|
Patricia DeGuire
|
Thank you so much Cindy for the warm introduction into BLG for inviting me to share my point of view about the Ontario Human Rights Code and a jolly good afternoon to everyone else. Just to give you an overview of the presentation today, I shall share a short story of the human rights in Ontario and in Canada. A brief discussion on previous human rights related legislation and how they contribute to the Code and how the court frames the work of the OHRC. How you can use it as a guide to build your work and a discussion on equity, diversity and inclusion in the workplace and how you can place human rights at the center of your work. A discussion on key emerging and current issues at the OHRC and how we are moving forward. But let me begin with a personalized land acknowledgment. As the agent of the Interior Human rights Commission I begin by acknowledging that the Commission’s office is in what is now known as Toronto. So we are guests on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississauga’s of Credit First Nation and I recognize this land is the traditional territory of many First Nations, including the Mississauga’s of the Credit First Nation, the Haudenosaunee, the Chippewa and the Rendered Peoples. Further, I acknowledge that Toronto is now home to many diverse First Nation, Inuit and Metis people, and I am mindful that Toronto is covered by the by Treaty 13, the Williams Treaty, and the Dish with One Spoon Wampum. It is important to acknowledge the land. Why? It is easy to deny Indigenous people their right if we historicize your struggles and simply pretend that they do not exist. So I ask where was Mary March of Newfoundland. That woman, born in 1796, died in eight in January 1820. I black thick woman who was captured by John Payton, died alone. She was the last of the Beothuk people. Her correct name was Demasduwit. Her name Mary March was given to her because Mary the Virgin Mary, she was found in March and so she was erased by colonialism. So until my extensive studies in Indigenous rights and land claims, I did not hear about the traditional names of territories, Indigenous peoples and all the struggle the face was spoken about in the past tense. So as a displaced person of the African-Caribbean diaspora, I take this opportunity to commit to the struggles against the systems of oppression which has dispossessed Indigenous people of their land and denied their rights of self-determination. Something that is essential to human rights around the world today. I am grateful to the Indigenous peoples who have cared for and continued to care for the land across Turtle Island. So I’m going to begin by sharing with you human rights milestones in Ontario, in Canada and so my point of view is positioned in the history, in Canada’s history as a colony of England, which began with the overseas story, [coughing] which began with the overseas plundering and possession and trading post established by England in the 16th and early 17th centuries, evolved into the British Empire and gradually became the Commonwealth now a free association of foreign sovereign states comprising Canada, the United Kingdom and many of its former dependencies that acknowledge the British monarch as the association’s symbolic head. Also, centered in that space is Canada’s history of human rights violation with a culture of life colonialism, which extends across every province and territory until now. Ontario’s history of enacting protections for human rights. Although, the longest in Canada is nascent and really began right here in Ontario. In 2022, last year, Ontario marked the 60th anniversary of the Ontario Human Rights Code. The first legislation of its kind in Canada. The Ontario Human Rights Commission was established in 1961 and the Code enacted in December 1961, but effective on March, oh sorry, on June 15, 1962. With a vision of making Ontario a place that recognized the dignity and worth of every person where people can enjoy equal right and opportunities without discrimination. I must note, though, that the hard work to create legislation and social change in Ontario began much earlier. So before the Code, like before the Code was enacted in 1962, was not good for many people and groups. For example, in Ontario in 1940s and the 1950s, Blacks, Asians and Jews experienced overt and covert forms of discrimination and harassment. It was not unusual to see signs stating no Jews or dogs allowed. Blacks were not people, so they were not mentioned. Indigenous children and their families were living in the horrors of Canada’s colonial residential school and the path of Canada’s first human rights Code here in Ontario had not begun. But how did it begin? It started with grassroots pressure as individuals and communities banded together to push for a better way forward. Then, Canadians largely defined whites as civil liberties, which were the freedom of speech, association, assembly, religion, press, due process and voting. Public discourse was largely about racial, religious and ethnic discrimination but those it led to a variety of legislation being enacted in the mid 1940s and fifties, including the racial Discrimination Act in 1944. As the world began to recover from the horrors and trauma of World War II, people sorry people came to realize, albeit slowly, that inequity and intolerance were not the way forward. The response to the global dilemma was the 1948 launch of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which paved the way for countries and Canadian provinces like Ontario to consider the human rights approach and you will note from the preamble of the Code is borrowed from the UN declaration. After that period Ontario enacted other legislation. For example, in 1952 we had the female Employees Fair Renumeration Act, which protected a woman’s right to equal pay. Then in 1954, we had the Fair Accommodation Practice Act to prevent discrimination in services, facilities and accommodation in public spaces and the creation of the Anti-Discrimination Commission in 1958 but alas, the Commission had no staff. That was rectified somewhat in 1961 when the Human Rights Commission was created with a small staff led by Director Dr. Daniel G. Hill. He called human rights legislation and I quote “the scapegoat for a blending of educational and legal techniques in the pursuit of social justice.” After the Code was enacted, all the existing laws were joined into one Human Rights Code for Ontario and that became effective on June 15, 1962, the anniversary of the Magna Carta. The first document to reduce into waiting the principle that the King and his government were not above the law. On that day, June 15,1962, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in Canada to establish a legally mandated human rights complaints system. So the commission would review complaints and if there were not resolved, a formal board of inquiry would be set up to decide the issue. Boards of inquiry evolved into the now Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. So the Interior Human Rights Code, a more granular history. In 1962, the Code that was enacted then was limited in scope compared to today’s Code. It prohibited discriminating discrimination regarding signs, services, facilities, public accommodation, employment and trade union membership on the grounds of race, creed, color, nationality, ancestry and place of origin but problems still persisted. For example, in 1962, there was the Amherst Burger riot, The site where you have five days of racial incidents, including across Birmingham and the facing of the Black Baptist Church. Someone even sprayed paint on the town’s buildings indicating home of the KKK. The commission stepped in to de-escalate the racial tension, but no arrests were made. Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s though, communities were becoming more familiar with the concept of discrimination and what to do about it and so the second wave of the women’s liberation movement gathered steam and that amplified the plight of women. For example, the lack of human rights, protection for women, families providing the necessaries as basic as finding housing, women with children, or being pregnant and older Ontarians, especially in the workplace, were often treated as disposable citizens without rights. So once again, the grassroots rallied and called for changes and in response, on June 30th, 1972, the government expanded the Code to include sex, marital status and age. Although age protection was only extended to people 40 years and over. The next milestone, which was very important, happened in July 1977. The Commission released its report, Life Together, following a two-year provincial consultation and so Life Together called for sweeping changes to the Code, and many would become law in the following years. The recommendations included giving the Code primacy unless a law specifically says otherwise. The Code takes precedent over all laws in Ontario and extending protection to contracts and by association who can make a human rights complaint and for a single person to a class of persons and adding the ability to deal with systemic discrimination. The government was called upon to add the grounds of marital status and age and housing. The law age provisions from 14 to 18 are over and add the new ground of disability, sexual orientation and record of offenses. In 1982, the Code continued to evolve when the grounds of disability was added and the human rights system was given the capacity to expand individual discrimination and investigate systemic discrimination but alas, the ground of sexual orientation faced much more resistance before being included in the Code in 1986. Since 1999, the Ontario Human Rights Commission recommended that gender identity be listed as a separate ground to provide greater clarity that transgender people are equally protected under the Code. On June 15, 2012, after years of calls from the Commission, the Government of Ontario, added gender identity and gender expression in the Code. Today, hate action is increasing exponentially. Statistics Canada’s latest report came from the police indicated hate crimes have increased 27%, with an uptick in hate crime targeting com 2SLGBTQ+ communities. Most of the reported increase in 2021 took the form of hate crime targeting given religion. That was up 67%. Sexual orientation increased by 64% and race or ethnicity up by 6% and following previous trend, anti-Semitism is the leading factor of hate crimes motivated by religion once again. This data is disturbing but can be attributed to growing social polarization and greater awareness about discrimination and reporting. So let me take you to the primary goals and parameters of the Code. So the goal of the Code or to protect the dignity and worth of every person, ensure equal rights and opportunities, create a climate of respect and mutual understanding, ensure that everyone can take part fully in society. It has primacy over other provincial legislation. It is remedial, not penal. It considers the effect not intent of one’s action. It applies to only to Ontario, and it offers protection based on 17 personal characteristics we refer to as ground. It provides protection in only five social areas, employment, housing contracts, vocational training and union and we know from the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Dickson, the late Mr. Justice Dickson was clear to say that human rights legislation must be given a fair, large and liberal interpretation to advance and fulfill its purpose or a narrow interpretation where the goal is to limit a right and that came from CN vs Canada or the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 1987. Canada’s Board of Human Rights Framework, which is integral to the Code. In addition to the Code, the Commission works is impacted by the decision of tribunals, courts, domestic constitutional texts and international human rights instruments, including the Canadian Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedom 1982, the 1965 International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1989. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, 2007, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, 2008, the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Historically, the Ontario Human Rights Commission relies on Canada’s domestic and international human rights instruments and the experiences of other jurisdictions in Canada to help guide its research, policy, development and litigation to advance an understanding and compliance with the Code and broader human rights obligations. So what is the changing role of the Interior Human Rights Commission? As the makeup of Ontario changes, the Code and Canada’s broader human rights framework continue to evolve, and so has the focus of the Commission. A big shift in Ontario’s human rights framework came in 2008 with the enactment of Bill 107 with major reform of the Ontario human rights system, which included creating a three-pillar institution and thus stripping the Ontario Human Rights Commission of its gatekeeping role and not having carriage of individual human rights complaints. Instead, it was ordered to focus on systemic discrimination. It also allowed people to make complaints directly to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and those are called application, creating a new organization, the Human Rights support centre, which provides legal advice and sometimes legal representation to people making complaints. So these three institutions are now known as the three pillars of the Ontario human rights system. The changes the Commission experienced change its ability to focus on and to address root cause of discrimination and advocate for systemic changes. It is a recognition that some issues are unlikely to be resolved through individual complaints alone. Issues such as reconciliation with first Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and the racial profiling in policing or piloting more humane practices in all correctional institutions.
Also, the Commission uses the tool of strategic litigation to intervene in matters before the tribunal and courts at all levels. The tactic is to intervene in those cases, which have the potential to establish an expansive interpretation of the Code or would set important precedent, like an appropriate understanding of how different rights are reconciled or the proper test for prima facie discrimination.
So, since the Commission no longer investigates individual cases, it is more difficult to get on-the-ground information on emerging human rights issues. So how do we do that?
We have daily internal monitoring and we receive requests, intervenes from lawyers, organizations and members of the public. We have request from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and as the chief commissioner of Ontario, I used the exclusive statutory power to create advisory groups to assist in carryout the Commission’s mandate and the groups bring community expertise and knowledge to assist the Commission.
Recently, the Commission has used its inquiry investigatory tool to tackle systemic discrimination and it did so by launching inquiries. We have the two 2017 inquiries into the Toronto Police and the Toronto Police Services Board practice of racial profiling of blacks and indigenous people and other people of colour. That report is currently pending and in February 2020, the Commission released the Right to Read Report, an inquiry which focused on children’s human rights to learn to read, and in particular whether students with reading disabilities have meaningful access to education as required under the Code. And the report received international recognition and ongoing excellent reception from the public, stakeholders and the Ministry of Education, and the work continues as we work to implement a 157 recommendation and key to those recommendations are screening, early intervention in reading and back-to-basics teaching phonics. The success of the Right to Read has resulted in many more requests for inquiries or intervention at the Commission. I am unable to authorize such inquiries anyway, whether it has resources, there are many considerations that guide involvement in a case or inquiry.
So, to that end, the Commission has developed assessment criteria.
One general criterion is whether a case raises issues within the priorities of the strategic plan, and we have to stick to the plan that is pretty new – from 2023 to 2025. So, relying on advisory groups, monitoring and public consultation, the Commission has developed five (5) priorities, namely Indigenous reconciliation, criminal justice, the education system, building a human rights culture and health and wellbeing with the continued focus on poverty and homelessness… are the critical criteria in assessing how we conduct our work, include whether a case raises vital human rights issues, a public policy of public interest. If the issues will affect vulnerable or marginalized people protected by the Code or raises issues that are sufficiently serious or complex that the Commission’s involvement is needed, and whether the Commission’s intervention or other involvement can be done within current Commission resources.
The Commission is a small agency with approximately 33 employees, the size of a high school classroom, if you will, which has a budget of $ 5 million, of which 4.9 million goes to salaries and expenses. And as noted earlier, the Commission has a broad mandate covering 17 grounds and 5 service areas. So, an intervention can range from as simple as filing a letter to being involved as a fully party at a mediation or a hearing.
Indeed, the advent of the Code has helped Ontarians in becoming a better society reflective of our diversity and talent. The Commission must continue to imagine the future of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the future of the Code, and as you know, Ontario’s model is “diversity is our strength”.
In the – brief indulgence. My room is very hot and my thought is drying up as quickly as the heat has it.
In the inevitable cultural and social dislocation, newcomers are relying on families for inculturation. Still, as a basic and essential building block of society, families have a crucial role in societal development. They bear the primary responsibilities of education and socialization of children and to instill the values of citizenship and belonging in a society. So, we imagine, and guiding the future of Ontario is not the work of the Commission alone. It is the duty of every one of you. Human rights issues continue to evolve and transform, and as we enter new eras and deal with unprecedented issues, different approaches must be created to achieve results that past practices have not addressed or met. Reimagining and a transformative approach are key to progress.
Immigration refugees and statistics on Canada at IRCC data reveal that Ontario welcomed 184,725 new permanent residents in 2022, or almost 42.3% of the total and record and – sorry – of that total, which is a record-breaking 437,000 new permanent in Ontario in 2022. And Ontario boasts a multitude of cultures and over 200 nationalities. It is said to be the most multicultural place on the planet. This is – if necessary follows therefore, that we will have the same responsibilities but different rights and interests. And it is inevitable that at some point, the people asserting those rights will result in conflict. The Commission is responsible for giving guidance on how individuals or groups enjoy rights, but guidance is not a panacea or an antidote for systemic discrimination. Ontario cannot continue to take a single access approach to addressing human rights issues as Aristotle, Audre Lorde and further amplified by Dr. Kim– Kimberlé Crenshaw, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”, no one lives a single access or monochromic lifestyle. The intersection of its parts add a different characteristic that is often unique. Ontario’s unique population situationship requires human rights to consider the historical sociopolitical context and recognize that the unique experiences of individual based on the intersection of all relevant grounds.
Going forward, everyone must add both human rights-based approach founded upon the Code to their strategic toolkits. And I am proud to inform you that the later months of this year, the Commission will be launching a tool, the Human Rights Based Approach, or the HRBA to help in this process.
The Human Rights Based Approach framework is a new web-based educational tool that supports the public government service providers and employers across the province to design and develop policies and programs which meet the obligation under the Code. The framework can be used by advocates and researchers as well to help bring human rights approaches to their campaigns and projects. So, the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s work over the past few years, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic has looked closer at the disability and the duty to accommodate the importance of collecting human rights-based date, racial profiling, mental health, solitary confinement, and Ontario’s child welfare system, just to name a few.
Also, the Commission is working more closely with First-nation, Métis and Inuit people and communities to re-envision to human rights system that acknowledges the trauma of colonialism and to better reflect indigenous experiences and worldviews.
Equity, diversity, inclusion in the workplace. There is a surge in public discourse of racism and other systemic discrimination throughout all sectors, including business and legal sectors. The overt and callous murder of George Floyd and other black people gave rise to worldwide outpouring of grief and anger. And like the rest of the world, Ontario has had to grapple with Covid-19.
The intersection of those pandemics laid bare the inequities that plague our society. Yet, they have created an epoch, an opportunity to pivot to image practical ways to combat anti-black racism, anti-Indigenous racism and other forms of discrimination. This racism and prejudice have been manifesting against different racialized and affected communities in different ways. Also, since those ordeals, we have seen surges in hate: anti-Asian discrimination throughout the pandemic, a significant rise in anti-LGBTQ1+A+ activities throughout Ontario and unfortunately a rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia around the world and here at home, further heightened by the wars in Israel and Gaza and the Ukraine. I return to why it is essential to imagine ways to advance and promote human rights principles towards inclusion and to create a sense of belonging. Many organizations use the concept of EDI as a tool to integrate human rights principles in their workplace. Idea is not new. It evolved from an affirmative action that was introduced in the United States during the Civil rights movement in the 1960s, but recently it has grown exponentially post-Covid-19 and the Floyd Uprising.
To briefly define EDI, it’s an acronym that consists of three words which have nothing to do with one another. Equity is different from equality, as you know, and it is different in the way that not everyone has the same access to employment or education as the other, and in that case, to allow someone the chance to benefit from their full potential, one must do extra things to earn the opportunity to attain their full potential. Measures of equity is to have equal chances in those spaces to live one’s potential to its fullest. Equity or substantive equality posit that right’s entitlement, opportunities and access are not equally distributed throughout our society, thus, treating everyone the same will not achieve equality. That was the view that was held by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Andrews v. The Law Society in B.C.
Diversity: the term is almost ubiquitous at this point. Ensuring workplaces are representative of communities in which they operate and live. And inclusion in a workspaces and feeling a sense of belonging. Participating in activities at work and being included and contributing to building workplace policies and processes covers inclusion. Recently, change agents and thought leaders look to equity, diversity and inclusion as a formal framework or strategic tool to dismantle all forms of this systemic discrimination in the workplace, but to be clear, institutional human rights have not embraced EDI as a component of human rights. And so EDI has become a buzzword of the century, and we saw employers wanting to include diversity and inclusion policies for the wrong reasons. It should– It was a shield to mitigate lawsuits used by corporations who were concerned about being sued.
Questions we should ask and continue to raise when thinking about EDI whether all protected groups under the Code benefit from EDI. So, we should ask ourselves that question: are these groups that are protected under the Code benefiting from EDI? And so, who are the beneficiaries? Is EDI a panacea for systemic racial inequality, or does it perpetuate the status quo? Is there data to back up decisions taken?
Is there data to back up decisions taken? What does that data say? How could EDI be an effective tool to enable everyone to reach their potential equitable or protect the dignity of the person? So I’d say that an authentic EDI framework has four distinct pillars which enable positive impact and sustainability. Fairly defined policies and processes, data collection, specific plans for hiring, onboarding, training, promoting consulting with employees and stakeholders, and accountability and transparency. It means leadership, an active and strong tone from the top versus being a human right. Ah, sorry, other than being a human resource sidekick. So creating an EDI framework that will dismantle systemic, anti-black discrimination is a Herculean feat. If it is doable at all. It can be a helpful tool, though, and so I urge you to use it. One way is to use our histories to pave positive resources, to re-imagine impactful ways to tackle anti-Black and anti-indigenous systemic discrimination. If we are to build a successful future for BIPOC people. EDI can be part of this wave of transformation. Center. Centimeter by centimeter across all sectors, creating inclusive spaces garnished with a strong sense of belonging and EQ creating pathways to black joy along the way. Successful EDI requires allies, collaborators, and partners to avoid using the master's tool to transform the master's house. Indeed, EDI has grown exponentially around the world, across all sectors. Even in Parliament, we hear that the Canada Business Corporation Act was amended to enact a requirement that corporations be governed by... I am sorry, that corporations governed by it with publicly traded securities to improve disclosure regarding women, Indigenous people, BIPOC people and persons with disabilities on boards and senior management. The Osler Media results for 2023 Diversity Disclosure Practices show that the Canadian public companies or disclose reported that among the 532 board positions which were newly created or vacated, a woman was chosen to fill the position 45.3% of the time. Women held 20.8 executive officer offices, compared to 19.8% in 2022. And this year, visible minority BIPOC and BIPOC directors held 10.2 of board seats among all CBA corporations providing disclosure compared to 8.3 in 2022 and 6.8 in 2021; however, the proportion of Indigenous directors and directors who are persons with disability has essentially been unchanged since last year. Osler states that this progress reflects a growing demand by investors for people of color representation on boards and is consistent with initiatives to increase ethnic diversity on the boards and also consistent with NASDAQ requirements. Further, Osler reports that while women are making increasing inroads into C-SUITES, although at a slow rate, in April 2023 reports found that of the Fortune 1000 companies, only 0.8% were 2SLGBTQ+ directors. The report also found that there have been rapid adoption of 2SLGBTQ plus Q inclusive board diversity policies and 23.2% of Fortune 1000 companies now have one. Yes, there is improvement, but there is still a far, far way to go. I'm looking at the time here and wondering, Cindy, how I am for time.
|
|
Patricia DeGuire
|
So and thank you so much. I'm still sweltering from my room. EDI should be used as a tool to dismantle anti-black racism in the employment spaces. It should be carefully thought out and be transparent. It includes, it should be included in your business plan, in your strategic plan and your KPIs. It should not just become window dressing. The people who are being included, the employees who are 2SLGBTQ1++, indigenous, blacks or other racialized people must participate in whatever policies the employer intends to introduce to create that culture of diversity and inclusion. This requires cultural awareness, cultural humility, mindfulness, taking intentional steps towards change. Not just a few flippant policies or words strung together to tick the diversity and inclusion box. Collaboration with the people being included should be a significant part of building a policy. The Commission's policy and guidelines on racism, on racial discrimination, set out proactive steps that can be used to monitor and respond to allegations of racial discrimination in the workplace. And so I encourage you to visit our website to take a look at those guidelines to ensure that your policies are centered in a human rights based framework. Ontario's ongoing emerging human rights issues today. I will now turn to the work of the Commission and our current priorities. For over 60 years the Commission has been working to protect, promote and advanced human rights in the province through education, policy development, public inquiries and litigation. The Commission, the HRLSC, the HRTO are the backbone of Ontario's human rights system and play an important role in the progressive realization of human rights. Major areas that the Commission is working on include, as I mentioned earlier, the Right to Read Inquiry Report, the first of its kind in Canada, called for the critical changes to Ontario's approach to teaching early reading. The Commission has already seen several concrete steps arising from this inquiry, and examples include the Ministry of Education revised the elementary language curricular for the September 2023 year. The Commission also had migrant workers seek justice through an intervention, a case called Logan v. Ontario. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the OPP discriminated against migrant workers based on race, color and place of origin when it concluded a DNA sweep of migrant workers. In its decision, the HRTO relied in part on the Commission's policy on eliminating racial profiling in law enforcement. The OPP has now destroyed the DNA samples that they collected. The Commission intervened in the Ontario v. The Association of Ontario Midwives case and the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Human Rights Tribunal decision was the correct approach. Later, Ontario decided to abandon the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Commission has made health and well-being a priority focus area in its work. Research has shown two issues which significantly impact health and well-being are the inability to exercise the right to housing, a crisis right now, and the inability to exercise the right to mental health and addiction disability care. These issues combined cause and sustain poverty. On March 14, 2013, the Commission released an interim report titled Poverty P.O.V.. What we are hearing that highlighted and summarized some of the responses received from its survey concerning poverty and these are experiencing discrimination based on core grounds, such as race, disability and receipt of social assistance, among others, lack of deeply affordable housing, including housing with support and an increase in homelessness, inadequate income support, inability to access mental health and addiction care in a timely way, and the lack of social demographic data collection. The final report slated for 2024, will provide practical and concrete recommendation. The Commission plans to work with communities and partners to track progress and with duty holders to help them adhere to their human rights obligations. In February 2023, the Commission released a statement calling for meaningful and timely action to address systemic anti-indigenous discrimination in policing. The Commission’s statement followed reports of delayed charges against officers in two separate instances involving serious police misconduct. The event highlighted the pressing need for a broader shift towards accountability in policing. The disproportionate impact of these incidents on indigenous people’s families and communities underlines the need for timely and meaningful action towards justice and reconciliation for indigenous people. The Commission will also work on it’s inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of black person by the Toronto police and plans to release its final report later this year. Also, we continue to work with Peel Regional Police on its human right project to address systemic racism and discrimination. And in June we jointly announce the development of initial recommendation that was shared with the PR peace community lead anti-racism advisory committee. The aim is to finalize binding recommendations later this year. In May 2023 the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Orange RC announce their collaboration to provide Ontario the better understanding of their privacy right concerning artificial intelligence technologies through a broader human rights approach.
The Commission and the IPC recognize the significant opportunities presented by new AI technologies to benefit our society by delivering public service more efficiently and effectively. However there continues to be examples of public bodies implementing AI technologies with various unintended consequences that infringe on people’s human right, including their right to privacy. Public and private sector organizations have told us the privacy and discrimination concerns are key issues for their development and use of AI.
So the Commission and the IPC are ready to work with the government for further development to create trustworthy AI framework so that it is centred on respect for people’s fundamental rights. Earlier this month the Commission intervened in the case Ontario Teachers Candidate Council versus Ontario. At issue in this appeal is whether the mathematical proficiency test and related legislation established by Ontario for teachers accredited discriminates because, sorry, and so the question is whether the proficiency test and related legislation established by the Ontario for Teachers accreditation discriminates because of ways contrary to section 15 of the Charter. The division of Court had determined that the test and related legislation has disproportionate impact on blacks, indigenous and other racialized teachers candidates and are therefore unconstitutional. We now wait to hear from the from the Court of Appeal.
On October 18, the Ontario Human Rights Commission began its province wide community engagement sessions in its ongoing work to address anti-black racism in Ontario’s public education system. This work will help to identify concrete and practical solutions to combat anti-black racism and hold duty holders accountable. And in 2022 the Commission was engaging over 360 meetings and 70 speaking engagements towards creating a human rights culture in Ontario.
And I say this in closing, although I am pleased with the work that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had done this past year, I recognize there is work that the Commission cannot do because of lack of resources. The revitalized strategic plan of 2023-2025 have direct the Commission to create a human rights culture in Ontario. As part of culture, the Commission is committed to work with other institutions to challenge and address the increased in hate expression and help ensure public institution, individuals and groups know how to use the human rights system to respond hate. Hate is an epidemic right now. The rise in hate activities is a critical issue that requires multi-faceted approach to tackle it. And this includes government, public and private organization, civil society and every one of you. As a reminder, especially with current events in the world, everyone has the right to express an opinion and share information and ideas, but no one has the right to hate speech or to treat others with a discriminatory way in employment, in service, in housing and in any other area covered by the Code.
I encourage you to look into your own organization and see how you can continue to build the policies that promote a climate of understanding and mutual respect so that everyone feels welcome. Democracy is now in a delegate season, and so I entreat Ontarians and all of you here today to join me in creating a place where everyone feels a sense of belonging. As a servant leader of a dedicated team at the Ontario Human Rights Commission, it is an honour to serve Ontarians.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. God bless.
|
