will require the resolve of our policymakers to lead in a positive direction, harnessing the goodwill that we are convinced exists in this province.

Dismantling employment equity is a complete misread of the commitment and benefits experienced by major employers. A recent survey shows that over 60% of corporations are still strongly committed to employment equity and 55% have publicly expressed that they intend to continue their initiatives should the act be repealed. This will be extremely difficult if the orders outlined in subsections 1(1) through 1(5) of Bill 8, revoking orders and disallowing data collection, are enacted. The directive, especially in 1(5), is malicious, destructive and unnecessary.

The malevolent intent is further manifested in Bill 8 by repealing section 14.1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, that sets out the components of employment equity plans, that is, allowing positive measures or numerical goals in employment equity plans; by repealing section 24.1, that permits special employment in specific service areas; and repealing section 41.1 orders re employment equity plans that ensure accountability and fairness.

Why would the government propose to repeal those sections of the Education Act and the Police Services Act that permit the establishment and implementation of employment equity plans? Did any consultation take place with these important institutions?

The sanctions outlined for failure to comply with the Police Services Act are in the public interest and most reasonable. Repealing all references to employment equity in the Police Services Act removes the accountability to make their workforce more diverse and undermines the progress made since their employment equity initiatives were put in place following the enactment of Bill 107 in 1990. Why should provisions that were incorporated into the Police Act prior to employment equity legislation be repealed?

1050

We refer you to the declaration of principles in section 1 of the Police Services Act, which states that "Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles:

"5. The need for sensitivity to the pluralistic, multiracial and multicultural character of Ontario society.

"6. The need to ensure that police forces are representative of the communities they serve."

The Employment Equity Act provides the police with the legislative authority to ensure that those principles are carried through.

The Education Act, also enacted in 1990 and through the Ministry of Education's own legislation, requires boards of education, and I refer to paragraph 29, subsection 8(1), "to develop and implement a policy on employment equity for women and other groups designated by the minister, to submit the policy to the minister for approval and to implement changes to the policy as directed by the minister." Subsection 135(5) provides for the provision of affirmative action for women.

Repealing these sections of the Education Act is an affront to the policies of the Ministry of Education and Training which were designed to ensure workplace equity. Ontario's educators must be reflective of our multiracial population. Role models are essential for all students to ensure acceptance of equality and diversity. Studies show that students benefit from a broad exposure to staff of diverse cultural backgrounds, particularly at the administrative level. The Black Educators' Working Group has continuously advocated for the hiring of qualified professionals and the removal of barriers for the advancement of qualified racial minorities within the Ontario educational system.

In conclusion, it is our opinion that the government's actions in putting forward Bill 8 are hastily conceived and based on untruths. Current employment equity legislation is based on merit and on measurable goals and targets and is not based on quotas. It is a step backwards and unwarranted to dismantle this legislation that has been embraced by a very significant portion of Ontario's workforce.

We urge you to reject Bill 8 and to continue the Employment Equity Act for the reasons outlined in this brief. The residents of Ontario must be able to live and work in an environment that recognizes their abilities and is barrier-free. This cannot be left to goodwill but requires a strong legislative framework and committed leadership.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Beginning with the government, we have time for minute-and-a-half questions, one each.

Mr Maves: Ms Salmon, in your second paragraph you talk about companies that have been implementing employment equity for over a decade. Later on you say that 60% of companies are strongly committed to employment equity and are going to continue their efforts. Why then would we need to have the threat of a $50,000 fine on companies like this?

Ms Salmon: A threat of what kind of a fine?

Mr Maves: A $50,000 fine.

Ms Salmon: The threat is for not following the process.

Mr Maves: But if they're undertaking these things, so many companies already are doing it voluntarily --

Ms Salmon: We have 40% --

Mr Maves: -- and because it makes good business sense, and we've heard this from other groups that have been here about companies feel that it's good business sense and they're instituting these voluntarily --

Ms Salmon: But you're making it extremely difficult for them to do that by saying they have to destroy all materials that have any collection of data. It's extremely difficult for them to proceed with their employment equity plans if Bill 8 is put into effect.

Mr Maves: But over 60% you said are going to continue with their plan to?

Ms Salmon: I said that 60% are strongly committed and over 55%, according to a recent survey, indicated their intention to proceed. We still have 45% of the workforce that would do nothing.

Mr Sergio: Councillor Salmon, welcome and good to see you again. Just a quick question. The proposed Bill 8 calls for a total repeal of the existing legislation. In your view and in your mind, do you think there are enough merits in the existing bill that it should be amended and not repealed totally?

Ms Salmon: If there are amendments that are reasonable, then perhaps that should be the approach to the existing legislation. But I cannot see any merit whatsoever in advocating repealing employment equity legislation that has been so long in coming to this province and that has, as I say, a strong commitment from a very significant percentage of employers.

The Chair: Mr Curling, time for a quick one.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It's good to see you and your input again is quite relevant and very informative. Let's talk about minorities and the qualifications of minorities. Have you any statistics showing the qualifications of minorities coming into the workforce?

Ms Salmon: I don't have those particular studies with me, but we do know that many qualified minorities are kept out of the workforce because their qualifications are not recognized. Perhaps their training has been in another country and there are artificial barriers that prevent them from being able to participate fully in the workforce. A lot of these are discriminatory in nature.

Ms Churley: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am glad that you mentioned the problem with the title because that really is a misrepresentation of what this bill is all about. I wanted you to explore a little further the question of volunteerism. Yesterday, for instance, we had a presentation from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Almost everybody agrees that there is a problem. Like the government, these people said, "It should be done by volunteerism and education," and that seems to be what this government wants to do. What is the major problem with that?

Ms Salmon: That does not address the inequities and the discrimination present in the workforce. It also does not put out a framework whereby there will be a goal set that can be achieved. You can't reach that goal unless you know your base, and this is why I strongly object to the bill that would make it almost illegal to collect data on your workforce. There's no way you can measure progress unless you know that base.

I think it's imperative that the legislation stay in place. It was carefully crafted in that it had public hearings and input and has been embraced by a significant number of employers. There is no validation, in my view, to say that it's not working and should be repealed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Salmon. We appreciate your attendance and we appreciate your presentation.

1100

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA

The Chair: Our next presenters are the United Steelworkers of America. Representing the United Steelworkers of America are Brian Shell, the Canadian counsel, and Michael Lewis, coordinator of political action. Welcome, gentlemen. You have 20 minutes at your disposal. How you use it is up to you. We appreciate your attendance. Time for questions will be in that 20 minutes, however much you decide. For questions, just so that you can have a heads-up, we'll start with the official opposition the next time around. I appreciate your attendance; the floor is yours.

Mr Brian Shell: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is Brian Shell; I'm the counsel to the Steelworkers. With me is Mr Michael Lewis of our District 6 office.

The Steelworkers, as many of you may know, represent in the range of 70,000 to 90,000 people in Ontario, in virtually every sector of the Ontario economy, probably in each and every one of your constituencies. Our membership works in steel plants, in mines and offices, in retail stores, everywhere. It comprises a cross-section of the Ontario community. It has a profound interest in the nature of the relationships within the workplace, between workers and their employers, and in the community at large.

We appear here to say to you that this bill, by repealing the Employment Equity Act, creates the very imminent probability of a disaster. There won't be a disaster on the day after you pass it, but within the visible minority, disability and other designated group communities identified, emerging in the workforce there will be such profound disappointment, such a profound sense that nothing is moving anywhere, and that indeed the public statements of the government move us backwards, that we can expect the unpleasantness in the workplace between people who are having difficulty in their workplace relationships to trickle on to the streets of Ontario, into the apartment buildings of Ontario, indeed everywhere.

We saw the Employment Equity Act as a prophylactic, as a way of slowly, within a generation or two, changing the face of Ontario's workplaces and thereby preventing the outbreak of very profound instability. We see this move, the repeal of this act at this time and in this manner, as creating a catastrophe.

We think you should evaluate ever more carefully why you're doing it, what precisely it is about this bill that seems to be of so much concern, what exactly you think this bill means when you speak of quotas, what the word "merit" really masks in the context of workplace decisions and why you want to encourage the dismantling of an apparatus within the workplace that has been created in the wake of the Employment Equity Act, the energy that has been consumed and that has been developed by the trade unions and by employers to uncover what is really occurring, and to deal with it.

There is simply no way, we say to you, that a voluntary response to systemic discrimination will work, can work or will be designed to work. Voluntary measures will not succeed in defeating the plague of systemic discrimination. They just will not, and there is no evidence -- no evidence in this country through our federal processes, no evidence in the United States, no evidence anywhere -- that voluntary measures work.

That isn't to say that there may not be some enlightened employers who will proceed with a measure of employment equity, but it won't be a balanced measure and it won't be a measure that places the workplace parties in a position to own and develop and encourage these processes.

We've already heard from our activists. Our activists are already telling us that the climate in the workplace has changed. The designated group members are already feeling vulnerable. They are already experiencing taunts and words that would have been absolutely unheard of as recently as six months ago. There is a sense that it is okay for racism to emerge in an open fashion in Ontario's workplaces, that it is okay for people to say that disabled persons, because they may not be "competitive," can be discarded on the garbage heap outside of the workplace.

So for the Steelworkers, and for our many tens of thousands of members, and for their many more tens of thousands of family members and children, we say you are making an enormous miscalculation. You should send this back for examination and study and you should reconsider what you're doing.

In the absence of any concrete measure seeking to amend and resource the Human Rights Commission to deal with systemic discrimination, in the absence of any such measure, it is hollow and it is indeed dishonest to suggest that systemic discrimination will be dealt with by the Human Rights Code.

Systemic discrimination has been unlawful in Ontario for as long as there has been a Human Rights Code, and we all know, each and every one of us knows that the Human Rights Code and its commission are incapable, on a complaints-based and a complaints-driven system, fully and completely incapable of dealing with these measures. We shouldn't pretend and we shouldn't lie to the people and say to them that it will be dealt with through the Human Rights Commission or that it will be dealt with by voluntary action. It is a mistake, it is dishonest, it is discouraging and it will have profound destabilizing effects on our communities.

Those are our comments. I'd be delighted to hopefully encourage particularly the government members of this committee to ask questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments. We have about four minutes per party left, so we'll begin with the official opposition.

Mr Sergio: The proposed Bill 8 calls for a total repeal of the existing law. What possible recommendations could you have as amendments to the proposed bill here? Since it seems that, unless there is a total change of heart from the government side, this bill is going to go through, what possible amendment would you recommend that would make the bill more palatable?

Mr Shell: This bill shouldn't pass. This bill repeals the Employment Equity Act.

Mr Sergio: We understand that, sir. As I've said, unless there is a total change of heart from the other side, the bill is going to pass. You know it and I know it. But the fact is, what recommendation, if acceptable at all to the government, could be included that would make the bill more palatable?

Mr Shell: The question, by its construction, strikes me as being incapable of a response. The bill repeals the act.

Mr Sergio: I understand that.

Mr Shell: So the section that repeals the act should be excluded from the bill. Does that help you?

Mr Sergio: I'm with you, sir. Don't get me wrong.

1110

Mr Shell: I'm just saying that is my answer to your question. If you'd like me to give you the section number, I can do so. The section of the bill that repeals the act should be eliminated from the bill.

Mr Sergio: Mr Shell, the bill doesn't call for an amendment; it calls for total repeal.

Mr Shell: Yes, sir. That is correct.

Mr Sergio: Correct?

Mr Shell: Right.

Mr Sergio: Now, if that is the case, and the government feels that they're going to go through with it, right or wrong --

Mr Shell: In a democratic society --

Mr Sergio: We have ways to make some amendments if they will be acceptable. What would you recommend, sir?

Mr Shell: That we delete the section that repeals the act. Look, in a democratic society --

Mr Sergio: We will be suggesting that.

Mr Shell: My suggestion is, in a democratic -- and I say this not to you, sir, but to the government members of this committee, and I hope through them to the minister, and through the minister to the cabinet, and through the cabinet to the Premier, right? The fact is that you haven't thought about this enough. I know you campaigned on the basis of eliminating "quotas." Well, amend the Employment Equity Act so that it says what you wish it to say, as a matter of public policy, but don't gut all of the processes that are in place, all of the encouragement in the previous act that provided workplace parties with a role to deal with systemic discrimination. That's what you're doing, and this will deliver a message to the workplace parties that systemic discrimination is on.

Mr Sergio: Thank you for answering my question, sir.

Mr Curling: I've really enjoyed your presentation. Would you say that whatever they've put in here and they've called their bill is saying to the people of Ontario: "Let's go back to the status quo. What we had 30 years or so ago is right, all those people who were being denied access to jobs although they are qualified"? Is this what this -- I'm scared to call it a bill, myself, and I agree with you. Is this what this is saying?

Mr Shell: This bill is an invitation to continue systemic discriminatory practices.

Mr Curling: I'm at a loss to make any suggestion or amendments to this bill, and I agree with you that the only amendment is to withdraw this nonsensical, really misguided bill that has no sense at all to it. Could you tell me too, on the limited aspect of the review of this, the hearing, would you recommend that this committee go to other areas of Ontario so that other people may educate the government a bit more?

The Chair: Mr Curling, unfortunately your question was too long to allow time for an answer, so we now move to the third party. Mr Marchese?

Mr Curling: He'd like to answer, he said.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry: Ms Churley.

Ms Churley: No, if there's time --

Mr Curling: I'm finished with my question. The question is there.

Mr Shell: My answer to the question is that anything that would cause there to be a pause and an evaluation is a good thing. Anything that would cause you to pause, sir -- Mr Maves, Mr Hardeman -- anything, sir, that would cause you to listen and that would cause you to pause and that would cause you to think about what's going to occur would be a good thing.

Mr Marchese: Welcome, Mr Shell. The government members accept, or at least I think they accept -- I've heard a number of them say that there is systemic discrimination. They seem to agree with that. The question is, of course, how you do it. They argue Bill 79 isn't it. They're particularly offended by the $50,000 fine, particularly offended by "reasonable efforts," which they call quotas. They understand it, but they want to call them quotas. They know what it means. So they have a plan to deal with that: They're going to create fairness for all by eliminating Bill 79. We never had fairness in the past but we're going to get it now because they're in power and they know how to do it.

It was interesting. Mr Maves quoted a Professor Bloom, whom I'm sure you're aware of, who makes a number of interesting opinions on the whole issue of affirmative action and what it does to society, not positively, but negatively. I have to get the quotes from Hansard to get particularly the comments that he made. So I think they're particularly offended by affirmative action programs too, although it would be interesting to see the kinds of questions they might want to ask you.

What is your sense of what Professor Bloom might be advising them of? Do you think he's on the right track to advise this government about how to deal with inequities as they relate to people with disabilities, aboriginal people, people of colour and women?

Mr Shell: Treating people equally is not equal treatment. That's what's significant. Equality isn't about treating people in the same manner. People who are different cannot be treated equally, because it fails to recognize their differences. Those who attack measures that seek to accommodate the differences between people fail to recognize that people, by virtue of their differences, require different treatment.

If we are going to reverse the trend, the culture -- the culture of workers, the culture of trade unions, the culture of employers, indeed the way in which we think about each other in our community -- if we're going to reverse those trends, we need to have clear, precise, ascertainable mechanisms in the workplace to do that. We need it in the workplace. That's the core of most people's lives, along with their families. Those who say that Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, interferes with "merit" simply don't get it. Bill 79 does not say that a person without qualifications should be given a position. It says that persons who are qualified should be given positions: only persons who are qualified.

What it says is that in the distribution of the opportunities among those qualified, we should remedy historic wrongs in order to change the nature of the workplace. The workers who have an enormous amount to risk -- white, able-bodied, largely male workers -- we welcome this opportunity to change from within.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your answer, sir. For the government, Mr Clement.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I want to start, Mr Chair, by correcting the record a bit for the purposes of our deliberations. Ms Salmon, in her deputation, mentioned section 14 and seemed to imply that section 14 of the Ontario Human Rights Code was under attack. I wanted to assure her that in fact nothing in this legislation derogates from section 14 under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Secondly, she made a point about the destruction-of-information section, subsection 1(5), I understand --

Mr Shell: Is this a question for me, sir?

Mr Clement: I will get to you, sir. I will get to you, believe me.

Mr Shell: I'm wondering, Mr Chair -- I would really like to help Mr Clement to understand our view. We've come here to express our view.

Mr Clement: Sir, I've listened to you for 20 minutes. Please permit me to speak.

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Mr Chair: He's addressing --

The Chair: Excuse me.

Mr Marchese: Point of order, Mr Chair: He is speaking to comments made by a previous speaker.

Mr Clement: Which was done all day yesterday, Mr Chair.

Mr Marchese: Perhaps he can reserve those comments for a later time and address this speaker right now.

The Chair: The person who has the floor is allowed to use their time as they see fit.

Mr Clement: I hope that interruption does not derogate from the amount of time I have speaking.

Ms Salmon: Mr Chair, I was here and ready to answer questions --

The Chair: I'm sorry. You've had your time.

Mr Clement: I do want to correct the record, Mr Chair. It's very important that the committee get the proper correction of the record. The destruction-of-information section does not destroy information collected prior to the employment equity legislation; it does not destroy information voluntarily collected after. I want to put that on the record and correct that.

Mr Shell: You know, Mr Chair, you invite the public to come down -- right? -- and we have to listen to this kind of stuff.

The Chair: Mr Clement has the floor.

Mr Clement: I have a question for Mr Shell, because Mr Shell made a point --

Mr Curling: Point of order.

Mr Clement: Can I ask Mr Shell a question now?

Mr Shell: I'd be grateful to hear --

Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The fact is that Ms Salmon made a presentation and it was, as far as he's concerned, incorrect. She was here for him to rebut. He could have done so. He's used all this time where this gentleman has made his presentation. I think it's unfair and I think that the four minutes should be added back on so we can have an interaction fairly. We were taught in a democracy --

The Chair: People who have the floor have the right to use it as they see fit.

Mr Clement: Mr Shell, I apologize if I am showing you disrespect. That was not my intention. I do have a question for you.

1120

Mr Shell: The insincerity of that.

Mr Clement: I'm sorry?

Mr Shell: I'm listening.

Mr Clement: I do have a question for you related to your presentation. You mentioned that the voluntary measures have not and will not succeed, as I understand it.

We had a presentation yesterday from the Ontario women teachers' federation which I found very interesting. Part of their presentation was a statistical analysis of male-female ratios in upper-echelon positions such as principals. They claim that from 1979-80 to 1994-95 the percentage of principals who are female went from 7% to almost 33%; that was in public elementary schools. In secondary schools it went from 2.9% to 21.4%. Given the fact that we have low rates of retirement in these positions, would you not say that this shows that sometimes, frequently perhaps, voluntary measures do work?

Mr Shell: I would say that it shows there's a been a change in the gender makeup of principals. That's what that shows. The concern that we have and the concern that you ought to have is that two and three more generations of that kind of paced change is simply not going to work for the enormous multicultural and multi-ethnic population in Ontario, and particularly in the south, in that we are going to see this on the street because there is no answer that this government is prepared to provide to the kids, to the teenagers, to those in their twenties who are seeking a fair shake and a fair opportunity and the end of discriminatory practices. We are going to see it on the streets, sir. That's where it will be.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Shell. We appreciate your attendance here today and your presentation.

ALLIANCE FOR EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

The Chair: The next presenters are the Alliance for Employment Equity, Margaret Hageman. Margaret has some folks with her: Daina Green, Helen Thundercloud and Tony Ojo-Ade. You folks have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Of that, it will be up to you to decide how much the time for questions will be, and the NDP will be the first ones to ask a question. We appreciate your attendance here today. The floor is yours.

Ms Daina Green: Thank you very much, members of the committee. This isn't actually a happy occasion for us to be here to talk about the government's plan to repeal the Employment Equity Act.

I'd like to tell you a bit about who we are. My name is Daina Green. I'm the chair of the Alliance for Employment Equity. We are a coalition of groups and individuals who work towards public education and advocacy on effective human rights policies and procedures in the workplace. We believe that social change and community development go hand in hand, so we bring together people who traditionally have felt quite a lot of discrimination in this society. We bring them together to share experiences and to research solutions on issues of racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism. Some people call us a special-interest group, but we make up 70% of the population of Ontario and we are growing, and this makes us a public interest group, which we'd like to bring to your attention.

I'd like to spend a moment talking about your role as government. The government has gone on record as being here to serve all the people of Ontario, and you are supposedly in favour of policies and legislation that are inclusive. We obviously agree with this goal for government. But what this means is that in order to get to a place where policies and legislation can be inclusive, we have to level the playing field -- a common phrase in the 1990s -- and overcome the kind of disadvantage that exists for many groups within Ontario.

We think the government has a serious responsibility in terms of human rights to develop and support mechanisms that enforce human rights in the workplace. In our view, the Employment Equity Act is and has been a mechanism to enforce human rights in the workplace in an orderly fashion. Instead of having individuals come forward with their human rights complaints one after another after another, the Employment Equity Act allows employers quite a lot of breathing time to review their policies, find out where the potential human rights violations could be, or discriminatory practices of any sort, and to bring themselves into compliance over a relatively long period of time. That is the Employment Equity Act. That is what we could consider to be a proactive program.

It's our position that there is no Human Rights Commission in the world that could ever cope with the volume of individual complaints that would be needed to change workplace structures in order to completely eliminate discrimination.

The Human Rights Commission obviously has a place and our code has a place, but we would never think of stopping inspection of bridges and just wait for a lawsuit when they collapse. We would always be proactive in our society to make sure that we were not exposing ourselves to large lawsuits and the risk of non-compliance. We know that discrimination exists in Ontario workplaces and that it's quite pervasive.

I'd like to ask Margaret Hageman, the provincial coordinator, to pick up from that point.

Ms Margaret Hageman: We're going to get down to basics. The government says it wants fairness in the workplace. The government does not want quotas or reverse discrimination, you've told us. Since even the moderate voices have alerted you to the ineffectiveness of a passive, equal opportunity approach, let's define what must be done with a simple pop quiz. You can shout true or false to these questions.

Equal opportunity for all people in Ontario is a right: True or false? Is that true? I'll assume that people would say it's true.

Mr Curling: I will say it is true.

Mr Sergio: Can we take a vote?

Ms Hageman: We can all shout out. It can be interactive.

Systemic discrimination exists in workplaces in Ontario: True or false?

Mr Curling: That's true.

Ms Hageman: Systemic discrimination must be eliminated: True or false?

Interjections: That's true.

Ms Hageman: True.

Factual, objective data aids in the elimination of systemic discrimination: True or false?

Interjections: True.

Ms Hageman: True. This is a short-answer question, so I'll help you along on this one. List three things you would do to eliminate barriers or unfair practices. I'll give you some examples: eliminate word-of-mouth hiring, build an accessible washroom, provide a job-shadowing or mentoring program.

When can you reasonably have these actions completed? It's multiple choice: one year, three years or nine years? There are no wrong answers to that question.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): We can count up to 82.

Ms Hageman: The reason we did this is the point. This is what Bill 79 is, folks. This is the legislation that your Minister of Citizenship called a disaster and that you are repealing under Bill 8. As you can see, it's not such a big deal. It's not a favour, and it's not a special interest.

The government's response to this has been to vilify the recently enacted proactive legislation by labelling it a quota law which works against the merit principle. Let's examine these claims for a moment.

The government considers employment equity to be quota legislation, and thinks that if they say this enough, everyone will believe it. The fact is that this is another red herring designed to make people from designated groups feel like they're getting something undeserved, and to fire up supporters to the moral wrong that reverse discrimination must not be tolerated. The facts, of course, are more complex and less exciting than this myth.

Employment equity is a system of planned change. it relies on empirical data and on reasoned planning. It is open and accountable. It calls for the participation of management and workers. It respects the individual nature of each workplace and the number of qualified people within its geographical area. It respects seniority and merit. It relies on survey data to identify any underrepresentation of designated groups in each job category so that we know to look for barriers in those areas. It calls on employers to set unique goals and timetables for change, and provides flexibility for any necessary change in the plan. Goals are not imposed, they are determined by employers and, where organized, their employees.

The only yardstick is to show reasonable progress towards these goals. This is hardly a stick that the Employment Equity Commission could use to club employers into submission, as the government would have us believe. How else to measure success except by goals checked against objective data? How else to look at change without actual starting points and a vision of change? It's the same as asking: How else can an auditor evaluate the solvency of a company without seeing the budget?

1130

Let's look at this issue of merit. This bill is to "restore merit" in the workplace. When did we ever enjoy merit as a basis upon which to hire and promote? If merit of all people were taken into consideration in the first place, there would not be any need for employment equity measures. It is precisely because the qualifications, potential, experience and abilities of people from designated groups are too often overlooked or underestimated that employment equity legislation is necessary. Historically, the people who get better jobs in this society are white, able-bodied and male. The old boys' network is alive and well.

The 1985 study by Billingsley and Miczynksi -- No Discrimination Here? -- shows a correlation between the use of informal practices by employers and low representation of non-white people. Where recruitment companies are used, there's a documented willingness on their part to comply with illegal requests to screen out non-white qualified candidates. In another study, there was a clear preference by employers to offer white candidates jobs over black candidates with exactly the same merit. The point of all these studies confirms the experiences of so many people, that the system which determines valued positions does not allow people from designated groups into the loop. This is systemic discrimination.

It is time to explode the myth of merit -- the notion that says those who have the greatest aptitude and skill for performing the task those positions require will in fact get the job. Not only is this myth busted by the reality of systemic discrimination, but it is also time to expose the inappropriate use of the term "merit" as well. Too often, employers hide behind the fuzzy meaning of merit by using these common excuses: "Well, our committee felt more comfortable with this candidate." "We know that he'll fit in really well." "We needed someone with Canadian work experience." "He's the best qualified, went to the right schools, knows the right people, has an impeccable manner." "He's a real team player." "We didn't want to concern ourselves with sexual harassment charges if she had to work late with a colleague."

Those are all the kinds of excuses that people use. It's not merit; it's not a question of merit, it's a question of access.

Employment equity principles compel employers to look at hiring and promotion within a value-neutral assessment. This means open and impartial competitions, where qualifications are job-related and defined in terms of technical skills and competence, where qualifications are measurable and tests are free of cultural and gender bias. We realize that this is often difficult to do, especially in complex jobs such as professional and managerial positions which rely on judgement, discretion, imagination and verbal acuity. We don't believe that these more valued positions should be the exclusive domain of white, able-bodied men through informal systems. They should be open to competition and free of the type of value judgements which are often cited as merit. These systems should be open to scrutiny for gaps in representation and open to barrier identification and elimination, which employment equity compels employers to do.

So this is what we recommend: The withdrawal of Bill 8 completely to restore the public trust in the government's commitment to enforcement of human rights in Ontario's workplaces. We ask for your continued support and enforcement of the Employment Equity Act through a strong commission and tribunal. We need an effective, strengthened and accountable Ontario Human Rights Commission and we would like to see a declaration of a commitment by the government of Ontario to the elimination of unfair barriers to identifiable groups in employment.

Now I'm going to turn it over to Tony Ojo-Ade, who's a board member of ours, for an additional part of our segment.

Mr Tony Ojo-Ade: Good afternoon. My name is Tony Ojo-Ade. Bill 8, to me, is an insult and a setback on employment practices in Ontario to people with disabilities, women, minorities and aboriginal peoples. My question to this government is: Do you believe that discrimination exists? There is no equality in the process of hiring in Ontario. I know, because I can tell you firsthand about my own experience.

I am a black person with a disability and before employment equity when I go out looking for jobs and I happen to have an interview, the employer will spend about 45 minutes talking about my country of origin and my disability instead of spending the time talking about my abilities and my qualification to do the job.

This government should look at the statistics of how many people with disabilities are employed in Ontario -- it is on open record -- which is not acceptable in a democratic society where everybody shall be treated equally. This government seems to ignore the horrible experiences that people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups faced in the past.

So like many others of your policies, you always deny facts and continue to turn the clock backwards. The fact is, Bill 8 is a wilful destruction of employment equity and a denial by this government that systemic discrimination is alive and very present in the hiring process and the workplace in Ontario. Bill 8 will not be of any help to people from the designated groups. The equal opportunity plan did not work in the past and I am sure there is no reason for it to work now.

The Conservative government called Bill 79 a quota bill. That is not true, because there was nothing about quotas mentioned in Bill 79 and, contrary to what this government believes, employers were not asked to hire anybody from the designated groups without the qualification to do the job. What are quotas anyway? To me it's just an arbitrary number an employer will be stuck with.

This government should wake up and realize that the people from the designated groups have suffered enough in the past. People stereotype us in terms of our abilities and qualifications. Bill 8 will not help to dismantle these haunting stereotypes. So where is the equal opportunity for us?

The biggest barrier is not just physical. The number one problem is attitude, the attitude of employers and co-workers towards people from the designated groups. Discriminatory attitudes will only change when people start using objective employment policies.

In conclusion, this government should learn that employment equity makes better business sense and in the long run everybody wins. Bill 8 will not only exclude people from the designated groups, it will make it harder for us to have equal opportunity. While you are busy repealing Bill 79, my advice to you is to think twice about what you are doing to the next generations and to yourselves. Today you are temporary able-bodied people, but tomorrow you or your family member may be in my shoes as a person with disabilities.

Ms Hageman: We just have one more addition to this presentation. Tony Clement had said earlier that the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario had a very good presentation yesterday and that he pointed to the wonder of voluntary programs. But I just wanted to point out -- I was glad that I was here yesterday --

Mr Clement: I did not say that.

The Chair: Excuse me.

Ms Hageman: I just wanted to point out that in fact parts of the Education Act which allow for what was called affirmative action and negotiated programs, under employment equity as well as a ministerial mandate and several memoranda, were actually responsible for the kind of movement that women teachers have made into leadership positions, and this has been going on for 20 years and it's not over yet. I think that just sort of gives a little bit of an indication of why we need to have proactive measures instituted.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have an extremely short period of time. We've got a minute per party, so if your question takes a minute there won't be any time for an answer. Mr Marchese, you're first.

Mr Marchese: That was the question, because when they used the voluntary approach, the equal opportunity plan which started in the 1970s, in 1980 women teachers had 15% of vice-principals and only 7% of principals. In spite of the intervention, persuasion and education, in 1995, 52% were vice-principals and 33% of them were principals. The point is, after 20 years of persuasion and work, nothing much has happened. Imagine what it's like for people with disabilities and people of colour and so on, and aboriginal people.

1140

Ms Green: It's true. It just points out the need for mandatory employment equity legislation.

The Chair: Okay, from the government side, Mr Clement, one minute.

Mr Clement: Would you not agree with me, though, that there was not mandated employment equity legislation when these statistics were compiled for women teachers?

Ms Green: Excuse me, that program has been in --

Interjection.

Mr Clement: He said Mr Clement.

Mr Marchese: Since 1990.

Ms Green: Since 1990.

Mr Clement: No, but these figures were from 1979-80 to 1994-95.

Ms Green: That's the point.

Mr Clement: And the number of women teachers in upper-level positions went up by a factor of five under voluntary programs. Would you not agree that is an advertisement for voluntary programs?

Ms Green: No, it's not the mandatory programs that made the change. I actually worked on the report that showed a 1% increase over a one-year period. At that rate, it'll be another 50 years before we achieve equality.

Mr Marchese: You just have to have patience.

Ms Green: Yes, patience.

The Chair: From the opposition, Mr Curling, you've got one minute.

Mr Curling: I just wanted to tell you it was an excellent presentation. I hope they are listening and some sort of movement can be made in understanding what equity is all about.

Interjection: They're going to repeal it.

Ms Green: In our view there's really a lot at stake. There are a lot of people who will suffer if this bill is repealed.

Mr Sergio: Just briefly, and I'm reading from the conclusion here of your presentation, if withdrawal of the bill, as you recommend, will not be possible in your view, can you give us some brief views on how the Human Rights Commission is going to take care of all the problems?

Ms Green: As I said earlier, the Human Rights Commission can never take care of the volume of individual complaints. The Human Rights Commission did have a systemic unit, which is down to about zero, which was looking at some of the root causes for discrimination, and that is where the Alliance for Employment Equity is putting its focus right now.

Mr Sergio: Past experience has --

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your attendance and your presentation here today.

TORONTO COMMUNITY ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES PUSH CENTRAL REGION

The Chair: The next group is of presenters is the Toronto Community Access for Persons with Disabilities. I believe Andrew Cummings is the presenter, and Andrew is accompanied by Marilyn Ferrel. Welcome to our committee. We appreciate your interest in being here. You have 20 minutes, which we will kind of keep you apprised of, and you can use that as you see fit. Any time you leave for questions in your 20 minutes will be used up starting with the government party. So the floor's all yours.

Mr Andrew Cummings: I'm going to speak first. I'm not going to take up much of your time because everybody who's spoken already has basically said a lot of what I want to say. Marilyn and I have conferred and she has a lot of what I want you all to know. I'm going to make this as basic as possible.

As you know, I work for Toronto Community Access for Persons with Disabilities. When we came up with this name, what we tried to think about was what is our function in the community, what do we do in the community? We are a group that lobbies for access to the community. When we talk about access to the community we talk about access to education; we talk about access to attendant care; we talk about access to employment. That's why we're here today, to talk about what Bill 8 is going to do to the chances of the disadvantaged groups to obtain gainful employment.

I want to talk to you about this notion of quotas. You know, I've been living in Toronto for five years, and ever since I got here I've been hearing: "This company is hiring this person because they've got to fulfil a quota, this person is hiring this person to do a job because they've got to fulfil a quota, and this person has this job, they have this particular disability, but they don't have a job to do that gives them satisfaction because they're just there to fill a quota." I'm a little tired of hearing this, especially since employment equity now is being repealed.

The fact that a person with a disability would want a job that doesn't give him or her any satisfaction is ridiculous. I know that if I want to go and get a job, that job is going to have to be something that I know I am skilled at. It's going to have to be something that I enjoy doing. If I don't have a function in that company, if I'm just going there to sit around, then I don't want that job. But I also don't want a job given to me and being underpaid. If I'm doing a job and I'm skilled at that job, just as skilled as an able-bodied white male, then I deserve the same pay that able-bodied white male would receive if that person were doing the same job.

The way it stood, as I understood it before employment equity was even talked about, if I went in to apply for a job, if that employer knew I was disabled, before I got to the door that employer would be waiting at the door. I've had a couple of experiences like that. I get there and the employer is waiting right there to take me into a room and talk to me about my disability and what the job entails and going on and on about how I can't do the job because I have a visual impairment.

I went to apply for a job. It was a telephone job; it was simply a job where you pick up the phone. The phone system was controlled by computer. You wear some headphones, you answer the phone, you read whatever is on the screen and you take the messages, type the messages in and send the messages away. I mean, if you're computer literate and you're a quick learner and there's a way to accommodate you or to set up the computer system so that it's operated by voice, what blind person who uses voice can't do that job?

I was told by the employer: "Well, I've tried the voice program before with other people and there are certain things it doesn't read. It reads some things and not other things, so I would have to get the voice to read some things and then someone else would have to do part of the job that's being left behind" -- da, da, da, da, da. "I mean, if I'm going to do that, why would I want to hire you? I'd just hire a person who can do the whole job."

So what does that mean? That means I am left out in the cold. Employment equity was a way for me to be protected from that kind of discrimination. It allows the employer the power to choose whether or not I can do the job based on my ability the way he or she sees it. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have the skills. It's a matter of perception and that's basically what discrimination is.

Someone receives messages from a stereotype or they receive information from watching television or wherever they get their information from, and based on what they see of you when you walk in the door, they make their decision, and you know they've made their decision. They spend -- like Tony said when he was up here. He said he walked in the door and the person spent like 45 minutes talking to him about his disability. You know right away that they've already made their decision. You know you don't have the job.

Employment equity was to get rid of all of that. Employment equity was to make sure that we were protected against that. It was the one way that we knew we were protected, and that has nothing to do with quotas. That was to ensure that we were able to be on the same equal footing as anybody else who applied for the same job with the same qualifications.

1150

I want to go back to this concept of access, and the last thing I want to say: Access to the community -- again I want to stress this; I can't stress this enough -- means that you cannot be denied on the basis of your colour, the basis of your ethnic accent, the basis of your disability, the basis of your gender. The only reason we have four designated groups is because of information received that these are the four groups that are suffering the most from discrimination.

If we're going to get rid of systemic discrimination, first of all we have to admit that it exists, and the government has to admit that it exists, because it is a fact.

The next thing that we have to do is to put measures into place to eliminate that discrimination, and if that means that we have to make an attempt to correct the problems of the past by saying, "Okay, we're going to make sure that we hire some people from these designated groups to get things up to snuff so that the workplaces are equal," then so be it. That's the way it has to be done, and as has been pointed out, the Human Rights Commission handling individual cases, if that's the way they operate, there's no way they could correct that problem. It would take them centuries.

That's all I have to say.

Ms Marilyn Ferrel: I'm Marilyn Ferrel and I'm from PUSH Central Region.

Many are Qualified: Few are Chosen. The repeal of the Employment Equity Act destroys my hope of being productively employed. If anyone has tried hard to work, I have. I have worked on small government grants off and on for 20 years with no accommodation to my individual needs. Being expected to work as if I were an able-bodied person caused extreme stress and constant pressure. Tension, anxiety and frustration led to insomnia, fatigue and sickness. My husband had to leave because my excessive stress, resulting from my attempts to work in an environment that did not accommodate me, was too much for him.

The Employment Equity Act gave me hope that I could find permanent employment in the private sector. It provided the possibility of accommodating my need for part-time hours, realistic deadlines and a word completion program that would increase my speed and accuracy in typing. I consider myself an intelligent person who struggled hard to get a university degree. I have good marketing and writing skills and I have a reputation for being more focused and concentrated on my work than most people. Andrew will tell you I jump every time he walks in the door, I'm so concentrated.

Why is the Ontario government repealing the one piece of legislation that would enable me to be productively employed? Am I expected to waste my education and qualifications to work because I'm not perceived as the most competitive person for any given type of job?

The government is saying that only those perceived as having merit should have access to employment. Many of us are labelled lazy because we are viewed as not being the most competitive and therefore not given the opportunity to work. Merit is based on fitting into the dominant culture and the ability to network within that culture. Those who have different appearances, who are part of a different culture or who have different ways of doing things are seen to have less merit. Would it be possible for an architect in a wheelchair to be seen as having more merit because his or her design includes all people? Would it be possible for a person who is regarded as slower to be considered to have more merit because they work harder? Merit, like beauty, is based on the bias of the beholder.

All people have a right to work to their full potential. A builder who takes a little longer to build a house than another builder has still produced a house. He or she is still qualified to do the job. What a waste if she or he is not allowed to be employed because he or she is seen as being less competitive than another builder. We label people lazy and blame them for not fitting into arbitrary standards. Instead, we should question our notions of competitiveness. They are based on false privileges and waste the lives of qualified workers. Ontario should focus on structuring its economy so that all have an equal opportunity to work at jobs that use each worker's full potential. Employment equity is the first step to this restructuring.

The Chair: We have a little bit of time left. Will you entertain some questions?

Ms Ferrel: Yes.

The Chair: We just have two minutes per party, starting with the government party.

Mr Maves: Mr Cummings, one of the problems that you seem to run into seems to be, I think you'd agree, a problem of attitude. I wonder if Bill 79 is the right way to change attitudes, or perhaps might not education, not only through school systems but through outreach programs and workshops like those that the folks from the aboriginal employment training group successfully run to break down barriers, might they not do a better job and a more long-lasting job of changing those types of attitudes?

Mr Cummings: Employment equity is a way to make them recognize that their behaviour is unacceptable. Many people have said to me that you can't change attitudes, but you can certainly change behaviours, and one of the things that employment equity was to do was to make sure that people were penalized for their unacceptable behaviour. Then that penalty for their unacceptable behaviour is bound to make them wonder why the hell they're being penalized, and perhaps maybe then they're going to seek some education on their own.

Mr Maves: Thank you. I think we've had some evidence that some people have begun to do just that, and I hope that continues.

Mr Curling: In response to that, seatbelt legislation was one where we had to change people's attitude really. Today it's illegal not to wear a seatbelt. Funnily enough, that has been one of the most successful laws in the last decade. People today, as you go into your car you put your seatbelt on to save lives.

I want to say to you that it was a very well-presented presentation. You've touched the heart of what employment equity is about. My question to you is, those discriminations that you come across each day, if you had gone through the Human Rights Commission do you feel that your discriminations could have been addressed? I put this question to any one of you.

Ms Ferrel: I don't have the patience to wait five years for my case to be heard. Besides that, by the time it's heard the people in the workplace, particularly in the agencies in the social sector that I have worked with, would have changed. Also, the energy to fight, the energy to wait year after year trying to make them recall that I am waiting, it would be horrific energy and a waste of my time, a waste of the government's time and a waste of the employer's time. I have a right to work, I have a right to accommodation and I have a right to use my abilities. I don't feel that I should be like a criminal and wait for a commission to decide that I'm not.

Mr Marchese: It's always a marvel to me that people with privilege in society and people with power can say to the rest of the others who are not doing so well or don't have the same equal treatment, "Let's be patient and let's use education to get to some equality." It saddens me.

We had Sam Savona come here yesterday. He talked about some of the problems that he faces as a person with disability, where he said for that 10 years he was looking for work and found one day's work. He says that because of the way he looks and because of the way he speaks, he can't open the doors to even be interviewed.

What the members opposite are saying to you -- "Just take your time. It will be all right. We'll do education" -- that's what we've had for the last 20 years or longer, but they're saying: "Just wait a little longer. education will get you there." What do you think?

Ms Ferrel: I have four years of education. I have a bachelor of social work. It hasn't made much difference to corporations.

Mr Cummings: The point here too is that, like I said before, I work for Toronto Community Access for Persons with Disabilities. Access? We're trying to gain access to the community, and why should we have to wait for that? There is no reason why we should have to wait for that. If we were able-bodied, white males we would not have to wait for access to the community.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Cummings and Ms Ferrel. Your time has expired. We appreciate your interest in our process and your presentation.

That is our last group for this morning. Just a couple of changes on your schedule: The group at 4 o'clock has cancelled and has been replaced by the group at 7:45. The group at 7:30 has moved to 6 o'clock. The group at 7 o'clock has moved to 5. Anyway, we're going to be finished. The last group is going to be at 6 o'clock. The group at 7 has moved to 5 o'clock, so we should have our last presenter at 6 o'clock and be able to get home early this evening. We reconvene at 3 o'clock this afternoon. Enjoy your lunch.

The committee recessed from 1200 to 1514.

ONTARIO WOMEN'S REFERENCE GROUP ON LABOUR MARKET ISSUES

The Chair: Our first group this afternoon is the Ontario Women's Reference Group on Labour Market Issues, represented by Jane Larimer, Annamaria Menozzi and Joanne Lindsay. Obviously, I missed one.

Ms Jane Larimer: We did. We had a fourth member of our group join us, Eleanor Ross.

The Chair: Welcome. We appreciate your attendance. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any time you want to allot for questions will be at the end. The time will be allotted evenly between the parties and we would start with the Liberal Party at the end, so the floor is yours.

Ms Larimer: We're submitting a brief to you today. We will be providing a more detailed report shortly -- early next week. I'd like to quickly introduce the group we have today. I'm Jane Larimer with the Metro Toronto Movement for Literacy and I'm the Metro representative to the Ontario Women's Reference Group on Labour Market Issues. Annamaria Menozzi is our representative to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. Eleanor Ross, who's happily joining us today, has been our representative to the Workplace Sectoral Program Review Council on OTAB. Joanne Lindsay is our provincial coordinator. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

By way of introduction to the Ontario Women's Reference Group, we'd like to tell you that we're a reference group for one of the labour market partners within the OTAB structure, the labour market partner group being women representing 51.3% of the population. There are seven labour market partners within the OTAB structure and each one has its own reference group to support the work of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and the directors sitting on that board.

Our provincial structure brings together 25 regional representatives from across Ontario. We have representation, both geographically and sectorally, such as agriculture, community-based training, that sort of representation.

Annamaria Menozzi is currently our director and she is accountable to the women of Ontario through the reference group. We provide information and advice to her and assist her in the decision-making process that occurs at the OTAB table and we carry information from OTAB back to the women of Ontario.

We're here today to present the standing committee some of our ideas on Bill 8; specifically, our ideas about the value of employment equity as mandated through the Employment Equity Act.

To start with, we're very much concerned about the language used to describe employment equity. Employment equity does not mean job quotas and I think that's a current myth that we'd like to address. Employment equity does not remove merit as a recruitment criteria. In fact, we believe employment equity will ensure that merit is taken into account.

Without employment equity, it is far too easy for an employer to attach to the merit principle such things as family connections, schooling or work experience. These types of considerations really are not merit attributes; instead, we believe that these considerations ensure that the workforce looks like those who are doing the hiring in many cases. We believe that often these considerations discriminate against those of us who have developed our skills in other schools, other countries and by other means.

We believe that employment equity allows all employers to ensure their hiring and advancement practices are fair to all potential and existing employees. We believe that employment equity ensure that merit is a main consideration when it come to hiring and advancement. We believe that employment equity is a tool for ensuring employment opportunities are open to all people, regardless of their gender, race, ethnic background or ability. Employment equity has led to less gender-based discrimination in the workplace.

We are concerned that repealing the Employment Equity Act will lead employers to abandon their review of hiring and advancement policies that they have voluntarily set up. As you know, they've set up their own goals for these. This review is meant to remove systemic discrimination against designated groups and to remove practices that have perpetuated the imbalance between representation of designated groups in the community and their representation in the labour market. We're afraid that the repeal of the Employment Equity Act will mean that we will lose some of the gains we've worked very hard to achieve over the past decade.

However, the main focus of the work of the Ontario Women's Reference Group is training, the training and adjustment system in Ontario, and so we would like to make a particular link between employment equity and access to training. We consider training to be a tool for equity as, through training, women and members of other designated groups are able to develop their skills and to learn new ones. These efforts increase the employment and advancement opportunities for members of designated groups.

We believe that when an employer offers training as part of a benefits package for employees, for example, that employer should be required to ensure that all of their employees have equal opportunities to benefit from the training provided. Without employment equity to review training policies of all employers, we're afraid that women and members of other designated groups will be disadvantaged in their pursuit of training opportunities.

1520

In addition, we're concerned that without the protection offered through the Employment Equity Act, complaints about discriminatory hiring and advancement practices will be lost in the already overburdened Human Rights Commission. Furthermore, complaints to the Human Rights Commission are individual complaints, whereas discriminatory employment practices are often systemic, meaning that their discrimination affects more than one person. By individualizing complaints, a necessary result of eliminating the Employment Equity Commission, we fear that women will be discouraged from making complaints about gender-based discrimination. We fear that such complaints about sexual harassment will not be made as women will fear their complaints will jeopardize their access to training opportunities.

We're further concerned about the ability of the Human Rights Commission to handle complaints of a systemic nature as the skills required to handle such complaints are different than those required to handle individual cases. We believe a separate and special system is needed to address systemic problems.

For example, employers need advice on the best practices for removing systemic barriers to their employment opportunities. This kind of advice has not traditionally been the kind an employer will get from the Human Rights Commission, especially during the processing of an individual complaint. The focus is on the individual rather than on the employer and how the employer can learn to improve the system.

This was the kind of advice the Employment Equity Commission was set up to provide. Abolishing the Employment Equity Commission will leave many gaps in the services available to employers, services that will assist them to remove discriminatory hiring and advancement practices, services that will ultimately benefit members of designated groups.

In conclusion, we're here today to urge you to reconsider the direction taken through Bill 8, as it will take Ontario towards retrenchment of discriminatory practices, to further marginalize those members of our community who are already marginalized. We urge you to recommend that Bill 8 be withdrawn from the government's agenda.

Thank you for listening to us today and we'd like to answer any questions you may have of us.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have about four minutes per party beginning with the opposition.

Mr Curling: Thank you for your presentation. Actually, this exercise sometimes frustrates me. I'm not quite sure we're going to make any progress in the sense of changing of the mind of this government.

Let me ask you, were you consulted at all when this new kind of creative bill was brought in, the one-line bill about job quota came in? Were you consulted at all?

Ms Larimer: No, we were not.

Mr Curling: Have you requested in any way to be heard or to see the minister who I -- is the minister here? The minister is not here; he's too busy actually to look at this. Have you requested to see the minister at all in this regard?

Ms Annamaria Menozzi: We actually requested to see the candidates prior to the election. We requested to see the leader of the Conservative Party immediately after the election and then we requested to meet with the minister, and we have not received an answer to this date.

Mr Curling: You haven't even received an answer?

Ms Menozzi: Sorry. We received an answer that in essence informed us that they received our invitation, but no meetings were set.

Mr Curling: I know there are concerns that should this section of equity be placed under the Ontario Human Rights Commission this could not be handled properly. It seems to me those are the intentions, in some respect, to put some of that work within the Human Rights Commission. How much money would you say would be needed to sort of bring rather -- I don't want to describe the Ontario Human Rights Commission as not doing its job it should be doing because it has inadequate resources. Have you ever taken an assessment of what kind of money should be put in that to bring it up to scratch to deal with systemic discrimination?

Ms Menozzi: Can I clarify, how much money would be needed, are you asking, to train officers under the Human Rights Commission?

Mr Curling: All of that.

Ms Menozzi: We didn't do this kind of calculation. We also were part, though, of the working group on the federal employment equity. We looked at the cost of those kinds of things related to the federal government, because as you know, the same kinds of things are happening there, in looking at having the Human Rights Commission handle employment equity.

In relation to training, since this is our specialty, we didn't feel that it was going to be terribly expensive training individuals, if there was the willingness to do so, to handle systemic complaints. The question was, is there enough manpower to do so? Are there enough employees under the commissions, both provincially and federally, at this point to be able to do so? Our response was certainly not if we want to provide employers with the kind of information that they need in terms of best practices and so on to be able to successfully remove discriminatory practices in their systems. I don't think that the cost is a major point; it's really the willingness at this point.

The Chair: Mr Sergio, your compatriot used up all too much time, so we'll have to go to the NDP and Ms Churley.

Mr Curling: That's four minutes already?

Ms Churley: I apologize for being late. We have a little employment equity in the House. I'm the one female Deputy Speaker there and I had to take the chair.

I regret personally, as do many people, the title of their bill, the Job Quotas Repeal Act. I know you don't want to alienate the members of this government, because you're here appealing to them on an issue that's very important to you, but I would like to hear your thoughts, and I think it's important for the members of the government to hear your thoughts, on the title of this bill and the fact that this phrase is constantly being used to describe our bill, and to describe employment equity and what effect that's having on the public out there, in general, and what can this government do now to heal that and make people understand that there really is a problem out there that's got to be seriously addressed.

Ms Larimer: As you say, the title is a bit misleading, because employment equity is not about quotas, so we have a sense that we're repealing something that was not there in the first place. Language, of course, is a very powerful tool that works to strengthen this belief that employment equity is about quotas. Rather, it's about goal setting, employers setting their own targets, their own time lines.

Something like this is a bit frustrating, certainly, but again, we're mostly concerned about the impact of such a bill. We have enough work to do dealing with the actual content of the bill, and now we surround it with this additional name that does not accurately describe the work that it's involved in doing.

Mr Marchese: It's interesting, because a lot of people believe that there is systemic discrimination. Of course, we all disagree on how to end it. We introduced Bill 79 because we felt the private sector, in collaboration with unions where there were unions, should work together to remove the barriers and move towards representing the various communities.

It's interesting, when people are in the pulpit of privilege and power, how easy it is for them to say, "We should allow voluntary programs to arrive at equity." I'm always fascinated by that. We know the voluntary programs haven't worked. What they're proposing through their equity plan is to end discrimination and everybody will be equal, but of course we'll do it voluntarily. What is your response to that?

Ms Menozzi: We don't believe that things will happen if you don't regulate. We do believe that we need regulation and, at the same time, education. Regulation on its own will alienate people, so regulation and education are what needs to happen. Regulation and support of people who are then requested to fulfil their obligation through legislation need to go hand in hand.

We are concerned with not having those things regulated as much as we are concerned at not having people understanding what they really have to do and not having the kinds of education systems in place, which we didn't have. We didn't have it federally; we have not had much provincially. Those are two things that must go hand in hand to ensure that people do fulfil their obligations that are set out through the law. So we like, and we strongly support, the regulation of systemic discrimination removal and to see the support system in place.

1530

Mr Clement: You just touched on education and you also said that training is a tool for equity and you also said that employers need advice for best practices. Can you not envisage government working with business to pursue those goals outside the context of legislation? Isn't it possible for government to work with business and employees outside a coercive piece of legislation?

Ms Eleanor Ross: I've worked in a workplace for many years where we did try voluntary measures, and it was very, very slow. As much as we'd like to say yes, some employers would be interested in working voluntarily to help put measures in place, many, many really aren't interested. We get back to this whole issue of trying to help employers to make the change and to prohibit systemic discrimination, and many of them don't understand what that is and are not able to pursue that. I believe regulations are important in order to ensure that.

I want to go back to the question around the Human Rights Commission. I think employers want to solve the discriminatory problems in their own workplace, and they don't want their employees running off to the Human Rights Commission. I think citizens of Ontario don't want to keep funding the commission to do more and more work, whereas it could be handled in the workplace. The commission is set up to do that for all citizens, not just workers, and surely if we had this in workplaces then it would be much more effective.

Mr Tascona: In your brief there is an acknowledgement that the Human Rights Code does deal with systemic discrimination. What in particular is the problem with the Human Rights Code in dealing with that?

Ms Larimer: I believe we're saying that we see that as the body that would take on discrimination cases. I'm not sure that they're currently set up to do that.

Mr Tascona: But you do agree that systemic discrimination is dealt with under the Human Rights Code?

Ms Larimer: It is, but again, the capacity of the commission to deal effectively with that I think is tremendously limited.

Mr Tascona: In what way?

Ms Larimer: Its focus is on individual cases that are brought before it, not towards systemic cases -- in that manner. We're looking at working with a very large sector, with business, which is tremendously large -- and we'd like to see it get larger, of course, that there are more businesses -- but if you start to pile this on the Human Rights Commission, it's going to slow down the work there and people will become very frustrated. I'm sure employers, and individuals as well, who will bring cases before the commission will have to wait years and years to see matters settled. Coming from a small business situation myself, once an employee has filed a complaint, we want to see these things move quickly. We don't want to see them languishing in the commission for years and years.

Mr Tascona: Do you not agree that through voluntary action there have been gains by women in terms of increasing their representation in fields such as education? I understand from the teachers' federation that in 1988 15% were vice-principals and only 7% were principals, and now in 1995 52% are vice-principals and 33% are principals. Would you not agree that's a significant gain?

Ms Larimer: Certainly there are areas where there have been gains. However, there are also areas where there have been no gains, such as apprenticeship, and this is an area that we address quite frequently. We hear that it's very fine for women to become hairdressing apprentices, but the construction industry, for example, is very, very reluctant to have women move into that field, the electricians' field. Many of the trades are still very much closed to women, and we feel the only way we'll really be able to move into those areas -- and for women, single-support mothers, for example, to be able to earn a decent living to support their children and their families, they need to be able to move into areas like that. They're certainly capable of it.

Mr Tascona: Yes. So you agree that --

The Chair: Thank you very much. Time for questions is up. We appreciate your taking the interest, the time, to come and make your presentation to us.

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ON EQUITY IN EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Chair: The next group is the College Committee on Equity in Education and Employment, Susie Vallance-Macias and John MacBride. Welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. The floor is yours. The questions this time will start with the third party.

Ms Susie Vallance-Macias: As indicated, my name is Susie Vallance-Macias, and I'm the provincial chair of the College Committee on Equity in Education and Employment. This committee is a subcommittee of the Human Resources Coordinating Committee, which is a coordinating committee of the Association of Community Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. My role here is to represent the 25 equity practitioners within the community colleges in the province of Ontario. We've asked to present to this committee in order to ensure that the needs of the community colleges are heard and recognized as the government moves forward with its plans to repeal the Employment Equity Act and replace it with a workplace equal opportunity plan.

It is not our intent to engage in debate regarding whether or not the Employment Equity Act should be repealed, is a quota-based system or to discuss its effectiveness. I understand there will be other, and I've just heard that there are other, submissions that adequately address these and other issues. Rather, it is our hope that our efforts today will assist the government in finding the best way to allow community colleges in Ontario to move forward on their long-standing history of dealing proactively with human rights and equity issues.

There are primarily three issues which therefore I would like to raise with the honourable members: The first is the consequences of destroying data and other information collected under the Employment Equity Act; the second is the necessary expansion of the Ontario Human Rights Commission in dealing with human rights complaints of systemic discrimination; and third is the need for an effective and substantive workplace equal opportunity plan in the college system.

As early as 1975, the college system recognized the critical importance of employment equity initiatives, previously known as affirmative action and equal opportunity programs, in the educational sector. Faculty, staff and administrators serve as role models for our community, and it is imperative that we be as reflective as possible of the communities we serve. If students do not see themselves reflected in the educational workforce, they may not believe it possible that they themselves can achieve equal opportunity.

In recognition of this need, the college sector has taken a leadership role in the development of equity initiatives. In addition to the evolution of policy, these initiatives have included studies on the status of women in the college system; special programs to assist the disadvantaged in overcoming obstacles; the review of job descriptions and classification systems to remove systemic barriers in the workplace; education and training in anti-harassment and discrimination; and the allocation of adequate resources and staff to deal with equity concerns.

I'm pleased to provide examples of actual projects and/or policy development and/or success stories, as few as they may be, that have stemmed from these initiatives. Over the years, these activities have had a profound impact on our educational environments.

The Employment Equity Act provided colleges with an additional tool for advancing equity within the college system. Even without the act, many colleges invested valuable time and resources in making the workplace fair and equitable for everyone. While the repeal of the act does not mean that colleges will be unable to continue their efforts, the requirement to destroy information collected under the act warrants special mention.

The Employment Equity Act created significant costs for employers in the collection and maintenance of employee data. It's important to note that many colleges had previously collected employee data; in fact, through the late 1970s, throughout all of the 1980s and the early 1990s. We recognized that cost and were willing to initiate and spend it.

However, the requirement to destroy the data that you're now asking us presents an additional cost. In addition, this requirement will set back many of our institutions by damaging productive relationships with our employees who have participated in these initiatives with the expectation that they will make the workplace more equitable and fair.

In many colleges, initial analysis of the data suggests that we are quite representative of our communities. This information has been able to demonstrate to other institutions that successful policies and programs can ensure that workplaces can be reflective of our communities. It is also critical in helping us assess where the systemic barriers in our employment policies and practices might be.

One of the standard criteria of any employment system review has been adverse impact; that is, whether a policy or practice has a greater and negative impact on a particular group of employees. In the absence of statistical data, employers will be unable to ascertain where their policies are having an adverse impact on employees. For many colleges, the data collected under the act not only included designated group representation, but also included employees' thoughts and perceptions regarding where barriers to a fair and equitable workplace existed.

1540

It's important to note that the data and information that we collected under the repeal bill are stating that everything under part III of the Employment Equity Act or Bill 79 -- that included information regarding employment systems, employee consultations and others. It is not just designated representation, which seems to be misrepresented out there. We again can provide you with our concerns about the elimination or the destruction of that data in real terms.

When one considers that the government's new workplace equal opportunity plan is intended to include a review of employment policies and practices to identify systemic barriers, to ask colleges to destroy this information would seem to conflict with the government's own proposed strategies.

In addition, without statistical data, the colleges may be unable to defend themselves against a systemic discrimination complaint filed under section 11 of the Ontario Human Rights Code. When colleges have allegations of unfair bias or discriminatory hiring practices, one of the defences expected is to demonstrate through quantitative data that other members of protected groups or other people of those protected groups named have been successful in obtaining and maintaining employment. The data are one way to ensure that an employer can meet their responsibilities under the code in attaining a workplace free of discriminatory barriers.

If this government is determined to create a workplace environment that establishes equal opportunity and ensures that hiring, promotion and treatment are based on merit alone, then clearly reforms and support to the Ontario Human Rights Commission are necessary. Our current systems in Ontario address violations after the fact and, in many cases, with months and years of delay. Again, it's a complaint-driven system, so the individual must be the one who has to demonstrate or go through the process of being a complainant in a very long and, in many ways, very difficult process.

In order to create an equal opportunity environment, additional resources and support to the commission are critical; in particular, support for the development of proactive training and consulting services for the public and private sector. In our case, if resources are unavailable through the commission, there must at least be adequate funding for training through the Minister of Education and Training.

Our experience in the college system confirms that training is critical to the colleges' continuing success in dealing with human rights complaints through internal mechanisms. Our data would indicate that an Ontario human rights complaint can cost tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees, of external investigator fees, of penalties that are imposed. It's important to remember that the community colleges potentially have hundreds of thousands of clients or complainants against employers and it is the employer who must represent itself when those complaints come forward.

We can give you again specific details of the types of complaints. In the role that I play within Seneca College, we have hundreds of complaints a year and the thought of the process being destroyed by just sending people off to the Human Rights Commission is devastating at best. But we also believe that the experience can be of benefit to other institutions.

The third point, and lastly, I would urge this government to ensure that the workplace equal opportunity plans being introduced through various ministries live up to the expectation of the community. I will note that it is a concern that it was previously known as "equal opportunity plan" and we now seem to be returning to the terminology of "equal opportunity plan." The college system has a longstanding history of equity initiatives, including contractual obligations in our collective agreements. As far back as 1989, the unions and college management recognized the need for employment equity to be done jointly. It is included in both the academic and support staff provincial collective agreements and has been since 1989.

Our successes have been built upon the expertise within our institutions and our unions within the Council of Regents, within the Ministry of Education and Training and within the commission. For a workplace equal opportunity plan to be effective, this expertise must be called upon in order to provide input and commitment. To this end, the CCEEE has prepared a position paper for discussion within the community college system which will hopefully complement the forthcoming workplace equal opportunity plan while building upon our history of achievements. A copy of the position paper has been attached to your notes.

In closing, we would ask that this government move carefully in confirming Bill 8. Perhaps people see me as a pessimist; however, I am also a realist, and I ask you that with all of the greatest sense of caution as I can. I would ask that you not move hastily to confirm Bill 8. We acknowledge the government's desire to replace Bill 79 with a voluntary workplace equal opportunity plan and also to determine that the Ontario Human Rights Code can fill the gaps. However, we would ask the government not to require employers to destroy the valuable data and information obtained over the last year. At the very least, we would ask the government to consider amending the bill to provide for exemptions for employers who plan to use this data for purposes other than numeric goals.

It's important, again, to note that even the Human Rights Commission itself in its policy paper on special programs says that the commission encourages service providers, landlords, contractors, employers and trade unions or vocational associations to review their own operations with a view to voluntarily undertaking initiatives aimed at promoting greater equality in our society. The commission does not and cannot and I don't believe has the resources to be able to provide what at least is envisioned, or what I hear to be envisioned, of attempting to try and maintain a workplace free of discrimination, harassment and a workplace that's based on equality.

This would provide employers in Ontario with one of the many tools and resources necessary to achieve equal opportunity and create and maintain a workplace environment free of discrimination and harassment for everyone.

Thank you. I'm pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have two minutes each, starting with the third party.

Mr Marchese: I'd like to ask Mr Clement for a quick answer to this, because in the Mike Harris plan, when they talked about this, they said, "Specifically, a portion of the money saved by winding down the commission set up to enforce the quotas" -- $9.3 million -- "will be redirected to the Human Rights Commission." I want to ask Mr Clement whether that is still the commitment of the government.

Mr Clement: We certainly are intent on reforming the commission, and there have to be resources available for the commission to be reformed.

Mr Marchese: Mr Tascona made a comment earlier on that I wanted to make a brief response to. He said that the Human Rights Code deals with systemic barriers. The Human Rights Code was never set up to deal with systemic barriers. I'm not sure whether he knows that, but he's not here at the moment. It does say to companies, when they deal in individual cases, that they may have to deal with the systemic barriers that they might have, but it's case-by-case. I thought we'd put that in for the record.

But a question to you, quickly. They're very happy to have voluntary programs to deal with discrimination; that's basically their plan. We know it hasn't worked very well. What the teachers told us is that after 20 years of intervention, persuasion and education, we have moved the levels of women into positions of vice-principals and principals, and they're still behind, given their numbers in the system. What they're saying is, it's not good. They're also adding, "If it's bad for us, imagine how it is for people with disabilities and aboriginal people and people of colour." So if it took 20 years for these other groups, it'll take who knows how long. Do you think people can wait for that kind of equity to happen?

Ms Vallance-Macias: Do I think that people should have to wait 20 years? The answer is no. Do I know that we have waited 20 years or that we have been diligently working for 20 years with the commitment of a number of partners in order to receive or to achieve the successes? The answer is yes.

The Chair: The government party. Mr Flaherty.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): With respect to the data collection, if I understood your submission correctly, the community colleges collected this data pursuant to what is Bill 79.

Ms Vallance-Macias: Yes.

Mr Flaherty: So this data was collected to determine the extent to which members of the designated groups are employed in the employer's workforce, pursuant to section 10 of the act. Is that right?

1550

Ms Vallance-Macias: That's only one of the 10 components where you collect data, under part III.

Mr Flaherty: Right, but that's the mandatory provision requiring the employers to collect the data.

Ms Vallance-Macias: All of 9 through 20 of Bill 79 was mandatory responsibilities on employers, and one was designated group data.

Mr Flaherty: Right. So these community colleges, as employers of these individuals, collected this data pursuant to this act, and now you're saying you don't want to destroy it. Is that right?

Ms Vallance-Macias: No, we don't want to destroy it.

Mr Flaherty: I have some difficulty with that in the context of privacy of your employees. Have you given consideration to the concept of privacy, given that these bits of data concerning race and sex and disabilities were collected pursuant to a statute that will probably be repealed?

Ms Vallance-Macias: If I can give you two responses, the first is, the Ontario Human Rights Commission gave very specific instructions on how to collect data. They don't tell you how as far as, do you do it voluntarily or do you do it by a head count? But they in fact have introduced, as far back as 1990, restrictions on how you maintain privacy of data.

Mr Flaherty: I understand that, but I'm not talking about the Human Rights Commission, I'm talking about the data you collected, which you say you collected pursuant to this act.

Ms Vallance-Macias: Right. As I said, I think, and I believe it's in the report, colleges have collected this data as far back as 1970. Some colleges continued or repeated a data collection in 1995.

Mr Flaherty: Where is the data?

The Chair: The time for that question is up.

The opposition. Mr Sergio.

Mr Sergio: Towards the summation of your presentation there, you made a couple of remarks with respect to possibly some amendments or other changes. If you had a choice, what would you rather see first, the withdrawal totally of the bill as it is presented now or some amendments, as you have suggested?

Ms Vallance-Macias: I gave up my red shoes a long time ago --

Mr Sergio: Now, I don't want a political answer from you.

Ms Vallance-Macias: My answer is that with the repeal bill that is before us, we would ask the repeal bill to be amended as indicated in our presentation.

Mr Sergio: But if you had a choice, would you like to see the bill as presented withdrawn totally, in its entirety?

Ms Vallance-Macias: The repeal bill? Yes.

Mr Sergio: Bill 8, the one to repeal --

Ms Vallance-Macias: Yes.

Mr Sergio: So you agree, then, that if you had a choice, you would like to see the withdrawal --

Ms Vallance-Macias: Of those four little sections, yes.

The Chair: Mr Curling, did you have a question? Is Mr Sergio through there?

Mr Sergio: Do I still have time?

The Chair: Either that or Mr Curling can have a quick question.

Mr Sergio: All right, I'll concede. Okay.

Mr Curling: Thank you very much. I just wanted to say it's an excellent presentation. It came right to the heart of it all. The fact is that I just want your comments in regard to training, the importance of training, access to training that you have seen. I know your experiences over the years are things that people must stand up to look at.

What about access to training? You've spoken -- I'll be very quick -- about the community, that the college must be a role model, in a sense, to the community, which is imperfect; that they see themselves as leaders, and also individuals who want access to jobs, who are being denied. I think that's what's implied here. Do you think the destruction of Bill 79 will destroy that hope of people for the community college to play that role as a role model in our community and will deny many people access to proper training because of this repeal of Bill 79?

Ms Vallance-Macias: It's a qualified no. I say --

The Chair: Thank you, madam.

Ms Vallance-Macias: Oh, that was quick.

The Chair: He took a little too long to ask the question.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your interest in our process.

BUSINESS CONSORTIUM ON WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

The Chair: The next group is the Business Consortium on Workplace Diversity. I hope I've got all these names right: Maureen Geddes, Bonnie Miller, Janice Thomson, Phillip Francis and Steve Iley. Obviously you all understand the rules of our presentation process. We welcome you here and the floor is yours.

Ms Maureen Geddes: Thank you, Mr Chairman -- Jack -- I appreciate it. My name is Maureen Geddes, and I'm the chairperson of the Business Consortium on Workplace Diversity. We have been together, a group of companies formed in 1991, to work on the -- when we were invited by the then government to participate in the process and we were concerned that if we were going to be legislated there was legislation that was workable for business. I won't go through all the detail of our proposal here, because I think our time may be more valuably used by answering any questions you may have. I'll present it very briefly and you can look to the document for details.

We do support the concept of Bill 8, particularly sections 1 and 3. We do recommend one change to subsection 1(5) in the addition of a new clause. The change we are recommending is to replace the fifth clause with the clause to allow employers to retain workforce demographic data as required for legitimate business purposes. Our point on that is that we believe the collection of workforce data is legitimate business aspect of managing a diverse workforce. For example, the data are very helpful in identifying any systemic barriers to creating an equitable workplace for all employees.

I think one of the examples that helps make that easier to comprehend is one in my workforce where we have predominantly women answering our incoming customer calls, and we have many men coming in from the field, with many years of customer service and plant service in our field roles, who are no longer physically capable of performing those roles but have a tremendous wealth of knowledge that would be well served and continue to serve in the workforce but there's an attitudinal barrier, a concern about doing "women's work." So when we do our diversity plan for our organization we address both the systemic barriers, the attitudinal barriers, all of the barriers between all people having access to work, and that includes the so-called designated groups as well as the majority of our particular workforce.

A couple of points that we put in to note around supportive -- the shift on that clause -- we would prefer again that the employers not be required to destroy it. We'd point out that Bill 8 does not prevent an employer from doing a new survey so there's not much logic to requiring employers to destroy existing data that they may need when they can in fact go out and do it again. And furthermore, any future surveys conducted would be covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code and would protect the integrity of that data and its use.

Our second recommendation is to add an additional clause to address the concern around the special program provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Our concern would be that any legitimate diversity or equity initiatives in a workplace would be required to be registered as special programs under the Ontario Human Rights Code if Bill 8 were enacted as it stands today.

So if we amended subsection (5), as we were suggesting before, we would also recommend that an additional clause be put in to have Bill 8 supersede the Ontario Human Rights Code on the special programs section so that we wouldn't have an additional administrative burden in the guise of having to register every initiative that is taking place in that area.

We have a number of points. Our final point is the work on the equal opportunity plan. We have appreciated the opportunity to be part of some of the initial consultations on the equal opportunity plan. We hope to see that process continue, and there are a number of initiatives we suggest that are listed in your document and I'm not clear that it's the purpose of today to go through all of those. But we do believe that many of the initiatives, such as educating employers about best practices and the removal of systemic barriers -- there is a clear role for government in that area, a non-legislative role but a role that is important. We trust that the resources will continue to be put to that direction.

I will conclude that, as a group of employers who support the concepts of equal opportunity, we would be happy to share our experience and expertise in the development of that plan and answer any questions you have about our proposal to amend Bill 8.

1600

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have about five minutes per party, starting with the government party.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My apologies for being out, but I had a phone call to make.

I'm looking at your equal opportunity plan where it's suggesting, "Identify role models -- corporate and small business." Are you suggesting some type of a generic plan that could be used by management to address all of the issues, ie, hiring, promotion etc, this type of thing, for all levels? Is that what you're suggesting in there?

Ms Geddes: Yes and no.

Mr Stewart: Because there are two variations, I guess, between corporate and small business. I guess what I'm looking for as a small business person -- what your thoughts are. Is it a generic plan or possibly one that would address both large business and small business, or one of each?

Ms Geddes: I don't know that a summary of best practices would address this. Certainly some practices that work in large organizations don't even apply or are not relevant in a small business environment. I'm familiar with both workplaces and I think that an equal opportunity plan would encompass a number of different initiatives, some targeted at big businesses and some at small, and some at education in the school systems. I would hope it would be a very broad-based plan. Sometimes there are initiatives that could apply across the piece, some general education materials perhaps that any business could use in a small discussion setting, but not a specific plan.

Mr Stewart: You've said to me a word, the "broad-based plan," so that the input of the individual owners or the individual presidents, or whatever, can extend that plan as they go along.

Ms Geddes: Exactly.

Mr Flaherty: On the data collection aspect of it, I was looking at page 2 of your summary, and you went over this briefly. You said, "Where data was collected under the provisions of the Employment Equity Act, 1993, and where employees were provided with the option not to provide employment equity data, employers should not be required to destroy existing data." That may be a typo, but no employees were required to provide that data pursuant to the statute. The statute itself said an employee has the right to decide whether to answer those questions. So I take it that no employee was compelled to provide that data.

Ms Geddes: That's correct, and I guess we were just trying to emphasize that point, that this was data that was collected voluntarily. Even though it was required by law that people fill out the survey, there was a little box that I always called -- you know, you have the right not to play -- put it in technically --

Mr Flaherty: I understand. My concern remains that certain questions were collected under that statute, as it stands now, that are data you're not entitled to collect in normal circumstances without the benefit of this statute, and that's my concern with the preservation of that data when this law is repealed. Have you given that some consideration?

Ms Geddes: A great deal of consideration, and we've come to the conclusion, as an organization committed to understanding our customer base and being here five years from now and 10 years from now to continue to serve that customer base, that we need to reflect that customer base in our employees and provide service in languages and be sensitive to the differences in our customer base. To do that most effectively, we have to be able to analyse the workforce like any other business problem.

We protect the confidentiality of data around benefits. That is highly sensitive, and we've found in the collection of this data, as an example, that the most sensitive area for people was the area related to disability. If we can protect the confidentiality of their information for the benefits provision, we suggest to you that we can do the same on this type of data, and we do.

Mr Flaherty: I appreciate your answer and I appreciate you all coming this afternoon.

Mr Clement: Just a quick question. As I read section 14 of the Human Rights Code, there is no positive obligation for you to register a special program. Do you read it differently than I do?

Ms Geddes: Yes.

Mr Clement: Okay. Do you have experience to back up your interpretation?

Ms Geddes: We did consult a couple of legal directions on that, and in many cases employers would be recommended by legal counsel to proactively register programs to protect themselves from situations where individuals can go and make a proactive complaint and you won't have that protection. By the time it's through the press and it actually gets to getting resolved under the code, it could drag on for a length of time, which proactively registering it and going through that cost and that process I see as a deterrent to supporting diversity initiatives in the workplace.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Maves, you'll have to wait till the next time around. Mr Sergio, I presume you had a question.

Mr Sergio: I would have a few if time would allow, Mr Chair.

The 10 companies which you represent here, I would assume they all fall within the guidelines now?

Ms Geddes: The guidelines of what?

Mr Sergio: Of the employment equity law.

Ms Geddes: That would be correct.

Mr Sergio: All very good companies and they all seem to be doing very well, which is good. Ms Geddes, on the background page, which is page 1 -- and forgive me, because maybe I have misunderstood your presentation and I hope I did -- it says, "The Business Consortium on Workplace Diversity (the consortium) is a group of 10 companies which supports the concept and objectives of equal opportunity."

The next line strikes me. It says, "The consortium believes that these concepts and objectives are best achieved outside of legislation and regulatory controls." Are you saying that you support, on behalf of these 10 companies, the abolition of the equity law as it now stands?

Ms Geddes: Yes.

Mr Sergio: I see. I have no other question.

The Chair: Ms Pupatello, did you have a question?

Mrs Pupatello: No, thank you.

Ms Churley: I just wanted to come back to the data collection because I recognize from your presentation that we have some fundamental disagreements on the best way to pursue employment equity. But I think there's an area of agreement here and that is on the data collection, and this is something that we're hoping very much we can convince the government should be changed.

I would just like to explore again a little more that the data collection that you have -- I assume it's not that different or the same as data, for instance, that the federal government uses and that it doesn't contravene the Human Rights Code.

The third question would be for you to be more precise about what would happen to companies such as the ones you represent, and others who have collected this data and do want to proceed on a volunteer basis? If that data has to be destroyed, would you in fact be asking the very same questions on a volunteer basis all over again or would you perhaps do it differently? What would be involved in having to retrieve that data again?

Ms Geddes: I'd suggest essentially the same questions all over again. We did have some minor disagreements with what came out, but nothing that would require us to go out and resurvey or that we would go to that expense. It would be a waste of time and money to have to recreate, but we would do that. We are committed to the diversity of our workforce. We believe it is a significant, competitive advantage in a global economy and that it is essential for us to deal with this and to deal with issues related to diversity in a proactive business fashion to survive and compete in the future, and we would collect it again, but it would cause a significant cost. We would appreciate very much not having to do that.

Ms Churley: A follow up: Would you have any fears that if this government chooses to proceed with demanding that this data be destroyed, that it could set some kind of precedent in terms of -- if you're doing this on a volunteer basis of somebody coming forward -- I don't know through which methods, courts, Human Rights Commission or something, trying to be stopped from collecting that data. Do you see this as perhaps setting a bad precedent in terms of, if it's been done on a volunteer basis of government saying, "We don't want this data that's collected simply because we didn't like the bill under which it was designed, so destroy it?"

Then you go ahead and start all over again and ask for the same information and somebody could come and say, "This data, a government asked you to destroy it and now you're collecting it all over again after you've been asked to destroy it." Do you have fears that if you've been asked to destroy it once under the bill, if you try to do it again --

Ms Geddes: I'm trusting and I guess I'm confident, having taken the time to put together a group of organizations that have spent a lot of time and money in this area and that we've taken the time to be here, that our experience will be heard.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, about a minute and a half left, sir.

Mr Marchese: I'd like to ask legal advice because Mr Flaherty mentioned the collection of information as perhaps conflicting with privacy rights, whether they're collected under employment equity or not. My understanding is that the Human Rights Code under section 14 permits that and that the charter permits that. Is that your understanding? To legal counsel.

1610

The Chair: We don't have legal counsel.

Mr Marchese: We don't have legal counsel? The researcher? The policy person?

The Chair: Anybody from the ministry have an answer? Okay, we have our expert from the ministry.

Mr William Bromm: What you've stated is correct: Section 14 of the code, which authorizes the creation of special programs, permits the collection of data that are a part of that special program. It's a similar interpretation of the charter as well that if a government is developing a special program, then data collection is seen as a natural part of that program if the statistical evidence is being used to establish the need for, and the success of, the program.

Ms Geddes: Just one last comment. You may have had other experience, but I simply have not found any employer who's interested in using data to set quotas. If the concern, I assume, is around the confidentiality, then employers do understand and respect the need for that confidentiality and the data will be used accordingly. The Human Rights Code will protect --

Mr Curling: I just have a point of information --

The Chair: Thank you. We appreciate your attendance at our hearing and being involved in the process.

Ms Geddes: Thank you.

Mr Curling: Does it help assist them make an equity workplace effective?

BLACK ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Chair: The next presenters are Grace Galubuzzi and Diane O'Reggion from the Black Advisory Committee. Are the people from the next group here? Are you Ms O'Reggion?

Ms Faith Lindo: My name is Faith Lindo.

The Chair: I presume the other two presenters we had scheduled are not going to be here?

Ms Lindo: One couldn't be here.

The Chair: So you're here on your own?

Ms Lindo: Yes.

The Chair: You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any time to be available for questions at the end is up to you, at your discretion. The questions would start with the official opposition. The floor is yours.

Ms Lindo: We mourn the passing of the Employment Equity Act, sections of the Police Services Act, the Education Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code relating to employment equity. It represents an abandonment of a vision of society that honours the aspiration of all of Ontario's people and not just the privileged few. It denies the painful reality of so many of our lives: one of discrimination in employment, denial of opportunity and closed doors and glass ceilings.

Bill 79 and the provisions of the other legislation the government wants to repeal gave us hope: hope that society had heard our cries and was prepared to act to secure our rights; hope that our potential and the full extent of our talents would finally be realized; hope that, after a history of 100 years in this country and province, our full citizenship would be assured and we would be able to work and earn a livelihood like other Ontarians, we would be promoted and have our skills and training and qualifications compensated like other Ontarians; hope that our children would see black and minority teachers and principals in their schools as role models, so they would feel more welcome and less inclined to exercise the option of dropping out; hope that police services would become representative, more sensitive to diverse cultures, and provide better community-based policing.

This hope is being quashed by a single rash action, so we mourn the day this legislation will pass, a day that reverses decades of hard work to educate the people of Ontario about our historical disadvantage in the workplace and to the workplace -- our struggles to earn a decent livelihood like other Ontarians.

False claim: We are all here under false pretence. The bill we speak to today is predicated on a big lie. It is a falsehood to claim that this bill is a quota law. It is a purposeful, demagogic misrepresentation of reality and the truth. There is no quota law in this province and never has been. Bill 8 is fallaciously named as a bill to repeal quota laws and restore merit. It will do nothing of the sort. You know it, we know it and anyone who knows anything about fairness and equity knows it. This is the big lie which has been repeated so often by its proponents that they may now believe it. It is ideological fantasy. They either don't know it or they are being dishonest. That is not a good frame of mind to legislate in.

If the composition of the government side of this committee represents the return to merit-based recruitment, there is much to worry about in this bold new Ontario. Where is the diversity and tolerance of difference Ontarians have come to expect of their governments? What signal are you sending to women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal people when the committee that strikes down legislation to help end their discrimination and to purport to restore merit is all white and male?

We say, woe is Ontario if we are to be dragged back to the days of gender ghettoes in the workplace, race-based pigeonholing and arbitrary compensation for persons with disabilities. We recall that during the election the great Tory leader suggested that disabled people be paid a fraction of what able-bodied people earn, this without any consideration of their skills or the requirements of the job at hand. Just another blanket edit. Perhaps this suggests they are only entitled to a fraction of a livelihood.

We resent the inference that when one hires women, racial minorities, aboriginal people or persons with disabilities, one compromises merit and that the chronic overrepresentation of able-bodied white males on legislative committees, in cabinet, in boardrooms, in university faculties, in senior management is the natural order of things.

We need to speak plainly about what is happening to our community and about the pain and suffering in our community. African Canadians feel that the contorted logic that has taken hold of many reasonable people is damning us to a society that denies our voice and talents, a society that is not interested in equal rights and access for all, a divided society where only the opinion and experiences of the majority culture count.

It invites us to contemplate acting, thinking and looking white if we are to be considered for a chance at earning a decent livelihood. It is a society we thought our ancestors had emancipated us from. It is oppressive and untenable. Our children will not take it lying down. They shouldn't. Our youths have higher than average unemployment numbers and our professionals have higher than average education but are frustrated because they are denied the opportunities to get ahead. They have endured a campaign of demonization, criminalization, marginalization and slander. They are now being asked by the government to cool their heels when it comes to opportunity. They, like their parents, are being asked to wait until their peers have been placed. It is last hired, first fired being re-entrenched.

1620

Why we need employment equity: The case for employment equity was best articulated by Judge Rosalie Abella in her royal commission report titled Equality in Employment: A Royal Commission Report, 1984. There is discrimination in employment and in the workplaces of the nation. This discrimination imposes disadvantages for some Ontarians seeking employment and promotion.

Society's disadvantages in employment are disproportionately assumed by women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal peoples. These disadvantages have resulted in disproportionate representation of aboriginal people, racial minorities, persons with disabilities and confirm women to overrepresentation in low-paid, low status, so-called pink ghettos with little opportunity for advancement. These groups have high unemployment rates and are too often last hired and first fired. Too often these Ontarians with merit are overlooked and penalized by systemic employment practices that restrict recruitment to word of mouth or those who are well connected.

This discrimination is both intentional and systemic. There still exist many incidences of direct, intentional discrimination in employment, and the laborious Human Rights Commission process has done little to ensure speedy justice for victims of discrimination. But it has also been established in study after study that there is a systemic form of discrimination that leads to arbitrary obstructions to access to employment and promotion in many workplaces both in the public and private sectors. It is this form of discrimination that many governments in Canada have acknowledged as responsible for the inequities in employment disproportionately faced by women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal people.

Most specifically for the black community, two Urban Alliance on Race Relations studies said it plain. Who Gets the Job documents the fact that three whites for every one black candidate of equal qualification and experience get the job. "No discrimination here" say employers. See no evil, hear no evil. Many employers don't acknowledge the existence of discrimination in the employment. That is why we need legislation to protect us and ensure access to jobs and promotion.

This legislation drags Ontario back to the days we want to escape from. In spite of the existence of federal and provincial human rights legislation, our historical reality is that we continue to be stereotyped out of opportunity in the workplace, ghettoized in low-end, low-pay jobs. Our youth are streamed into deadend programs and many instinctively drop out in protest.

This is not a happy time for us and this legislation is a frightening reversal of any progress we have anticipated. We are immigrants and Canadian-born. For those who don't know, the black Canadian experience dates back to the days when black Loyalists helped found and defend this country. Yet many were deported back into slavery in the United States. Those lucky enough to stay survived and helped build this land but continue to chase after the opportunities they see their fellow Canadians enjoy.

An Economic Council of Canada study two years ago spoke volumes about our workplaces and that message was confirmed by a StatsCan study recently that the academic achievements of African-Canadians have not translated into appropriate employment and compensation. It matters less that they are immigrants or Canadian-born. Yet today the response of the government to this denial of opportunity is not to attack intentional and unintentional racism and systemic discrimination. The response is to strike down the very instrument that many agree can deal with the problem.

This is not the way to build a multicultural, pluralist, fair and equitable society. This is not the way to build a civil society that celebrates diversity. Effective mandatory legislation is what made the federal government a bilingual federal service. We know it works and is efficient in a multicultural society. Why the closed-mindedness on the part of the government?

Employment equity and police forces: It is no secret that our community has faced challenges with police forces in this province. Many of us recall that it was yet another shooting of a black in unexplainable circumstances that led us to the first revamp of the Police Services Act in 40 years. The 1990 act included a commitment to community-based policing and employment equity. The vision was for more representative police forces that would be sensitive to the multicultural reality of our province.

This attack on employment equity in policing, which was working, by all accounts, will reverse the progress we have made. The police officials who resisted change are now emboldened and are demanding a stop to employment equity because the government says so. They will now prepare to dismantle the apparatus in place to diversify our police forces. We will set back community policing and unleash conflict between communities and police. And for sure our people will lose their lives in the ensuing chaos. Shame.

Education and employment equity: The attack on employment equity in education will also have far-reaching implications. While we struggle to educate our youths in an education system that too often devalues and marginalizes their experience and rejects their history, there was some hope that teachers and principals in the schools will begin to reflect the school population. This legislation denies that hope. Minority and working-class students will continue to want for mentors.

In 1990, the government of the day mandated school boards to develop employment equity programs for women and other designated groups. Most boards ignored the requirement to develop plans for other designated groups until 1992, when the Education Act was amended to require employment equity for visible minorities and other groups. The policy and program memorandum implementing employment equity is not two years old and the legislation is now being repealed. That legislation also implements anti-racism programs in the schools. You can imagine how inspiring that is.

After all these years of fighting for our children, we are left with nothing to ensure equity in education. The many black educators who are supply teachers or who were trained outside the province and saw this as an opportunity to practise their chosen profession are back in limbo. It is hard to believe that the government understands the full implications of its actions.

The inclusive vision contained in Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, 1993, acknowledges the existence of persistent systemic and intentional discrimination in employment. This discrimination is in part responsible for the underrepresentation in most areas of employment, especially senior and management positions, and overrepresentation in low-end jobs with little prospect for advancement of members of the following groups: women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal people. It seeks to protect all of Ontario's citizens from discriminatory employment practices and ensure equal access to that opportunity for all.

Finally, the government has suggested four reasons why the employment equity legislation is being repealed.

It claims the legislation is unnecessary:

Not so. Studies done, including the Rosalie Abella commission report, titled Equality in Employment, clearly established the persistence of systemic discrimination in employment. Studies also conclude that voluntary attempts have not worked while legislated efforts have led to results. Mandatory legislation was responsible for making the federal civil service bilingual.

1630

It claims it is unfair:

Employment equity legislation removes barriers to employment and promotion. It is aimed at redressing historic disadvantages suffered by many Ontarians. It introduces a level playing field in the job market by requiring standard practices and transparent policies. It attacks job ghettos and restores hope for many denied opportunity by discriminatory hiring practices.

It claims it is ineffective:

To the contrary, employers like the Royal Bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia and Canadian National Railways have benefited from the federal employment equity legislation by creating more diverse workplaces. Employers have clearly stated during consultation that they see the need for the kind of working partnerships among employers, employees, unions and women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities, aboriginal people and other community organizations. Bill 79 was not even given a chance before this repeal.

Voluntary employment equity hasn't worked and the Tories have provided no plan to deal with discrimination in employment while slashing and burning measures to deal with harassment and discrimination in the OPS. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is no alternative to dealing with systemic discrimination. It takes too long to deal with complaints and most complainants have gotten no satisfaction from it. Yet that is where the Tories are sending the women, racial minorities, persons with disabilities and aboriginal people who are denied fairness in employment.

It claims it is too costly:

Studies done in various jurisdictions prove that the return to investment in barrier removal, diversity training and good human resource planning more than justify the investment in employment equity. Employers and employees working together to implement employment equity leads to increased productivity and more profitability. Many employers acknowledge that using the broadest pool available will make them more competitive and standardizing their selection processes will make them more productive. It is a worthwhile investment. What would be costly is having to destroy the information they have collected for the purposes of improving their human resources practices.

Repealing legislation without anything to replace it betrays a lack of sophistication necessary to govern a diverse, modern society. It is regrettable that the government should choose to approach its responsibility for all Ontarians this way. Tearing down is no way to build a democracy. We build a civil society by broadening our minds and including different opinions and experiences. Please resist the temptation not to listen to the wisdom of others' experiences.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this important public policy issue.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Lindo. You were very good in the time there. You used all the time for your presentation, and please be assured that we will read the parts that you didn't get a chance to read to us. We appreciate your interest in the process. Thank you very much.

Mr Curling: Any questions we could ask of the parliamentary assistant?

The Chair: The presenters were all given 20 minutes and told to use it any way they chose. Ms Lindo decided to use it all for her presentation, so there is no time for questions.

Mr Curling: That is democracy for you there.

TORONTO BOARD OF EDUCATION

The Chair: The next presenters are the Toronto Board of Education: Janet Ray, Susan Cook, Susan McGrath, Tam Goossen, John Doherty and Horace Knight. Welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes and you can use them as you see fit. So the floor is yours. Thank you for visiting with us.

Ms Janet Ray: If I may put some faces to the names, I am Janet Ray. I'm the senior superintendent of human resources with the Toronto Board of Education. On my immediate right is Tam Goossen, trustee and chair of our race relations committee. On my left is Susan Cook, the superintendent of our personnel services, and on my far left John Doherty, trustee and chair of our personnel and organization committee. The other two mentioned have graciously agreed to sit slightly behind the delegation: Horace Knight, who is the manager of our staff relations department, and Susan McGrath, from our equal opportunity office, adviser to the director. Trustee Doherty will begin our presentation and Superintendent Cook will pursue it from there.

Mr John Doherty: Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to address you. I want to address three brief points before we get to the body of our presentation this afternoon.

We are here to support the current legislation for three reasons, I believe, that are important to state today. One is, I think the public in Ontario needs to have confidence in the hiring practices of its public institutions and its large institutions across the province. It is important that the hiring processes be clear, be transparent and be seen to be fair and equitable to all so that merit and skill are the primary determinants of the hiring practices.

Employment equity has started a process, through our public institutions and through our large employers in this province, of reviewing our employment practices to ensure that when we come to the interview process and the selection process, we are clear as to our objectives in our hiring and we are clear that we are giving fair consideration to all those who have applied for jobs. It ensures that there is an ongoing review that takes place through our organizations to ensure that our practices remain consistent and fair and that merit and skill are the main determinants ensuring the candidates are selected for the job.

We think that is important for public confidence and for all the taxpayers in this province, to believe that they have an equal opportunity to be hired in this province. We would encourage you to reconsider the legislation and to look at ensuring that those premises are part of any legislation, and we believe that the current legislation will undermine that.

Interjections.

Mr Doherty: No. We support the current legislation.

Mrs Pupatello: Oh, as opposed to the --

Interjection: The one we're killing.

Interjection: We'd drop this one here, right?

Mr Doherty: Yes.

The Chair: We'll keep the questions till the --

Interjection: We know it's very complicated.

Interjections.

Mr Doherty: It's very simple.

Ms Susan Cook: Mr Chair, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you on this very important topic.

The Toronto Board of Education has a student population of 78,000 and offers public education services in a city which has been declared as the most diverse population in the world. As a major employer in the province, the board supports the principles inherent in the current Employment Equity Act and has very serious concerns about the implications of the repeal provisions of Bill 8.

The Toronto board strongly believes that the delivery of superior educational services is better served when the employment force reflects the diversity of the student and parent populations of our schools. With this in mind, our board, acting within the special provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code, has had equal opportunity initiatives since the 1970s and has had a goals and timetables program since 1991.

Through the 1970s and 1980s, our efforts in terms of equal opportunity were focused primarily on establishing an environment which was responsive to the changing diversity of our city and was open to changes in the composition of the traditional workforce. Apart from compliance with the Ministry of Education's goals and timetables program for the promotion of women in positions of responsibility in schools, no other employment goals were set. Many employment systems were improved. These include our methods of describing and advertising job opportunities, how we trained our hiring managers, staff development for individuals aspiring to promotions and introduction of policies to deal with racial mistreatment and sexual harassment.

Despite all these improvements in our systems, we found when we did a workforce survey in 1990 and compared the results with demographic information available for our area from Census Canada that the representation of some groups in our workforce lagged significantly behind the representation in the local population. The most noticeable gaps affected racial minority groups and persons with disabilities. The same Census Canada information confirmed that the gap was not attributable to a lack of qualifications. In fact, the underrepresented groups tended to have higher qualifications than the general population.

1640

It was at this time that we instituted a goals and timetables program with the aim of improving the fairness of representation in our workforce by the year 2000. We did not set quotas. We set reasonable and flexible goals to aim for, with the understanding that if we did not reach these goals, the remedy would be to re-examine our employment practices and set revised goals and timetables. All hiring and promotion conducted in this program was and continues to be based on selecting the best-qualified candidate for the job. In other words, it is based entirely on the merit principle. This approach is clearly not a quota system. Equally clear to us is the fact that our obligations under the Employment Equity Act did not require us to deal with quotas either, but rather reinforced the flexible goals and timetables program we had already embarked upon.

While our program contains many qualitative measures designed to ensure barrier-free employment systems, the program also includes the maintenance of a workforce database to enable us to measure the degree to which our workforce does in fact mirror the communities we serve.

The introduction of the Employment Equity Act reinforced and refined the programs we already had in place. Collection of workforce data on a voluntary basis provided for in that legislation was regarded by our board as part of the continuum of information maintenance, as well as an opportunity to refresh the database which was created in 1990 and to which we had been continuously adding information.

We have therefore a particular concern about the provision in Bill 8, subsection 1(5), which requires the destruction of employee information collected voluntarily under the auspices of the Employment Equity Act. In our case, we did not work with two parallel data collection mechanisms, one to maintain our already existing database and one separate one to comply with employment equity legislation. We did not have two databases. We had planned to use data collected in response to the Employment Equity Act as a continuing piece of the workforce information we have been collecting since 1990. A requirement to destroy that information destroys the continuity and integrity of a significant piece of the special programs we initiated pursuant to section 14 of the Human Rights Code.

While we oppose absolutely the repeal of the Employment Equity Act, we would urge as a minimum an amendment to the proposed bill which will permit employers who were pursuing special employment programs prior to the introduction of the Employment Equity Act to retain information vital to the measurement of the success of our programs.

We have an additional and separate concern about the implications of subsection 1(5) of Bill 8. This relates to our ability to defend ourselves in cases of human rights complaints. Destruction of data which proves that we do not have a record of discrimination against any particular group or groups potentially damages our reputation as an equal opportunity employer and embroils us in the costs associated with providing defence at hearings of the Human Rights Commission. As a public service employer, we are anxious not to spend taxpayers' money on such protracted litigation.

As indicated in our opening statements, we are strongly committed to placing ourselves in a position where we are clearly seen as reflecting the diversity of our communities. In this regard, we are acting in the manner of any business which plans strategically to be responsive to its clientele. Census Canada and the Health and Activity Limitation Survey have published information which clearly indicates the rapid demographic changes occurring in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area. We know that while we have made positive efforts to keep pace with these changes, we still lag behind, and believe that proactive measures, including goals to work towards, are and will be required to ensure workplaces where the potential of all people in the workforce has an opportunity to be recognized and used.

We believe the provisions of the Employment Equity Act support this direction, as do the special provisions in the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Toronto Board of Education will continue to work within any and all appropriate legislative frameworks to continue to ensure the best environment possible for its students, parents and employees. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. We now have about two minutes per party for questions, beginning with the official opposition.

Mrs Pupatello: The initiatives that your board undertook on your own were implemented in 1990, or prior to that?

Ms Cook: We have been implementing equal opportunity initiatives since the 1970s. A more formal employment equity program, including goals and timetables, we began work on around 1989, did a workforce survey in 1990, and adopted a goals and timetables program in 1991, and we've been working with that.

Mrs Pupatello: Did you have legal or court fees etc? Have you been having those kinds of expenses up until this point? When you mentioned about you really shouldn't spend taxpayers' money being embroiled in these kinds of court battles that may result in an appeal, have you had that kind of legal cost at this point?

Ms Cook: If the question is, have we been involved in defending ourselves in human rights complaints, the answer is yes, we have, and we have had legal costs associated with that. I'd also like to add that we've never lost a case.

The Chair: Mr Sergio, you have a time for a very quick question.

Mr Sergio: It is very evident that you have made very big strides in accomplishing what you set out to do, but it's also very much clear that you fell behind in accomplishing the equality in your workplace. Do you think that without this legislation you can reach that, or is it going to be a further hindrance to accomplish that, the equality in the workplace?

Ms Cook: I certainly think it will be more difficult for us to achieve our goals without this kind of legislation. We felt this kind of legislation created an environment in this province where we were all working together for common goals and that this would very much help us in terms of improving our record in the directions that we wish to go in.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Sergio. For the NDP, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Chair, and it's nice to see all of you. I want to ask you a question that comes out of the --

Interjection: I miss him.

Mr Marchese: I miss all of you. What a board. I'd like to be back there now.

The Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario gave a submission, and they said that the equal opportunity approach meant the following: "In 1980, women were two-thirds of the teachers, 15% of vice-principals and only 7% of principals." Then they say, "Even after intervention, persuasion, education and funds provided to boards of education, 15 years later in 1995 women were three-quarters of the teachers, 52% of the vice-principals and 33% of the principals."

My point is that it took a long time, with a great deal of work, to get to that modest achievement. They argue that equal opportunity works, that they have made gains, and isn't that all right? What's your view of that?

Ms Cook: Our view is that, yes, while it's nice that gains are made, I think they always have to be looked at in relation to the factual realities you're working with. If you have an employment pool where 70% of the people in that pool are women and 60% of the positions of responsibility are held by men, and you then make some gains to the point where maybe 30% of the positions come to be held by women, yes, that's progress but you still have got a very long way to go, and anything that gets you there faster and achieves the kind of equity that equal representation of the employment pool vis-à-vis positions of responsibility -- anything that helps you do that is something that should be seriously worked with.

1650

The Chair: Thank you. There are three names on the list for the government party, so you can use your time accordingly.

Mr Maves: Just a quick one. You started your own employment equity programs before the legislation. Is it safe to assume that you'll continue to promote employment equity even without the legislation?

Ms Cook: Yes.

Mr Clement: Do you think that sometimes when employees are asked to do something by employers, they feel a compulsion to do so because of the overwhelming influence and superiority of the employer, superiority not in a physical sense but just in terms of the influence of the employer?

Ms Cook: I'm sorry; I haven't picked up the import of your question. Could you repeat it, please?

Mr Clement: Do you think that sometimes when employees are asked to do something by the employer, the employees, even if they don't want to do that, feel that they have to do that given the influence in their lives of the employer?

Ms Cook: Would you like to respond to it?

Ms Ray: Yes, if I may, Mr Chair. I believe that when you present something on a totally and absolutely confidential basis and give the person the right to respond both completely and with the sense of, "I do not wish to respond to this," you have taken into account every privacy and confidential wish of the individual and there is no threat and no feeling that you have to comply.

Mr Clement: Even if the employee knows that if the employee refuses to fill out the form -- say there's a handicap which is not visible and they refuse to fill out that form -- the employer will be penalized in terms of the numerical targets?

Ms Ray: The form is very clear. If they do not wish to complete the form, they simply say, "I do not wish to complete this," and send the form in. That is all there is to the form.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your involvement in our process and your presentation.

ORGANIZATION OF BLACK TRADESMEN AND TRADESWOMEN OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Our next presenters are from the Organization of Black Tradesmen and Tradeswomen of Ontario: Michael Carter, who's a board member. Welcome, Mr Carter. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. The questions, when you get around to them, will start with the NDP, so we appreciate your coming to talk to us. The floor's all yours, sir.

Mr Sergio: Did you say he's from the NDP?

The Chair: No. I said the questions will start with the NDP.

Mr Sergio: Oh, I'm sorry.

Mr Michael Carter: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Michael Carter. I'm a board member of the Organization of Black Tradesmen and Tradeswomen of Ontario, referred to in short as OBTTO. In my brief I was supposed to be accompanied by one of our consultants, but apparently she fell ill so hence I'm here alone. I apologize on behalf of her.

The Organization of Black Tradesmen and Tradeswomen of Ontario, OBTTO, as referred to in the future, is a not-for-profit corporation which was established in 1989.

Who we are: Our mission statement is to promote better access to jobs and apprenticeships in the trades for black youths and black women and to disseminate more information on jobs and apprenticeships in the trades among racial minorities, especially black youths and black women.

Why do we exist? As I say, when we were formed back in 1989, it was formed from a group of construction workers who were in their forties and fifties, and they looked around and saw that there were no young blacks entering the construction trade. Hence, we all got together -- I was not involved in that group initially; I got involved after -- and we started doing a little bit of research, as much as we could on our own, and contacted a couple of the unions and found out they averaged about 50,000 apprentices in the trades area in Ontario and there were less than about 50 blacks involved in this trade. Hence we got together and formed a group, and what we did together -- myself and the then Education minister -- we started liaisoning between the unions and some large corporations and put this fact towards the unions. That's where our grass roots started.

I must admit that you just have to look at any construction site or road situation and you can see the lack of certain groups in the workforce or in that specific area. However, we approached a couple of the unions and it was amazing; we had a very good response. We pointed out to them that one particular union had 4,000 employees and they had no blacks represented and they had very few women even in their own class. When we brought this to their attention, it's amazing that the people within the union were sort of shocked and amazed, because I think this is where the systemic reasons come in. They weren't even aware of it.

It goes back, I guess, to what you call the old-school system where you're employed in a union, a construction site comes up, they want somebody to work and you tell your buddy, your friend, your neighbour, your kid, and it goes on and on. It's pretty difficult for somebody else to fit into that clique. Sometimes somebody is in the construction and there's a language situation, hence when you place someone in that situation they have a tendency, if they don't want you in that clique, to find reasons why you shouldn't be there.

However, we were able to make a lot of headway in some of the unions. They saw what we were talking about, they sympathized and we were able to place a number of our personnel in different unions from time to time as we went along. That's basically why we existed in the first instance. It grew from a small group and we're getting large. We got involved with the government; we got involved with different people.

But I must say there were some unions we couldn't break into and to date we haven't broken into. Without the employment equity legislation, we think we would not have made headway in certain areas of the trades, which is what we're concentrating on, getting into the trades. We do a bit of large corporations and business that we get involved with.

Just to make some references, we had an encounter this year, in the early summer, with an area manager with Bell Canada who looks after the Phonecentres. He manages all the Phonecentres in Ontario. Just in conversations, that's all -- we just set up meetings and have conversations -- we questioned him as to how many employees he looked after and he mentioned a couple thousand and he had about a thousand black employees within that group that he's managing. We asked him, "Do you have any black managers?" He looked sort of shocked and he said, "No, but I never thought of it." These are the things that happen, I think, even though employment equity was in force, and being in that position he never even looked at the figure. He had so many employees of one race and he had so many mangers throughout the whole of Ontario, and there's no area where he saw it fit. They even had Chinese managers in certain areas where the majority was Chinese, which is fine, but there was not a black manager. However, he said he was going to look into it, and I must admit to date he has placed a black manager in one of the outlets.

So what we're saying is that the law is there. Some people have to adhere to it, some people don't. We think that people would look at it and, without any emphasis on doing anything, they would not do anything. We're not here saying that the groups are racist or they just want to be; we believe that people just look at things and they've been done it in one way and they keep doing it on and on. Unless something is done or some more specific guidelines are set out, certain companies and certain organizations would not move in any directions.

1700

We also like to say that the way some of the people in the positions sell employment equity, as members of OBTTO and a board member, and we discussed this, we think they sell the idea short of what it's worth. I can only speak on behalf of our organization and most of the black people we encounter, and I'm not going to say all, but we don't think the people we represent look at employment equity as an opportunity, basically, because most of the youths we talk to, what they're looking for is an opportunity. They want an equal opportunity. We're not here to say give us any special benefits or special conditions. We just say if a person goes for a situation, he should be judged based on his ability and his skill, not on his ethnicity or colour, and it happens and it's there. It's something a little bit subtle but it's there. So many people we have placed are just marginal, not people with great qualifications; it's the average grade 11, grade 12 incidents.

If you refer to my flyer, we have three situations of what people say, and I'll just to read from it: "OBTTO got me into the tile and marble training program through the guild. I'm happy with what I have learned so far and I've told friends to go to OBTTO...." That's Dennis Banton from the Tile and Marble Guild. That's by the person who attended.

The other one is, "I've always been interested in cars and I was out of work so OBTTO got me into the automotive training program at Centennial College where I am the only woman." Ismay Pascal; she did a two-year course with Toyota.

The other one is: "I'm a third-year apprentice with the bricklayers' union and their training centre put me in touch with OBTTO to work with black youth. I've been involved ever since." This is one of the first trainees we had out.

These are the types of things that we get people into and situations we get them. We get very much good feedback from both the people we placed and the unions we encounter.

Actually, some people refer to the equal opportunity as acting as a quota system. We don't think so, and most of the people we deal with we try to place in situations based on their ability and skill, and most people we talk to don't think that they want a job that they cannot -- they may apply for a job they think they can do, but once you explain to them. Even within our own little screening system, when we try to place them into different situations or different trades -- maybe they want to be a plumber. We have an opening for, say, a guy in bricklaying and you explain it to him and he says, "Well, look, I don't think I can do it, or I don't like that." In most cases, the person is willing to be placed in a situation that he's capable of and willing to handle.

Most of the people in the administrative, which is more a woman's area, feel offended when somebody thinks that they've been placed in a situation because of being female or being black or whatever. So I think when we hear some people talking about quotas, and I don't know who they represent or who they're speaking of, but basically we as a group don't think that's what we're about and that's what we try to instil in the youths or the people we deal with and we try to place. Most of the unions and organizations we deal with are very pleased with what we do. They highly recommend us and they seem to look to us first if they want apprentices because we do some percentage of screening and we try to get the person job-ready for the situation.

In the script I gave I didn't leave enough time for everybody to question. I'd like to read it. We all realize that the present legislation has weaknesses. However, it is a good starting point. We feel that all the time, resources and progress that have been made are going to be revoked. Systemic discrimination has been and is real. This cannot be denied or minimized. The equal opportunity plan which replaces employment equity will not be legislated. This raises a number of concerns for us.

I thank you for the time, and we hope that our voice has been heard and will be listened to.

The Chair: Okay, Mr Carter. We've got time for some questions. Ms Churley, we have about two and a half minutes each.

Ms Churley: I'd like to thank you for your presentation. Of course, I've heard of your group and your organization and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you. I know that you've worked hard and you've made a lot of inroads.

I wanted also to thank you for, I think, your balanced and really fair presentation. I think that people really hate to be called racist, for good reason, and I think you're right that most people aren't, although there are some; we know that. But you came to the issue of systemic racism or systemic unfair treatment and people not even knowing it, and I think you expressed very well how that happens to a lot of black people.

I would like to ask you, and this comes in response to -- remember the Stephen Lewis report after the riots two years ago and the shocking revelations about how underemployed particularly black youth are among unemployed youth, which is also very high.

Given that our employment equity law is going to be repealed, what would you say to this government that it should be doing in the context of how it sees this as it has to be dealt with through volunteers? And what do you need from them to help you with what everybody agrees is a problem within the black community?

Mr Carter: We as a group intend to continue doing what we're doing. Like I said, what we think is that if there's no law and no legislation saying that you have to do a certain thing or go in a certain direction, then most of the groups will just continue on their merry way. Like I say, it's something that's imbedded and it's just an accepted situation. So if you just leave it, I see the new bill that they're trying to put in is going to say, they're going to sort of lean to, human rights. We have members of the group who have dealt with human rights, and you're talking about a two -- or three-year wait. If everybody is going to wait that long to process a complaint of some kind, we'll be so far behind in the next four or five years, it just wouldn't make any -- even if the decision comes in favour of the individual, we'll be too far behind. It's too much of a slow process, and you're still leaving the employer or the business without any guidelines. You may have guidelines, but they're not enforceable because it's up to them.

I must admit some of the companies, and I know a few, are going to continue doing what they were doing before it opened up eyes to the situation. So I say the government will have to look at it. What they're going to bring in in replacement of it is just going to leave it up to the company. I think that way we will be sort of going back to what we were before; and now that our eyes are open, what difference will that make? It will just be one step backward, I would think, from our position.

Ms Churley: In other words, you don't think what's being presented here is going to work?

The Chair: The next question is for the government.

Mr Maves: I'll try to go quick here. I just applaud your going out in the community, as you said, and opening up some people's eyes, but there are some other people who have come in and testified and talked about outreach programs, and I think those are very valuable.

I just have some questions about tradespersons in general. As we're moving more and more to a service economy, are tradespersons representing a lower and lower proportion of the workforce or has that kind of bottomed out and is steadying itself?

Mr Carter: A tradesperson, obviously they're more related to construction and right now construction is a very low situation, so we are in problems in there. We are aware of that.

Mr Maves: Do you find success for the black community more in the non-union sector of tradespersons or the union sector? I know one's commercial; one is usually home construction.

Mr Carter: We deal with both areas and we don't really try to differentiate our jobs. We just deal with them on a one-on-one basis, and the ones we deal with, like I say, we have a good relationship with them and most of the people we place.

There's a twofold situation, because even in our situation, when we go to the youth and to the trades -- it also goes back to the school. Some of these kids, especially in our society, what they're doing is what they call general education level, and only when they get to grade 10 or 11 do they realize that means that they're never going to be able to go to university, and some of the kids are very disappointed about that.

So when we try to redirect them in a place in the trades, most people think trades are a lower -- you just find if it's low or high. Well, a tradesman makes a fair buck and all, if you're a five-year tradesman. When you point this out to the youths, some of them are amazed that there's such an opportunity in the trades area, because they figured they were lost by not going to university. So we think it also works both ways.

Mr Maves: Just quickly --

The Chair: Unfortunately we don't have time for your second question, or Mr Stewart's first question.

Mr Maves: Sorry.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Carter, who funds your group?

Mr Carter: We fund ourselves, basically, and we are assisted by the government; different government agencies provide us with funds to do specific programs based on -- like, we do trades in --

Mrs Pupatello: So government agencies fund particular programs you might carry on.

Mr Carter: Yes. And in connection with that, they would fund, say, 75% and we will fund 25%.

Mrs Pupatello: I have to hurry with my question because he'll cut me off. You mentioned when you first started that you don't believe that anyone should be any further advanced or get special treatment in terms of hiring. You said that when you started today. You said you don't expect groups to be given special treatment. Do you think that with Bill 79 there were groups that were getting special treatment?

Mr Carter: What's Bill 79?

Mrs Pupatello: The one that was in place, the Employment Equity Act.

Mr Carter: Oh, okay. We don't think that. We think it was just representing what society's all about. That's how we see it.

Mr Curling: Good presentation. Access to Trades and Professions, that wonderful report, said most people are being shut out. Do you think this government should immediately address that report that says we need more access to trades and professions?

Mr Carter: Oh, definitely.

Mr Curling: Good. The employment agencies have been found to be discriminatory many, many times, and I'm not saying that by myself; it's the Canadian civil liberties association. Do you think that if they find those employment agencies to be discriminatory, they should lose their licence?

Mr Carter: I see no reason why they shouldn't.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate you being part of our process and being interested in what's going on. A good presentation, and thank you very much.

Mr Carter: Thank you.

1710

JOHN BROOKS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION AND SCHOLARSHIP FUND

The Chair: Next is John Brooks, from the John Brooks Community Foundation and Scholarship Fund. Welcome, Dr Brooks. The floor is yours, sir.

Dr John Brooks: Job quotas are unfair, feed discrimination in the workplace. The Human Rights Code provides the foundation for equal opportunity in Ontario.

Equal opportunity is a good thing. It gives everyone a chance based on their qualifications, their capability to do the job, regardless of colour or race.

Business: Non-productive employees are costly to both business and government. Employers know that if they are going to gain a competitive edge in today's global market, they have to make use of all available resources -- human resources.

Support the merit system, hiring and promoting by merit: The merit system recognizes people for their accomplishments, their qualifications and their capabilities.

Encourage initiatives in education and training: This equal opportunity will be cost-effective if we have qualified staff to deal with.

I strongly support hiring and promoting by the merit system.

I'm open for questions now.

The Chair: You're open for questions now? Boy, that's the shortest presentation we've had so far. Okay.

Mr Clement: I have a quick one, Dr Brooks. Do you think there are ways that government can support the merit system and support equal opportunity without legislation?

Dr Brooks: Without legislation?

Mr Clement: Yes, without passing a law. Are there things government can do, other than passing laws, that could be supportive?

Dr Brooks: It's possible that they could do without passing laws, but to make it work successfully I suppose you have to put it in law.

Mr Clement: Or have a policy rather than a law?

Dr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Stewart: I couldn't agree with the gentleman more. I think it's just absolutely great. Much like the gentleman prior, who is looking for partnerships between trades and unions and all races, I think that's what Bill 8 is all about. I congratulate you on it.

I guess what I'd like to say is that the bill we're proposing is based on merit and ability and not on special treatment, and I gather that's what you have said. Am I right or am I wrong in what you're saying?

Dr Brooks: You're right. I deal with a lot of young people and they are eventually going to be the future politicians, lawyers and doctors. I deal with an awful lot of them and I try to assist them for continuing education so they can get their fair share of the society.

I deal with hundreds of kids from right across the province, all the way from Manitoba, Montreal, who come down for the function I do, from all across Canada. I don't want to see, with all the effort we have put out over the years to help these kids, that there is no opportunity for them after they graduate. I would like to see something in place that will protect all these young people.

Most of the time the media makes us look as if all the kids are bad, but we have a group of kids -- Mr Curling was at our last function. Sit and listen to them. We have a group of young people who are achievers; they're future doctors, lawyers, politicians. Our guest speaker that night was one of our students who's now graduated from law school. The one who introduced her has now graduated as a doctor and she's at Toronto General Hospital, through the program we have been doing.

These are the kind of things we are doing to try to make sure that our society reaches out to all our young people. People of all races are part of our program. It's not for any special race. It's for anyone who will apply themselves and has the ability to move on, and we try to assist them in that way, to make them better citizens for this country.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I just want to read for a moment from one of the presentations this afternoon. "As indicated in our opening statements, we are strongly committed to placing ourselves in a position where we are clearly seen as reflecting the diversity of our communities. In this regard we are acting in the manner of any business which plans strategically to be responsive to its clientele."

I haven't gone through all the presentations, but there was another one this morning that paraphrased the almost identical statement. In fact, the conclusion of both parties was opposite. One suggested that the only way this could be accomplished was through legislation and mandatory numbers to force someone to do that, and the other suggested that it be on a voluntary basis, that if it were good business, in fact business would do it. What would be your opinion on that?

Dr Brooks: If it's good business, business will do it. I agree with that, because business is always looking for good business to make more profit, and by making more profit, they make more jobs and more opportunities.

Mr Flaherty: I was pleased, Dr Brooks, that you considered achievers to be future lawyers and politicians, being both. It's not often we hear that.

In terms of education, do you have any specific ideas yourself about how we can improve the education system to create more job opportunities?

Dr Brooks: I do visit a lot of schools. I talked to a group of grade 6 students, 50 of them, listening to what they have to say at grade 6. After I finished the presentation, the teacher asked them if they could write me a letter thanking me for coming. Two weeks after, I got 50 letters from the 50 students in the class, from various countries and backgrounds of the world. Every one of them was saying the same thing in their letters, grade 6 students from different countries of the world. They're all looking for exactly the same thing that we are all looking for: a place to live free where all expectations and opportunities are open for them. When I read some of them I almost cried, listening to these grade 6 students telling what the country and things should be like, and they're from different countries of the world.

1720

Mr Curling: The John Brooks Community Foundation and Scholarship Fund is one of the organizations that gives a lot of young people an opportunity, and I want to commend you for the kind of work you're doing. I also hear you say, Dr Brooks, that having given those young people the opportunity to get an education, because one of the barriers they face is no funds, then coming out into the world, even though they have graduated -- and I saw an excellent young lady who is a lawyer -- they find it difficult to get into some of those institutions because they are systemically denied, because they're women, because they're disabled or what have you.

Let me put the question back to you. Although many of them have waited, with the effort you've put in and the many people in the community with their money for that education, and they are being systemically denied, don't you feel that sometimes we have to put laws in place to tell those companies they are discriminating and they cannot do that? Do you feel that legislation would be very helpful in breaking those barriers down?

Dr Brooks: I'm not so sure. If a person is qualified, there's no way you'll be able to stop them. But if they don't have the necessary qualification, legislation alone cannot help. The students I'm talking about, who are now doctors, lawyers, teachers, their qualification makes them that and you can't take that away from them.

Mr Curling: About eight of those young people came to see me yesterday. They are black lawyers and they're not getting in and they said they've tried everywhere. Many of them insinuated that they're women and they're blacks and they feel they're not getting through at all and are being denied. They're qualified. It is shown that many of the minorities, many disabled, are quite qualified but they have the highest unemployment rate within the system. Hat is causing this, would you say?

Dr Brooks: At this time the world economy is in a bad state. Until that can start to change, then more opportunities will be open for all of these people. But I look at what's happening around the world and I can see that we're still living in one of the best countries of the world right here. We should protect the system we have and help to encourage our young people so they find their rightful place in society regardless of colour, creed, race or wherever they come from, because they are the future of this country. We hope they will get that kind of support to be worthwhile citizens of this country.

Mr Sergio: You would make a good politician.

Mr Curling: You're saying, then, that they should wait until the economy is right, maybe when they're about 60, because the fact is that the economy won't right itself. I've been hearing the complaint of politicians that we're in a bad economic state for a long time. You say that if they wait a bit, they may get a job.

Dr Brooks: No, no. They should keep on improving themselves so when the opportunities come along, they're ready for them. I know the boys are going a little slow. There are five girls to every boy who is moving ahead. The women are going to eventually take over, whether you like it or not, because there are five of them to every one guy who is turning out.

Mr Sergio: I said you would make a good politician. I think you should run for the Conservatives next time.

Mr Curling: I've got 45 seconds, which I will use, Dr Brooks, to say to you that there are many people who have been waiting a long time. Education is a very important thing to tell the community and businesses that they cannot discriminate. But if, on seatbelts, we had waited just for education, people would be dying still. Legislation has caused a lot of people to be saved. Because we have seatbelt legislation, it has become natural today. So legislation, I would say, is extremely important to educate people also to the point of view that systemic discrimination is illegal.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, you stand alone to use up your time.

Mr Marchese: Absolutely. Dr Brooks, I have a problem with some of the comments that you are making and I want to try to get to them. I don't disagree with much of what you say. In fact, I agree with most of the points that you make on this sheet here. Even these Conservative members agree that there is discrimination and they also agree that there is systemic discrimination. They agree with that. You agree with that too, is that correct?

Dr Brooks: There's a percentage, yes. A small percentage of it is there and will always be there. You're not going to be able to stop it.

Mr Marchese: So, Dr Brooks, you think that discrimination is small, not large.

Dr Brooks: No, not large.

Mr Marchese: You're saying it's not pervasive either.

Dr Brooks: In some cases, but I think the majority of the people are trying to work together and to make things go well for everyone.

Mr Marchese: I want to bring to your attention some studies, because I referred to a Bank of Montreal study that was done in 1990 -- and I read that in the House -- that pinpointed the discrimination that exists against women, the horrible perceptions they have about women in the workplace and the fact that there are so many women who work in the banks and so few of them end up in top positions. That clearly shows even in 1990 that we haven't moved very far in men's perceptions on women.

We have Judge Abella -- who's a judge now; in 1986 when she did that report she wasn't a judge -- but she produced a wonderful report which was the basis for the employment equity the Conservative government introduced in 1986 at the federal level, which concluded that there was pervasive discrimination and it was systemic and that we needed to redress that through legislation. In their form, employment equity was much milder than ours, but it was an employment equity bill, recognizing that we've got a serious problem.

There are a lot of groups that have come in front of this committee -- women, people with disabilities, people of colour -- who have said: "We've got a problem. We can't get our foot in the door. We don't get hired because of the way we look, because of people's perceptions about our ability as black people." Some of them are saying: "Voluntary efforts will not help us. We need something such as Bill 79 to redress injustice and inequity." Are you saying that everything is not so bad and we just need to get black people to get more degrees, although they have enough, many of them? Is that it?

Dr Brooks: I'm in favour of disabled people, that they should be well taken care of in this country, because it's not their fault why they are disabled. The society should look out for people like those and make sure they're well taken care of.

Mr Marchese: But Dr Brooks, black people are very qualified. We have looked at statistics that show that in spite of their overqualifications, as a community they're underemployed or unemployed. That leads me to conclude that there's something about how people hire that keeps them out, that shuts them out. That means we've got a problem. You're saying we don't have a problem, or maybe, yes, we have a problem but we just have to let people do it voluntarily. But I'm saying to you, the black community is overqualified but it's not getting hired.

Dr Brooks: But they won't be able to do that for much longer. It has to change.

Mr Marchese: Well, how?

Dr Brooks: That is why we are talking now, because we want the changes.

Mr Marchese: Yes, but they're saying that our bill, which talked about reasonable goals, encouraging employers with their unions to get together to break down the barriers and make sure there are enough of the designated groups who are represented in that workforce -- that's what we tried to do. They're saying no, that's bad. We have to get employers to do that in their own way, voluntarily, because everybody thinks it's a bad thing, but we've got to get them to do it voluntarily. That's what they say on that side. Is that what you say?

Dr Brooks: No, but I know everything cannot be done in short terms, because you're dealing with a hundred different minds and each one has their own views, their own opinion, and it will take time to reach all the points that you want to make. But I'm sure it's going to happen.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Brooks, and Mr Marchese. We appreciate your interest in our process. Have a good evening.

Dr Brooks: Thank you, sir.

1730

ETHNO RACIAL PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES COALITION OF ONTARIO

The Chair: The next group is the Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario, the acronym is ERDCO. Representing them is Rafia Haniff, who is the chair.

Welcome, Ms Haniff. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. The questions, if you allow time for them, will begin with the Liberals.

Ms Rafia Haniff: Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to appear before this committee. I'm here today representing the Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario, ERDCO. The members of ERDCO are people with disabilities who are from a wide range of ethnoracial backgrounds. We are a cross-disability provincial organization addressing the issues of ethnoracial people with disabilities. We are committed to promoting respect for ethnoracial people with disabilities of all ages, culture, gender/sex and religions. We are guided by the principles of anti-racism and accessibility. We are one of the fastest growing disability organizations, not only in the Metro Toronto area, but in the province of Ontario.

Our community experiences a lot of barriers. We have a lot of issues. Many of our members are unemployed, underemployed, underutilized and they are actively looking for work. We face double and triple disadvantages in employment due to sex, race and disability and these factors compound each other and the barriers become even bigger.

Our hopes for finding jobs in this environment, with the repeal of the employment equity legislation, are gravely slim, due to these insurmountable barriers and lack of opportunities to contribute our diverse skills, abilities, knowledge and expertise to the community.

Over the long haul, people who have benefited the most from employment equity are in fact people with disabilities. For too long we have been kept out of the workforce due to a number of barriers we face: systemic, attitudinal or physical barriers.

Do you know what it's like to be stereotyped in certain positions and not given an opportunity in the field that you're qualified for?

Do you know what it's like to be denied a job because the office does not have a wheelchair-accessible washroom?

Do you know what it's like to be told that your foreign credentials that you're holding are worth nothing and they are not acceptable?

These are only some of the barriers that we face.

This is a very, very sad time for people with disabilities across this province. It's actually a tragedy for people with disabilities across this province. We worked extremely hard and long for the Employment Equity Act and with the stroke of a pen this government is taking this away from us. You stole our rights of levelling the playing field which would have allowed us all to compete for jobs for which we are well-qualified. What message are you sending to people with disabilities in this province? That some people are better than others? That only those with privilege will survive? The Employment Equity Act supported the gradual integration of people with disabilities in the workplace through a comprehensive removal of systemic barriers. This government is now proposing to cancel 15 to 20 years of painstaking work that we have put in, in this legislation.

Goodwill and "We want to do it" from employers did not work for people with disabilities -- and I want to underline that: It did not work for people with disabilities. Voluntary employment equity policies did not work for us. It took employment equity legislation, both at the federal and provincial levels, to generate real change. What we need is mandatory employment equity legislation.

We recommend that you reinstate the Employment Equity Act and/or -- and this is the biggest challenge to the members around here -- create a stronger piece of legislation to ensure that the rights of those who are most vulnerable are protected and restored in employment practices.

Let's take a look at systemic discrimination. The fact is that systemic discrimination exists. When complaints for systemic discrimination are resolved, it benefits all. A lot of people benefit when systemic discrimination is addressed. The Employment Equity Act allowed for removing systemic barriers through the employment systems review. This can be integrated into business plans gradually. Over time, it reduces the need for individual accommodation. Repealing the Employment Equity Act will set us back. With this repeal, we have to rely on the overburdened and inadequate Ontario Human Rights Commission to address issues of discrimination. We need a quicker route to a hearing stage for effective resolutions.

Our recommendation is to have an efficient, strengthened and accountable Ontario Human Rights Commission.

We are offended and insulted that the province of Ontario would call Bill 8 "An Act to repeal job quotas." The Employment Equity Act is not about job quotas and never has been. It is a sensible human resources business plan which is aimed at achieving a true representation of the diverse society over a reasonable period of time.

One of the areas of concern for people with disabilities is the area of support services. People with mild and moderate disabilities can contribute to society when, and only when, the necessary support services are in place: for example, accessible transportation like Wheel-Trans, attendant services, affordable housing and accessible day care. The removal of these barriers makes individuals more severely disabled and unable to function in society. This government, by cutting support services that are so vital in order for people with disabilities to actively participate in the workforce, is increasing our dependency on this government. This further marginalizes people with disabilities.

Another issue we would like to bring to your attention is the definition of "disability." Please, do not narrow this definition because it would result in many disabled people being disqualified for support services which we rely on and that is so crucial to our getting and keeping a job.

We recommend that you ensure that support services are in place for people with disabilities in order for them to participate in the workplace, and do not narrow the definition of "disability."

Under destroying information: Subsection 1(5) of Bill 8 orders "every person in possession of information from employees exclusively for the purpose of complying with part III of the Employment Equity Act shall destroy the information as soon as reasonably possible after this act comes into force." This forces employers who want to proceed with a voluntary plan to destroy the data and then resurvey for exactly the same information. This will definitely hamper many employers who want to proceed, especially in this time of financial restraint, due to the duplication of cost. If you see the value of voluntary employment equity -- and I know you said there is virtue in voluntary employment equity -- then I'm asking you to question why. Why do you ask these employers to burn the very tools they need to proceed with their voluntary plans?

This section also sends the message that information on barrier identification and elimination is to be feared and must be destroyed. Why? This is contrary to your own equal opportunity plan which purports to the endorsement of identifying and eliminating barriers.

1740

We recommend that employers who want a voluntary employment equity program should be allowed to keep the data they have collected under the Employment Equity Act and those employers who do not want to develop an employment equity program should destroy the information in order to protect vulnerable people in the workplace.

Just to summarize my recommendations:

(1) That you reinstate the Employment Equity Act and/or create a stronger piece of legislation to ensure that the rights of those who are most vulnerable are protected and restored in employment practices.

(2) That we have an effective, strengthened and accountable Ontario Human Rights Commission to deal promptly with complaints.

(3) That your government ensure that support services are not reduced so that people with disabilities can use them in order to participate in the workforce.

(4) That the definition of disability should be all-inclusive and it should not be amended in order to deny people with disabilities the services they need.

(5) That those employers who want to have a voluntary employment equity program should be allowed to keep the data they have collected under the Employment Equity Act and those employers who do not want to develop an employment equity program should destroy the information in order to protect vulnerable people.

(6) That people with disabilities be encouraged and supported through policies and programs to obtain gainful employment so that they can help to decrease the government's deficit by becoming proud taxpayers.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have a short time for questions, beginning with the Liberal Party. You have about two minutes.

Mr Curling: I'll do it in two parts. I want to thank you for an excellent presentation and I just want to clarify something. Maybe the parliamentary assistant can clarify something for you. Is it the intention of the government to redefine "disability"?

Mr Clement: I think the deputant was referring to Community and Social Services and what qualifies for disabled and full welfare benefits at the level of the previous regime and what would qualify as being able-bodied and therefore would receive a reduction of 21.6%. Is that not what you were referring to?

Mr Curling: No. I'm asking you if the government intends, regardless of where they want to put it, to redefine "disability."

Mr Clement: I'm saying I think the context of the deputation was in relation to Social Services and I think the Minister of Community and Social Services has made it clear in the House that there has to be a definition of "disabled."

Mr Curling: When it comes to the human rights area or employment equity, there won't be any change in what they define as disability there, but only in the social programs you're talking about, the welfare?

Mr Clement: There's nothing in Bill 8 that refers to that particular issue. You're quite correct.

Mr Curling: So there would be no change to the definition of "disability."

Mr Clement: There's nothing in Bill 8 that refers to that issue.

Mr Curling: I just want to make it clear for you. We've got more time?

The Chair: You have about a minute left, sir. Very efficient.

Mr Curling: We're always very efficient in this. You've said that it needs a stronger legislation. Are you saying that the legislation should be even stronger than 79 itself?

Ms Haniff: Oh, definitely. If they can come up with a legislation that would protect the rights of the designated groups and employment practices, that's what we want. Because we can be qualified as we want to be and we can have all the credentials and all the qualifications and we will not reach the age of 60 before we get it. We will die before we get into the workplace because of the barriers we are facing.

Mr Curling: Do you have confidence in the Human Rights Commission to carry out this job?

Ms Haniff: No.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Curling. You've used up your minute.

Mr Marchese: Sam Savona, a person with a disability, came in front of this committee and talked about some of the problems he has faced over the last 10 years. He said in his search for work in 10 years under an equal opportunity approach he found one day's work. My feeling is that merit in a market-driven economy will disappear. It means people with disabilities will continue to suffer the same fate that people like Sam Savona have suffered for 10 years.

Their answer to this whole issue, the Conservative answer, is an equal opportunity plan, the one we've had prior to Bill 79. Do you believe that voluntarily people like Sam Savona, people like yourself and others, would be able to have any chance at getting those jobs that you've been desperately looking for for many years?

Ms Haniff: We have seen that voluntary employment equity programs do not work for us. There's no enforcement. This repeal of this legislation gives employers the right to discriminate. They don't have to come up with a strategy to ensure that over a period of time my workforce is going to be reflective of the community, and not only being reflective of the community but breaking down the barriers that prevent us from getting into the workplace, and that is the crucial thing for people with disabilities.

Look at America. We have the Americans with Disabilities Act. What do we have here? We're moving backwards instead of progressing. What's happening?

Mr Marchese: They got elected.

Mr Clement: Thank you for your presentation thus far. You say in your presentation that, "The Employment Equity Act is not about job quotas and never has been," and yet there are requirements under the act for the government -- not business, not employers but government, to set numerical goals and there are fines in place in that piece of legislation if those goals are not met. Does that not strike you as job quotas?

Ms Haniff: No, definitely not.

Mr Clement: Can you explain the difference to me? I'm a bit perplexed.

Ms Haniff: Okay. What you're doing is developing a goal. Like a salesperson, we develop goals. If you want to achieve something, you develop goals and you work towards those goals and I see it the same way. It is about developing goals. Quota is a fixed thing. It's like, okay, we're going to get a fixed number in no matter what. Setting a goal is something that is depending on different -- it's not a forced thing. It's something that comes in consultation with. It's not forced onto the employer, and I see it very differently. We have to attach accountability and enforcement or else it would not happen. It would be useless.

Mr Clement: Do I have more time?

The Chair: You've got about 30 seconds, if you've got a straight question. Nobody else had their hand up.

Mr Clement: Jim might have a question.

The Chair: Can you do it in 25 seconds?

Mr Flaherty: Sure I can. I was following along and the member for Riverdale, Ms Churley, had indicated earlier this afternoon that most people are not racist in this society, and I agree with her. Do you think that the problem here is a discriminatory problem as opposed to an equity problem?

Ms Haniff: There are a number of problems and it gets very complex. What I'm saying is there is systemic discrimination that exists.

Ms Churley: That's what I said too.

Ms Haniff: It's not intentional in some cases --

Mr Flaherty: No, you said most people are not racist. I marked it down.

Ms Haniff: It is not intentional in some cases, but it's the adverse impact that it has on the designated groups that makes it become discrimination.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation this afternoon, Ms Haniff.

COALITION FOR LESBIAN AND GAY RIGHTS IN ONTARIO

The Chair: The next presenters are the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights, Nick Mulé. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. There are questions, and if you allow time for them, we'll begin with the NDP.

Mr Nick Mulé: Thank you. I'm one of the spokespersons and directors of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, also known as CLGRO.

The coalition has been lobbying in favour of basic principles and tenets of employment equity since 1990. In October 1991, we published the brief, We Count, calling for the inclusion of lesbians and gay men in employment equity legislation. This inclusion would be in regard to the qualitative measures of the act, and note that is "qualitative" and not "quantitative." Qualitative measures of the act would be dealing with employment recruitment, interviews, hiring, work environments and promotion opportunities. To our disappointment, in September 1994 the former NDP government legislated employment equity, failing to include us in either the act or the preamble.

1750

Because of this exclusion, Bill 79 was seen as flawed by CLGRO, yet a first step towards potential future inclusion. We were promised an opportunity to continue dialogue with the government of the time, and thus an employment equity working group was struck consisting of members of CLGRO and staff of the Employment Equity Commission's office.

We are extremely upset and very concerned about the current government's views of and intent towards employment equity. The following points are the basis of our disagreement with what's being put forth:

We find it insulting to relabel the legislation as the quota law, as quotas clearly do not factor in this act.

The impression that merit needs to be restored fails to recognize the very importance merit plays in the current act itself.

By repealing this act, any teeth that existed to address some inequities in the workforce are effectively pulled. In other words, without legislation, any attempt to develop a level playing field is seriously remote.

Employee equity was unique in that it addressed systemic discrimination. The current functioning of the Ontario Human Rights Commission is not designed to deal with that. Thus you will be overlooking major areas of institutionalized discrimination.

If you do get rid of this act, which we believe you will probably go ahead and do, we just wanted to make it clear that to us, for gays, lesbians and bisexuals across Ontario, it's a very serious loss of opportunity to try to get our issues recognized in the workforce.

We were very upset with the last government that they were not able to see that and include us, yet it's very obvious to our communities that we are very much in need of protection in the workplace because discrimination against us is running rampant.

We also feel that the issue around the issue of merit, the issue of calling it a quota law, it makes me wonder if when this act was read by the current government whether you had any comprehension of what the act was stating or whether it was right at all, because it clearly points out that merit has to be an important factor in anyone that you will be considering for a job. It's not an issue of quotas, it's an issue of goals, it's an issue of targets that's worked in relationship between government and employers.

Those are just some basic tenets. Without this, without legislation, we really question whether people, either intentionally or non-intentionally or from the goodness of their hearts, are going to be committing to trying to make sure that there's a level playing field.

We will continue to fight for this. We, like I stated, really agree with the basic principles of the act, but we felt that the act as it currently stands needed to go further. We felt it needed more teeth on the one hand, and it needed to encompass far more designated groups than the four that were put forth.

The Chair: Are you available for some questions then? We've got about four and a half minutes per party, beginning with the third party.

Mr Marchese: We welcome you here. I agree with you or at least I'm sympathetic to your point about gays and lesbians being left out of Bill 79. I was one of those that would've liked to have seen the inclusion of gays and lesbians in that bill. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

But I know that the gay and lesbian community suffers the same discrimination in employment as these other four groups that have been designated and that that discrimination needs to be dealt with. One wonders about this government and its position in terms of being able to deal with matters as they relate to gays and lesbians, but we'll wait and see. Perhaps they'll be open to that some day.

But on this very issue, Bill 79 and how it relates to these designated groups, we've had a Human Rights Code for about 30 years, and it says in part I:

"Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap."

The Conservatives say: "Bill 79 is bad. We know that there is systemic discrimination and we want to go back to that old system of equal opportunity and the Human Rights Code."

We've had the Human Rights Code that tells you exactly what shouldn't be happening in society, but in our view and in the view of many who have appeared before this committee, that approach hasn't worked; that the Human Rights Code, although it's nice and it works for some people, it fails a lot of people and it doesn't deal with systemic discrimination. So we know it's not the answer. We know the voluntary approach hasn't helped these groups because they keep on coming back saying, "We need something in order to achieve equity."

Is it your view that the voluntary approach might work, could work, if maybe they put a little more money into education; if maybe they go out and talk to employers to be nicer to these groups? Do you think that that might work or that we might achieve some equity down the line if we follow that trail?

Mr Mulé: We have no hope in that because as grass-roots organizations, the coalition included, we've done all we could on shoestring budgets to educate the public. Those who choose to be educated will get that education, and those who choose not to hear it or see it just won't.

Mr Marchese: So it would be a problem?

Mr Mulé: It would be a major problem.

The Chair: Okay. The government party, any questions? The official opposition, any questions?

Mr Curling: I'm not surprised at all that the government has no questions in regard to the situation. Everything is a perfect world for them as long as it doesn't affect them.

The fact is that I, for one, agree in the sense that systemic discrimination should be addressed to the five designated groups. I say "five," but that five was the francophones itself.

I see your group itself being discriminated, of course, consistently. I think there should be more awareness and understanding of gays and lesbians and bisexuals, and I don't think our society has reached the situation of fully understanding. A lot of education has to go on about this. I think we are progressing a bit on this level; a bit more.

My question is put to you: With the Ontario Human Rights Commission, is it adequate to address your concern, or is it that they are inadequate in the sense of -- in other words, let me just put it quickly -- that systemic discrimination is being addressed outside of that, and although they have systemic discrimination in the Human Rights Commission they fail miserably because they have no resources? Is it lack of resources of the Ontario Human Rights -- if you were to answer in the negative -- that they are not able to do that? Is it lack of resources or is it the wrong place to address your concern?

Mr Mulé: I would say it's a lack of resources. I think that's the very point of why the former government brought forward employment equity legislation, because it was recognized that systemic discrimination couldn't be adequately handled by the Human Rights Commission enough. That's why it was the next step they took and, in effect, it was the first step. That was the attitude taken by the government, and we were willing to work with them to keep trying to improve what was put forward so that we could get to the point where it would equal playing through and through.

So to answer your question: You're right, it was a lack of resources and, as a result, it was problematic. To take this act away now means that there will be nothing. If people turn to the Human Rights Commission, anything that has to do with systemic discrimination won't be adequately addressed.

Mr Curling: Let me ask the parliamentary assistant then, because I think he'll be looking at the Human Rights Commission very soon. Is there a point when you're going to address the gays and lesbians in the Ontario Human Rights Commission, giving it adequate resources to address the discrimination that's being practised now against gays and lesbians and bisexuals in our society?

Mr Clement: Well, as you know, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in the legislation, and we want to ensure that the Human Rights Commission has, in a reformed state, the ability to do its new job properly.

Mr Curling: So you will be giving it enough resources then to address the gay and lesbian concern in our society, as you have also identified that there's a lack of resources in the Human Rights Commission to do that? That will be done through that ministry?

Mr Clement: Certainly it should have the resources necessary to do the job as mandated by the government.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mulé, for your presentation. We appreciate your interest and involvement in our process.

Mr Mulé: Thank you, and I will just state that the silence on the part of the government will be noted by our movement. Thank you.

1800

NOBODY'S NON-DESIGNATED GROUP CANADIANS

The Chair: The next presenter is Anthony Nolan, representing Nobody's Non-designated Group Canadians. Okay, Anthony, you have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. The questions would begin with the government party when you're finished. The floor is yours, sir.

Mr Anthony Nolan: I'm a little bit nervous, so you have to bear with me this evening. I apologize for my appearance, as I came straight down here from work.

Nobody's Non-designated Group Canadians: The government defines us by who we are not. We are not homosexuals. We are not lesbians. We are not paedophiles. We are not ethnics. We are not visible minorities. We are none-of-the-aboves. So when you fill out a government form and you get to the bottom of the page and you're not on it, you tick off the box that says "None of the above," and that's a very bad feeling to have to do that.

We define ourselves by who we are. We are just Canadians, that's it. The end of government discrimination should not signal the beginning of private sector discrimination. At least when the government was doing it to us we knew what was going on. If each individual company can set its own hiring quotas for all the various designated groups, no one's going to know what's going on, and no one will be able to regulate it.

No man's fate, possibilities in life, should be determined at the moment of birth. Men and women should themselves decide who they are, what they can or cannot become. Men and women succeed or fail based on their own individual efforts, not some white-collar neo-Nazi in some alleged human rights bureaucracy.

Now, at this point I'm going to digress and give you two personal anecdotes. As you know, this sort of legislation impacts on the lives of ordinary people. When I say "ordinary," I don't mean that in a pejorative sense, just regular people who work and who just live their lives.

One of our members -- and we're not a formal group; we don't get money from the government; we don't have directors of this or chairmen of that -- is a postal worker. He's been a postal worker working on the front counter at one of the postal substations for a number of years. He had arrived at a point in his postal worker career where it was time for him to be promoted to be a supervisor. He was told in no uncertain terms -- this person is a non-designated-group Canadian -- that people like him would never be promoted to be supervisors. He's going to be on that counter for the rest of his working life at Canada Post. He's got so many years in, he can't just walk away from a job like that. But the sort of feelings that engenders in an ordinary person, to know that because of an accident of birth he'll never be promoted by his employer, it poisons a work environment when people know that.

The second anecdote is about a young, 19-year-old guy here in Toronto. He wanted to be a policeman. He went down to the police, he applied, did all this paperwork. They told him -- now, I'm going to have to use a word, and I apologize beforehand, but this is the word that was said to him -- he was told to fuck off and come back in the 21st century, because they don't hire people like him right now: young white guy. He's never going to be a cop. That creates very bad feelings inside him.

Don't punish non-designated groups, Canadians, for an accident of birth. There should be no special privileges for any group. No matter how much they whine and complain, they must learn to cross the street without some civil servant holding their hand. Non-designated-group Canadians built this country. We fought in its wars and we died in Canada's wars in our tens of thousands. We demand nothing from the government. We demand that you give us nothing, only leave us alone to live our lives. That's the end of my presentation.

The Chair: Okay, Mr Nolan, are you available for some questions?

Mr Nolan: Yes, sir.

The Chair: Okay, we'll start with the government party. We have about four minutes each, so do we have any questions from the government party? Okay, we go to the opposition.

Mr Curling: I have no questions.

The Chair: No questions? Mr Marchese from the third party.

Mr Marchese: Mr Nolan, I think we're all Canadians. We're all just Canadians.

Mr Nolan: Not under the employment equity, we're not just all Canadians; some people are more special than others.

Mr Marchese: Okay.

Mr Nolan: Those people under the legislation passed by your government had quotas.

Mr Marchese: I understand.

Mr Nolan: That's a very bad feeling to know that no matter what you do --

Mr Marchese: I've got a few questions.

Mr Nolan: Okay.

Mr Marchese: Do you believe there's discrimination against people of colour?

Mr Nolan: I think there's discrimination against all people.

Mr Marchese: Do you believe there's discrimination against people with disabilities whenever they try to get their foot in the door to get hired?

Mr Nolan: You know, I took a taxi once. The streetcar broke down; I had to get to my job right away. The guy who picked me up in a taxicab -- this was late at night; I was working on the docks in Toronto -- pulled up beside a doughnut shop and he said, "Just wait here," and he told me, "Don't steal my cab." I said, "Okay, I won't." He was just joking. He got out and I saw him waddling to the doughnut shop and he had braces on his legs. Now, there's a guy obviously with a disability. He can't walk. He's working. He's making his own way in the world.

Mr Marchese: I understand.

Mr Nolan: Now, I wonder what it must have felt like for him to go to companies and have to waddle in the door with braces on your legs. It must feel really bad. It's tough enough looking for a job when you're just a regular person, but for that, I think that would take a lot of guts. I respected him. That's a man that I felt, "There's a real man."

Mr Marchese: I know. A lot of people with disabilities have come in front of this committee. Ms Rafia Haniff was just here today and another person yesterday. Many others have come and will come to the hearings and they're saying, "We're not getting the same opportunity to be hired because of the way we look and because of the way we sound." They're saying because of their long years of experience looking for work, they're not getting it. They're saying there's discrimination against them. Black people say the same thing. Aboriginal people say the same thing. Women, all of these groups who build this country, like you and me, have been saying they are not getting the same opportunities to be hired and to have chances at advancement in those jobs. Are they wrong, or is it they are discriminated against, but we whites are too, so we're all discriminated against? Is that the problem?

Mr Nolan: I don't think I ever applied for a job that anybody who's a lawyer would want to apply for. So I never had a job that was something that other people would want. I never had a career. People like us, we just work. We don't have careers; we work. We make our way in the world and we don't ask anybody for anything. All we ask is to be left alone. If I get a job or don't get a job, then you know what? I go on to the next company and I apply there.

Mr Marchese: But that's what they're doing, you see? Black people are doing that, people with disabilities, aboriginal people.

Mr Nolan: I don't know if I've ever been discriminated against. I just didn't get the job. I didn't think about it. I just went on to the next company, and that's what you do.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much, Mr Nolan, for your presence here. We appreciate your interest in the process.

Mr Nolan: Thank you very much for this opportunity.

BILL OWEN

The Chair: Is Mr Owen here? Okay, Mr Owen, you are our last presenter for this evening.

Mr Bill Owen: I thought I actually had some more time, so I gave my address to somebody to copy and they haven't returned with it yet.

The Chair: Well, we can wait a few minutes till they come back. Oh, is this her back?

Mr Owen: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, basically you have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. If there are questions at the end, we would be starting with the Liberals. So the floor is yours, sir. We appreciate your attendance.

1810

Mr Owen: Right. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee on this legislation. I hope the government will reconsider it and withdraw it. I think the Employment Equity Act is necessary for the employment of people with disabilities.

What I would like to do in my time today is, first, to address certain myths that seem to have arisen concerning the employment of the disabled, and then to provide reasons why I think the existing legislation should be retained.

First, I want to speak about whether another possible route of achieving the goal of employing the disabled is through public education. The problem is that this route has been tried before, through "Hire the Handicapped" campaigns, and they did not make inroads into the unemployment problem. Because such voluntary measures did not work, other approaches such as the legislative one had to be tried.

Second, there seems to be a belief in the public that individuals are now good-hearted and do not discriminate against the disabled in employment. The facts suggest otherwise. The most recent Statistics Canada report on the employment of college and university graduates shows that the disabled were less likely to be hired than the rest of their classmates.

Given this situation, previous governments, not just at the provincial level but at the federal level, recognized an important truth stated earlier today: Attitudes may never change but behaviours can change. The most appropriate way to change behaviour is through legislation.

On the subject of whether incentives such as subsidies and tax incentives for employers hiring the disabled should be tried, I think they too have proven to be a failure. However, the essential reason for not going that route is that such an approach demeans qualified disabled workers.

I would like to state now why I think the Employment Equity Act should be retained.

First, it deals with the last major obstacle preventing the disabled from being considered full-fledged members of society: employment in the workforce, which enables us to be seen as contributors to society. Other obstacles in society, such as inaccessible buildings and a lack of public transportation, have been rectified to a great degree, but we live in a society that values work and we want to work as well. I am bothered, therefore, by the image of the disabled conveyed by the government. While I appreciate that the welfare benefits of the disabled have been protected, I think that other acts such as the cutbacks to Wheel-Trans and the repeal of the employment equity legislation act against the best interests of the disabled.

Second, the employment equity legislation helps to change the culture of the hiring process that prevailed. I am referring to the systemic discrimination that resulted from word of mouth and other networks on job information that typically excluded the disabled.

Third, the requirement of representativeness ensured that applications from persons with disabilities were not only read but taken seriously. I think a major obstacle facing the disabled is that their abilities are underestimated. I have concluded that contrary to public myth disabled applicants are not scrutinized and given jobs without close consideration, they have been looked at only too closely in order to find a reason for not hiring them. This results from the habit of employers conceding certain work requirements to applicants similar to themselves without testing the applicant. But an applicant who is different rarely receives any of these concessions given automatically to others. I think this extreme scrutiny meant that it was harder for the different candidate to get the job.

Fourth, the Employment Equity Act ensured that no employer would suffer innovation costs. If all employers were required to comply with the act, then no employer would have a cost disadvantage by introducing an employment equity program. Thus the employers who wanted to institute programs of the sort could move ahead with confidence that this was a socially recognized program.

Fifth, I think it is important to recognize the diversity of the population and realize that people who are different have to be taken into the workforce at all levels. Toronto's population is multicultural -- in a sense, I'm distinguishing in a way from the rest of the province -- yet it is very difficult to perceive that looking at the composition of the executive appoints published daily in the Globe and Mail Report on Business.

In closing, I urge the committee to give serious consideration to the real merits of the employment equity legislation and withdraw Bill 8.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Owen. We have a little time left for questions, about four minutes per party, and we start with the opposition, Mr Curling.

Mr Curling: Thank you for your presentation. I presume we've all recognized that there is discrimination in our society, and not only discrimination but it is done in a systemic manner. You have also identified that the diversity leads us to be even more extra sensitive to people who are differently orientated or of a different culture, so to speak.

In the Ontario Human Rights Commission it is stated that 50% of the cases in the Ontario Human Rights come from the government itself. So one of the greatest loads or the area that has more discrimination complaints being addressed is coming from the government itself. Were you aware of that?

Mr Owen: Yes.

Mr Curling: In the meantime, the said government that is taking away legislation is unable to -- would you say fails to educate their people through a voluntary way that they should not discriminate? Would you say the voluntary way then has been a failure to educate people about discrimination?

Mr Owen: Yes, that was the old method. I mean, in a sense the concept of systemic discrimination was developed to recognize that those campaigns were not working, and in a sense systemic discrimination is a polite term that I think was meant to introduce measures necessary to in fact ensure that the disabled and others would receive fair consideration of their applications.

Mr Curling: Considering that this government believes in the carrot method more than the stick, as they would put it, would you be impressed if this government -- they hate the word "goal" -- put a goal where that within a year they would eliminate 50% of their cases, settle 50% of their cases in human rights, because it's easier to handle if they are the employer? Would you be impressed if they go on a program like that, to say, "Within 12 months we'll reduce our caseload, our discrimination cases before the human rights commission by 50%?" Would that impress you?

Mr Owen: Yes, it would. I'd wonder how it was done. I guess I'd like to know how it was done or how it's going to be approached, but I think one of the things you know as well is that a number of the complaints that have gone to the Human Rights Commission have in fact come from the disabled.

Mr Curling: I need this for my education. I've been dealing with human rights, with employment equity for maybe about 30 years. Do you feel that society understands what is meant by "systemic discrimination?"

Mr Owen: No, I don't think so.

Mr Curling: Do you feel then that this might be the problem we have? Because within this committee my colleagues oftentimes refer to discrimination and not really -- I don't want to say "understand," but not really address the issue of systemic discrimination. Then that comes to people in the disabled community to realize that you may be qualified or you are qualified and have all the attributes for performing a proper job but access to the building is not there, and they don't see that as a systemic discrimination.

Mr Owen: I think the main problem is that most people don't consider the disabled within the ordinary population, and the best example of that is that when employment equity legislation was introduced a number of politicians said: "We're going through a recession. We can't implement this now." In a sense, what you're really saying is, "We've got to wait somehow until things get better and then we're going to do it," but the disabled have been hearing this for the last 20 years, and that includes the period of the 1980s, which in fact, I think anybody would agree, was a boom time. So even then we were getting the excuse.

I think once society recognizes and accepts disabled people as within the population, then we'll get serious consideration on this matter and every other matter. But I think it's going to be a while before then. There are all kinds of examples of that, of the disabled considered somehow adjuncts to society rather than as a part of society. I'm a person who suffered a disability in the middle of my life, so I was quite aware of the change of attitude that non-disabled people have and the disabled have.

The Chair: Mr Marchese, did you have a question?

Mr Marchese: Of course.

The Chair: Surprise, surprise.

1820

Mr Marchese: Mr Owen, it's good to have you here. I'm troubled with what's happening with people with disabilities and what's going to happen to them, and, second, because I believe in a way, by repealing bill 79, people with disabilities in particular will be abandoned.

They might argue, "No, that's not true." My sadness is based on a reality of what you had to face in the past, and Sam Savona and others came in front of this committee and said: "It's hard for us to get hired. It doesn't matter what we do, it's difficult because of the way we look, because of the way we sound." He found one day's work in 10 years. I am sure that many people feel that they're very capable, that it's not that they don't have merit or qualifications, but that their disability keeps them away from work.

In a market-driven system, merit will disappear because the bottom line is that if a company wants to make money, they're not going to accommodate you because it'll cost money. They will get to the person they want quickly and forget about the person with disabilities. That's my fear for you and the community that you're part of. I'm not sure that their answer is going to work. I'm not sure going back to an equal opportunity plan, which we've had before and which we're going to get to, will help us, because they say, "We're going to come to a system, a universal system where we end discrimination." Well, if that system is like the one we've had in the past -- and it is -- then we're in trouble. It means the people who've always been discriminated against will continue.

How do you deal with that? How do people like you deal with this ideal plan that they have where it is non-discriminatory, which is a plan that will make sure that all of you will be treated equally? How do you feel about such a plan?

Mr Owen: I guess I feel very saddened because I think that, as you suggest, we're going back to the old ways. I think that we do have a Human Rights Code now that will, to some extent, mitigate that, but it's not going to really deal with any attempt to recruit the disabled. Again, I think the real benefit of the employment equity legislation was that employers had to take the applications of disabled people seriously.

My own anecdote is that when I graduated from Queen's with an MA, I wrote two letters to see what the lay of the land was. This is back in 1968-69. I wrote two identical letters with one difference: that I was in a wheelchair. Within a week I got a phone call from one institution offering me a job; I never heard from the other institution. Now, that's back then in those days. Granted, there are more things in place since then, but I don't want to go back to those days.

What bothers me more than anything else is that the bill repealing the legislation encourages attitudes out there. In other words, I really feel that at the heart of this is a feeling out there that we've given too much to the disabled, and yet the employment rates are still very low. The bill just encourages people not to take applications seriously. They know, and you know, the number of complaints that are lodged at the Human Rights Commission, so that any justice you get is incredibly slow. You will get justice presumably, but it will be very slow.

Mr Marchese: But that's part of the --

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Owen. The time is up, Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Four minutes?

The Chair: Yes, it was a nice long question and a nice long answer, and yes, the four minutes is up.

Mr Stewart: Just a couple of quick questions, and I may not be able to express it the way I want to, but do you feel that the discrimination against the disabled is more because of access than because of their disability?

Mr Owen: Oh, I think it's more because of their disability.

Mr Stewart: We keep talking here today -- a lot of people are saying they can't get jobs because they don't have access to the businesses, or whatever. If there were concentration on access, do you feel that could help solve some of the discrimination, if there is, against the disabled?

Mr Owen: I think that to a great degree access has been improved. One of the things I stated was that there have been great governments; the Bill Davis government and the Peterson government have in fact done a lot for the disabled over the years in terms of a building code, in terms of public transportation and a number of other measures that have ensured that you can get to work. Now, I know there are complaints and Wheel-Trans has been cut back, but there is a sense that at least society recognized the fact that the disabled, like others, had to have public transportation, they had to be able to get into buildings.

Now, you're still going to have all kinds of employers who are inaccessible and are not going to want to renovate their washroom and so on, and yet --

Mr Stewart: If we help them do it, if this was a program, is that a way that could help? That's my question, that there's a better way to solve the discrimination against the disabled.

Mr Owen: I think one of the things that was really done that helped the disabled was that they did not have to identify. My own little story shows that if you identify you're disabled, your application is thrown out. If you have an application form and you don't have to identify you're disabled, at least you'll get to the interview stage and then you've got a prima facie case for discrimination if you don't go further.

The point is that I think it's the image of the disabled in the end that's important, but I think all of these things will start to have employers recognize the capability of the disabled. As I say, I think this is the last difficult hurdle we have, is being recognized as serving as potential employees in businesses or any other venue.

Mr Stewart: I guess my point is let's solve the accessibility and then we can really go to the merit and ability part of it.

Mr Owen: You see, I think the processes are already in place. You have a building code, you have transportation. What you're asking is something about retrofit programs that will in fact force people to change the buildings so they're accessible. That can be done at the government level. I think you'll have a harder time forcing private businesses to do that. I mean, if you think they're going to complain about the cost of hiring a disabled person, think about the cost of putting ramps into their existing buildings and so on. I think retrofit's important and I think it has to be done in quasi-public institutions, but I think it's more difficult to do that retrofit at the private level.

Mr Stewart: But it would help.

Mr Owen: Oh, it would help, sure.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Owen. We appreciate you participating in the process for us and for your presentation. Have a good evening.

There are just a couple of housekeeping things before we leave. Mr Marchese is anxious to get going someplace. First of all, my compliments to everyone on the committee for allowing the process to move ahead; I appreciation your cooperation. We meet again on Thursday morning, on November 23, at 10 am, and that day we go till 10 o'clock that night, and it is totally booked till 10, so bring your lunch.

The committee adjourned at 1828.