[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 18, 1996
.1109 
[English]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, I see quorum.
We have the pleasure of having with us this morning Mr. Max Yalden, who is the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission.
You are here, Mr. Yalden, in response to the question of the estimates. We're very pleased to welcome you and I know there will be some interesting observations on the part of our members. I wonder if you have an opening statement you would like to make.
Mr. Max Yalden (Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission): Yes, Madam Chairman, I do have a few comments I would like to make, if I may.
.1110
First, I want to thank you and the members of the committee for inviting me back to be with you to talk about our estimates for 1996-97. I'd like to say a few things about the commission's priorities as they relate to the estimates and then I will be happy to take questions.
Members will be aware that the commission's program consists of three main elements: the investigation of discrimination complaints, the monitoring of compliance with the Employment Equity Act, and the attempt to reduce discriminatory practice through promotion, education, and research.
[Translation]
I will return to the issue of Employment Equity a bit later, but I would like now to talk very briefly about our role in promoting and protecting equality rights. I believe it is important to put our work into context before discussing the resources we have to do the job that has been given us by Parliament.
The Canadian Human Rights Act was adopted to ensure equality of opportunity for all individuals in Canada. As the body with the mandate to administer the Act, that is our primary purpose. That is were we concentrate our efforts and resources.
The fact is, however, that there are individuals and groups in our society, like most others, which have tended to bear the brunt of discriminatory action. That is why, for example, we have repeatedly referred to the serious problems aboriginal peoples continue to experience and pointed out that the concerns of disabled Canadians, and in particular the obstacles they experience to full participation in Canadian life, must be dealt with. That is why we highlight the problems of visible minorities and of women in our society.
[English]
All of this means that while specific issues may change, our fundamental priorities do not. Protecting the rights of Canadians, particularly through investigation of individual complaints, remains the main focus of our work, as it has been since we began operations in 1978. While the context has not been altered, there have been changes, major changes, in the fiscal environment over the last several years.
Between 1991 and 1998-99, the commission will have been faced with cuts exceeding$4 million, which amounts to a reduction of approximately one-quarter of the commission's budget. We have already taken a number of steps to deal with these cutbacks, including consolidating complaints investigations at headquarters, abolishing a number of positions both at headquarters and in the regions, and imposing a freeze on hiring.
We have also made a concerted effort over the past few years to streamline our complaints process, to allow us to deal with complaints more promptly and efficiently. I'm pleased to say we've had some success. We have virtually eliminated our backlog and we have cut our complaints processing time considerably. At one time, for example, it took nearly two years from the time a complaint was signed to the time the investigation report was presented to the commission for a decision. For complaints accepted in 1995, that figure has been reduced to six and a half months.
[Translation]
We have also taken steps to improve our ability to carry out our mandate with respect to human rights education and promotion.
Regional staff now devote more time to meeting with community organizations, conducting information sessions, and carrying out special projects aimed at promoting equality rights. The regional offices work closely with our Communications Branch at headquarters.
.1115
As in past years, the Commission will continue its efforts to increase public awareness by producing and distributing publications; developing television and radio public service announcements; providing information via the Internet and Schoolnet; maintaining contact with the media; and monitoring human rights issues.
[English]
Our greatest challenge over the next year will be to prepare for the implementation of the new Employment Equity Act. The move from a system based on complaints and voluntary reviews to one based on compliance audits will involve major adjustments in the way we operate. We have already begun this transition by developing our audit procedures and criteria, and we are preparing for consultations with employers, unions and community organizations.
It should be noted, however, that our ability to carry out these responsibilities is directly related to the financial and human resources at our disposal. I would be remiss if I did not say to the committee that our task is made more difficult by continuing cuts. Obviously the further 3% cut that is imposed for 1998-1999 will make it even harder for us to audit all the employers under our jurisdiction within a reasonable period of time.
At the same time, I recognize that all government agencies must tighten their belts, and the commission is no exception. I have said before and I repeat here that we will do what we can with what we have, and we will try to do the best job under the circumstances. I would not want the committee, however, to be under any illusion. We cannot do the kind of job we should with the resources that are left in light of the cuts I've referred to.
[Translation]
To conclude, Madam Chair, I can assure you that we are making every effort to use our resources effectively, to streamline our complaints process and to develop an adequate employment equity audit capacity. We will continue to examine other cost-saving measures, including the possibility of sharing common services with other agencies.
[English]
I must repeat, however, that I cannot avoid a real concern that the combination of further cuts and increased responsibilities might weaken our effectiveness in protecting and promoting the equality rights of Canadians. That, I believe, is something the committee should keep in mind.
Thank you very much. I'd be very happy to answer questions or deal with any comments members of the committee may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your report and for being as candid as you have been. I think it is an issue that many of our members would like to address to you, because I believe you can't say on the one hand we have to do something, but on the other hand we don't have the means to do it, without finding that it compromises human rights and your responsibilities. I'm very eager to hear how the members see your responsibility and what their interests are.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard, you may go first.
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Good morning, Mr. Yalden. Madam Chair, I would first of all like to apologize for the fact that I have to leave at around 11:30 or 11:35 to give a speech, which should please you, on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its possible unionization.
The Chair: You have 10 minutes. I think that you will have...
Mr. Ménard: Yes, quite. I do not think that Mr. Yalden will be surprised if I stray somewhat from the topic of the Main Estimates, since we still have an opportunity to get back to this issue later on, to try to gain more insight into the ruling which has been made. Committee members are keenly interested in the decision rendered by the three-person tribunal that you established.
My first question is to find out whether or not I have interpreted the decision accurately. Without going into the details, which we will have an opportunity to discuss later on, I understand that this decision concerns the federal government as an employer.
Contrary to the opinion expressed by certain journalists, can we, basing ourselves on this interpretation, believe, as I do, that this decision will not change pension entitlements but will instead essentially change federal government legislation containing exclusively an heterosexist definition? Are we to believe that this decision concerns first and foremost the federal government as an employer and has nothing to do with possible amendments to the Old Age Security Act?
.1120
I feel that it would be useful to get some clarifications from you. Have you had any indication as to how the government will react to this decision? Am I mistaken in my belief that, should the federal government appeal the decision, the Canadian Human Rights Commission would certainly wish to be represented?
Mr. Yalden: With respect to the second question, madam Chair, I have no news as to what the government intends to do, namely, whether or not it wishes to appel this decision. I am anxious to hear the decision of the Minister of Justice. Obviously, we would probably be represented, but so long as we do not know what the government decision will be, all of this is completely hypothetical.
As for your first question pertaining to pensions, this issue was excluded from this decision. If you have the decision before you, you will see that towards the end, in paragraph d) of the court order, which is found on page 42 in the French version and on page 38 in the English version, at the request of both parties, the issue of pensions was excluded. Why? Because there is another case before the Federal Court, which concerns this entire issue of pension plans, especially those set up prior to 1978, the year when the Human Rights Act was adopted and the Human Rights Commission founded.
These cases deal primarily with the question of whether or not the Commission has jurisdiction over plans set up before it was created.
There is also a constitutional aspect to these cases. Indeed, the Commission insisted that this be so so that it would be able to challenge even the provisions of its own act that cover legislation adopted prior to the creation of the Commission but whose scope, under the terms of the Charter, is perhaps unjustifiably broad.
However, a second question must be answered; namely, whether or not the Commission or a tribunal can challenge any provision of the Human Rights Act. There are two main cases dealing with this: the Magee case, which concerns pension plans established before our act was proclaimed, and the Bell and Cooper case, which covers the constitutional aspect. This may be a coincidence, but if I'm not mistaken, our legal advisor is right now appearing before the Supreme Court. Where is the Supreme Court?
Mr. Ménard: On the other side, to the left.
Mr. Yalden: Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments dealing with this issue. The issue will therefore be decided by the Supreme Court. Once this has been resolved, we will go back and deal with the pension plans issue.
I would imagine that a tribunal would deal with pension plans using the same logic used when it dealt with dental plans or health plans, but we will have to wait and see.
Mr. Ménard: You are convincing me that life is worth living and that, in the final analysis, Parliament is not where things always happen. You know this, madam Chair, do you not? Would it be possible.
The Chair: I hope so, at least.
Mr. Ménard: Yes, certainly. I have two other questions.
I do not recall whether it was you or your office that, at the beginning of this legislature, under you predecessor, madam Chair, handed us a list of human rights cases that were pending before the courts.
.1125
Could you possibly send us, first of all, a copy of the decision? I have only a partial copy, but I think all committee members should have a complete copy of the decision rendered last week. Could you also update the document that you gave us? I could perhaps forward a copy to Mr. Savard so that we all know what we are talking about. It would be useful for us to have an up-to-date idea of what human rights cases are currently before the administrative tribunals and even before the ordinary courts of law.
I have two questions that I wish to ask before concluding. Has your office - perhaps it has not done so but I know the Treasury Board is attempting to do this - been able to assess, if only on an approximate basis, the number of statutes that will be affected by this decision?
Have you been given any indication, either directly or indirectly, of the number of gays or homosexuals - although in the language used by the militants, these two words do not reflect the same reality - that may be working in the Public Service? I know that this does not come under your mandate directly, but given your legendary clearsightedness, perhaps you have already given some consideration to this issue.
Mr. Yalden: I would like to thank the member for his comments on my clearsightedness. Unfortunately, I haven't been clearsighted or clairvoyant as far as his question is concerned. I will first answer the last question.
I have no idea how many homosexuals are working in the Canadian Public Service. I highly doubt that the Public Service Commission or any other body would have these figures.
If you are wondering about the question of cost, we know from the private sector's experience that the cost is minimal. The number of people who declare that they are living in an equivalent situation, namely a common law relationship, is minimal in the private sector. In the private sector, the forecast cost increase for benefits is approximately 1%.
At one point, we asked whether or not we could get some idea about how much this may cost the Public Service and the answer we received was just about the same: less than 1%.
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, this convinces me that the government made a mistake by not allowing, in the last census, a question that made explicit reference to the homosexual reality. I know that Treasury Board is going to try to evaluate that and I would imagine that the government, when it decides whether or not to appeal the decision, will be bearing these considerations in mind.
Your reference to the private sector is completely accurate. I would also add the example of ten major Canadian cities that recognized same sex spouses, where the difference in the payroll was .5%. Obviously, I understand that a great deal of caution must be used in comparing the reality of Canadian cities and that of the federal Public Service.
Mr. Yalden: I do not wish to interrupt the member, however, even the Ontario experience demonstrates that the cost is minimal. This is not only valid for the private sector. As for the member's other questions, it is difficult for me to answer them, Madam Chair. I have the court ruling here. We will ensure that it is distributed, in both French and English, to all committee members.
When Mr. Ménard refers to cases pending before the courts, I do not know if he is referring to sexual orientation cases or to all cases. Is it in this particular sector? Yes, we do have them and I will ask Mr. Savard... I should have introduced him. I apologize for this, Madam Chair. I have not been very courteous, Gerry. This is Mr. Gérard Savard, who's the acting secretary general for the Human Rights Commission. I apologize once again.
.1130
Mr. Savard will ensure that committee members receive this list of pending cases.
The member raised another question with respect to this decision and the number of acts, regulations, etc. that would be affected by it.
As for the legislation, I of course immediately asked my legal advisor what he thought. His unofficial response was that, in his opinion, there would not be many at the federal level. Not many, but one which is very important, namely, the Income Tax Act. This act sets the conditions for pension plans and everything. However, he did not believe that many acts would be affected by this.
There may be some in the immigration field, but we are not sure about this. There may be others and there may be some regulations that are going to be affected as well. You'll understand, committee members, that there are a great number of things concerning privacy that come under provincial jurisdiction. As far as I know, there are quite a few at the provincial level. But at the federal level, I've been told that there are fewer.
This is not a final answer, however...
Mr. Ménard: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
It would be great if we could obtain this list before Friday.
The Chair: [Inaudible]... three minutes, but I will let you conclude.
Mr. Ménard: You are like a mother to me, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair: Come on now. At least I am not a grandmother. Go ahead.
Mr. Ménard: If we could get this before Friday, this would help us prepare some very good questions for Minister Rock.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard.
[English]
I wonder -
[Translation]
Mr. Yalden: [Inaudible] Regardless of what his intentions are vis-à-vis the Minister.
The Chair: But I am going to broaden...
Mr. Yalden: He will have it as soon as possible.
The Chair: Alright. However, I would like to broaden the request. For us, the members of this committee, all human rights issues are interesting and I would really appreciate receiving the entire list, if this is possible. This would enable us to determine how many cases deal with equality with respect to women, visible minorities and so on and so forth. We could foresee another evaluation at that point.
Mr. Yalden: Very well. But to be clear, Madam Chair, when we talk about pending cases, we mean cases that the Commission had to set aside because they are now before the tribunals or the court, and consequently we are not allowed to proceed with them.
The Chair: We would like to receive the list of pending cases as well as the subject of these cases.
Mr. Yalden: Very good.
The Chair: Very good.
Mr. Yalden: Based on any ground, and not only the one raised by Mr. Ménard.
[English]
The Chair: Is Mr. Scott going to start or Mr. MacLellan?
Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think Mr. Ménard asked the cost of implementing the recent ruling and you said 0.5%, was that it?
Mr. Yalden: Less than 1% is what we're told.
Mr. MacLellan: What exactly would that involve, what aspects?
Mr. Yalden: It would be an additional cost of less than 1% of the existing cost of providing the benefits of which we speak.
Mr. MacLellan: How broad does that decision go? Exactly what is the scope?
Mr. Yalden: We're talking about health plans and survivor pensions.
Mr. MacLellan: And that's it? Health plans and survivor pensions are the two areas?
Mr. Yalden: Yes. The big issue would be pensions. There we've asked for and we have some projections that suggest considerably less than 1% in addition to the overall cost of pension plans, and pension plans presumably are more expensive than some of the others.
.1135
We are told that the U.S. experience indicates that the cost of providing benefits to same-sex partners is roughly 1% of the pension benefit costs. The source of that is an outfit called Hewitt Associates that does this kind of thing in the States.
Mr. MacLellan: They estimated it would be 1% in the States. Is that correct?
Mr. Yalden: It would be 1% or less.
Mr. MacLellan: It would be 1% or less, so that's not a tremendous amount and certainly not as much as most people have imagined in the conversations that I've had.
Mr. Yalden: There's no question, the costs are very small. We have asked some of the private sector respondents in companies in Canada and we get the same message. The same is true, I believe, in Ontario. In fact, I think politically one would hear about it if it was breaking the bank in Ontario.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
Mr. Yalden: One would hear about it. They give these benefits. There's no indication that it's very costly. For example, the big banks are giving these benefits. Several private sector firms give the benefits. I have a list here, in fact, and as I mentioned, most of the six big chartered banks - Royal Bank, Bank of Nova Scotia, Bank of Montreal, Toronto Dominion - give them. Bell Canada gives them, as does Canadian Airlines. A number of newspaper chains give them, including the Sun chain, I may say, which includes The Financial Post, The Ottawa Sun, The Toronto Sun, The Edmonton Sun, The Calgary Sun and The Calgary Mirror. It's not something that's breaking the bank.
Now, how do they do them under the present regime? Because of the bar imposed by the Income Tax Act, they cannot include them in the regular pension plan, particularly pensions and health. They have to pay for them out of general revenue. They just open a special little plan for a person who comes along and requests that benefit, and they do not get the tax deduction for it.
Mr. MacLellan: That was my second question.
Mr. Yalden: They do not get it under the present regime.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
Mr. Yalden: The decision we're talking about here, of course, will open that up to health and dental plans, though not to pensions, for the reasons I was giving to Mr. Ménard. There are two other highly technical cases before the Federal Court and one before the Supreme Court relating to the jurisdiction of the commission over pension plans that were established before the commission was established, and they are ongoing. They have to be settled before we can get back to the question of the -
Mr. MacLellan: Where does that stand, sir, in the Federal Court?
Mr. Yalden: The one about the constitutional question is before the Supreme Court and is being heard now. There is another one before the Federal Court. I don't know when the decisions will be handed down, of course, but certainly not immediately.
Mr. MacLellan: Yes, but it has been heard by the Federal Court.
Mr. Yalden: One of the them has been heard by the Federal Court. There are several cases. There's a direct challenge to the Income Tax Act, which was brought by CUPE, the public service union. That was heard in the Federal Court trial division and the union lost, but it's now on appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. There is the case of jurisdiction. It relates to a pension plan that was brought into force before the Canadian Human Rights Act was brought into force, and that is before the Federal Court, but I don't know when the decision will come.
And then finally there's another case involving the question of whether the commission or a tribunal can attack clauses in our own law as being unconstitutional. That is being heard this very moment by -
Mr. MacLellan: It's being heard by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Yalden: Yes.
The Chair: Is that the Bell and Cooper -
Mr. Yalden: Yes, it's Bell and Cooper.
The Chair: Could I just hitchhike? When you say health plans, does that include dental?
Mr. Yalden: They're referred to separately in this decision, so I've been referring to them separately, but I think in the public service it's as well to keep them separate, Madam Chairman. For example, when you retire from a public service, you lose the dental plan, but you can keep the health plan if you pay an extra sum. You cannot keep the dental plan as the labour agreement now exists. They may change that. I think that may be why they treat them separately. The conditions of belonging and the benefits are separate, but of course they're in the same ballpark.
.1140
The Chair: And the whole question of moving costs?
Mr. Yalden: That was done, Madam Chairman, in the case of the government, two or three months ago. Treasury Board announced that it was changing its policy in the matter of bereavement and relocation leave and various benefits of that kind, which they could do because there was no statutory problem. Whether you give or don't give bereavement leave, it has nothing to do with the Income Tax Act. Whether you give or you don't give pensions does. They just did that a couple of months ago. Same-sex couples get those benefits.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Russell, have you completed your questions?
Mr. MacLellan: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you very much.
I'd like to touch on a couple of different issues, Mr. Commissioner. You mentioned the budget reductions and the impact that's going to have on doing the work, and it occurs to me... How much of the activity of the commission is in the requirement to respond to complaints, in the reactive kinds of activities, and how much is in the proactive promotion of human rights values, if I could characterize it that way? And in what direction should that be going in terms of that distinction between activities and to what extent is the budget reduction affecting that strategy? It occurs to me that in other areas we're headed down the road of trying to create an attitude or a climate or an environment that is more open to some of these issues and that it is sort of an additional activity.
I think given your former work with official languages... I recall our being engaged quite actively in New Brunswick in the promotional side, in rapprochement and so on. How are budget reductions affecting those kinds of decisions in terms of where most of the work is done?
Mr. Yalden: Comparatively speaking, Madam Chairman, by far the greater amount of our budget goes to dealing with complaints. A much smaller amount goes to promotion and education and so on. In fact the commission has traditionally had a very small budget for promotion, education and that kind of activity.
If you disregard salaries, the operational money is less than $500,000. That sounds like a lot of money, but it doesn't buy you very much in the way of TV clips, and once you remove statutory requirements like our annual report and so on, it leaves very little for that kind of thing. Certainly by the time I got there the commission already had a very small budget for that purpose, and over the years we've had that budget cut.
The lion's share of our money has always gone for complaints and then secondarily, I think, to employment equity, which is certainly the growth side of our operation. Employment equity, if you will, is not reactive in the sense that we'll be doing audits of the various institutions under our jurisdiction, but it's not active in the way that trying to change attitudes and to work through education is active.
.1145
The simple fact of the matter is that owing to statutory requirements of a very precise sort - that we must take complaints and deal with them and so on - we have traditionally had more of our people and more of our money on that side of things.
Mr. Scott: Just for clarification, please, ``reactive'' would be reactive to the application in terms of the complaint. But I was also thinking of ``reactive'' in the context of anything mandated by other statutory requirements, as against those kinds of activities that would be proactive.
Mr. Yalden: Of course employment equity is mandated by statute. There is a general mandate for the commission to do education, research, and all those other things it deems to be important for advancing the cause of human rights. But they inevitably take second place to the requirements to deal with complaints and to deal with employment equity.
The Chair: Mr. Commissioner, can you within your mandate, as part of your compliance directives, direct the company...? If there is an employment equity situation that is difficult and that is created by ignorance and lack of understanding the difference around food or around wear or whatever, can you tell them in a compliance directive to do some civic education or undertake some sensitization and confidence-building, or measures that will enable people to live with respect for difference?
Mr. Yalden: As you know, the Employment Equity Act has undergone a major change. Unfortunately, it seems to be rather a long time getting proclaimed, but I believe it is to be proclaimed in the autumn. If there's any one year -
The Chair: It's still not proclaimed?
Mr. Yalden: No, it is still not proclaimed. If the committee were to make a little noise about that, that might be a nice idea. Parliament adopted it, you will recall, last December, and it's still not proclaimed. When it is proclaimed, moreover, there is a year of grace before the institutions coming under it have to comply.
The situation under that new regime will be that we will negotiate, or try to negotiate, understandings with those companies and those government institutions that come under our law, so they will improve their employment equity performance. The unions are to be involved in this. So I think it would be normal that there would be some educational work along with it.
About our normal dealing with complaints, there is also often enough, as part of a settlement of a complaint... If it's a harassment complaint, for example, it will be part of the settlement that the company or the institution should make sure it has a proper harassment policy and all the employees are well aware of what it is and they follow it. So in that sense education is built into the complaints-handling process. What I'm saying is the commission doesn't have much capacity to go out there and compete in the marketplace with everybody else who's on television or who's in the printed press advertising and pushing their product. Our product is human rights, but we don't have much money to push it.
The Chair: I wondered, apropos of Mr. Scott's question to you on the percentage of time and activity, you alluded to the point, and you make that point in some of your remarks, that you are streamlining your operations but you're also seeking ways to reduce expenditures through shared services or partnerships. I wondered if that was considered part of the shared services and partnerships. When you issue a compliance directive, you are essentially saying do some education, do some training, if it's sexual harassment or if it's a code of sexual practices, etc. So it was in the sense of Mr. Scott's question, what really is involved when you're looking for shared partnerships or looking to be able to fulfil your mandate, given the seriousness of the cuts you have had to submit to.
Mr. Yalden: The reference I made to sharing, Madam Chairman, really had more to do with sharing office space and this kind of stuff. We're trying to find people with -
The Chair: A real practical approach.
.1150
Mr. Yalden: To save money, yes, by sharing receptionists, by taking over part of a floor with someone else instead of having one to ourselves, and so on.
In terms of the partnership, I would hope that in the employment equity area any settlements or agreements we have with institutions under our jurisdiction will have a partnership character to them, that they'll be working with us.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Bernier, Russ has a short question that follows up on the one raised by Andy. Would you like him to ask it now or would you prefer that he wait?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Yes, if it's short because I too have to leave at about 12 o'clock.
The Chair: O.K. It will be very short.
[English]
Okay. You said you had a short question on Andy Scott's. Go ahead.
Mr. MacLellan: On the budget, Mr. Yalden has said that they hope to get away from a complaints process and more into an audit of the organizations for which the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be responsible. You mention that there's going to be a further reduction of 3% in the budget in 1998-99, I believe. That's getting dangerously close, in my opinion, to not allowing the Human Rights Commission to function. I just want to get Mr. Yalden's opinion frankly, Madam Chair, as to whether he feels the Human Rights Commission is going to be able to serve its mandate to do the job it feels it should do with this reduction, or is the cut going too deeply to allow it to function as it should?
Mr. Yalden: I was just talking, Madam Chairman, particularly about employment equity, because the Employment Equity Act that Parliament adopted late last year, when it gets proclaimed, does impose clear and new duties on the commission.
The Chair: It must have some money attached to it. You don't do that without money.
Mr. Yalden: There's no money attached to it. That's the problem I've been alluding to. No money goes with it. We have -
The Chair: I think we should look at that. Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: My question is along the same line as that raised by Mr. MacLellan. You mention that the Employment Equity Act has not yet been adopted and that it will entail additional expenditures for the Commission.
The other day, the Minister appeared before the committee and announced that he would be tabling, in the House, other amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, in order, among other things, to introduce the notion of reasonable accommodation measures for disabled people. This concerns accommodating work stations and the employers' obligation to proceed with these accommodation measures.
Once Parliament has adopted these measures, the Commission will have to, on the one hand, make employers aware of these new standards and, on the other hand, provide some follow-up to ensure that these changes are made. This will also require resources. I would like to hear your opinion on the future changes for serving disabled people.
My general question is as follows: can the Commission accept new responsibilities with its current resources and, if not, which responsibilities will it drop?
Mr. Yalden: There is no doubt about it, the biggest problem facing us is employment equity. The amendments to the Human Rights Act which Mr. Rock spoke about will not necessarily require additional resources in terms of staff. This is possible, but for the time being, we do not believe that new resources are required.
However, in the case of employment equity, as I was saying earlier in responding to the question raised by either Mr. MacLellan or Mr. Scott, we will have to set up a monitoring system for some 400 employers, both in the so-called federal Public Service and in the private sector. We currently have a very modest number of people working in this sector - 15 people - and we know that we will not be able to set up an audit system as quickly as we would like to.
.1155
Let me explain. We feel that it would be reasonable for us to be able to audit all employers under our jurisdiction in about five years, particularly since the Employment Equity Act provides for a parliamentary review of this legislation once it has been enforced for five years. In our view, five years is a reasonable time-frame.
With our staff of 15 people, there is no question of our doing this. It would take us eight years to cover everyone and we feel that this is too long. We have consulted the Auditor General, because he is, after all, the big expert. Our calculations show that if we had five additional people, namely a staff of 20 instead of 15, we would be able to reach this objective in five years.
Even in a time of relatively tough financial restraint, five people is not a big number. We have even suggested that, should it be impossible to obtain new resources - and I already said this before this committee - , an alternative would be to transfer resources from other agencies, for example, from Treasury Board, from the Department of Human Resources Development or from the Public Service Commission. All three of these agencies have employment equity sectors. Moreover, although we have been given the mandate, their staff is bigger than ours.
We have therefore suggested diplomatically that there be a transfer of resources of this type and that it would not have too great an impact on the three agencies that I've just mentioned, because they are relatively big. This would provide us with new staffing resources that could help us respect our mandate, and it would not involve new expenditures for this sector. We have made that suggestion on several occasions. To date, it has not been met with much enthusiasm. I would dare say, Madam Chair, that the silence has been deafening.
Therefore, the difficulties lie primarily in the employment equity sector, which is a new responsibility that we have been given.
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Yalden, I think that when the time comes for you to deal with the accommodation of work stations, the ramifications will be quite significant.
Mr. Yalden: That may be.
Mr. Bernier: Employers are certainly going to be against these changes or , at any rate, they are going to request compensation from the government.
Mr. Yalden: That is possible.
Mr. Bernier: They are going to presume that this will entail costs. In addition, people are going to have to turn to the Commission. The number of complaints will perhaps be greater than... Thank you.
Mr. Yalden: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Commissioner, when the Minister of Justice was before us in May, I believe it was, he indicated that he would be bringing down some changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, particularly around reasonable accommodation. As it's going to be the 20th year of the Canadian Human Rights Act, is it your view that it's time for a full-scale review, or just the small amendments that might be forthcoming from the minister? And within that review, should we also be looking at whether the commission should be empowered to play a more wide-ranging, proactive role?
.1200
Actually this committee thought maybe it should undertake a thorough review by studying the bill the minister is going to bring down, looking at the whole act at the same time. What is your view? Do you think we should be doing something about that with this anniversary coming up?
Mr. Yalden: We think these amendments should have gone through long ago. The one you've referred to and that Mr. Bernier referred to a few moments ago having to do with reasonable accommodation, particularly of disabled people, is one major amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act has never been clear on the responsibility of employers to accommodate disabled people and other minorities.
For years, governments, plural - this one and its predecessors - have been talking about amending the Canadian Human Rights Act. There is a whole list of amendments, and this is one. For example, another would be to create a permanent tribunal with a certain expertise, which we all believe would be much more efficient than the system we have now and would probably end up costing less, but it would require a change in the law.
There is a whole list of proposed amendments that Mr. Rock or his officials could give you. For several years we've been talking about this and the government has been talking about putting in those amendments. However, there has always been one particular hang-up, namely that among those amendments was the matter of sexual orientation. I don't need to tell you this was a rather controversial issue.
So for seven, eight, nine or however many years it was, government did not wish to open up the Canadian Human Rights Act because one of the amendments was the one I've just referred to. Finally that one has been dealt with, so we're left with the others.
There's a question, and I think it's a real question, and that is whether one should deal with the others as we know them or look to even possibly more far-reaching amendments to the act or more far-reaching changes to the role of the commission.
At one time I think it was the intention of the Minister of Justice to do both: put the immediate ones before Parliament now and at the same time undertake a consultation of a broader sort on much broader and more fundamental issues.
I think that's probably the best approach. If nothing is done while we wait for a very broad study and consultation about some of the fundamental issues on how human rights commissions should operate and that kind of thing... There have been some ideas put forward in the debate byMr. Manning, for example, that they might wish to see examined.
Seeing as it's so long and far afield, in my view that would probably mean nothing would be done before another election, and who knows what would be done then?
There is a list. One of them is the one Mr. Bernier very rightly referred to. It's important for the disabled community. I would like to see him get on with that list.
Then if there are to be consultations about whether, for example, the Human Rights Commission should be more ombudsman-like and less confrontational, less litigious, let's have a broad consultation on that and a broad discussion with the community that's interested in these questions. But let's not postpone this other business, because it will just sit on the back burner and never get to the front.
The Chair: In the light of anticipation over the many years that we've been fortunate enough to have your leadership in this role, have you been able to do some kind of comparative view of how Canada stands with its Canadian Human Rights Act compared to say Australia, Denmark, Sweden or any of the other countries that are of like mind and like disposition?
.1205
Mr. Yalden: The only comparable countries in terms of the approach process are really Australia and New Zealand. In terms of the results, in terms of a broad regime respectful of human rights, of course the Scandinavians are very good, but in terms of process they have a different approach. In Sweden, for example, they have five, I think it is, ombudsmen. They have one for race relations, they have one for male-female equality, they have one who deals with children, they have one who deals with disabled people, and then they have their general ombudsman, who's a parliamentary ombudsman, who deals with administrative abuse by the authorities. So that's the approach they've taken and the way they've gone. It works and it's something that perhaps we would like to discuss.
The Australians and New Zealanders have gone more or less the same way as we have, in terms of commissions and in terms of the approach to the law. There are more partial, if I can call them that, approaches in other countries. In Britain, for example, they have an equal opportunities commission, which deals with male-female equality, and they have a race relations commission, which deals with racial equality. They take cases in a similar sort of way to ours, but not quite the same. They have no one dealing with the disabled specifically. The United States has an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, which deals with discrimination in employment, but they don't necessarily have the same kind of coverage as we do. So there are very disparate approaches to this around the western world.
More countries do not have commissions than do. But that doesn't mean that they're not sensitive to human rights. I think that in modern-day France, or Germany or the Scandinavian countries, and of course very much so in Holland... There are other countries we like to compare ourselves with, what they call in the foreign ministry like-minded countries. If you take that universe, and it's a small one, then I think we have a respectable performance. We don't do perhaps as well as some and we do better than some of the others. If you take the great wide world of 180-odd members of the United Nations, then of course we do very well. But because so many of them do so badly it wouldn't be very hard to do well compared with them. I won't name them. It would be embarrassing.
The Chair: We don't do badly compared with like-minded countries when the United Nations does qualify, outside of the salary gap, which is of course very significant with respect to the ability to live fully in a fair and equal way. But other than that, certainly we seem to qualify very well.
That seems to be getting off the track, but I really would like to see us do something where we can have some concrete results and not have it hanging out there for the next five years with no activity that can be considered constructive. I can only suggest that we were able to do equality for all based on section 15 in a period of seven months or eight months, so it seems to me we should be able to do something that's equivalent based on some of the observations that you've made with materials that are available to look at. It may not be a whole change, but certainly it could be something that could be constructive.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Your ability to forecast - and I choose my words carefully now - the actions on sexual orientation perhaps indicates that we might see actions in other areas as well. With that I would ask, in regard to Canadians with disabilities by way of priority, whether you would say that the most pressing item is amendments to the Human Rights Act, as mentioned by my colleague, or is it improving the mechanisms of enforcement in regard to protections that already exist? Or, as a third option, is it amendments to other laws, let's say in the area of accommodation and transportation? I know it's probably unfair to ask you to prioritize them that way -
Mr. Yalden: I suppose I would respond - and this isn't intended to be a cop-out - by asking why we don't do all three. Amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to put a paragraph in it that requires employers to accommodate the disabled - and by the way, it extends to other minorities, religious minorities and so on, for example - would lay out an obligation on the employer that doesn't exist today to accommodate minorities and the disabled unless it would entail ``undue hardship'' for the firm in question. I would certainly like to see that done and done without delay. We've been talking about it for a decade.
.1210
Improving the existing access using not only the Canadian Human Rights Act but the capacity of the national transport authorities for example to require better access to trains and planes and so on is very important. We comment on it in each of our annual reports.
Progress is made, of course. Thinking of the chairman's question once again, if we compare ourselves with many other countries we do very well in accommodating, but I think it's really not the point, because we should be dealing with our own standards and not other people's standards. We've set ourselves very high standards. We should be trying to live up to them.
So a push on the existing laws and regulations and a push on government departments to do more than they do would be very helpful. I think this committee, for example, could be very helpful if it were to call a selection of deputy ministers, and indeed the CEOs of private firms that are under federal jurisdiction, and ask them what they're doing.
My experience is that people don't like to have to answer that kind of questioning to a parliamentary committee unless their performance is good, in which case they'll be only too happy to tell you. So I think the committee could do something in that area, and I think it's an important thing to improve existing capacities, regulations and so on. The same thing goes for other laws that touch on this.
In the United States, as members may know, after much debate they passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, which is an umbrella statute that deals with the whole business and takes them of course into state and even local -
The Chair: Particularly the schools.
Mr. Yalden: Yes, because in the United States the federal government has a very long arm indeed. That's not the case in this country.
Short of having an overall statute dealing with the disabled, and you might say it's already covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act and indeed by the charter, the thing to do is to get into the business of practical implementation of those regulations and requirements and make sure people are doing them. I repeat myself, I think the committee could play a very important role in that.
The Chair: Could I hitchhike on that question? Reasonable accommodation, perhaps in my own mind, is proper ramps, proper doorways, proper handles and bathroom facilities etc., but I've often gone beyond that in my own thinking. It means flex time and it means part-time. It means job sharing. It means job pairing. It means that employers don't have to count every head for every minute of nine to five.
It has to be far more open. I find that if we could get reasonable accommodation it doesn't only impact, as you pointed out, on the disabled. If you really believe that society is responsible for the family, it has a very significant impact on child rearing.
If you could have the kind of reasonable accommodation that could enable men or women to bring their children into the workplace and/or use their time in a different kind of way so that there's a sharing or a pairing or flexible time, I think it could be a very important aspect. So I wanted to ask you, to what extent is reasonable accommodation defined by yourselves within the commission?
Mr. Yalden: I don't think we take quite that broad a view of it, Madam Chairman.
The Chair: That's too bad.
Mr. Yalden: Generally, we're dealing with it in the area of complaints. When someone says that they have a disability of one or another sort and they -
The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor]...as a disability if you like to eat.
.1215
Mr. Yalden: Well, that could be.
They said they had disabilities and were far from being accommodated; they were fired or they were not promoted. We try to make sure companies and departments of government don't do that kind of thing and in a broader sense that they have a policy with respect to it.
I have to say we do not carry it as far as the question of how the children of employees should be treated in the workplace. We could, I suppose, but some people might think we were exceeding our authority if we did.
The Chair: I thank you for that.
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Yalden, you seem to have certainly enlightened us. It does not indicate we're satisfied with the end result, as you are not. I hope this committee will be able to report some progress in this area.
I understand you are planning an early retirement.
Mr. Yalden: It's not early, Madam Chair. Whatever else it is, it's not early.
The Chair: You were reappointed in 1994, so your time's not exactly up.
This committee would like to wish you well and thank you for the effort, time and direction you have given to the commission. We hope we get someone as enlightened in that seat to follow you.
Mr. Yalden: Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. I'm not going until the end of the calendar year, so I may have the pleasure -
The Chair: It says June in my notes.
Mr. Yalden: Whoever made your notes has pulled a Mark Twain on me. I'm not dead yet. It's at the end of the year. I may, therefore, have the pleasure and privilege of appearing before you again before then. If I don't, then of course I wish all of you well.
My final thought would be if there's anything else my colleagues or I can do for the committee, please let us know and we'll provide it. Thank you all for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.