WELFARE DRUG TESTS COULD BE ILLEGAL

Human Rights board says tests discriminate

TORONTO -- The Ontario government's promise to introduce mandatory
drug testing and treatment for welfare recipients could run afoul of
the law, the province's human rights commissioner warned yesterday.

The courts and human rights tribunals have ruled that drug addiction
is a handicap, commissioner Keith Norton said at a news conference,
where he released the annual report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Norton said the government's plan to deny welfare to anyone who
refuses drug testing and treatment "might ultimately be struck down in
the courts because ... it offends human rights legislation and
discriminates against persons with disabilities (by) making them
ineligible for social assistance."

Mr. Norton first laid out his concerns in a July 27 letter to Social
Services Minister John Baird. The minister yesterday said Mr. Norton's
concerns would be considered, but he insisted the plan will go ahead.

"It would be easier to sit back ... to say that the welfare rolls are
down 40 per cent and to walk away and declare victory. We want to help
more people move from welfare to work."

About 600,000 people are dependent on welfare in Ontario, down from
about a million in 1995 when the Conservatives were elected. Mr. Baird
said he didn't know when the policy would be introduced and he avoided
saying whether he thinks crack cocaine users and other addicts are
handicapped.

"I think someone who is addicted to crack cocaine and is on welfare
needs help ... and our government wants to be there to provide that
assistance."

The report comes just a day after the province complied with a Supreme
Court of Canada decision that said laws treating heterosexual
relationships differently from gay and lesbian relationships are
unconstitutional.

Mr. Norton welcomed the legislation before highlighting other
concerns, including the rights of transsexuals.

"They are clearly one of the most marginalized groups remaining in our
society. They are very, very poorly understood, they suffer tremendous
discrimination and trauma in the workplace" and often in medical
services where doctors often don't understand gender confusion, he
said. Mr. Norton said commission staff is working on a policy
clarifying the rights of such individuals.

The commission, with an annual budget of about $11 million, opened
1,850 cases in 1998-1999 and resolved 2,218 through strategies ranging
from mediation to a full inquiry. Race-related complaints were the
most common grounds for discrimination claims, making up 27 per cent
of the total. Another 25 per cent claimed discrimination on the basis
of handicaps, while 16 per cent related to sex or pregnancy.

The commission's notorious backlog has shrunk to 2,400 cases,
including 109 that are three years old or more. It now takes just
under a year for new cases to be settled, he said.

The average settlement for 376 cases mediated by the commission last
year was $5,600.

In other cases, the commission issued rulings. Examples
include:

- - A decision in favour of a man of East Indian origin from Guyana who
alleged his working environment at Ford Motor Company in Windsor was
poisoned by racist graffiti and racist comments directed at him and
other visible minority employees. He also charged that he was given
inferior work assignments and training and subjected to a higher level
of discipline that ultimately led to his dismissal following an
altercation with a co-worker.

The commission ruled that there was a poisoned work environment. The
company was ordered to reinstate the employee and to pay him $30,000
in general damages, $20,000 as compensation for "the experience of
victimization" and $10,000 for mental anguish.

- - A ruling in favour of a complainant whose young daughter was allowed
only limited use of recreational facilities in a Toronto condominium.
The commission said rules restricting use for children under 16 were
not reasonable. It ordered the payment of $500 in general damages and
said at least one place on the recreation committee should be
available to a condo owner with a child under 16.

- - The commission ruled in favour of a woman who complained that the
Ontario legislative assembly unfairly extended her probationary period
after a high-risk pregnancy forced her to stop work.