EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 27, 1995

.1104

[English]

The Chairman: Order.

With the indulgence of the witnesses who are before us today, we would just like to dispense with one very brief item of business - you are welcome to continue to attend the proceedings - and that is the election of a new vice-chair, in light of the transfer of one of our vice-chairs to another committee.

On that note, the floor is open for nominations.

.1105

Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Bob Wood, who has been a member of this committee and I believe has served it well, as the vice-chair to replace Mr. Telegdi.

The Chairman: The name of Mr. Bob Wood has been placed in nomination. Does Mr. Bob Wood agree to that placing?

Mr. Wood (Nipissing): I would love to do it.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): I second the nomination.

The Chairman: Are there any other nominations from the floor? Shall I declare that the nomination has resulted in acclamation, with the consent of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So the election of Mr. Bob Wood is declared unanimous.

Mr. Wood, the chair may now leave and you can take over.

Seriously, we have today before us the Clerk of the House of Commons and some of his co-officials to answer questions we may have respecting the House of Commons, in this instance, and the legislation before us, the Employment Equity Act.

Would you like to make some opening remarks, or would you like to begin by making yourself available for questions and answers?

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here. I did not prepare an opening statement, as in our conversation over the telephone on Monday you indicated to me you had some four or five categories of questions. However, I would like to introduce my colleagues: Diane Davidson, who is our legal counsel, and Jacques Sabourin, who is our director of human resources.

The Board of Internal Economy has promulgated a policy on employment equity in the House of Commons since 1992. We have made a copy available to you, as well as the small pamphlet we hand out to employees and prospective candidates for employment at the House. If you wish, I could have Mr. Sabourin quickly summarize the policy and its application, and then we could take questions.

The Chairman: I think that would be useful. You may proceed.

Mr. Jacques Sabourin (Director General, Human Resources Directorate, House of Commons): Thank you very much for the invitation. The policy, of course, is a much simpler statement than Bill C-64, which we had to go through before coming to this committee; however, there are a lot of similarities in terms of intent and objectives. For example, the opening legislative intent, as I think it's defined in the bill, is to achieve equality and to correct conditions that are disadvantageous for the designated groups. That is exactly what you will find on page 1 of our policy. In the second paragraph is also the further objective of eliminating whatever systemic obstacles, as they are called, there are to employment and to equal opportunities for the members of the four designated groups.

In terms of the application, obviously there is no comparative scope. The House of Commons policy applies only to those employees who are employees of the House or who are employees of the Board of Internal Economy, which is the official employer at the House. It excludes, of course, all who are employees of members of Parliament.

After that, we have a little more elaboration on exactly what we seek to achieve with our policy and what it is meant to support.

Other than the objective of reaching goals in terms of representation, we also have in the policy what I call an aspect of awareness, or education if you will. It reads that employment equity encompasses not only treating all persons in the same manner but also providing for special measures to facilitate the accommodation of differences. You can see that in some of the reports we've done in terms of making the Hill a friendlier place for those who are disabled. There have been numerous efforts, whether converting washrooms or entrances, etc., that have progressed rather impressively, I think.

.1110

The last part of the policy is basically our mechanism or machinery to ensure that there are identified roles, responsibilities and monitoring mechanisms. You'll find basically four areas of responsibility. There's the planning function within the Human Resources Directorate, which basically will do the corporate analyses and the GAP analyses and also try to help managers in terms of planning as to where we might make efforts to go out and recruit people who are in the four groups.

As an example, we had a recent competition for constables. In this case we specifically made a special effort to go to CNIB and also to aboriginal organizations to try to see if they could put forward candidates, always respecting, as I'm sure you can imagine, the merit principle in terms of the competition process at the House.

The second player, if you will, and probably the most important, is the manager himself or herself, because when you're bringing in an employee the person who will decide whether that employee fits or does not fit the bill is the person who will have to live with the employee. Basically, that responsibility lies on his or her shoulders, and we feel that a very big part of our role in human resources is basically to support and maybe to nudge managers into giving all the consideration that is due to the employees, and of course to think about the designated groups.

To be a bit more precise,

[Translation]

the staffing officer who assists in the recruiting process will in fact try to provide advice and find information sources which could make the process more open, and even stimulate candidacies for some competitions.

Lastly, the human resources Directorate acts as a corporate conscience to ensure that this policy, as well as others whether it is official languages or staffing policies, not only are adhered to but actively implemented.

In terms of this policy, the Directorate liaise with the Board of Internal Economy to carry out reports, and provide information and analysis. Of course, we don't have at the House the whole process provided for in part II and III of the Bill dealing with compliance and follow-up of policy.

Personally, I am not sure that that is necessary. Since the implementation of the Early Retirement Program, we have only 1500 employees and I don't think that such a number warrants a very cumbersome compliance mechanism, even though there should be one.

So that's an outline of the House of Commons policy on employment equity. You will notice that there is also a glossary which in many regards resembles what is in the bill for all that concerns us, obviously.

[English]

So that's a quick overview of the intent of the policy. It's a simple, straightforward document. We have started looking at it a little bit more closely. We are probably going to start reviewing it to see if there are any ameliorations we can bring to it in the next six to eight months.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sabourin.

Are we now open to questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Thank you, Mr. Chair. First I would like to congratulate our new Vice-Chair who has had quite an easy campaign. As we have had pretty much the same thing on this side, all is well.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the committee will have to decide whether to subject employees of the Hill to the Employment Equity Act.

.1115

I understand that we will not discuss parliamentary staff in the constituency offices and on the Hill. Essentially, we're talking about some 1,500 people, if I understood correctly.

Of these 1,500 people, is there more or less a natural balance that has been established without having an actual employment equity policy? Do you have statistics that you could share with us on the number of persons with disabilities, women, native people and obviously people that are within the four designated categories? I think that that would be helpful in order to determine whether or not we should bring the staff on the Hill under that Employment Equity Act.

Mr. Marleau: I could give you some statistics, Mr. Ménard, but I must tell you beforehand that it is very difficult to quote them with any assurance.

On two occasions, we have made a little census of our employees through the voluntary identification process. But because it was voluntary, the capture rate was low. Only some 22% or 23% of respondents identified themselves. So it is difficult to have absolute confidence in these figures.

However, I can give you the number of respondents for each category. We had 8 men and6 women who identified themselves as natives, 14 men and 5 women as persons with disabilities, and 9 men and 12 women as members of visible minorities.

If these were absolute figures, it would be quite interesting because the overall rates would be significantly above the proportions in the Public Service and above the proportions that the minister quoted in his statement when he appeared before your Committee.

Mr. Ménard: [Inaudible]

Mr. Marleau: Exactly. If you take the number of women and apply it to the 357 respondents, it is not out of proportion. You would have 54% of women, 3.9% of natives, which is higher than the 2.2% in the general public, 5.3% of persons with disabilities and 5.9% of members of visible minorities. These figures would be slightly lower than those quoted by the minister. Once again, I underline that these percentages are somewhat artificial.

Mr. Ménard: I have two more questions. Of course, I have not been here for a very long time, but if I was asked point blank in what areas there are disproportions in terms of the representation in various categories, my first reaction would be to say - and I want to make sure that it comes under your responsibility - the cafeteria staff. Does that come under your responsibility as well?

Mr. Marleau: Yes.

Mr. Ménard: Among the constables, it seems to me that there are few women. Perhaps you have not made an in-depth analysis in that area, but do you share my impression.

As for remedial measures that should be brought about in services that are subject to the Employment Equity Act, should there be an increased effort to integrate persons with disabilities? It seems to me that the persons in that category that I have seen around seem for the most part to belong to the Messenger Services.

Mr. Marleau: In the Messenger Service, the people with disabilities that you have seen are part of a program that was started in 1986, namely the buddies program, as it is called, in co-operation with Ridgemont Highschool.

Handicapped people are recruited there as students. Thus, messengers take them on as buddies during the school period in order to train them on the job. At the end of the school year, these people are trained in some aspects of the messenger service and that is included in their academic curriculum.

.1120

If you have a perception that there is a concentration of handicapped people in the messenger service, it is due to a very specific program that is going on presently at Ridgemont High School. But once again, given that the self-identification program is deficient, it is difficult for us to give you more accurate figures or persons with disabilities.

When reading your evidence, I noticed that there were people - I believe that it wasMr. Telegdi - who made a distinction in the self-identification process between the person who is applying for a job and the person who already obtained the job. Those are two different situations. In the first case, it could well be an advantage to identify one self; in the second case, there are people who may fear to identify themselves in the workplace as being handicapped, even if their handicapped is not really serious. That is why we have some difficulty in giving you an accurate answer.

So if the people with disabilities are more visible in some places, as you have noticed, it is because of the Ridgemont Program which is my view one of the best programs of its kind. The House of Commons was the first to establish that kind of program and Mr. Speaker Fraser reported about it to this committee in the previous legislature.

As far as constables are concerned, I think that what you are stating is a fact. But we are improving the situation through staffing everytime that we have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ménard: Mind you, the women who are there do not go unnoticed, not because of their attitude, but because of their sheer presence. Everybody is quite nice. After having been elected, I was even somewhat embarrassed to see how much the people were at our disposal. I would even say that it verges on obsticuousness at times.

There are three or four women who are posted at the main entrance and who spontaneously approach Members of Parliament, talk to them and maintain really extraordinary realtionships. But if there was some remedial measures needed, I must tell you that it would undoubtedly be in the constable group where women and disabled people are under-represented. But would that be compatible with their functions?

This brings me to my last question. Among the constable personnel, some are clearly identified as being constable while others look more like civilians.

Perhaps I have too much imagination, but it reminds me of the movie In the Line of Fire where you see people whose job it is to protect the Prime Minister. But my question is this: do the people whose job it is to protect the Parliamentarians or the Prime Minister come under your services or under the RCMP?

Mr. Marleau: They come under the House Security Service. It is a core of nine employees in civilian clothes who are trained to protect the Prime Minister when he is within the premises. They are also deployed around the envelope, to use the security term, of the House itself. There is always at least one of them at the main entrance and at least one at the back door. I will not go into the details. For several years now, there have been women in that team.

Mr. Ménard: There are?

Mr. Marleau: There are some of them presently and that has been the case for at least five or six years.

Mr. Ménard: I will come back in the second round, thank you.

[English]

Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): I have an elementary list of concerns. I'm looking at this document here. This is the one we're basically dealing with right now. I think the definition of ``House'' is critical. Exactly what do we mean by ``House''? What are the parameters? I'm thinking of accommodation in particular for the disabled. What buildings are we dealing with? How far does the ``House'' extend beyond the Hill? I'm wondering - do we go half a mile? How many buildings are involved and so forth?

Of course we know that the number of personnel will vary from year to year. But that kind of information I think is critical, simply because - even though we don't want to talk about quotas - there are numbers involved. I think that some type of addendum to this package is essential. I think that kind of information should be accompanying the policy statement. Otherwise, it's very difficult for anyone to proceed or to make any kind of judgment about the effectiveness of this program if they get any additional information from the so-called chief.

.1125

Now, who is the chief? I think there should be a definition describing the chief of the human resources planning, responsibilities and so forth, listed right here.

Mr. Marleau: Are you asking me a question, Mr. Dromisky, or making a recommendation?

Mr. Dromisky: It's a kind of recommendation. I don't know whether you have some other document, which will be accompanying this and be an addendum to it, that will cover all of that.

Mr. Marleau: No.

Mr. Dromisky: I think it should be together, instead of asking members of Parliament or members of this committee to be searching all over for that information.

Mr. Marleau: We can certainly put some information together for you to that effect.

The House of Commons now occupies five different buildings across the parliamentary precincts, running from the Confederation Building, going to the East Block, the Wellington Building and La Promenade Building, which we're in now. Most of the buildings have been, asMr. Sabourin commented earlier, converted or altered in the recent past to be as handicap friendly as possible.

You have to realize that we are tenants in these buildings. This is a Public Works program. Any aspects of these buildings that were not handicap friendly were reviewed as part of a global plan. Most of them I think right now are complete, save maybe a few smaller projects to make them totally accessible to the handicapped.

In terms of the number of personnel we have who are handicapped, as I was trying to say toMr. Ménard, the self-identification program has not been a great success because it's voluntary.

Mr. Dromisky: That's right.

Mr. Marleau: I have to admit that maybe the marketing of it left a little bit to be desired. I think in the next round we will have to be much more proactive in explaining to employees why this data is important to them, not just to the employer, in terms of being fair in an equity program for recruiting, promotion, and access. So I think we've got some considerable work to do on the marketing side of such a program.

Mr. Dromisky: You really clarified something for me. I've always had the understanding that the Hill physically extended to wherever a member of Parliament or a cabinet minister was located. In other words, the central office of the Minister of Agriculture is where the Central Experimental Farm is.

Mr. Marleau: Right.

Mr. Dromisky: It's a huge complex. That is not classified as part of the Hill?

Mr. Marleau: No. The minister's role as a member of government is independent of his role as a member of Parliament. The precincts of Parliament extend to where we house the members and where committee activities take place, and they're under the control of the Speaker in terms of security, access, and review, if you like. But the actual physical asset is a Public Works asset and we are treated as tenants.

Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): As you know, the House of Commons is not included under Bill C-64. Did you ask not to be included, or did it just come up that way?

Mr. Marleau: The issue of whether the House is part of the bill or not part of the bill is a policy issue. I would purport to say that it is one that would have to be in discussion with the committee or the department with the Board of Internal Economy.

I think there is now - unlike some time ago, in the earlier parts of my career - a better understanding within government, within the bureaucracy, of the role of Parliament and the distinction that has to be made between the executive and the legislative.

If the House of Commons were included in this bill against the existing provision of monitoring, reporting, and sanctioning, the House administration - the Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy - would then become subject to review by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

.1130

Traditionally the House has always wanted to protect its autonomy to control its internal affairs. There are sound constitutional and historical reasons for that: that the House ought not to become submitted to one of its creatures, if you like, to some degree, and that Parliament is supreme. The political issue, however, is that the House, in its administrative matters, should conduct itself in the same manner as it requests other parts of our society to conduct themselves. Therein lies the dilemma in terms of the politics of the issue.

Currently the House is not subject to the Human Rights Act, and our legal counsel has always taken the firm position that only in statutes where the House is expressly mentioned and included through the legislative process does the House fully submit to such legislation, such as the Official Languages Act, as an example.

Mr. Strahl: With the program you have here, what happens if somebody or some group decides that there has been discrimination, or there's some systemic barrier they don't like, and they don't think you're moving on it?

Mr. Marleau: We've had complaints filed with the Human Rights Commission, just as an example, and while the House as a constitutional entity doesn't necessarily recognize the authority of the existing act over itself, in every instance we've attempted to cooperate with that institution, that agency, or the complainant in order to resolve the complaint. There is no advantage for an institution like the House of Commons to give the back of the hand to any of those kinds of complaints. In most cases we've resolved them to the satisfaction, or at least to the understanding, of the complainant, and within the limits of reasonableness.

Mr. Strahl: This policy is about what I would do in my own mind if I were to make up a policy. Many people would like to include the House of Commons, think it should be a model employer - I think it probably is, and I have no reason to doubt that it is - and should be subject to the same laws. This won't even touch what you'll have to do if you have to submit to Bill C-64.

You mentioned that the data collected on self-identification - which if you have a 22% success rate isn't going to cut it - gets into the whole idea of how voluntary is the self-identification anyway, because it's voluntary and, boy, you'd better have a pretty good report too, so make sure it's voluntarily done. I have some problems with that.

That being said, you say the data collected allows the House to compare its own workforce to the Canadian workforce. Do you think you try to reflect the Canada-wide statistics, or do you try to reflect the workforce of your hiring area, which is mostly a 50-mile circumference? Do you try to reflect the workforce in this geographic area, or do you try to reflect the workforce of Canada?

Mr. Marleau: First, the policy you have before you was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy going back to 1992, which was a compendium of what was being done in terms of the evolving demands of equity in society. So it's not a substitute alternate; it predates Bill C-64. Quite rightly, if Bill C-64 were made to apply to the House, we'd have to do a considerable amount of work above and beyond what is stated in the policy.

We have filed an annual report with the Board of Internal Economy on our performance against the policy to some degree, where progress has been made and where progress continues to be made or is desirable. So there has been a review by the Board of Internal Economy. The last one goes to January 1994. We didn't have one this year because of the early departure incentive program, which was in full bloom at the time. As you know, when you're downsizing it has considerable impact on your proportions, and we didn't have the results. But we will be doing another report to the board sometime in 1995.

.1135

In terms of our hiring strategies, if I can use that word, we certainly have no quotas. There are two things when it comes to recruiting for the House of Commons, and I can put it in the perspective of three tiers.

Obviously there is going to be a larger proportion of people from the national capital region who apply and get recruited if you're going to work in Ottawa and on Parliament Hill, and that's one. There we apply the strict standards Mr. Sabourin alluded to in that we certainly try to make available through our staffing process access to special testing if it's required, whether it be for the hearing-impaired or sign language for an interview, and those kinds of things. They're all made available to those who require it and want it.

Secondly, while we apply no particular quotas, as I said earlier, we do try to keep in our inventory as much as we can people from outside the national capital region who are seeking employment here.

In the page and guide program - that's the third tier, in our youth programs - we recruit the pages from across the country, and the guides as well. We advertise across the country. We interview across the country. While I can't say there's a provincial quota, it tends to average over the years so many from Manitoba, so many from Ontario.... It's largely due to the population base. We don't have that many from the Northwest Territories but we make double the effort to try to get some.

Mr. Strahl: What I'm trying to get at is when you say you're trying to compare your own workforce to the Canadian workforce to see if the House is representative, do you say, ``In this area, where I do most of my hiring, in the national capital region, it's about...''? I don't have the statistics, but it's 10% visible minorities. I don't know what it is, but it's about 50% women, give or take, so many francophones, so many aboriginals. Do you try to reflect this area?

How far do you go to try to reflect the Canadian workplace? There are about 1,500 employees. Do you try to hire about 20 people of Chinese background, or do you just say, ``This is hopeless. I'm going to do the best I can hiring from this area, but it's not going to be...''? Frankly, just as a point of interest, I don't know that I've seen anybody from an oriental background.

Mrs. Catterall: [Inaudible - Editor]...close to Parliament Hill, exactly.

Mr. Strahl: Very few. I'm from the west coast, so I'm used to a very high portion, in the federal government and in all workplaces, of people of oriental background. I'm not talking about the general workplace; I'm talking about on the House list. I don't see a lot of people of that background.

Is that good, bad, indifferent, or do you try to reflect that? How far do you go to reflect the Canadian workforce?

Mr. Marleau: We recruit through the merit principle. We make it as accessible as possible. We have no particular strategy to recruit from a particular ethnic group or area of the country.

As I recall, in the mid-1980s or so we were criticized by the official languages commissioner for having too many francophones represented. I forget what the figures were, 55% or 58% on average were francophone. With paying attention to that criticism, that's become better balanced, but that's also become better balanced because there are more bilingual people in the other groups. Whether it's locally or nationally, there are more people in immersion programs across the country. So when they apply and it's an imperative bilingual status, there's a larger basin to choose from. That has improved.

But we have no particular national standards strategy.

Mr. Strahl: It is part of this pamphlet to say that you're going to represent the Canadian workforce, and I just don't know what that means. If you don't find enough people of a certain ethnic background or visible minorities in the capital region, do you make sure you advertise more widely than that, or do you just say it's available if they catch wind of it? How do you make sure that you represent all people?

.1140

First of all, I don't know what you're representing yet, whether it's the representative workforce typical of the Ottawa national capital region or whether it's the national Canadian workforce. If so, how do you go about your recruiting? You mentioned a couple of things. You go to aboriginal communities, but that's in this area. If you're looking at the Canadian thing, your Canadian picture is different from that of this area, I would think.

Mr. Marleau: I would have to do an analysis of those statistics to give you a substantive answer on it. Quite frankly, I don't know what the comparison of the national capital region workforce is as it relates to the national force.

I can tell you where we're trying to be proactive. If I use the page program, for instance, in our advertising pamphlets and portfolios we have shown on the pictures, an aboriginal or a visible minority so that the picture we put out of what we're seeking is -

Mr. Strahl: That is a Canada-wide thing?

Mr. Marleau: That's a Canada-wide thing.

Mr. Sabourin: I can tell you that in the current recruiting that we've just done for guides and pages, I know one person was visually impaired and we hired three or four who are of visible minorities. There again, I'm telling you this with caution, because we didn't require self-identification as we were doing the hiring.

Mr. Wood: Back in 1990 or 1992 the previous review of the Employment Equity Act called for the extension of the act to Parliament. I could see this as a kind of unique situation that involves the well-established principles of parliamentary independence. House employees, as you know, fall under special legislation, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and to my knowledge are not Treasury Board employees. The Library of Parliament, of course, is accountable to Parliament. The House and Senate are autonomous bodies that manage their own human resource affairs and report to their own Boards of Internal Economy.

Do you think that the traditional independence of Parliament from scrutiny of its internal affairs may be eroded if it's included in Bill C-64? Also, can you think of any examples where the independence of Parliament could be compromised by having its employees included under the act?

Mr. Marleau: I can give you an answer on the basis of a hypothetical situation. There's no doubt that every time the House of Commons submits itself to a review process some of its authority is eroded. It could find itself before the Federal Court on a dispute between the agency and a particular practice, and that gets complex when you start subjecting a legislative body to the judiciary process as well. There was a time - but it is not so true in Canada any more - when Parliament was the highest court in the land, and it continues to perform as a court in Great Britain in the House of Lords.

So that's the larger principle, and I have to say that, yes, it would be eroded in terms of its autonomy. I suppose you could imagine a doomsday scenario where the entire committees branch and committee system could come to a halt by a series of potential complaints that would be under review and under investigation by an outside agency, hence slowing, if not halting, part of the legislative process, depending on how far the powers went. I don't want to mention a particular in this case. We've had a cooperative relationship with the Human Rights Commission and they have a certain point of view, which is not identical to ours, on part of the existing statute and I understand on other proceedings on estimates, as well as to this statute. So my answer has to be that, yes, it would erode.

There are cases where you can look to the Commonwealth, particularly in Australia, where they were forced by the courts to put in statute their privileges. The consequence of that is that there are court challenges to the very privileges of Parliament, which include freedom of speech and freedom of access, among others. So there is some risk.

.1145

There are alternative mechanisms the House can consider that would still give it control over its internal affairs respecting the spirit of any piece of legislation. By way of example, there could be a provision such that the spirit of this legislation would be respected by the House and managed by the Board of Internal Economy. An annual or biannual report could be made to the House and referred to a committee. So it would stay within the loop of Parliament, as compared to an outside agency. What might be viewed in terms of the internal politics of the House would be put into a public debate context.

I find that those kinds of mechanisms are more in keeping with the traditional constitutional privileges of the House, yet provide for the timely review, from Parliament to Parliament, of certain policies.

Mr. Wood: I guess I can see employment equity being successfully applied to the Library of Parliament, and maybe to the administration of the House and the Senate, but I don't see how it can be applied to the staff of members and senators. I was wondering offhand whether you have any ideas as to a method or formula to be used to cover this very large group of staffers under the act if it were to come about.

Mr. Marleau: Currently, under the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act of the House, each of the members is their own independent employer. Therefore, the provisions of the proposed statute would not be netted by the legislation, as it is employers of 100 or more who would be affected. In that sense, members would not be captured by the legislation. The House administration numbers 1,471, or thereabouts. There would be no issue there. However, over time there could be some dispute as things evolve. The research branches of the opposition caucuses could grow to 100 at any one time.

Mr. Strahl: They could?

Mr. Marleau: They could. You might find - this is a risk - that the official opposition research caucus is captured but not that of the Reform Party if the third party has a smaller research caucus. I think you have to be cautious about those numbers in terms of even the politics of equity applications as well.

Mr. Wood: I agree with what you're saying. It's possible that the act might be applied on Parliament through.... Is it possible to apply it, as you just mentioned, through political parties? It is a hypothetical question, of course, but we have 177 members and probably 900 employees through the Liberal Party. What happens if the Liberal whip is in charge of all this? These are just things that could happen.

Mr. Marleau: Even though I've been on the Hill for a long time, I've never really gone into the inside employment practices of political parties, so I really don't feel qualified -

Mr. Wood: Everybody's panicking.

Mrs. Catterall: You mentioned your self-identification survey. What was it you said about that, Mr. Clerk? Was it that 22% -

Mr. Marleau: Yes, it was only a response of almost 23%.

Mrs. Catterall: It was only a 23% response from your entire staff.

Mr. Marleau: Yes.

Mrs. Catterall: Do you have an idea how many of that number self-identified as to one of these disadvantaged groups?

Mr. Marleau: Briefly, in terms of aboriginals, we had 14 identify -

Mrs. Catterall: I'm looking for proportions so I can make some comparisons. Did 90% of the people self-identify, or 10%?

Mr. Marleau: It would be 100% self-identification of the 23%.

Mrs. Catterall: In other words, 23% of your workforce chose to identify itself in one of the disadvantaged groups. But women aren't included in that, so I would presume that this is a fairly high capture.

Mr. Marleau: At the time we did the survey in 1994 there 1,700 employees on the Hill, of whom 357 responded. That's the 22%. Of those 357, 14 were identified as aboriginal. This is a proportion of 3.9% of those who replied. It's a much smaller proportion from the 1,700.

.1150

Mrs. Catterall: No, no, that's not what I'm trying to get at. You seemed concerned that only 23% had self-identified. I would say that sounds to me like it's probably a very high self-identification rate.

Mr. Sabourin: No, 23% did not self-identify; 23% sent back the questionnaires. That's what Mr. Marleau is saying.

Mr. Marleau: Responding.

Mr. Sabourin: Yes.

Mrs. Catterall: Of that 357, how many self-identified as to one of the groups?

Mr. Marleau: Just under 50 would fall into one of the three categories of handicapped, aboriginal, or visible minority.

Mrs. Catterall: What did you do to try to increase that? Did you find out why people didn't respond?

Mr. Marleau: I did comment that probably one of the reasons is that it was the marketing of it. There was the fear factor. It's new to the House. I think it's harder to get people to identify once they have a job, as compared to before they have one. Marketing was part of it and fear was the other part.

Mrs. Catterall: When was it done?

Mr. Marleau: February 1994, a little more than a year ago.

I think, doing it a second time, that the fear threshold would probably be lower, since people wonder what you're going to do with these statistics, what's going to happen to them and whose file they end up on.

Mrs. Catterall: Was that not all explained to them before the survey was done?

Mr. Marleau: Yes, it was explained with the questionnaire, but, as I say, if you introduce this kind of program the fear factor is pretty high. This is particularly so as this was not required by legislation.

Mr. Sabourin: You have an example of the questionnaire with the policy. We are now reviewing that questionnaire.

Mrs. Catterall: Is that the questionnaire that goes with an application for employment?

Mr. Sabourin: No, this was the questionnaire that went out for people to self-identify.

Mrs. Catterall: I can see some problems then, because it doesn't say anything about it being confidential.

Mr. Sabourin: Well, no, but we did have notes that went out with that to employees. That was made very clear to the employees.

To reiterate what Mr. Marleau was saying, we needed a kind of awareness campaign that did not include ``please reply'', to make people more aware of the program and the benefits of self-identifying and of the support we can provide. We're hoping to do some of that with National Access Awareness Week, which is coming up in late May.

Mrs. Catterall: But that relates specifically to disabilities.

Mr. Sabourin: Yes, it does, but as part of an educational kind of program we think we also have to go out to managers who could encourage people - this is without twisting arms, as it's a delicate matter - to reply as to whether they are involved in self-identification.

I was told of a private firm that was researching this that basically asked all employees to reply. There was no pressure at all in terms of self-identifying, but they were basically asking everyone - I think it was a company of approximately 800 employees - to at least send back the questionnaire. If they wanted to say that they didn't want to self-identify, that was fine.

Those are the kinds of options we're looking at. There are others, of course. As I just said, we're working with some officials at Treasury Board to revise our questionnaire and make it maybe more attractive.

Mrs. Catterall: Speaking about information and so on, may I ask how much and what kind of training has been provided to people who are recruiting, hiring, promoting and conducting interviews on how to do those things in a gender-neutral and culture-neutral way?

Mr. Marleau: When the new employment equity legislation came in some years ago, our people were in contact with Treasury Board. They attended Treasury Board briefings and training sessions in the implementation of the new equity legislation. All our staffing officers are trained along those lines and act, as Mr. Sabourin said, a little bit as a watchdog over the staffing process to ensure that those elements, particularly equity and the merit principle, are respected.

Mrs. Catterall: So anybody who's involved in staffing actions has had that training? I hope it was more recent than eight years ago.

Mr. Sabourin: There wasn't a formal.... There's no certification for this kind of thing.

.1155

I think we try to do what we're doing now on an ongoing basis, not necessarily just with Treasury Board but even with Ontario or Quebec organizations, because they're closer. There are forums in which our offices participate and there are exchanges of information.

I don't think we have engaged in formal training vis-à-vis this type of sensitization, if you will. That may indeed be a very good suggestion and might help us. I think we should follow up on that kind of initiative.

Mrs. Catterall: You mentioned that the House is subject to the Official Languages Act, as an example. What other acts has it subjected itself to?

Mr. Marleau: There was the anti-smoking legislation, which was a private member's bill circa 1984. I believe that and the Official Languages Act are the two main ones. There was a review of the official languages statute in the last Parliament. Wage restraint has been brought in as well.

Mrs. Catterall: Having close to 1,500 employees makes you, I would think, one of the larger employees compared with others in the private sector who might be captured by this bill. Do you see any major difficulties in the House being included? I think it's quite evident that some of us certainly have some pretty strong feelings about setting a good example and not imposing laws on others that we're not prepared to live with, especially when it comes to issues such as basic human rights. Do you have any concrete difficulties with it?

Mr. Marleau: About respecting the terms of the legislation and applying them, I don't see any major difficulties from a staff point of view or an administrative point of view. That would mean more of what we have been doing, and meeting certain deadlines and filing certain reports. As the deputy minister, I see no difficulty with that aspect of it. That would not be a problem.

On the larger issue of the autonomy of Parliament, from my knowledge of what has happened in other jurisdictions, like Australia, this could be the thin end of the wedge for much more complex issues that deal with the role of the courts and subjecting Parliament or the House of Commons to court review by challenges from third-party agencies, which may emanate or springboard from an administrative regulatory process but could undermine Parliament's essence of passing legislation voting supply.

Mrs. Catterall: It affects the administration, not Parliament.

Mr. Marleau: If you paralyse the support services.... The other thing Parliament has always wanted to protect is the control over those who serve Parliament. That's why we have a separate Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act with no strike provision, extended parliamentary privilege for some members of the staff, such as the clerk and table officers, for exemption from jury duty, and a whole series of things like that by practice, to make sure Parliament has the resources to meet and transact business. So if, through an administrative regulatory process, there is the possibility of halting the business of Parliament by halting the administrative support thereto, that's where I think there can be some difficulties.

Mrs. Catterall: Do you see any such threat in employment equity?

Mr. Marleau: I don't see any threat in employment equity, if you want my personal response. All I can say is I cannot predict the performance of the outside agencies.

Ms Diane Davidson (Legal Counsel, House of Commons): I would like to add the fact that if this bill was meant to apply to the House, if you decided it should apply to the House, I see that the ability of the Speaker to control access to the precincts would be limited. Members could expect the compliance officers to come in the buildings, conduct investigations in their offices and look through their affairs. This would apply not only to members but also to the House administration.

.1200

Mrs. Catterall: Just a minute. It doesn't apply to members unless I happen to have 100 employees, which you know I don't have the budget for.

Ms Davidson: I think the compliance officer, as the act is drafted, would have the authority to decide where to look for the information he feels is required to conduct his audit.

Mrs. Catterall: So we might have to make some special provisions.

Ms Davidson: Certainly that is something the committee should give consideration to, if it decides....

Mrs. Catterall: It almost sounds to me as if you're saying that if I'm going in to audit Chrysler, I could also go into the offices of its customers to audit their employment equity.

Ms Davidson: The act does provide that a compliance audit will be conducted by the Human Rights Commission, so this could occur here on Parliament Hill if it were to apply to the House.

Mr. Marleau: Mrs. Catterall, the committees branch is one example where, within the administration as it's defined, lie much of the proceedings, control, management related to committees. The comptroller's office would be another example, where much of your material, in terms of members' operating budgets, lies as well. So interventions in those kinds of fields, which really lie within the administration, could have that spill-over impact.

Mrs. Catterall: It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that if we want to make a reasonable decision on this we might want to ask the clerk to advise us on what provisos might be necessary, either in the legislation or in regulation.

The Chairman: Unless the clerk does not feel he is incriminating himself.

Mr. Marleau: No.

Mrs. Catterall: We're not asking him to make a decision, just to give us the information to make it.

The Chairman: I just said it in a light way.

The chair would like to pose a couple of questions and then give the floor back to Mr. Ménard.

I would like to pursue the issue of fulfilling the spirit of the bill, if passed, and at the same time preserving the independence of Parliament. You have made a comment - almost a recommendation - about referring whatever report is completed by the end of the year to a standing committee of the House. Were it to be pursued by this committee, what committee of the House would most logically handle this type of review?

Mr. Marleau: If I may just qualify, I was alluding to a parallel process that you might want to consider for the House - and I think that's where Mrs. Catterall was coming from as well - rather than making a recommendation to you. If, under the legislation, the Board of Internal Economy were required to comply with the reporting mechanisms that are in the legislation, to table such a document in the House of Commons on a timely basis, and have it automatically referred, like so many orders of reference that come to committees, it could go to the committee of your choice. It could be the procedure and House affairs committee, which currently has the mandate in the Standing Orders on all administrative matters before the House in relation to its own mandate. But nothing would be untoward if, on an issue of employment equity, it were referred to the human rights committee.

It would be more consistent with the current mandate of the House administration committee, but the Speaker has come to this committee to report on our annual handicap awareness week program, and not to House administration. So it wouldn't be entirely inconsistent.

The Chairman: But in fact from you we would like to have clarification of who constitutes, for the record, the Board of Internal Economy and how they are appointed to that board. How often can they be changed?

Mr. Marleau: Under the Parliament of Canada Act the board is composed of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker as ex-officio members. Then there are four government members, two of whom must come from the cabinet and two of whom are appointed by the caucus; or, if you like, two are appointed by the Prime Minister, Governor in Council, and two by the caucus of the government. Two are appointed by the caucus of the official opposition, and there is one representative from the third party.

.1205

There are nine members on the board. All three major parties currently in the House are represented, including two privy councillors.

The Chairman: Just as a comprehensive question, is there a possibility that any member could be a member of the procedure and house affairs committee?

Mr. Marleau: Yes. Currently, I believe the chief government whip is on both the board and the procedures and house affairs committee.

The Chairman: So a referral of the report to a committee, a report being submitted by the Board of Internal Economy, could create at least a perception of a potential conflict of interest if one member continued to sit on the other committee?

Mr. Marleau: Potentially, I suppose so. The same exists right now for the estimates process. Actually, I should say two are members of the procedures committee, as Mr. Silye from the Reform is also a member.

The same exists right now in the estimates review to some degree. But there could be another committee as a consequence of that. There would be no guarantee over time, however, that a member of this committee might not be a member of the Board of Internal Economy as well.

The Chairman: Yes. About the statutory construction, were a report to be made to a standing committee coming from the Board of Internal Economy, in your estimation in the context of the bill before us, would not such a process and such a requirement interfere with parliamentary independence?

Ms Davidson: I don't believe so. I think that would be referring a report to a committee that would be carrying on its parliamentary functions. But the Board of Internal Economy is specifically mandated with administrative responsibilities pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act. If a report is tabled before a committee, the committee would examine it with a fresh, different outlook.

I would also like to point out that if this bill were meant to apply, the report prepared by the Board of Internal Economy in the end would be tabled before Parliament and would be reviewed by a committee of the House. So whether we proceed under this legislation or voluntarily, as is being suggested, the report will still be reviewed by a committee of the House because the President of the Treasury Board is required under Bill C-64 to table it before Parliament. So it would then have to go before a committee in any case.

Mr. Marleau: Mr. Chairman, just to add to your comment about the risks to parliamentary autonomy by referring it to a committee of the House, from a procedural standpoint a committee is a creature of the House, a microcosm of the House. You have the power to report to the House. If you are unsatisfied about the performance of the Board of Internal Economy of the House on administration, then the subject of your report could go back to the House for the House finally to determine to agree or disagree with your report. So it keeps it in that loop of control of internal affairs. I don't see it as eroding the autonomy. It probably reinforces it.

The Chairman: I have a comment about self-identification. Sometimes conclusions have been made as a consequence of the number of respondents as reflecting refusal to respond to such a question, which can be fallacious. I'm just thinking, for example, if you had a questionnaire on self-identification, as you have here, if you put a question there - and this is just a comment for your consideration in the future - and ask how many of you would like to have an increase in salary and would you like to comment on a specific improvement for the working environment, or would you like to have any other comment, that may come close to testing how many really have not responded to the section on self-identification.

I would like you to consider that kind of design, so that when we have a magnitude of response, truly it is a magnitude that reflects the refusal to respond to a particular question and not necessarily laziness or what have you.

.1210

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: So you really have no problems regarding the promotion of employment equity, save for its implementation and the possibility of having external controls. So, as a committee, we will have to try to find a middle ground between the upholding of employment equity principles and the controls that could be imposed to your organization.

I have two more questions. To begin with, the first question that will, in my view, determine our will to control you or not: do you expect to hire anyone in the coming years?

Mr. Marleau: Two hundred and fifty seven employees have just left the organization, which represents a drop of 15% of our staff compared to last year. We've had a hiring freeze for almost a year now. I think we hired only one person from the outside over the past six months, and that was in a highly specialized field, computers, I think.

So the short answer, Mr. Ménard, is: no.

Mr. Ménard: You will appreciate that I'm not surprised by your answer.

Secondly, one of the most important aspects of our work, is that if you look at the witnesses we've heard, especially from the public or the private sector, there is fairly natural but also deplorable tendency that the higher you go in any organization, the closer you get to decision-making centres the less women you find. What is your feeling - I know that you cannot give us any statistics - : do you think that you have the same pattern in your organization in general and in your own branch in particular?

Mr. Sabourin: No. If you talk about women, about executive positions in the House of Commons, we have an edge over the Public Service. I forget the exact statistics, but if we were talking about what has been described, we, as managers right up to the top, I think that we have a definite edge over the Public Service.

Mr. Ménard: At the executive level, for maintenance personnel, for instance, for things like that, do you really feel that you are leading the way?

Mr. Marleau: Yes. I know for a fact that in the procedural service, for instance, the majority of committee clerks are women.

Mr. Ménard: Are the ...?

Mrs. Catterall: [Inaudible]

Mr. Marleau: No until recently, Mrs. Catterall. That represents a change in the House compared to the time when I started out.

Mr. Ménard: You can see that we have common concerns. That will be reflected later in our votes, I am sure. Feel absolutely free, Marlene.

When we talk about executive positions, I have always understood that the clerks were, in your terminology, part of the executive personnel?

Mr. Marleau: No, I would say professional.

Mr. Ménard: Professional, all right. Those were roughly the words that were used.

So, with regards to women, which remains one of the most handicapped groups, you really feel that you are leading the way and that in that regard, everything is fine.

Mr. Sabourin: We could confirm that easily, if you want.

Mr. Marleau: ... provide you with statistics.

Mr. Ménard: We still must understand what are your employment equity goals. The point is not to - in my view, anyway, I'm not talking on behalf of my party here - to control organizations only for the sake of it. Those are goals that must be reached.

One of the things that surprise me, for instance, and that saddens us a little bit, and we talked about it, is the fact that I've rarely seen, except this week when I went to the industry committee, a person, a female clerk, representing one of the ethnic communities. I have never seen, among the support staff, translation people, clerks - and I sit on three committees, which is excessive in my view, but it is a great pleasure to take part in this work - representatives of ethnic communities.

For the first time, this week, when I went to the industry committee to ask questions to Minister Manley on the reconversion, I saw a person who seemed to be from India, Thailand or some other country. So, in that regard, an effort could be made, don't you think so?

Mr. Marleau: Yes, with regards to visible minorities, it is more complicated, it is more difficult, especially at a time when little hiring is done. The person you are referring to is a former colleague of mine, who was hired in 1969. So, already in 1969, we were already very much leading the way, to a point.

Mr. Ménard: Were you already there?

Mr. Marleau: Yes. We both competed in the same competition.

.1215

As for the interpretors, that is the responsibility of the Human Resources Minister. They have a services contract with us; we have no responsibility with regards to hiring or employment equity.

Mr. Ménard: One last question, Mr. Chairman. If the bill were ever to apply, one of the things that concerns me greatly, is that for an employment equity plan to be interesting, to be effective, it would have to be as consentual as possible and management as well as labour would have to adhere to it. I don't think you can impose employment equity.

As it applies to you - you seem to have said earlier something rather odd with regards to the unionization of your staff - : Wouldn't you still have the possibility, if the bill were ever meant to apply, to establish dialogue zones? How do you intend to associate your workers to the implementation of your employment equity plan should the bill ever apply to you, obviously?

Mr. Sabourin: We already have four unions, bargaining agents, on the Hill. We already have joint consulting committees, as we call them. As a matter of fact, I think that, until recently, we did not involve them enough in the formulation of policies, etc.

Lately, and I think that will be for the better, especially in an employment context which becomes more and more difficult, we by in large try to bring them to express their point of view, all the while maintaining, obviously, our rights as management. I could give you as an example the policies or regulations that we adopted recently with regards to the handling or the way to manage employees who are declared surplus in the context of personnel reduction.

We also have a policy on harrassment in the House of Commons and we recently involved the unions in that regard. We have started a process. That's the way we intent to function in the coming months and years. It can only be to our advantage, of course, because, when you talk about a process where there is consensus, you are far more likely to succeed if you manage to avoid conflict. We still have a lot to do, but I think the process is well underway.

Mr. Ménard: For my own information, do you know how many of your 1,500 employees are women? Is it a roughly 52-48 basis?

Mr. Sabourin: Of the 1,500 employees?

Mr. Ménard: Yes.

Mr. Sabourin: I could confirm that later, but I think we have a higher percentage of women than men over all, without any breakdown.

Mr. Ménard: You don't have the breakdown by service?

Mr. Sabourin: That's correct.

Mr. Ménard: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Strahl: Could I get a copy of that? I don't need it right this instant.

Mr. Marleau: Yes. And a report was tabled with this committee in June 1993, and we'll get it to you.

Mr. Strahl: I wasn't here.

Mr. Marleau: I know.

Mr. Strahl: If I could have that, it would be useful to me.

Mr. Marleau: Awareness week is coming up. We're actively planning that as well.

Mr. Strahl: Good.

This self-identification...what is the information used for? When I look at your pamphlet hereI think, well, why would I want to self-identify? There's no advantage. What's the information used for? You're going to collect the data, you're going to analyse the sucker, then you're going to protect it, and there you go. So why would I bother to self-identify? Why should I? Say I was a visible minority. Why should I?

Mr. Marleau: If you're already employed in the House, I totally concur with your question. Why should you? If this is only going to serve management, and I'm not employee equity aware myself, then why should I bother? Let's say I consider myself disabled because I'm diabetic. Why should I tell you if it's not visible? Why should my manager know that? Then if I take sick leave he'll link the two together and I'll be discriminated against in my performance.... Those are the kinds of fears that have to be dealt with.

As I said earlier, and as the chairman said, I think we have to take on a better marketing strategy, to see if we can't capture some information that we require as managers to make decisions and to provide the Board of Internal Economy with policy development statistics.

.1220

Mr. Strahl: Statistics aside, if I'm a visible minority, why should I? Should I tell you that I'm a visible minority because I'm a statistical nut? Or should I just say I want to tell you I'm a visible minority because I think it's in my best interest to do so?

Mr. Marleau: The House of Commons employment equity policy is designed to ensure that women, aboriginals, persons who have disabilities, or who are members of visible minorities, have equal access to employment and career development within the House. That's the why. If you are a visible minority and you are equity aware, and you wish to make sure your group has equal access, then maybe you should tell the employer what you are.

Mr. Strahl: Why, though? It's all based on merit, so what's the difference? I can apply whether I'm a visible minority or not. It's all based on merit, so it doesn't increase my chances of getting a promotion.

Mr. Marleau: No, but it may increase our chances in our advertising to reach particular groups of visible minorities that might not be reached otherwise. Particularly in the disabled area, there are some concrete things that can be done: visually-impaired or hearing-impaired equipment, translation, Braille - all those kinds of things - and accommodating through the recruitment process, facilitating access.

Mr. Strahl: But once you get your foot in the door, it makes no difference. So -

Mr. Marleau: I think it was Mr. Telegdi who said that there's a clear, different motive to self-identify before you become an employee and after. Before, you're looking for a job, and if you think it's going to assist your chances of getting a foot in the door by self-identification or by self-promotion of that identification, you will do so. After the fact it gets a little less imperative for you to do so.

In some cases we have to deal with the issue of fear of discrimination that you could perceive as being a consequence of identification.

Mr. Sabourin: I'll cite a case where if we have made an extra effort to accommodate an employee, and where that employee has self-identified and it is known we've made special arrangements, and the employee is performing well, if another position comes up it simply also opens up the possibility that, hey, I did self-identify, I can do this, and accommodations can be made.

It might not be overt, but a manager could have a resistance, saying, boy, what will I have to do here? But seeing that a person was accommodated and was able to perform well, if not better than most.... I think there's a very positive side to that, for both the individual and the community.

Mr. Strahl: Leaving aside the accommodations for disabled people, which you have mentioned are fairly easy to list...you make access to washrooms, you widen the doors, you put in the elevator. There's a list of things that are specifically for people with disabilities. Do you have a list of the conditions of the disadvantaged - I think this is what you call it in your pamphlet - who are employed? Do you have another list of things you have had to correct to correct systemic barriers?

Mr. Marleau: Under our language training policy we try to avoid creating language ghettos, for one, or for that matter I suppose in terms of visible minorities ghettos, which might be for some reason or another related to the concentration of a group of employees in a particular area.

The big advantage also - to go back to the advantage side - is training, training planning, and what the individual needs. It could be that we have internally a certain number of visible minorities who want to get on the security staff. We identify their needs and we can offer certain training that will position them to win competitions - not give them preferential access, but offer them the training to grow within the organization so that they compete on an equal basis.

Mr. Strahl: Say I filled out your employment equity questionnaire. I'm an employee and I'd like to be a constable. So I'm going to put down that I'm an aboriginal. Why not? I don't have any training in the constable area, but maybe they'll help me. Would you, if I put down that I was an aboriginal?

.1225

Mr. Marleau: If you put down that you were an aboriginal, then we would know you were an aboriginal. If you had a particular interest in joining the constabulary of the House, and felt you needed specific training, either through the general program we offer or through the manager - let's say you're working in restaurants but want to get a promotion eventually and compete - we could give on-site training for language skills -

Mr. Strahl: Would it be an advantage for me to put down that I was an aboriginal - just out-and-out lie?

Mr. Marleau: You're asking will this give you an edge.

Mr. Strahl: Yes. I'm telling you that I am. You can't disprove it, so....

Mr. Marleau: In any of these kinds of voluntary self-identification processes, I suppose you can't discount the human factor.

Mr. Strahl: I would think there is a fair bit of it, especially if there is a perceived advantage. Perhaps saying I am an aboriginal might be stretching it, but I'm certainly a member of a visible minority, or other.

What I'm trying to get at is how do you know, because it's self-identification, if there's a perceived advantage, not in the competition but in the preparatory work, the training and so on? I'm going to tell you, if I was thinking of career advancement, I would pick a group and go for it.I probably couldn't get away with being female, but I would probably pick one of the other three and just say, lying through my teeth, that I consider myself a whatever and I expect a little special treatment. What would you do for me?

Mr. Marleau: The only advantage is societal, an awareness advantage. If we apply the merit principle and the advantage we are trying to create is equal access, I don't think you can see it as an advantage. If we are looking at those who are défavorisés by their origins, groups, or impairments, and all we are doing is ensuring, by having that knowledge of what you really are -

Mr. Strahl: But you don't know.

Mr. Marleau: No, but we assume in most cases we ought to be able to come pretty close to an accurate reflection, and then all we're offering is equal access. We're trying to look at taking out the barriers. That some people might take advantage of it and perceive it as a leg up is something we have to try to dispel, but maybe we never have. We've been living with that whole concept with the language issue since 1967, when the Official Languages Act came in, as to whether one language group always had a leg up. Being a Franco-Ontarian from Cornwall, Ontario, I don't remember when I learned English, but I'm French. So a lot of people have perceived my career as being advantaged because I was a Franco-Ontarian.

The Chairman: I would like to interject at this point. When career advancement opportunities, in terms of programs, are offered in a given employ - in this case in your employ - if you believe they will provide opportunities for those who may not have the skills because they belong to a non-designated group, I would like to believe those career opportunities were equally open to all others and therefore the others who already have these skills would not enroll. So the opportunities are still not closed to the others. Is that correct?

Mr. Marleau: Yes.

The Chairman: I would like to make it clear, because I'm getting a different impression of a selective bias to give opportunities only to the designated groups, when in fact the opportunities are open to all. Because you already have it, you do not enroll in it. In fact, if you belong to one of the designated groups and you already have it, why should you apply? You feel you can already compete for the position without getting extra career opportunities, do you not?

Mr. Marleau: Yes. I think Mr. Strahl's question springboarded from the fact that if we have ghettos, which in themselves can be barriers, and we don't have the information, we don't know we have ghettos. If there are structural barriers that create this kind of ghetto, the identification process helps us spot them before it becomes a real problem and disadvantages individuals who might want to compete equally with everyone else. That's why I say I don't see it so much as an advantage as ensuring we can close any gaps that occur structurally, systemically, and unknowingly.

Mr. Strahl: What it comes down to is that it's okay if you happen to be from a non-designated group and you do feel you can compete and have the background training and so on.

.1230

We talked about the example of the Portuguese in the Toronto school board system, who consistently have a lower graduation rate, a lower standard of living and lower employment. They are facing some barriers. I don't know what they are, but they're not part of a designated group. They're a white group that has some sort of systemic barrier. I don't know what it is, but it's something out there.

If I were from that group, I would say I need help, because I'm from a group that's just not getting ahead, but there's nothing on here for that, so I guess I'll just pick one; I need help, just as some other people might need help, but there's no program for me.

Mr. Marleau: In that particular context in the House of Commons you would have the same access. You are not disadvantaged.

Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): Are all of the 1,400 employees virtually proficient in English and French as part of the merit?

Mr. Marleau: No, not every position requires a bilingual status.

Mr. Knutson: What percentage would?

Mr. Marleau: I didn't come equipped for that.

Mr. Sabourin: At the House it would be very high, because of the nature of the process.

Mr. Marleau: It's high. I would say it's probably in the range of 80%, maybe slightly higher.

Mr. Knutson: Of the 1,400.

Mr. Sabourin: The skills required from the employee vary depending on the complexity of the job and those sorts of things.

Mr. Knutson: The level of proficiency.

Mr. Sabourin: Yes. We wouldn't ask for the same level of proficiency from a messenger as we would from a procedural clerk, for example.

Ms Davidson: The Official Languages Act only requires the federal institutions to be able to offer a service in both official languages, not that each and every employee be proficient in both languages. So if you're able to offer the service in both official languages, you've met the requirements of the act.

Mr. Knutson: Just to stay with this for a minute, are there environments where you can get by if you speak only English?

Mr. Marleau: Yes. In the index branch there's a section that does English Hansard and another one that does French Hansard. So you can do that. There are fewer and fewer.

Mr. Knutson: It's fairly narrow.

Mr. Marleau: Well, it's narrow in the sense that there isn't the requirement for service, but there is a job to be done.

Mr. Knutson: If you looked at your numbers and said you wanted to recruit more natives.... I'm just speaking hypothetically; I don't know anything about the native community in particular. Let's assume for the sake of argument there are very few natives who are proficient in English and French, or far fewer than in the general population. Would you ever bend the rules? Maybe a native person applies to be a page and he or she can speak English and his or her native language. You could say, well, you can get by in English only if you stick to the....

Mr. Sabourin: We wouldn't have to bend the rules in a lot of cases. We would identify that position as requiring maybe the second language as non-imperative, which means that if the person in the selection process qualified, we would not demand that he or she meet the language requirements right away - that's why it's called non-imperative - and then we would provide the training on the job or after the person had been hired. We have some of those positions.

Someone could speak Cree and English and apply for a bilingual position, and if we thought the hiring could be done and with that individual or any individual we could still operate and give the service, that person would still have a chance to occupy the position. We would provide for training time for the person to meet the language requirement.

Mr. Marleau: Assuming he had won the competition.

Mr. Sabourin: Of course - on merit.

Mr. Knutson: Do you have any kind of sense for how many of those 1,400 positions bilingualism is not imperative?

Mr. Sabourin: Two or two and a half years ago we demanded imperative in a very high percentage of the cases. Lately, and with changes to the Official Languages Act - you might know the date - that's changed. I would say now that for 80% of the positions we do not require the person to meet the requirements of the second language before occupying the position.

.1235

Mr. Strahl: I have a follow-up on that same idea. This follows on the heels of my other example. Someone comes to you who is Portuguese. They speak English and Portuguese, but not French. They win the competition. Would you provide them with the same opportunity to be a page as the aboriginal person?

Mr. Marleau: Yes.

Mr. Sabourin: Your question is basically because this person is not in an officially disadvantaged group.

Mr. Strahl: So there's no advantage to being in a designated group?

Mr. Sabourin: Not in that sense.

Ms Davidson: If they both are equal I think you would choose the person from the minority group over the other person, if this Bill C-64 were to apply, or according to our policy - if they both achieved the same scores. This is affirmative action. So this would mean you would have to choose the -

Mr. Strahl: They say Bill C-64 is not affirmative action, though. It is -

Ms Davidson: It is a program that has been put in place pursuant to the charter, if you like. The equality section says you can put in place a program to promote a member of a minority group.

Mr. Marleau: It's not affirmative action in terms of quotas.

Mr. Strahl: No, they'll deny it on a stack of bibles, trust me. But the problem, of course, is if you do not make reasonable progress, as defined by the compliance officer, woe betide you and your future offspring.

I won't add any more.

The Chairman: Maybe I can just pursue that quickly. In your experience, how often have the scores tied?

Mr. Marleau: It's not very often, I would say. Part of the staffing process is such that there's a subjectivity as much as the objectivity we bring to it. It's fairly rare that you have absolute ties, in my experience.

The Chairman: Managers are accountable for the implementation of the policy as you have it today. To whom are the managers accountable - to the chief of the planning directorate?

Mr. Marleau: The chief of the planning directorate within the day-to-day application of the policy and making sure that the terms are respected, the human resources directorate as a function of the House, and the Board of Internal Economy as the employer.... [Inaudible - Editor]

The Chairman: So who does the performance appraisal of managers?

Mr. Marleau: There's a hierarchical structure. I appraise those who report to me. The director of human resources would appraise the chief of the employment equity program.

The Chairman: And part of the basis for performance appraisal is the success or non-success of that manager's implementation of the employment equity policy?

Mr. Marleau: That's a harder one to make as part of the performance appraisal. I would think it's a more a negative thing in terms of non-cooperation, violation and discrimination, because the success in.... Our organization is very, very static. It's hard to pin a lack of progress on a manager when there's very little movement. So it's more like how much the manager took this into account during the recruiting process. Was he proactively or purposely ignoring it? I would say it's more like a negative evaluation than a link to the success.

Mr. Sabourin: But we would certainly feed back to, let's say, a staffing officer who's helping out in a competitive process and who hadn't made any effort to make the managers think of extending the net, if you will. That would be part of the job that was not well done and would likely be reflected in an appraisal.

The Chairman: In the event that the House would recommend its being covered by the proposed bill, would the House, in your estimation, need a certain period to adjust administratively to such an inclusion, and how much?

.1240

Mr. Marleau: From my reading of the legislation, I don't see too much difficulty administratively in responding fairly quickly to the terms of the legislation.

About progress and success rates, it's harder for me to give you another answer, because if we continue to downsize, particularly when we're doing so on a voluntary basis - and certainly I don't imagine any program of departure incentives that would target groups so as to adjust our figures better - my prediction is we'll be well into the early part of the next century before we're in a growth mode again. So, on the one hand, I think we can respond very quickly. You might find that the next five reports are fairly similar.

The Chairman: But in development of the equity plans, consistent with the final shape of the deal and setting of numerical goals, all those things will be easy to comply with.

Mr. Marleau: I don't think we fall into the category of the RCMP, for example, as in other dimensions of issues and problems to deal with.

Mr. Strahl: Have you done any guestimates or estimates as to what it would cost you to set up the program as the legislation proposes?

Mr. Marleau: We haven't done any specific guestimates. I think we can handle it within existing resources, however.

Mr. Strahl: I guess that begs the question, how much time and energy are you going to devote over the next five or six years to a program that makes no difference?

When you read Bill C-64, sir, you know how many hoops you're going to have to jump through. If there's a hiring freeze on and it's not going to make any difference, you can set all the goals you want. How much time and energy are you, the resource manager, the personnel manager, your employment equity manager...? Your annual reports, etc., must take up some time.

Mr. Marleau: It takes time and there is a net cost to it. Whatever resources are devoted to it are costing something.

When I say I think we can handle it within existing resources... We have a base of data. We have a report to the board in 1994. Shapes and content will vary a little, but I don't see any increased resources. I think we're looking more at change of format.

Mr. Strahl: Okay.

Mr. Marleau: The other question I'm afraid is a bit of a when will I stop beating my wife type of a question, which I'd like to stay away from.

Mr. Strahl: It just seems a shame to me if you resource $100,000 worth of time, effort, and money, which you could have used to help disabled people...$100,000 worth of equipment, access.I think it's a sin.

The Chairman: Did I hear you say that it would make no difference if in fact there is any inclusion of the House of Commons under the deal? Or could it make a difference?

Mr. Marleau: A difference on what, sir?

The Chairman: In the pursuit of the principle of employment equity.

Mr. Marleau: It will make a lot of difference to the principle of employment equity awareness.

What I said is that because of the downsizing mode we're in, and the way I don't see there being any growth in the House probably to the next century, the numbers may not change very much, so you may find a report somewhat repetitive or the variances being fairly small in shifts. But obviously if we have to meet higher expectations of reporting and analysis, then the awareness goes up, andI think there's progress.

The Chairman: There could be a net benefit.

Mr. Marleau: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson: Do you know your demographics well enough to know if you're heading for a large period of retirements or attrition?

Mr. Marleau: The bulk of our employees mirror the demographics of the country in terms of the aging baby boom bulge, which is between age 42 and 55. We will face the same potential crisis that all large institutions face in terms of potential brain drain, with very little to replace it with in terms of equal numbers. The demographics are very, very similar.

Mr. Knutson: Okay.

.1245

Mr. Marleau: It's a bit younger. Because of the early departure incentive program, quite a few of our older employees who opted for retirement have left. Actually, almost 100% of those who were eligible in the 55-plus category took it. That doesn't mean they're all gone.

Mr. Knutson: You'd be faced with discrimination if you didn't have anyone over age 55 on staff.

Mr. Marleau: It was a voluntary departure.

The Chairman: If there are no more questions, I would like, on behalf of the committee, to thank you all for your time, effort, and lucidity.

Mr. Marleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My pleasure.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.