HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

Á

1105

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

Mr. Doug Norris (Director General, Census and Demographic Statistics, Statistics Canada)

Á

1110

The Chair

Ms. Adèle Furrie (Individual Presentation)

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Syed Naseem (Chief, Data Development and Research, Department of Human Resources Development)

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Adèle Furrie

Mr. Syed Naseem

Mr. Larry Spencer

Á

1140

Mr. Syed Naseem

The Chair

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

Mr. Syed Naseem

The Chair

Á

1145

Mr. Syed Naseem

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Syed Naseem

Mr. Paul Crête

Ms. Adèle Furrie

Á

1150

Mr. Paul Crête

Ms. Adèle Furrie

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. Syed Naseem

Á

1155

M. Doug Norris

Ms. Adèle Furrie

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Syed Naseem

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Â

1200

Mr. Syed Naseem

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Doug Norris

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Doug Norris

Â

1205

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Doug Norris

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Â

1210

Mr. Syed Naseem

M. Doug Norris

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. Syed Naseem

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer

Â

1220

The Chair

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

Mr. Syed Naseem

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Syed Naseem

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

M. Doug Norris

Mr. Paul Crête

Ms. Adèle Furrie

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Â

1230

Mr. Doug Norris

Mr. Syed Naseem

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 061

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'll call to order the 61st meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We have been dealing with the statutory review of the Employment Equity Act.

    Today we'll have our final set of witnesses to make presentations before we start our deliberation on the drafting of the report. We're very pleased to have with us from Statistics Canada Doug Norris, who is the director general for census and demographic statistics; Adèle Furrie, who comes to us as an individual who is a consultant in the area; and Syed Naseem from the Department of Human Resources Development. He's chief, data development and research, in the policy, reporting, and data development group.

    Prior to the meeting the witnesses had determined the order in which they thought it would be appropriate they present. I agree with them wholeheartedly, and we will hear first from Statistics Canada, then from Adèle, and then from the department.

    Mr. Norris, if you could, please keep your remarks to ten minutes or less, and that will give us the opportunity to have a good question and answer round.

    Mr. Doug Norris (Director General, Census and Demographic Statistics, Statistics Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for inviting Statistics Canada to appear before the committee. I welcome the opportunity to outline Statistics Canada's role in providing information and data in support of the equity legislation and associated programs.

    Since the proclamation of the federal Employment Equity Act in 1986, the establishment of the federal contractors program, and the implementation of employment equity initiatives in the federal public service, Statistics Canada has been providing the statistical support data to various federal departments responsible for planning and implementing the legislation and programs.

[Translation]

    The role of the national statistical agency has been to provide availability or benchmark data to help administer the federal employment equity programs and monitor their impact. These programs require that detailed data sets are made available on the size, geographic location and labour force characteristics of the four designated groups. Used in conjunction with internal workforce data, employers are then able to assess their own workforce situation and, where needed, develop realistic goals and timetables for achieving a representative workforce.

    The definitions that are applied to generate the employment equity availability data are developed with the federal departments responsible for employment equity programs. There is an Interdepartmental Working Group on Employment Equity Data, chaired by Human Resources Development, with representatives from Statistics Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

[English]

    The so-called benchmark or availability data for the four designated groups are derived from two of Statistics Canada's programs. The first of these is the census of population, which is the primary source of data on women, aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities. For these groups, the formula for the derivation of data from the 2001 census will be essentially the same as it was from the 1996 census.

    In the case of the aboriginal population, data will be derived from the aboriginal identity question, where respondents were asked to self-identify whether they were an aboriginal person--that is, a North American Indian, Métis, or Inuit. In the 1996 census, the representation of the aboriginal population was between 2% and 3%, and I would expect, given the high growth rate of that population, it will be somewhat higher when we look at the numbers coming out of the 2001 census. These numbers aren't available yet, and I'll come to the schedule for that in a minute.

    Likewise, to identify the visible minority population, a direct question, referred to as the population group question, will again be used. The question will be essentially the same as in 1996, with a few slight modifications to some of the answer categories and some of the examples. In 1996 the representation of the visible minority population was a little over 11%. And again, given our recent immigration patterns, I would expect to see that number increase somewhat when we look at the new data from 2001.

    The one target group for which there will be a change for 2001 is the population of persons with disability. In 1991 a survey known as the health and activity limitations survey was carried out as a follow-up to the main census. This provided the source of the availability data back in 1991. In 1996, due to a lack of funding, no post-census activity survey was carried out; therefore, for 1996 no new data were available on persons with disabilities. Data from the 1991 health and activity limitations survey continued to be used, and are actually the most recent data available today.

    I'm happy, however, to report that a new survey, now referred to as the participation and activity limitation survey, was conducted following the 2001 census. Therefore, we will, as for other groups, be in the position of producing new data for persons with disabilities.

    As in the earlier 1991 health and activity limitations survey, disability for 2001 is defined as “an activity limitation due to either a physical or mental condition or health problem”. There were a number of changes made to the 2001 survey from the earlier health and activity limitations survey. This was done to simplify the derivation of the data and make it possible to look at deriving similar data on other surveys. It also actually resulted in some cost savings, allowing us to stretch our budget a little further.

    Testing of these changes prior to going into the field with the new survey suggests that the data for 2001 should be reasonably similar to the earlier data. The target population for the 2001 participation and activity limitation survey is adults 15 years of age and over, as well as children in households. The sample size will be about 43,000--about 35,000 adults and 8,000 or so children.

    The results from the 2001 census started to become available last March. I suspect some of you may have seen some of those earlier results, just on basic population. The census is released in stages, with different types of information available at different times. The data from the activity limitation survey will be available in December of this year, and data from the census will be available early next year; that is, the labour market data and other data--visible-minority data, aboriginal data--required to create the availability data.

    So by about June next year we will have all of the data available from both the survey and the census, and we will be in a position to produce the availability data according to specifications from HRDC and the interdepartmental group.

Á  (1110)  

    I trust this brief overview indicates the nature of the initiatives undertaken by Statistics Canada, and I look forward to answering your questions later on.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Norris.

    Next we'll hear from Adèle Furrie.

    Ms. Adèle Furrie (Individual Presentation): Good morning.

    Thank you, Mrs. Longfield, for giving me the opportunity to come before the committee to speak to a subject that has occupied much of my business life for the past 17 years.

    I make an apology to the francophone committee members, but I will be making all my comments in English. Since my retirement from Statistics Canada my ability to speak French has rapidly deteriorated.

    For 11 years at Statistics Canada, from 1985 to 1996, I worked with representatives from governments and with representatives from service providers and advocacy groups to assist them in translating their definitions of persons with disabilities into questions that could be asked in surveys. The objective was to produce accurate information against which one could accurately assess the impact programs and services were having on improving the quality of life for persons with disabilities.

    I've had the opportunity to undertake this exercise with representatives from 50 developing countries through two international workshops that were hosted by the United Nations Statistics Division and the Government of Hungary for the first one and the Government of Malta for the second one. I've also had two consultancies: two weeks with the Government of Colombia and five weeks with Statistics New Zealand.

    These international assignments were a result of the work I was doing at Stats Canada when during the same period I was responsible for the disability database program, both the 1986 and the 1991 HAL surveys, and the dissemination of the 1983 Canadian health and disability survey.

    I'm also currently under contract to the American government through the Bureau of Labour Statistics to advise them on what questions could be used on their monthly labour force survey that would identify the employment characteristics of adults with disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. I can answer questions about this assignment later, if you have any.

Á  (1115)  

    The issue the Americans are facing is not unlike the issues being addressed here in Canada, nor are they different from the ones I dealt with in the two workshops and in Colombia and New Zealand. That issue was how can one ensure that the questions being asked identify the population with disabilities as defined in the act, the program, or the service if those data are going to be used to assess the impact of those programs and services.

    Such was the issue I addressed at an appearance before the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and I'll just review that with you, because it has relevance here. I reviewed the definition that was included in the Income Tax Act concerning the disability tax credit and in the questionnaire that was being used to determine eligibility for that credit. The context was different. Eligibility for the disability tax credit was being determined, but the process was the same--attempting to design a set of questions that reflect the definition--and I had some issues I put forward to the subcommittee at that time about the questionnaire that was being used.

    But that was before. Today I'm here to offer my opinion on two data issues relating to employment equity. There are two types of data that are used for employment equity purposes: those that form the availability data provided by Statistics Canada based on the definition provided by HRDC, and those collected by the employers. My comments will deal with both types of data.

    I have two points I'd like to make about factors that may affect the quality of the information being collected and one point that deals with the methodology used to collect those data. The first two points, factors affecting the quality of the data, are the context in which the data are collected and the questions asked to identify the population with disabilities.

    Let me give you a bit of information about the context within which these questions are posed and some background on what questions were asked to produce the availability data from Statistics Canada.

    First, the context--what does that mean? The old disability data from Stats Canada--and it is old--used for the availability data published by HRDC come from three surveys conducted by Stats Canada: the 1983-84 Canadian health and disability survey and the two HAL surveys.

    Stats Canada is an agency that is respected by Canadians as one that holds the individual information provided to them as confidential. No personal information is ever released by the agency. That's why Stats Canada experiences such high response rates to their surveys. The individual knows that Stats Can is only interested in producing aggregate data from the individual survey questionnaires; therefore, the respondent feels a certain degree of anonymity.

Á  (1120)  

    The questions asked on the three surveys to identify the population of persons with disabilities were very detailed in nature, and had been developed by a working group of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These questions were adapted for use in the three surveys through extensive consultation with other federal departments, service providers, and advocacy groups of and for persons with disabilities.

    The remainder of the questionnaires dealt with questions about life in Canada and were posed in the context of identifying barriers or impediments to full participation and integration in all aspects of Canadian society. A number of questions in the employment section were included specifically at the request of HRDC. Questions about accommodation needed in the workplace and accommodation provided by the employer are two examples.

    In constructing the availability data from the surveys, Stats Canada worked closely with representatives from HRDC. HRDC provided the questions from HALS that should be used to identify the population with disabilities that met the employment equity definition, and Stats Canada produced the data.

    Dr. Norris talked about the interdepartmental working group dealing with employment equity. I was a member of that committee for a number of years. Some of the gray hairs I have can be directly attributed to the discussions at those meetings.

    That's the context within which the data for the availability data were collected, and a bit of background on the questions asked during the interview. What about the context and questions used for the employee survey data?

    First, does the employee feel the same level of anonymity when he or she completes the employment equity questionnaire? Maybe yes, maybe no. If the individual has a hidden disability, he or she might be reluctant to self-identify. If the employee completed the questionnaire after accommodation by the employer, he or she might feel uneasy about answering the question on the employer questionnaire. Why?

    I've asked for copies of the workforce survey questionnaire, and I wonder if they could be distributed to committee members. I want to address some specifics about the questionnaire.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We will now turn to Mr. Naseem.

    Mr. Syed Naseem (Chief, Data Development and Research, Department of Human Resources Development): Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair.

    I welcome the opportunity to come before this committee today and to talk to you about the role of the labour program in the area of employment equity data. I'd like to address four major employment equity data issues or areas: one, the labour program's roles and responsibilities; two, labour market information; three, the concept of workforce analysis; and four, our partnerships.

    With respect to the first item, section 42.1 of the Employment Equity Act requires labour program officials to provide guidance, tools, and advice to employers regarding the implementation of employment equity. However, I'm here today to specifically talk about our role with respect to the external availability data on the four designated groups provided to employers, and specifically as this relates to their workforce analysis methods.

    Section 42.3 of the Employment Equity Act states that the Minister of Labour is responsible for providing labour market information to employers. Statistics Canada collects the data via their surveys, which afterwards is provided to the labour program. As mentioned earlier, in terms of the labour program, employment equity data are derived from the census and post-census disability surveys.

    The labour program is responsible for developing external availability data to be provided to both private sector employers and the Treasury Board Secretariat in order to assist these employers to fulfill their obligations under the Employment Equity Act. The same data are also used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the conduct of its audits. Labour programs are responsible for helping private sector employers conduct their respective workforce analyses, and the Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for assisting federal government departments as they undertake workforce analysis.

    Labour market information for various geographic areas is provided to employers. In terms of the level of geographic data, we provide data for Canada, the provinces, the three territories, as well as the 25 census metropolitan areas. I have attached in appendix A a listing of the geographic regions.

    These data are further broken down by working age population, workforce occupational counts, as well as education. These data allow an employer to assess the availability of designated groups for any job or occupation in a region in Canada.

    With respect to workforce analysis, section 9.1 of the Employment Equity Act requires an employer to conduct workforce analysis to determine under-representation of designated groups. The employment equity regulations provide further details with respect to the conduct of workforce analysis.

    Workforce analysis requires an employer to compare the internal representation of designated groups to the external representation of designated groups. It should be noted here that data collected in the employer-employee context and the data collected by StatsCan are both based on the principle of self-identification.

    Workforce analysis requires an employer to identify under-representation in each occupational group in the employer's workforce...that reflects their representation in the Canadian workforce or those segments of the Canadian workforce identifiable by qualification, geography, and eligibility.

    The workforce concept dictates that employers should look at each occupational group. For example, for a professional occupational group with certain occupational requirements, employers will wish to compare their internal workforce with those segments in the Canadian workforce that are identifiable by qualification, eligibility, and geography. These comparisons are appropriate to the level of qualifications required for the job or occupation.

    The act is reasonable in the sense that if the availability of female electrical engineers, for example, is 20% according to the census, one would also expect an employer's female representation for electrical engineers to be around 20%. If an employer's internal workforce representation of female electrical engineers is less than 20%, let's say 10%, or half of what is expected, an employer is then asked to identify barriers in the organization that may be preventing women from being hired.

    In addition, the level of geographic detail provided to employers with respect to the occupational information can be geographically specific.

Á  (1130)  

    The recruitment area is occupation-specific. For example, one would expect an employer to recruit clerical workers, say data entry clerks, at the local level--for instance, the census metropolitan area of Ottawa-Hull or Toronto, as listed in appendix A--while professionals are recruited either at the provincial or at the national level.

    In conclusion, workforce analysis requires an employer to identify designated group under-representation by occupation. Where under-representation is detected, an employer is required to identify and eliminate employment barriers by developing a plan that identifies short-term goals and long-term strategies to address the issue of under-representation.

    With respect to assistance provided to our employers, our workforce equity offices in the regions provide employers with training and assistance on how to conduct workforce analysis. And if I could add here, the assistance provided to employers are employers covered under the federal jurisdiction or the federal contractors program with 100 or more employees. Lowering the threshold below 100 may lead to an increase in the administrative cost, and some of the smaller employers may find the burden a little bit too high, as the employer burden may increase.

    In terms of partnerships, the last item, as mentioned earlier, availability data is not produced independently by the labour program. We work with Treasury Board Secretariat, StatsCan, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to develop a national availability data standard.

    In terms of a quick historical background, Adèle is not the only one who has grey hair. We've worked on this file for quite some time, and some of the reasons why I have grey hair is because of different issues going back to 1994 and 1988. In terms of historical background, the employment equity data program housed at StatsCan was responsible for undertaking research and data development in the area of employment equity data and the four designated groups.

    Since 1995 we've continued to closely collaborate with our longstanding partners in order to develop accurate, reliable, designated group data. One of our main objectives has been, and will be in the future, to ensure that the internal designated group data collected by employers are comparable to external availability data collected by Statistics Canada surveys.

    With respect to the issue of the timeliness of data, employment equity requires, as I've mentioned, that detailed information be made available on the four designated groups, in particular, working age population; external occupational counts, which are broken down by various national occupational classification categories; and educational data. These data are required to conduct workforce analysis. Therefore we must rely on large-scale StatsCan surveys to be able to provide us with that kind of detail. There was no post-census survey for persons with disabilities in 1996. We're pleased to see that there was one in 2001.

    Finally, with respect to the issue of timeliness, resources are probably required to increase the sample size of existing StatsCan surveys in order to obtain the level of data required for employment equity.

    I'd like to end by saying thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come before this committee and explain a part of what the labour program does in the area of employment equity data. I look forward to answering any questions from the committee members.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll begin our round of questioning with Mr. Spencer. We'll try five-minute rounds.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Looking at the appendix here, it seems to me that the survey that is being taken here is very minimal. I was wondering why it's simply at this level of “Do you have a disability?” Why was there not a little more detail as to what kind of disability was involved?

    Ms. Adèle Furrie: Yes, the questionnaire you have before you is the questionnaire that is used by employers, which is, I agree with you, much different from the survey that is done by Statistics Canada for the availability survey. Within that survey you can generate estimates by the type of disability so that one could look at the nature of employment barriers for people who are blind, who have a physical disability, who have a mental disability.

    Mr. Syed Naseem: Could I add to it?

    The survey you have in front of you is used by employers. The question suggested is included in our schedules accompanying the employment equity regulations. It is as you see it there. When conducting a survey, this is part of the assistance in working with employers and the type of service we provide.

    In certain cases, some employers have suggested, and we have approved, self-identification forms where they can go ahead and identify different types of disabilities. As an example, people are asked to mark whether a disability is mobility or visual impairment. They are asked to do it.

    As long as the particular survey developed in the context of the particular employer's workforce meets the spirit of the definition of persons with disabilities contained in the Employment Equity Act, as well as what's in the employment equity schedules you see in front of you, it would be okay with us. It also would be okay with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

    In a nutshell, the answer is they can add and collect information.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: In other words, to keep with the spirit of the Employment Equity Act, let's say an employer discovered a particular disability. He had some work that a blind person was quite able to perform, and met his quota through simply employing blind people. He would not be required to employ other types of disabled people. He would meet the requirement by simply choosing from one disabled group.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Syed Naseem: The Employment Equity Act is quite clear in subsection 33(1) of the act: quotas cannot be implemented, or quotas cannot be asked of an employer, both from the commission perspective, as well as from the tribunal perspective.

    With respect to the issue of persons with disabilities, I could go back to the issue of subgroups of, for example, visual impairment or mobility impairment. The employer is asked to set a goal or assess the level of under-representation with respect to persons with disabilities as a group, not as a separate under-representation level for mobility or visual impairment. It is as a group. It is what an employer is asked to do.

    The reason, in some employer contexts, the subgroup examples are given in the case of persons with disabilities is sometimes it helps the person filling out the form to identify it. They'll understand what you mean by the “person with a disability” definition. It helps facilitate understanding of the definition itself.

    Under-representational goals or quotas are not set at the subgroup, mobility, or visual impairment level.

    The Chair: There are about 35 seconds left. Do you have a short one?

    A voice: I'll pass.

    The Chair: Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    My concern is, if they change the definition of the disability or the minority, can they improve the employment opportunities for them?

    From my experience, for example, I was travelling last Friday. I was passing through security. The security guard was a new one. He asked me to remove my shoes. I told him I pass through every day; I go to Toronto every day and come back from Toronto, and no one asks me this. He said I had to remove my shoes.

    My concern is, if they change the definition of the visible minorities or the disabled, it will affect some of the employment opportunities.

    What are your suggestions on that one?

    Mr. Syed Naseem: Perhaps I could make a comment on it, with respect to the definition of aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, and persons with disabilities.

    We will, and have done in the past, work with Statistics Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission to look at surveys conducted by StatsCan to collect the information, as per the definition of the three designated groups in the act as it is now. It is one of our tasks.

    As a person working in the employment equity data area, I have to do what is in the act now. With the 2001 PAL survey, or the 2001 census, it's one of the main tasks.

    With respect to the issue of changing the definition of persons with disabilities, we would have to look at what it would mean, in terms of the employment-related disadvantage faced by persons with disabilities or members of visible minority groups.

    As my friend Doug Norris has mentioned, we do not have access to the most recent data from the census yet. It's an interesting question, which we could follow up on.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    My question is for Mr. Naseem. You state on page 3 of the document you tabled with us, and I quote:

The act is reasonable in the sense that if the availability of female electrical engineers is 20% according to the census, then one would expect employers' female representation for electrical engineers to be around 20%.

    How can you say that the act is reasonable when the fact that the availability of female electrical engineers is 20% is already the result of discrimination? How can we say that it is enough that the requirement that 20% of the engineers in the company be women fits with the 20% that are already available? In other words, it is as if we took a snapshot of an unacceptable situation and stated that the neighbour must reach the same level in order for things to be satisfactory. I would like you to explain to me how you find this reasonable.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    Mr. Syed Naseem: Going back to section 5 of the Employment Equity Act, it is clear in the sense that it asks an employer to assess their internal representation to the external representation. One of the three factors we have to take into account is qualification eligibility as well as geography.

    Yes, I agree with respect to the 1996 census or any other census or post-census disability survey that is collected. It is a snapshot of the Canadian labour market at that point in time.

    What we suggest to employers in terms of assessing under-representation is that we do realize the fact that 20% would be the representation of female electrical engineers in that particular occupation, while their total workforce representation is around 46%. What we have to provide to employers--and this is the employer context--is information on people who will qualify to be an electrical engineer, and that is a snapshot of the economy at that time. There are employers who have said to us that the 20% is, to them, a bare minimum. That is what we also suggest to employers, a 20% expected availability. By the way, I picked that number just as an example of the availability of female electrical engineers, so it's just a bare minimum that employers are expected to achieve. They can certainly go past that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: I do not know if I misunderstood, but you have not convinced me. Given that the fact that 20% of electrical engineering graduates are women is already the result of discrimination, in other words the result of a situation men are not confronted with--obviously, my hypothesis is that the percentage is not the same for them--, how can you say that this discrimination should be our standard, our calculation model? I believe that if we want to improve the situation, the requirement should be higher than what we see in reality, and not simply the reflection of the reality we see. Otherwise, we will simply perpetuate these inequalities systematically.

[English]

    Mr. Syed Naseem: Perhaps I can make two quick comments on that.

    With respect to the information, there have been changes in terms of the 1991-96 census. More women have been going into this particular electrical engineering occupational group. What we have to also provide to employers is information on who's actually qualified to work as an electrical engineer. Setting a level above availability of 20%, 30%, 40% may be problematic for an employer because they may not be able to find or achieve a goal higher than the bare minimum you've set, which is a bare minimum benchmark.

    I agree in the sense that it's a snapshot of the economy. But certainly with respect to looking at this issue and given what is available in terms of survey data, what is collected, I would welcome any comments and recommendations with respect to this particular aspect of the employment equity data.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to hear Ms. Furrie's views on this. Would it not be appropriate to readjust our objectives so that in 5 or 10 years' time we see not employer satisfaction, but reduced discrimination?

[English]

    Ms. Adèle Furrie: Let me say that if we could reach the availability levels for the employment of persons with disabilities and aboriginal people, that would be a gigantic step forward.

    I take your point about women and about discrimination, but we're dealing with very different employment patterns, particularly for aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. So setting a target at the current availability level would be great, if we could achieve it.

Á  (1150)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: I have one last question. In this context, would it not be appropriate to have different objectives for the different categories? You have just stated that in the case of women, there can be true discrimination, whereas in the other cases...

    I understand the issue of handicapped people very well: I have been a human resources manager in a college. We strive to achieve results, but it was very much more difficult. Having the same standard for everyone, for all four categories, might be itself problematic. Should we not try to establish different objectives for each category that would take these variations into account?

[English]

    Ms. Adèle Furrie: I just love coming before the committee and not being a Statistics Canada employee, because I get to say all the kinds of things I really would have liked to have said before, and couldn't.

    I agree. There are issues facing the employment of women that are very different from the issues facing the employment of persons with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. And within the visible minority population there are different issues for some of the subgroups. As you and your colleague were pointing out earlier, there are different issues with respect to the employment of persons with certain types of disabilities.

    So yes, I totally agree. I think you should look at these four groups, at the issues that are facing them in the workplace, and consider different strategies for the different groups.

    The Chair: Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    My question is about comments we heard previously in our hearings that suggested the addition of two groups to the four categories already designated, which would be older workers and homosexuals. I would be interested in having your views. How would we go about doing that? How do we get around the problem of voluntary identification? Would this open the door to additional discrimination, especially when we talk about homosexuals? Would there be any problems in this respect? I would be interested in your opinion.

[English]

    Mr. Syed Naseem: This is a two-part question with respect to the older workers and from an employment equity perspective. I'll address employment equity with respect to the issue of gays and lesbians. I can, in part, answer that, but I'd like to turn it over to Statistics Canada as well.

    The four criteria for assessing employment-related disadvantage in a group sense--and they have come down from the Abella commission--are to look at unemployment rates, if a particular group experiences high unemployment rates, low participation rates, low employment income, and occupational concentration.

    I have some figures where we look at this issue specifically with respect to older workers. With respect to income, we find the income of older workers is much higher than the general population, older workers being 55 to 64 years of age, for example, if you were to look at that age group as a cut-off. Their unemployment rates are much lower than the youth unemployment rate, youth being 15 to 24 years of age, as well as the prime-age worker unemployment rate. The participation rates for this particular group are also higher than the youth age group and the primary age group. So there is not evidence to suggest this group is disadvantaged in employment.

    However, having said that, individual cases of age-related discrimination are probably better handled through the Canadian Human Rights Commission specific to CHRA.

    With respect to the gays and lesbians aspect, the same test has to be applied with respect to looking at unemployment rates, participation rates, income, as well as occupational concentration. This is where I would turn it over to my colleague at Statistics Canada. Right now we do not have information on the employment characteristics or socio-economic characteristics of gays and lesbians.

Á  (1155)  

[Translation]

    M. Doug Norris: I might add a few comments regarding the availability of data, especially for older workers. There is no problem with regard to older workers, we have lots of data on this population.

    As for sexual orientation, we have not had any data on this group up to now. We added questions to the 2001 census in order to identify same sex couples, which is not exactly the same as sexual orientation, but it was the first time we tried to gather sexual orientation data. We just started this work but I hope that it will be possible in the future. There are many challenges. It is a very sensitive question and it will be difficult, but we are presently looking for ways.

[English]

    Ms. Adèle Furrie: From an employer's perspective, if you added the category of gays and lesbians you would be faced with a very similar issue to persons with psychiatric disabilities--the difficulty of self-identifying. Until it becomes more acceptable within society, adding them could be problematic, in terms of getting good accurate data for that group.

    The Chair: Very brief.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: In his answer, Mr. Naseem said older workers do not have problems getting jobs but this is not what we hear on the ground. Very often, an older worker who gets laid off and who looks for another job will have great difficulty because of discrimination. Employers are reluctant to higher an older worker because of a fear the person will not stay in the job for long. They would rather invest in a younger person. So I wonder if there is not a gap between reality and your numbers.

[English]

    Mr. Syed Naseem: The statistics I'm referring to are from the 1996 census, and we've also looked at the information from the 1991 census.

    In the case of older workers as a group, these are their employment trends; this is what the data is showing. At this stage, given the information I have on the older worker group, if I apply the same test I apply to the other four designated groups, it is difficult to say they're experiencing employment-related disadvantage.

    Having said that, if older workers are experiencing discrimination in the workplace because of their age, it is best addressed through the Canadian Human Rights Act. But as a group, the numbers are indicating they're not experiencing employment-related disadvantage. If you look at it more closely, in terms of occupational breakdown, you will see the older workers tend to be at the higher end of the occupational structure--management, middle management, and so forth. So as a group, I don't see evidence of it right now.

    The Chair: Ms. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you for coming today. It has actually been very helpful--although sometimes it gets a bit complicated.

    One thing that's becoming very clear is that the workforce analysis is a very critical component of this whole program. So what goes into it and what comes out of it really is, I guess, the test of quality of how this program is doing.

    I just wanted to come back to a couple of questions raised by Mr. Crête.

    You say that the workforce analysis is from data that are based on the principle of self-identification, but that the availability data are also based on external collection points. It's not just based on self-identification; that's really within the workforce. To me, this is somewhat ironic.

    Last week we had the Canadian Association of University Teachers here. They were pointing out that the federal contractors program, which they are under if they have research moneys, is pretty well useless. You can sort of see the circle being completed here. On the one hand you have your availability data. If we use the 20% women engineers, which may itself be discriminatory, relating to how these universities or colleges or whatever are conducting their own programs, theoretically they are under the federal contractors program, but it really has very little clout. They are connected. Yes, you only have use of the availability data. What else could you use? But there is a bigger picture in terms of whether or not the availability data are discriminatory and have a whole number of biases. This should be showing up, or we should be able to have a handle on this through the federal contractors program.

    I just wanted to put this forward, because to me it's further evidence that this needs to be strengthened. Somebody needs to be looking at why medical schools, engineering programs, whatever, are failing in dealing with their own barriers, so we only have 20% of women who are qualified as engineers, if that is a correct figure. So that's one comment, if you wanted to say anything more on it.

    My other comment is about the employment equity data program. You said, Mr. Naseem, that it was housed at Stats Canada between 1988 and 1994. We have information saying it was terminated. So where is it now? Is there no employment equity data program that exists at this point? It seems to me that would be a critical juncture, in terms of doing a credible workforce analysis. So does it exist somewhere else, or is it scattered? Or are you relying only on data from Stats Canada? I was not clear on what was being put forward there.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Syed Naseem: With respect to the self-identification part of your question, the information collected by an employer from their employees when they hand out the internal workforce survey is based on self-identification. Section 9.3 ensures the confidentiality of the particular surveys collected. The point I was trying to make earlier was that when it comes to external data collected by or suveys administered by Stats Canada, they are also based on self-identification.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Okay. I wasn't clear about that.

    How is it based on self-identification? Do you not go to universities and ask, “How many people are you graduating in various programs”? That would be factual information, not self-identification.

    Mr. Doug Norris: The information that we're asked to provide on the so-called availability data comes from our census, not from the people leaving university programs. I'm sure the latter's used as part of a broader look at what's happening, but the actual availability data themselves are census data. I would agree, as well, that the census data really are self-identification. When you get a questionnaire and you are asked whether you are an aboriginal person, your response is to self-identify yourself.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Why wouldn't you bring in that other layer, then? That information is available from various training and professional accreditation programs, and what not. Would it not be a sort of verification that you could examine and compare with what your self-identification data are providing?

    Mr. Doug Norris: In terms of checking our self-identification census data, we do compare that data with other sources to make sure, for example, that our data on a certain occupation or certain level of education looked reasonably accurate. So we do that internal checking when we do our census data.

    The question of whether or not that type of data should be used more in the program itself I leave to my colleague to perhaps address.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Could you also address the other question, about what you've referred to as the employment equity data program, and where does it exist, if at all, at this point, since 1994?

    Mr. Doug Norris: Maybe I can make a comment from our perspective on that. That was a special program that Statistics Canada received funding to carry out, over and above the usual production of the availability data. There were two different things.

    The availability data and the production of that certainly is still ongoing. As was mentioned earlier, there is an inter-departmental group that looks at what is required, and we produce our data in response to that.

    The so-called employment equity data program was additional funding that allowed us to try to look beyond the availability data, for example, to other sources of data. There's always a question of this data being old, and it's only every five years, and can't we get data from some of the surveys that we carry out. So that special program allowed us to look at the feasibility of doing that, of doing additional research. There were also various research projects funded from that program to go into more detail.

    So it was a special program over and above the usual data production. That was a funding decision that was made. The funding ran out--I forget what year--about five or six years ago, so there is no additional program currently ongoing.

  (1205)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: Just very quickly, did that program allow you to produce data that was more recent?

    Mr. Doug Norris: It allowed us to do some investigation. I don't think we ever actually produced a specific data series, but it allowed us to look at the feasibility, to look at the comparability. We could never produce the kind of data we produce from our census from any other survey. It's a question of the size of the sample. But you could get indicators.

    One could do work perhaps looking at the school data you refer to, for example, and try to use that in some way. So it was that auxiliary work around the main availability data that was facilitated by that program. That program doesn't exist today, so that work is certainly not going on within Statistics Canada. I can't speak more broadly.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have several comments to make.

    First of all, I support what Madam St-Jacques said earlier and her suggestion regarding older workers. We had several witnesses here and we all know that, out there in the real world, older workers... It all depends on how you define older workers. Does it mean over 50, even over 45? These people have a very hard time, for all the reasons you know, to find another job when they are laid off. I do not believe they are all at the top end of the occupational structure either in their present or former company.

    The questions I am wondering about, and you may want to comment, is that in a society where people live longer and longer and remain in the labour market for a longer time, would it not make sense to engage in that exercise in order to determine what the situation is right now and maybe make some projections over the next 10 or 15 years with a view to possibly making it the fifth designated group? This is my first question.

    Secondly, and this is a comment that is not specifically directed to Ms. Furrie. I noticed in the French text of annex G, that paragraph b) is not the same. I am lucky in being able to read both languages and it strikes me that... “...and includes persons whose functional limitations...“ appears in the French translation as a sentence separate from the rest of the definition and does not necessarily say the same thing as in English. “Vise également les personnes dont les limitations fonctionnelles...“

    I do not know whose responsibility it is, but I think that when these questionnaires are being developed, somebody should compare both versions, not only in terms of terminology but also in terms of the meaning of the definition.

    Thirdly, I have a question mainly for Mr. Norris but maybe also for Mr. Naseem. It is about the census data. The fact that it takes so long to extract and interpret these data has very serious consequences, in my view, not only in terms of employment equity but also for many areas of government action.

    To give you just one example, the summer employment program on which all members of Parliament are working at the present time is tied to census data. This is because of shifts in population. As a parliamentary secretary, MPs come to see me and tell me that the data we have available are far removed from what is happening in their student population at home. So we are planning a program for this coming summer which has nothing to do with reality.

    With regard to the surveys you do, would it not be possible to update these figures more frequently, maybe not on a yearly basis, but at least every two years, because they are quite outdated? So the question is: is there any way to speed up the process? I know this is a difficult issue but one that is a concern to all of us.

    Thank you.

  (1210)  

[English]

    Mr. Syed Naseem: I could speak to the issue of older workers. I don't have a copy of the questions and schedules that were handed out.

    With respect to the issue of older workers, as a group, the numbers or figures don't indicate that they have experienced employment-related disadvantage. But this speaks to the larger issue of employment equity as well, in the context of setting up an HR planning process where issues such as that are addressed. So if an HR plan were in place to look at the human resource function of designate groups, the situation faced by older workers would be addressed in that context in terms of leaving the workplace.

    I really can't speak much to the issue of the census data being available only every five years. As a user of the data, we have to rely on a large-scale survey, such as the census or post-census disability survey, to get the level of detail we're looking for. I think that question is better addressed by my colleague from StatsCan.

[Translation]

    M. Doug Norris: It is a very complex and difficult issue. There is nothing I would like more than to make census data available more quickly. I think we all agree on this.

    However, this survey is really complex. It deals with the total population of Canada, and with the system we have available today processing takes a very long time. I hope that in the future it will be possible to speed up the process. Somebody mentioned that when there is an election, we get the results the same evening. I was asked if we could not do the same thing with the census. It is not so easy but I agree it is a challenge for us and that it would be good to have access to the data sooner.

    It would be really difficult to provide this type of data every two or every three years. It is a huge database that goes into great detail and only a census allows such a level of detail. We have many surveys that allow for a glimpse of the issue. The level of detail is not the same but I believe several of our surveys are useful to follow the trends at the provincial and especially the national level.

    I might add one more thing. You say that people sometimes say the situation in their city has changed. I think it is important, in terms of census results, to look at data at a city level. Trends are not uniform throughout Canada. Sometimes we have results for Canada or even for a province that go in a different direction than the figures for a city. With the census, it is possible to look at the situation city by city.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Spencer, you have eight minutes.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I have 35 seconds left over from last time.

    The Chair: Yes, you certainly do.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: We're getting seven and eight minutes now. I guess that's a small piece of the pie.

    The Chair: You can take whatever time you need, Mr. Spencer.

     Mr. Larry Spencer: I don't know that I have that much time, because I'm very disturbed by some of what I hear and see.

    First of all, I disagree with my honourable colleague. I think it would be out of the spirit of equity to take any particular group and give them a higher priority than representation demands. In other words, we've gone far enough in giving them a preference over other people's equity, as far as the whole process is concerned. I'd be very much opposed to taking it beyond that. I think we would lose our equity.

    I'm concerned about what I hear about the possibility of proliferation of categories. If we were going to add categories... It's not politically correct, but it's a fact you can check out that white males under 25 or 35, for example, have one of the highest rates of unemployment. We wouldn't think at all of putting that group in our employment equity program. Members of motorcycle gangs, Hell's Angels members, etc., may be very highly unemployed, but we wouldn't choose to add them as a category.

    If we look at the categories we have, we can even add elderly to that. I might be for that, since I'm in that category. There's the disabled, the visual minorities, the aboriginals, the women. Every one of those categories would be able to be identified, either visibly or in some performance-related way, when you get into those with disabilities. With most women, you can tell who they are. Most of these people you can sort of identify visibly. You might not be able to see a disability, but there might be a disability that relates to their performance.

    Madam St-Jacques here suggested adding a group. To add a group that has no visible or performance-related disability, as I would perhaps suggest with the young white male, would be beyond the spirit of equity.

    My question is related to all of this. Employment equity, as I understand it, is for the protection of a citizen who needs an area of protection. To use it as social engineering is a wrong use, not in the spirit of equity. Would you care to comment on that?

    Mr. Syed Naseem: With respect to the issue of social engineering, as I mentioned in the beginning of my presentation, I'm here to talk about the employment equity data aspect, to look at what's in the current act and how we can best operationalize that, working with Statistics Canada.

    I believe I've addressed the issue you've raised with respect to the other designated groups, in response to other questions. I don't think I should be speaking to the issue of how the act could work or not work, in terms of social engineering. That's for the committee and the recommendations. That's why we look forward to your recommendations.

    The Chair: I think you got the only answer you're going to get. You might want to try another question.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: I'm concerned here. We get caught in the flow of wanting to promote this. It's like a business; we want to make it bigger and better. We want to bring the whole world into this.

    What's happened to giving people the freedom to be who they are and not have to declare “Mr. Employer, I once went to church. Am I a visible minority? Should I be protected?” or “I never went to church” or “I have this hobby or that hobby, or this leaning or that leaning”? I think we need to be willing to put some brakes on at the same level as we need to be willing to just encompass everybody we might want to throw into this equity situation, and truly keep the spirit of employment equity for those who really need it for protection.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Tonks.

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

    Aside from education, what other skills characteristics is it possible to identify in the data availability?

    Mr. Syed Naseem: Basically, we would look at three or four different variables: working age population, which could be people 15 years and older; our workforce, which is the occupations.... We have close to 520 of what I would call national occupational classification unit groups. It's broken down by various occupational groups: lawyers, data-entry clerks, managers, and so forth.

    In terms of education, the types of information we provide to employers are broken down by the level of schooling they've said in the census they have achieved. As well, it's broken down by the particular field of study. So we could provide to employers in the context of educational data, and some employers have requested this information--and I'm using this specific example--for any particular geographic area within Canada, the number of people who have, let's say, at least a university degree in the field of biology, broken down by women, aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities. Because of the sample size of the post-census survey, similar information is not available, or that level of detail is not available, for persons with disabilities, but we can provide information on schooling for persons with disabilities, and also by what I would call major fields.

    So in a nutshell, those are the key components that we do provide. Again, that information does come to us from Statistics Canada in the context of availability data.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I'm interested in knowing how you bridge the data with programs and your role, Mr. Naseem.

    I have here the aboriginal human resources development strategy. It analyses the total number of clients as three chronological windows. It analyses jobs found, it gives the employment savings, and then it talks about the number of day care spaces that are available, as a capacity-building exercise in linking services with that particular group.

    In terms of other designated groups, when you get the data, how do you bridge that with the rest of HRDC in terms of capacity building, and in fact how do you cross over into labour and skills development strategies, and so on? What is your department's role in that--not you personally, but your department's role?

    Mr. Syed Naseem: If I can answer that question, that's a question much larger than my particular role in the case of employment equity data and working with Statistics Canada on the issue of the Employment Equity Act and operationalizing it. I believe last week we had Mr. Phil Jensen come and speak to the issue of data and the program area information, which is something I can't speak to.

    The information that I provide or that we provide from a labour program side solely emanates from Statistics Canada, and we have talked about the surveys that they've mentioned. Similar information from a program area perspective, as you've mentioned, is not available for the other groups. We rely on information coming out of Statistics Canada. We share when it comes to the information coming out of Statistics Canada.

    As a coincidence, we are also involved in working with our colleagues from phase IV, what I call the others, in terms of HRDC to look at this whole issue of programming, and so forth. We have worked with them in partnership, in collaboration with our colleagues from that particular program area, but I can't speak to those particular program area issues.

    Finally, it's just an issue for us with respect to using data from Statistics Canada. One of the things, as we've mentioned, is that we have ensured that the data collected on visible minorities, let's say in 2001, as well as the 2001 HALS, and for aboriginal peoples and women is reliable, accurate, and serves the needs of the Employment Equity Act. That is my primary role. And that information is shared with the other program areas, but I can't speak to that. I'm not sure if others would like to comment.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    As we are reviewing the act, I would like you to tell us, Ms. Furrie and Mr. Norris specifically, if it would not be possible, in terms of multiple grounds, and especially with regard to handicapped people, to integrate a concept that would allow for an evaluation of the impact of multiple grounds. I am thinking, for example, of a woman who belongs to a visible minority or who is aboriginal and at the same time handicapped. What is the impact of such a multiple disadvantage. Would it be advisable to put into the act this concept, which might not have been sufficiently known in the past but which has a definite impact?

[English]

    Ms. Adèle Furrie: I think that's a great idea. Since I left Stats Canada I have worked on a number of projects where we've looked at the impact of being an aboriginal woman with a disability. We haven't been able to come to any conclusion, but it would be great to be able to examine whether or not the fact you were a member of two or three of the designated groups resulted in a larger impact, in terms of being able to secure employment. I think that's a great idea.

[Translation]

    M. Doug Norris: We have the data for all three groups. It is possible to use the census for such an inquiry. It becomes a bit complex if we want to look at aboriginal people who are handicapped, because these are different surveys, but it is possible to do a lot of research in this area.

    Mr. Paul Crête: Therefore it would be possible to get conclusive results without having to redevelop the surveys or spend lots of energy and resources to get these figures. If I understand you correctly, it would just be a matter of putting into the act a requirement to assess existing data.

    In view of this, Ms. Furrie, I would like you to perhaps develop further the evaluation you have made of this aspect, in order to outline a direction and indicate how this might become part of the framework without necessarily amending the act. What would be your ideal vision of how this should be done?

[English]

    Ms. Adèle Furrie: There has to be some research done with the data that exists. The 2001 PALS will become available later this year or in 2003. Because the data is linked to the census, you can extract from the census self-identification on aboriginal status and gender.

    As a first cut, you would want to initiate some research that would look at the three groups, in the context of their employment and education characteristics.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: I have two quick questions before I call it a wrap. One of them is on developing a nationwide system for assessing and recognizing foreign credentials, which has been a challenge in this country for many years.

    Does the census treat education obtained outside Canada as equivalent to that obtained inside Canada? If so, does this provide an inaccurate picture of availability, since we know that many immigrants possess foreign credentials in education not recognized in Canada? I suspect we probably have the most highly educated taxi service in the world.

    Mr. Naseem, you alluded to the fact that we might look at lowering the Employment Equity Act for federally regulated folks from 100 to maybe 15 or 20. I want to know what problems this would create. How many new employers would that capture, as opposed to the number of employees?

    You can answer in whatever order.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Doug Norris: Perhaps I could address the first question.

    The census unfortunately doesn't allow us to look at where your highest degree or credential was obtained. I think that is certainly a shortcoming of the census, because that is, as you pointed out, an important question today.

    We are looking at that issue in other surveys, not with the same size of sample as the census, but we are carrying out a new longitudinal survey of immigrants. We are carrying out a fairly detailed survey of a number of different ethnic groups where we're trying to get at that question.

    We have databases as well, which allow us to do that. So that issue is being looked at, but we can't use the census data by itself to get at that.

    Mr. Syed Naseem: With respect to the issue of the threshold, in terms of clarification, currently the act applies to employers who are federally regulated with 100 or more employees. In the case of the federal contractors program, it's the 100 or more employees who bid on government contracts worth $200,000 or more. That's the current status.

    We did some research with respect to the issue of lowering our threshold. Some of this research goes back to the previous committee, the 1995 committee, with the report entitled Employment equity: a commitment to merit. I'll come back to what they recommended at the end.

    We've looked at the issue, for example, of bringing it down to 20 or more employees. I believe you mentioned 15, but let's say we go with 20 or more. This would basically significantly increase the number of employers who are covered under the act. It would increase it for those two programs, for example, from about 1,350 to about 8,500. So it's almost a 500% to 530% increase in the number of employers.

    Now, on the other side, in terms of looking at the number of employees who would be covered by the increase in the employers, we find that number to be not that significant. We find that the number of employees would only increase by 20% to 25%.

    So there's that issue in terms of the statistical part. The other aspect is with respect to the balance. Going down to 20 or 25 employees would put a lot of burden on the employer in the sense that the reporting requirements, the employment equity planning, the conduct of the workforce analysis, as I've mentioned, and the setting of goals would be onerous.

    In addition, administratively, from a labour program perspective, as I mentioned, increasing the numbers from 1,400 to almost 5,000 would place a burden on our resources. It would also place a burden on the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which would have to enforce the act.

    Lastly, the committee in 1995 in their Employment equity: a commitment to merit report did look at this issue. I believe in recommendation 2 or 2.1 they basically suggested that the threshold remain at 100, both for the federal contractors and the federally regulated employers, and they recognized the fact that the employer burden would increase. At the same time, there'd be an exponential increase in the administrative cost of administering the act.

    So in a nutshell, if I were to summarize it, the marginal cost would far outweigh the marginal benefit of bringing it down from 100 to 20.

    The Chair: Okay. I want to thank our witnesses today for some very interesting information. They certainly have provided an excellent final report to this committee.

    I would remind members of the committee that we will meet in camera on Thursday at 11:00 a.m.

    This meeting is adjourned.