CONTENTS
Wednesday 22 June 1994
Subcommittee report
Intended appointments
Shirley Robinson, Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority
Janice Sandomirsky, Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
*Chair / Présidente: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Frankford, Robert (Scarborough East/-Est ND)
*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND)
*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn
Staff / Personnel: Pond, David, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1001 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): Good morning. The first order of business this morning is to approve the subcommittee report of June 15. Thank you. My ever-reliable Mr Waters so moves. All in favour of that motion of the approval of the subcommittee report? Carried.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair: The first reviewed appointment this morning is a selection by the third party, Ms Shirley Robinson.
SHIRLEY ROBINSON
Review of intended appointment, selected by the third party: Shirley Robinson, intended appointee as member, Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority.
The Chair: Good morning. Welcome to the committee, Ms Robinson. We go in rotation around the committee for questions. If you wish to make a very brief opening statement, you may, or just a couple of comments. If not, we can start right into the questions.
Ms Shirley Robinson: No, go right ahead.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Welcome to the committee this morning. Have you been involved in the housing authority in Hamilton-Wentworth? Are you familiar with the workings of it?
Ms Robinson: Yes, I have. I've attended some of the meetings as an observer and have been on the Planning Together committee.
Mr McLean: You're not a tenant of one -- you are?
Ms Robinson: I'm a tenant in a seniors' apartment.
Mr McLean: How many different housing units are there in the regional municipality?
Ms Robinson: How many different?
Mr McLean: How many different housing units are you aware of that there are within that?
Ms Robinson: There's the family, the handicapped and the seniors.
Mr McLean: But are you familiar with the number of units that you would be having the jurisdiction over?
Ms Robinson: No, I'm not.
Mr McLean: Is it managed by one group or is each unit managed by itself?
Ms Robinson: Each unit --
Mr McLean: I guess some housing authorities have what they call a management group that they hire to look after and oversee the operation and maintenance of them. Are you familiar with that?
Ms Robinson: Yes.
Mr McLean: The nine positions on the authority, there's two vacant and you're going to be filling one of them, I understand. The authority, I understand, has 95 employees?
Ms Robinson: Approximately 100, yes.
Mr McLean: A pretty large authority. Why did you want to get on this housing authority?
Ms Robinson: I got interested in it through the Planning Together committees. I worked with the staff on some of the committees and got to know them. I would like to know more about it, especially the supportive housing.
Mr McLean: Who makes the decisions with regard to priority lists? I know there's a priority list and we often get calls from people who are upset because they can't get in.
Ms Robinson: We have a central registry in Hamilton. It's a first and it's on the point system.
Mr McLean: How many would be on the waiting list? Any idea?
Ms Robinson: I'm not sure, but I think there are quite a few.
Mr McLean: There would be hundreds, probably.
Ms Robinson: Yes.
Mr McLean: I had a case not long ago where an individual was in a housing complex and the mother needed a place to live. She came to live with the daughter and the granddaughter and tried to find a place of her own within the complex and they wouldn't allow her in. I guess it's frustrating for some people who are looking for a place and realize how great they are to a great many people and yet they can't get in. It really is difficult. What should we say to those people? I don't know. It's frustrating, I would think.
Ms Robinson: It shows that there is a need for the housing that people are willing to try something like that in order to get into the housing.
Mr McLean: Anyhow, I wish you well. Enjoy it.
Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Thank you very much for coming this morning all the way from Hamilton. Are you in Hamilton city or outside the city?
Ms Robinson: I'm in the city, in a seniors' apartment.
Ms Harrington: Downtown?
Ms Robinson: No, on the mountain.
Ms Harrington: I'm from Niagara Falls and I have been a little bit involved in trying to see how our local Planning Together process has been working. Certainly, it has been difficult in a lot of places.
I want to first of all ask you about your role as a tenant representative. How do you feel that you're going to have an impact on the board? Do you feel it's just to bring the concerns of the tenants forward? How do you see yourself fitting in with the rest of the board?
Ms Robinson: I think I can bring a lot of concerns, because I have lived in the family when my children were small and now I'm in the seniors', so I have perspective from both age groups.
Ms Harrington: It's basically bringing forward the concerns of the people who live in housing across Hamilton. Do you feel you would probably go out and visit some of the different units across the city?
Ms Robinson: Yes, I have through the Planning Together committees. I was on the safety and security and I did visit all the units in Hamilton -- the seniors' and the family areas.
Ms Harrington: I know in some areas it is difficult for tenants to sit on the board with people who have been there a long time, five or 10 years maybe, who are not tenants and to be able to speak out. You don't feel you'll have any difficulty in that regard?
Ms Robinson: No, I've seen a big difference in the staff relationship with the tenants since I was in the family. They were up there and we were down here, where now we can talk to them like friends. We're on a first-name basis. I went to some of the meetings as an observer and they made me more than welcome. I didn't feel out of place at all.
Ms Harrington: So you wouldn't hesitate to speak out on whatever decisions were being made.
Ms Robinson: No.
Ms Harrington: Great. The other question that I wanted to ask you is, what do you feel is the most important accomplishment that has happened so far with regard to Planning Together?
Ms Robinson: A lot of the committees have stayed together and they're working together, which I think is good, because sometimes you hear that housing and tenants are going to work together and nothing happens; it's just a lot of meetings and nothing actually happens. But we've seen some changes.
Ms Harrington: In things like safety and security or in, say, different rules for how tenants maybe are moving from one unit to another? What kinds of areas have you seen changes in?
Ms Robinson: The safety and security. We've been able to have changes made there; for instance, more lighting and access to the building from the parking lot. Some of the buildings only had one entrance and you had to walk through the parking lot to the front of the building. We feel safer getting into the building sooner from the parking lot.
1010
Ms Harrington: Have you found that there's any difference in the attitude of the people who live there, that they feel more like they can have their say?
Ms Robinson: Yes, because the housing staff have made themselves more visible. They come visit us more often. They've come in for teas. We have a tea three times a week and they just drop in and sit and talk with the tenants. It's really good.
Ms Harrington: That's great. I know it takes a long time and it's difficult to change attitudes and ways of doing things, but please keep at it. Thank you very much, Mrs Robinson.
Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): Welcome to this committee. I have a special interest in seniors because I work with the Ministry of Citizenship. I see that you say that your special interest is helping to bring services to seniors in their homes, enabling them to live independently, and that's exactly what we're trying to do with our long-term care bill that's coming forward soon, as I'm sure you know. Of course we're putting more funding into things like integrated home care services and so on. So I'm just wondering if you could tell us something about what is happening in that direction and what you hope to be able to contribute to that.
Ms Robinson: The coordinator for homemakers has just started in our building a month ago, and so far it's really working well. We're having our first luncheon next Monday and we've got lots of volunteers. They're really anxious to keep this going.
Ms Carter: What other services do you see as helping seniors to stay independent?
Ms Robinson: Besides the homemaking?
Ms Carter: Yes.
Ms Robinson: We have the nurse come and we have volunteers for the Meals on Wheels. I'm on our social committee in our building, I'm president, and we have a lot of social activities, bus trips and dinners and just get-togethers.
Ms Carter: So a lot of that's in place already and it's just to make sure that it works well. Somebody in my riding was telling me that sometimes homemakers have a bad attitude to the person they're serving and are patronizing towards them. Are you aware of any problem like that?
Ms Robinson: No, I haven't heard anything like that in our building.
Ms Carter: Okay. What do you think about the plan that Evelyn Gigantes has brought out, Planning Together: Improving the Quality of Life in Public Housing? Do you think it's on the right lines and will make a difference?
Ms Robinson: Yes, I do.
Ms Carter: I guess there are certain things that are set out that tenants should concern themselves with in that. Are you aware of those points?
Ms Robinson: Not all of them, no.
Ms Carter: But I'm sure you will become so.
Just as a matter of interest, do you think it's a good idea for seniors to all be together in one building or do you think it's better if buildings are a little bit mixed?
Ms Robinson: No, I think they're better all together, really.
Ms Carter: Why? Because it makes it easier to organize things?
Ms Robinson: It's easier to organize the social activities, yes, because they all have the same interests.
Ms Carter: So you see the tenants as being quite a cohesive group that plan things together and have events and so on.
Ms Robinson: Yes. In our building we have young seniors and we have seniors who have been in the building for 18 years. One lady's 90 years old and she said to me the other day, "It's you girls that keep us going." We feel like teenagers with them because we're 10 or 15 years younger than they are, but they really enjoy us.
Ms Carter: So it's like a big family.
Ms Robinson: Yes.
Ms Carter: There's also this organization now that's encouraging intergenerational contacts. For example, a group of seniors might have a link with a class in a primary school and maybe particular kids would be linked with a particular senior.
Ms Robinson: Yes. They did that in one in the James Street North area. They had the teenagers come over and they moved the stoves and fridges for all the seniors, and cleaned behind them and put them out. The seniors were like grandparents. They had pop and chips and things for the kids. So they really enjoyed doing that.
Ms Carter: So you see that as a good way to go, encouraging that kind of thing.
Ms Robinson: I was thinking about getting it for our building too, because we need our fridges and stoves pulled out.
Ms Carter: Once you start thinking about intergenerational contacts, there are all kinds of things that can happen. That's one of them. People can be standing grandparents perhaps for kids who don't have any and let them get to know an older person and know what they're like.
Ms Robinson: We had an offer of teenagers from gerontology at McMaster to come and serve some of the dinners for us. That gets the teenagers involved with the seniors too.
Ms Carter: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Welcome to the committee, Ms Robinson. I was just wondering -- my colleague there started on it -- how many points are you housing at now in your housing authority? How many points do you need to get in?
Ms Robinson: I think it's 200.
Mr Cleary: Is that right?
Ms Robinson: I think so. I'm not sure, because they didn't tell me how many points I had, but I think that's what it is.
Mr Cleary: If someone applies, he needs 200 points to get in? Is that your idea?
Ms Robinson: That's what I've heard. I'm not really sure on that.
Mr Cleary: Some of the things I hear different comments on now: Some of the rules are being changed in the housing authorities. I've also heard from some seniors that you're going to have to pay for your parking now. Is that the case in your area?
Ms Robinson: I haven't heard anything about paying for parking.
Mr Cleary: How many different buildings did you say your authority would be looking after?
Ms Robinson: There are about four seniors' buildings and then there are all the family units.
Mr Cleary: And the average size of those units would be how many tenants in each?
Ms Robinson: About 250 apartments in each building.
Mr Cleary: The other thing we hear a lot about in some of the larger areas is discrimination, racism and harassment. Do you have any problems like that in your housing authorities?
Ms Robinson: I have heard of some in the family units. They do have a discrimination and harassment committee. So they have had some.
Mr Cleary: But you don't have that in the seniors?
Ms Robinson: Not that I know of, no.
Mr Cleary: Are you responsible in your appointment for the family units too?
Ms Robinson: Yes.
Mr Cleary: What is the committee's plan on this discrimination, racism and harassment? How do you plan to handle that to educate so it doesn't get out of hand?
Ms Robinson: I haven't been involved in the discrimination and harassment committee, so I don't know too much about that, but I know they do have a lot of social activities for them.
Mr Cleary: Speaking for a moment of the part of Ontario I come from, we get a number of calls that the way the hallways are -- that the air-conditioners are shut off from time to time. Do you have a problem with that?
Ms Robinson: Yes, I think so. Our hallways are quite hot.
Mr Cleary: Some of the seniors who have called me have taken weak spells or fainted. At your authority, are they on timers? Do they just run at certain times? Do you know that?
Ms Robinson: That's what I was told, that they are on timers, but I haven't really delved into it. But after last week, I want to find out more about it, because it has been stifling in our hallways.
Mr Cleary: So you've had the problem too there. I'm not glad to hear that, but I know in our area it's a big complaint. I'm very concerned that someone would pass out. Anyway, I guess those are all my questions. Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Robinson, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Ms Robinson: Thank you.
1020
JANICE SANDOMIRSKY
Review of intended appointment selected by official opposition party: Janice Sandomirsky, intended appointee as deputy residing officer, Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal.
The Chair: Our next appointment is Ms Janice Sandomirsky. We are a little early, but we're moving right along. I take my direction from the government whip.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It appears that our next witness has just nicely walked in the room. Maybe we could call a couple of minutes' recess just so that she could get comfortable. It's up to the witness.
Ms Janice Sandomirsky: I'm fine.
Mr Waters: You're fine? Then it's in your hands, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Good morning, Ms Sandomirsky. We appreciate your being early because, for once, we are. Am I pronouncing your name correctly?
Ms Sandomirsky: Sandomirsky.
The Chair: If you wish, you may make a brief opening statement to the committee, or if not, it's not necessary. We can just start with questions from the official opposition party.
Mr Cleary: Madam Chair, I wonder if I could stand ours down. My colleague to my right here is the one who had the questions for this lady.
The Chair: Certainly.
Mr Cleary: I know he's about somewhere. If not, when it comes my turn, I'll do it.
The Chair: That's fine. We started with the third party last time, so is it agreeable to start with the government?
Mr McLean: I'd be pleased to start.
The Chair: Okay. Fine, then. Mr McLean.
Mr McLean: I haven't got many questions because -- welcome to the committee. When I reviewed some of the correspondence I received, I see you're a cross-appointment.
Ms Sandomirsky: Yes.
Mr McLean: You're now working for the WCB?
Ms Sandomirsky: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.
Mr McLean: Yes. How long have you been doing that? For about six years, is it?
Ms Sandomirsky: I've been an order-in-council appointment for four years now. This is the first year of my second term as a vice-chair there.
Mr McLean: Do you work as a tribunal on hearings?
Ms Sandomirsky: Yes.
Mr McLean: Will this be now much the same procedure?
Ms Sandomirsky: Yes. I'll be the vice-chair on a panel that hears the cases under the Pay Equity Act.
Mr McLean: Right. I also observe that you're not getting any salary. Your other salary's just carrying on and you're going to be happy doing both?
Ms Sandomirsky: Yes.
Mr McLean: I wish you well.
Ms Sandomirsky: Thank you.
Mr Waters: I too don't have a lot of questions, because we have had other people before who are part of this pilot project, and every so often we call someone in and we don't realize that they're part of the pilot project or the cross-appointment. But I was wondering: There has been some experience now, I believe. You're not the first; there are some others. Do we have any idea how it's working or have we had any experience rating on the cross-appointments?
Ms Sandomirsky: As I understand it, there hasn't been any actual hearing scheduled for the cross-appointments. That's starting in the fall, or in the summer. All the appointments haven't been approved, so I don't think there has been any experience to date about the hearing process.
Mr Waters: I think the idea is a great idea. I just sometimes worry about burnout of the people whom we are getting more work out of, and I was wondering about that. But your background shows that you have been with WCB for quite some time. You started away back in BC --
Ms Sandomirsky: Yes.
Mr Waters: -- with their workers' compensation, so you have a long career of working indeed with injured workers, or with tribunals etc.
The only other thing that I would be curious about is, do you see that there are any changes in the way that the tribunals are working? For quite a while it seemed -- and I know I'm off topic because I'm talking now about WCAT -- but there seemed to be, shall we say, at the least a great debate about whether WCAT really worked or didn't work, whether it was just more bureaucracy. From what I've known in the last couple of years, WCAT indeed has come into its own and is starting to do the job that was intended. I was wondering if you could give us an opinion on that from your perspective.
Ms Sandomirsky: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal has been in place since 1985, so it is rather a new tribunal, but it seems from my perspective, which is just as a vice-chair, that it's been well accepted in the community and it's a very effective tribunal.
Mr Waters: I would have no other questions of you at this point in time. I just wish you well and I hope that we don't burn you out. You've done an excellent job up till now for the government and for WCB, so I wish you well. So if there's anyone else --
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Ms Carter: Could we just clarify? Are you going to be receiving any extra pay for your work at the pay equity appeals tribunal?
Ms Sandomirsky: No, I will not be. The arrangement will be that there will be time given to me by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal so that I can spend that time doing hearings at the pay equity tribunal, but there will be no pay for the time that I spend there.
Ms Carter: So your workload won't actually be increased; it will just be differently allocated?
Ms Sandomirsky: Well, we'll see.
Ms Carter: How do you feel the duties that you've been doing at WCAT prepare you for the pay equity side of it?
Ms Sandomirsky: I have been chairing hearings now for the past four years, and I think that will have given me a lot of experience in chairing hearings at another tribunal and writing decisions and adjudicating on issues that are dissimilar but in many ways the same.
Ms Carter: So you'll need a rather wider field of expertise?
Ms Sandomirsky: I think the expertise in adjudicating is there. I think it's just the substantive information about the provisions of the act, which is something that I will spend my time training for.
Ms Carter: Okay. Thanks.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you for coming before us. This morning, I presume you heard the release that women are more or less catching up. They say they're comparative to the pay of men but still lag behind by about a $9,000 discrepancy, which is still quite a shame to know, comparatively speaking, that women who are doing the work are still being underpaid. How do you feel about the fact? Is it moving fast enough, do you feel, or are there things that you feel as a suggestion could be made to moving women in getting comparative pay to men of similar jobs?
Ms Sandomirsky: As I understand it, there have been changes recently to the legislation that allow the pay equity concepts to apply to a greater number of women who before weren't able to take advantage of the system because of the lack of male comparators. So it seems that with the new amendments there might be opportunities for more women to take advantage of the pay equity provisions. That is now working its way through the system.
Mr Curling: So you feel that more effort should be done in sort of moving it faster so that equity can be achieved by women?
Ms Sandomirsky: It seems to be, as far as I know at this point, operating at a fairly reasonable pace. I don't know that the new amendments have had the opportunity to work their way through the system yet, so I think that will take some time.
Mr Curling: Although the pay equity legislation was introduced by the Liberals, my party, at the time, I still have some concerns about how it came about. It started off different, and I'm using the opportunity because of your quite wide experience and knowledge: for women to get equal pay, but it's basically on work of equal value to be paid for all. Some people in that community, the community that was being deprived of equity in pay, seemed to be set back, like some males and some visible minorities, who felt that it actually turned into women who were paid to achieve equity.
How do you feel about the other aspect of the other minorities who are still being undermined and not being paid equally and have been almost left out in some respects with emphasis placed on only women?
Ms Sandomirsky: The Pay Equity Act was set up to compare equal work of equal value between men and women. I understand that there is an Employment Equity Act now about to be proclaimed, if it hasn't been already which will also address other inequities in the workplace. But the Pay Equity Act was designed to redress the inequities between traditionally women's work and traditionally male work.
1030
Mr Curling: This is a problem that I do have with equity legislation, that it starts off about equity, fairness for all, then it starts to discriminate in some respects. Employment equity is another matter anyhow. I don't want to drag you into this government's inaction, of dragging its feet on the proclamation of employment equity. I feel, again, after six or seven months of legislation, they are not even able to bring it in to proclaim.
But again, having said all that, one of the problems I feel, in my very limited time in the Legislature, is that pay equity -- do you feel that they should really be moving more again? Maybe I'm asking the question in another, paraphrasing way, that it really did not start off with inequity for women. It started off with equal pay for work of equal value and then somehow all the rest of the people got lost in there, and they're only addressed when they address others. They only address maybe the larger cluster group, which is women, of course, definitely, but the other groups are left out.
Do you feel, then -- and you may not have the answer because it's unfair to ask you -- that employment equity will ever bring about that kind of equity that is lost to the other minorities because pay equity really only addresses mostly women?
Ms Sandomirsky: I don't know that much about the Employment Equity Act and I don't know that much about the history of the legislation as it was brought in. I am a little bit more familiar with the legislation as it exists now and I think that's right, that it does address issues of pay inequity between men and women and that is the focus of that legislation.
Mr Curling: Another question I'd like to ask, just your views, not really a question, if you do have a view on that, and I appreciate your candid comments about employment equity and pay equity: Do you feel there could be something more achieved by having most of the equity, if you want to call them departments or areas, come together under one equity basis, and a matter of fact of cost saving, in one respect? Do you not perceive that it's more or less that you're only addressing a selective area and you have many equity areas? Have you ever given any thought, anything you could share with me so I can share with my colleagues here who sometimes really don't -- I think if they hear, eventually they'll get it -- whether or not, with all equity groups coming together, there would be a lot of cost saving in that approach? Or would you feel it may just lose some of its emphasis where it wants to emphasize -- in other words, pay equity emphasizing women, employment equity addressing something else and so forth?
Ms Sandomirsky: As I understand it, there is a project in place where the employment equity, pay equity and the board of inquiry of the Human Rights Commission are merging to some degree, at least on the administrative level, so they'll be operating in concert with each other, and this is currently under way. To that extent, I think there is room for bringing those types of tribunals together anyway. Part of this project is to allow even further cross-interest of people to come and work in different tribunals and perhaps bring their expertise and experience to the advantage of both the individuals involved and the tribunals that they're working for.
As I understand it, there are currently some efforts being made to merge the employment equity and the pay equity and the boards of inquiry of the Human Rights Commission to operate as essentially one.
Mr Curling: Yes. They're not even quite sure how human rights and employment equity are going to work together, because they are in contrast and on a conflicting basis even in systemic discrimination. The human rights have their own systemic discrimination department and employment equity is supposed to be dealing with systemic discrimination. They're not quite sure how it's going to operate. No wonder the regulation can't come out.
I'm getting from you that there are positive things to be arrived at if we get most of the equity -- I'm not putting words in your mouth -- but that positive things can be arrived at, maybe cost saving, great cost reduction for the government and for the people of Ontario, if quite a few of the equities that are compatible and able to be dealt with could be dealt with under one umbrella. I'm getting that from you, that it is positive to move in that direction.
Ms Sandomirsky: There seems to be that initiative, yes.
Mr Curling: I want to thank you very much. I was just trying to get some ideas, so thank you for coming before us. I wish you all the best in your contribution towards this service.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Sandomirsky, for your appearance before the committee this morning.
Ms Sandomirsky: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Would someone like to move a motion on the two appointments?
Mr Waters: I move that we support both appointments.
The Chair: The motion is that the intended appointment of Shirley Robinson as a member of the Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority be confirmed, and the intended appointment of Janice Sandomirsky as deputy presiding officer of the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal also be confirmed.
All in favour of that motion? Opposed, if any? That is carried unanimously.
I'd like to thank the members for their attendance this morning. The next meeting will be at the call of the Chair. As soon as we have the information from the House leaders about the proposed schedule for this committee in the summer, the Clerk's office will inform you right away so you can make your plans accordingly. We'll look forward to seeing you then, whenever that is.
The committee adjourned at 1037.