Communication to the UN Committee of
International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination

Contents:

Model communication

• Information concerning the author of the communication
• State concerned/articles violated/domestic remedies
• Other international procedures
• Facts of the claim
• Appendixes

The outcome

• UN office decision
• Letter addressed to the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs

Model communication

Date: _April 16, 2001__

Communication to:

The Human Rights Committee
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland,

submitted for consideration under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

I. Information concerning the author of the communication

Last Name Moraru__________________ First name(s) Ioan________

Nationality Romanian & Canadian_______ Profession *******_______

Place of birth Romania________________ Date of birth ****** ** ***

Present address **** *****, ****, *****, Ontario, Canada, Code ***

Address for exchange of confidential correspondence (if other than present address)

__N/A____________________________________________________

Submitting the communication as:

1. Victim of the violation or violations set forth below ................... /_X_/
2. Appointed representative/legal counsel of the alleged victim(s) .... /__/
3. Other .............................................................................. /__/

If box (c) is marked, the author should explain:

1. In what capacity he is acting on behalf of the victim(s) (e.g. family relationship or other personal links with the alleged victim(s):
2. __N/A_______________________________________________
3. Why the victim(s) is (are) unable to submit the communication himself (themselves):

_N/A_______________________________________________

II. Information concerning the alleged victim(s)
(if other than author)

Name ___N/A_______________________ First name(s) ___N/A_____

Nationality __________________________ Profession ______________

Date and place of birth ________________________________________

Present address or whereabouts _________________________________

III. State concerned/articles violated/domestic remedies

Name of the State party (country) to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination against which the communication is directed:

_CANADA________________________________________________

Articles of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination allegedly violated:

__2(1)(a, c, d, e), 5(a), 5(e)(i), 6 ________________________________

Steps taken by or on behalf of the alleged victim(s) to exhaust domestic remedies-recourse to the courts or other public authorities, when and with what results (if possible, enclose copies of all relevant judicial or administrative decisions):

• A complaint letter dated October 8, 1995 addressed to Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto East Region. My complaint had not been taken into consideration, and I was not even informed to write my complaint on an official form. So, my complaint was practically ignored.
• A complaint dated October 31^st, 1995 addressed to the Ontario Ombudsman office. After an initial letter of investigation (appendix No. 1), a superficial and unfair investigation was conducted. Asking many times that some human rights should have been taken into consideration, my requests were ignored under the pretext that I did not pursue my complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This remark determined me to complain again to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (appendix No. 2, the Ombudsman's decision dated January 7, 1998).
• A second complaint based on harassment and discrimination in employment against the prohibited grounds of place of origin and ethnic origin written on an official form dated December 26, 1996, addressed to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. My complaint was kept on hold for one year without any justified reasons. After an open letter of protest dated January 4, 1998, which was addressed to important Members of Provincial Parliament and Members of Canadian Parliament, my file was opened and received the Commission's decision under section 34 of the Code in order to continue the investigation under section 33 which obligates the Commission to investigate a complaint and may endeavor to effect a settlement thereof. However, my file was put on hold again for more than one year, and after another letter of protest dated February 8, 1999, an investigation began on March 5, 1999. After two months, on May 10, 1999, the investigator decided to close the investigation without any justified reasons, although I asked in writing to allow me some time to gather all documents and to locate some witnesses as the investigator previously asked me for. Also, at that time I was waiting to receive legal aid, but the investigator informed me in writing that "we have been unable to resolve this complaint through normal procedures of investigation and conciliation". Consequently, my complaint was not resolved in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Commission's enforcement procedures and Code of Ethics. Although I required the Commission's chief commissioner to return the file back to section 33 for a correct and fair investigation, my letter was ignored and the Commission decided on July 22, 1999 not to refer the subject matter to the board of inquiry (appendix No. 3). Please notice that the Commission's decision did not mention the ethnic origin which was the main ground of harassment and discrimination of my complaint.
• I applied twice for legal aid during the human rights investigation, but my requests have been denied because the actual Ontario government has cut the legal aid for human rights discriminations. In addition, the Vice President of Ontario Legal Aid Appeals considered that I did not need legal aid because "no independent representation is required to pursue my complaint, as the Commission provides the necessary representation" (appendix No. 4). It is well known that the investigator as well as the Commission must be neutral. Who was going to defend my cause if, for example, I had no knowledge about the Human Rights Code and didn't know how to apply it? For example, I did not know at that time that I could also complain about discrimination against the prohibited ground of "age". The type of representation the Commission provided was pointed out in the above paragraph. This is a very clear violation of articles 7 and 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• A complaint dated June 1^st, 2000 addressed to the Trustee of Investigations, Canadian Human Rights Commission. I had been informed that the Canadian Trustee of Investigations "does not have power to review decisions of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, nor to re-investigate complaints that fall within the Ontario Commission's jurisdiction". In addition, I was suggested to direct my complaint to the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman who is responsible for looking into such complaints (appendix No. 5).
• A complaint dated August 5, 1999 addressed to the Ontario Ombudsman office about the human rights investigator's incorrect and unfair investigation as well as the Commission' unjust, discriminatory, and invalid decision. I asked the Ombudsman to require the Commission to reconsider its decision in order to have a fair and just investigation. However, the Ombudsman decided to close my file under section 17(1)(a) of the Ombudsman Act which allows for the exercise of the Ombudsman discretion to refuse to investigate a complaint further, where under the law or existing administrative practice there appears to be an adequate remedy for the complainant, whether or not the complainant has availed himself or herself of it (appendixes No. 6 & No. 7: letter addressed to the Ombudsman dated December 3^rd, 2000 & Ombudsman's decision dated December 20, 2000, respectively).
• A letter dated March 4, 2001 addressed to the Governor General of Canada
  complaining that my human rights have been violated and practically I do not have access to the justice system in this country. My letter has been ignored since I did not receive an answer so far.
• Under these circumstances, I consider that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. I do not see at this point any domestic law except the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, since the Commission's decision has become final, the only way to request the Commission to reconsider the matter is through the Ombudsman. But the Ombudsman refused to investigate my complaint regarding the Commission's decision. Any other judicial remedies under the law are not accessible to me because I do not have adequate financial resources and legal aid for human rights discrimination has been cut. It appears that even in the best country in the world people can defend their rights and dignity only if they have money. Otherwise, they have to endure a lot of frustrations and humiliations living in poverty. In addition, my social assistance has been cancelled since January 1, 2000. They were trying to force me to do compulsory work at community agencies working for free 17 hours per week in exchange for my welfare cheque already reduced with 22% since 1995. This kind of compulsory work is a violation of article 8(2) and 8(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. "No one shall be held in servitude" and "No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour", respectively. Moreover, I held two hunger strikes so far, but nothing could change the minds of government officials. Therefore, there is no domestic remedy at this point. Practically, the newly appointed Ontario Ombudsman decided to close my file.

If domestic remedies have not been exhausted, explain why:

___N/A___________________________________________________

IV. Other international procedures

Has the same matter been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement (e.g. the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Commission on Human Rights)? If so, when and with what results?

___N/A___________________________________________________

V. Facts of the claim

In accordance with article 2(2) of this Convention, by way of background, I was enrolled as a student at Seneca College in a Special Program entitled "Training for Immigrant Professionals" sponsored by Human Resources Development Canada. In order to be eligible for this program, I had to pass rigorous English and math tests, and my civil and professional documents had been verified (for more information, please see appendix No.8). As part of this program, on May 31, 1995 I signed a Placement Agreement with the Ministry of Environment and Energy to work as a Systems Support Officer from May 29, 1995 to June 30, 1995, as a volunteer (appendix No. 9). My activity was secretly and strictly monitored on a monitoring form, and at the completion of this placement I received a successful assessment from my supervisor (appendix No. 10). Then I signed an agreement for a permanent position effective July 10, 1995, but my supervisor did not give me a copy. This was to include an 8-week probation period in addition to the first period of five weeks (appendix No. 11).

After I was employed, the Ontario Conservative Progressive Party took power, the Ontario government was changed and a new Deputy Minister appointed at the Ministry of Environment. The Training for Immigrant Professionals was a Special Program designed by the Canadian federal government and the previous Ontario NDP government in the light of article 2(2) of this Convention in order to take in the social and economic fields special and concrete measures to ensure adequate development and protection of disadvantaged new professional immigrants for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and freedoms. In spite of that, the newly appointed Deputy Minister refused to validate the agreement which I signed. Her decision was influenced by a group of people (supporters of the new government) who considered that the Ministry was not a proper placed for me as an immigrant to work for. They harassed me in the workplace, and a co-worker told me very frankly: "it is not your fault that you came here, but you have to leave". At that moment he gave me a peace of paper with the name of an immigration agency, "Riverdale Women Immigrant Center", telling me to go there if I needed a job (appendix No. 12). In addition, he and his friends treated me like an intruder or immigrant virus in their workplace, and they offended, insulted, and humiliated me in order to put me down and get rid of me. This is very clear violation of article 5(e)(i) of this Convention.

At the end of my placement, the Deputy Minister sent me a letter to "thank me for the effort and dedication I have shown during my employment". Also, she mentioned that "my efforts have helped the Ministry to meet its summer objectives and helped them to protect and enhance one of the province's most valuable assets" (appendix No. 13). It was like a good-bye letter which was transmitted by e-mail to my supervisor as well (please see on her letter "cc: Gary Martin"). In spite of the fact that the scope of my placement was for employment (appendix No. 14) and I fulfilled my work in a competent and efficient manner proving to be a great asset for the Ministry (appendix 15), I was released from my job on September 1, 1995 and another person was hired for that position (I can describe how and in what conditions that person was hired). Moreover, the Ministry had four positions available at that time, and all those positions were fully staffed during or after my placements (it was mentioned in a "Case Analysis report"). Instead of hiring me, they redirected me again to an immigration agency, "Costi Agency", in order to ask for help in getting a job because I was an immigrant at that time (I can provide an audio tape). In other words, the new high-ranking official decided that the Ministry was not a proper place for me as an immigrant to work for. This is a violation of article 5(e)(i) of this Convention, "The right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work", against equality before the law on the grounds of race, descent, national or ethnic origin, and immigrant status.

An immigration agency is involved in its activity with immigrants, and an immigrant is related to the word "ethnic". According to the "Gage Canadian Dictionary", ethnic, as an adjective, means "of or having to do with immigrants who are not native speakers of English or French". As a noun, it means "an immigrant who is not a native speaker of English or French; or "a person of foreign birth or descent". As this Convention, as well as the Ontario Human Rights Code, prohibits discriminations on the ground of "ethnic origin", it is very obvious that I have been discriminated against since I was an immigrant at that time. In addition, my complaint of discrimination can be extended on the ground of age as well. The Canadian Human Rights Act as well as Ontario Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination against the ground of age. At that time I was ** years old.

All of this happened while the Ontario NDP government's "Employment Equity Act" - a law designated to help disadvantaged or marginalized people, like myself, find jobs - was still valid. A few months later, the Ontario government abrogated even the "Employment Equity Act" together with the "Employment Equity Commission" (appendix No. 16). But the most conclusive evidence regarding the policy of the Ontario Conservative Government about racial discrimination is the Ombudsman's Message 1999 Annual Report (appendix No. 17). The paragraphs "Addressing Historic Disadvantages" and "A Feeling of Betrayal" are very clear evidence that the Ontario government does not comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Canada is a multicultural society and it is based on a confederation of provinces. It is represented outside the country by the Canadian federal government which signed this Convention and has responsibility for its implementation. The big problem is that every province has its provincial government and its laws, and sometimes the policy of a provincial government is totally opposed to the policy of the federal government. In addition, the day-by-day life of people in Canada is mostly affected by the provincial government's laws. In this situation is the province of Ontario now which is led by a racist government oriented too far to the right. This government has taken power since the summer of 1995 proclaiming its actions as a "Common Sense Revolution". But this revolution was aimed against immigrants and poor people for the benefit of the rich, and practically the government has adopted a very harsh and discriminatory policy that destroyed the life of hundreds of thousands of immigrants and poor people. My case is very conclusive in this regard, and practically this government has destroyed my career, my profession, my family life, and the future of my daughter. But the most conclusive evidence regarding "racial discrimination", as it is defined in this Convention, is the Ontario Ombudsman's 1999 Annual Report (appendix No. 17). After such a report, the Ontario Ombudsman has not received another appointment and practically the same Ontario conservative government has ignored Ombudsmen's critics and recommendations. There is no more justice in this province, and nothing has been changed in the Ontario government policy. Unfortunately, the Canadian federal government was looking passively to this tragedy and did not undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms in this province. In this way, the Ontario government and, therefore, Canada has violated article 2(1)(a, c, d, e) of this Convention.

The Ontario government, and consequently the Canadian government, has also violated article 5(a) of this Convention with regard to my "right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice". There is no more guaranteed right of equality before the law with respect to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice. It has been five years and a half since I was trying to resolve my case through the Ontario Ombudsman and Human Rights offices without success. The manner of unequal treatment in which the Ontario Human Rights Commission, covered up now by the Ombudsman office, has handled my case is very conclusive. In addition, I have been denied legal aid and practically I do not have access to the justice system. This is very clear violation of article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has been moved under the administration of the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in order to increase the government control over the Commission, and practically any complaint against a government institution, as in my case, has no chances of success. In a few words, there is no more justice in the province of Ontario for any immigrant race. The most conclusive evidence is the section "Re-Visioning Public Service" of the Ombudsman's "1999 Annual Report", where it is written: "Among other things, this requires that government demonstrate its commitment to the protection and enforcement of human rights by taking decisive steps to eradicate systematic discrimination within the public service itself. Action must also be taken to address the longstanding ineffectiveness of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, an agency whose credibility among the public has been seriously damaged by its repeated patterns of delay and poor management".

Also, the Ontario government, and therefore the Canadian government representing Canada as a State Party, has violated article 6 of this Convention. According to this article, "States Parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention, as well as the right to seek from such tribunals just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered as a result of such discrimination".

Therefore, considering that:

• The Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings,
• All human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimination and against any incitement to discrimination,
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in this Convention without distinction of any kind, in particular to my case as to race, descent, national or ethnic origin, immigrant status, and age,

I am complaining against the government of Ontario which is responsible before the Canadian government which represents Canada as a State Part of this Convention that violated articles 2(1)(a, c, d, e), 5(a), 5(e)(i), and 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Consequently, I am victim of the Ontario government's "racial discrimination" policy. This government has destroyed my career, my profession, my family life, and the future of my daughter. I am seeking from this government just and adequate reparation. It is regrettable that racial discrimination has begun to escalate in the province of Ontario and is covered up even by the government institutions responsible for protecting them.

Thank you very much for your decision.

Author's signature: _____________________
Top Page

Appendixes:

In order to sustain my statements written above, I have attached the following documents:

1. Ontario Ombudsman office's initial letter of investigation;
2. Ombudsman's decision dated January 7, 1998;
3. Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision dated July 22, 1999;
4. Legal Aid Notice of Decision on Appeal to Vice President;
5. Canadian Trustee of Investigations' letter;
6. Letter addressed to the Ombudsman dated December 3, 2000;
7. Ombudsman's decision dated December 20, 2000;
8. Placement Agreement, Training for Immigrant Professionals (TIPs);
9. Seneca College's Eligibility Requirements, TIPs;
10. Placement Monitoring Form, TIPs;
11. Employment Status Form, second eight-week placement;
12. Riverdale Women Immigrant Centre Notice;
13. Deputy Minister's good-bye letter;
14. Employment Placement, TIPs explanation kit;
15. Supervisor's recommendation letter;
16. New Democratic Party Leader's letter;
17. Ontario Ombudsman's 1999 Annual Report.
    Top Page

UN Office's decision

On April 24, 2001, I received from the United Nations' office a letter stating that "I regret to inform you that a communication under the International Convention can only be accepted against a State which not only is a party to the International Convention, but which has also made a declaration under article 14 of the International Convention accepting the Committee's competence to consider such communications. As Canada has not made such a declaration, your communication cannot be further proceeded with. Accordingly, I am returning your documentation should have further need for it in the future".

I received the returning envelope of the documentation opened, and, consequently, that documentation from the UN Office has been violated. This is a violation of my fundamental freedoms protected by article 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well. Maybe this kind of practice could be justified after the horrible event happened on September 11, 2001 in USA, but the violation of my correspondence has happened before that event and the envelope had the address of a prestigious international office, the United Nations office. Therefore, this kind of practice cannot be tolerated in a country like Canada. However, there is no way to defend such a violation in this province because the legal aid has been cut. Consequently, you can defend your fundamental rights only if you have money. Otherwise, no democracy not at all.

In these circumstances, being aware that the Canadian authorities have found out about my communication addressed to the Committee of the United Nations, I addressed a letter to the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs asking to make a declaration under article 14 of the International Convention, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer. So, if I cannot have access to the local justice system, I cannot have access to the Committee of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination either. There is no surprise that in these conditions Mike Harris did whatever he wanted with his "Common Sense Revolution" in the province of Ontario. Very nice democracy for future generations of the people of Ontario! Don't you think?

Therefore, if my case would not receive a proper consideration by the Canadian authorities, I have no choice but to ask again the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make a declaration under article 14 of the International Convention. In the meantime, Honourable John Manley has become Deputy Prime Minister, and I suppose that he would be more interested to defend the rights of Canadian people, inclusive those from the province of Ontario. My request is in the interest of all people affected by discriminatory policy implemented by Mike Harris' Common Sense Revolution. I will be very grateful to you if you could support my letter addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Please be advised that according to article 1-1. of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

I have to thank you not only for your support, but also because you had the time and patience for reading all of this.

Thank you very much.
Top Page