PACC 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.
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 23, 2002
| º | 1610 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay (Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
| º | 1615 |
| º | 1620 |
|
| º | 1625 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
| º | 1630 |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau (Deputy Secretary General, Operations, Canadian Human Rights Commission) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau |
| º | 1635 |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Ms. Murielle Brazeau |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| º | 1640 |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| º | 1645 |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Beth Phinney |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Chair |
|
| º | 1650 |
|
| º | 1655 |
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé |
|
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé |
|
Madame Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Antoine Dubé |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.) |
| » | 1700 |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)) |
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
| » | 1705 |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
| » | 1710 |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
| » | 1715 |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Ms. Val Meredith |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Mr. Harb |
| » | 1720 |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. Harb |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
| » | 1725 |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
Mr. John Finlay |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
|
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay |
|
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney) |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Public Accounts |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, May 23, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
º 
(1610)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): It's official. I call the meeting to order.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have standing orders today. Before we get into the business of today, I have a verbal report from the steering committee of the public accounts committee, which met on the motion by Mr. Martin that was read and adopted unanimously by the committee at the last meeting:
“I, Pat Martin, MP, Winnipeg Centre, move that the public accounts committee hold one or more hearings into the Auditor General's report on Groupaction Communications sponsorship contracts.”
The steering committee has been discussing the process and the witnesses to be called. At this point in time, the decision is that on Thursday, May 30, we are currently scheduled to deal with Health Canada and chapter 8 of the April 2002 report of the Auditor General. The meeting will be changed to have a thirty-minute presentation by the Auditor General on the Groupaction report and one and a half hours on chapter 8.
However, if the Auditor General is available on Tuesday, May 28, she will be called to present a thirty-minute report on her Groupaction report on the same basis that every time the Auditor General tables a report in Parliament the first order of business is she is called to present it to the public accounts committee. Either on May 30 or, if she's available, on May 28 we will have her present the report to the public accounts committee. She will then be open to questions by all parliamentarians. Then there will be another steering committee to move the agenda forward.
That is the recommendation of the steering committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Now we're into orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of the motion of Beth Phinney, MP, dated March 19, 2002, with regard to the government response to the 21st report of the public accounts committee on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal of February 9, 1999.
Our witnesses today are Madam Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. She has two other witnesses with her, and I'd ask that she introduce them.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay (Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission): I will do so with pleasure. Let me introduce Madam Murielle Brazeau, who is the deputy secretary general for operations, and Mr. Denis Pelchat, who is manager of financial services.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Now we'll have your opening statement, please.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you for inviting me to discuss the steps taken by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to address the recommendations outlined in the 21st Report to the House of Commons by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in February 1999.
I appreciate the invitation all the more because it is the last opportunity I will have to report on the Commission's continued good work and to register its concerns one last time with Parliamentarians. Some of you may be aware that I am retiring in a week. So, from a personal perspective, the timing of this invitation was most fortuitous.
I last addressed this Committee following the Auditor General's report in 1998. At that time, I acknowledged and, indeed, echoed a number of the concerns expressed by Mr. Desautels. I also emphasized that, despite those concerns, the Commission plays an important and necessary role in ensuring that Canadians are treated equally and provided the chance to contribute fully to our society.
However, given the impact of the Commission's limited resources and outdated human rights legislation, that role has become an increasingly challenging one.
[English]
To come to the purpose of today's appearance, I would like first to report on the commission's effort to follow up on the plan we tabled with the committee in April 1999.
When I last appeared before this committee, the commission was plagued with a backlog of complaints. As the Auditor General reported, some 48% of the commission's cases were in excess of nine months at the investigation stage and considered backlog complaints. I committed to continue our efforts to address delays until we had found solutions to those problems—solutions that would be within our control.
To address this situation, in 1999 the commission established a special unit of investigators at a direct cost of $650,000. This was reallocation of resources. We reallocated another $650,000 of internal resources to focus the work of many more employees toward the investigation of backlogged cases. In addition, many of our regular investigators focused their efforts on the oldest cases. In the course of 15 months we were successful in dealing with the 595 cases identified for this project.
But while we had this special effort going on to reduce the backlog, other complaints kept coming in. Those that could not be dealt with because we were focusing on the oldest cases formed the beginning of another backlog. Let me remind you that at the time the commission was resourced to deal with about 500 cases a year, yet in 1998 the commission received more than 600 complaints and had to carry over close to 1,500 cases.
º (1615)
[Translation]
Here is what we can say, based on experience. There is a sense among Commission staff that, no matter what, we will always be in a backlog situation because, as you know, by law we have to deal with every complaint that comes in. In truth, the backlog began at the inception of the Commission and bit by bit it has grown over the years. We will all agree that some reasonable carry-forward of backlogged complaints is manageable. But the backlogged complaints have been accumulating. And simply throwing money at a recurring problem—and the problem is a recurring one—will not heal the patient in the long run. The problem recurs because the patient suffers from a more fundamental ailment than the periodic need to mount a concerted effort to clear the backlog.
[English]
This forced us to look at our caseload in a different way. Today at the commission we have established that all the cases over and above the number the commission is resourced to deal with in a year constitute our case overload.
In looking at our caseload over the years we can see that historically the commission has always faced a surplus of cases. It just did not have and still does not have the resources to deal fully with the number of complaints it receives in a year.
We can adjust promotion and policy activities to match our resources, but we cannot control the number of complaints we receive. Last year once again we approached the Treasury Board for relief, and ad hoc funding has been approved. Over the next four years this funding will help us to deal with our case overload, but these are not permanent resources that can be applied to the permanent solution.
Since 1999 the commission also addressed the Auditor General's recommendations from another perspective. In our efforts to improve the complaints process and ultimately reduce the backlog, we placed considerable emphasis on the review of procedures to streamline the process and shorten the overall life cycle of complaints.
For example, by reallocating existing investigation resources, we established a separate intake unit to improve quality and timeliness of service early in the process. This unit allows an investigator to concentrate on investigations. Now respondents are notified of a complaint within a week, rather than the previous average of two months.
[Translation]
In 1998, in line with the Auditor General's recommendation, the Commission launched a pre-investigation mediation project. The project has proven so successful that in 2000 the Commission made it a formal step in the complaint process. Now, when I qualify it as “successful“, allow me to provide you with some figures.
In 2001, 525 new complaints were referred to our mediation services section. In about half of those cases, parties agreed to participate in this voluntary process. Just under three quarters of those cases, or 72%, were successfully resolved through mediation and that, within about four months. Evaluations completed by both complainants and respondents alike suggest that most found mediation a worthwhile exercise, whether or not the negotiations eventually resulted in a settlement.
I would add that we would like to place more emphasis on this innovative project, but that we do not possess the necessary resources. In fact, the combination of mediation, conciliation and pre-trial negotiations last year resulted in 273 settlements.
We introduced two other changes in response to the Auditor General's report. First, we put in place a more elaborate training process tailored to employees who are involved in Operations at different phases: the receptionists, in-take officers, mediators, investigators, conciliators and lawyers. In addition, we have deployed a new procedure manual that along with the training provides employees with a solid support system.
º (1620)
In addition, we have been working at developing service standards to help guide our work. Initial standards were established last year and we are in the process of evaluating them in order to ensure that they are attainable, given our resources.
Finally, we adopted a new Commission meeting cycle in 2000, to provide more frequent opportunities for commissioners to adjudicate complaints and approve settlements. Whereas members used to meet nine times each year, we now meet monthly to deal with complaints on their merits. We hold ad hoc meetings as needed to approve settlements and address technical issues. This new arrangement has made for more timely decisions.
[English]
All these changes have been useful and have improved our operations, but the fact remains that the commission must operate within the parameters of the legislation and budget reallocations.
While poor resources remain a chronic concern, they are not the sole source of the commission's ills. Fundamentally, our act is yesterday's solution to today's problems. Next year we will celebrate our 25th anniversary under what might still be largely unamended legislation.
In 1999 the then Minister of Justice commissioned a review of our legislation. This review was conducted by former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest. His panel submitted its report in June 2000, and we continue to await the government's response.
At the risk of repeating myself, the commission operates within a much different environment today from when our act was passed in 1977. Today we need different tools to do our jobs, tools such as alternatives to individual complaints, more public education or special human rights inquiries. We need to handle complaints in a more flexible way. So I would ask this committee to join me in urging the Minister of Justice to introduce amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and equip the commission with today's tools to do today's job.
[Translation]
In the very near future, stewardship of this organization will pass to my successor. The work of the Commission is vital to the people of Canada, and I am proud to have served my country at its helm. But I am most proud of the caliber of the staff that I have had the honour to work with at the Commission. Of all of the assets an organization possesses, none are as important nor as valuable as its people.
We must give them a modern legal framework to serve Canadians effectively and our policy, promotion and operation areas need enhanced sustainable funding if our employees are to deliver all aspects of the legislated mandate.
In the last 12 months, the management team at the Commission has worked very closely with employees to address the concerns raised last spring in a workplace assessment survey that I had commissioned. Together we have developed an action plan and acted on it. Today, we have accomplished much and I leave a healthy organization. My successor will inherit a group of dedicated and professional people committed to upholding human rights principles on behalf of Canadians. The new chief commissioner and the people of Canada need the support of the Government of Canada in order for the Commission to be able to do its work well.
Thank you. I would now be pleased to take your questions.
º (1625)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Madame.
Before we move into questions, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce some guests we have at the committee this afternoon. We have the Honourable Muhammad Jamiruddin Sircar, member of Parliament and Speaker of the Parliament of Bangladesh, together with a delegation from the Parliament of Bangladesh. We welcome them here.
They're here on an official visit. They are very much interested in the workings of our Parliament and our public accounts committee. I met with them yesterday. I do hope that they return home with some new ideas and fresh ideas about how we manage our democracy here in Canada. I have invited them to observe our committee here this afternoon. They're welcome to stay for a while.
Again, we do hope that you go back with some fond memories of Canada, and we very much appreciate you coming. Thank you.
The Honourable Muhammad Jamiruddin Sircar (Speaker of the National Parliament of Bangladesh): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: You're most welcome.
Now we're going to turn to questions. We're going to depart a little bit from our normal rotation. We're going to start with Ms. Phinney from the government side, because, as you know, Ms. Phinney moved a motion that we hear from Ms. Falardeau-Ramsay.
Therefore, Ms. Phinney, you have the floor for eight minutes, please.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you very much.
I'd like to go through each of the recommendations we made and see how you have made out on those recommendations.
Before I do that, I notice that you said in here:
“I would ask the committee to join me in urging the Minister of Justice to introduce amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and equip the commission with today's tools to do today's job.”
By the second part of that I presume you mean more money so you can have more staff. I'm just presuming that; if not, you can correct me. I would like to know what amendments you would like introduced into the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It's not so much a question of money; what is important is to have tools. You see, for example, in the legislation right now we cannot establish time limits for the other party to answer whatever complaint has been sent to them. It means that we have no means at all to force anybody to respond in a timely way. We ask them in fact to reply within 45 days, but in practice most of the time we're dealing with big organizations, and they almost never meet this particular deadline. What happens is that they ask for an extension of the deadline, and as we have no means to force them, we have to give it. That's one of the tools I'm referring to.
Another type of tool I'm referring to is an alternative to individual complaints. It is obvious that even though I think there will always be a place for individual complaints, there should be other ways to deal with more systemic issues. We see what has been done in other countries. For example, in Australia they have inquiries into specific areas, which means that instead of dealing with only one complaint with one employee or one person who receives services, you're dealing with a large number of people, so you save a lot of money.
Those are examples of the types of tools I'm referring to.
º (1630)
Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.
Most lawyers I have talked to have said that if you ever have to go to court, for heaven's sake go to a court that has a judge and jury before you go to the Human Rights Commission. Now, I could probably name 15 lawyers who have said this to me, and they claim it's because in a court of law you at least get to cross-examine. From what I understand about the Human Rights Commission, if my friend here has been charged with something, he can come in with his lawyer and give his statement, and as far as that side of it is concerned, it's finished; but the accuser can bring in as many witnesses as they want without cross-examination. Could you verify that?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Well, I'm surprised by what you're saying. The way the system works is that when we receive a complaint, if the complaint is not settled at mediation, then our investigators will investigate the complaint, but there is no appearance in front of the commission. The appearance is in front of the Human Rights Tribunal, where it's like a normal trial. We have both parties, who are normally represented by counsel, and you have examination and cross-examination. What happens is that when the report comes before the commission, then the commission decides whether or not it should be sent for further conciliation or should be sent to the tribunal.
Ms. Beth Phinney: And at the tribunal there is cross-examination for every witness who is called upon?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Oh yes, definitely. Otherwise it would be against the rules of natural justice. If anything like that happened at whatever level, be it at the commission or before the tribunal, there would certainly be a review by the Federal Court saying that it's against the rules of fundamental justice. That rule is the basis of our legal system, that you have the right to examine and cross-examine.
Ms. Beth Phinney: I understand that. I wondered why these lawyers have suggested that.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I don't know.
Ms. Beth Phinney: They've had the experience. They've been there.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I don't know either. Are you sure? It might be in front of a provincial commission. I don't know.
Ms. Beth Phinney: No, it's the federal one.
Going back to your caseload, could you tell me how many cases are in the backlog now? You might have mentioned it here.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes. I will leave my colleague here to answer questions on that.
Ms. Murielle Brazeau (Deputy Secretary General, Operations, Canadian Human Rights Commission): Currently our surplus is the number of files that we have, the number of cases—
The Chair: I'm sorry, what's a surplus?
Ms. Murielle Brazeau: The backlog. What was usually referred to as a backlog we call our surplus, because we're looking at the number of cases that we have over and above the number of cases we are resourced to deal with.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay.
Ms. Murielle Brazeau: We are resourced right now to deal with 600 cases a year and we deliver 600 cases a year.
Ms. Beth Phinney: What's the backlog?
Ms. Murielle Brazeau: All the cases over 600.
º (1635)
Ms. Beth Phinney: Could you give me a number please?
Ms. Murielle Brazeau: The number is about 800 cases over and above.
Every year we try to eat at that backlog or surplus with the resources we have, but that's a chronic problem. And we have looked at the cases in the commission over the past twenty-some years--
Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm going to interrupt you, because I only get so much time. If you have 800 backlogged, presumably that's because you don't have enough lawyers and you don't have enough staff to work there. So that would indicate that you do need more money.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.
Ms. Beth Phinney: I asked you that before, and you said no, that's not really the problem; you said it's really the tools. But part of the tools you need is more money so you have more staff. Is that not correct?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Well, yes. I think I misunderstood your question.
Ms. Beth Phinney: I was just questioning on what you said.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I thought you were asking me what tools we required from the Minister of Justice in the new legislation.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: That's what I understood.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, and I said do you need more money, and you said no.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Not through the legislation, but we need more money. Oh yes, definitely.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Now, of the 800 that are the backlog, do 600 of those become the first ones you'd look after?
Ms. Murielle Brazeau: Yes.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Or would you take one off the street and put it next?
Ms. Murielle Brazeau: We have to deal with all of our cases.
Ms. Beth Phinney: In order.
Ms. Murielle Brazeau: We deal with them in order of age, so we deal with the oldest one first.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay, that's all for now.
The Chair: That certainly sounds like a backlog to me, and not a surplus.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, not a surplus.
The Chair: I can just quote from your report, Ms. Falardeau-Ramsay. You say you've asked the Treasury Board for extra money and ad hoc funding has been approved, according to your report, and over the next four years this funding will help you deal with your case overload, but these are not permanent resources that can be applied to a permanent solution. But you are going to get rid of your “surplus”, right?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Well, up to a certain extent, because as we're dealing.... For example, this year it seems, by what we can see, that we're receiving more cases than we received last year. Unfortunately, even if there is that ad hoc funding, those cases won't be dealt with, because it's a surplus that we cannot—
The Chair: I guess that's a problem you're going to pass on to your successor to resolve, then.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes, unfortunately.
The Chair: Before I pass to Mr. Mayfield, I'm going to point out to our guests, as I pointed out yesterday, that we in Canada are a public accounts committee that meets in public. We have behind the committee a gallery of media and anyone who is interested in observing the process of the committee. Anyone can actually apply to come in here. And if you look up on the wall there, you'll see a light that would indicate transmission. This particular meeting is being broadcast over Parliament Hill. Therefore if anybody switches the radio to the appropriate channel, they can hear this testimony being made and they can record it and tape it if they so desire.
The public accounts committee in Bangladesh meet in private, as they do in some other countries. But I did want to point out to our guests the public nature of all the committees here in the House of Commons, where we invite the media and we invite the public. We also broadcast the meetings, so that anybody who has any interest may see what's going on.
Mr. Mayfield, I'll now turn to you for eight minutes.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for your presentation. There's a lot of information in it.
On page 4 you mention that evaluations completed by both complainants and respondents suggest that most found mediation a worthwhile exercise. Would you be able to provide a copy of the evaluations to the committee?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I will do so with great pleasure.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you.
On page 5, in the fourth paragraph, you mentioned that an action plan has been developed and you have acted upon it. Would you supply the action plan to this committee, please?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes. Do you mean the action plan of April 1999? It is already in the hands of the committee.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: It is in the hands of the committee. Okay.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes. It was provided, I think, on April 30, 1999.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.
We've been talking about the difficulties your commission has been having and the need for more resources. Since you last met with this committee, there have been some reports of some serious personnel difficulties within the commission. The Globe and Mail report is quite devastating, in my mind:
| “The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a waste of taxpayers' money and is nearing collapse because of bitter infighting and turmoil within the rights watchdog, several of its current and former lawyers and managers say.” |
| “One long-time lawyer for the agency said a poisoned work environment, bad morale, harassment of employees and mismanagement have triggered an exodus of experienced lawyers and investigators.” |
| “Indeed, 10 seasoned lawyers—including eight women and two men—have left the commission in the past two years.” |
One Rosemarie Morgan is quoted as saying “I found it unbearable. There is something bigger at stake, it's not just money, it's human rights.” She had ten years with the commission but left last December. No, it was the December before; I'm sorry.
It strikes me that in an environment so described it would be very difficult to work effectively and efficiently. I'm wondering if the need is for more money, employees, and staff, or if it is a need to have personnel policies and supervision, such that the people there work effectively and happily with some satisfaction in the jobs they're doing.
Could you describe the situation and how it has been resolved, if it has been resolved? If it has not been resolved, I'd like to know what you intend to do about it.
º (1640)
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: First, let me tell you that the study you referred to is a study I personally asked for. I realized there was something going wrong in the commission. I think the responsibility of the head of an organization is to get to the bottom of things, so I asked for the study.
When the results of the study came up, I said to myself that we had better do something about it. We first had a meeting of the employees together. We looked at the recommendations of the study. We put in effect what we could do right then and there, without having problems of resources.
The first thing we did is strike the position of deputy secretary general for operations. Then we established the deputy secretary general position, of which Murielle is the incumbent. Then we also established the job of director of human resources. This we could do without any problems right then and there.
Then we had a meeting with elected people from the staff. We sat together with the commissioners, members of the staff, and management. We established the priorities the commission should look at and the type of action plan we should use.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: You understand that I have the same difficulty Ms. Phinney had: I have a very short period of time to ask you questions.
I'd like to cut right to the heart of the matter and ask you this. Have the steps you've taken brought absolute peace and tranquility and productivity to the commission?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Well, I think so. I think that right now, for example, from a turnover of 60% we now have a turnover of 36%. That compares very well with any organization—
Mr. Philip Mayfield: You're talking about 40% to 20%. Is that correct?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes. So it has been quite a good change.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: It's also been reported that a controversial Federal Court ruling called into question the impartiality and institutional independence of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Would you be able to comment upon that? Why would there be a lack of impartiality?
º (1645)
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I would prefer that the tribunal would answer that question.
I think it's purely a question of technicality in the issue, because I think you're probably referring to one of the Bell cases. It's difficult to answer, because I don't know exactly which cases—
Mr. Philip Mayfield: As a member of the commission, you would have some influence, I would think, with those people, would you not?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I see what you're referring to. You're referring to the case of the guidelines, probably. Well, I suppose. If I don't know the case, it's difficult to.... If it's the case of the guidelines, the commission has, by law, the authority to issue guidelines, especially in pay equity cases.
The commission issued guidelines many years ago, in 1986, if my memory serves me well. And there was an attack due to the fact that how could the commission issue guidelines and those guidelines would bind the tribunal and the court? How could a commission bind the tribunal and the court? You see, we are also appearing in front of the tribunal.
It was a very technical area, and we recommended that the guidelines be struck purely and simply and then we wouldn't be left with a problem.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: When Ms. Phinney began her questioning she asked for a response on how you were doing with the committee recommendations from your last meeting here. I am very interested in that. There's some detail in there that I would like to go into, and I don't have time.
Would it be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to ask for written responses to questions concerning the recommendations of the last committee meeting?
The Chair: I think it's perfectly appropriate to table that, or perhaps you just want to read them into the record. Are they too long to read into the record, Mr. Mayfield?
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Well, there are seven recommendations, and also our researchers have asked for five questions related to each of those recommendations. I would like that on the record, Mr. Chairman.
Is that what you had in mind?
Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes.
The Chair: Because of the shortage of time, I would like therefore to suggest that if anybody would like a written representation, submit it to the clerk and I'll present it at the next meeting. Normally, a member can ask for and receive the assurance of a written report. I don't think I'm going to have a motion at the committee, but I'll present it to the committee that these are the requests for a written response.
Is that okay, Mr. Mayfield?
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Perhaps I could help you out a little—
Ms. Beth Phinney: Philip, you may have to read the five questions that you would like answered for each of the recommendations.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Would you like to read them, Ms. Phinney?
The Chair: Ms. Phinney, please read the five questions. We're dealing with your motion today.
Ms. Beth Phinney: For each of the recommendations we'd like you to indicate whether they have been implemented; how and when they have been implemented; the indicators that have been used to measure their progress; what results have been achieved and where those results have been reported; and if the recommendation has not been implemented, why not?
The Chair: The clerk will confirm this in writing to you, so you don't have to bother taking notes.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield and Ms. Phinney.
Monsieur Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since you are going to be retiring, I would like to say that I hope your retirement will be just the way you would like it to be.
My colleagues have asked questions with regard to complaints and improving efficiency. Given that today we have guests from outside the country, I would ask that you give us the opportunity... I have participated in several meetings you have attended. I am a member of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As you are aware, Canada promotes human rights throughout the world. I would therefore invite you to share with us your view of the present state of human rights here in Canada, in other words that which falls under your Commission, compared with the situation in comparable countries, in order for us to see how we rank. You may not have the numbers here with you today, but you could supply them to us later on. Your report is certainly explicit in that regard.
You talk about the number of complaints. We know that in the case of some quasi-judicial tribunals, the rapid resolution of complaints sometimes brings about an increase in the number of complaints filed. This is paradoxical, but it seems it is the case in certain tribunals. Furthermore, we have observed the reverse phenomenon in other commissions: in other words, when the success rate of complaints is low, there is a drop in their number. When people have the impression that they have a better chance of winning, the number of complaints increases.
Finally, what types of complaints are most frequently made to your knowledge? Which human rights are involved in these complaints? We are familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but which are the three or four rights that are most often the object of such complaints?
I will stop there because I have put a lot on your plate. I would not want you to work beyond the date of your retirement.
º (1650)
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: First of all, thank you for your good wishes.
I will start with your last request, dealing with the types of complaints that are most often tabled with the Commission. The main motive of discrimination is disability. There will for example be cases dealing with the accessibility of certain locations or the refusal to accommodate persons with a disability. This is the most common motive.
The second one, which is tied with the third, is gender related. Here again, this is a frequent source of complaints. Often, these will be matters related to maternity leave. For example, an employee will be laid off during her maternity leave or as soon as her employer learns that she is pregnant. There are also, obviously, sexual harassment cases. There is quite a range as far as gender-related complaints are concerned.
The other motive is one's race, the colour of one's skin and one's ethnic origin. This is interesting. I do not know what is going to happen, but we have seen a slight increase in this type of complaint since the events of September 11. It remains, however, that these types of complaints and gender-related ones are in a dead heat every year.
This is interesting because it is a situation that continues year after year. These are the three main types of complaints we have been getting for more than a decade.
Another category we have seen an increase in is that of complaints related to age. I believe that the explanation for this can be found in the demographics of the country. For example, there are employees who complain of having been let go or fired because they are too old. We see this more and more.
As to your other question, it is difficult to say what effect the length of time it takes us to deal with a complaint has on the overall situation. It is difficult to say whether or not that will bring about a greater number of complaints or fewer complaints. I believe that one of the main ways of avoiding a greater number of complaints is to educate the public. People would then realize that they must respect the rights of others. I believe that that would eliminate a good many complaints.
With regard to your first question, relating to human rights in Canada in general compared with other countries, as far as I know, Canada has, generally speaking, a very very good record, although I must say that I continue to be aggrieved by certain preventive detention provisions of Bill C-36, that has become law. As a matter of fact, I spoke directly of this to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, in Geneva. I took advantage of the open floor period for national commissions and institutions to bring this matter up.
º (1655)
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Could you give us more details about this?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Well, we are a country that has never before provided for preventive detention. Today, the provisions of this Act allow for preventive detention. Obviously, this means that persons may be detained without having been accused of anything. This is the problem I brought up in Geneva. But I must say that overall Canada is a country that is respectful of human rights.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: On the last point, my question will most certainly have been recorded. Could the witness supply the committee with what I have asked for?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Certainly. I will provide you with the text of the declaration tabled before the United Nations.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Did you do this recently?
Madame Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It was in the month of March.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: This is very interesting for an opposition MP.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dubé.
Now Mr. Finlay, four minutes please. We're on to the second round.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad you're here, Madam. It's interesting to hear of your problems.
I've never appeared before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I did have occasion to appear before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I must say the experience was not a good one. Ms. Phinney has put her finger on part of the problem. In that case, I think the problem was the tribunal—which was a tribunal of one—was quite new and inexperienced. The tribunal took all of its directions from the lawyer who was serving for the supposedly aggrieved employee. The aggrieved employee was getting paid to be there, and was not losing any money. The employer, however, had to pay his own staff to be there, or had to get himself there. He was losing considerable money—not to mention losing support for the credibility of his organization.
My question is, do we operate on precedent at all, like our courts do? If people find certain complaints are not listened to very carefully, or are not granted very often, maybe some of the nuisance complaints will cease to come in. Some of them will be nuisance complaints.
In the case I'm talking about—which was not your case—the investigation was not adequate. On page two, you said $650,000 was put into a unit of special investigators, who managed to get the 595 cases done. When you reallocated another $650,000 to focus work of many more employees on investigating the backlogged cases, what work was not done, or what had they not being doing in the past?
» (1700)
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: The 595 cases were dealt with by these two groups.
Mr. John Finlay: Okay. Then what normal work was not done?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It was the work these investigators would normally have done on cases coming in. If the investigators want a job, they cannot do another job at the same time.
Mr. John Finlay: Quite so.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: So when you reallocate.... It was a period when the employees worked very hard. We had one group of eight investigators and people from various other legal services, such as conciliation and promotion. We put these people together as a special first group, but we realized we wouldn't go very far with it. So we reallocated another $650,000. We then gave special training to everybody in the commission with experience as a investigator, to update their skills. So we assigned people from the secretary general's office, and from promotion, policy, corporate, and all regions in the commission, to do investigations as well, so we could do as much as we could. In fact, we put almost all of our resources into complaints and investigations at that time, to tackle the 595 complaints.
But as I was explaining, other complaints were coming in. Very few investigators were left to deal with these complaints. That's how it starts....
Mr. John Finlay: Exactly.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Finlay. You can come back after Ms. Meredith has had her turn.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to follow up on Mr. Finlay's questions, because I was going to ask the same thing. I am amazed you can all of a sudden come up with $1.3 million because you have this backlog, and you're telling us you always have this backlog.
I appreciate that you can get everybody doing other things into handling complaints, but my understanding of the Human Rights Commission is that it was designed to handle complaints. That should be the sole purpose of the Human Rights Commission. Why wouldn't all of your resources, all of the time, be going towards handling the complaints so that you don't have this outstanding backlog?
It's hard for me to accept the fact that people can only handle doing one thing. I don't know anybody in this room who does one thing. And if the complaints are as you said, it shouldn't be that difficult to get through a process. A lot of them go to mediation. Why can't you handle more than 500 complaints a year?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: First, our mandate, as it is in the legislation, also includes education and promotion that normally should be as important as complaints handling. That is part of our mandate. We have a group of people who are dedicated to education and promotion of the public. That's part of our mandate; it's our legal framework. We have to do it, because it's in the law.
» (1705)
Ms. Val Meredith: What percentage goes towards education and promotion? And when you say education, are we talking about going into the schools, or are we talking about putting advertisements in newspapers for more than you would pay to do other things?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: No, we have no money to do that. For example, I would go and give speeches. I give an average of 25 speeches a year. Our promotion people will, for example, get together with another organization and put on a workshop. Last year we organized workshops on accommodation for disability, because the Supreme Court of Canada issued 3 decisions dealing with that, which were changing the rules of the game, so we put together something and gave those workshops.
Ms. Val Meredith: I'm going to interrupt, because I get four minutes; I don't even get eight minutes.
You talk about promotion. You have been criticized in the past for doing an awful lot of international travel. Is this something you put off as promotional and educational? Why would the Canadian Human Rights Commission be spending the amount of money they were spending on travel in foreign countries when you have a backlog of 500-plus or 600-plus cases to resolve?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: First, I can tell you that 68% of my international travels are paid for by other organizations, such as CIDA, Foreign Affairs, OSC, UN, and other organizations that ask me to go. You see, we have that chance in Canada, that we are recognized—the commission—as technical experts in dealing with human rights complaints. Perhaps you don't believe so, but it's the reputation we have.
Ms. Val Meredith: I guess the concern is there was a problem in the Human Rights Commission with staff. There were accusations of sexual harassment and of all kinds of problems that, coming in the Human Rights Commission, really are just not acceptable. That's why you're here: to represent a person who has that kind of complaint. If that kind of complaint is coming out of the organization, it would indicate there's a problem, and if you're spending your time travelling internationally, who is dealing with and trying to resolve the issues at the commission?
Another thing I would like to ask before I get cut off here—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Your time is already up, so you had better let her answer the one and then come back.
Ms. Val Meredith: Okay, I'll come back.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Well, first, when people speak about my international travels, you would have the impression I'm always on the road. Last year I went three times: one time to Geneva, as we go every year, and two other times--where was it, I don't even remember--to Montpellier and Strasbourg, where I gave workshops to Canadian and foreign judges and lawyers on human rights in Canada, and to Mexico at the request of Foreign Affairs to establish a network of the national institutions of the Americas, because there are such networks everywhere around the world except in the Americas. As we are the leader in the area, we did that.
Ms. Val Meredith: Do you know what the question was?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: So I was out of the country at the most about twenty working days--at the most.
Ms. Val Meredith: So the accusations are not accurate, then. Is that right?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Well, I'll leave it to you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Thank you very much.
Do you, or does anyone else over here, have a question? All right.
You can go for four minutes, then back to Ms. Meredith.
Mr. John Finlay: I think there are one or two positive things in here.
In my experience I would say that mediation is always better than confrontation or litigation or going before a tribunal. You seem to have had great success with speeding things up with mediation. Now, is there some place here where you could make mediation mandatory? I've dealt with the National Energy Board, and they have a mediation process that can be used before they get to final decisions, as a result of a private member's bill of mine years ago about intervener funding.
I refer to page 4: “In 2001, 525 new complaints were referred to our mediation services section. In about half of those cases, parties agreed to participate in this voluntary process”. Is it still voluntary, or is it now mandatory?
» (1710)
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: To be mandatory, there would have to be a change in the legislation.
Mr. John Finlay: Okay. I thought you'd say that. But these cases were successfully resolved through mediation and within about four months.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.
Mr. John Finlay: Well, I'd certainly be putting the pressure on that, then. In fact, as you say, the combination of mediation, conciliation, and pre-tribunal negotiations last year resulted in 273 settlements.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.
Mr. John Finlay: Then that's the way to go.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes, I completely agree with you. We would like very much to be able to do more of it, but we realize that many of the people who refused the mediation were respondents. When we were able and had the resources to go and meet with the respondents and explain the purpose of the mediation, those respondents agreed to more mediation. Right now we don't have the resources to do that, to send people around to explain what mediation is all about in order to have even more people accepting mediation.
Mr. John Finlay: It seems to me there's another thing you've been doing that is mentioned in here that I think you should emphasize. It is on page 4, third to last paragraph:
“Finally, we adopted a new Commission meeting cycle in 2000, to provide more frequent opportunities for commissioners to adjudicate complaints and approve settlements. Whereas members used to meet nine times each year, we now meet monthly to deal with complaints on their merits.”
Somebody is making some judgments, which is a good thing.
“We hold ad hoc meetings as needed to approve settlements and address technical issues. This new management has made for more timely decisions.”
I think we should be finding innovative ways to have those decisions and that learning impinge on the new complainants who don't want to have mediation but want to go the whole hog.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I agree.
Mr. John Finlay: Maybe we have to say that with mediation you may get something but if you go to the tribunal you're not going to get anything, because you don't have the evidence, or it's vexatious or litigious or it's not worth our time and it shouldn't be here.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: You know, that's one, too, that could be granted to us by a change in legislation.
Mr. John Finlay: Exactly.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Ms. Meredith.
Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to address this issue on page 5 in your comments, about the fourth paragraph. You talked about the workplace assessment survey. I thought, on questioning, that you said the workplace assessment survey was done in April 1999.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: No.
Ms. Val Meredith: I misunderstood you, then. What was done in April 1999?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: April 1999 was when we produced the action plan in response to your recommendations and the recommendations of the Auditor General.
Ms. Val Meredith: I'm new to this committee. Have you not appeared before this committee since that time?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: No.
Ms. Val Meredith: So is this the first appearance you've made since 1999?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Since 1999.
Ms. Val Meredith: Well, the actual thing was September 1998.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It might be, yes.
Ms. Val Meredith: So this is the only opportunity you've had to come here.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.
Ms. Val Meredith: Is it the only invitation you've received?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.
Ms. Val Meredith: Well, I would think, Madam Chairman, that was remiss on our part, to wait three years to have the Human Rights Commission appear before us to answer on this.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): That's exactly why, Ms. Meredith, I asked the committee to do it about a month ago.
Ms. Val Meredith: Could we get a copy of the questions from the survey that you had taken in the workplace, the workplace assessment surveys that you had the employees fill out?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes, for sure.
If I can explain also, we had asked a small group of employees, with one representative of management, to sit together with the consultant to prepare the questions so that it wouldn't be—
» (1715)
Ms. Val Meredith: Management didn't do it.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Exactly.
Ms. Val Meredith: So then the questions were put together by the consultant and the employees themselves.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: And the employees themselves.
Mr. John Finlay: When was that, please?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: We got the result in May. So it was done around the beginning of March, because we met—
Ms. Val Meredith: Of 2002?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: No. Do you mean the workplace assessment?
Mr. John Finlay: Yes.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It was done a year ago. The decision was made at the February planning meeting, and then the results came in May. So that means it was done between February and May.
Ms. Val Meredith: Of 2001.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Yes.
Ms. Val Meredith: So that's already a year old.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Exactly.
Ms. Val Meredith: So would you feel that this result from this survey of your employees would be accurate a year later?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: No. I think you would see a big change, because, as I explained before, we have established an action plan with the employees. We are, at the moment, following that action plan, and it's going very well. Our turnover rate has gone from the 60% it was at for two years to 36%, and is now well commensurate with other organizations that are about the same. And more than anything else, we have done well.
Would you like to have an idea of what we have done?
Ms. Val Meredith: I'm going to run out of time again. Could you provide that in written form, a summation of what you've accomplished, as far as your statistics of employment are concerned?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Oh, yes.
Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Thank you very much. If you could sent it to the clerk...
Ms. Val Meredith: Then my last question is this: You took a lot of criticism for giving performance bonuses when there was turmoil in your establishment. Have you established criteria for giving performance bonuses? Have you developed some measurement of performance, achievement, in order to qualify for performance bonuses?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It will be interesting to know that the performance bonuses are part of the regular pay.
Ms. Val Meredith: Why do you call it a performance bonus if they get it for the job they are doing? Then it's just part of their pay scale, is it not?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: It's part of the pay scale. That's the way it is.
Ms. Val Meredith: So that's not really a performance—
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: You would have to ask Treasury Board what—
Ms. Val Meredith: So it's Treasury Board guidelines, then.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Thank you.
Mr. Harb, you had a short question?
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I wasn't planning to speak but, frankly, hearing your answers to my colleagues triggered a couple of things in my mind.
First, in your objectives, your terms of reference in the Human Rights Act, you're doing an excellent job, both internationally as well as here, in general. But you are also facing what I consider huge challenges on two fronts. One challenge is the administrative one, the internal operation of your commission. My colleagues have spoken about some of the issues--staffing, staff relations, personnel, performance--all of that.
The second issue is a legislative issue. Some of my colleagues, in particular Mr. Finlay, raised the question of why isn't the mediation mandatory. You said because it's not in the legislation. I agree with you, it's not in the legislation, and it needs to be in the legislation. But there is a second element of it that needs to be in the legislation, which is that notwithstanding all of this, when at the end of the day you make a decision in favour of a client, the employer--whether it's government or private sector--has absolutely no obligation to act on your decisions. So in effect, what you need are the teeth in order to ensure that your decisions have an impact and at the end of the day it is not only a moral issue, but it becomes an issue of enforcement.
I wanted to ask you whether in your last annual report to Parliament you in fact specifically said that those are the tools you need: financial resources so you can deal with some of the operational issues, and legislative changes to the act so that you can deal with the legislative issues.
» (1720)
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: For sure, we have been doing that for years, exactly that, and not only through our annual report. It is something I also mentioned when I went to the justice committee, which is the committee I report to. I also said that in front of the Senate when I had a meeting with the committee of the Senate as a whole, and then also in front of the human rights committee of the Senate. Those points I have made many times.
Mr. Mac Harb: I am grateful to my colleague, Ms. Beth Phinney, for making this encounter possible, and I want to wish you well in your next endeavour.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): I have a question here that I was left by the chair.
In the Auditor General's report she said that there is a list of specified prohibited grounds of discrimination, that this has evolved, and that the commission tries to expand the interpretation of the act through court cases, sometimes in collaboration with complainant's counsel.
I have two examples of situations here. A jailed transsexual lodged a complaint against the prison system. She argued that she should be sent to a women's prison and provided--at a cost to the government, of course, or the taxpayers--with sex change surgery. That went in front of you people, from what I understand here.
The Canada Steamship Lines fired an employee for being drunk. He claims that the company discriminated against him because of his disability--his drunkenness.
The question that was left with me was if the owner of a store was hiring somebody to work the till, the cash, and the person had a serious record of offences that included robbery, etc., and did not get hired, could he go to your commission and say he was discriminated against, that he's very good at using the till, so he should have the job?
If you have an overload--or surplus, as you call it--then why aren't some of these put out, and why are they allowed to get in there? Instead of expanding your parameters, as the Auditor Gneral says you are doing, and trying to make it bigger, why don't you stick to what your parameters are according to the law, what's written down, and maybe you wouldn't have that 600 extra, or 800 extra?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: For a very good reason, which is we have no choice. We have to deal with every complaint that comes to us, be it a complaint that is well founded or not well founded. This is also something that we asked be changed through legislation so that we could do an administrative filtering of cases. We cannot do that right now.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Excuse me, Madam. You're saying that you never refuse a case.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: We cannot. We can dismiss a case after a case has been investigated, but we cannot refuse a complaint. If anybody comes before us at our office or phones with a complaint, even if we tell them—because we do tell them sometimes—that it is outside our jurisdiction, that it's a provincial matter and not a federal matter, if that person insists, then we have to take that complaint and we have to have an investigation and render a decision on it.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): This is just a specific case, but with this woman who wanted the court to pay for her to have her sex changed, you people said it had to go forward.
» (1725)
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: There was, if I remember correctly, a settlement in that case anyway.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): You said it had to go forward before the settlement—
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: We have no choice, you see. We have to take that complaint, and then it will be sent to mediation.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): You took the complaint, you heard it, and then you said it had to go forward, to continue and not be dropped.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: No. If I remember correctly, there was a settlement in that case, but I could check if you wish.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): No, it's just a specific case, but if you have more than you can handle, why do you go looking for more?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Oh, we're not looking for more, I can assure you. We have to deal with the complaints we receive. If somebody comes to the commission and insists that we should take that complaint even if we explain that it's not in our jurisdiction or it's not grounds covered by the legislation, well, we have to take it.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): If it's not covered by the legislation, you don't have to take it. Your job is to do what the legislation says, not anything else.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Exactly. The legislation tells us that we have to investigate every complaint that comes before us and then decide whether or not this is under our jurisdiction, whether this is covered by the grounds. That's the way it works.
Mr. John Finlay: But Madam, you don't need to take 23 months to investigate some simple complaint.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: I think you should go and tell that to the Federal Court.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Maybe that's where we need to have some changes made.
Since everybody seems to have asked their questions, I would like to ask you for a final comment--or maybe you want to make another one. What are you going to advise the person who replaces you? What's your recommendation to whoever replaces you?
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: My first recommendation will be to push to have changes in the legislation, because I think this is necessary. Then I'd say to go on with the action plan we put together after the workplace assessment was done and also to go on pushing to get enough base resources so we can deal with the work we have to deal with. I think that is most important.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Thank you very much, and on behalf of everybody I wish you good luck.
Ms. Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.