HUMA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

1035

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.))

Mr. Phil Jensen (Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Programs Branch, Department of Human Resources Development)

The Chair

Mr. Phil Jensen

1040

1045

The Chair

1050

Mr. Elley

The Chair

Mr. Solberg

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Phil Jensen

1055

The Chair

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.)

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

1100

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Phil Jensen

The Chair

Ms. Guay

1105

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Mike Saucier (Director General, Labour Market Directorate, Human Resources Development Canada)

Mr. Phil Jensen

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Mike Saucier

Ms. Monique Guay

1110

The Chair

Ms. Folco

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Mike Saucier

Ms. Raymonde Folco

1115

Mr. Phil Jensen

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

1120

Mr. Phil Jensen

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Phil Jensen

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.)

1125

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Alan Tonks

1130

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Phil Jensen

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Monte Solberg

1135

Mr. Phil Jensen

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Phil Jensen

The Chair

Mr. Phil Jensen

The Chair

Mr. Phil Jensen

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

1140

Ms. Kathryn Running (Employment Equity Contract Consultant, Women in Trades and Technology National Network)

1145

The Chair

Mr. Abbott

1155

The Chair

Ms. Joan Westland (Former Executive Director, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work)

1200

The Chair

Mr. Mamadou Diop (Regions Development Officer, Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre pour personnes immigrantes)

1205

1210

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Kathryn Running

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Kathryn Running

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Kathryn Running

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Kathryn Running

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Kathryn Running

1215

Mr. Monte Solberg

Ms. Kathryn Running

The Chair

Ms. St-Jacques

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni

Ms. Joan Westland

1220

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

1225

Mr. Mamadou Diop

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni

The Chair

Ms. Joan Westland

1230

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mme Joan Westland

1235

Ms. Kathryn Running

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni

1240

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Kathryn Running

1245

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Kathryn Running

The Chair

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

1250

Ms. Kathryn Running

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Kathryn Running

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

1255

The Chair

Ms. Kim Leslie (Past National Coordinator, Women in Trades and Technology National Network)

The Chair

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni

Ms. Joan Westland

The Chair

Mr. Mamadou Diop

The Chair

1300

1305

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Rosemary Morgan (Legal Counsel, Canadian Association of University Teachers)

1310

1315

The Chair

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Saxberg (Vice-President, Equity and Human Rights, Canadian Media Guild)

1320

1325

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Monique Guay

1330

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Monique Guay

1335

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Mr. Alan Tonks

1340

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Libby Davies

1345

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

Ms. Libby Davies

Ms. Rosemary Morgan

1350

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Saxberg

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

NUMBER 059

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À (1035)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): I call the 59th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to order. We have the requisite quorum to hear witnesses.

Our first witnesses are from the Department of Human Resources Development. Mr. Jensen, perhaps you might introduce your colleagues at the table. The clerk informs me you've requested about ten minutes for your presentation, and you can begin immediately.

Mr. Phil Jensen (Assistant Deputy Minister, Employment Programs Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen. It's a real pleasure to be here today. I'm the assistant deputy minister for the employment programs branch in HRDC. I have my colleagues with me today. With me is Mike Saucier, the director general of the labour market directorate; and Jane Clinckett, a special adviser at the office of disability issues.

We're here today to provide you with an overview of those HRDC human resource investment programs that either partly or fully have the objective of helping employment equity groups.

[Translation]

First of all, it is important to note that my presentation does not address the manner in which HRDC implements the Employment Equity Act, but rather how our programs and services help meet the objectives of the Act.

[English]

It's important to note that my presentation isn't about how HRDC implements the Employment Equity Act, but rather about how our programs and services work to further the objectives of the act.

I believe, Madam Chair, that there's a deck that people have in their kits. I'll be going through the deck if you wish to follow.

[Translation]

We have other copies for those who can't find their own copy.

[English]

I believe everybody has a copy.

The Chair: It looks like everyone has.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Great, Madam Chair.

So on page 2 there's a quick indication of what HRDC's mission is.

[Translation]

You can see that the HRDC mission consists of allowing Canadians to fully contribute to the labour market and their community.

[English]

I'd like to talk a little bit about how HRDC's programs have evolved, because I think many of you know that our programs go back 50 or 60 years and involve pensions and employment insurance. Today we have what I would call programs for all Canadians. These are broad-based programs that meet the needs of people in and around the workplace. This includes things such as the Canada Pension Plan, old age security, employment insurance, the EI part II measures, which I'm going to talk about more, that help people get back to work, Canada student loans, and Canada education savings grants.

We also have legislation, for example, in our labour branch—I know they've already made presentations to you—and services such as labour market information. But most importantly for this group, we have targeted programs designed to reduce poverty and to promote inclusion. These include things such as the national child benefit, aboriginal human resource development agreements, all our youth programming, and programs for persons with disabilities and the homeless.

As you can see here, these groups of programs touch not only the EE groups but also the groups that the department and previous governments considered were marginalized in society and needed action to address.

Today I'm going to talk, not about all the broad-based programs and the targeted programs, but mainly about those, as I say, that relate to the subject in today's agenda.

What is the Human Resources investment business line? Well, first off, it brings together all the things that affect marginalized and disabled groups in society, plus, frankly, some other odds and sods. But we are picking out today those initiatives, as I say, that are most pertinent to today's discussion.

The main program I want to start talking about today is the active labour market programs for all Canadians. If you're familiar with the employment insurance legislation, you know that part I of the employment insurance legislation, which is just generally called the benefits part, is the portion of the law that provides funds to people while they look for work. But part II actually helps to train them to get and keep their jobs better.

For example, these programs would involve things such as skills development, resumé writing, job search skills, and employment counselling, but it also includes some other programs such as targeted wage subsidies and job creation projects to give people experience for the workplace. The government spends $2.2 billion annually on this, and in this area partnerships are used extensively. In about half the provinces, the programs are delivered by the provincial government using programs that are very similar to the ones we have federally.

In three to four of the provinces, we co-manage these arrangements with provincial governments and deliver together, and in one province we deliver directly. But in all cases, we use partnerships, as I say, either with a provincial government or with local third-party service providers.

Some specific provisions that are of interest with regard to the employment equity groups are, first, that we have local flexibility and targeting. This is one of the main features of this program. This allows local communities to work with HRDC and the other organizations to try to mould the packages to their needs.

We have a five-year reach-back provision for former maternity/parental leave claimants. This obviously helps women who've been out of the workforce for a period of time for child-rearing or other reasons. And we have specific provisions for assistance to persons with disabilities in terms of paying some of the incremental costs of participation. All in all, ourselves and our various partners served approximately 650,000 clients in the last fiscal year.

Turning to the next page, you can see that we've broken out the utilization of these measures by employment equity group. The first column shows what the workforce representation of these employment equity groups is. Women are 46.4%, etc. This is on the most recent data from the 1996 census, because we don't have better data for most of these groups. For persons with disabilities, of course, it goes back to 1992 when the HALS came into place.

If you look at the next three columns, you can see the next three fiscal years. These figures show the utilization of our measures by these groups. As you can see, the utilization by women approximated their workforce representation, aboriginal people were higher, and persons with a disability and visible minorities were lower.

À (1040)

There are a couple of points I want to make about the chart. First, there are some data problems in terms of under-representation, particularly by persons with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. Self-identification is an issue with many of the groups. Frankly, a number of people do not choose to identify.

We made some methodological changes to our program for the current fiscal year that will be released publicly within the next few weeks. For persons with a disability, aboriginal people, and visible minorities, there will be an increase in their participation or utilization due to the methodology change. The bottom line is the numbers are too low because of data gaps. The new data coming out soon will show an increase.

The second point I'd make about the table is it does not include all our programming. This includes only the employment insurance part II programming. We have a significant amount of the central Consolidated Revenue Fund that also goes to some of the designated groups. I'm going to talk about it in the next couple of minutes.

Finally, we're doing some summative evaluations on the LMDAs that, as part of the mandate, will look at the effectiveness of the measures for employment equity groups.

In conclusion, I'm saying we can't really draw too many policy conclusions from the chart yet. We need further analysis before we can see how effective the measures are, and so on. This gives you an early indication of, at least, what the utilization was, bearing in mind that the numbers for persons with a disability, aboriginal people, and visible minorities are underrepresented, based on our most recent data revisions.

À (1045)

[Translation]

On page 7, we look at targeted programs. Except for certain measures contained in Part II, how do our programs encourage employability of disabled persons? In the speech from the Throne, the government has given us the task of collaborating with the provinces, the territories and other partners to establish a global strategy for helping disabled individuals to find employment.

[English]

In other words, we were given the job of working with the province to try to ensure that federal-provincial programming in this area was as coherent and well-delivered as possible. Over the coming months we'll be working with the provinces in that regard.

What is our current programming, however, for persons with disabilities, specifically directed from the human resource investment line?

First, we have another partnership. I mentioned this before. We have a partnership with the provinces, where we contribute 50% of the cost, up to a maximum of $193 million annually. This is the employability assistance for persons with disabilities.

We have the Opportunities Fund that we deliver ourselves. The budget for it is $30 million. We have $12 million in the social development partnerships program, the objective of which is to help fund research and development activities, and also to provide organizational funding for national disability organizations. Lastly, the government has recently introduced a Canada study grant for persons with permanent disabilities, the budget being $11 million.

HRDC has a pan-aboriginal program called the aboriginal human resources development strategy. When I say “pan-aboriginal”, that means it deals with aboriginal persons on reserve, Métis persons, and aboriginal people off reserve as well.

It has a $1.6 billion budget over five years, approximately $350 million annually, and is split into various chunks, if you will. Of the $350 million annually, we have $245 million for labour market programming, $41 million for child care, $30 million for an urban component, $25 million for youth, $6 million for capacity building, and $3 million for persons with a disability.

The partnership aspect is important too, in that we have partnerships with aboriginal organizations. Seventy-nine of them around the country actually deliver the programming for us and provide flexibility on the ground.

We also have an organization called the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Council, which tries to make links with the private sector, aboriginal groups, and the government. Altogether, in the last two years this program has been in existence, we've served 65,000 clients for aboriginal people.

[Translation]

I will now address the last question: how do our programs encourage employability for women and visible minority groups?

There are no target programs for women and visible minorities, but the flexibility and targeting of SMBs at the local level help adapt projects to certain groups when they are considered a priority on the labour market.

[English]

I've talked about, if you will, the thread of flexibility through our programs. This means that at the local level we're able to mount specific initiatives for visible minorities and women as the need exists. We pulled out two examples for you today, Madam Chair and members, of some of the things we've done around visible minorities.

In the Toronto area, we've put more flexibility into our employment assistance services for recent immigrants. There's a significant need there, and we've taken measures to address that need. In Nova Scotia, which has a significant and historical black community, we've designed certain programming to try to deal with some of the needs of that community.

Lastly, I will conclude—and hopefully, Madam Chair, stay within my time limit of ten minutes—with a few program changes. As I mentioned earlier, we don't yet have fully adequate results. We have data gaps that exist because we're working with partners and not delivering everything ourselves. This means data collection is more onerous and more difficult, and some gaps will exist.

I mentioned the summative evaluations coming over the next couple of years, which should help a lot. A specific part of these evaluations will look at the equity groups.

[Translation]

Second, poverty and exclusion are fundamental problems and require long term commitment.

Finally, partnerships, as I already indicated, are essential in this matter.

[English]

I'll stop there, Madam Chair, and take any questions you or the members may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jensen, and I commend you for getting through your very extensive presentation within the allotted time.

Before I move to questions from the committee, I have one housekeeping matter I'd like to take care of pursuant to Standing Order 106(2). The committee is going to proceed with the election of a vice-chair from the opposition, and I have a motion from Mr. Elley.

À (1050)

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo--Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): I would like to move, Madam Chair, that Monte Solberg be vice-chair of this committee.

The Chair: Do I have a seconder? Madam Folco.

All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Welcome, Mr. Solberg, our new vice-chair.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

The Chair: As the new vice-chair, Mr. Solberg, you have the honour of the first question to our witnesses.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Chair, I really appreciate the chance to be here and to work with all my new colleagues.

Mr. Jensen and your colleagues, thank you for joining us today.

I have a question based on something you said off the top. It's about the chart that showed the percentage of people from the various groups in the workforce versus their access to the program. The one thing I wasn't quite certain of was when you made reference to the fact that although visible minorities, for instance, have 10% representation in the workforce, they are only using part II of the EI program to the tune of about 3.8%.

Are you trying to get this up to 10%, or are you saying that because visible minorities are already enjoying a success in the workforce it's not necessary to do that?

Mr. Phil Jensen: It's a fairly complex issue, and we're sharing this information with you in the interest of transparency, to show utilization rates, but the conclusions we can draw from it at this stage are I think very minimal.

For one thing, as I said before, if we take the 3.8% for visible minorities, because of the data methodological issues we've changed, you're going to see that number go up a bit in the next year. It will probably still not be up to the 10%. So then the question becomes, as you put it, what do we conclude from that? Frankly, I don't believe we can conclude anything from the raw numbers. I think we have to go into these evaluations and look at the programs and see why the utilization is lower. It could be because there is significant under-reporting, as I mentioned earlier.

It could also be that there is some inherent nature of the program that doesn't lend itself easily to visible minorities or persons with disabilities, but we won't know that until we actually get into the nuts and bolts of the evaluations, which we're doing right now.

We do know, because we've done some testing informally, that there appears to be fairly significant under-reporting of these groups. They don't always want to identify as being either a visible minority or a person who is disabled. I would guard against drawing conclusions from it, but the evaluation process will look at the whole range of issues. Is there under-reporting? Are the programs effective? Are there gaps we're missing with visible minorities? Are there certain aspects of our programming that have changed to make them more efficacious?

Mr. Monte Solberg: Just so I'm clear, is the mandate that the utilization be the same as the workforce representation?

Mr. Phil Jensen: No.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I think that's important, because rather obviously, some groups may have more trouble finding employment than other groups. And this is a hunch only, but I would suggest that visible minorities may have an easier time finding employment and therefore may not draw on this, whereas the one that is a little bit troubling, I have to say, is persons with disabilities.

You've already said we shouldn't draw conclusions yet, but would it be your guess that persons with disabilities will rise fairly dramatically once the new data is in?

Mr. Phil Jensen: Yes. I think you're going to see rises in all of them, but I suspect probably for persons with disabilities and visible minorities, they're still going to be below their workforce participation.

I think that historically with visible minorities we seem to have made more progress on the issues in the private sector than we have in the public. I'm speaking across Canada, not just the Government of Canada.

With regard to persons with disabilities, there is a whole range of issues out there, and I know you've heard from other people. Often a stepwise series of interventions is required. This is one of the main reasons the government has announced in the Speech from the Throne that it will try to bring all the federal-provincial measures together in a comprehensive labour market strategy, because with persons with disabilities, what we've found is you need a series of stepwise interventions and some supports at critical stages to get them fully integrated into the workforce and into society.

To come back to your original question, HRDC's overall mandate, as I said on the second page specifically in regard to these groups, we're really looking at poverty exclusion issues. How we get at them, though, requires a lot of testing. The solution isn't always evident. Some things work in some cases and they don't work in others, but we have concluded at this stage that partnership is key, that a long-term commitment is key, and that flexibility is key, because often the needs of these individuals are different and you have to have a certain amount of flexibility on the ground to deal with them. So our programming is designed to further those issues.

À (1055)

The Chair: Mr. Solberg, your five minutes are up.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Fine.

The Chair: Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.): When new immigrants come to this country, most frequently the question they are asked by employers is whether they have any Canadian experience; so they face very big problems due to their lack of Canadian experience.

What is the HRDC doing to help new immigrants get over this Canadian experience hassle?

Mr. Phil Jensen: I think I would answer that question on a couple of levels. First, there's the issue of foreign credentials. I believe you've had representations or presentations, Madam Chair, before the committee before on this issue, and I know you all realize that this is a complicated issue. It's largely in the provincial jurisdiction, and in fact the control lies in a number of regulated bodies around the country, and there are some industries that aren't regulated. There's a lot of work to do there.

The Speech from the Throne did commit the federal government to working with the provinces to try to further that, because immigration is obviously a very important part of our labour force and something we want to make sure works well. On that level we're working with the provinces and the various associations over the longer term.

On a more micro level, I think the example I used from Toronto is an example of what we're doing. Where there are sufficient numbers of recent immigrants in the labour force, we put in place programming that tries to meet some of their needs. Sometimes it's resumé counselling, sometimes it's other things, but we have the capacity and the flexibility at the local level to try to match that. For example, if a community organization came forward and wanted to look at job creation projects, labour market partnerships, or targeted wage subsidies that involve recent immigrants getting job experience, we could look at that in the context of our programming.

I can't say we can approve every application that comes forward because there are budget and program constraints, but what you've described certainly fits into what we can try to do at the local level. We do feel it's best handled at the local level because the needs vary across the country.

That's generally how I would answer your question on those two levels.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: I've been hearing for so many years that we are working with the provincial governments on foreign credentials. How quickly can they solve this problem? It's a long-term problem; it's not last year's problem. This has been going on for so many years. Everybody, all the witnesses, when I talk to them, even the minister, they say they are working on this one. You are from HRDC, and I want to hear it from you. How quickly can they solve this problem?

Á (1100)

Mr. Phil Jensen: As I indicated, Madam Chair, I think it's going to take some time because, as I said, it's in provincial jurisdiction. It's in the hands of a number of regulatory bodies. It's not as if the federal government can take one decision, solve it, and make it go away. The authority for this rests with the federal government and a number of their regulatory bodies. If you have an issue with doctors, you have to deal with that organization. If you have an issue with lawyers or the various trades, you have to deal with those organizations.

To be honest, I think this is probably going to take some time to resolve, but it is of importance to us, and we are working on it with the provinces and the organizations.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: But HRDC can play a role to improve the situation.

Mr. Phil Jensen: I think we can play a real role in terms of exercising federal leadership here, taking these groups and the provinces through the issues and making them understand the importance of immigration to the country and the problems some of these issues cause for recent immigrants as to their integration into the workforce. I think we can ensure that if we are doing things to liberalize, if you will, for lack of a better term, in one part of the country, those connections can be made in other parts of the country too.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: My thinking is that HRDC should recommend to the immigration department the skills and professions that are in demand. This way when new immigrants apply for immigration abroad, the immigration authorities abroad will give them the information on that list. If there are so many problems...I think it is the responsibility of HRDC to provide them with information so new immigrants are at least well aware that they cannot get a job in their profession within the guidelines if they come here.

Mr. Phil Jensen: I understand, and to some extent you touched a bit on our temporary foreign worker program, which allows people to come in for work areas where there are skill shortages of one type or another, and we do work here as well. In fact, there has been a significant increase in temporary foreign workers, from 45,000 four or five years ago up to about 85,000 last year.

The issues with permanent workers are in some ways a little more entrenched because there have to be discussions that occur with the unions involved in these sectors and with the various other professional organizations that represent these individuals to ensure that their views are considered in the process.

Madam Chair, we are working on it. It's a complicated issue, and there are a lot of professions involved. We recognize the importance of it, and it's certainly a priority for the department.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you for appearing before the committee today.

According to the document that you have presented to us, all is well, I don't think that is realistic if we consider what we have heard here today. We see that the legislation is not working well and that there is room for improvement. It has its qualities, but there are some important things that need changing, and our committee will have to make these changes.

You referred to the difficulties involved in self-identification. People don't easily self-identify when they are asked to do so voluntarily. This is a question that we will have to study carefully, because this is a problem in all major corporations, in government departments and in the private sector.

To change the mentalities, one of the possible solutions would be to change the terminology that we use. Witnesses from Quebec who appeared before us referred to persons with functional limitations rather than disabled persons. This includes more people and this is much less insulting for someone who is experiencing difficulty. My colleague, Raymonde Folco, prefers, as I do, to refer to cultural communities rather than visible minorities. This also includes more people, and in this sense, this is positive. So we will perhaps have to look at the possibility of changing certain terms to integrate everyone.

This being said, you said earlier that your analyses were based on data from 1996, and you told my colleague that the situation seems to have improved. Do you have more recent data? If yes, we would very much appreciate that you inform us so that we can make improvements to the Act itself.

Á (1105)

Mr. Phil Jensen: The data is not yet ready. To prepare the data, we have to work with the provinces and our partners. This takes some time, but I think that in a few weeks...Mike do we have a specific date?

Mr. Mike Saucier (Director General, Labour Market Directorate, Human Resources Development Canada): We expect that we will have the data around the third week in May. I'd like to add that the reference is given in the first column: the 1996 Census. The new data will come from Statistics Canada. We don't have the information yet to update this column.

Mr. Jensen referred to the new data that will be in the report that will be published next month, which will look at participants within the context of Part II.

Mr. Phil Jensen: For fiscal year 2000-2001.

Ms. Monique Guay: It would have been very interesting for us to get this data before writing our report, because we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We will produce and submit a report to the government, without this data. So we'll have to do our homework next year. We won't have the specific data that would allow us to produce a faire and equitable report.

I get the feeling that government is not functioning well. On the one hand, we create programs. I think that people just don't know what programs are available. On the other hand, we shut down an adaptation centre for disabled people that costs peanuts—hardly $500,000 per year—that provides an essential service to help departments integrate disabled persons. We don't know what to think.

You have adaptation programs, programs to help disabled persons to integrate the workforce, but you cut services. I don't understand how this works. You're going to have to put everything on the table, and clean things up, because you can't continue going on like this.

I am not saying that your work is not done properly, but that the left hand is going to have to know what is going on with the right hand, and vice versa. This is not currently being done. I sincerely hope that in our report we can really reflect on the current situation and make positive recommendations. You have just cut the grass under my feet by telling me that you will issue a new report in the third week of May. At that time, we will be drafting our report. It makes no sense. We're spinning our wheels.

Mr. Phil Jensen: I said earlier that these are mostly evaluations that will give us good clues. There are many problems with the numbers, even today's numbers and those that will be published in a few weeks. We find many aspects of the situation are very complicated, and we will probably have to wait for the evaluation.

Mike, would you like to add anything?

Mr. Mike Saucier: The only thing I can add, is that the report that I referred to is the Rapport de contrôle et d'évaluation, which should be in your information kits. This is the report that has to be submitted to the House of Commons each year under the Employment Insurance Act. We are discussing our internal departmental activities with the minister.

Ms. Monique Guay: Madame Chair, we will have to obtain this data if we wish to produce an equitable report. Otherwise, we are spinning our wheels. It's no use spending energy in doing something which, fundamentally does not represent today's reality.

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair.

I would like to support the intervention by my colleague, Monique Guay. I think that it would be important to review the numbers, even upon finalizing our report, to review our recommendations in light of the new data.

I would like to ask our panel, however, about labour market development and how responsibility is shared between the federal government and the provinces and territories. Before training was transferred to the provinces and territories, it had been the responsibility of the Government of Canada. There were labour market development programs with specific objectives for the four target groups.

Since this agreement, since training was given to the provinces and territories, how is this program functioning in relation to the objectives that had been previously established by the federal government? Does each province have objectives? Does the federal government have any input, any supervisory role? How does this system function regarding target groups?

Mr. Phil Jensen: I will say a few words before giving the floor to Mike.

We have global objectives in the agreements with the provinces, but as I stated earlier, a central objective with the labour market agreements is local flexibility. We give a lot of flexibility to the provinces and our local offices for program delivery depending on the needs of the local community. In the agreements with the provinces, however, there is a clause that covers objectives for the target groups.

Mike.

Mr. Mike Saucier: Thanks, Phil.

This is a difficult question for me to answer today because we don't have enough information regarding program evaluation. We have to compare what we are doing today with what we did before the Act was implemented in 1996. Over the next year and a half to two years, when the evaluation process will be completed, we will be able to compare and see if the benefits that are in place today are effective compared to the programs we had earlier. It is difficult to answer that question today.

Like Phil mentioned, one of the major principles in each agreement that we have signed with the provinces is to work with the communities and put the emphasis on employment equity target groups. A management team made up of federal and provincial representatives will look at the community needs that have been identified. Often, there are representatives of many groups outside the provincial or federal governments. As we mentioned, there is information in our annual reports, and we hope that in about a year or two, when all the evaluations will be completed, we will be able to answer these questions.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Here is why I am asking this question. I come from Quebec, and as everyone knows, when responsibility was transferred to Quebec, the provincial government took considerable time to make the adjustment regarding professional training.

You tell me, on the one hand, that we will have survey results in one or two years, and also that the program is very flexible in adjusting to local situations. I wonder if the results that you will get will be useful. The local level can always say that it has implemented the program in accordance with local conditions. In other terms, will the evaluation of these programs be useful or even credible?

Á (1115)

Mr. Phil Jensen: I think so, because other than the objectives for target groups, one condition that has been imposed on the provinces is that they must have programs that are similar to the federal programs. Our labour market program has eight components and the provinces must have eight programs, more or less, for example, a competency development program, a work experience program, and a job creation program, So the global objectives are the same across Canada

Obviously, what is done in the various parts of Canada is different. Within the evaluation context, we have to look at the pros and cons. There is the flexibility required for the local needs, but I am sure that there are cons. I think that there are sufficient similarities in the labour market agreements so that the government can obtain good advice.

[English]

The Chair: You're going to have to pick it up on someone else's question. We've run out of time.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, Chairperson.

First of all, thank you to the witnesses from HRDC for coming before the committee today. Certainly as the committee that deals with HRDC, we're very familiar with the fact that this is the largest federal department. You probably have more impact on Canadians in terms of programs and services than any other department. In fact, you are also involved in ensuring compliance with employment equity for federally regulated, private sector organizations. I would expect to see that HRDC overall would be leading the way in terms of the government's implementation of employment equity.

I'm just looking at your mission, which is to enable Canadians to participate fully in the workplace and the community. I certainly would agree with that. But you raise some questions in your presentation. How do our programs support the employability of women and visible minorities? Your first response is that there are no specific targeted programs for women and visible minorities. I find it rather surprising.

Yes, clearly issues around poverty and exclusion, as you point out, require a long-term commitment. What's your definition of how long a long-term commitment is? This legislation has been around since 1986. The current act has been in effect since 1996, and yet we get a response basically saying there are no targeted programs for women and visible minorities. I really have to seriously question that.

Even in our EI program, there's so much evidence to show that it is systemically biased against women. As far as I'm aware, there's been no gender analysis done. I don't know whether you do any gender analysis or any other kind of analysis on your programs, but I think it's very disturbing to see that basically you, yourselves, are saying there are no targeted programs and that somehow we have to rely on local flexibility and targeting. I think you can be so flexible locally that you end up with not much of anything. We need to see something developed out of HRDC that establishes a benchmark or some objectives whereby these programs can be properly measured.

That's sort of a general question, but I think it is very troubling, given that you are the lead department. I hope you would agree with that. I would think you are the lead department for employment equity for all of Canada.

Á (1120)

Mr. Phil Jensen: First, I gave a bit of history of the evolution of the department's programming for good reason. Governments over the last 50 or 60 years have tried to deal with issues of poverty and exclusion. As I said, some of the issues exist in groups outside the employment equity groups, such as the homeless, youth, and so on. The government's objective over that period of time evolved in that context.

That said, I think it is probably fair to say the government has used more than one model to try to get at the employment equity groups. We've used targeted programming with aboriginal peoples. We have targeted programming with persons with disabilities--in fact, I would say considerable targeted programming.

The statistics and the analysis around women has shown that there have been significant improvements in some areas—not all, but in some areas—over the last few years. The government has introduced many things to its programming. In part I of the Employment Insurance Act, which I didn't talk about today, there were significant changes to parental leave and maternity benefits made within the last year that were of benefit to women.

The issue of how much flexibility you leave on the local ground and when you bring in a national program is one on which there is a lot of debate. At what stage do you try to build it into your overall objectives and go from there? What we told you today is that in our agreements with the broad-based programming, we did try to build objectives in here. We're going to have to see how that worked.

What you talked about—putting in benchmarks to measure programs, and so on—is certainly a possibility that could come out of these evaluations and discussions with our third-party delivery partners. There's an active debate, if you will, in the “programming community”, for lack of a better term, about how much you depend on targets versus how much you depend on education and local flexibility.

Ms. Libby Davies: Surely it has to be all of those things. After 16 years, I don't see anything in this material that would leave us with a sense of confidence that the department has overall objectives, goals, targets—if you want to use “targets”—where we can see clearly that employment equity measures are being furthered within the department. There is just nothing here.

I have to say I find that very disturbing. Is this department meeting the act at all, in terms of the way it delivers its programs? If you can't demonstrate that, how can we expect anybody else to live up to the spirit and intent of the act?

Mr. Phil Jensen: We do have targets and objectives, as I say, built into our regional plans where we deliver directly; it's built into the objectives of the LMDAs.

Whether we want to go to specific targets with the provincial governments is an open issue. When this has been discussed with them in the past, not all of them have believed targets are the way to go. It has been our experience that there's no consensus on this, frankly. I think the issue is going to have to play itself out.

For targets in the private sector, it's the same issue. For federally regulated industries, and so on, there's no consensus of views on whether education and helping companies is better, or whether targets are.

Ms. Libby Davies: But it is a very key part of the act. The act talks about the need to establish targets based on the workforce analysis that's being done. Otherwise, how do you figure them out? Either you have a representative workforce or, in your case here, your programs are being delivered in such a way that they ensure they're inclusionary and not exclusionary, based on the target groups. I don't know how else you would do it.

The Chair: We have to end that particular round.

Mr. Tonks, and then Mr. Solberg, and then we wrap up.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I'm sorry I missed part of your deputation and I'm sorry if you've covered some of this.

I'd like to pursue my colleague's last question and also Madame Folco's.

If I could just concentrate on visible minorities, in the chart you have provided, if I were to try to develop a storyline with respect to these statistics, visible minorities in 1997-98 were participating more in programs available to them than they ultimately were in the 1998-99 period. There was a participation lag, and it has not yet come up to the point where there's a participation that is in keeping with a few years ago.

If you look at the programs you have on the next page—and I'm concentrating on those two pages because they happen to be next—persons with disabilities are much below the targets we've set. In regard to those programs for persons with disabilities, have they been evaluated with respect to their participation rates, their success rates? And is there any analysis coming out of this that would come back from the department saying there is something that works, there is a community-based program that is a partnership with companies and fits the mission statement? Is there a strategic response coming back from HRDC based on that?

I think it's equally a question that could be asked with respect to other categories, but I will concentrate on that one.

Á (1125)

Mr. Phil Jensen: Of course.

I believe, sir, you missed the first part of my presentation.

One thing I did say about the data here is that we found there is significant under-reporting by the designated groups—not women, but the other three. As a result, we've made some data revisions, which will be coming out publicly in a while, that will probably increase most of these categories a fair bit. But it's my guess that your point is still valid. It will not increase persons with disabilities up to their workforce representation, nor visible minorities.

What I'm trying to say is what we can conclude from the numbers there is somewhat limited. We feel we can conclude more from the evaluations, which is actually the second part of your question. We've had a recent evaluation of the persons with disabilities program, the Opportunities Fund, which found that it's a pretty strong evaluation. It's pretty positive.

This is a program that does have a lot of flexibility at the local level, does work in partnership with NGOs and community organizations around the country. And those two reasons were found to be a large part of its success.

But the issues with workforce integration, particularly for persons with disabilities, are very complex. For instance, sometimes there are physical issues, as you know, in terms of accommodation and devices that need to be purchased. There are attitude and cultural issues with the private sector in terms of how much they believe this is going to disrupt the workplace. There's a whole series of things that have to be overcome.

On the individual side, because these individuals often require, if you will, more than one step up until they actually get in the job, there's usually a series of interventions required. This is why the government has decided to go forward with this comprehensive labour market strategy, to try to bring all this stuff together, because it is a very complicated issue. There's no doubt about it.

So I think on persons with disabilities we have a sense of what works. It's more bringing it together that's the issue.

On the aboriginal programming, we're in the process of doing evaluations over the next year or two, and we'll know what the results are for them then.

Our preliminary findings are fairly positive. We have a fairly large number of aboriginal clients back to work and have served quite a few more. The statistical results are positive.

But we'll have to wait on the third group, visible minorities, to see what the evaluations say.

I think if I were to conclude what I'm saying, it's that there's only a certain amount of limited public policy determinations you can make from the raw numbers because the issues are so complicated. There are many aspects to them. We're sharing them with you today because I think it does give an indication of some of the issues we face in regard to doing programming, in regard to these groups. But it's an iterative process, and we'll learn stuff from the evaluations, which we'll feed into our programming and then learn more things. They will have to be adjusted over time.

This is the natural way we'll—

Mr. Alan Tonks: Well, just--

Á (1130)

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, it has to be very brief and Mr. Jensen has to keep his reply very short.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I was just going to say something in response to that.

Suppose you find that the Opportunities Fund works best in spite of all those nuances and that you do find there's slippage out of that fund because of the lack of backup for companies—never mind attitude issues—with respect to devices and so on that would keep that person employed. Would it not be a strategic coupling, if you will, to make sure that program is funded and it has other program funding?

Mr. Phil Jensen: Yes, and those are the types of issues we would look at in the labour market.

Mr. Alan Tonks: The other thing is, when you don't have a labour market agreement, for example in the province of Ontario, how do you accommodate that?

Mr. Phil Jensen: We deliver directly and we talk to the province. We talk to the community groups. Even in provinces where we have labour market agreements, they aren't made in isolation. We have a management committee that meets with the Province of Quebec, and we have a management committee that meets with the Province of Alberta, which are our two big, if you will, devolved regions, ones where we have devolved.

The delivery of federal programming isn't done in the abstract. We test the programs for similarity. They have to be using the money for labour market programming and on programming similar to ours, and they produce the results for us. We have fairly extensive relations with the Provinces of Quebec and Alberta in terms of the results.

There are differences at first sight, but how much it plays out on the ground, I don't know. I'm not convinced there's a huge amount of difference. The labour market programming is still going to the Canadians who need it, albeit maybe by a different agency in different places.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jensen. You had two questions, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to switch gears here and ask a couple of fairly specific questions about the aboriginal human resources development strategy. According to your slides, you say you've served about 65,000 clients in the last couple of years. Should I take from the deck that you would have used about $700 million out of the $1.6 billion to do that? Is that correct?

Mr. Phil Jensen: Yes.

Mr. Monte Solberg: And what percentage of those 65,000 people went back into the workforce?

Mr. Phil Jensen: I don't have the figures here; we'll have to ride that forward. I think it's about a third. There are 20-odd thousand who got immediate full-time employment.

An issue with—I've talked about this before—disadvantaged groups is that individuals often require more than one intervention to get into the workforce. The typical example we have in the aboriginal area is that we probably have a youth who's in his early twenties, has maybe a grade 8 or 9 education, has no life skills, and is very angry at society. We can't just march him into an interview. There's a whole series of things that have to be done, and that takes a certain amount of time. So with, if you will, marginalized or disadvantaged groups there's a longer time lag between your interventions and actually getting them into the labour market.

I believe the numbers are about a third, but Sylvie will send the exact results to the committee within the next day or two.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Just along the same lines, I'm looking in this document here, and on page 31 there's a reference to 4,286 aboriginal clients returning to work through the AHRDAs, which is a big increase over previous years, a 60% increase. First of all, what are those numbers, and then second, how do you explain the better results?

Á (1135)

Mr. Phil Jensen: The first point I'd make is that this is a big under-reporting because this just deals with the EI-eligible clients. We're going to see somewhere in the 20-odd thousand, because a lot of aboriginal people have been out of the workforce for quite a while and therefore aren't eligible to collect EI because they've never paid into it. This figure is just the EI clients.

The reason there is a big increase between the two years is that the first year represents the setting up of the aboriginal human resource development agreements with the aboriginal groups. I mentioned there are 69 of them. There was a certain amount of set-up time and cost that occurred, so they really got into full swing, if you will, for lack of a better term, only in their second year, and the results are better. It took them a while to get going.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Just so I understand, the Development Sector Council would typically be made up of the federal government, a native band council somewhere, and the private sector. Is that the idea?

Mr. Phil Jensen: Well, the sector council is similar to the other sectoral councils the department has. You may be aware we have sectoral councils for autos, mining, etc.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Right.

Mr. Phil Jensen: I can't remember how many we have.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Textiles.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Exactly. We have a large number of them. This is the one for aboriginal people. It's not a business line so much; it's more, if you will, a section of society. But their role is very similar to the textile council's or the oil and gas council's. It's just for aboriginal people.

How would it work? Let's take the situation—because this is a place where it has occurred—in Alberta. In the oilsands, Syncrude and Suncor have made a lot of links with our ARDA holders in Alberta, which are Treaty 6, Treaty 7, and Treaty 8, plus the Métis Nation of Alberta. Those are the four big AHRDA holders in Alberta.

The Aboriginal Human Resources Development Council will try to come in and also make some links on some special projects, perhaps with some aboriginal people from Saskatchewan or other places. The links with the major private sector are furthered by the sectoral council, and it operates similarly to the other sectoral councils. It's into education, and so on.

The first year, the sectoral council did quite a bit on education, on diversity. But they're at the stage where they say, “That job's done. Everybody knows diversity is important; the private sector does. Let's move on to job two, which is actually making the connections to get people employed.”

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jensen, before you leave, I have just one question.

You talked about the local delivery of programs and referred to a regional plan. Is it possible you could table the regional plan for us?

Mr. Phil Jensen: Could we consider it, Madam Chair? I'm not sure I can answer that right now.

The Chair: Okay, sure.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Some of these plans are at the local office level. Can we respond to that at the same time we get back to you on the aboriginal issue?

The Chair: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Phil Jensen: Very good.

The Chair: We'll leave that with you.

Thank you. That will end this round of presentations. I thank you for coming and appreciate your frankness in the answer and response.

The next group of presenters will just move to the table. We won't suspend; we'll bring the next group up as quickly as we can.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Madame Chair, while they are setting up, I would like to ask you a question. We sent a letter to the minister asking for a response on the rehabilitation centre for the disabled. We were expecting an answer this week. Have we received anything? Do you remember that letter?

[English]

The Chair: I remember the letter. I have not received one in my office and I don't think the clerk has one. I will leave that with the—

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Can we make sure we get a response this week, please? We were told we would get a response this week. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I certainly will raise the issue again with the minister.

Madame Guay, you received the one from Mr. Serson, though, did you? We received a response for his, and I know the clerk was distributing that one. You might want to check your file, if you haven't got Mr. Serson's response.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes, but we have not had any word from the minister. A civil servant will not do. I want the minister to respond.

[English]

The Chair: I want to thank the deputants for moving to the table with such record speed. I know I'm not giving you much time to get your notes together and your translation devices in place.

We have four groups with us for this round. This will end at approximately 1 p.m. I'm going to ask you to do everything within your power to keep your comments to the five minutes the clerk has allowed. You may find I start to get a little fidgety and start looking in your direction. That means you've exceeded your five minutes, and I might be turning off your mike.

The first group we have with us are representing Women in Trades and Technology National Network. Perhaps I could have you introduce yourselves and start off.

Á (1140)

Ms. Kathryn Running (Employment Equity Contract Consultant, Women in Trades and Technology National Network): My name is Kathryn Running. I'm a contract consultant who works for Women in Trades and Technology. This is my colleague, Kim Leslie.

Women in Trades and Technology National Network is a national cross-sectoral council, so it's one of the 26 sector councils supported by HRDC's commitment to a sectoral approach to addressing labour force issues. WITTNN specifically addresses issues affecting women working in or seeking work in trades, technology operations, and blue-collar work, including the new technologies, across both industry and sector lines. It provides support and advocacy on behalf of its members and local and provincial WITTNN affiliates.

WITTNN has provided briefs to the Bill C-64 review processes, both in 1991 and in 1996, and is pleased to take part in this third five-year review of the act.

A brief look at women's participation in trades and technology occupations across Canada shows that employed women are still significantly under-represented in the following industries: construction, fishing and trapping, logging, forestry, mining, quarrying, oil wells, transportation, communication and other utilities, manufacturing, and agriculture. Employed women are most significantly under-represented in the construction sector, with participation rates of only 12.2%.

In the trades and technology-related industries the participation of women in trades and technology occupations is only 10%, compared to 58% for men. Across all industries the participation of women in trades and technology occupations drops to only 5%, compared to 26% for men. Provincial participation patterns of employed women are comparable to the national patterns.

The rest of my presentation will highlight some of the key recommendations we have put forward in our more detailed brief, which you have in both French and English, I believe. These recommendations focus on increasing the number and types of employers covered by the act. They focus on increasing the coverage of the federal contractors program and they focus on increasing the powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Lastly, they call for a national employment equity strategy.

First of all, in terms of increasing coverage of the act, WITT supports the inclusion under the act of all federally regulated businesses with 15 or more employees. The reason for this is that we know much of the new economy is driven by small and medium-sized employers, and women have historically faced barriers to access to employment within male-dominated industries regardless of company size. Having the act only cover larger employers maintains the inequity that exists.

In terms of changes to the federal contractors program, WITT supports the expansion of the federal contractors program to incorporate any company with 15 or more employees and supports lowering the contract threshold amount to 50,000 from the current 100,000. WITT also supports the expansion of the federal contractors program to include construction contractors and subcontractors, and as I said just a couple of minutes ago, the construction industry remains one of the main industries in this country where women continue to face significant barriers in terms of access and retention.

While some of the money flowing through the training programs put on by the Canadian Construction Association and its affiliates is accessed by women, the success rate in terms of accessing ongoing apprenticeships and/or employment is very low. Without holding the construction industry accountable to the requirements of the federal contractors program or the Employment Equity Act, the inequality within this industry is bound to remain. Women make up only 12.2% of all the employees within the construction sector, and within the trades and technological occupations the percentage is less than 5%.

Another key area is access to apprenticeship. Access to apprenticeship opportunities continues to remain a serious concern for women working or seeking employment in trades and technology occupations. Substantial systemic barriers still exist for women in large-scale resource-based industries, including but not limited to mining, oil, and gas. Millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars flow to various infrastructure projects across the country, but women continue to lack access to much of these training and employment enhancement dollars.

With respect to HRDC grants and contribution agreements, federal grant and contribution recipients with 15 or more employees should be subject to a process similar to the federal contractors program. Training programs, job creation programs, and other labour force development initiatives funded through HRDC need enforceable employment equity provisions. The currently vague HRDC EE policy guidelines are not sufficient and are often not enforced. I think this is often because either HRDC employees themselves are not aware of their department's policies in this regard or they don't have the knowledge and skills to facilitate and monitor employment equity initiatives. While they're responsible for millions of dollars in grants and contribution agreements, the active policies and requirements of HRDC in this regard are lacking.

Á (1145)

WITTNN supports the development of a national employment equity strategy mandated by legislation. This strategy should be developed in partnership with national reference groups for each of the designated groups. It should focus on transitions to employment and the role of HRDC's employment equity activities on the one hand and its human resources planning and public program and training initiatives on the other hand.

With regard to the last area in terms of resolution of employment discrimination findings, we believe that section 22 of the act that disallows a human rights complaint to trigger an employment equity audit process should be changed. The Canadian Human Rights Commission should be able to provide complaints information to employment equity audit officers. All clauses in the act that prevent information gathered during an audit process from being used as a basis for complaints should be amended. Workplace information gleaned through compliance review processes and human rights complaints investigations should be shared with a goal towards eliminating workplace discrimination.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Our next presentation will be from Jérôme Di Giovanni.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni (Director General, Comité d'adaptation de la main d'oeuvre pour personnes handicapées): Hello everyone. My name is Jérôme Di Giovanni and I am the Director General of the Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre pour personnes handicapées du Quebec. This is a sectoral committee for disabled persons in Quebec, which has a policy of sectoral intervention. As with the federal government, Quebec has established sectoral committees in the various sectors of economic activity. For target clienteles, it has created the Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre pour personnes handicapées.

Thank you for inviting us. First, I would like to tell you what I will not talk to you about. This is not because the subjects are not important; it's that, for employment equity to truly have an effect on the systematic exclusion of disabled persons, a series of conditions must be set. I will not talk about these, not because they are not important, but because the topics are technical in nature, and would have to be addressed at another level.

I will not talk to you about increasing the responsibility of the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding employment equity, even if this is very important. I will not talk to you about labour market statistics even if this is important for disabled persons, particularly the Canadian Census statistics, the labour market statistics, which do not include disabled persons, and the monthly income security statistics.

I will not talk to you either about the method used to implement an employment equity program: resources analysis, employment system analysis, availability analysis. All this is important, but for employment equity to work for disabled persons, certain conditions are required for it to succeed.

For employment equity to become a tool for planned organizational change, within the context of a workforce that is equitably planned to include disabled persons--I am happy that the women's group talked about elements that I will also address to demonstrate how systemic the problem has become--, it would be important for the Government of Canada, including all political parties, independently of their political ideologies, implement a workforce and employment development strategy for disabled persons. It doesn't really matter whether we call them disabled persons or persons with functional limitations, it is important to establish a workforce and employment development strategy for disabled persons or persons with functional limitations.

What should such a strategy include? First, recognition that deficiency has the effect of systemically excluding disabled persons from the labour market, either at the program access level, or at the level of access to training. This leads to excluding people with a functional limitation or deficiency. It would be important for the government to recognize this in all of its policies, programs and services. If not, in ten years we will look at the employment equity data and find that we have not made any progress, and perhaps that we have lost some terrain.

The second element for such a strategy is that this recognition should apply in all federal-provincial agreements covering the workforce and in the various programs and policies that are handled by the federal government.

The third element--I am very surprised that there is a sectoral committee for aboriginal peoples and for women, while disabled persons have been asking for their own committee for many years--is the creation of a sectoral committee for disabled persons. I think that this is not very hard to understand. This will require a decisional partnership between disabled persons' organizations, the workplace, namely employers and unions, and the government, through its human resources development department, which is responsible for workforce and employment development.

Without such a partnership and without a structured committee, fully funded for it to be able to fully intervene as a sectoral committee, the issue of employment and training for disabled persons will not be settled. This is the first essential condition for an employment equity program to truly meet its objectives.

The second condition, and it this is extremely important, is an operational policy for retraining in accordance with labour market requirements. Why aren't disabled persons identified in the workforce statistics? Because they are not trained. Why aren't they trained? Because they don't have access to the jobs. It is a vicious circle. It would be important to have an operational strategy to help disabled persons access various training programs, directly related to labour market needs. We could provide concrete examples on how this could be done. We could give the example of women in the 1960's. Without such a strategy, you will call us back in ten years, and there will have been no progress.

A third condition is the link between employment equity and the various existing programs. In our written submission, we have referred to the example of the Fonds d'intégration au travail des personnes handicapés (Disabled persons work integration fund). It would be important to link the employment equity program that companies must develop and implement, with the Fonds d'intégration au travail des personnes handicapées. This fund could be restructured and developed, however, to much better respond to the needs of disabled persons, and to the needs of companies.

Without such conditions, the Employment Equity Program will remain a toothless tiger, and we will not solve the problems of systemic exclusion of disabled persons.

I am now ready to answer your questions, I believe that my five minutes are up. Thank you.

Á (1155)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Joan Westland.

Ms. Joan Westland (Former Executive Director, Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here to add to the presentations you've already heard in previous testimony and certainly from the previous two speakers.

I'm here to represent, in part, the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work, of which I am the former executive director. I take a moment to thank CCRW for allowing me this opportunity to share some of my experience and expertise as their former executive director, and perhaps introduce their current executive director, Carole Barron, who is here observing, I think, in the transition period and wants to make sure she learns from my mistakes.

I also bring to my comments my experience as a senior adviser in the previous department, the EIC, on employment equity, and a bit of a perspective as well from serving my fifth mandate as mayor of a rural community in the province of Quebec. When I speak about the importance of all levels of government in understanding and promoting, I include municipal, provincial, as well as federal.

I don't think the Employment Equity Act as it is today needs to be tampered with too extensively. I concur with some of the previous comments on where it needs to be improved and amended, but I think this committee, even though it perhaps goes beyond your initial mandate to focus on the act itself, needs to really consider where the act is placed and what kinds of resources—or lack thereof—exist to permit anybody to achieve the kinds of objectives we claim we are working towards achieving.

If I look back to when employment equity legislation was first adopted, just to give you an example, the infrastructure within the federal government included a director general, senior advisers for each of the designated groups, and senior advisers across the country to work with communities, governments, and employers to fulfil the objectives and to see the implementation of the act come to fruition.

Within a four- to five-year period, the director general disappeared; then the director disappeared; then the senior advisers disappeared; then we had one project officer. As I said to somebody the other day, it seemed that someone walked through the department, sneezed, the dust settled, and that person was gone. If you dismantle the infrastructure, that's first of all going to have a critical impact on the capacity of people across the country to accept that government is serious about its commitment to fulfilling the obligations in employment equity, but it will also certainly impact on the capacity of people to deliver.

I believe this committee really needs to challenge HRDC and all government departments that come to you to discuss and present on various issues. This review shouldn't be restricted to the review of the Employment Equity Act; I think you need to constantly challenge on employment equity principles and the principles of access and inclusion, no matter who comes before you, and keep raising this item on the agenda so that we start to see the analysis and the review being conducted horizontally, as well as within individual departments.

More specifically, the act should not focus only on the employer's responsibility to prepare and deliver employment equity plans. I know there is a consultation process that's referred to within the act requiring some equity representative groups to be consulted, but I think we can go beyond that, if we're looking at amending the act, to insist that there be a greater participation not only in the drafting of these plans but also in their implementation.

I absolutely agree that the Employment Equity Act needs to be situated within a much broader context. I don't know whether it can be exclusively an employment equity strategic plan. I would like to see it much more located within a national labour force strategy so that we are not dealing with employment equity as if it's a separate issue from an overall labour force strategy.

Employers complain they cannot find people with disabilities with the skills they are looking for, and I would say that unfortunately, because of continued systemic barriers and a lack of access to education and employment experiences, that probably continues to be true today.

Â (1200)

However, the very organizations that exist across this country to address that issue have been systematically reduced in their resourcing, so that it becomes increasingly impossible for them to resolve this very critical situation.

I was pleased to hear from HRDC earlier this morning that they are talking about promoting long-term support programs, partnerships, and flexibility. Certainly over the many years we've been advocating for this, we've continually been responded to with words like: “We only can provide you with short-term support. We work in isolation, and there are very rigid rules that determine who is and who is not eligible for support from any of the programs.”

There is definitely a confusion around who is responsible to support training programs. Again I noted that HRDC spoke about training programs. You may be interested to note that as of July 1, 2000, the government announced that the federal government would no longer be responsible for training programs. This created chaos in the community, because you suddenly had to redraft all your projects and programs so they didn't reflect training, because, we were told, training was now the exclusive responsibility of provinces, based on the labour market agreements.

I found this interesting, given that five of the labour market agreements are co-managed, which would immediately presume the federal government still does training. One government—Ontario—as you know, doesn't have a labour market agreement. The last I heard there was a fairly significant population living in Ontario.

To block funding of programs on the basis that the federal government no longer is involved in training to me demonstrates a lack of diligence in understanding what the tools and mechanisms really require or dictate.

The other piece I think we need to remember when we're looking at employment equity—and again it is connected to my promotion of an inclusive national labour force strategy—is that the federal act covers 12% of our workforce, which means 88% is in fact covered under provincial jurisdiction. So it becomes critical, when we talk about employment equity and about labour market issues, that we engage the provincial governments in this discussion.

I know from a federal perspective that may seem to you like walking into a very difficult environment; however, every provincial government and territorial government has human rights legislation that contains within it the flexibility to implement employment equity principles. So there is a base of consensus from which we can begin a discussion. To simply throw in the towel and say, “That's provincial; we're federal,” I think really dismisses the capacity you have to enforce and promote these particular objectives.

I have to believe that if we talk about the economic health and social well-being of communities and citizens as critical to sustaining our society, it would seem self-evident that all levels of government would adopt and promote principles of inclusion and civil society.

Thank you.

The Chair: Our final presentation is from Mamadou Diop.

[Translation]

Mr. Mamadou Diop (Regions Development Officer, Comité d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre pour personnes immigrantes): Hello, everyone.

My name is Mamadu Diop and I am an immigrant from Cameroun. I am responsible for regional development and for the employment equity dossier. Thank you for the invitation. We have not made a written submission because there was little time to prepare one. We referred to the web site that was mentioned in the fax that was sent to us. We were able to gather some information regarding provisions in the Act.

I am referring to the part on equity, application and sanctions, as well as the general provisions. We are mainly working on preparing, integrating and maintaining immigrants in the work force, and especially, members of visible minorities.

Given that we work in this field, we have studied the Act more closely of late. As for equity, in terms of employer obligation, establishing rules is a positive step. We are referring to reasonable measures; we are talking about to what extent the Act may be applied. We believe that this is very important within the context where it is applied in certain programs where the same Act does not apply to the civil service, whether in government or other public organizations. We believe that it is important that both groups be subject to the same legislation.

As for equity, and employer obligation, these are called reasonable measure. This is all very well, this type of concept, but we believe that there is a problem, namely in knowing what is reasonable and what is not. What is reasonable for everyone? Do we know what is and what isn't? We believe that this is a stumbling block contained in several sections within the Act.

As for the obligation for implementing employment equity, we are told that it is not compulsory upon the employer. Several paragraphs are quoted. Paragraph d) states: “require an employer to create new positions within its workforce”. We believe that such a provision regarding an obligation is quite understandable, but may lead to interpretation, especially for employers who do not necessarily wish to be subject to the act or who are looking for loopholes.

The other point we found interesting is section 14, which states:

14. Every employer shall provide information to its employees explaining the purpose of employment equity and shall keep its employees informed about measures the employer has undertaken or is planning to undertake to implement employment equity and the progress the employer has made in implementing employment equity.

We believe that this is important, given that maintaining employment is a very complex issue. We intervene mainly in preparation and integration.

As for maintenance, we have a lot of difficulty with this. We know that excluded individuals, once hired within a program, cannot remain in these jobs. They can be hired, and fired the next day. Getting the other employers to participate is sine qua non for maintaining employment within these organizations.

I will not go into the various points that have been studied in this document, but in regard to application, I can simply state that what was written could just as well not have been put there, or could have been changed. I am referring to subsection 33(2), where the term “quota” is defined, which could very well have been put under paragraph 33(1)(e), in one simple sentence, so as to lighten the text.

As for sanctions, earlier we discussed that the Act applies to other organizations as well as the government; but in applying sanctions, these very same provisions do not apply. We find this somewhat confusing, and we ask what are the measures that apply to government organizations that are not subject to the legislation.

Â (1205)

Also, it is a question of creating programs to identify private sector employers who have especially distinguished themselves in the equity field. Recognition is a very good thing. Could such recognition also apply to government organizations?

In terms of general provisions, we believe that the Employment Equity Act is based on two essential principles, namely justice and merit. In other words, we would like to give everyone the same opportunity to qualify under the hiring process. As for the merit principle, we would like to hire only persons who are qualified. Principles such as these can only lead to long-term success.

The Employment Equity Act, however, instead of encouraging both target organizations and clientele, favours organizations more. In other words, there are clienteles that from the start, given their cultural characteristics or living conditions, are not on the same footing, because they have difficulties which lead to their not be qualified. We are referring here to the situation that exists prior to professional insertion. Overall, within this type of approach, clientele should be favoured more. It is very well to open the door, but not everyone has the key. Sometimes, there are special programs for special clienteles, and once this special client has been hired, there is resistance on the part of existing employees.

This summarizes what we have found overall. We are ready to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Â (1210)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll start our five-minute rounds of questioning with Mr. Solberg. You can begin now.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the presenters.

My first question has to do with the presentation by WITT. As I understand it, listening to what you had to say and just reading through your brief, you would like to see the program expanded to cover more federal contractors.

I admit I'm new to the committee, so I lack a lot of information. But right now my understanding is there is not a lot of auditing of federal contractors, or they are audited but the act really isn't enforced. Is that correct?

Ms. Kathryn Running: I believe there is auditing under the federal contractors program. I don't know the numbers, so don't quote me on this, but if you look over the years since it's been in place, close to zero have ever had their funds withdrawn or have ever been found not in compliance. They may have been found not in compliance but were allowed to get into compliance. So the federal contractors program is limited, in the sense of the number of contractors it holds and the enforcement mechanisms in place with it.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Right. What are the penalties? Do they just deny you the contract or fine you?

Ms. Kathryn Running: They can withdraw the contract, but in the last review that looked at the federal contractors statistics over the years, I don't believe anyone had ever had that penalty imposed.

Mr. Monte Solberg: So they just don't enforce it. Right now you're advocating it be extended to those contractors with 15 or more employees. What's the current number?

Ms. Kathryn Running: It's 100 or more and $100,000 minimum.

Mr. Monte Solberg: And it's down to $50,000.

Ms. Kathryn Running: Yes.

Mr. Monte Solberg: So that would probably take in a huge—

Ms. Kathryn Running: Yes. There are so many small and medium-sized employers in the trades and technology fields, and none of them are covered by any restrictions, in terms of getting federal dollars.

So while the program has some flaws in it, if we're trying to work with what there is, it would be to the advantage of more designated groups if the threshold were lower.

I certainly concur with what Joan Westland said, that more cooperation between the provinces and the federal government with respect to employment equity legislation is probably one of the best ways to move, because overall only 12% of the whole labour force is covered by federal EE legislation anyway.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Okay. I'm just trying to get a handle on this. If you expanded it fairly dramatically, there would have to be increased enforcement. I mean, there hasn't been any enforcement, I guess, but there would have to be people who would go out and audit these things, and follow up and do something about it. So that would be a fairly big jump in enforcement. If there were enforcement, it would be a big jump in enforcement.

Ms. Kathryn Running: Yes, and perhaps hand in hand with the other recommendation is that the whole construction industry is not regulated by federal employment equity legislation, and if we're talking about some of the better-paying jobs within the country, that's a major industry that has never been regulated in terms of having any criteria for implementing employment equity.

Â (1215)

Mr. Monte Solberg: Has the department given you any reasons why they don't enforce?

Ms. Kathryn Running: In terms of the federal contractors program and the Employment Equity Act and HRDC policy overall, I believe—and this is my opinion from different conversations—they believe much more in the approach of a carrot versus a stick, if you will. I think when the act was first put into being, the thought was that employers would respond because it was the right thing to do. Employers would respond to the principles of social and economic justice. We've learned over 15 years that that isn't necessarily so, and so the act has become more stringent over time.

So I think HRDC policy and the policy of those who do audits is more to be facilitators than police officers. Even though they have somewhat of a policing or a monitoring function, I think the facilitative approach is the one that is preferred by the departments in charge of auditing these kinds of processes. So they will help and prod people to come into compliance, and they'll give a fair bit of time to do that. By the time it comes around to the second audit, it's years later.

Mr. Monte Solberg: Probably they would be concerned too that if they were too stringent, they would have to apply the same standards to themselves to some degree.

I have just one question.

The Chair: We'll get to it on the second round.

Mr. Monte Solberg: All right.

The Chair: Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair. I would like to thank you for being here. Your comments will help us in producing report.

I have a question for everyone. We have often heard that there is a problem with self-identification. We hear that this creates a problem in relations and perhaps there is discrimination. This morning, I heard Ms. Guay talk about this as well. We could change the name for certain target groups.

I would like to know what you think, and what your recommendations are on this subject, to get an idea of what we could do. Would simply changing the names improve things, or should we consider other factors?

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: I will answer. The first problem with self-identification is that people have to recognize that employment equity is a serious program, that will be implemented. There also has to be a strategy that establishes that when people self-identify, they will not fear being branded as disabled persons, as persons who have a functional limitation or persons with a deficiency, and this will be used to exclude them from the labour market. This is extremely important.

In fact, there has to be, with Human Resources Development Canada as well as with companies who must implement the employment equity program, there has to be a clear commitment, expressed, and organizational so that self-identification will not be used to exclude people. This establishes a feeling of trust, and it is a clear message that must be transmitted by this government regarding employment equity. it is used to exclude people, one way or another, measures will have to be taken to constrain this.

We can be identified as persons who are disabled, or with functional limitations. Yes, the terminology is important to a certain extent, but there is everything that comes with it, that is, the entire history behind systemic exclusion. This is why I stated earlier that we need a workforce and employment development strategy within which we recognize that in the past, a person with a disability has been excluded from the labour market. We have to take corrective action, and establish policies and programs to rectify the situation.

[English]

Ms. Joan Westland: I agree with Jérôme that you need to have some anti-reprisal clause in the legislation to provide some confidence to people that discrimination won't be experienced. But I also would caution you about thinking that merely counting the number of people will reflect the success or failure of employment equity.

To sustain employment equity advances--certainly for people with disabilities--we have to see significant changes within the workplace environment itself. It isn't just a matter of employers asking themselves if they have one, two, three, or ten people; it's whether they have accessible and inclusive workplace environments from an architectural perspective as well as a policy perspective. Otherwise whatever advances are made can't be sustained.

If an employer hires someone who's deaf, for example, and purchases a TTY, as soon as that deaf person goes to another workplace, the TTY goes into the desk drawer because it isn't needed any more. The workplace doesn't demonstrate a concept of inclusion.

Be cautious about promises from people or departments who say they're going to redefine and undertake a different analysis so that their numbers go up and this then is meant to demonstrate their success. We need to look at a much larger picture in dealing with systemic issues.

Â (1220)

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: In the case of women, for example, there were structural, organizational and legislative changes when they started to join the labour market in massive numbers in the 1960's and 1970's. We're not claiming that all problems have been solved—my colleague here could expound at length on the various elements involved in exclusion—but there have been changes. Currently, in the collective agreements there are clauses and even complete sections on parental leave and maternity leave. These are changes in human resources management that send a very clear message. The Employment Insurance Act has been modified to allow a woman to leave the labour market when she is pregnant. This is a legislative and program change. It is structural, and a very clear message has been sent regarding the workforce. Changes in the provincial legislation on occupational health and safety regarding the female workforce is an example of what we want to do. We can refer to other such examples. These are the kinds of changes we want to implement.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I agree with you regarding a strategy, but changing mentalities is a long-term endeavour. To re-establish a certain level of confidence—

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: We're not saying this is going to happen from one day to the next. This is an exclusion that has occurred over generations. There is no magic solution, and it will not happen overnight.

[English]

The Chair: Your time is up; it was up before we began the second bit.

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for coming here to meet with us. Again, the witnesses appearing before us enrich our reflection. You will certainly be helping us in making major recommendations to modify the current Act.

You were saying, Ms. Westland, and rightly so, that there shouldn't be any quotas. This is where employment equity legislation can be a problem. The employer should not feel absolutely obligated to hire a disabled person just to respect the law. On the contrary, it would be detrimental to the employee, and I am convinced that the person would not remain in his job for very long. It's the same thing for quotas with women and aboriginals. We have discussed this also at length. There are regions in Canada where there are major aboriginal communities where companies hire more aboriginals than in other regions where there are few aboriginals. We can't have a wall to wall policy. You are right in saying that it is a long-term endeavour.

You referred to women and legislation where there were fundamental changes to the mentality, but the fact that there are more women in politics also contributes to changing mentalities. I hope that we will have more people from the cultural communities, disabled persons, who will go become members of parliaments to further their cause.

This being said, I have three quick questions for any one of you who believes she or he can respond.

This idea has been raised by various witnesses. What would you think about a commission or independent commissioner to implement the Act? We have been told that currently, it is very long and arduous. When people submit a complaint, processing the complaint can take two or three years. We are not able to monitor all companies to ensure that they are correctly applying the legislation. So there was a proposal addressing this issue.

Second, we were also told that the unions should play a much greater role in applying the legislation. The unions have told us that they agree and that they are ready to do so. I would like to hear your opinion on this.

Ms. Westland, you spoke earlier about a national strategy. You say that the provinces should adopt similar legislation. Quebec has its pay equity legislation. I hope that the other provinces will follow, but we don't really have any power in that regard.

You spoke earlier about an anti-reprisal cause. I would like you to explain what you mean by this.

Â (1225)

Mr. Mamadou Diop: Regarding your first question, or what has been proposed, this could be a very good idea on condition, as I stated earlier, that the Act and its application apply equally and at the same time to individuals for organizations. Currently, regulatory obligations target organizations. The Act stipulates what employers must do, and as for individuals

What are we doing to give them the same abilities as other people, especially regarding immigrants or members of visible minorities, who sometimes have difficulties in passing certain exams or tests? What is being done to put the emphasis on organizations and employers as well as individuals who, prior to being hired, have the same opportunities as everyone else, but are not as well equipped? This is the reality for our clientele. If this commission could work on this issue, I think that it would be a big step toward successful application of the Act.

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: If I understood correctly, this would be a commissioner that would handle complaints; I don't think that this is the solution. I think that we already have an organization that handles complaints, namely, the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It has to have the tools and the resources. If you set up a commission, it will need the resources to handle investigations and analyses. The problem, however, is still the same: will there be sufficient resources for this investigatory commission to fully accomplish its role? I believe that instead of duplicating, we should consolidate what we have. Consolidation, therefore, consists of truly providing the necessary resources to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As for unions, and this will be extremely important, the workplace has two partners: the employer and the union. When we create an employment equity program, this has a series of implications, and especially impacts on organizational integration. An employment equity program does not solely impact on hiring; it also affects promotion, professional mobility within the company and its training policies. I think that if there is a union within the company, it must be involved in the development, implementation and empowerment to meet objectives, because this will affect how seniority will be applied.

I would like to refer to the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Renaud, where an employee tried to modify his work schedule to comply with his religious beliefs. The union refused to support the decision; the employer accepted. The Supreme Court stated that there was a tripartite responsibility: the employee, the employer and the union. Yes the union has to be involved. If not, then there will be no progress.

[English]

The Chair: Please be very brief as we are well over the time.

Ms. Joan Westland: Okay. I just wanted to respond to your last question, which was on quotas, if I understood it.

I'm going back to the same point again that to understand employment equity you have to go beyond numbers. It's a philosophical understanding about trying to promote inclusive and diverse workplaces. A very clear example of this is when employers start to understand that there are benefits to implementing these inclusion and employment equity principles in their workplaces, that there really are benefits for l'ensemble de la population. That's when you see the employer start to move forward.

When employers understand that wider doorways on a house mean the fridge can be moved into the kitchen—and if someone in a wheelchair happens to follow along behind, that's fine—that's when they start to understand the bigger picture and how it has to be more than just how many people they've hired or how many people are going to use a ramp they've put in.

As long as we stay focused on that element exclusively and call it “quotas” or “benchmarks” or whatever, we're still not going to have an infrastructure that sustains the kind of change that needs to be sustained in order to see long-term change.

Thank you.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to welcome the witnesses. In seeing Mr. Di Giovanni and Ms. Westland, especially, I get the feeling that these are old friends at the table. Everywhere I go, I am followed by these two individuals, especially Mr. Di Giovanni; we have known each other for years.

I have two comments. First, I have a small comment regarding the difference between the Quebec government's pay equity program and the federal government program. The Quebec government program addresses the cultural communities, which the federal program does not. In this context, the federal government addresses only what we refer to as the visible minorities. I only wanted to clarify this.

Second, this is why it works better for women than for the three other groups designated by the federal groups. When I was with the Quebec government, we had discussed this at length. I believe that this is a question of numbers and also a question of the important role that this group plays in society. Everyone, or almost, has a sister; everyone has a mother, and many people have or have had a wife. They are therefore linked in some way to the problems that women have experienced in getting jobs and later, in climbing the corporate ladder. Not everyone, however, is linked to a disabled person, an aboriginal person or a visible minority member. I therefore believe that these three other groups I have just named that are--I hate to use the word--truly handicapped by the fact they just don't have the numbers to constitute a sufficient force in society.

How can this be addressed? I don't really know, but I believe that there is a great difference between women, who have been more successful in breaking down the corporate barriers, notably because of the roles that they play, far from being heaven on earth, and the three other groups designated by the federal government.

I mostly have comments, and few questions.

Ms. Westland commented earlier on why we have succeeded in opening doors a little wider. Other groups have told us, last week, that the economic argument was a major argument. I would like to hear you on this, regarding the groups that you are representing here.

How can we make the economic argument? Why should companies, no matter how big or small, have designated groups within their workforce? How would this help their own company first and then the rest of Canadian society? That is my first question.

The second question is mostly addressed to Mr. Di Giovanni, who cut me off. I was about to ask him about his strategy because I was wondering how it is related to the WITT NN strategy. I would like to hear more on the sectoral committee. How would it work? If there were such a committee for disabled persons, what would you expect it to do?

Thank you.

Mme Joan Westland: Allow me to respond first to your economic question.

[English]

There is a very interesting thing with the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work. The employers with whom we have worked most closely and who have really embraced the notion of developing barrier-free workplaces and promoting employment of people with disabilities are employers who are not legislated under federal employment equity legislation. They are obviously employers who have discovered what the economic advantage is to have a workforce that reflects your client population or your customer population.

The interesting spinoff from that is it's very difficult to have those successful employers come forward and talk to you about their strategy, simply because they don't want their competitors to also figure out that there's some economic advantage to implementing these kinds of programs. And it's a feature that we often forget about. We think they should want to stand on a platform and be recognized and hailed for their great advances, but in fact they're rather reluctant to discuss in front of competitors what some of their success strategies have been in this area.

We certainly have put forward the obvious demographics and the dollars attached to that, but when the fundamental problem is still attitudinal and when there are systemic issues in place that require changes in policies, all of that seems to be way too cumbersome and burdensome to address. That adds to the perception that employment for people with disabilities is expensive, difficult, awkward, and takes too much time. It's much easier to try to look for another representative part of the population.

As well, I think in terms of the economic question, when we talk about reflecting the population in which you live, people with disabilities, unless they're in an institution, don't live in the disability community. So there isn't a sector of town where you could put your bank and say, well, I'll hire people with disabilities and all of the people living in this community are going to come and bank in my bank. There's that visibility within the population that also gets challenged when you talk about numbers and percentages and whether or not it's going to have an impact on your bottom line or your profit margin.

Â (1235)

Ms. Kathryn Running: I want to concur with what Ms. Westland said. In Ontario we used to have an employment equity act that was short-lived. But during the time that it was there, there were employers who went into compliance kicking and screaming but who came out at the end as being some of the best advocates for employment equity, because they realized that it made sense to hire the best people for the jobs, which is what employment equity is all about.

WITT has developed a number of workshops on employment equity and diversity. One of the workshops that perhaps is received the best is one that talks about the business case for diversity. What we have done there is talk to a number of companies that have realized the benefits of diversity from an economic point of view--how it affects the bottom line--and will share that information with other employers who are more hesitant to embrace employment equity and diversity because they see it only as a cost item--that it's going to cost them to put in new policies and ways of being--and don't see the economic spinoffs. But certainly when we can have the opportunity to communicate that information to various employers, then they do start to change their ways.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: As for accommodation, adaptation and employment equity, it must be understood that when it is well implemented, the Employment Equity Program is a tool for workforce planning and organizational change within a company. When it is improperly implemented, it becomes a grab-bag.

Second, regarding costs and accommodation, I would like to give you some examples taken from daily life. When you move about within a building, what do you do. What do you take? You take the elevator. This is an example of accommodation. There is accommodation because going from the lobby to another floor with your bags, your cases, and boxes, is all very exhausting. Physically, it is impossible to do. This is an example of accommodation.

When we increase public transportation services during rush hour in a city to allow people to get from their residence to their workplace, and back, this is accommodation. People who live in the suburbs and work downtown have to take the bus, their car or the subway. This is accommodation. I would like to see get to work on foot. This is also accommodation. What I am trying to illustrate here, is that there are all kinds of accommodation and this has become quite normal. This has to be seen from the same perspective regarding disabled persons.

Changes made to collective agreements due to the massive entry by women onto the labour market are an example of accommodation of human resources management policies. If we compare the situation to what existed in 1940, 1950 and 1960, there has been quite a change. This is accommodation. The Employment Insurance Act, which allows women—

Â (1240)

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, we're going to have to accommodate Ms. Davies.

I will give each of you a minute at the end to wrap up, and if there's something you weren't able to answer, you can do it then.

Thank you.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

I know that time is running short, so I just have three brief questions, following up on Madame Folco's. I think it's very important to get information that shows the positive economic impact of employment diversity and equity. So if you have reports like the one you mentioned from Ontario, or other reports that show what a positive impact it has on the workplace from the employer's point of view, from a business point of view, they would be very helpful for us in dealing with arguments. Maybe you could table those documents or send them to us.

I have a quick question on the WITT brief. Your first five recommendations deal with fairly significantly expanding the program to grants or contributions, federal contractors down to 15 from 100, and a couple of other minor ones.

I don't know if you have an estimate on what we'd be looking at there, but I wonder if it's possible for research to give us an idea of what that would mean. I would think that anything impacting the grants and contributions would be pretty major. I support the idea, in principle, but I think we need to know what that would mean in terms of how many additional employers it would bring, and so on. So if you have more info on that, you could help us there.

Second is your recommendation 11 on a national employment equity strategy—I know Ms. Westland had a similar recommendation—and I think you called it a labour market strategy. We heard from HRDC earlier, and it seems evident to me anyway that they don't really have any such program.

I just wonder if the other witnesses agree with the idea that we should be looking to broaden or add on to the Employment Equity Act by saying there should be a further review on a national employment equity strategy, so we're covering the workplace generally. You can have your sectoral committees and all of that, but I imagine it will be pretty tough going to chip away a little bit at a time, particularly if there's no overall framework to attach it to.

If the others could comment on that, it would be helpful as well.

Finally, to tell you the truth, I did not understand recommendations 9 and 10 from WITT. You said you could not file a complaint if you were using information that was gathered for compliance. It just sounded so illogical, and I wonder if somebody could explain that.

The Chair: Maybe WITT can start.

Ms. Kathryn Running: Sure.

I agree with what Ms. Westland said about having a national overall labour force strategy and, within that, an employment equity strategy. That makes the most sense, to have an overall labour force development strategy in which employment equity is included. I think the need for vast expansion of coverage for the act, and the various pieces under the act, including recommendation 3, which talks about federal grants and contributions recipients being subject to a similar process, is because... And it follows from some of the discussion earlier about how now that the training has devolved to the provinces, there seem to be way fewer controls, and there's less ability even for national organizations such as WITT and other NGOs to ever make an impact to get employment equity on the table. Instead of negotiating with one department, you're now negotiating with 12, 13 different groups to try to get employment equity on the table.

So if the federal government is going to hand out money through grants and contribution agreements, whether they be to provincial training coffers or to national associations, the recipients of those training dollars should be accountable for employment equity. That's the main basis of recommendation 3.

In terms of the latter recommendations, the confusing ones, 9 and 10, my understanding is that the audit process for employment equity and human rights complaints about discrimination in the workplace are dealt with separately. For example, if somebody lays a human rights complaint, that can't trigger the audit process. The human rights officer investigating that particular complaint can't say, wow, this organization really needs to have its whole employment equity reviewed. They're separate and distinct.

Similarly, if you're doing an employment equity audit and you uncover massive discrimination, systemic and individual discrimination cases—perhaps because as you're doing your process people come forward and tell you about it—that can't switch over to a human rights avenue of complaint. So the two processes, auditing and complaints, are separate.

Â (1245)

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay. What about recommendation 10? You're saying “that prevent information gathered”. Do you mean through--

Ms. Kathryn Running: I'm saying the clauses that do prevent that should be eliminated. There are clauses in the act that clearly say this information cannot overlap. It's probably written in a confusing fashion, but basically what it's saying is that now there are clauses that say you can't transfer information from this department to that department. We're saying get rid of that. Allow the cooperation. Allow the Human Rights Commission to do its job. Allow the employment equity auditors to do their job. And instead of reinventing more and more work, pass that information back and forth

If our goal is to rid ourselves of discrimination, then let's make it easier to do that, as opposed to making it more bureaucratic, which is the way it is now.

The Chair: Very briefly, Mr. Di Giovanni.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: She asked if we agreed with Ms. Westland's proposal for a national strategy. We spoke about a workforce and employment strategy for disabled persons because we put the emphasis on this. We totally agree on the idea of a national strategy, but it would have to include a disabled persons component, including a sectoral committee for disabled persons.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Solberg.

Mr. Monte Solberg: I'll be very brief; I have to leave soon.

Since the Employment Equity Act was first introduced many years ago, its focus has changed quite dramatically. When it came into being, and I think Ms. Westland actually pointed this out, it seemed there was going to be a big emphasis on actively pursuing--sort of enforcing--the Employment Equity Act, ensuring that federal contractors had to abide by it, for instance.

Now the focus seems to have changed completely. There's much more of a focus on education and on helping people with disabilities get education--these kinds of things.

I want to be honest with you. I have big trouble with the Employment Equity Act. I've always felt there were problems with it. But I do acknowledge that there have to be some things done to promote education, both for the people who need education to get a job and for the people doing the hiring. Although most of the conversation today has been around how we can make people aware of the challenges faced by the different identified groups, I'm still hearing from WITT NN a push for the enforcement side of the act.

I have to ask whether or not that's realistic. I'm not sure there's the will in the government to go in that direction or we would have seen it by now. There may be a consensus forming that the best way to help is to try to provide education the best way we can in those two areas I've mentioned, to continuously pursue this and put the resources into it as well.

It's hard to push a rope uphill, but I have a sense that this may be what's happening with enforcement, and that more businesses now are also coming to a consensus that the focus needs to be on education.

Â (1250)

Ms. Kathryn Running: I certainly see the benefit in having a focus on education. While our brief certainly highlights strengthening the enforcement end of the act, Women in Trades and Technology National Network is very much in support of expanding and making more accessible whatever education and labour force development training dollars are out there.

Part of the problem is that Human Resources Development Canada has no national labour force development strategy, and certainly no employment equity strategy that might have been subsumed within it. It does have an employment equity policy. One of the workshops we were funded to develop was specifically for HRDC consultants on employment equity, but HRDC has not contracted us to deliver it.

Employer education is needed. More dollars need to be flowing to the designated groups--not just women, but all the designated groups. There are all kinds of examples of how the training programs funded by EI dollars are disproportionately accessed by different groups.

Take a young married couple as an example. Let's say the husband has worked as a forklift driver for a few years but gets laid off. He can draw employment insurance and access high-tech computer courses that are fully paid for through those EI dollars, and have family support dollars, etc. His wife, who has had two babies and works at home, now wants to go out and work in the labour force. She doesn't have any chance of accessing that same training program, even though they are the same age and in every other way. The only difference is that one had EI because he was a forklift driver and the other didn't get anything because she chose to have kids.

That's just one example. There are hundreds of examples.

Ms. Libby Davies: She worked part-time.

Ms. Kathryn Running: Whether she worked part-time or not, she didn't qualify. There are millions of dollars being spent on training and development initiatives not being accessed by women, visible minorities, aboriginal people, and persons with a disability.

Certainly, if all those training dollars went in those directions, it would be fine to drop all the policing elements of the act, because they don't really work very well and they create a lot of backlash. You're right.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Guay, please be very brief.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I don't agree at all with my colleague. I think that we need strong legislation, legislation that has teeth. If we have an Act, it's because there is a need somewhere, but we must ensure that it is inclusive and not exclusive. We must find the means to make it inclusive and friendly. There is a lot of work to be done. As for education, I'm sorry, but it is a provincial jurisdiction. I think that it is done in certain provinces, but it will be up to each one of them to take the necessary measures for this. They can work in collaboration with Human Resources Development Canada. We have joint programs in Quebec, and it works well.

In Quebec, we are promoting non-traditional work for women. We have also promoted, through the Quebec legislation on pay equity, to invite people from the cultural communities to apply for open competitions in the Quebec public service. I think that there is a lack at the federal level in this sense. We should use what works well, and apply it here. There are enormous surpluses at Human Resources Development. We have to invest where it is necessary. We have to give our legislation some teeth.

I think that we will be giving each of you one minute for comments. Thank you very much for appearing before us. We will take your recommendations into consideration.

Â (1255)

[English]

The Chair: As Madame Guay said, I've allocated a minute, so we could start with WITT.

Ms. Kim Leslie (Past National Coordinator, Women in Trades and Technology National Network): I'd like to take a minute for me, before we get to WITT.

I do think the Employment Equity Act lacks teeth, and I do agree with Madame Guay that something has to be done. The reason there are all these barriers is because the men don't want the system to change. The old boys' network is tired of having girls coming in. When I went to refrigeration school, there wasn't a bathroom for me to use. When I got one of my first jobs and had to find overalls, I had to wear men's size 44 to fit over my breasts, and the crotch was at my knees. So reasonable accommodations are very easy to find.

The equity act needs to have more policing. I also think the idea of a national strategy is a great idea. We used to have the Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which managed to have one women's representative, and then Labour walked away from it and that was that.

So we need something to get the different equity groups involved with labour, for example, and education. It's a long and slow process, and the government has to be more involved than just the lip service the equity act supplies now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Di Giovanni.

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Di Giovanni: We need a national strategy for workforce and employment development that will include the four groups or, as we recommended in our document, will include a policy for workforce and employment development for disabled persons.

Second, it would be extremely important to have a strategy on training: this is both crucial and capital. Without this type of training, linked to labour market needs, we will not go anywhere.

Third, a sectoral committee is crucial and increasingly important. We would need one at the federal level to link all the other sectoral committees and the workforce needs.

Fourth, the Employment Equity Act is extremely important because we are just starting understand, in terms of adaptation, the whole issue of work organization.

[English]

Ms. Joan Westland: Last comments. I want to re-emphasis again the need for consensus with provincial governments and municipal government jurisdictions if we're really going to move a national labour force strategy forward. As I pointed out, provincial governments already have legislative mechanisms in place that can be pointed to. So it's not that we have to start at square one.

We also have federal, provincial, and territorial agreements, like the labour market agreements, like the transfer payments, and numerous others wherein issues around access and promotion of employment equity can be included as part of the terms and conditions. So there are tools and mechanisms that currently are in place that need to be looked at and recognized as mechanisms that can promote employment equity philosophies and inclusive philosophies.

So I would again ask that this committee use its knowledge, and certainly the witnesses they've heard and are going to hear, as a challenge, to see how you can go beyond the mandate of only looking at the Employment Equity Act and recognizing that it needs to be situated within a much bigger picture.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Diop.

[Translation]

Mr. Mamadou Diop: Thank you.

I think that we could need a national strategy for workforce development that would include the different sectoral committees, including the sectoral committee on immigrants, and also training programs at the national level. Training would have to be increasingly based on factors that have been unfavourable to certain client groups, such as immigrants, would be a good idea. I think that in this sense the Act could score a lot of points.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to thank the four groups who have appeared today. I particularly want to thank WITT NN for being so very flexible. I'm told you were scheduled at four different times and you made yourselves available when we could fit you in. Sometimes committee meetings get cancelled, and we're then forced to move people together to try to make certain the information you have can be shared with us. So I thank you particularly for your flexibility, and the others for your presentations.

You probably know that the committee is looking at about three more meetings, and we should be giving direction to our researchers on May 2. If anything comes up prior to that, that you want to get in, in terms of information we will consider, you have only a few days to do that, but we will certainly accept information up until that particular time.

So I want to thank you. While you're leaving the table, we will have the next group of presenters move forward--that's the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Media Guild.

We'll just let you move in.

· (1300)

Just to give you a moment to catch your breath, I thought I might review the process and give you an update on our schedule. The dates of our final hearings are April 25 and 30. On May 2 there will be an in camera meeting where we will give direction to the researchers. On May 7, Madam Bradshaw will appear on estimates. On May 9, Ms. Stewart and Minister Blondin-Andrews will be here. We then break for a week. The committee will begin to consider the report on May 21, continuing on May 23 and if necessary on May 28. We'll table our report at about that time.

I propose that on May 30 and June 4, which could be our last two meetings, we have folks in on student loans. When they were here in January, we indicated that we are trying to work out some of the bugs in the system. I think before we start the new round on student loans in September, it might be appropriate to hear from all of those affected so that we can ensure the best possible delivery of student loan dollars to the new crop of students coming in September. That would be my intent.

We don't know when the House will adjourn for the summer, but if there are additional meetings, we can talk about it then. It would give us at least three meetings to work on this report and to wrap up the student loan issue.

· (1305)

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I have a question, Madam Chair. When we will have our first meeting in early May to submit our proposals for research, will we be able to submit a list, in both languages, of proposed changes? At that point, researchers could start work.

[English]

The Chair: Certainly. Anything you have will be very helpful. I would remind you that it's an in camera meeting.

Ms. Morgan, hopefully you've been able to catch your breath and are prepared to make your presentation.

Ms. Libby Davies: If it's an in camera meeting, Madam Chair, does that mean staff will not be allowed to attend?

The Chair: No, you can bring your immediate staff. When we have those meetings, your research staff is always included. This committee passed a motion on that quite some time ago. Our committee is so extensive that we need our research people with us when we're making those kinds of decisions.

I want to welcome, from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Rosemary Morgan, and from the Canadian Media Guild, Barbara Saxberg.

I know the clerk gave you guidelines. We're looking at a five-minute presentation. I was saying to the clerk that if we could keep our initial comments to five minutes, it would leave a minute at the end of the meeting so that you could wrap up and add anything you've forgotten.

Ms. Morgan, you can begin. The clock starts now.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan (Legal Counsel, Canadian Association of University Teachers): I'll speak quickly on this first part. I noticed that the brief that was submitted to the committee, at least the ten copies I brought with me the last time, did not have the appendix to it, so I have copies of the appendix.

Also, after being here the last time, I decided I would bring speaking notes. I don't promise that I'll stick to them. Lawyers never do. The last time I also handed out a list of all the federal contractor program universities and some material from the HRDC website that I won't actually have time to refer to, but I thought it might be helpful.

CAUT, as some of you may know, is the national voice for approximately 30,000—actually, it's more than that now; we don't have a head count—university faculty and librarians in Canada in all the English-speaking universities and some French-speaking, but none of the French-speaking universities in Quebec. In addition to providing technical advice and expertise on matters such as collective bargaining, CAUT lobbies the federal government in matters affecting public post-secondary education. Equity issues are among the primary issues on their plate. CAUT's direct membership is the local faculty associations, and indirectly therefore we represent the university faculty and librarians.

Just to put this into a picture, the faculty and librarians do not work in institutions that are directly subject to the Employment Equity Act, the federal legislation. They're directly subject to provincial human rights legislation. There are no employment equity acts provincially, so they have nothing that directly impacts on them, but indirectly, at least in these 34 universities, they are affected by the Employment Equity Act to a limited degree. As you know, once these institutions, these provincially regulated employers, receive more than $200,000 in federal government money, they must sign a contract undertaking to meet the principles of the Employment Equity Act. That's the federal contractors program.

Indirectly, that's how equity-seeking groups, individuals in universities, might be the beneficiaries of the federal Employment Equity Act. Of course, their concern is that this is not benefiting them enough, that in fact the federal contractors program is not only inadequate but has an adverse impact on them and is discriminatory. The inability to enforce that contract as beneficiaries prevents the application of this public interest, quasi-constitutional legislation for them. So that's CAUT's main concern about the federal contractors program.

CAUT's primary focus, therefore, in addition to supporting the views expressed by the CLC—I believe they've presented to you; I know they presented a brief—is upon enforcement of the federal contractors program through the Employment Equity Act and improvement of the enforcement mechanisms in the Employment Equity Act for that same purpose.

As, you know, the federal contractors program is administered by HRDC, but it has no enforcement mechanism for any party. The only mechanism that could operate would be if HRDC said, “You're not meeting your obligations; we're going to pull the contract”. That's never happened--at least, the evidence I have is that it has never happened. In fact, there have been a couple of instances of universities getting awards for implementing employment equity programs, but in those very institutions the equity-seeking groups are often asserting that their interests are not being protected by this program, that they're affected by substantial discrimination, including the fact that all the university has to do is post numbers demonstrating that they're achieving a certain level of representation, when the representation numbers can in fact hide subtle forms of discrimination that prevent them from having equality of opportunity within the university.

I'm definitely off my speaking notes. Sorry.

· (1310)

I think we're not unaware of the fact that HRDC, as in any government department right now, is subject to decreasing money, and therefore monitoring the enforcement of the federal contractor's program is an issue even in the absence of any compliance mechanism. But there is no complaint mechanism.

So, for example, say you were a person with disabilities trying to obtain a position as a faculty member or a librarian in the university and you felt there was a barrier and you were aware that this university, let's say the University of Windsor, was a federal contractor. If you felt they weren't complying with their obligations, you couldn't do anything about it. You couldn't complain to either HRDC, through a formal complaint mechanism, or the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or the employment equity directorate for the failure of having their rights protected.

So there is no complaint mechanism. It's all dependent upon this so-called freedom of contract between the employer and HRDC.

Six primary submissions are set out at the beginning of the brief that we provided, and I would ask that you add to that the appendix I handed out today.

Obviously, the first one is that we would like to see an amendment to the Employment Equity Act to include the federal contractors program within the wording of the statute so that there is a complaint mechanism, a process for enforcement of the FCP obligations through the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In order to do that, of course, you need an amendment to the Employment Equity Act enabling complaints from individuals to the commission for failure of compliance with the Employment Equity Act. In addition, you really need to remove the prohibition in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act from using the information obtained during audits under the Employment Equity Act for the purposes of a complaint under another statute.

So really those three things have to go together. You need a complaint mechanism to enforce the federal contractors program within the Employment Equity Act, you need a complaint mechanism in the Employment Equity Act for individuals subject to the act, and you need to remove that barrier, which is section 33—I'd have to double-check that—which prevents the use of that information for other purposes.

The other thing I would like to see is an agenda-based analysis of the federal contractors program in compliance with the 1995 commitment of the federal government to subject all its programs, policies, and legislation to gender-based analysis. To our knowledge, this has not been done for the federal contractors program, and in addition, if one is to be engaged, we would ask that it be on a consultative basis. This would enable an understanding of how it would fit within the Employment Equity Act, so the two need to be done together at the time of amendment of the act in order to make it of any sense or use.

I think you've heard many times a request that the last resort clause in the Employment Equity Act be removed. That clause, basically, in our view, ties the hands of the employment equity directorate. While it has a bonafide purpose, that is, to encourage consultative processes with employers, mediation, and to try to get them to do the right thing without running off to a tribunal or a court, the end result is that it drags out the audit and enforcement process to an unbelievable degree.

For many years after the act was implemented, when there were breaches of the directives and attempts to take these to tribunals, the employer's response was to take the commission to the Federal Court. This happened time and time again when I was in my role as legal counsel of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It was frustrating, and the result was, well, let's give the employer more time then; if they're going to take us to court, we might as well give them more time. This is an enforcement. This is a delay and it undermines the purposes of the Employment Equity Act.

· (1315)

The Chair: You have 30 seconds' worth of final comments.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: I would ask that you do take a look at the brief, and, in addition, what that appendix is, as a means of alert that a group of women at the University of Saskatchewan did obtain charter challenge funding to do a study of the federal contractors program in the context of the Employment Equity Act, the enforcement measures. They finished their research and submitted it back to the charter challenge program, and they are waiting for a response, but preliminarily, the response is positive to continue with their challenge. So they finished stage one, and that's stage two. I'm not commenting on the merits of that. It's of interest that these are equity-seeking groups that have engaged this. They have a valid concern, which charter challenge funding seems to think is a valid concern that needs to be addressed. So we might as well address it now during the review of the Employment Equity Act.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Saxberg.

Ms. Barbara Saxberg (Vice-President, Equity and Human Rights, Canadian Media Guild): Our thanks to the committee for inviting the Canadian Media Guild to be here today. Obviously we think the Employment Equity Act is an important piece of legislation, one that has the potential for wide-ranging impact both on the workplace and on society, and we're pleased to be part of this review today.

Normally at this time of day I would be sitting at my desk at the CBC Broadcast Centre in Toronto. I'm a radio producer there. But I'm also a volunteer with my union, the Canadian Media Guild, and so it's in that capacity that I'm here today.

I would like to tell you that I'm not an expert on the act and I'm not an expert on the issue, but I am here to speak about the guild's experience with the act.

Our submission, of which you should have copies, is broken down into three main areas. It looks at areas where we agree with a lot of the presentations that have been made with our colleagues in the labour movement. I'm sure you're well aware of the recurring themes that have been coming up. I'll also talk about the guild's experience with the Employment Equity Act specific to its relationship with the CBC. Depending on time, I may or may not get through our recommendations, but you have them all in our written submission.

Just as a little bit of background, the Canadian Media Guild represents about 4,500 employees, 4,000 of whom are at the CBC, everyone from pay clerks to the people you see on the television at night presenting the news and people you hear on radio handling the information programs. So it's a whole range of people.

As you know, the CBC has a federal mandate to reflect the country to itself, not only in its programming but in its workforce, and we believe certainly in the latter case it's failing. The latest statistics, which are part of the submission—these statistics are provided by the CBC on employment equity—show a gradual decline in employment in three of the four underrepresented groups.

Women are doing a little bit better. Women are close to half the workforce. I believe at the end of March last year it was about 43%, but there still remains an imbalance in that women occupy more of the lower-paying jobs while men occupy more of the higher-paying ones.

The CBC argues that the downsizing of 1996 is partially responsible for that overall decline in representation; however, if you look at the numbers between 1992 and 1995, right after probably one of the most significant downsizings the CBC has ever experienced, there was actually a steady, if marginal, increase in the percentages of employees in underrepresented groups.

You've already heard from our colleagues in the labour movement about the lack of teeth in the Employment Equity Act. We in the guild also believe that without an active mandate to improve diversity in the workplace, employers see no real reason to take employment equity seriously. There's no accountability, no requirement to involve the unions beyond what we see as a token consultation process, no meaningful funding or resources provided to improving representation, and, from what we've seen, no real authority to those who are placed in charge of implementing employment equity in the workplace. If you look around this building, I think there's tougher enforcement of the fines for parking outside this building than there is of people who violate the Employment Equity Act.

You've heard a lot about the joint committee process here. In the early 1990s there was a joint employment committee at the CBC. It fell by the wayside during the downsizing of 1996, but at the urging of the guild, the committee was re-established in June of last year. The process, though, we feel, is viewed as little more than a courtesy to the unions. Even if you look at the statutory requirements of the act, it requires that an employee simply invite the bargaining agents to offer their views, but there's no specific requirement to actively involve the unions or to share information beyond keeping employees posted as to what the corporation is doing.

We also found that experience with Canadian Press, another of the employers we deal with. A few years ago, Canadian Press was audited under the act, and the auditor found that the company was significantly wanting in most areas. The interesting part of this, though, is that Canadian Press did not inform the guild that the review was taking place. It didn't inform its own joint employment equity committee that the audit was taking place. We actually had to access the results of the audit through the freedom of information act. Obviously there needs to be a requirement for disclosure.

· (1320)

The guild is currently, as you probably know, negotiating a new collective agreement with the CBC. We have proposed contract language that would mandate a more meaningful consultation process for the joint committee. However, we don't believe this should be left to the collective bargaining process. Certainly, we'll take the steps that we have available to us, but we don't believe it should be left to collective bargaining to deal with this.

There are a couple of other points I would like to make. One has to do with what we see as competing legislation.

Before a joint committee can begin to address the problem of employment equity, you have to know where you are. You have to know what your baseline is.

Although we have been provided with some basic statistics on the percentages of under-represented groups in the workforce, when we request more detailed breakdowns, we're now being told that the new privacy legislation prevents the employer from providing us with that material. While on the one hand there's a federal mandate to gather statistics and report on employment equity, there are also now restrictions that are making it more difficult to gather the necessary information.

Without that, how can you develop a meaningful employment equity program? This is something that the CBC has also acknowledged. But until it's clear which legislation has primacy, we see that as continuing to be a problem.

As you know, the CBC has been through significant downsizing over the last decade. As a result of that, even more barriers have been created for members of underrepresented groups. There are fewer and fewer entry-level positions available at the public broadcaster. The competition is fiercer than it has ever been. It's not uncommon for new hires to have two or more university degrees and to speak several languages, yet there exist at the CBC any number of successful, high-profile people who never went beyond high school.

We're not suggesting that education isn't important, but there are no longer the opportunities for apprenticeships for people who may not have access to post-secondary education. We think there are potentially a lot of people out there who could be coming to the corporation but are being denied access because those sorts of opportunities—the apprenticeships, scholarships, that sort of thing—are not happening any more.

The CBC in its 2000 report on employment equity lists many people in under-represented groups who have come to work as part of specific projects. The problem is they are hired as temporaries or under contract, so a lot of those people cited in that report no longer work for the CBC. As long as the act specifies that an employer does not have to create new positions, and—this is specific to the CBC—as long as the CBC has fixed funding that diminishes on a yearly basis, there's just no incentive to hire and retain members of under-represented groups.

There are other barriers as a result of downsizing. They include increased workload and the impact of new technologies. The CBC, as you know, is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week employer. Many employees now consistently work more than eight hours a day, and many are employed on shifts outside normal working hours. This obviously presents barriers to women with young families, or people with disabilities who require attendant care or special transportation.

On the issue of pay equity, my colleagues at the guild's French counterpart, SCRC, have given you an extensive written submission on this. I'm not going to deal with it, other than to say that while we recognize employment equity and pay equity are two different issues, we also believe there is a definite link.

The ability to tackle the issue of representation in the workplace we think is fundamentally affected by an employer's willingness to pay fair and equitable wages. We think there needs to be a way to ensure we're not creating ghettos of under-represented groups just so that we can make better numbers on representation, not actually ensuring there is proper compensation and meaningful career paths.

From our perspective, we think there needs to be an official link between employment equity and pay equity.

How am I doing for time?

· (1325)

The Chair: You're at nine minutes. Ms. Morgan was ten, so I'll give you the extra minute, but then you won't get your wrap-up.

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: All right.

Our recommendations basically flow out of all of the things that I've said here today. We support the following recommendations that have already been made to the committee: joint development of the employment equity process by unions and employers; an employer-funded joint equity committee--I believe the university teachers have also proposed that, and it's certainly something we would support; better education and communication programs; measurable goals and timetables; and effective compliance mechanisms.

We also support the recommendation for a standing employment equity commission with sufficient resources to be meaningful. We think that had there been such a commission, it might, for example, have recognized the potential conflict in legislation.

We also think employers should be required to commit funds to skills development for under-represented groups. It could be scholarships at the post-secondary level, the development of real apprenticeships, or the creation of positions for members of under-represented groups.

I guess the last thing I would like to say is that we also think that joint equity committees should be empowered to investigate pay equity complaints. Where there's consensus, the joint committee should make recommendations to the employer for redress, and the employer should be required to act on those recommendations. Equity is equity, as far as we're concerned. We think this is an artificial separation.

I guess that's it. I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here today. I hope you'll take our comments into consideration when you're reviewing this.

The Chair: Thank you.

Just before I turn it over to members for their questions, I want to thank both of you for clearing your schedules to come back to visit with us. Through no fault of our own, you were sent home without being able to make presentations. That happens around here from time to time, and we're just delighted that you could rearrange your schedules to come back. We thank you for your patience with us.

In this particular round I'm to call on Madame Guay, Mr. Tonks, and Ms. Davies.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for appearing here today. Yes, last week we had a very difficult and delicate situation: one vote followed another. So thank you for being here.

Ms. Saxberg, I am very happy to see you here this afternoon, knowing that Radio-Canada, the French arm of the CBC, is currently in salary negotiations, an ad knowing that an employment equity complaint was submitted on March 13 of this year. Are you supporting Radio-Canada on this issue?

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: Do you mean specifically to their presentation on pay equity?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: No, on employment equity, not pay equity. They submitted a complaint on March 13. The sent a letter to the minister claiming that Radio-Canada was not respecting the Employment Equity Act.

· (1330)

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with what SCRC has done.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: OK. We will send you a copy. They submitted a complaint that Radio-Canada was not respecting the Employment Equity Act and they have asked for an inquiry. The problem that has often been told to us is that Radio-Canada hires part-time staff and these people are not declared in the same manner as full-time staff.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Saxberg came to make a presentation on employment equity, so let's not get too far—

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I am talking about employment equity, Madam. I am following the agenda. I am not talking about negotiations at all, Madam; I am talking strictly about the Employment Equity Act.

I wonder if you have already had other complaints on employment equity in other areas at Radio-Canada.

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: At the moment we have the information I presented to you in the submission. Those are the only statistics available to us at this time.

We don't really have enough information to know where the problems are. Certainly if you look at the statistics, it's clear there's a lot of work to be done.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Do you have any statistics regarding the four designated groups at Société Radio-Canada that we could refer to in committee, to assess whether the Act is being properly implemented, in a crown corporation I might add that should apply this legislation in letter and in spirit.

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: I have the statistics that are attached to the submission, and they actually break it down according to the various under-represented groups.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: OK. We have been told quite often that there is difficulty with self-identification. I am also asking Ms. Morgan.

Do you have the same problem in relation to university teachers, that they have at Radio-Canada.

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: Yes, we do. The problem of self-identification probably goes across the board. We would never say we'd like to take that away. It clearly makes it difficult because any statistics you get are always going to be skewed; you're never going to know for sure if you're getting the true picture. Obviously, we're not going to suggest we remove that and make it a mandatory situation.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I don't think that it should be withdrawn; I think that we should find a way to help people self-identify in a positive way and not in such a way that they feel that they are being discriminated against. Witnesses have told us that people feel they are being discriminated against when they are asked to self-identify. Maybe we should find another way to reach them.

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: If we have a meaningful joint employment equity committee, it's quite reasonable to expect that the unions will be able to participate and encourage people to fill out these forms and will be part of an education process that lets people know what it's for and that it's not meant to be used against you.

If you have the support of unions and they are telling their members they support this process and are explaining what it's for, it might improve the participation rate in self-identification.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Perhaps I can follow up on what Barbara has said.

One of the big problems we've noticed is a lack of resources of the joint committees or the unions--for example, faculty associations at universities--to build an adequate communications mechanism to make people feel comfortable about self-identification.

There's misinformation and a lack of information communicated. A lot of that is one of those qualitative problems about employment equity enforcement, that without adequate resources to disseminate complete comprehensive and accurate information, people fear participation in the program itself.

That's why we're saying there's a need for an employer-funded joint committee that adequately meets the needs of the spirit of the statute.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: We have also been told quite clearly that the unions should play a greater role regarding the legislation, and working with employees to ensure that this Act be properly applied and also, to educate employers and employees, linking them, on the role that they cannot currently play. The Act would have to give them the means to fulfill this role equitably. This will be included in our report.

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: I'm not sure what your question is. I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Unions have met with us and told us that they wanted to play a greater role in applying the legislation. Currently, the Act does not necessarily allow them to play this role. Do you agree?

· (1335)

[English]

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: Yes, absolutely. It's clear there is a process for consultation with the unions, but it's nothing more than a chance to get together. Employers make it very clear that they have sole responsibility for administering the act and seeing that it's implemented in the workplace. It's seen more as a courtesy to the unions than anything else.

It's very difficult to play a meaningful role. When the committee meets, it's difficult to get information from people who are actually in a position of authority to be able to address some of the problems you raise. We raise issues, and the people in charge of the program are not in a position to address those issues. It has to go back to other people. It becomes a very long, complicated process that's not conducive to making something happen.

We don't see that the unions are being consulted in any sort of meaningful way. We want to play an active role and help develop an employment equity program, but we're essentially being given material after the fact. We don't see that as acceptable.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you for being here today.

It seems to me that both of you have focused on the joint committees, in terms of empowerment, and more than just the ability to get information. You're saying the Human Rights Commission should have some degree of greater enforcement, where the designated groups are falling seriously behind their targets.

What is the compelling reason for management of both the universities and the CBC to not involve academic and non-academic staff, and people on the line, in those decisions? I don't understand why it would be to management's advantage to not have that kind of consultative duality.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: We wonder that, too.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I just don't understand that. It would seem that the buy-in would be there and the goodwill and the accomplishment that goes with that would drive the organizations to their objectives--you know, good press.

· (1340)

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: It's an interesting question because you could pose the same question with respect to pay equity. Why is it not in the employer's best interest to involve their staff and also ensure that they have an equitable salary structure so that it makes them feel better about the workplace? It doesn't happen, and one of the reasons it doesn't happen, for one thing, is a resistance to changing management style. There has been a top-down management style in universities; it's very hierarchical. Possibly it's the same at the CBC. I can't speak for them, but I certainly can speak for many other federally regulated employers that I've had to deal with in the past 12 years.

It is a resistance to change, number one. Number two, there are minimum requirements in the Employment Equity Act, and they don't want to have to expand those by involving the staff, faculty, librarians, etc., in that decision-making because that in itself, by necessity, could expand the scope. Of course, that would be the goal of most employees, to expand the obligations under the act, not keep it to the minimum. Go with the spirit of the act; go with the quasi-constitutional nature of the act. So there's a resistance to that. I think it is simply management structure resistance that we need to address. We can't seem to address it through the process that exists, because of a lack of resources and because of a lack of a complaints mechanism.

Mr. Alan Tonks: It's the culture that needs to be changed to some extent.

When all is said and done, and you do look at the statistics that are available to you, is it a qualitative part of the process that is at fault, or is it a quantitative one, where you only look at them and there's no analysis, no background? You don't have a feel for the attachment of the statistics with proactive programming and so on, that is, a design to make a difference. What is the nature, as you receive these...? You don't have to get this information under freedom of information, or whatever, do you?

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Do you mean to get the statistics?

Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Actually, in universities it's extremely problematic. They insist that they don't.... Even the federal contractors program in universities, those 34 that I gave a list of, claim they don't have the statistics broken down by those designated groups, nor by overlap of groups, so if you have women with disabilities, women of colour with disabilities, you won't get that. But even for those four designated groups, it's very difficult to get them from those 34, not to mention the other 30-odd universities that aren't federal contractors and who have much less obligation provincially.

They don't have it, but that's not the real problem. The numbers aren't the real problem. Even if you can get the numbers, they don't tell the whole story about the barriers to moving into different occupational groups because of sort of systemic problems within the workplace, cultural problems within the workplace. That's what the act is not getting at sufficiently by only insisting on numbers.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

I would really agree with the point you just made. I think it's a major issue. The gathering of information is very important, but unless there are ongoing processes within the place of employment, they're addressing Canada's systemic barriers internally. I don't know how far we're getting.

Anyway, I have a number of questions for both of you and I don't know how many of them I can get in. This whole issue of the federal contractors program seems pretty absurd. On the surface, technically, there's a requirement that it be in conformance with the act, but in substance you're saying it doesn't really exist, the enforcement doesn't exist. So I take it that the 34 facilities you represent, the members in those places...it's basically left to what? Is it just the goodwill of the university in that situation to do whatever? Are they compelled to do anything under this federal contractors program?

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: They're not compelled. They have to sign a contract that says, “We will receive x-hundred thousand dollars and in exchange we will meet these obligations”. But they are always given more time, more time, more time, and often don't even file the information with HRDC that's required under that contract. But it's just a contract, a contract between the university, the provincially regulated employer, and HRDC. There's no way for the individuals, who are supposed to be beneficiaries of this legislation and the contract, to do anything about enforcement.

Ms. Libby Davies: And because CAUT represents members in those 34 universities, do you actually get complaints from your own members about their inability to do anything within that system? Is any of this documented?

· (1345)

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Well, there are different processes. Local faculty associations represent the members in contract negotiations, and there are usually non-discrimination clauses within the contracts of collective agreements. Members will then complain about various employment-equity-related issues. More often than not, though, the complaints are about harassment that prevents a member from moving into the higher ranks. So they are indirectly employment equity issues. We have some statistics on these types of things, but only if the situation arises under the agreement.

In terms of general concerns raised, CAUT gets letters of complaint asking us to lobby government, which is why we developed a Post-Secondary Education Act as model legislation. Matters relating to equity are contained within it. But we don't keep statistics of those complaints, something that would actually be very useful to do. We don't have a direct relationship that would let us resolve those complaints; we would need legislation.

Ms. Libby Davies: Did you say you had worked at the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: So you've seen it from all sides. This issue of individual workers not being able to use the information that's being gathered on the basis of their own complaints has come up a couple of times today.

First, it just struck me again how illogical this is. I suppose one could argue that the information that has been gathered is out of date. But then again, if a complaint is going through, one assumes it will be dealt with on the basis of its merit, and if the information gathered is seen to be irrelevant, then the tribunal can throw it out.

And maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding was that this information is made public at a certain point. When federally regulated departments or businesses or organizations actually have to do their audits and compile their workforce analyses and statistics, doesn't this wind up in a public report? How then could it not be used?

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Eventually some aspects do become public. But there are exemptions under the freedom of information act for situations under investigation.

Ms. Libby Davies: So that much of it is unprintable.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: That's right. When a situation is under investigation or audit, the commission does not have to release any of this information publicly, even if there is a request for access to information. Some of it may be released if the employer consents.

Ms. Libby Davies: Which obviously wouldn't happen in many cases.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Employers don't give consent in many cases, but it does sometimes happen. Subsequently, at the end of it all, a report will be put together. Once this is all done and there has been compliance and awards, some of this information is released.

Ms. Libby Davies: Why do you think there is this fear about allowing that information to be used?

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: That's an excellent question. FETCO, a strong lobby group of federally regulated employers—

Ms. Libby Davies: We have had them here, yes.

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: —have for years been very strong on the other side of the equity issues in terms of limiting employers' obligations and what they have to do.

I know there was an expressed concern over the use of this audit material because the big bad government agency could go in and collect all this information from employers, which, despite their goodwill in handing it over, could then be used against them in a complaint. FETCO didn't think that was fair.

Ms. Libby Davies: Or that it could open up what—

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: That it would open doors and that all this information would suddenly be out there that could be used against them under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Ontario Human Rights Code. The act says the information can be used under any other legislation, not just in a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Concern over this was expressed repeatedly in submissions to a prior House committee.

Ms. Libby Davies: Which brings me to my last question. This information is gathered, and it's obviously very controlled information. You raised the issue, Barbara, of the need to have joint committees that function more through co-management, rather than needing to rely again on the goodwill of the employer.

Do you have any examples of where this is working outside of this whole framework, within regular collective agreements? I'm trying to think of any instances of joint committees under a collective agreement that have made information available.

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: A joint committee process can always be established in a collective agreement; whether it's lived up to or not is of course another matter. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It depends on the complexity of the issue and the resources it requires.

Employment equity is a very complex issue and a difficult one for employers to tackle--not to suggest that they shouldn't. But it is a complex one that requires resources and commitment.

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you happen to know of anywhere it might be working in the way you would like to see it working, through a framework that would be mandated? It would just be helpful to know.

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: No, not offhand. Again, I would come back to the point I made earlier that I don't think it should be left up to collective bargaining to deal with.

Ms. Libby Davies: No, that's not my point. It's just that it might have happened through that route.

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: Right.

Ms. Libby Davies: So maybe we can learn from that and say yes, this should now be part of how we apply the Employment Equity Act.

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: Did you have any comment on that?

Ms. Rosemary Morgan: Well, I would just say I think it might be dangerous to look too much to collective agreement processes that have created these joint committees. Unions are democratic bodies. I'm not meaning to knock unions, but the reality is that the majority rules, and as it stands in most workplaces, that majority is still male and white. So to be pursuing equity issues through a union....

I think a lot of unions have done an incredible amount of positive work in terms of employment equity and equity issues, human rights issues. There's still a long way to go, and we shouldn't be relying upon them. Certainly you can look to some collective agreements--the University of Windsor has an interesting agreement, an interesting employment equity policy--but it's dangerous because the way it's been enforced has been a consequence of that majority rule. The B.C. Court of Appeal, back in October, came out with a very interesting decision about mandatory retirement. It specifically said we can't rely on unions to be the enforcers of equity in this country; that's what the charter is for.

· (1350)

The Chair: I have one final question.

We talk about self-identification and the resistance of many to self-identify. If someone were encouraged by his or her union to self-identify, perhaps in the case of a mental incapacity, mental disability, mental illness, and later they were passed over for promotion as a result of this self-identification, who would they sue if they were going to take this on?

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: That's a complicated situation you have put forward. If someone is discriminated against, there are many provisions for that, both within collective agreements and within the Human Rights Act itself. If an employer discriminates, there's no reason for it. If the employer discriminates, the employer discriminates, and you follow the provisions you have available to you to fight that.

The Chair: What status does the union have in the suit?

Ms. Barbara Saxberg: The union would represent the employee the way it always would. I'm not sure how you would prove that a person was passed over because they self-identified. It's a complicated question that you put forward, but ultimately, there are provisions against discrimination and you would follow the processes that go with that.

The Chair: I want to thank you for coming back again, for your perseverance. I also thank the committee. We've been sitting since 10:30 and I know a number of members of the committee are becoming rather weary. However, all that you have presented, both written and in your oral presentations, will be taken into consideration as we review the act.

Thank you. The meeting is now adjourned.