JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
PEEL MULTICULTURAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
BLACK BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
CONTENTS
Monday 27 November 1995
Job Quotas Repeal Act, 1995, Bill 8, Ms Mushinski / Loi de 1995 abrogeant le contingentement en matière d'emploi, project de loi 8, Mme Mushinski
Miriam Wyman
Peel Multicultural Business and Economic Development Committee
Zubair Choudhry, chair
Donna LaRush
Black Business and Professional Association
Michael Lecky, past president
North American Sikh League
Sulakhan Singh Hundal, president
Liz Mackenzie and Associates
Liz Mackenzie, human resources management consultant
Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Leah Casselman, president
John Rae, member
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
*Chair / Président: Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
*Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent 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)
*Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)
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:
Bassett, Isabel (St Andrew-St Patrick PC) for Mr Kells
Churley, Marilyn (Riverdale ND) for Mr Wood
Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC) for Mr Danford
Crozier, Bruce (Essex South / -Sud L) for Mrs Pupatello
McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L) for Mr Sergio
Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:
Ministry of Culture, Citizenship and Recreation:
Clement, Tony, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Bromm, William, policy analyst
Lillico, David, legal counsel
Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia
Staff / Personnel:
Kaye, Philip, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Klein, Susan, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1002 in committee room 1.
JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
Consideration of 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, folks. We're a couple of minutes late, but it is time to begin. Welcome, everyone, to our committee proceedings. Just a note: If caucuses have their amendments ready, could they please submit them to the clerk as soon as possible, and certainly by no later than 1:30.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): That's 1:30 today?
The Chair: Today. They must be in two hours before we begin clause-by-clause. Any later than that would cause a delay, so I'd appreciate your support on that.
The synopsis of the last two days of hearings is currently being copied and will be available to you soon.
MIRIAM WYMAN
The Chair: That having been said, our first presenter this morning is Miriam Wyman. Miriam, please have a seat there. Welcome to the committee. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any time that is left in that 20 minutes for questions will be shared among the parties and would begin with the official opposition, the Liberals. The floor is yours.
Ms Miriam Wyman: Good morning, everyone. My name is Miriam Wyman. I'm a member of the public, I am a woman -- part of 52% of the population -- a taxpayer, a parent and a worker.
I work to involve members of the public in making environmental decisions about projects and issues in their communities. I have been doing this professionally and also as a volunteer for 20 years.
From 1990 to 1993, when I was president of the Women and Environments Education and Development Foundation, I worked on Agenda 21 with members of Canadian non-government organizations, as well as with representatives of women's organizations from around the world. Agenda 21 is the blueprint for the 21st century created by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It promotes cooperation between governments and all the major groups in society in creating healthy environments and healthy economies. Canada took a leading role in negotiating Agenda 21, and I was proud to be part of the Canadian delegation and proud of the commitments to women that Canada promoted and that the federal government endorsed at the Earth Summit in Brazil.
In September of this year, the Fourth World Conference on Women took place in Beijing. At this conference, delegates endorsed the Platform for Action, which establishes a global agenda for achieving women's equality by the year 2000. This conference affirms the universal nature of women's human rights and fundamental freedoms. It sets out a strong action plan to eliminate violence against women, and Canada responded to a call from the UN to develop a national action plan for gender equality, a plan which outlines specific commitments on the advancement of women's health, economic and cultural equality, reduction of violence and access to decision-making at all levels in our country.
Canada's rhetoric in the international arena is not being met by actions at home. A major research study was conducted in preparation for the Beijing conference to examine the progress made here on a range of women's issues since the Nairobi conference in 1985. This study demonstrated that women in Canada still do not hold decision-making positions or management positions or executive positions in anywhere near the numbers that we are in the population. Just last week, a senior United Nations official stated that Canada is violating the human rights of children by failing to ease child poverty and by cutting social programs that already are insufficient to meet many children's basic needs.
Many women, as well as people with disabilities, aboriginal people and racial minorities, continue to face discrimination in employment, both in finding appropriate training to access employment and then in finding and retaining meaningful work. Employment equity legislation addresses this built-in or systemic discrimination. It means that when those who have been traditionally marginalized or barred from participation stand to advance, then we all, as a society, advance.
The Employment Equity Act signalled that people in Ontario were willing to face head-on issues of equity in the workplace, to take bold steps to resolve these issues and to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I'm here to say that the repeal of the Employment Equity Act contravenes Canada's commitments to women -- commitments made and endorsed in international arenas as well as in our houses of government -- and ensures that systemic discrimination, faced by too many people in Ontario, will persist.
I also want you to know that I am offended and outraged by the language used in describing Bill 8, An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario. This language is malicious; it is a willful distortion of employment equity; it denies that systemic discrimination continues to take place in Ontario; and it is wrong.
This language implies that the Employment Equity Act would have brought quotas to the workplace, which it does not, and it implies that employment equity would undermine merit-based principles. These words are doublespeak. We do not have, nor have we ever had, a system based on merit, unless you really believe that only white men should have jobs.
We have a long tradition in Canada and in Ontario of creating legislation to redress entrenched inequities. I remember, and I hope you do as well, that until the 1950s there were quotas on the number of Jewish students admitted to Ontario universities. Women teachers could not continue to teach after they were married. Women could not enter the professions. Governments recognized that they could not rely on voluntary change, and legislation was created and debated to respond to the need for change.
The Employment Equity Act similarly recognized the need to create conditions favourable to what is indeed merit-based employment in Ontario -- the opportunity to ensure that all qualified people have equal access to employment, to promotion and to training for employment. Recognizing and supporting the enormous potential of all of all of the people of Ontario would really be a commonsense revolution.
Legislation protects all of us. It gives us clear, comprehensive ways to collect and verify information and it enshrines a right to appeal, and it makes government accountable to the public, to those who are governed.
1010
I also object to the nature of the consultations on the proposed changes to the Employment Equity Act. First of all, "limited consultations" are inadequate -- and please replace in my text "limited" for "selected." A limited number of people were informed that any consultations were taking place and we had little notice. Consultations are being held only in Toronto and deadlines for response are extremely tight. I learned of these consultations on the morning of November 8. I had until 4 pm that day to convey my interest in appearing before you. Only with broad and meaningful consultation can legislation meet the needs of the majority of people in Ontario.
Secondly, these consultations, such as they are, are premature. People are entitled to information about the equal opportunity plan that is proposed as a replacement for the Employment Equity Act. We are entitled to know what is being planned so that our advice can be thoughtful and helpful.
In September, while the media paid little attention to the accomplishments of the Beijing conference, people in Ontario were faced daily with the horrors of the Bernardo trial. As if this did not adequately demonstrate the pervasive threat of violence against women in our society, we are also faced with this government's funding cuts to social services, to counselling for perpetrators of violence, to day care, to training and, later this week, to universities and colleges. It's hard not to see this as a virtual war on women, and it's hard not to conclude that this government's intent is to do the most harm to the largest number in the shortest time.
I encourage you to support efforts that policymakers have made over time to redress fundamental inequities in our society and not to repeal the Employment Equity Act. Without equity there is no equality, without equality there is not justice, and without justice there can be no democracy.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about three and a half minutes per party left for questions, beginning with the official opposition, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: Your message is very clear that you don't believe in the merit system that existed for the last, let's say, 40 or 50 years. This bill would really protect you to improve the conditions.
You're absolutely right when you say that the government's intention is to repeal this bill and to replace it with something else that we haven't seen yet. I've asked the parliamentary assistant to table the six-plan program, but this is due in the next two or three or maybe four months, I really don't know, and I don't think the parliamentary assistant knows about this new plan.
Do you believe that the Human Rights Commission can replace Bill 8?
Ms Wyman: I don't know enough about how the Human Rights Commission operates to fairly answer that question. I do understand that there is an enormous backlog presently in that situation, and it's not easy to see how adding a load to that commission would improve the situation.
Mr Grandmaître: The government, if I'm not mistaken, told us that more dollars would be invested in the Human Rights Commission to get rid of this backlog and give them more powers. But I agree with you; I don't think the Human Rights Commission can replace this bill. I'm not saying that the bill was perfect but I thought we were on the right side of eliminating discrimination.
You've been a volunteer for the last 20 years, did you say?
Ms Wyman: Yes.
Mr Grandmaître: On this issue?
Ms Wyman: I work professionally on environmental issues, and my volunteer work, through the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, was as a volunteer member of a non-government organization working to prepare the documents for that conference, and working to ensure that the language in them was strongly supportive of women's role in environmental management, and the need for women to be equal partners in environmental management and in all decision-making related to environment.
Mr Grandmaître: You've heard the Chairman, just before our meeting started, tell us to bring in our amendments before 1:30 this afternoon. What would be one of your amendments?
Ms Wyman: Amendments to Bill 8?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Repeal, repeal, repeal.
Ms Wyman: My recommendation would be to repeal Bill 8.
The Chair: Okay, the New Democratic Party. Mr Marchese, do you have a question?
Mr Marchese: Yes, I do. Thank you, Ms Wyman, for your presentation.
I wouldn't hold my breath with respect to the plan they have. My view is that their zero tolerance re discrimination is just something that's on paper and means nothing. Their view on equality for all sounds good, but it means the same discrimination as we've had in the past. I'm making statements so you can respond to them later on.
My view is that this voluntary thing they have with employers will not work. That's what we've always had.
My view is that they say they want the private sector to do these things in their own way, nicely and so on, and they will work with them. Now, can you imagine a government that says, "We need the private sector to do it all," to get out of their hair, that somehow they're going to do something with them to deal with an issue like this? How could they do it? How could they put resources in there to make this happen when this government says, "We don't have any money"? How could they say, as they said in their plan before the election, "We're going to redirect the $9 million for the" -- what are they getting rid of?
Mr Grandmaître: Bill 8.
Mr Marchese: No. They were going to redirect dollars, approximately $9 million for the Employment Equity Commissioner, and redirect that to the Human Rights Code. They dropped that reference from the notes they all have, the briefing notes that I saw on the job quota garbage they put together. They won't put any money into human rights because they can't, they don't want to, because they don't have any money and because I really believe they don't believe in it either.
They say they're going to reform the Human Rights Commission to deal with this issue. What are they going to do with that? I have a sense of what they're going to do, and that is, if nothing, then they will encourage the Human Rights Commission to speedy up the process of dealing with them in a way that we will throw more out than actually dealing with them, because that's what we're seeing. We're seeing a pattern where more and more cases are not being dealt with through one section of the Human Rights Code that allows them to speedy that up. Other than finding a way to make that happen, they're not going to do anything.
So the Human Rights Code doesn't deal with systemic discrimination, which Bill 79 did. The Human Rights Commission and code does not deal with them except on a case by case. It is not proactive, it's reactive, meaning you have to wait for someone to complain until the human rights deals with it. That's the job of the human rights. They can't change that. They don't want to change that. They don't want to make the human rights deal with systemic issues, because that's what we tried to do with Bill 79. So what are they going to do?
So I don't have a question because I think you've answered them, but if you want to react to my statement, please do.
Ms Wyman: I guess what I would like to say is that over the last number of years in Ontario we've come to look to our governments -- and I'm not referring only to the last five years; I'm saying over the last 20 years or so -- to be proactive and to take important stands on issues that concern members of the public and society. It's very hard for me to see how this government is being proactive in ways that benefit the largest number of people in Ontario.
The Chair: For the government, Mr Clement and Mr Stewart next.
Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Thank you for your presentation, Ms Wyman. I take it from your remarks that you don't believe that a merit system currently exists in Ontario?
Ms Wyman: I believe we are making great strides towards implementing a merit-based system in Ontario and that the Employment Equity Act is an important step in making that work even better.
Mr Clement: But you said in your presentation that the merit system did not exist in Ontario prior to Bill 79. Are you amending that now?
Ms Wyman: No. I think that it was merit-based within a particular segment of society. It was not merit-based across all of society.
Mr Clement: I don't mean to be insulting, but isn't that a bit offensive to those persons from the designated groups who actually do have jobs in the economy? My wife is a lawyer. Are you saying she wasn't hired on the basis of merit?
Ms Wyman: No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that for the most part the jobs that were available were allocated in particular ways to people who have historically held power in this province. Changes have been taking place over the last number of years, but they have not been taking place very quickly and they have certainly not been taking place commensurate with the changes in the demographics in this province.
1020
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): A couple of questions. Your appointment or inclusion in Agenda 21 and the Earth Summit in Brazil: Were you included in that because you are a woman or because you had the ability to be part of those organizations and contribute to it?
Ms Wyman: I was included because I was a woman and because I had the ability and because I was willing to make the time in my life to do that.
Mr Stewart: I would think, though, that with the amount of time that you've spent on environmental issues over the last 20-some-odd years, a great deal of that would be on merit and ability.
Ms Wyman: I would hope so.
Mr Stewart: I would hope so too. The other one I guess is just a concern on one of the comments you made, that back in the 1950s women could not enter the professions. I'm surprised at that comment. I had a mother who was a nurse, and I thought she was a very professional lady, and many of the folks in the town that I'm from, women, have held positions in professions. I think making a comment like that tends to be a rather broad brush where I think it may not be totally true.
Ms Wyman: It was pretty plain what the admissions regulations were in medical school, dental school, law school, engineering schools in the 1950s with respect to who was admitted and who was not.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being involved in our process. We appreciate your attendance here this morning.
PEEL MULTICULTURAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
The Chair: Our next presenter is from the Peel Multicultural Business and Economic Development Committee, Zubair Choudhry, who's the chairperson. Welcome to our committee, Mr Choudhry. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any questions will start with the New Democratic Party. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Zubair Choudhry: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have a little cold, if you will excuse me if I cough.
Mr Chairman, respected members of the standing committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a great honour for me to submit my views in response to a very important piece of legislation, Bill 8. This bill, when passed, will repeal job quotas and will restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario.
There is no question that every aboriginal person, every person with a disability, every member of a racial minority, and every woman is entitled to be considered for employment, hired, treated and promoted free from discriminatory barriers. This is a basic human right for all citizens that must be embraced and protected in all aspects of society, including employment. It is certain that the majority of the Canadian society strongly believes in this principle. Therefore, it is paramount that any employment equity initiative must focus on the elimination of prejudice and discrimination.
Unfortunately, the approach taken in Bill 79, the employment equity legislation, was unilateral and has not benefited the designated groups. Being a member of the minority, I believe that these designated groups have been singled out from the mainstream society, because Bill 79 has been used as a threat to employment opportunities to other Canadians in society. As a result, Bill 79 has heightened awareness of the differences, leading to boost separation of the groups from mainstream society and leading to increased conflict and hostility.
I personally believe that all Canadians have the right to be treated equally regardless of faith, colour, language or gender, and we have that right under the human rights act. We all know that Canada is one of the best places on this planet to live. In order to maintain and to enhance the good image of our country, we cannot afford to have an act which may promote reverse discrimination.
The elimination of prejudice and discrimination requires fundamental social change. The provincial government must realize that social change of this nature will not happen overnight, as it involves the development of understanding and respect that is built gradually over a period of time. It requires change in attitude, and such change cannot be legislated through numeric goals.
In the third paragraph on page 3 of Bill 79, it is stated, and I quote:
"The people of Ontario have recognized in the Human Rights Code the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and have recognized those rights in respect of employment in such statutes as the Employment Standards Act and Pay Equity Act. This act extends the principles of those acts."
I do not understand, Mr Chairman, when the equal rights of an individual are legislated in those acts, why another Employment Equity Act.
It is also required under Bill 79 that "Every employer's workforce, in all occupational categories and all levels of employment, shall reflect the representation of aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women in the community."
It is highly questionable whether this principle is practical or even desirable. It is unrealistic to expect that the principle of equal representation in employment could ever accurately represent the diverse aspirations and qualifications of the people in our communities, a diversity that should be respected and encouraged, not outlawed by any Employment Equity Act. By expecting employers to set numeric goals and timetables based on this principle, we are virtually forcing them to fit square pegs into round holes, an exercise that will be detrimental to the employees and employers in this province.
We are agreed that somebody identify the disease of discrimination and prejudice that exists, but the prescription to this disease is not right. We cannot give the heart patient a medicine for cancer. In many instances, an employer may be forced to hire lesser qualified staff to meet the quota system imposed by the employment equity legislation. At the same time, it is not fair to a qualified candidate to be deprived from employment opportunities because he or she could not fit into the quota system. Even when a well-qualified, suitable person is hired from a designated group, he or she may be perceived as if he or she was hired due to the quota system. This perception will be degrading and humiliating for such an individual.
I strongly believe that if a change in attitude is to take place which will truly eliminate prejudice and discrimination, all groups in the society must have the opportunity to prove themselves on the same terms and with the same standards of performance. This is really what a society free of discrimination is supposed to represent. By specifically permitting preferential treatment in employment for any single group in the interests of meeting a set of artificial goals, Bill 79 is sending a message to all of the members of the designated groups and the rest of the society that they cannot compete fairly for a job and earn a position or promotion based on their merits. Bill 79 is a very dangerous step and a complete contradiction with the objective of elimination of prejudice and discrimination.
The Employment Equity Act has forced employers to change the selection process but has failed to change the way people feel towards each other and act in situations that may not be covered by the legislation. The Employment Equity Act should not be an end in itself. It must be a means to an end, and that end must be social change if we are truly going to promote a society where everyone can participate as a full member of the society, free of prejudice and discrimination.
The private and public sector employment systems in this province are a poor vehicle for relieving the hardship or economic disadvantage of members of the designated groups. Not only did this Employment Equity Act add to the increasing administrative burden of provincially legislated requirements, it also created economic crisis in every organization due to the requirement of employment equity compliance. In addition, the inevitable productivity losses associated with hiring less qualified employees may promote social resentment and chaos. At a time when Ontario's economy is trying to sustain a fragile recovery from the recession, it is necessary to repeal job quotas and restore merit-based employment practices.
1030
I believe the existing Employment Equity Act is not an appropriate solution to prejudice and discrimination in the workplace. I urge the present government to strengthen the Human Rights Code to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in the hiring process and to promote an equitable and fair process which will satisfy all the members of the province but not only the designated groups.
In conclusion, I support Bill 8, An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We've got about three minutes per party for questions, beginning with Ms Churley.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Thank you very much for your presentation. As you may well know, I'm Marilyn Churley with the NDP. I was part of the government when we, after extensive consultations across the province and after study of the Rosalie Abella report and many, many other reports, came up with this legislation.
What is interesting to me is the whole use of the word "quota" and the difference in opinion on that. Certainly I recall, and Mr Marchese even more than I -- he was very active in developing this legislation -- that there were many from the designated groups who asked our government to impose quotas. We didn't do that and consequently some of the spokespeople for the designated groups were very angry at us. So we're getting it from both sides, which I find very interesting. It is not a quota system, it is numerical goals, and I really strongly object to that interpretation of it.
Having said that, however, you've made your position very clear and I appreciate that. You've also made your position clear that you know there's a problem, as most people admit. You've suggested that the Human Rights Code be strengthened to deal with it. What I'd like to ask you is, especially in this economic climate and with what this government is doing for its tax break and to deal with the deficit, what advice can you give this government to make sure that the Human Rights Commission -- what kind of resources are needed, for instance? What do they have to do to make sure that many of the wrongs out there in the hiring practices that now exist can be corrected?
Mr Choudhry: I personally believe that due to the economic hardship which we are going through now in this province of Ontario it is very difficult to impose on the businesses, because I'm a business manager and I know, and I don't want any government to come and butt into my business and tell me whom I should hire and whom I should not hire.
I think the government should create an atmosphere where the businesses can grow, less and less regulation and less and less legislation, so the business community can create economic activity in our society. Then people like me and people like designated groups can go and get a reasonable and good job, and that creates job opportunities. We are looking for employment opportunities, not an employment quota system.
As you said, the objective was not a quota system. On page 28 of Bill 79, in subsection (2), it says, "A regulation governing the content of employment equity plans may require plans to contain numerical goals determined in the manner prescribed by the regulation." So it means there is a provision already in this act, Bill 79, which can extend the power for the commission to go out and dictate to businesses to set a quota system and to hire somebody who is not suitable for a job but may be from a designated group. From my perspective, it is not fair for me to get a job, or I will not accept that job, where it could be perceived that I got that job because I was from a designated group.
The Chair: Thank you very much. For the government, Mr Young.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Thank you very much, Mr Choudhry. I appreciate your presentation very, very much and I agree with your position. I'd just like you to maybe qualify or explain it a bit further.
The kind of society I want to live in is one where the society at large and the governments are colour blind, and I just don't see this legislation as leading that way. I see this legislation as entrenching, whether you call it numerical goals or quotas, whatever, a huge bureaucracy and creating a whole outside bureaucracy, private business in employment equity. Would you agree with that? Can we get to a society that's colour blind with legislation like this?
Mr Choudhry: I personally believe that what government can do is to strengthen the human rights act. In that act they can set up a policy where each job in this province or each job in the private sector, when it is created, must be publicized, it must be advertised. When you have a job, you have a job description and you advertise the job, so it means you have opened up the process.
What was there before, the process was not open. I give credit to the previous government that Bill 79 has brought awareness of the problem, but the solution was not right and I completely disagree. Bill 79 is not the way to go. Problems exist, but there should be a way where we can all have equal opportunity and equal rights. I don't want to see any friend of mine who may be white, or maybe we have French or maybe English, to perceive that I got this job just because I am not white and I'm not French and I'm not English. I don't want just that.
The Chair: Mr Maves, can you ask a quick question? You've got one minute.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Yes, quickly then. On page 3 you talk about whether "the principle of equal representation in employment could ever accurately represent the diverse aspirations and qualifications of the people in our communities...." Are you trying to say here that the previous government assumed that all people in these groups wanted to work in all of these occupational categories and that that assumption is misguided?
Mr Choudhry: I believe it is very difficult to define or to make clear the situation of how you can have equal representation. It all depends on the job-to-job, single case-to-case basis and it's very difficult to generalize that we will have the people from each community or each designated group to be represented in a workplace where it is not possible, depending on the qualifications and depending on the experience of an individual on a case-to-case basis.
For one single job in a private sector company where they are looking for a Chinese cook, they should not hire a Chinese cook because they cannot have an additional Chinese person because they have already too many Chinese staff? They should go and look for some British cook or a French cook? It doesn't make sense at all.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Choudhry: You're welcome.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Choudhry, I appreciate your concerns about numerical goals and targets, and I agree that we have to look very closely at the means by which the ends of employment equity are achieved. So I'd like to set that aside for a moment and take you to the broader issue of barriers that in fact exist out in many other workplaces; I assume not in your own place of business.
But as you look at other workplaces, do you believe that there are barriers to that equal opportunity that you've just talked about, and if you do, do you think the Human Rights Commission can ever deal with what might be called systemic barriers as opposed to outright blatant discrimination?
Mr Choudhry: Yes, I strongly believe that the human rights act can be strengthened, can be reformed, can be amended by putting in there the equal opportunities for any person who has been discriminated from a job. He should go there and make a complaint, and the human rights -- I think that can do it.
Mrs McLeod: So if I just take one example of a systemic barrier, it might be the availability of language training, for example.
Mr Choudhry: Yes.
Mrs McLeod: Would you think then that an individual who feels that the reason they've not been successful in their application for a job was lack of language training, that that individual could go to the Human Rights Commission, make the claim that there is systemic discrimination and then the Human Rights Commission could order government to deal with it by providing language training programs? Do you see that as a legitimate role for the Human Rights Commission?
1040
Mr Choudhry: Yes. I think now you're talking about a different problem, not an employment problem. The language problem -- if I go to Saudi Arabia and I don't speak Arabic, how can I do work there if they don't have such a system that I can speak English and work? The same thing is here. If somebody comes from, say, China and cannot speak English or somebody comes from a part of the world and can't speak English properly, how can that person go and work effectively and efficiently at a job when it requires that language should be one of the criteria to such a job?
I am not saying that all the jobs require languages, but there are some jobs that do require that the language should be appropriate and should be spoken and the person should have a vocabulary of that language. That depends on a job-to-job basis. I personally believe that instead of having another act of employment equity, the human rights act can do it.
The Chair: You have 30 seconds. Have you got a quick one?
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Okay, on page 5, you say the Employment Equity Act "failed to change the way people feel towards each other." Do you think Bill 8 does that?
Mr Choudhry: Can you repeat your question?
Mr Crozier: On page 5, the second paragraph, the first and second sentences, you say the Employment Equity Act "failed to change the way people feel towards each other." Do you think Bill 8 does that? If it doesn't, how can we?
Mr Choudhry: I am saying Bill 8 is just to repeal Bill 79; it's not offering anything.
Mr Crozier: Thank you. You needn't say any more.
Mr Choudhry: That's what it is. But the next point, what I am suggesting is that we should strengthen the Human Rights Code, which should bring up this issue to be resolved.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On that note, we're a little tight for time. We appreciate your attendance here this morning and your interest in our process.
Mr Choudhry: Thank you very much.
DONNA LARUSH
The Chair: Okay, next, we'll have to skip down a little bit, Donna LaRush. Donna has actually been waiting since Friday night to talk to us. We apologize for not being here when you got here on Friday night, Donna.
Ms Donna LaRush: Well, I'm sorry I was late. I had problems at work.
The Chair: You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. If you leave some time for questions, they would begin with the government. The floor is yours.
Ms LaRush: I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this committee. I wanted to speak to you on a personal basis about the reasons why I am opposed to Bill 8. I'm very much opposed to Bill 8 because I feel employment equity must be legislated. I've been a firefighter for almost seven years. I have overcome some barriers, and I face discrimination on a daily basis in my workplace.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission is an ineffective means of dealing with systemic discrimination in the workplace. Discrimination does exist, and barriers must be identified and eliminated before there is going to be an increase in the numbers of designated groups in the fire service and other places that are predominantly male. A process driven by individual complaints is very ineffective and difficult on a complainant, and it's very unfair for the person complaining, who's driving the system. Proactive legislation is the only solution.
Traditionally, most firefighters had fathers, close friends or relatives who were firefighters. The only ones who got the jobs were the ones who knew someone or who belonged to the right club. Over 98% of all firefighters in Canada are white men.
Before being hired as a firefighter, I achieved an honours chemistry degree, I was awarded High School Athlete of the Year and I worked as a fitness instructor as I put myself through university. Hard work enabled me to get the job as a firefighter, and because I was the most qualified, I got the position.
Obviously, I was different from all the other firefighters. I was the first woman hired by the city of York. There were no washrooms, no change facilities. Unlike the men, I was required to prove my strength over and over and over as others watched. I was constantly criticized, and many watched me critically, looking for me to make mistakes. I was told there was no place for women on the fire ground, and many of the people working with me lobbied to oppose the hiring of women firefighters. Some men refused to work with me. I was isolated and I was repeatedly reprimanded. I had no support, no encouragement from my employer, from the union or from the people I work with. No one told me that I was being hired to work in a hostile environment.
I filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission almost five years ago, and I'm still waiting to see if they intend to do anything about my complaint. The intake officers discouraged me from filing the complaint and as a result forced me to hire my own lawyer.
Several years after filing a complaint, two investigators were assigned to my case. The investigation was long and drawn out. The investigators concluded that the workplace was poisoned and my employer had not accommodated me, but nothing was done about it.
This very lengthy process has become personally very exhausting and expensive. I have been forced to fight against my employer and to fight against my union in order to receive the same as my coworkers. I have been repeatedly punished for complaining and I have been labelled as a troublemaker.
I just wanted to mention some of the shortcomings of the Human Rights Commission. The existing Human Rights Commission has many shortcomings. It does not deal with the complaints in a timely, effective manner. The Ontario Human Rights Commission will not enforce their own Ontario Human Rights Code.
There are definite barriers to entry for women and minorities. These barriers should have been removed long ago. Identification and elimination of barriers through an individual complaints-driven process is slow and very difficult on the individual complaining. I have suffered professionally, emotionally, financially. I have become very sick as a result of these problems.
In conclusion, I would just like to ask that this committee leave the existing employment equity legislation in place. Employers must provide a barrier-free workplace through proactive measures. The Ontario Human Rights Code must be forcefully enforced for all legitimate complaints in order to globally deter discrimination on any level. I would ask also they consider reforming the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We have some time for some questions, about four minutes per party, beginning with the government.
Mr Maves: Good morning. First of all, congratulations for being a ground-breaker. Sorry that you had to face things you've had to face as a result of being a ground-breaker, though.
If more people from the designated groups were hired as firefighters in order to reach numeric goals, as in Bill 79, do you believe that they'd still face the problems that you have faced and still do face?
Ms LaRush: No, I believe that if they hired a larger number of people from designated groups we individually would not have to suffer the way we have. The way it is now, there are like 16 in all of Ontario, and most of us have had the hardships that I have. Hiring in a larger number would certainly make it easier for us few.
Mr Maves: So a quick influx of people from the designated groups in each and every force?
Ms LaRush: Yes, as well as education before and preparing the scene before we get there and support from other people if there is a problem.
Mr Maves: That leads to my next question. It says in your presentation that you "continue to experience discrimination daily." Short of Bill 79's numerical goals, how can we change these attitudes? You've touched on it a little bit by pre-education, but how else can we change these attitudes so that people don't have to continue to face that discrimination?
Ms LaRush: So they don't have to continue?
Mr Maves: Yes.
Ms LaRush: Well, if the Ontario Human Rights Commission worked. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, right now it's so difficult to get them to even respond. I asked them to respond to the simplest thing, like I don't have a shower, and I've waited for five years to have a shower. I've been discouraged by the Human Rights Commission to complain, and they do not do anything and they do not react. If they only would enforce the existing code in a timely fashion with all complaints. You know, it seems very simple. I thought that's what they did until I personally was involved.
Mr Maves: Have you met with certain people who since you've been there have seen how qualified and good you were at your job, and have their attitudes changed at all, some of them, just from the process of having you there and seeing on a day-to-day basis that you can do the job?
1050
Ms LaRush: I have had such a difficult time that, like I said here, I have been labelled as a troublemaker and a complainer and things because I have complained about things like no washrooms and the abusive things that are said and done about women. I personally don't find there's a whole lot of support. People aren't really looking at my strength any more. They're not looking at how fast I can climb the stairs and that I can haul 250 pounds. It hasn't seemed to have been something that people recognize about me.
Mr Maves: So you being there showing your worth hasn't seemed to change their attitudes.
Ms LaRush: No. They had an attitude before I came that there was no place for women on the fire ground, and because they have had that attitude, they have just built that attitude stronger and stronger.
Mr Maves: So despite your qualified presence, that hasn't changed the attitude.
Ms LaRush: No.
Mr Maves: So how better, just besides presence of the four designated groups, could we change those attitudes?
Ms LaRush: Well, there's all kinds of ways. Like we had a diversity training last week. That was a great idea. Some education before, some planning, some preparation, you know, even in a public way, showing women doing extrication and doing rescues out of high-rise apartment buildings and things. There's all kinds. I could write a paper on taking down the barriers. There's all kinds and I just couldn't talk about all the things in four minutes or whatever. I'd be happy to talk to you personally if you are ever interested in the ways --
Mr Maves: Yes, I would like to know.
Ms LaRush: -- of taking down the barriers in the fire service, because you could write a book.
Mr Maves: Yes, we've had many --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Maves. He did not leave you any time, Mr Young.
Mrs McLeod: I'd like to give you that opportunity. I wish we had the time, because I think you come from a field where the application of the idea of employment equity is perhaps more difficult than in any other single field and I think we could learn a lot from your experiences.
I also thought you had quite effectively answered the question I put to the last presenter in terms of the difficulty of the Human Rights Commission, even if it is strengthened, in responding to the systemic barriers concerns. I think the nature of the concerns you ran into that you would want the Human Rights Commission to look at because you had no other recourse -- if that was happening from every workplace, it would be virtually impossible for the Human Rights Commission to respond or to have any teeth in being able to deal with it afterwards, plus the fact you've said, "Do you really want to deal only with discrimination after it's occurred," which I think is a very valid point.
I know you could write a paper on it and we could spend hours with you, but maybe I could ask you just to say a little bit more about your sense of whether you can deal with the barriers to employment equity in the firefighting area without numerical goals and targets and whether or not numerical goals and targets in fact could be a problem in ensuring that the merit principle was in place in the firefighting force or do you think they're necessary.
Ms LaRush: I could deal with firefighting without there having to be numerical goals. The difficult thing is the attitudes. The attitudes are going to persist no matter what. They feel I was hired because I was a woman and they don't care what particular legislation is in place.
The way I understood Bill 79 to be was like the fire service, the unions as well as the chiefs as well as employment equity, were all supposed to look at the barriers and identify the barriers and decrease the barriers, and I think that's a terrific plan. There's no better person than the unions for -- I don't see anything wrong with Bill 79. It was just all about identifying barriers and eliminating barriers, and the people who knew the most, it wasn't -- I know the government was enforcing the legislation, but it was the unions and the employers that were actually doing the work of identifying the barriers and lowering them. Did I answer your question?
Mrs McLeod: Yes, you did, because you had spoken in your presentation about the need for government to be proactive and what I hear you saying is that there needs to be a very proactive plan to deal with the barriers.
Ms LaRush: There has to be a reason why, because they will not identify barriers if they don't have to. It's been, you know, for how many years, and we still have 98% white men in the fire service? It will continue to be that way unless it is legislated.
Mrs McLeod: I know this is a difficult question to answer because it's kind of speculation: If the numerical goal became the focus, so that the goal was to see 40% of the firefighting force female, that could add to the problem you've had of people perceiving that you got the job because you were female?
Ms LaRush: Well, I had the problem and I was hired seven years ago, before employment equity. I can't ever see that they would hire 40% women, because of all the reasons: some women don't apply for the job; some people don't like physical work, right? So there would never be 40% women hired. So the fact that that goal is there, I don't see that as being a problem for the women who did get on, personally.
Ms Churley: Thank you very much for coming down and presenting to us this morning. I could tell in your presentation that this has been a very, very difficult personal experience for you, and I think we all really regret that you had go through such a hard time. As one of my Conservative colleagues said, congratulations on your achievement. I think down the road there are going to be many women who are going to be very thankful to you for what you've gone through on their behalf.
I wanted to come back to the fact that, as you stated, this is a case, an individual case, that to me is a very clear example of why we need employment equity, that the Human Rights Code will not be able to deal in a proactive way in situations like yours, which means that individuals, even if the money is put in and the Human Rights Code is beefed up and some of its mandate changes, will still take personal tolls on individuals and won't be able to deal with the systemic barriers.
I just wanted to ask you a question about -- I'm certain that many of us have spoken to male firefighters in our own ridings who felt very much opposed to employment equity because they perceived that they would have to end up hiring -- and I hear this, as I'm sure you do -- women, who don't have the physical strength to do the job and therefore put their lives in danger when you're out in the field. I'd just like to know what you have to say to that and how you respond when that's put to you about being forced. I know that isn't what it's all about, but there are many who believe that: forced to hire people, women, who don't have the strength to carry out the job.
Ms LaRush: The qualifications right now to become a firefighter have never been as difficult as they are, the fitness testing, the things that we have to go through. Firefighters never had to do fitness tests in the past. You know, 90% of the people I work with never did a fitness test, nor could they stand beside me and prove the strength the way I do.
I realize it's an attitude, it's a perception, it's what they are telling the public. But the other side of the argument: Why don't we get tested every year to see who has the strength and who doesn't have the strength, if it comes down to strength. They haul me out of a building; I'll haul them out of a building.
There's really no truth to what they're saying. I can see that they're nervous. It's a perception, again. Let's go on national TV and prove that we can carry a 200-pound person out of a building, if that's what it takes.
Ms Churley: So what you're saying is, women have to pass that test too and there may be some overweight guy still acting as a firefighter who hasn't been tested who doesn't have your strength but hasn't been tested. Is that what you're saying?
Ms LaRush: There's many who have never been tested. The testing has only been in the last five years that they've been going up to York University and doing that high level of tests. So how can they tell me I don't have the strength when they've never been tested? Anyway, that's just an aside, you know?
Ms Churley: Well, that's what was important to clarify, because there is that misconception.
Ms LaRush: And it's really difficult working in that room. I work with 14 men who all think their life is in danger the moment I walked in the door. I find that personally insulting.
Ms Churley: Yet you passed all the tests.
Ms LaRush: I've had to prove it over and over and over that I can do it, and they never had to prove that they can do it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate you taking the time to come and be part of our process.
BLACK BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next presenter is on behalf of the Black Business and Professional Association, Michael Lecky. Welcome, sir, to our committee. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any time you allow for questions, the questions will begin with the Liberals. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Michael Lecky: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share with you our opinions about employment equity. Before I go any further, I'd like to give you a brief background of our organization, the BBPA, to enable you to understand who we are and why we are here this morning.
BBPA is one of the largest and oldest black business and professional associations of its kind in Canada. It is 14 years old, and our primary goal is to promote equity of access in social, economic and political areas for members of our community. In other words, we would like to level the playing field, which is what employment equity is all about. We were part of the coalition which worked tirelessly to encourage the NDP government to introduce the most progressive employment equity legislation, which you have just repealed.
1100
Having been involved in the consultation on Bill 79, and given the blessing for its implementation, we feel that today would have been a day to begin to take stock of the progress being made and look at where we would be in the year 2000, but instead, we're here to commiserate the demise of what we had worked for so hard on behalf of all Canadians: to ensure that the available qualified human resources would be utilized regardless of their colour, race, gender, sexual preference, disability or country of origin. This is what Bill 79 was designed for, and that's what we fought for and won.
You recall that when your government announced its intent to repeal the legislation, in our press release we said, "Repeal of Employment Equity Law: A Step Back in Time." We would like to confirm to you now that we still hold the same position and stand by our statement.
You have called Bill 79 "job quotas" and you wish to replace it with a "merit-based equal opportunity program." We do not know, nor do we understand, why you think Bill 79 was job quotas. It is not and was never intended to be because:
(1) There was no quota system infused in the bill.
(2) You have not proven to anyone that, in practice or in theory, quotas had been introduced.
(3) We're not aware of any hiring that was done to suggest that there were quotas. If there are examples, then we would appreciate hearing from you on them.
This legislation was the only vehicle for dealing with and eliminating systemic issues, such as culture, race, gender, language etc, which have been used to deny employment to minorities, women and the disabled.
Equal opportunity programs have not worked in the past and will not work in the future, because they do not deal with systemic barriers. To us, equal opportunity programs are like selecting a jury for a case whose verdict is already sealed in an envelope.
We are concerned that without a meaningful employment equity program in this province professionals in our community would have a bleak future, as we are already seeing in the current layoffs in the civil service. The axe is falling on a number of those very few minorities from our community who were beginning to make a career in the civil service.
It is pointless to list the number of studies or surveys on discrimination in the workplace or in hiring practices that have concluded that blacks and other minorities experience more discrimination. This is not new; these studies have been published and your government is aware of them. We are speaking about a community that has been surveyed and studied to death. This community has benefited very little from these studies, I might add.
So our concerns are real and are known throughout Canada. We are speaking about a community that is in double jeopardy because these conditions do not affect adults only, but children too. Last week, a survey by Dr George Dei, entitled Dropout or Push Out, revealed shocking results about the dropout rate and the racism and discrimination black students experience in our school system.
For us to be involved in any consultation of your new equal opportunity program, we would like to be assured that:
(1) You will provide us with an explicit definition of your proposed program and how it differs from Bill 79.
(2) You will state what elements of Bill 79 you are prepared to consider.
(3) There is an open forum and process.
(4) You will be willing to listen and consider our views. As citizens of this country, we are socially, economically and politically valuable to this society. Our contribution has been immeasurable in all areas, and it is for this reason that we call for a level playing field.
We are not asking for something that we do not deserve. What is good for minorities is good for every Canadian. Employment equity is good for all Canadians, but equal opportunity is not. Unless it eliminates systemic discrimination, unless there is a way of monitoring accountability, unless it's measurable to determine outcomes, it will not serve the people of Ontario.
Ontario is one of the major ports of entry to Canada and it is also the engine of the economy of Canada. Its diverse population, racially, culturally and ethnically, is a major contributor in terms of fostering foreign trade, investors etc.
Most minorities, especially in our community, own small businesses which provide essential services to Ontarians. To not protect and utilize the talent that this diversity brings with it is to ignore the reality of the society we live in.
How do we protect the resources we have? We protect Canadians by ensuring that equity programs are not just voluntary, but that government requires that they be done. Therefore, we are suggesting that you make it mandatory. Anything that is not mandatory is voluntary. Therefore, the government should not be wasting time discussing trivial programs that are intractable and unmeasurable.
We feel that if the speed limit and seatbelt legislations are mandatory, then having mandatory employment equity legislation makes sense as well. All these and other legislations deal with different forms of safety and security. There must be goals and timetables to ensure that progress is being made and also for the government to determine whether the program is working.
We thank you for giving us this opportunity to share our opinions with you.
The Chair: We have about three and a half minutes per party, beginning with the opposition.
Mr Grandmaître: Thank you for your presentation. Looking at the title -- if I can call it the title -- of your remarks, "The Employment Equity Consultation Committee," I want to assure you that we are not that committee. We are here to simply repeal Bill 79. You say that you've worked hard to come to an understanding with the government on Bill 79.
Mr Young: Point of order, Mr Chair: We are not here to repeal Bill 79 totally. That is not the sole purpose of our committee, I don't think.
Mr Grandmaître: That's what the bill says. It's Bill 8, An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario.
The Chair: Excuse me a second, Mr Young. Mr Grandmaître has the floor. We haven't been interrupting up till now, so I'd appreciate it if you allow him to keep the floor. Go ahead, Mr Grandmaître.
Mr Grandmaître: So you would like to participate in this new program that the government will be introducing later on, the new equal opportunity plan. Can I ask the parliamentary assistant to guarantee that they will have the same opportunity to work on this new equal opportunity program as the public had on Bill 79? Can anybody from the government answer this?
The Chair: You're going to have to wait. Do you want to carry on and then we'll get him to answer?
Mr Grandmaître: That's my question for the time being.
Mr Crozier: My question was very related to it, so Lyn, if you do have one --
Mrs McLeod: Surely. A couple then, quickly. When you talk about mandatory versus voluntary programs, I assume that you're saying there needs to be a legislative approach, that even if you get to consult on a plan, if that plan is not in legislation you feel that it will not have the kind of force that it needs?
1110
Mr Lecky: I think it will take legislation, yes, to give it that force, because I don't believe that you can voluntarily eliminate discrimination in the workplace. We have seen it very clearly. We worked on the York city council to have it change its hiring practices with the firefighters and we saw the emotion that was evident from the firefighters as they spoke about the fear of reducing the standards in the fire department. We know that it's deep, it's entrenched. It's something that needs force. It needs people to recognize that it's the law and that it must be done, that we have to level the playing field and we cannot afford to simply sit by and depend upon people's goodwill to seek the best talent in our society, because we need it as a country. We need to make sure that we hire the people who can do the job.
Mrs McLeod: Can you --
The Chair: Excuse me, Mrs McLeod. Did we want this question answered?
Mrs McLeod: Perhaps if I just finish this. Can the Human Rights Commission deal with the barriers?
Mr Lecky: No, I think the Human Rights Commission doesn't have any teeth. We feel that it has proven in the past not to be effective in terms of dealing with these types of issues.
The Chair: Can you put that question very quickly?
Mr Grandmaître: Yes, my question to the parliamentary assistant was, these people, the BBPA, were involved in the drafting, or were at least consulted, to prepare Bill 79. Can you guarantee this committee and also this organization that they will be part of the consultation for your new equal opportunity program? Will the public be invited?
Mr Clement: We've certainly commenced some stakeholder discussions on the equal opportunity plan. I might mention that Mr Lecky and I met over two years ago when Mike Harris had a round table discussion with members of the black community that lasted over two hours, and it included members of the BBPA. I think Mr Harris's position on employment equity legislation was made pretty evident there, and there was quite a diversity of viewpoints among those represented around the table.
Some certainly felt, as the BBPA feels, that mandatory quotas are necessary, but there were other members, small business persons from the black community who felt that was the wrong way to go. I certainly think that we did an amount of consultation well before the election with the black communities in this area.
Mr Marchese: Mr Lecky, it's good to have you back. We heard you at the other hearings re Bill 79. It was a pleasure to listen to your comments here today. I would like to offer some thoughts on Conservative thinking for a few moments, looking forward to your response to it.
Conservative thinking goes something like this: They support the particular over the general. They tend to glorify the individual. They tend to say, for example, when they look at a black man or woman: "But you've succeeded. Why are there any problems? Did you not succeed on merit?" A woman comes forward and they say: "But you succeeded. You've made it. Did you not do it based on merit?" We might have a person with a disability, although that's a bit more difficult, and they might say: "Well, you succeeded. Was it not based on merit? Doesn't the merit principle work and doesn't it show that you as an individual have drive, have ability, that you worked hard, that you studied hard? If you do that, doesn't it mean that all blacks can do it and that all disabled people can do it and that all women can do it?"
Then, in supporting that individual, the world would be okay. Everybody would have equal opportunity and the world would be just fine. Do you support that kind of thinking in terms of how we get to discrimination and equal opportunities for people?
Mr Lecky: Actually, no. I think there is a certain argument and a certain merit to the fact that people, individually, should work hard and should study hard and should do all the things that everybody else does to achieve what we all supposedly achieve, but I think when you look at it, when you get down to it, you have to understand that the playing field is not level. If we were able to go and play with the same rules and the same game, then I can guarantee you that we would be able to exercise our own individual talents and expertise to achieve what anybody else has achieved.
But when you have these systemic barriers and discrimination that are there, it becomes extremely difficult for a black individual to overcome these barriers. The point is that half the time you don't know these barriers are there, you don't see them. It's very subtle, but it's there.
We have to understand that yes, there is a certain amount of merit for individualism, but that alone will not allow minorities and people from minority backgrounds to access certain things, because if the institutions are inherently racist, if there are problems there and barriers there, how do you get around those barriers no matter how good you are?
In our community, there is a saying that you have to be 10 times better than the white person to be able to succeed, and it's true. You have to be literally 10 times better. Think about the talent that is wasting out there. Yes, there are people like me who have succeeded, and many others, but it has been extremely difficult and not everybody is an entrepreneur. Believe me, I've faced all kinds of discrimination myself, and I think that it's important to recognize that those people who have their blinders on, who assume that you can make it alone just on your own merit, I think that's totally ridiculous and shortsighted and it is shortchanging this country.
The Chair: For the government, Mr Young.
Mr Young: I will not presume to speak for the NDP because I'm certainly not qualified to speak as a socialist, although Mr Marchese is trying to speak for the PCs.
I have a question, Mr Lecky. My question is, and for me it is the bottom of this whole issue, where are we going with this? What happens when a company has reached its numerical goal or its quota of what is available in the externally available market? What do they do when they say, "No, we've hit the number of visible minorities and we've hit the number of women at all these positions." What do they do next? Do they now make all their next hiring decisions based on race? "Well, we've got enough of those. We need some more of these." Where is it all leading to?
The second part of the question is, I'm thinking of athletics where you might have a group of black athletes who are achieving and are the best in the country. Are we heading to a situation where we have to say: "No, we can't take the best. You have to have a white runner in there with the black runners because they haven't had a fair chance. We want to have representation of everyone"?
Mr Lecky: First of all, I don't think employment equity legislation was meant to be a permanent law. I think what we're talking about essentially was achieving a balance in society.
Mr Young: What happens when you get there?
Mr Lecky: When you get there, we don't need it, is my point. The question about black athletes: What we're talking about is levelling the playing field. So if a white athlete is good enough and he is fast enough, and that's based on purely objective arguments -- if you're faster, then you're going to represent us. It's as simple as that.
That's the ultimatum in levelling the playing field, because now we have a situation where everybody's judged equally. It's a stopwatch, a timing and the fastest person wins. That's all we're asking for. We're not asking you to take inferior people or slower athletes. Let's be realistic.
Mr Maves: One thing that has become clear during these hearings is that who-you-know hiring is practised by many employers of all colours --
Mr Lecky: Sorry. Could you repeat?
Mr Maves: Who-you-know hiring. You have a circle of friends and relatives or the people who already work for you and you tend to just pick people out of that area. It's called who-you-know hiring rather than overt discrimination in hiring. In your business associations, do a lot of your businesses practise this too, do you find?
Mr Lecky: To some extent, yes. I think there's this who-do-you know type of thing. I'm going back to the firefighters situation. This is what was happening: The chief would tell his son and it wasn't advertised. It was a kind of closed shop, and I think it's important for us to realize that. I hope I'm getting your question straight, but I think what you're saying is a word-of-mouth-type situation, right?
Mr Young: Yes.
Mr Lecky: If you're not advertising it, if you're not making it open, if the process isn't open, then essentially you are eliminating people.
Mr Young: What my question becomes is, how else through numerical goals or quotas can we get companies to widen their searches into communities that we might otherwise not venture into?
Mr Lecky: First of all, the process has to be open. It can't be this privileged position because you happen to know the president of this company or that company. It has to be an open process where it has to be advertised and people have to be judged in an objective way and certainly not on the basis of the old boys' network, "Well, he went to Harvard with me," or "He went to Upper Canada College with me and so I know him," and so on.
I think it has to be advertised. It has to be proven. I keep hearing the term "quotas" bandied around and I think it's important that we get away from that rhetoric because we're not talking about quotas; we're talking about simple measurement. You have to have some numerical system to know what's happening. You must have that. If you don't have it, then how do you measure it?
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Lecky. Your time is up. We appreciate your interest in our process and your attendance here this morning. Thank you.
Mr Lecky: Thank you.
1120
NORTH AMERICAN SIKH LEAGUE
The Chair: The next presenter is the North American Sikh League, Sam Hundal, president.
Welcome to our committee, sir. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any time you leave for questions, we'll begin with the New Democratic Party. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr Sulakhan Singh Hundal: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm before this committee not presenting an intellectual exercise, but these are my personal experiences which I experienced in my dealings with the public over the last 21 years in the province of Ontario.
I feel privileged to appear before this standing committee on general government and would like to share my concerns, views and experiences with you with reference to the Employment Equity Act, which was proclaimed on September 1, 1994, and the recent Bill 8, an act to repeal the present employment practices in Ontario.
Personally to me, the employment act was primarily aimed to overcome systemic discrimination and remove barriers that adversely affect the aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women in the workplace, those four designated groups.
Regulations of the act set out some key elements, as we know, to develop strict plans, set numerical goals for each designated group within a specific geographic boundary in each occupational area and a timetable to achieve them -- I will be emphasizing them -- and it is overseen and enforced through the employment equity commission and the Employment Equity Tribunal.
I believe that all persons living in Ontario must have equal access to employment and promotions at all levels of government, including privately operated and managed services and businesses. Also, I equally believe, and I have a strong conviction, that education, experience and skills should remain the basis of merit for any employment and promotion, irrespective of race, sex or disability factors, in today's highly competitive marketplace.
Employment equality should be applauded loudly and rationally without creating fundamental and permanent divisions among our workplace in Ontario, and I emphasize that one.
I must admit that the present employment act regulations have created some fundamental divisions among both our employers and employees as well. Apart from cost factors -- that's a small one -- certain employers have apprehension and concerns regarding regulation and government intrusion in their operations. There are inevitably some people in the workplace who are apprehensive about employment equity in terms of concerns about what it means to their security, their career advancement.
On the other hand -- and I will emphasize this one -- it has created a segment of so-called second-class citizens in Ontario who do feel a serious blow to their dignity, to their self-respect and qualifications by forcefully categorizing them into one of the four designated groups, so-called disadvantaged groups. For example, the new generation of children born here, educated and trained in Ontario, feel that it is a serious insult to them to be pushing them into one of the racial minority categories. They do not wish to be classified as racial minority members but rather as Ontarians. It affects our long-range race relations seriously in Ontario by creating unnecessary societal divisions and incorrect perceptions.
I have experience of that one, back home where a similar kind of regulations have created strong contradictions in the society and violence has been observed largely in that part of the globe. To me, that kind of experience and that kind of memory are fresh, which I don't want to see in our province.
Unfortunately, the Employment Equity Act has inflicted deep scars which make some feel uncertain of the future and others are left with a guilty conscience, lacking fair and open competitive capabilities.
I talk to the young people. In my 21 years' experience as a real estate broker, working in Ontario, dealing with all kinds of people, the young people talk to me about this one. They are very serious and I am also concerned and I can feel their feelings, so that's why I emphasize this point.
The concept of employment equity, to me, was originated with good intentions and had been targeted towards providing needed reform to the "far too prevalent and discriminating attitudes and practices of management and even government departments, but it appears to have gone too far" and has become "the tail wagging the dog" as companies and employers scramble to meet forced mandated figures within human resource operations because there is a force over there to prove to their superiors that they have done this and achieved these goals.
I must admit that like many visible individuals I have experienced discrimination, I have experienced rejection, frustration and also, I should emphasize, recognition and appreciation as well. I believe and cherish democratic values and opportunities blessed to our society luckily in Ontario.
Because I was interested like many other visible and other people, I came to hear the minister in the Legislature that day and I personally heard the announcement of the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in the Ontario Legislature on October 11, 1995, referring to Bill 8, which is An Act to repeal job quotas and restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario, as the minister put it.
I also had the opportunity to attend the minister's press conference explaining in detail how to encourage and create employment equality, by providing the necessary educational training, skill incentives and equal opportunities of access to make everyone capable to compete equally, irrespective of their race, sex or other factors. The minister's genuine desire to reform and strengthen the Human Rights Code appears to be a well-balanced approach and a step in the right direction.
1130
I fully endorse and support the honourable minister's new initiatives in this direction as this would induce democratic values in our society, remove fear of uncertainties and mistrust among some segments of our society and create a sense of dignity and pride among many new Canadians, many new generations, many young people, individuals, to enhance long-range race relations in Ontario.
Finally, from my own experiences, I would sincerely suggest that in order to provide equal and fair employment opportunities to all, the honourable minister would be expected to:
-- Provide adequate and easily accessible opportunities to all.
-- Enhance education and skill-related abilities suitable to Ontario's work-related environment both in government and in the private sector as well.
-- Encourage and enhance programs like co-op and apprenticeship for those who need them the most, and they should be universally available in all fields. This concept has been proven in certain parts of the world where people who intended to go into a certain field had an opportunity to gain firsthand experience.
-- Facilitate opportunities and create an environment where one could gain experience and skills voluntarily in one's own spare hours, as in libraries or hospitals. That will give them the chance, if they want, to gain firsthand experience which is not available otherwise.
-- Encourage and regulate the construction industry, government departments, the business and service sectors to provide wheelchair accessibility to all buildings and workplaces. In many of them, especially in the private sector, that is not available at the moment.
-- Reach out to aboriginal communities -- because it is always the powerful who extend the hand -- and encourage them to participate in educational training, skills development and culture-related initiatives to ensure their equal participation in the workplace and contribution to build a model Ontario.
-- Initiate projects and programs to publicly recognize, appreciate, reward and encourage those employers who become leaders to provide equal opportunities for all.
-- Strengthen and overhaul the Ontario Human Rights Commission's mandate in order to act efficiently and firmly against those who intentionally discriminate against fellow Ontarians. The Human Rights Commission should be a proactive force and leader in this field if we have to make major changes in employment equality.
In conclusion, I appreciate and I would support the honourable Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation's bold, democratically mandated measures. The mandate was given to them not many months ago to bring about employment equity, induce dignity and self-pride and create a pleasant Ontario to work in and raise families with pride, irrespective of diversified individual backgrounds.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you for coming forward with your presentation. You're saying, I take it, that the Ontario Human Rights Commission should be looking after discrimination instead of Bill 79. From what I can gather here, you're saying the Ontario Human Rights Commission the way it is, and some presentations we've heard would not deal with it in its present form. What changes would you like to see to the Ontario Human Rights Commission so it would be able to deal with the problem?
Mr Hundal: I personally believe that they should have a wider mandate, number one, to be proactive, to provide information, guidance, facilities to the people so that there is accessibility to the jobs and employment without any barriers, proactive in that sense.
Especially, they should have more power to deal with them more swiftly. We have seen that the process is so long. It takes months and months and years to investigate and then finally come before the tribunal. I think that's a waste of time. Many incentives, the better and positive side of the mandate, are lost during that process. I want it to be a swift and very quick process to deal with the issues.
Mr Wood: But the commission, as it is right now, would not do the job.
Mr Hundal: I don't think so.
Mr Young: Thank you for your presentation; it's very, very interesting. Do you have any ideas about how we could make the Human Rights Commission more proactive?
Mr Hundal: I think we should give them the guidelines and mandate to reach out to the communities to provide information, education, incentives, that kind of approach. That's one part. Second, give them the mandate to deal with the issues swiftly, strongly and thoroughly.
Mr Young: You say we should initiate projects to recognize and reward companies who become leaders in providing equal opportunities for all. Companies hire people from diverse communities because it makes them money. So my concern is, why recognize them for doing something that's smart and makes them more money?
Mr Hundal: No, I don't think so. For example, I'm one of the governors at Peel Memorial Hospital and we initiated a program which has proven successful to recognize some of our employees who have performed excellently, first, on their job; second, in race relations. They came out and the word spread out to the other workforce, and I think it was a very positive outcome of that.
Mr Young: It's more like getting the message out that diversity is smart.
Mr Hundal: Yes.
Mr Stewart: It appears from your comments that you believe the voluntary approach and the ability approach is the way to go, that you want a level playing field and we have to have the education and training skills in place.
What we're hearing this morning, and have over the last while, is that many of the minority groups are either being pushed out or dropping out of school. How do we create ability if we don't have these kids stay in school? Yet the other group is saying we're pushing them out. Do you feel that's a fact or not?
Mr Hundal: I have no expertise on that one, but I can give my own experience. There were some slurs going on and racial remarks, and sometimes the kids are not bold enough to face them and realize the environment. It happened to me. I was called many times "Paki" and "raghead" and told "Go back," but I understood the ignorance on the part of others, that they could not understand my way of life, and I stick to that one. My teenagers, who were born here, have gone to university, and they faced the same kind of experience. They were bold enough to deal with that with the backing of the family, with the backing of other people, surroundings. That's my perception, to be true, to face the realities and to face them in a positive way.
I remember, Mr Chair --
The Chair: I'm going to have to go on to the next question, sir. I'm sure it's an interesting story, but Mrs McLeod has a question for you.
Mrs McLeod: You've put a great deal of emphasis on the importance of education and skills training opportunities as a route to more equal opportunity. I'm wondering if that's enough. You were starting to touch on some other barriers in your last response.
I think it would be accurate to say that members of the Sikh community, compared to the average, have quite high levels of education and skills attainment, because that's a real premium in your community. If that's the case, would you say that has been enough to ensure that members of the Sikh community are getting equal opportunities in the workplace, that they're not encountering other barriers and that they're participating fully? If that's not the case, what other barriers are getting in the way?
Mr Hundal: Thank you very much, Madam McLeod. I appreciate it, and I respect you very much personally also.
This is a very burning issue. I came as a qualified teacher; I taught 11th grade economics back home. When I moved to England the environment was new to me. I knew nothing about the system. I could not even understand and speak so people could understand me. We have qualified people coming from the different parts of the world, but they need training, they need elocution training, they need other experience, because the way we deal with things in other parts of the world is different, our approaches are different. The approaches are different over here.
There are 15 to 20 lawyers trained in other parts of the world driving taxis at the airport. There are maybe 50 to 100 qualified teachers living here, working in industry and driving cabs because they did not have the opportunity to go to the institutions to improve their education compared to the levels we have in Ontario. I was talking about developing the training and skills which are useful in Ontario, in our environment.
Mrs McLeod: As you talk about strengthening the Human Rights Commission to deal with barriers, do you then think it should have the power to ensure that the opportunity for that training is in place?
Mr Hundal: Madam, the perception is outside in our communities that they don't deal with it properly as it is now. It is a lingering process, and a person during that time loses faith in the process within six months, a year, two years, three years. We want that they should have more mandate both in terms of proactive and implementing the process.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your interest in our process and your presence here this morning.
1140
LIZ MACKENZIE AND ASSOCIATES
The Chair: Our last presenter this morning is not here yet and we have about 15 minutes before she's scheduled. Liz Mackenzie from Liz Mackenzie and Associates called this morning and asked if she could make a presentation. We've got 15 minutes. Does everybody feel comfortable with that? Okay, Liz, you've got about 15 minutes. We appreciate you being here.
Ms Liz Mackenzie: I appreciate the time, and thank you very much for giving it to me.
I have been watching some of these briefings and I've been talking to other people, and I also felt I needed to present some of my views to you from my perspective, my background as a human resources management consultant in the fields of employment equity since 1988. I want to tell you a bit of my background just so you understand where I'm coming from.
I was employed with a major international human resources consulting firm for several years, and then I decided to start my own consulting business in 1993. I have assisted some of the largest companies in Canada in putting in place employment equity programs and plans in their organizations over the years. I've also had consulting experience with the broader public sector and also not-for-profit organizations. I also have a master's of business administration degree, which gives me some knowledge of business in Ontario. I think I have a fair basis from which to observe business in Ontario.
I want you to know that I've spent my consulting career making the business case for employment equity. I have been telling employers and employees that employment equity will ensure that merit is the only criterion which will be used in employment decisions. I've told them that employment equity will ensure that their human resources are utilized efficiently and effectively, and that they will ensure access to the best talent available for the jobs in their organizations.
I have three major points that I want to make about Bill 8. I'll just outline them and then I'll expand on them.
First, goals and timetables are not job quotas. My second point is that merit-based employment practices have not existed in Ontario. My third point is that if, ideologically, this government is opposed to legislating employment equity, then the government should lead by example and initiate a contract compliance program similar to the federal government's program.
I will now expand on my points.
First of all, goals and timetables are not quotas for who you have to hire or promote, but they are indicators of what organizations can reasonably expect to achieve if they have eliminated discriminatory barriers in their workplaces for all employees. Because I believe in taking things down to a practical level, I offer you this following example.
A common misperception I have heard often, both from employers and employees and also in some of the questions around what's been happening in this committee, is that goals force an organization to choose people according to designated group status without regard to their qualifications, and that's not true. Being qualified for a job should always be the first cut. Goals do not relate to who to choose in any individual employment decision, and so much has been brought down to the individual level for goals. Goals are indicators of what cumulatively can be or should be achieved over a period of time.
As my illustration, I'm going to ask you all to imagine that you are car dealers, and I understand that for one of you that's not hard to imagine. You are a car dealer and you sell both high-end and low-end cars, and you have a customer who comes in and only wants to buy the low-end car. They have no interest in the high end; it's beyond their economic means or whatever reason. You would not say to this person, "I'm sorry, I've already met my sales goals for the quarter for those low-end cars, so I can't sell it to you." That would be economic death. You would not do that.
However, if at the end of the quarter you look at what has happened to your sales and you find that you have only sold low-end cars, then you're going to do some examination of why you failed to meet your goals with the high-end cars and you're going to do an analysis; you're going to look at some possibilities. Perhaps, first of all, your analysis of what you could achieve in the sales of high-end cars was faulty in some way, or perhaps the economy took an unexpected downturn and people just didn't have the money that was anticipated and so you didn't sell those cars, or your salespeople simply don't have the skills or the drive to sell those high-end cars.
If the reasons were the first two, then you're going to adjust your goals appropriately to the reality. If the reason is the last possibility, which is that your salespeople didn't have the drive or the skills, then you're going to provide them with those skills and you're going to provide them with the means they need in order to meet those goals in the next quarter.
That's what goals and timetables are all about, and that is true for this situation as with any other situation in business.
My second point, merit-based employment practices have not existed in Ontario: I think if you ignore history, you do it at your peril. At our peril we ignore history. I think if you look at the history of Ontario and Canada you will find many, many examples of where merit-based employment practices have not been practised throughout, and I've given you a few examples in my brief. We had also today a very personal account of how merit-based employment practices have not existed in the workplace.
With the coining of the Peter principle, we also know that white, able-bodied men have acknowledged that merit-based employment practices are not the norm in businesses as well. The principle which states that everyone will be promoted to his level of incompetence was coined long before employment equity and designated group members had made significant inroads into Canadian businesses.
In the course of my consulting services and practice, I have heard many personal stories from so many individuals who have told me that merit is not recognized in most organizations. I've heard stories of blatant discrimination as well. I've heard stories from women who worked hard to make it into senior positions in companies, often sacrificing the opportunity to have husbands and families, only to find their authority undermined by spiteful allegations that they had "slept their way to the top."
These are the stories of job interviewers and managers who overstep their bounds and ask women if they are taking precautions to ensure that they will not get pregnant, who grill people with disabilities about their reliability, who question the ability of aboriginal people to work a full day in an office environment and who ask racial minority members if they can adjust themselves to the faster pace required by Canadian businesses.
The government members will have to do more than invent a misleading title for a bill if they wish to make merit-based employment practices a reality in Ontario.
Finally, on my recommendation that if you cannot support legislation for employment equity, then at a minimum put in a contract compliance program: I'm adding my support to all those presenters who have gone before who wish you to amend Bill 8 so that employers who wish to continue their employment equity efforts can retain the data and the information that they have collected from employees thus far.
But I also want to recommend the contract compliance process. The government needs to lead by example: by initiating this contract compliance program, by showing that they will only do business with those employers who have shown that they have removed barriers to the full participation of individuals in the workplace.
I also suggest that the government should set up an aggressive education and consultation service on employment equity practices for both employers and employees.
1150
I make this recommendation for a few reasons. Since Ontario cannot compete with other countries on the cost of human resources, then we have to compete on the ability to utilize these human resources more effectively and more efficiently. This is much easier to do for countries with a more homogeneous labour pool. Therefore, Ontario organizations have to be at the leading edge of human resources practices in order to ensure the best competitive advantage. Ontario organizations will not be able to compete effectively as long as there are barriers in place which prevent the best people from accessing job opportunities.
Past experience has shown that organizations very rarely understand the significance of managing their human resources as efficiently and effectively as other areas, such as production and marketing. Only the very largest organizations typically have the resources to devote to developing in-house expertise, doing the research and developing the programs to be leading-edge. Even these organizations have often had a government push to move them to be leading-edge.
The federal experience I think is a very useful example here. If you look at the federal contract compliance program and the federal employment equity program, a significant number of the employers who have been covered under that have gone far beyond the initiatives that the government ever imagined and have recognized the benefits to their bottom line and have put in phenomenally proactive diversity management programs in their organization. The federal government's own voluntary employment equity program, however, has not succeeded as well as in the private sector. For that reason they've now been included under the new federal Employment Equity Act, where they were not included before.
If the government implements a contract compliance program which is similar to the US federal contract compliance program, the government could also be stimulating the economy in a significant way. The February 1995 issue of the Academy of Management Journal published the findings of four financial economists in an article entitled "Competitiveness Through Management of Diversity: Effects on Stock Price Valuation." This longitudinal study found a positive correlation between being recognized with an affirmative action award by the Office of the Federal Contract Compliance Program and increase in stock prices of the recognized companies immediately after the announcement of the awards. In other words, their federal contract program had stimulated the economy and you could do that as well.
I believe firmly that there are sound economic and business reasons for organizations to implement employment equity. But I also believe that many organizations, particularly medium-sized and public sector employers, will not have the resources, nor the will, to ensure that barriers are removed in their organizations without government assistance and strong encouragement through a proactive government program initiative.
I think that it is particularly telling that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association did not know how many of its members have implemented voluntary employment equity programs. It seems that the CMA, an employer association which is supposed to advocate on behalf of its members and assist them in staying competitive and successful, does not understand the economic benefits of employment equity and the benefits of utilizing human resources more effectively. If their own association does not understand the benefits to Ontario manufacturers' bottom lines, then how can individual employers be expected to remove barriers and implement equal opportunity programs of their own good will?
In conclusion, I have to bring this down to the personal because it has affected me personally; Bill 8 has affected me personally. I have heard government members express some dismay, both when Bill 8 was introduced and during these hearings, that some advocates have implied that they are lying, or that they are lying to the public, about the Employment Equity Act, 1993.
If government members feel this way, then try to imagine how employment equity consultants and practitioners feel, when faced with the title of Bill 8 and other government materials, which maintain that employment equity means job quotas and the elimination of merit-based employment practices.
As an employment equity consultant for over seven years, I have worked hard at assisting employers and employees in understanding that employment equity is the very essence of merit-based employment practices. I find it shameful that a government which is supposed to represent all Ontarians can treat those who have divergent views with such utter contempt, and I do stress that.
Finally, I want to remind you as government members that even where we have called them goals and timetables, even where you have said, "Yes, they've been called goals," you say that they have to be interpreted as meaning quotas, and I have to remind you that you are bringing down a budget in a few days. This budget is going to have certain goals and objectives in it, and I want to question, given the government's view of goals, can we assume that the government's budget will contain quotas?
Thank you very much for providing me this time to speak to you.
The Chair: In view of the fact that Ms Casselman is not here yet, we've got maybe a quick minute for questions. Mr Young for the government.
Mr Young: There may be some relevance to your analysis from the automobile industry, and there is more than one member of our government who's worked in that industry. I've worked in a number of industries, and 20 years ago I worked in that industry also.
What is very important, in looking at your marketplace, is the surrounding area, what's available in the marketplace. Under Bill 79 there's reference to what's available in the external area in the form of visible minorities and women etc, but what happens to a personnel manager who has pressure from the boss, who has pressure from the government with a $50,000 fine looming, who's told, "Come on, you've got to have these numbers there"? Are you saying that they're going to keep saying to their boss, "I'm sorry, the numbers just aren't available in this area," or are they just going to try to pull some résumés out of the pile and say, "Look how fair we are"?
Ms Mackenzie: I think you've missed some of the point of the analysis under the goal-setting. In the Employment Equity Act it says you have to make an assessment of what's available in the area from which you can reasonably be expected to recruit your employees. If that analysis shows -- and you can get the statistics from Statistics Canada -- under almost 1,000 occupations, of who is qualified according to designated group status in your area, then you build a scenario that says here they are; these are the people who are qualified in your area -- qualified. I'm emphasizing that; those data are available.
Mr Young: Yes, but my point is, what if you can't find them?
The Chair: A minute goes by very quickly these days. Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: Can you tell me whether or not you're working with people -- and I don't want the specific names, obviously -- employers who are putting in place employment equity plans and who have been collecting data since Bill 79 was brought in who would be, as we understand it under the terms of this act, required to destroy the data? I'd like you to say just a little bit more about the impact of the destruction of data aspects.
Ms Mackenzie: Well yes, I have employers who have phoned me in a panic because of that particular section in Bill 8, and have also been met with legal counsel in their organizations who have said this means that you have to destroy all your data even though you want to go ahead and do employment equity planning. They are trying to say, "In our communications most of my employers understood that it was important to put in employment equity for business reasons and because they believed in fairness in the workplace." They communicated this to their employees, along with the fact that they were also going to comply with Bill 79.
Now all of the good work that they've set, that they believe in fairness in the workplace, that they believe in making sure that all people, all individuals, are recognized for their merit in the workplace is being, a lot of them feel, thrown down the drain because of that particular provision in Bill 8 which is hampering their efforts.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Wood, one minute.
Mr Wood: Just briefly, the title: I went through that during the campaign for five weeks -- people were telling me -- and that's why I was re-elected as an NDP member: "Oh, don't worry about that. Mike Harris is lying and the Conservative candidate is lying." Now they're elected and the government is in session and we see the title, an act to repeal quotas and restore merit-based employment, instead of dealing with the Employment Equity Act, 1993. I just wanted to get your comments on how you feel about the title of this particular Bill 8.
Ms Mackenzie: I think I personally made it clear at the end of my presentation that I am offended by that title. I feel that the government is implying to me that I have been pulling the wool over my employers' and employees' eyes, that I have been in fact lying to them by insisting that employment equity is not about quotas and it is all about merit-based employment practices. I feel that the implication from this title and from other materials is that I've been lying, and I really do resent that. I find that offensive.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We appreciate your participation in our process.
1200
ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
The Chair: Our last presenter is Leah Casselman; then we get to have some lunch. Good morning and welcome to our committee. You have 20 minutes to use as you see fit. Any time you allow in that for questions, the questions will begin with the Liberal Party. So the floor is yours, and if you could introduce yourselves so that the Hansard reporter knows who is here, please.
Ms Leah Casselman: We'll take a few minutes to get ourselves settled then, since it is our 20 minutes. My name is Leah Casselman and I'm the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. To my left is John Rae, who is one of our members and is a worker in the employment equity field. To his left is Mohar Budhram, who is the chair of our provincial human rights committee within OPSEU.
I was surprised to hear that you needed a description of who we were. I guess there must be some new faces around here; that's why. We represent your employees, the people who work directly for the government, and we also represent those people who work in the college system and thousands of members who work in the broader public sector as well in this province.
What you have before us is our presentation and also an earlier document which we sent to the previous government in February 1992, which would be the blue document on principles for employment equity legislation.
OPSEU is a union which represents hundreds of workers in the public and broader public sector. Our members perform essential public services in places like hospitals, day care centres, associations for community living, ambulance services and the Ontario public service.
Our union has a very diverse membership. As a bargaining agent, it is incumbent on us to recognize this diversity and address the issues that adversely affect our members in their workplaces. Over the years, we have fought hard to ensure that all our members are treated with respect and dignity in their workplaces. We have been aware that systemic and attitudinal barriers exist in the workplace and these barriers have served to prevent the hiring, promotion and equitable treatment of women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and racial minorities.
We've been painfully aware that the voluntary approach did not work. The Ontario public service had a voluntary affirmative action program for women for many years, yet women who made up half of the population are not to be found in similar numbers in all occupational groups in the public service and they do not hold an equal number of senior positions. Despite the fact that the Ontario public service had in place a voluntary employment equity program from 1989 to 1993, workers with disabilities and aboriginal workers have continued to be grossly underrepresented when compared to their numbers in the population. Favouritism and nepotism have dictated who gets hired, who gets trained and who gets fired. Many studies have shown that stereotyping and prejudices and not merit and ability influence who gets the job, who gets promoted on the job and who keeps the job.
The Employment Equity Act was for us a welcome change, a change that was designed to ensure that workers who have been discriminated against and historically disadvantaged stood to be able to compete on a level playing field. Bill 79 brought a greater degree of democracy to the workplace. It ensured that workers and their bargaining agents, as well as unorganized workers, would have an equal opportunity to review policies and practices for barriers and determine ways of removing them in a timely fashion.
Bill 79 had no quotas. In fact, all the legislation required is that employers make reasonable efforts to ensure appropriate representation of the designated groups in their workplaces when opportunities for change were available.
The short title of Bill 8 -- Job Quotas Repeal Act -- is misleading, offensive and deliberately misrepresents the issue. Bill 8 panders to the stereotype which says that designated groups who have been the victims of systemic and intentional discrimination are unqualified. This false and prejudiced premise reflects the belief that the four designated groups are inherently inferior and any legislation giving them a fair break in the workplace will drag down standards. The government's take on quotas is especially hypocritical since it is a participant in a quiet quota system that almost always penalizes talent: the composition of cabinets by regional, religious, linguistic and other interests. Does anyone really believe that every minister in the cabinet is there on merit?
Interjections.
Mr Young: That includes previous cabinets.
Ms Casselman: This is my dime, folks.
Bill 8 goes much further than to repeal the Employment Equity Act. Many employers and bargaining agents have taken the time and spent resources to gather information which would help them to make their workplaces fair and equitable. Bill 8 requires them to destroy that material. This in our view is not only vindictive; it is oppressive.
Bill 8 seeks to repeal provisions of the Police Services Act, an act proclaimed in 1990 requiring police services to implement employment equity programs and plans. Bill 8 carefully removes all references to employment equity so that police services are now free to disregard any action which would result in creating forces that are more representative of the diversity which is Ontario.
The Education Act is also gutted of any references to education equity. This of course will have a far-reaching impact on the future citizens of the province. The attempts to ensure that our classrooms and curricula are reflective of the diverse cultures of the people of this province will continue to say to the young people from varied backgrounds that their history and culture are not valued. They will continue to be unable to see role models in their classrooms.
Bill 8 goes even further to repeal subsection 14.1(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, a provision which allows employers to develop and implement special programs to correct disadvantages due to discrimination.
Joint responsibility provisions of Bill 79 would have brought a new era of improved labour relations and a less adversarial atmosphere to workplaces by requiring the parties to cooperate to develop employment equity programs and plans uniquely tailored to their organizations. Bill 8 returns Ontario to the outdated system of confrontation which past governments, business and labour have been trying to change.
It's our understanding that the government is not only repealing the requirement for mandatory employment equity programs. You may correct me here, but it's our understanding that it would also repeal subsection 14(1), and if that is correct, it is our understanding that with the requirement that information collected under Bill 79 be destroyed, it is erecting a barrier to prevent workplaces from effectively and cost-efficiently developing voluntary programs.
This government implied that it was its intent to strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Commission by an infusion of resources saved by dismantling the Employment Equity Commission. To date this commitment has not been kept. In fact, the commission continues to have a backlog of cases and to be underresourced. Shame.
Disadvantaged groups are waiting to hear when and how their needs will be addressed by this government. When will the playing field be levelled so that there will be fair competition in the workplace?
What concrete steps does this government expect employers to take to remove the barriers that even the government admits still exist?
How does the government expect the currently overburdened Human Rights Commission to deal with the increased number of individual complaints that it will inevitably receive?
How will employers, police services and boards of education be made accountable for equity and fairness for the people of this province?
In conclusion, if the government intends to proceed along this path, all Ontarians, and OPSEU members in particular, are looking to answer these questions. We have the right to know your intentions, and the government has a responsibility to honestly inform the people of the province about how these very critical issues will be addressed.
1210
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. We have three minutes left per party for questions, beginning with the official opposition. Mrs McLeod.
Mrs McLeod: That's all right. I came in partway through the presentation. Do you have a question, Bruce?
Mr Crozier: Thank you for your presentation and I ask this question in all concern. I appreciate what you're saying in here and I agree with many of the points that you've made. It would have been helpful though if you had come to us -- and I have to admit it's my first day on this particular committee -- with some constructive suggestions on how those questions might be addressed at the end. Do you have any comment in that respect or would you prefer just to see Bill 79 stay as is?
Ms Casselman: I guess the most telling comment would be that if the government is going to hire an outside consultant to deal with this issue while they are laying off my membership who have the expertise in this field, then it behooves me to understand what kind of consultation they're actually looking for.
Mr Crozier: Thank you. An additional question: What we appear to be dealing with here is getting rid of some legislation and we have nothing to replace it in essence and you may agree with me, if you will, that Bill 8 certainly doesn't replace it.
Ms Casselman: It's pretty thin.
Mr Crozier: Yes. So would you agree with me then and comment on the fact that we don't have the government's plan before us? Would it not have been more appropriate to have the government's plan before us to deal with as opposed to simply getting rid of some legislation and not knowing when we're going to get any kind of replacement? Could you comment on that?
Ms Casselman: Yes. I'll ask John to comment on that. Go ahead.
Mr John Rae: In a democracy we normally have the opportunity as citizens to debate varying ideas and the government isn't giving us this opportunity here. Obviously the government intends to go forward with this bill, but it's offered us nothing in its place. Especially as a person like me who comes from a group that is so chronically underemployed and unemployed, we're waiting to hear your ideas. Obviously if you've decided employment equity is not the route to go, you must have some idea in your back pocket as to what you think would be better.
Now where are those proposals? Where are they? We see nothing, and I can only say shame because you've prevented the citizens of Ontario from going through what one would expect in a democracy, the opportunity to discuss the merits of various proposals and various ideas to solve the chronic problems that even you are well aware -- in fact, all members in the House, I assume -- still exist.
Ms Churley: I just have two quick questions for you. Do you have a fear, with what appears to be massive layoffs coming from this government, which I know you're going to be fighting but it appears to be happening, that as often happens, members of the four target equity-seeking groups will be some of the first to go?
My second question is, just very quickly, what kind of resources, both financial and otherwise, do you think this government has to put in to the Human Rights Commission to even begin to be proactive around employment equity?
Ms Casselman: Both of those questions boil down to an understanding of responsibilities around labour relations. If the government was to assume their role as employer, which they have yet to do, we might be able to sit down and talk to them about some of these things. Clearly, if they're discussing massive layoffs, as they have in their doctrine, the first people out the door will be those in the target groups because successive governments have not dealt with the employment equity hiring provisions before. So clearly those were the last in and they will be the first out.
In regard to the Human Rights Commission, my sense is this government won't be putting any money into anything except their friends' pockets. So in regard to any kind of staffing for the Human Rights Commission, clearly we need more officers; clearly we need some training; clearly we need employers, and if you'd had employment equity legislation in workplaces they would not be operating from a position of ignorance and they would understand their roles and responsibilities to ensure that people understood what those rights were under the Human Rights Commission. You would actually end up having fewer complaints coming forward, because people would then be responsible for their actions and understanding what that responsibility was.
Mr Young: If there is a first-in, first-out with regard to reduction in the civil service --
Ms Casselman: Last-in.
Mr Young: Sorry, last-in, first-out -- if there is, I don't think there's anyone more than the unions who are responsible for that because the unions fought so hard to keep seniority as part of Bill 79; but I'll go on to my question.
You said that you brought in a new era -- "Bill 79 brought in a new era of improved labour relations and a less adversarial atmosphere to workplaces." Yet there was a gentleman here this morning, representing the Peel Multicultural Business and Economic Development Committee, who frankly is far better qualified than you or I are to judge because he's lived it, he's a Sikh, he's a member of a minority, and he said, "Bill 79 has heightened the awareness of differences, leading to boost separation of the groups from mainstream society and leading to increased conflict and hostility as shown on June 8 election results." Do you have a comment on that?
Ms Casselman: First of all, my comment is: a startling amateur ignorance of collective bargaining and how unions aren't involved in hiring. It was employers and successive governments who hired people, and probably your government, back under Davis, had a very strong involvement in who now has -- in the senior ranks in the civil service.
In regard to the comments made earlier by a presenter, I don't which party he was from or what his background was --
Mr Young: He was representing the Peel Multicultural Business and Economic Development Committee.
Ms Casselman: Okay.
Mr Len Wood: He's a Tory.
Mr Young: I think that's a little bit irrelevant for these hearings. I don't know what party he belongs to.
The Chair: Mr Young, Ms Casselman has the floor.
Ms Casselman: Thank you. In regard to that situation, people -- obviously there was a misunderstanding when Bill 79 was presented. What was missing with that presentation was the huge education which needs to go with that. Clearly, when you're making some major changes into how people do business, whether it's unions or employers, you have to do some major education. There's a huge history around hiring practices and the way things were dealt with in this province. I guess the biggest problem with Bill 79 was the lack of any kind of education or training that went on.
Mr Young: So education will work in the workplace, but education won't work in society at large is what you're saying.
Ms Casselman: No, that's what you just said.
Mr Young: You're saying education would work in the workplace to make people more tolerant so this hostility isn't there.
Ms Casselman: No, no. Let me --
Mr Young: But you're saying the Human Rights Act and others won't work in educating society at large that diversity is smart business.
Ms Casselman: Let me try to tell you how education works, because your party was very, very good at overnight changing something called "employment equity legislation" into something dirty called "a quota law." In fact, you still purport that with the name of this bill.
If you're going to be responsible -- and I think governments and leaders in whatever group need to be responsible because they carry a great deal of responsibility -- you have to give everyone the whole picture. So if you're going to educate people about employment equity, you have to talk about what the history was, what the hiring practices were, whether it's in government or business or whatever; but you've got to give them the whole picture. You can't just do one little one-liner and push a button and make something that had some very good merits to it something dirty, which is what your party did during the election campaign and you continue to do.
The Chair: Okay. On that basis, thank you very much. We appreciate you being part of our process and thanks for your presentation.
The committee stands recessed until 3:30 this afternoon, at which time we'll be doing clause-by-clause.
The committee recessed from 1218 to 1539.
The Chair: Okay, ladies and gentlemen. We're here for our final session on Bill 8, which is a clause-by-clause analysis.
As all of you are aware, just to refresh your memories, the subcommittee agreed and the committee endorsed that, that we would finish this process no later than 6 o'clock this afternoon. There's a vote in the House some time before that, so time is a little bit of the essence and I know that everybody's going to be very cooperative as we go through just a little bit of work we have to do here. A few of us are new at this, so we'll be patient with one another.
We consider this section by section and in that vein we will start with section 1, and I guess the first question I ask is, are there any amendments to section 1? Based on the information given to me here, I see the Liberals have an amendment to that.
Mr Grandmaître: Our amendment reads this way:
"I move that subsection 1(5) of the bill be struck out."
As we said all along, we cannot accept what the government is recommending. Basically what the government is recommending is that all documentation that has been accumulated over the past months be destroyed.
We've heard people saying that they intend to follow up with some kind of an employment equity program, but they would have to destroy all evidence, all accumulated information since 1993, and we say that people who are interested in continuing an employment equity program should be allowed to retain this information.
The Chair: Mr Clement, we'll let you --
Mr Clement: I'll defer to Mr Marchese.
Ms Churley: Excuse Rosario. Mr Marchese has to run in and speak. I would like to speak in support of this amendment. You'll have to bear with me for a moment because my colleague was going to speak to this.
Certainly we have an amendment as well that is very similar, although we did put in a substitution for some of the words. But I want to be very clear about the reasons why we support this amendment and giving people the opportunity to keep data that they've collected.
To amend subsection 1(5) is to give employers the right to continue employment equity plans voluntarily, which many, many people -- I actually was very pleased to see that almost all, if not all, of the people who came to speak to us said that they were going to try to proceed and do something on a voluntary basis, and this is of course what I understand the government is saying the government members would like to see. They would like to be able to use the data already collected, provided they use the data in the manner in which it was intended in the previous act, and in fact that's the wording that we include in our amendment.
The rationale for this has been given by many, and I think very clearly, and I'm hoping very much that the government members will support this amendment because everybody who has collected data has said the same thing, that the destruction of the data will prove costly for those who wish to continue with voluntary plans to destroy and then resurvey their employees.
Of course people have also said that they can't proceed with voluntary measures without data. It's impossible to do it. You have to have some background. Ordering the destruction of information collected sends out the message that there is something sinister about the data that are collected, because it is stated it was done under coercion because of this bill which is now being repealed.
But I heard very clearly from members who came and spoke to this committee that the kind of data that were collected under the NDP bill are very similar, if not the same, to data that are collected under the federal government employment equity bill and other kinds of voluntary measures, that they're the kind of data that people have to have in place.
It will leave many employers who continue with voluntary efforts open to more Ontario human rights cases, which is something that we certainly don't want to see happen. This will serve as a deterrent to continuing with employment equity plans, and it really does raise, I think, a lot of confusion for employers currently following the federal guidelines.
If you will recall, the following presenters called on the government to delete this section, and these are just some of them: NAC, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women; Ontario Public Service Advisory Group on Equal Opportunity for Persons with Disabilities; Employment Research Analysts; Ethno Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario; Toronto Board of Education; Business Consortium on Workplace Diversity; Council of Ontario Universities; Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Committee on the Status of Women; 519 Church Street Community Centre; Alliance for Employment Equity; Ontario Nurses' Association; OSSTF; Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation; Toronto Employment Equity Practitioners' Association; Lawyers in Support of Equity; and OPSEU.
I think that some of these organizations gave very, very concise and very compelling arguments as to why the destruction of data should be ruled out. For instance, the Lawyers in Support of Equity, who gave a very good presentation, I think we'd all agree, a very clear presentation, said:
"As lawyers who represent clients who wish to continue with an employment equity agenda, this section of the bill amounts to an almost insurmountable barrier. Some of our clients have already invested considerable time and energy in obtaining information to comply with the Employment Equity Act. Since employees provided this information voluntarily, there is no cogent reason why Bill 8 requires the destruction of this information."
The Toronto Board of Education said:
"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...."
The ONA called the destruction of data "wasteful...inhibits voluntary efforts and sends out the inaccurate and negative message that there is something sinister about this information."
The Tory amendment still requires destruction of information collected, and frankly I'm very surprised, because I thought that out of all of the testimony before us there was overwhelming support to amend that so all data that have been collected be saved.
Although the government is acknowledging that many, many groups have mentioned this, all this amendment does is to lessen somewhat but not completely the broad sweep that Bill 8 was prepared to do to delete all of Part III of the bill, and instead is a wishy-washy way that allows some but not all retention of information. Now this is going to be very cold comfort to employers as it does not say specifically the collection is allowed for voluntary plans. Our amendment tries to address this, and the Liberal amendment as well. This does not deal with any information regarding the identification of barriers.
The premise behind this amendment and the NDP amendment is that there is in fact nothing sinister about this information, that there are many organizations out there that require this information to go ahead and take voluntary measures.
I know that it has been mentioned by Mr Clement at times that the information is being gathered under duress and that's why it's necessary to have it destroyed. But I did not hear one, not one, of the groups who came in here, even those who were opposed to the employment equity bill, say that these data should be destroyed.
1550
We were told again and again, and I believe Mr Clement himself said, when asked a question by one of my Liberal colleagues about how this data could be used, "We're very well aware that there are already privacy laws in place and the Human Rights Code already makes it very clear how this kind of data can be used." Of course, our amendment tries to strengthen even more that this kind of information can be used only for voluntary employment equity programs.
I think that if that is the concern, that this information could be used in some kind of sinister way, or that the concern is that some people, as has been stated by some members from the government side, in order to keep their jobs or not suffer any negative consequences, would have felt obligated to fill in the survey even though they might not have wanted to do that, I don't think there was any evidence whatsoever.
I'll tell you that if that were the case, and certainly that would have been something in our major consultations when we were putting together our bill, it would have been something that would have been addressed. But we heard, again and again and again, that the only way to get the information to deal with and right the wrongs that are out there in the workplace is to have the information. If you don't have the information, you can't do the job, you can't do anything about levelling the playing field.
Those who came and spoke to us in this room, and I'm sure in private conversations many of us have had with people, made abundantly clear that -- and again let me repeat, by all sides, even those who oppose our bill, even those who buy the Tory version of even the title of the bill, that it's a quota, which of course we totally disagree with and have ample evidence that it is not a quota bill -- to have to destroy the data at great expense to employers is quite draconian and certainly not necessary.
I think that when you have in front of you employer after employer after employer saying they don't think that the people who filled in the surveys felt like they were coerced into doing it, that the kind of information that people were asked to give was voluntary -- most people, as I understand it, did voluntarily fill it in; some didn't. I've never been given any reason to believe that anybody who filled in any of the questionnaires felt like they were coerced into doing it.
My final point on this subject is to say to the members that I think that there's a lot of anger and unhappiness and disappointment in the equity-seeking groups about the repeal of the NDP employment equity bill. There are people who worked for years and years and years to get to the point where we did with our bill and are very disappointed that what seemed to be a gain -- for some it seemed like a small gain; to others it seemed that we had gone too far -- it's very, very disappointing to those people to have the bill repealed.
I think at the very, very least what this committee could do, and I think it could go a long way in helping those people cope with the reality that they are losing that aid to help them achieve equity in the workplace, is that you would be giving a very clear message to those groups that you've heard what they said and what everybody who came to speak to us said about being allowed to keep that data, so that in fact you are being true to your word when you say that you want to see more voluntary action, that you are sending a signal by accepting this amendment, that you want to give them every tool at their disposal that's in existence already so it won't have to cost them more money and more time to help, in their own workplaces, continue with voluntary measures.
So I very much would ask that the government committee members support this amendment. I think it's very important, and you'd make a lot of people out there who are upset and disappointed about the loss of employment equity feel that there is a better chance for them to achieve some equity in the workplace with the data already in existence there.
Mr Clement: I'm speaking against the motion. Ms Churley is absolutely correct when she says that there's a lot of disappointment, if I can broaden and paraphrase her remarks, that has occurred as a result of this whole process from the start of Bill 79 to the emergence of Bill 8. The divisiveness and the hurt and the emotion are not only felt on one side, they are felt on a number of different sides. We heard deputations earlier this week and last week where people felt very, very strongly in the exact opposite direction of Ms Churley and her party about how hurtful this whole piece of legislation -- I am referring to Bill 79 -- has been, how divisive it has been for visible minorities and persons with handicaps and other members of the designated groups and that in fact the perverse effect of Bill 79 was to increase the feeling of apartness that persons of those designated groups felt.
I think we all have to acknowledge as members of this committee that it has been a very divisive issue in the way it has been tackled through Bill 79. Perhaps those divisions still exist, and certainly it is incumbent upon the government to start to heal those divisions once we are through this process. The divisiveness doesn't stop just with the question of whether we have numerical targets or whether we have quotas, but it is all part and parcel of it.
If you are a member of this society who believes that this act was about quotas, you can call it all you want -- numerical targets, voluntary goals -- but in fact the net effect of government being involved in this particular aspect of the workplace was quotas. Then the feeling of coercion does not stop at the end of the sections that pertain to quotas; it is imbued throughout the entire piece of legislation.
With that framework in mind, it is the government's view that information collected pursuant to this coercive piece of legislation, that being Bill 79, is in fact tainted by being a part of that process, that there are cases where persons would feel obliged as employees to answer this questionnaire with personal information relating to their personal background, relating to their ancestry, relating to a part of their disability perhaps, that they, all things being equal, did not wish to share with their employer. And for them their employer is the rest of the world. Jobs means a lot in our society and the relationship between employee and employer is perhaps one of the most important in our society outside of the family.
Given that context, it is all very well to say that this is voluntary, but from our point of view the truly draconian aspect is the feeling that one has to divulge this information in order that the employer can reach targets that are set either directly or indirectly by government.
I believe government should not be a party to that. I do not wish to sound provocative when I say that many of the employees affected may have come from countries -- and we heard about India from a number of the deputants -- that had targets, numerical goals, systems of apartheid that relied on statistics, where the net impact was not just the job or not having a job, which had an impact on their day-to-day existence and whether their existence continued in that country. Those are the people we are dealing with, some of those people who are now Ontarians and Canadians. So I think the draconian aspect that Ms Churley referred to when relating to subsection 1(5) can easily be applied to the original legislation.
We've talked a lot about the time and energy required to collect this data, and certainly we are very sensitive to that. That is why we wish, through our amendments, to pinpoint the kind of data that we think should be destroyed and then obtained voluntarily if the employer is interested in carrying through with equity plans.
1600
We do not want to throw out all of the data. That has been a misstatement that some of the groups before us have tried to insist that the government bill is all about. But in fact I believe that much of the data can be retained and can be subsequently used and that the personal data can be obtained in the future at a relatively minimal cost and be done purely voluntarily because it is not part and parcel of a coercive piece of legislation such as Bill 79.
In government, as in opposition, as in being a parliamentarian, one always has to weigh the relative costs and benefits of a decision as a legislator. Our view is that the relative cost of destroying the particular data we are interested in is relatively small and in fact goes a long way to preserving individual worth and individual control over one's life and easily outweighs any cost associated with carrying out that policy. That is why I speak against this particular motion.
Mr Marchese: We have a motion on the floor which we will deal with later in terms of my remarks, so I will deal with that subsequently.
What I have is a question. Although I'm sympathetic to the Liberal motion here, I would want to ask the ministry staff or legal counsel, whoever has an answer, to tell me what the effect is of simply striking this particular section out. If we strike it out and it were to pass -- it's unlikely of course, but if it were to be the case, what would happen in terms of data and information collection?
The Chair: Who's best equipped to answer that question?
Mr William Bromm: I can start and then maybe David Lillico can add to it. Basically, what we believe would happen by striking out this section is that the status of the law would return to pre-Bill 79 days and it would fall to be determined under, for example, section 14 of the Human Rights Code as to whether or not the collection of that data or the retention of the data continues to be justified if there's a voluntary special program that then meets the requirements of the code.
Mr Marchese: So the effect of this would mean that we wouldn't be able to necessarily keep that information. It reverts back to the old rules where yes, under the Human Rights Code you could be able to collect data, but effectively it would be destroyed. It has the same effect as the government bill. Is that the case?
Mr Bromm: Yes, that's correct. Whether or not you would be able to retain the data or collect further data would depend upon whether or not you're meeting the requirements of the Human Rights Code.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I appreciate the fact that this may be a somewhat lengthier discussion than you would like to entertain on each clause of the bill, but I think you'll appreciate the fact that this is really the crux of the amendment process, because when you have a piece of legislation which essentially creates nothing, there's not very much for us to focus our attention on in terms of amending it. You can't really amend nothing, which is all we'll have left when this piece of legislation passes.
I guess I'm sensing the futility of the discussions that we're about to have this afternoon, given the government's determination to pass the legislation and in fact its equal determination to bring nothing forward in legislation which then would be subject to our review and to further amendment.
But I would urge the government to be less stubborn about this particular clause. It is really difficult to understand why, when the government is removing all employment equity legislation so that nothing stands in law in any event, it seems determined to bring forward an addition to nothing which is so potentially destructive and, in my view, unnecessary and, most certainly from an employer's perspective, highly intrusive. We would have thought one of the government's focuses in virtually every other area of its operation is to be less intrusive with employers and particularly with private sector employers, so why the need to intrude in this way is really beyond me.
I think that there are some practical, some legal implications of proceeding with this particular clause. I also believe that this has very serious consequences and I would urge the government to think about the serious consequences for any future voluntary employment equity plans. We've heard a number of the government members, in response to those who would like to see employment equity legislation stand, say: "Do not believe that we're not committed to employment equity. We want to see employment equity; we just don't like Bill 79 and we don't think there should be a legislative approach." Okay.
But there are some serious consequences in this one clause that you have inserted into this piece of legislation which I think will erode your commitment and any plans that you might bring forward for employers to act on a voluntary basis in the future. I think it is fair to say, and the parliamentary assistant would have to agree to that, that as we've heard deputation after deputation with differing views on the legislation, we have not heard any representation that has said that the data collected should be destroyed. I've not only not heard consensus that they should be destroyed; I've heard consensus that they should not be destroyed.
I would like to draw one particular representation which was made by the Chamber of Commerce. I think that that's one which the government may want to pay particular attention to because they were clearly concerned about the cost to the members of their association, the small businesses of this province, who are interested in proceeding with employment equity and who would be forced -- and I used that word advisedly -- by this clause to destroy the data that they have collected and which they might wish to use to bring in voluntary employment equity plans.
I have to ask a question, and I'll let it stand as a question, Mr Chairman, so that members of the ministry staff could answer it later. It's my understanding that there is nothing existing in current law which would prevent an employer from destroying the data which he or she has collected if they did not want to proceed with an employment equity plan; nothing to force that employer to retain the data. Therefore, if you've got an employer who does not want voluntarily to proceed with employment equity, they will undoubtedly want to destroy data that they feel might have been collected in a coercive way and, as I understand it, they're free to do that.
They could be required to destroy data, as the ministry staff has just indicated, by an employee who makes representation to the Human Rights Commission; and members of the government have argued that the answer to employment equity is, in fact, to strengthen the role of the Human Rights Commission. So there is that recourse for any employee who wants to destroy the data.
So again, I don't understand why the government feels that this intrusion into the workplace, this infringement on the rights and freedom of decision-making of employers, is warranted or is in any way necessary, and I would appreciate some clarification from the government on that matter.
We heard this morning from an individual who consults on employment equity who said she's already had people she works with phoning her in some degree of panic, wondering whether or not the legislation will apply to them and they will be forced to destroy their data by this legislation. There's clearly an ambiguity -- even with the government's amendment, I think it's an even further ambiguity -- in exactly who will be forced to destroy their data if this particular clause remains in the legislation.
I would suspect -- and again, Mr Chairman, you can ask ministry staff for clarification if I'm wrong on this -- that employers are going to face some legal cost in order to determine whether or not they are forced to destroy their data, or whether they are, in fact, allowed to retain it because the act does not apply to them. Again, I ask a government which is supposedly trying to free the private-sector employer to be less intrusive and impose less cost on them, why they would, for totally unnecessary reasons, want to impose a further cost on employers of having to go through a legal process of determining whether they are free to keep the data that they wish to use, when in fact they are already free to destroy the data if they want to. It just seems to me to defy all logic and common sense.
I just, finally, believe that there is going to be a significant disincentive to any plan which the government might bring forward in the future to supposedly follow up on its commitment to employment equity, albeit on a voluntary basis, because if employers are already put in a position of having to destroy the data, of having to incur the costs of destruction of data, of having to incur costs if they want to keep their data in order to prove the legislation doesn't force them to destroy it, there is going to be a real disincentive for anyone wanting to continue voluntarily with employment equity plans. I really do think it undermines the government's stated commitment to follow this destructive legislation with any kind of positive and proactive plan. I certainly believe it is not going to heal any of the divisions which the parliamentary assistant has said you want to heal.
I do believe that this government owes an explanation not only to members of the committee and the Legislature, but to employers across the province as to why this clause was there and why it is still apparently going to be there even after the very strong consensus that has emerged through this committee hearing.
The Chair: Okay. Did you want those questions? The first question, as I understand it: Is there anything in the current laws to prohibit an employer from destroying data?
1610
Mr David Lillico: Some employers who hold personal information that they may have collected under the Employment Equity Act are also employers who are governed by freedom of information legislation; that is to say, the public service, broader public sector employers and so on. For those employers, the freedom of information legislation has a requirement that relates to the destruction of information.
Mrs McLeod: So the force of this clause would then be to overwhelm the freedom of information provisions?
Mr Lillico: What the freedom of information legislation provides is that if institutions governed by FOI have used the information they are to retain it for a year before disposing of it unless individuals consent to the earlier destruction. But that's only some of the employers who are governed by employment equity. For the other employers who are governed by employment equity, as was said before, if those employers misuse the information in a discriminatory fashion there's recourse at the Human Rights Commission against that.
The Chair: The second question, as I understand it -- and Ms McLeod, you can correct me on this -- is will employers face legal costs in determining whether or not they are free to keep data because they weren't covered by the previous plan?
Mrs McLeod: Exactly. Who will make the determination for all those employers who are going to want to know whether or not the act applies to them or whether they're forced to destroy their data? Will that be done by government, by the ministry, by a quasi-judicial body, or will they have to go to court?
Mr Lillico: I would imagine that employers would be reading the legislation to determine whether or not it applies to them, and if a particular employer in a particular circumstance is unclear as to whether a provision does or doesn't apply to them with certain effect, they would rely on their private legal advice that they would get.
Mrs McLeod: Right. So in fact they will be required to get legal advice. I submit to you that employers cannot read the legislation and determine whether or not it applies to them, because the term "exclusively collected for the purpose of the act" is simply too ambiguous to know whether or not it's going to be interpreted that way. Maybe the clause is meaningless. Maybe the government has no intention of enforcing it, and if so, I don't know why the clause stands.
Mr Lillico: Well, it may be that each employer, in attempting to determine whether or not the clause would apply to them, would look at the term "exclusively" along with the other terms in the legislation to see where they stand in relation to that, to see whether that particular employer when it collected the information was intending to collect it for just the one purpose or whether that employer had additional purposes in mind such as federal contract compliance or Human Rights Code accommodation requirements. If the employer is able to make the determination that that employer collected the information for more than one purpose, then it would seem to me that the meaning of the term "exclusively" is relatively clear and that they would proceed to destruction or otherwise accordingly.
Mrs McLeod: But that's not what employers are experiencing at this point in time. They've read the legislation. They do not know whether or not they are required by law to destroy their information, particularly if they began collecting it after Bill 79 came in.
If what I am being told is that the government does not intend to aggressively prosecute or even attempt to enforce the destruction of information -- in other words, you leave it to employers to make their own determination, and I think that's essentially what you've said to me today -- if the employers are going to make their own determination, then again I submit, why put this clause into law?
Mr Young: I'll be speaking against the motion. The information that's been collected -- a lot of employers haven't collected it yet, but some of them started as early as 1994. This sort of information, when you start to collect it, it begins to become outdated already. So it has limited value. As well, there are a large number of employees -- well, no one knows how many, but a number of employees do not self-identify; they don't feel comfortable with such coercive legislation and they won't fill out the forms accurately, so the information is not as useful as it might appear to be.
As well, the information is used to compare current percentages against total employee base, which, if you have a company that's shrinking in size or if you have a company that's located in a geographical area without representation, it becomes less and less meaningful all the time. In other words, it's hard to get your percentages up of minority members or the designated groups if your company's shrinking.
The data supports legislation and it supports a process that does not address conflicts with policies such as seniority. The greatest thing we could possibly do to provide totally equitable hiring is get rid of the seniority rules. The previous government, for reasons known I guess only to them, decided to keep the seniority rules in. It doesn't address that.
As well, as one of our delegations said, a gentleman this morning who's a member of a minority group, numbers do not address attitude, and they likely never will address attitude. I've worked in a workplace under the federal employment equity legislation, and I can tell you that there are times when the numbers support a process which replaces one injustice with another.
I also am speaking against it because I'd like to see the data destroyed because I feel it was collected in what I find to be a morally repugnant way. I want to live in a society where society is colour blind and blind with regard to the abilities of all minority members and everyone has an equal opportunity based on their individual rights and their individual abilities as opposed to what group they belong to.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Young. Mr Marchese, another comment?
Mr Marchese: Yes, just for clarity, I didn't want to be on the opposite side with my Liberal colleagues on this. That's why I asked that question. If the effect of striking it out means that we go back to pre-Bill 79, then there's still a lack of clarity with business in terms of what they can and can't do with that information. There's no clarity. The effect of what the Tories have moved is to say, "You shall destroy." It's very clear. Those who oppose employment equity will feel great and they can just go home and close shop and get rid of the information.
On the other hand, our motion says that if they are in possession of that information, they shall keep it confidential; they shall not disclose it or use it except for the purposes of implementing a voluntary employment equity program. So that language is quite clear. Their language is clear. Striking it out, however, leaves some ambiguity. That's why I asked the question of staff. Unless Mrs McLeod thinks somehow we're either on the same side or not, my sense is that if we strike it out there's ambiguity and a problem with it, so we need some other language. So if she can clarify that for me, I would feel better, because I think we're trying to accomplish the same thing with our respective motions, but I'm not quite sure that we were. That's why I wasn't clear as to whether or not I could support that motion.
Mrs McLeod: If I may, we were proposing an amendment that we hoped the Conservatives would support, because we really want to see this change. We believe it's an important change to the legislation. I think the difference between our amendment and the NDP amendment is that the NDP amendment could have the effect of forcing employers to keep their data. As a number of the Conservative members have indicated, they have some concerns with the way in which the data may have been collected. Fair enough. If employers share those concerns and want to destroy the data, I think that they should have that right in bringing in a voluntary plan.
The issue of confidentiality did not concern us as much because we believed it was covered by privacy codes and the Human Rights Code. So we didn't feel it was necessary to protect the confidentiality of the data. We did not want to do anything which would force employers to keep the data. What we wanted to do was establish a truly voluntary environment for the employers in dealing with employment equity in the first place. I truly believe that, philosophically and practically, this is one that the government should be able to support.
Mr Crozier: Just a question, I guess, of staff. In the event that our amendment should not pass and in the event that the NDP amendment should not pass -- and I don't want to assume anything -- I see there are no penalties in this act. In other words, what happens if the government amendment does pass and they don't destroy it? I'm not suggesting that there should be a penalty, but I'd just like a clarification of what happens if an employer decides not to do it.
Mr Lillico: Yes, there are no penalties specified in the legislation. However, if persons who retain this information use it in a discriminatory fashion, then there would be recourse by the employee to the Human Rights Commission.
Mr Crozier: Through other legislation?
Mr Lillico: Yes, but not through this bill.
Mr Crozier: So what's the point?
Mrs McLeod: What does it do?
Ms Churley: That would be my question as a result of that. There's no point, then, to what you're doing here. If it reverts back to having to go before the Human Rights Commission anyway, if that's where it ends up and there are no penalties attached otherwise, I don't see why you're doing it except maybe to make some kind of political point to some segments of the population, except I'm not even sure who those are, because again coming back to what Mr Clement said -- I'm sorry, you're from Halton North; I know where everybody's ridings are but --
1620
Interjection: Mr Young.
Ms Churley: Yes, Mr Young. When I was listening to Mr Young speaking, I wasn't sure if he was hearing what all the groups who came in were saying about the need to keep this information. I heard the exact opposite. I'd like somebody to tell me, because we certainly didn't hear it at this committee, who out there is concerned about this information being tainted somehow. I don't know where that word came from except from Mr Clement himself. It seems to me that the employers at large out there are not threatened and don't feel that they're going to use this information in any negative way.
Now that I've heard more specifically, as a result of the questions which have been asked, what I hadn't heard before in regard to the Liberal amendment, I believe from what I've heard that it would be more confusing to strike it out than our amendment, which I think gives some clarity: Keep the data but it can only be used in certain circumstances.
I would say now, and I want to clarify that point, upon hearing the answers to Mr Marchese's questions around that, that I would hope the Liberals would support our amendment, which is coming up next, because of that. I believe employers wouldn't know if they could keep it or not going back to pre-1979. It would just add more confusion. But I'd also say now that I think the purpose -- as the leader of the official opposition said, we're very hopeful -- I've been very hopeful and I think the Liberals have been too -- that we could get your support on this one aspect in particular.
What I would say is that your position on this doesn't make any sense whatsoever in light of the fact that there are no penalties attached and it would just have to go back to the Human Rights Commission if somebody -- that's the way it is now, as I understand it, so I don't quite understand what's going on and I'm wondering if Mr Clement can make some kind of suggestion as to how we can come up with a motion that we could all agree on that would preserve the data, or is he completely, completely committed to having some of the data destroyed?
Would taking a small break to have a further discussion on this with his colleagues make a difference? I really do believe that for everybody this is a pivotal and important motion, that if we could come to some agreement about keeping the data, it would make us all very happy, I believe. I'm wondering if Mr Clement would agree to that.
The Chair: He's going to get a chance to speak in a minute. We're going to have to get on with this process just a little bit. There are three more people who have asked to speak and when they do, when they have spoken, one of whom is Mr Clement, then I think I'm going to call for a vote on this issue because we just can't talk about it forever.
Mr Maves: This is a tough one. On the one hand, I worry about things like the destruction of information and I have thoughts that Omnibus Consulting, which I have a great deal of respect for, said to me about the use of the information as an indicator light to see if there are problems in people's workforces and so on. On the other hand, I wonder, losing information which may very well be inaccurate anyway doesn't stop companies from conducting outreach programs and from removing physical barriers they've identified from navel-gazing and from educating.
I also go back to the fact that from the beginning in the campaign and here and in the House I've spoken out against the categorization of human beings. Compartmentalizing people and asking people to label themselves, to put themselves into a group, I believe is a slippery slope wherein our society may become more and more fixated with labelling itself and dividing itself up into groups. This behaviour won't get us any closer to our ultimate goal of a society free of discrimination, and if you're against such categorization, then you'd think you'd be against the retention of such data.
I don't feel I'm alone in these thoughts. I think Mr Singh, for one, and Mr Brooks and Mr Ubale all made similar points when they came before the committee.
I've chased down several presenters after committee and talked to them about this very point. Some saw my point of view and some didn't, but I have to stick with my consistency, what I believe to be consistency, and say that I would also speak against the amendments and that we shouldn't keep that data.
The Chair: Mr Clement, maybe you can deal with the question.
Mr Clement: I'll try as best I can, certainly. I share Mr Maves's interpretation of some of the deputations in terms of their complete denunciation of Bill 79 would extrapolate to being concerned about the retention of self-categorization data by someone as powerful as an employer.
Because I was concerned about this particular point that was raised, I think by Mr Marchese, or it could have been by Mrs McLeod, I reviewed my own personal notes, and that's all they are, based on the presentation of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. The context in which subsection 1(5) emerged in that discussion was their concern that subsection 1(5) would in some way impede their members' ability to comply and be a part of the federal legislation.
Although I did not have an opportunity at that point, because of the constraints of time, I can tell the committee -- this is only my interpretation of the section -- that it would seem to me that information that was collected not for the exclusive purpose of Bill 79 or a section thereof, but for a purpose that related to Bill 79 or a section thereof, and also for federal contract compliance legislation, could be retained because it was not for the exclusive purpose of Bill 79 or a section thereof.
Through a simple interpretation of what I think is a very clear section, which would be made clearer by a government motion, I think we can alleviate greatly the concerns of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. So from that perspective, I think we are trying -- to answer Mrs Churley's concerns -- to go some way to alleviate the concerns that were expressed through the deputations by proposing the amendment that we propose.
Mr Grandmaître: One short question: What about the information that's been collected prior to 1993? Will it have to be destroyed as well, because employment equity in some firms was started before 1993.
Mr Bromm: The wording of the provision exclusively for the purposes complying with the legislation was meant to exclude those employers who, as Mr Lillico already suggested, either were federal contractors compliance employers and already had programs or employers who weren't federal contractors compliance employers but had started employment equity or special program initiatives prior to 1993. So our interpretation of the provision is that they would not be required to destroy their information because they were doing it for purposes in addition to Bill 79.
Mr Grandmaître: This is 1995 and being an employer I want to start my own employment equity program. Who will approve my program? My employees and myself and with no supervision?
Mr Bromm: Of course the Employment Equity Act is still the law until this has its third reading and royal assent, but if you're developing a special program after repeal, then it falls under the provisions of the Human Rights Code. The Human Rights Code itself does not require that you get approval of your program, so it's basically up to the workplace to develop a program that they feel is in compliance with the code.
You can, as an employer, request that the Human Rights Commission review your program, or the Human Rights Commission can at its own behest review a program or an employee in the workplace can ask the commission to review the program, but there is no requirement and basically it does fall to the workplace parties to follow the Human Rights Code and the guidelines that exist under the Human Rights Code for developing a special program.
Mr Grandmaître: So it would be left to the employee to appeal to the commission?
Mr Bromm: Unless the commission itself undertook an investigation of the program or the employer had already requested that the program be reviewed.
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître has moved that subsection 1(5) of the bill be struck out. Is it your pleasure that the amendment carry?
Ms Churley: On a point of order, Mr Chair. A 20-minute break before the vote: I believe that I can ask for that under the rules, under the standing orders.
The Chair: The vote will be in 20 minutes. We are recessed for 20 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1631 to 1650.
The Chair: Mr Grandmaître has moved that subsection 1(5) of the bill be struck out.
All those in favour of that amendment, signify by saying "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
That amendment is defeated.
Any further amendments to section 1?
Ms Churley: I move that subsection 1(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(5) A person in possession of information collected from employees under part III of the Employment Equity Act, 1993 shall keep the information confidential and shall not disclose or use it except for the purpose of implementing a voluntary employment equity program."
Many of the reasons we're making this amendment were made very clear when I spoke about the just-failed Liberal motion. At first I thought I might be able to support the Liberal amendment, but upon questioning it became clear that it just confused the issue more, though I think we are trying to achieve the same objectives here.
I would like to come back to the reason this party is calling for an amendment to this section. I want to say here that I have incredible, profound objections to the kind of language the parliamentary assistant, Mr Clement, is using, words like "have a perverse effect" and "coercion," that somehow it's "tainted." Those kinds of words are in themselves very tainted, in the sense that they suggest that something underhanded and draconian was going on here when clearly all we were trying to do was to allow people to get the information they needed to proceed with employment equity, whether it's legislated or voluntary.
My understanding, from every person I've talked to about the data collected under our bill and data collected under the federal government legislation and data collected on a volunteer basis, is that they're very similar, if not the same. It doesn't make sense, unless it's for some political reason that I truly, honestly don't understand. Except for the few people who were here today who have been alluded to, who didn't make much of a fuss about this anyway, the overwhelming majority of people support keeping the legislation.
I still don't understand the reasoning behind getting rid of this section. I believe this is really going to come back to haunt the government. From having been in government, I will say frankly that the minister has perhaps given some guidelines, to be mild about it, about what she wants to happen here. But in committee, many times our members -- and as a minister it happened to me on lots of occasions -- the people who sit around the table and hear representations day after day, would sometimes use their own free will and vote differently from what had been decided earlier with the minister, because they're the ones who are gathering the expertise and the understanding from the long hours of listening to people give representation.
I think deep in the heart of everybody here, everybody knows that the rational thing to do -- and I think you could make the minister understand if you supported this -- is not to go ahead and make companies destroy data. From what was said this afternoon in response to questions both from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, I think even more now this section doesn't make any sense.
I honestly think this particular section of the bill is going to come back to haunt this government. In my view and in many people's view, to force people to destroy data -- you have that on the books -- does not look good for the government. It's a very unusual thing to do. I'm going to be careful of my language, but when Mr Clement uses words like "perverse" and "sinister" and "tainted," you have to ask yourselves, as government members, how it looks to ask companies to destroy data when they spent money in good faith and went ahead and collected data that will help them down the road, especially when we've been told that the data that have been collected are similar to or the same as data they would collect under other bills, and that if they had to do it over again they'd collect the same data. I asked many people this question and they all gave me the same answer, that they would be collecting the same kinds of data.
And it would be voluntary. The argument that people felt coerced into giving this information, and that if they had felt they had a choice they wouldn't have, doesn't hold water. I'll tell you why. The NDP government, under Bill 79, consulted widely on our bill, and not everybody agreed. I concede that we heard from some people who didn't agree, but most all the people agreed with our position on being able to keep the data.
Our consultation was so extensive. We talked to people from all over Ontario for months on end. Even before the bill was introduced, the commissioner went out across the province and talked to people. After second reading, there were months of discussions and hearings. The commissioner had an advisory group. The minister had an advisory group. We discussed it time and time again, as MPPs, for a long period, with very diverse groups within our constituencies and within our ministries. The consultation around this was probably one of the widest that's ever been held in government. It was quite full.
When I hear members of the government here today -- Mr Maves mentioned it and perhaps others did too, and I think three people were quoted today. I can't remember exactly what they said about data, but to me, that's insulting. As a government, we listened to literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people over the past few years, and whether or not they supported employment equity as we finally devised it, almost everybody agrees that in order to proceed on any level with employment equity, you have to collect the data. Almost everybody agrees that the data needed and the data we came up with weren't just plucked out of thin air. They came from what we learned from the federal government, from talking to companies that had already done employment equity on a voluntary basis. The kinds of data are very, very similar.
We certainly didn't hear from employees or employers that this was an objection. That's why I'm mystified about the government's position on this. I'm mystified because it isn't one of the things that, from what I've heard over and over again, is at issue here.
What appears to be the biggest things at issue within this bill, and we're going to be coming to some of those sections a little later, are that the bill goes further than just repealing our bill -- that's the Education Act and Police Services Act -- and the differences in description of what is seen by some to be quota-driven and what we know the bill is really all about, that is, goals and timetables, something you must have in order to have an employment equity plan at all. Whether it's voluntary or government-legislated, you have to have data and you have to have an action plan.
1700
Those are the areas, and red tape and expense. People have expressed concerns about some of those things, but I haven't heard people express concern about the collection and retention of data.
One thing I heard Mr Clement and others say is that there's some fear that these data could be used for purposes other than a voluntary employment equity program. None of us wants to see that. We're aware, however, that there are already laws in place that could protect those data, but we want to strengthen that by making this amendment, by making it very clear that this is all the data could be used for.
I would again ask the government to consider supporting this amendment on the basis that you're going to have a very difficult time justifying this to the public at large. For a government to ask for the destruction of data, in my view and I think many people's view, could be seen as a real abuse of power. You're going to have a very hard time describing it to people, especially when it becomes clearer and clearer, with the companies out there wanting to do a voluntary program, that you're asking them to spend more money to destroy data and then more money to get these surveys and data collection done all over again, which would be similar or the same.
I don't think it makes sense. Although I'm very disappointed in the destruction of our bill, if there's one area where the government can show some good faith and show its commitment to doing everything it can to aid and assist, as well as any education programs it might undertake, those companies that already have data to move ahead -- not to be slowed down, not to have to do things all over again, but to proceed from here with some voluntary action.
Mr Clement: I have three points in response which will explain why I am opposed to this amendment. First, Ms Churley quite rightly zeroed in on the nature of the data and how they are collected and used. The interesting thing about her comments is that if a company has another use for the data in question -- that is to say, if they were not collecting the data exclusively for the purposes of Bill 79 or a section thereof -- I think it's quite clear and will be made clearer, hopefully, by wording accepted by this committee, that data collected and used for anything other than exclusively for that act are exempt and can be retained for those purposes.
If one wants to divide the world into large businesses and small businesses, we heard testimony from small business representatives, and I recall quite distinctly that they said that a lot of small businesses -- I won't generalize and say all small businesses -- hadn't even begun the process of collecting the data yet because their time lines were different under the legislation.
So inconvenience to small businesses would be relatively small. It's the larger businesses that, because of the time lines in the legislation, have probably put some time and effort, I would agree, into collecting these data. But those are the very businesses, I would put it to you, that tend to collect this information not just for the exclusive purpose of the legislation but for federal contract compliance or for other jurisdictions or what have you.
So those particular businesses -- and again I'm generalizing; there might be a few exceptions, but by and large -- I've got Ford in my riding, and Ford, I'm sure, does try to obtain federal contracts for vehicles. I would suggest that they would be exempt and so they would not be put out any more than the small business that has not started to collect the data would be put out.
My third point relates to Mrs Churley's comments about procedure, because while she and her government were engaged in what she describes as extensive consultations, I alluded to earlier today the fact that Mike Harris in opposition, just as Mrs McLeod when she was in opposition before the election, was engaged in his own extensive consultations: town hall meetings, meetings in gymnasiums and auditoriums.
This whole memory cascaded back into my consciousness when Mr Lecky was before us representing the Black Business and Professional Association, because while a member of Mr Harris's staff, which I was from 1992 until 1995, I accompanied Mr Harris to a round table discussion with a number of black business leaders, including Mr Lecky -- that was where he and I first met -- in 1993, two hours. A lot of the discussion was about what the appropriate role of government should be in the area of equity. We had some very interesting discussions.
It's funny how memory works, but things were not as unanimous as Mr Lecky perhaps thought they were. Maybe they were unanimous in the Black Business and Professional Association, which was one of the groups represented there, but many other individuals and companies and associations were present there, and a lot of people, black business people, came up to us and said, "Hey, this is going the wrong way."
So, from my perspective, the procedural aspect of what we're doing, I feel quite confident, in response to Mrs Churley, that while she and her government heard from a certain segment of the population, we, in our consultations while in opposition, also heard from a segment of the population, because we didn't have an opportunity to confer pre-election with 10 million people. Then, as a result of the election on June 8 and the campaign --
Mrs McLeod: Is this on the amendment, Mr Chair?
Mr Clement: I thought I was speaking to the amendment.
Mrs McLeod: Isn't the discussion supposed to be on the amendment? It sounds like we've moved into a debate on the general bill, and if that's the case, we're going to be here a very long time --
The Chair: Yes. I would like to remind all the people that we do have an agreement by the subcommittee and the committee that this process will be over by 6.
Mrs McLeod: I submit there's a lot of disagreement about what should happen to the legislation or to Bill 79, a lot of consultation on that before and since, but this is specifically on the destruction of data.
The Chair: So I suggest we get on with the process.
Mr Clement: Let me just conclude my remarks then by saying that there was consultation that we feel comfortable with on issues that were brought up in this legislation as well and I feel quite comfortable with that.
Mr Grandmaître: I do have a question to Mr Clement. You just said that you oppose personally this NDP motion. What about your minister?
Mr Clement: Oh, is that how I said it?
Mr Grandmaître: That's what you said, "I oppose."
Mr Clement: Well, I suppose I should speak for my minister as well. She opposes this amendment.
Mr Grandmaître: Very good.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I will be succinct; just a couple of minutes. I oppose the motion and my opposition to it is fundamental. Section 10 of the current act provides for workforce surveys: "Every employer shall, in accordance with the regulations, conduct employment equity workforce surveys and collect other information to determine the extent to which members of the designated groups are employed in the employer's workforce." And then if we go to the regulations, we find in regulation 390 for 1994 that schedule I is the workforce survey questionnaire with the four questions with respect to the four groups. The fourth question asks, "Based on this description, do you consider yourself to be a member of a racial minority, yes or no?" That, to me, asks for labelling. All the questions do. The specific question concerning race mandates the collection of racial data by a provincial law in the province of Ontario. I think it's fundamentally wrong that the government would require by law that this type of data be collected.
1710
I do not believe in segregation; I believe in integration and the fruits of that fundamentally mistaken legislation should be destroyed, which this section would provide. We should not collect racial statistics in Ontario; we should not collect them in Canada. A person's race should be no business of the government of Ontario or the government of Canada. Our governments should know no colour. We prohibit discrimination on the basis of race by part I of the Ontario Human Rights Code and we should not be collecting data on the basis of race, and where we have, we should destroy it.
Mrs McLeod: I just want to make a number of points in response to the parliamentary assistant. He can respond if he chooses, specifically on the issue of the destruction of data. I would be very surprised if there was any consultation before the election or since the election with any employers on the issue of whether or not they wanted to have their data forcibly destroyed by the legislation.
I guess the question I have is how you as a government, whatever your individual views are on the data, can set yourself up as being the judge as to whether or not employers would find their particular data collection useful or not useful and why you would not have faith that the employer will make a discreet decision about whether to use the data they've collected.
I simply don't understand why there is this need for intervention. I wonder if you have discussed with the minister the submissions that have been made. There really is no virtue in just hanging on to something that was not thought through, was not consulted on. All the rest of it you can make your case for having consulted on, but that just doesn't hold up when you look at the submissions the committee has had. I'd be very interested in specifics of employers you've consulted with on the destruction of data and found support.
I have to finally ask you very specifically: If an employer did collect the data exclusively for the act, because they didn't intend to do it until the act was in place, but they have now decided they would like to voluntarily continue with an employment equity plan and they would like to use their data, what's the problem with that?
Mr Clement: This is the employer.
Mrs McLeod: Yes. They collected it exclusively because that's why they started.
Mr Clement: Again, when you are a parliamentarian you have to balance, in certain cases, relative costs and relative benefits, and in this particular case it's the government's view that the employee is the one that we are looking to, and his or her rights.
As I have outlined in response to Mrs Churley, we believe that the relative cost for businesses is relatively light, that a lot of the small businesses that would bear the cost disproportionately haven't even started to collect the data yet and a lot of large businesses that had already collected the data were doing it for a multiplicity of purposes. So weighing that against what we perceive to be an unjust situation for the employee, yes, we're on the side of the employee.
Mrs McLeod: But you have not consulted with businesses specifically on that; you have no data from employers to determine that.
Mr Clement: No, the minister has done a good job of talking to a lot of people about this. I can assure you of that and that the minister feels quite comfortable with the amendment which the government will be proposing.
Ms Churley: First of all, I want to clarify something that Mr Clement has said about small business, that it's hard for small business, but as he probably knows, under Bill 79 only companies of 100 or more employees were covered by the bill. This government recognized for a variety of reasons it didn't make sense for really small businesses to come in under this particular legislation.
I wanted to ask staff if they happen to have in front of them a submission by Lawyers in Support of Equity who are opposed to enactment of Bill 8. Do you have this?
Mr Bromm: No, sorry, I don't have that.
Ms Churley: This is very short. I'll have to read this, because I'd like your opinion on it. These are lawyers who came to give their opinion, and some of it is their short legal opinion as to some of the sections.
They say that: "Pursuant to section 33 of the code, an officer investigating a complaint of discrimination is empowered to request documents and information relevant to a complaint of discrimination. Information collected pursuant to the Employment Equity Act is clearly relevant to determinations of discrimination under the code."
Then they say, "Subsection 33(11) of the code states that no person shall hinder, obstruct or interfere with a person in the execution of a warrant or otherwise impede an investigation of a complaint. The contravention of this section constitutes an offence under section 44 of the code and is punishable by fine of up to $25,000.
"Therefore any destruction of documents and information pursuant to the proposed subsection 1(5) could constitute a punishable offence under the code."
What's your opinion of that?
Mr Lillico: That was taken into consideration, when the current subsection was drafted, in the phrase "as soon as reasonably possible after this act comes into force."
There may be some employers who would be in a situation where a human rights investigation was already in place and where the investigator had already requested certain information. If an employer is in the situation where it possesses the relevant data and there's an order to produce the data, then the phrase in the legislation, Bill 8, "as soon as reasonably possible," our interpretation is that that means in compliance with all relevant laws, and therefore a situation would not arise where an employer, in order to obey Bill 8, would have to violate a provision of any other statute, the Human Rights Code included.
Mrs McLeod: What about the freedom of information act?
Ms Churley: My colleague the leader of the Liberal Party asked, what about the freedom of information act?
Mr Lillico: Again, the phrase "as soon as reasonably possible" was inserted to accommodate situations of employers holding this data who might also have some obligation under some other legislation in relation to the same data. Again, that phrase was put in to provide for the required flexibility so that the destruction would not have to take place under Bill 8 at a time when the destruction would violate the obligations of that employer under some other piece of legislation, whether it be freedom of information or the Human Rights Code.
The Chair: Does that answer your question, Ms Churley?
Ms Churley: Yes, thank you. Very interesting.
The Chair: Okay, if there are no further comments on that amendment, we'll call for the vote.
Ms Churley: I would like to ask for another 20-minute recess.
The Chair: We will reconvene at 5:40.
Mrs McLeod: We will be having to go into the House for a vote, I believe at 5:45. May I ask your direction in terms of the continuance of the committee?
The Chair: There seems to be a little confusion as to just what we did and didn't agree to. The subcommittee made a decision -- unfortunately, the only members here are myself and Mr Clement -- that clause-by-clause analysis would end at 6 o'clock on Monday. We reported that back to the committee with the line that the afternoon of Monday, November 27, 1995, be set aside for clause-by-clause consideration.
Mr Clement: There's a 30-minute bell.
The Chair: Then there was a motion in the House to grant us time to meet, which motion was amended to remove the requirement that clause-by-clause be finished by 6 o'clock. So what we have is an agreement made by the subcommittee, approved by the committee, but not enshrined by the motion made in the House.
Mr Clement: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Can you make a ruling as to whether the request by Ms Churley is in order, given the prior agreement?
The Chair: Okay. The request of Ms Churley is in order. There's no question about that.
Mrs McLeod: The question is whether or not we ever get to do the other amendments.
The Chair: Right. That the afternoon of Monday, November 27, 1995, be set aside for clause-by-clause consideration was approved by this committee. Was it the understanding of this committee that that was the end of our deliberations on clause-by-clause? Because that's what the subcommittee members that I've been able to talk to, which included Mr Sergio of course, who is no longer on the committee -- I didn't get a chance to talk to Mr Marchese -- that's what they believed we agreed to.
Ms Churley: It's my understanding that the agreements that subcommittees make are not binding. What perhaps wasn't taken into consideration when that decision was made is how important this clause in particular is to me and some of my colleagues, and we need to be able to get on the record and debate thoroughly, indeed to attempt to change the position of the government members on this. That is the right of those of us sitting on the committee.
It's my understanding that although we attempt to adhere to the decisions made by the subcommittee, it's not binding. As I believe you already stated, if we don't finish the vote today, we'll have to come back and finish clause-by-clause at the next meeting of this committee.
Mr Clement: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: If there's some misunderstanding, let's put it to a vote.
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Clement. The committee also agreed that the afternoon of Monday, November 27, would be set aside for clause-by-clause consideration. It wasn't just the subcommittee but the committee that agreed to that.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chairman, does that mean that at 6 o'clock those amendments that have not been addressed will be deemed to have been --
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tonia Grannum): No.
Mr Grandmaître: So we can continue tomorrow?
Clerk of the Committee: On Thursday, the next regular meeting day.
The Chair: I guess the question becomes, is the agreement the committee made initially now binding, the agreement to stop tonight at 6 o'clock?
Mr Grandmaître: So the remaining amendments will not be deemed to have been voted on.
Mrs McLeod: I understand the clerk to be advising that we can in fact return to continue our deliberations on Thursday.
Mr Clement: No. On a point of order, Mr Chair: I presume you're making a ruling that the subcommittee report, as passed by this committee, is binding, so we're done by 6.
Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, that is not the advice you're being given by the clerk.
The Chair: Excuse me a second. What I said was that the committee agreed that the afternoon of Monday, November 27, 1995, be set aside for clause-by-clause consideration. That's what the committee agreed to. It's not as definitive as it needs to be.
Mr Clement: I would like to move that all the clauses shall be disposed of by this committee by 6 pm --
Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The parliamentary assistant is invoking closure on the committee, and I would like to know what the closure rules are that apply to the committee. I understand that the clerk is advising you that unless there is a motion of closure, we are able to come back and discuss this on subsequent afternoons.
The Chair: Ms Churley has asked for 20 minutes for the vote, so we'll recess for that 20 minutes.
The committee recessed at 1722 to 1742.
The Chair: All those in favour --
Ms Churley: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Okay. All those in favour?
Ayes
Churley, Crozier, Grandmaître, Marchese, McLeod.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Bassett, Clement, Flaherty, Hardeman, Maves, Stewart, Tascona, Young.
The Chair: On a vote of 8 to 5, the amendment is defeated.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr Clement: I move that subsection 1(5) of the bill be amended by striking out "information collected from employees exclusively for the purpose of complying with part III of the Employment Equity Act, 1993" in the first four lines and substituting therefor "information collected and compiled exclusively for the purpose of complying with section 10 of the Employment Equity Act, 1993".
Mrs McLeod: We will not be supporting the amendment. It seems pointless to amend something to try to clarify something that made no sense in the first place.
Mr Marchese: I agree with Mrs McLeod's comments but would ask for clarification of the ministry staff. What is the effect of this particular amendment with respect to the collection of data and information? What does it do, one way or the other, with anything related to information?
Mr Bromm: It affects that information that was collected under Bill 79. The amendment itself does not prohibit the collection of data or prevent an employer from collecting data after repeal, but speaks to that data that was collected specifically under Bill 79 and says it has to be destroyed.
Mr Marchese: It only prohibits them from having information that was collected under the previous bill. Is that it?
Mr Bromm: Correct, with the additional proviso that if it was collected exclusively for the bill's purposes.
Ms Churley: So if you collect it for something else, it's okay?
Mr Marchese: We'll be opposing this as well, Mr Chair. I don't think it helps us with any of the arguments we have made with respect to this issue, with any of the arguments that have been advanced by so many deputants here. They really have voted on this matter already. We think they're doing the wrong thing, but I'm not sure it's going to help to try once again to make an argument with respect to this particular motion because we already debated that.
Mr Grandmaître: Why is this amendment before us?
Mr Clement: I can speak to that, with your indulgence. After hearing some commentary from the hearings of this committee, the government wanted to be as particular as possible about what part of the information-gathering we were opposed to. We decided that this particular wording would make it evidently clear which parts we found offensive and which parts we felt should be retained.
Mr Grandmaître: Can the PA give us an example? What group asked you to introduce such a motion?
Mr Clement: No. What I was trying to say was that certain groups, as we well know, had some problems with the thrust of 1(5), and we were trying to meet their concerns by retaining the essence of the government position on this while going to accommodate them as best we could.
Mr Grandmaître: This is what I'm referring to, Mr Chair. What groups made a presentation to this committee and requested such a motion?
Mr Clement: Let me refer again to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce presentation; as I alluded to earlier, there was a concern that the information-gathering would affect their ability to comply with contract compliance legislation of the federal government. We're making it pretty clear here that if it's exclusively for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act, as it then was, and relates only to section 10; if they're collecting information only for those purposes, that's what we're concerned about, but if they're collecting information for other purposes and other pieces of legislation, that would be allowed to be retained.
The Chair: Does that answer your question, Mr Grandmaître?
Mr Grandmaître: Sort of.
Ms Churley: Can I follow up? If I understand correctly, the parliamentary assistant, Mr Clement, just said that if information was collected for other purposes, it can stay; but if the very same information was collected exclusively for Bill 79 it has to be destroyed. The same information doesn't have to be destroyed if it was collected for something else. Is that what you said?
Mr Clement: I think I've been saying that pretty consistently for the past two weeks, yes.
The Chair: That's what he's saying.
Mr Marchese: The chamber of commerce came here and said, "We don't want to collect the information for the purposes of the employment equity, we want to destroy that, but we want to keep whatever data we've had or collected that was used for some other purposes." Is that what they came to say, Mr Clement?
Mr Clement: No, my understanding from my notes -- and I admit it's my notes. The context in which 1(5) occurred for the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in the discussions we had was that they were afraid the section was so broad as to require them to destroy information they were collecting for the purposes of federal contract compliance legislation. One of the things we want to do is make it as clear as possible that it is not that broad, that that type of information, because it is collected for the purposes of two different pieces of legislation, would be retained.
Mr Marchese: To staff: If some of these groups are regulated by the federal government through its own employment equity bill, would they not be obligated under that particular section or law to keep that information? Is Mr Clement saying the two are in conflict and therefore to rid themselves of that ambiguity they need to do this? Is that it?
Mr Bromm: The reason for the provision being worded the way it was is that when Bill 79 was developed, employers who were already contractors compliance employers made representations and said, "We need to have only one data system; it would be less administratively burdensome," because they were already collecting these data under the federal program. Because they are mandated to collect the data under the federal program, it was considered inappropriate to require them to destroy data under a piece of provincial legislation when they had one single data bank.
1750
Mr Marchese: In effect, this motion before us would in essence guarantee that they be allowed to continue gathering information that falls under a different act, the federal employment equity bill; otherwise it would fall in that dangerous area. Is that it?
Mr Bromm: I should clarify that the data that this provision speaks to are not collected under the federal legislation but under the federal contractors compliance program. Employers who would be covered by the federal legislation would not be covered by the Ontario legislation, in any event. The federal contractors compliance program required employers to collect the identical data they collected under Bill 79, and those employers would not have to destroy. But the exclusivity language also applies to employers who may not have been federal contractors compliance employers but had also collected data prior to Bill 79 or for other purposes during Bill 79.
Mr Marchese: The concern I have around this is that our motion, the way we worded it, allowed for the collection of data and said "shall keep the information confidential and shall not disclose or use it except for the purpose of implementing a voluntary employment equity program." Did they collect that information for employment equity purposes or to fall under the federal contractors compliance program? Are they two different things?
Mr Bromm: I'm really not in a position to comment on the specific wording of your amendment, but it could be interpreted that the federal contractors compliance program is not a voluntary program and therefore your amendment would not capture those employers. Mr Lillico may want to speak to that as well. It would depend on how the wording of your amendment would be interpreted, whether or not the federal program was seen as a voluntary program.
Mr Marchese: Is there a comment by another staff person?
Mr Lillico: I don't have anything to add, really.
Mrs McLeod: To clarify, if this amendment were not passed -- I assume it will -- your legislation would require the destruction of the data that have been collected by law under the federal contractors act?
Mr Clement: No.
Mrs McLeod: It would not? Then why is this amendment necessary to allow data collected under the federal contractors act to be kept?
Mr Clement: I believe I was answering a different type of question when I referred to contract compliance. I think the essence of this particular amendment is to make it clear that we are only concerned about the personal information that was required under section 10 of Bill 79 and not for barrier removal or any other type of information the employer was collecting under the Employment Equity Act. Barrier removal information they can keep. We just wanted to make it clear that it's the personal information we were concerned about.
Mr Crozier: Notwithstanding the fact that the parliamentary assistant wants to make it clear, he referred to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and on page 6 of the summary of recommendations up to this point that was given to us -- and I won't read it all -- the chamber of commerce said, "We would not be opposed if this section were amended or even removed in order that employers would be able to utilize the information which could be very useful to employers." That seems to go contrary to what the parliamentary assistant used as an example.
Second, it seems even more confusing to me that the information collected under the federal contractors program is not tainted, but if it weren't collected under that program it is tainted, but we might be talking about the very same information. If that isn't confusing, I don't know what is.
Mr Marchese: If the employers are able to keep this personal information, that would worry me. If they're able to keep this personal information for the purposes of doing an Employment Equity Act or voluntary employment equity, I would think that's all right. But if you permit them to keep personal information and use it in ways I'm not quite sure about, I have a concern. You're not following?
Mr Clement: No.
Mr Marchese: If the information were collected for the purposes of the Employment Equity Act, in my view that's great, because there's confidentiality attached to that. If all of a sudden you say, "That's all right, they can keep this personal information under section 10," and there is nothing that says that information should be used for the purposes of employment equity, I have a concern about how that information gets used by the company, because it can be used in nasty ways.
Mr Clement: I share your concern, absolutely, and that's why I think the correct answer to that concern is that there still are proper procedures in the Human Rights Code or in grievance procedures or whatever, a number of different ways where, if the information is used for an improper purpose, there is recourse for the employee.
Mr Marchese: I understand that, Mr Clement. The problem is that most humans don't have a clue that they could take such a grievance in that way to the Human Rights Code. It's all right for us to say there's a Human Rights Code that takes care of those areas where the individual says, "I've been wronged here."
You say it's all right, that you can go to he Human Rights, but by the time an abuse has happened to an individual, the abuse has been done and it affects that individual in more ways than we can understand. It could turn out that that individual may not, in the end, end up at Human Rights for a redress of that particular wrong. Your particular motion worries me in terms of the possible ill-use of those personal statistics.
Mr Clement: That's why we're trying to destroy the personal statistics.
Mr Marchese: But you're allowing them to keep it, you said. Your amendment allows employers to keep this personal information, you said -- nothing to do with barriers, but it is personal information.
The Chair: Seeing as how the clock has come around to 6 o'clock --
Mr Clement: Can I answer that question?
The Chair: Obviously, the discussion's not going to end here. We will be reconvening Thursday morning at 10 o'clock.
We're adjourned until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock.
The committee adjourned at 1757.