HUMA Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

1105

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

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

1110

The Chair

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon (Anti-Racism Coordinator, Canadian Union of Public Employees)

1115

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Labine (Program Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada)

1120

1125

The Chair

Mr. Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1130

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Labine

The Chair

Mr. Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

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

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1135

The Chair

Ms. Penni Richmond (National Director, Women's and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress)

The Chair

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1140

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1145

The Chair

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon

Ms. Johanne Labine

1150

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1155

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Labine

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

1200

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Labine

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1205

The Chair

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

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1210

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Labine

The Chair

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, CA)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Ms. Johanne Labine

Ms. Carol Skelton

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Ms. Carol Skelton

The Chair

1215

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon

Ms. Carol Skelton

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa--Orleans, Lib.)

Ms. Johanne Labine

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Johanne Labine

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Johanne Labine

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Johanne Labine

Mr. Bellemare

Ms. Johanne Labine

The Chair

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg-Centre)

1220

Ms. Johanne Labine

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Johanne Labine

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

Mr. David Onyalo (National Director, Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress)

1225

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1230

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Ms. Johanne Labine

The Chair

Mr. Johnston

Ms. Johanne Labine

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau (Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux)

1250

1255

The Chair

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal (Director, Human Rights Department, Canadian Auto Workers Union)

1300

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, CA)

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

1305

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois--Salaberry, Lib.)

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

1310

Mr. Serge Marcil

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Mr. Marcil

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Mr. Serge Marcil

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

1315

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Marcil

Mrs. Guay

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Ms. Monique Guay

1320

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

1325

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

1330

The Chair

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

1335

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1340

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

1345

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

1350

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 049

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This is Meeting 49, and we are continuing our look at the Employment Equity Act.

We have a very long meeting today. It will be divided into two parts. The first session will be from 11 to 12:30, and we have witnesses from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We'll break very briefly at 12:30 to grab a bite, and we'll go into the second session.

I know our witnesses have been advised by the clerk that they should probably keep their remarks to about five minutes to provide for as much interaction on the part of committee members as possible, because I know they're very anxious to pose very specific questions. So if you could keep within that time, it will certainly please the committee members who have questions.

I call first upon the Canadian Labour Congress, and I welcome Hassan Yussuff, David Onyalo, and Penni Richmond.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): First, Madam Chair, on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present to you this morning. I'll make some remarks, and then refer to our notes; our brief has been submitted to the committee.

I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us in regard to our 2.5 million members. We really see this review as part of a larger framework to provide Canadians with true equality across this country. Employment equity doesn't exist, I think, in a vacuum. It is part of a larger framework of legislation to provide true equality, and that broader framework is human rights legislation, of course, the equity legislation, the Multiculturalism Act, labour legislation, anti-racism and hate-crime legislation, immigration and refugees issues. They are all part of that framework, and it can't be seen simply within the small and narrow context as employment equity. It's also important to recognize that employment opportunities and the context where the legislation can enhance and promote it are of critical importance, and the Employment Equity Act plays a significant role in this regard.

Your work, I think, must be seen in the broader context; it ought not to be seen just in the narrow context of the legislation itself, because the legislation is only one building block of a broader framework of equality in this country. The Charter of Rights provides added opportunities for Canadians in the context of our constitution, but more importantly, I think, for many Canadians, the ability to gain meaningful and good jobs in this country remains elusive, and this act can make a significant contribution in this regard.

The congress welcomes this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to discuss the review of the federal Employment Equity Act. We believe a comprehensive review of the act is necessary, because it has not worked for a number of unions and workers who are supposed to be protected by this legislation. We strongly believe that a number of suggestions we made in 1995 on improvement of the act should be incorporated now to strengthen the existing act.

We are pleased to note that important links are being made between social and economic issues and employment equity in Employment Equity Act Review: A Report to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The government report provides an analysis of globalization and the workplace, knowledge-based economy, shortage of skills, linkage of poverty, and the cost of unemployment, among other things. Employment equity legislation should also be seen as part of a larger framework of legislation that promotes the social and economic integration of all who live in this country.

There have been a number of court decisions with a direct impact on the current act. For example, in the 1997 decision in National Capital Alliance on Race Relations v. Canada (Health and Welfare) the Human Rights Tribunal followed Action Travail in imposing an extensive remedial employment equity program on Health Canada. The courts have also recognized employment equity obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the1998 case Perera v. Canada the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the right of a person of colour to proceed with a civil claim against a former employer, the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA. As well, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1999 in the Meiorin case established important new principles in addressing discrimination in workplace standards and the duty to accommodate issues. The Supreme Court approach underlines the need for systemic response to structures that exclude individuals and groups from participation or full participation in the workplace.

We would like to highlight a few areas where the CLC have made recommendations in the brief.

The annual conference on racism ended in South Africa last year in September. Out of that conference there came a declaration and plan of action, and we want to make specific notes in regard to recommendations here.

There are elements in the UNWCAR declaration and plan of action for implementation at a national level that have direct impact on the Employment Equity Act. As a start, it's worth looking at the recommendations dealing with a national anti-racism legislative framework, employment, workplace discrimination, and data collection, such as paragraphs 66, 68 to 70, 78, 90, 92, 104a, 104c, 106, 107, and 108. We'd also like to point out that paragraph 107 explicitly mentions the role of trade unions in advancing non-discriminatory practice in the workplace.

Á (1110)

Despite union lobbying for joint responsibility, the act gives legal responsibility for achieving employment equity to employers alone. Unions must be involved in all steps in systematic analysis and review of all systems in the workplace. Frequently, these kinds of systems are governed by provisions of the collective agreement. It is also logical to include union representatives in the analysis of such systems and the design of employment equity programs in the workplace.

We're asking for the establishment of a permanent employment equity commission, to avoid a patchwork of departmental responsibilities, HRDC, CHRC, to provide needed expertise to assist employers and unions with the implementation of plans, and to conduct education campaigns. An employment equity commission will, of course, need adequate funding to carry out its mandate.

Should the government move to implement legislative changes in regard to the committee's recommendations, whatever they may be, we would again call on the committee to recommend that there be serious consultation with the trade union movement in this. We believe we have a significant contribution and expertise to provide, both to the government and in regard to how the legislation is drafted, so that we can make proper use of it in the context of collective bargaining, which a majority of Canadians who are represented by the Canadian Labour Congress rely upon every day, designing a program that can really enhance employment equity in the workplace. In the absence of a clear legislative mandate, we're relying on the legislation to serve this purpose. We think necessary amendments can be made to enhance the role unions play in the workplace.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next we will hear from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Harminder Singh Magon, you have five minutes to give us your wisdom.

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon (Anti-Racism Coordinator, Canadian Union of Public Employees): Thank you, Chair.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees welcomes this opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to discuss the review of the federal Employment Equity Act. However, we do not have our own brief. We are here to support the brief that has been submitted by the CLC. We are here to work with the CLC. I will, however, mention a few points that are in the CLC brief.

First, joint workplace committees should be established to facilitate the involvement of union and employee representatives in all steps of implementation of employment equity. In our experience, where they currently exist, such committees go a very long way towards creating understanding and acceptance of the goals and benefits to the entire workforce of employment equity.

The CLC is once again calling for the establishment of mandatory numerical goals and timetables that would take into account specific goals and demographic characteristics. These targets should increase progressively, rather than remaining static or, in some cases, sharply declining. There should be policies in place that set clear guidelines and targets that cannot easily ignored and are easily enshrined in legislation. The act should make the monitoring of these goals and timetables mandatory.

The act does not specifically mandate employers to provide workplace education on employment equity. The success of any employment equity program depends on the types of education initiatives in support of these programs. Education of employees and managers about discrimination, about anti-harassment policies, and about the progress of developing and implementing employment equity plans should be an obligation on employers under this legislation. Where there is a union, the provision of education and information should be a joint obligation. Employers should develop effective means of communicating employment equity programs and policies and develop effective educational materials.

In respect of public education, we are extremely disappointed that the federal government did not provide the resources necessary for information programs to foster public understanding of this act and to foster public recognition of the purpose of this act, as provided in the act. It is our opinion that this is an indispensable role of the government. The government should also have public education and awareness campaigns on a regular basis to deal with employment equity-related public backlash.

There are people who, because of their work responsibilities, should receive training on employment equity, in addition to education and awareness sessions, which should be provided at all levels to everyone in workplaces covered by the act. This type of training should cover all aspects of workplace relations and should be built into all training programs, providing effective information to counter the backlash effect. Specific training, programs, and workshops to deal with promoting employment equity and workplace backlash should be developed. Specific training on developing policies and programs dealing with racism, sexism, able-ism, and homophobia should also be developed.

Thank you.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Our final presentation in this first section comes from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Johanne Labine.

[Translation]

Ms. Johanne Labine (Program Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very pleased to be here.

Obviously, I need more than five minutes to read our brief. I have therefore prepared some speaking notes, which I will put forward in the hope that the committee will accept the submitted brief containing our recommendations in full. Thank you.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada is pleased to present its views and recommendations to the members of the Standing Committee. There is an obvious continued need for employment equity legislation. We also think there is a need to strengthen the Employment Equity Act , in the following areas:

First of all, the Employment Equity Act should provide for the creation of regional employment equity councils, which will serve to bridge the experiences of those who are covered by the Employment Equity Act. It is our view that HRDC/Labour should be resourced and mandated to carry out this function.

The Employment Equity Act, when initially enacted, was portrayed as being an important opportunity to remedy systemic discrimination in the workplace. However, there are several fundamental problems with the Act that undermine its effectiveness. Our recommendations address the need for appropriate redress in dealing with systemic discrimination complaints.

With respect to the federal public service, the members of the Standing Committee should understand the contradictions posed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which precludes the negotiation of staffing and classification, and the requirements of the Employment Equity Act, which call for consultation and collaboration on the review of recruitment, selection, promotion and other employment systems.

Again, PSAC recommends that, in unionized workplaces, the Employment Equity Act make reference to the negotiation of employment equity plans.

The Employment Equity Act mentions the need to ensure that the requirements of the Federal Contractors Program are equivalent to the requirements applying to the implementation of employment equity. We recommend that the Federal Contractors Program be subject to the Employment Equity Act and subject to CHRC compliance audits.

With respect to reporting requirements under the Act, we believe that the important role of public scrutiny in encouraging appropriate accountability should be more effectively carried out, and echo a comment found in the December 2001 Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. There is a need for a parliamentary human rights committee. We think such a committee, given its mandate, would be well placed to enhance employment equity public policy, in addition to human rights public policy.

To that end, rather than assessing gains or trends only in the course of a legislative review, a parliamentary human rights committee could also be mandated to receive employment equity annual reports from HRDC, CHRC, TBS and separate employers, with a view to consolidating demographic trends and assessing areas requiring further study.

The Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management also raises important considerations. It is our view that continued delegation of human resource management to departments and agencies is making it difficult to ensure consistent and effective implementation of employment equity in the federal Public Service. It would therefore be a mistake for the federal public sector to become a string of separate entities that can ignore the entitlement of public sector employees to equality rights. We are particularly concerned when we hear rumours that employment equity resources will be cut at Treasury Board and perhaps at the Public Service Commission of Canada.

Á (1120)

[English]

We also have comments to offer on the concept of merit. The concept of merit has been tarnished over the years by the significant subjective component known as personal suitability. Our members, in large part, are utterly convinced that this factor allows the manager to effectively select whomever he or she pleases. This potential for bias has been reported in numerous studies and government investigations. It is our view that the Employment Equity Act and regulations require the federal public service to ensure that merit is assessed in a barrier-free manner. This has given rise to the question of primacy of legislation: clearly, the Employment Equity Act should have primacy.

The Employment Equity Act should be clear in ensuring that barrier-free labour market availability rates are used. The decision by the Treasury Board to exclude non-Canadian citizens from the labour market rate established for visible minorities, in our view, has an adverse impact on this group. In addition, the act should mandate that both the census and the health activities limitation survey occur at regular and shorter intervals, in order to ensure that accurate and timely labour market data are available to establish barrier-free availability estimates.

We note as well that a review is currently under way with respect to the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, the justice minister has indicated that a government response to the CHRA review panel can be expected this summer. There is an important need to assess non-pay systemic discrimination issues and classification systems, and a need to undertake an analysis to establish whether or not a race and/or disability pay equity model is required.

The Employment Equity Act is solid on recognizing the need for employers to balance opportunities for their current employees who are members of the equity groups with the need to increase external recruitment of equity groups in areas where they are under-represented.

The Employment Equity Act has to respond to issues of intersection between gender, race, and disabilities. There exists a serious flaw in the current legislative framework with respect to the issue of discrimination based on multiple grounds. The Employment Equity Act, either with respect to employer obligations or with respect to compliance, does not deal with gender inequities within each of the three other equity groups. Multiple-ground issues are not addressed in relation to the workforce analysis requirements, in relation to employment systems review, or with respect to measures to be included in the employer's employment equity plan.

We will end here, but note that the full text of our submission includes quite a few additional recommendations.

Merci.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Thank you.

Witnesses, I know five minutes puts a terrible constraint on you when you have so much to impart. We appreciate that you've provided written material. It will all become part of the documentation we consider when we are making our final recommendations.

I will now go the question period, five-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Johnston, and then Mr. Malhi, and Madame Guay.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CA): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for your presentations.

You talked about mandatory numerical goals in the designated groups. I'm curious as to how you would see employers reaching those goals if their advertisement was put out and there weren't people from any of those particular groups applying, or at least members of the group in which they are deficient. How would you see that being rectified? Say there's an employer who has their numerical goals, as you put it, quotas, in regard to people with disabilities and people in visible minorities. Those goals are filled, but they advertised, and there weren't people from aboriginals or women's groups that applied for the job. What do you see as a solution to that? And that's for anybody.

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think it is important to recognize, in the context of employers trying to recruit people, that there are always challenges in finding the specific skills of one particular group. But again, in the absence of some stated target, we continue to, I think, not fulfil the obligations under the act. If we recognize, for instance, as you've stated, that there's an aboriginal group the employer would like to employ, and there's a lack of skilled people to fill those jobs, I think it would point to other problems that could be dealt with. If it's skills shortages and we're not training enough aboriginal people, maybe the employer can develop an outreach program. Because simply saying you want aboriginal people who are mechanics, expecting to have large numbers of people responding to that, may or may not be sufficient. It is important to recognize that if that's a deficiency, it can be stated, and other measures can be put in place to try to accomplish that.

Quite often, an employer may decide that he or she wants to employ a certain group within a particular classification, and of course, wouldn't do any more than simply placing an advertisement. I think employers have an obligation to go to the public schools, the secondary schools, and the colleges and universities, basically telling young people who are in our education system what kind of people they might be looking for in their employment and trying to ensure that there is a pool of people being developed, or at least being mentored to work in those kinds of areas. This is quite often not the reality. We simply rely on skilled people to be there when the employers call.

There are measures that can be taken, I think, to accommodate that. Again, Canadians are prepared to travel, if employers are prepared to do outreach beyond their little geographical area. And too often, I think, employers just get away with easy answers, saying, well, we tried, and we couldn't find the people.

I want to tell you a story. I used to work for General Motors. I worked in a bargaining unit that had existed for 75 years. In that period we didn't have a single woman working in the bargaining unit. The reason for it wasn't a lack of women who wanted to make $17 an hour, but the employer never thought they could employ women in that unit. Of course, they had to do a number of things if they wanted to bring them in. We finally decided to do a joint program and some outreach and create an atmosphere where women could come in and work in a workplace that would not be sexist, would not be discriminatory, would make them feel welcome, but it took a lot of work to make that workplace conducive to bringing women in. The employer, when we asked him about this, said, we couldn't find qualified people. I said, tell us how many you need, and we'll find them tomorrow morning. It takes a bit more commitment, and of course, employers, in the context of unions, can work with unions to overcome these barriers.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Johanne, do you want to respond?

Ms. Johanne Labine: I just want to point out to the members of the committee that on the issue of the pool available to work, there was a study done two years ago in the federal public service, done with the Public Service Commission, that looked at recruitment. In fact, some of the equity groups had an application rate of 20% for public sector jobs, but ended up having a hiring rate of only 4%. So some of us wonder whether or not the call that people are not available for jobs is not something of a myth being falsely perpetuated, while there are people available for jobs from the equity groups.

The Chair: Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

That leads to the second part of my question, which concerns training. Certainly, the act suggests that people should be hired on merit, and I firmly agree with that. Since employers are not required to hire unskilled or unqualified people, what role do you think government should have in upgrading skills or helping the employee to get the training the employer requires?

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think the whole issue of merit is a bit false and bogus, and this is from working in industry and coming out of a workplace in which that was used far too often to justify favouritism and perpetuate people who got jobs in the workplace. I come out of the auto sector, so I can speak very candidly. Employers moved to ensure that everybody working in the auto sector had to have grade 12. We know for a fact that long before there was a requirement for grade 12 for people to work in the auto industry people worked in the auto industry who had grade 8 education, sometimes even less. What were they required to do in the context of their work and what education level was necessary for them to perform that? The merit issue, quite often, is used to disqualify groups of people, and often too people of colour, and women, and other disadvantaged groups in society, because there's a perception that they're less educated and they are not qualified for doing this.

I think you're raising a very valid issue, but I think you need to put it in the context of how employers actually use their employment system to really evaluate whether their system is not discriminatory in itself. Quite often, the barriers are built into the system of recruitment, so that they continue to ensure that the same stream of people end up getting the same kinds of jobs. It's critical, when we talk about merit, to try to understand it for what it is and how it's used in a systemic way to prevent certain groups from securing employment in the workplace, because only certain individuals ever get those particular jobs, as the barriers are always set at a certain level. I think it's sometimes unfair and discriminatory in nature.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Malhi, and then Madame Guay.

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

Can you give some examples of efforts to implement employment equity? What do you think needs to be done to improve the job opportunities for older persons and persons with disabilities?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I want my colleagues to also respond, but let's go back to the issue of disability. If you look at the reviews that have been done and the statistics we have available, people with disabilities continue to be one of the most disadvantaged groups in regard to gaining access to a workplace in this country. It is fair to say that there are a lot of people who suffer disabilities and are re-employed in their workplace, because there is a obligation on employers to accommodate them, and quite often it is not noted in this regard. However, in regard to accommodating somebody from the outside through the employment practices, it would mean that the employer would sometimes have to change the nature of the workplace and make it more accessible. It may mean redesign of the workplace in some cases, they may have to redesign how the work is done, and far too often, employers are not prepared to spend the resources necessary to recruit and make the necessary changes to accommodate people with disabilities, so they can work in those particular workplaces. That's a major challenge.

With the older work force, as you know, the trade union movement has consistently supported 65 as the age of retirement. We're not saying workers cannot work after the age of 65, we're simply saying the Supreme Court's rule is a reasonable balance on society. There is a point in time, when you have a pension plan, where people have to get out and make room for others. We do recognize that there are a lot of workers who are losing their jobs long before age 65, at 50 and 55, and are finding it very difficult to find employment. Again, the act doesn't specifically require anything to be done on this, but I think this is an area the government is going to have to become much more aware of, because if you look at the demographics of change in Canadian society, we're going to have more and more people in this category who are prepared to work, but are not getting employment opportunities, as they have been in the past.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Ms. Richmond, you had a response.

Ms. Penni Richmond (National Director, Women's and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress): Some of our other witnesses here have very concrete examples of what unions have done in working to negotiate employment equity, but I wanted to speak to the broader picture we mentioned at the beginning of our brief and Hassan's presentation.

We know the progress of people with disabilities has been absolutely abysmal, everyone recognizes that, but I wanted to say that even where employers have hired and have made efforts, based on their obligations as federal employers perhaps, it's extremely difficult for people with disabilities, because of the lack of support services that are available to them. We found numbers of individuals who can't get to the work place, because of the cutbacks in transportation. That's only one example. There are those who can't sustain their work, because of the lack of affordability of other medical needs they have. It's quite profound.

We wanted to emphasize that this is the broader context, and there's a great role for government here in ensuring that the complete climate is accessible for people with disabilities. I am not saying we believe that employers have gone out of their way and have been remarkably successful in hiring, but we do know that when people have been hired, just staying in the work place is really difficult, because of lack of support services, and certainly, compensation systems, which are under attack when people are injured.

The Chair: Thank you, Miss Richmond.

Mr. Malhi, you have about a minute left.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: But my question is, what do you think needs to be done to improve the job opportunities for older people? In some cases, as was mentioned, it's due to a plant shutdown. They are 50 or 51, they can not find a job. What suggestions do you have for those cases?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: If I could be blunt, unless we're going to do something to create full employment in the country, you're going to have workers competing for the same jobs. That's not to belittle the point you're making. The unemployment levels is officially 8%, but we know it's a little higher than that. The reality is that we have workers competing for the same jobs, and if employers have a choice, they're going to choose younger workers. That's the reality in which we exist today.

Of course, with skills shortages, you're going to see more and more attempts to get older workers back into the workplace, because there is a skills shortage that this country is going to see as a crisis. So in this area, I think, employers will naturally look at all the workers. But from where we sit, most times we're trying to defend our members' jobs in the context of layoffs and shutdowns and other challenges. I don't want to say it's just a question of training, because we know most of the older workers who are losing their jobs have incredible skills. There is a discriminatory pattern in hiring, and sometimes the employer doesn't favour older workers. They prefer to have younger workers, unless they can't fill the skill requirement.

I don't have a clear answer for you, unless we do something about the unemployment level. Older workers will be competing with younger workers for the same jobs that are out there. It's as simple as that.

Á (1140)

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Guay, Madame Folco, and then Ms. McDonough.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to welcome you and thank you for being here today. I see that your recommendations, particularly those in the report on the Public Service Alliance, required extraordinary work. We shall have to take over 21 recommendations into account when we put forward amendments to this legislation. Thank you for your extraordinary work.

Mr. Yussuff, earlier you mentioned GM, where you worked for many years. GM is very close to my riding, which is the Laurentides, in Quebec; it is located in the Lower Laurentians, and we have also experienced employment equity problems. In my view, most specialized positions require some kind of special training. So as soon as a specialized position is given to a man, a woman, a member of a visible minority, or a disabled person, special training must be provided. So it should be logical that the doors could be opened to everyone.

Mr. Magon, you talked about a joint committee. I would like you to elaborate on that. I know we do not have very much time, but you could perhaps tell us how you would envisage the co-operation between employers and employees.

We would also need some details on the costs involved. There are people who worry about that. I know that the Employment Equity Act implementation budget is only $1.4 million. I do not believe this is enough to implement the legislation across Canada. There is similar legislation in Quebec, with a fairly similar budget. But a country covers much more area than a province. That is something we should remember.

I also have a question for you, Ms. Labine. We have already seen representatives of the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board Secretariat. We know that the Public Service Staff Relations Act mentions the merit principle, but does not define it very precisely. You say that provisions on the merit principle might lead to a contradiction between the Employment Equity Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Could you please explain what sort of contradiction you perceive?

Those are all the questions I have. I will give you a chance to answer them.

[English]

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: On specialized training, I do want to stress that it depends on what workplace we're talking about and the kind of employment we're talking about. Yes, the majority of jobs are specialized to a certain degree, but I would argue that Canadians from all walks of life, from all different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, quite often possess the basic necessities and the basic skills to perform the job.

In the context of employment equity, it is critical to recognize that both with employers performing their responsibility and in ensuring their hiring practices are non-discriminatory, it does require a reorientation of those managers and supervisors and people who work in human resources departments in companies. If it's not set out as a goal that you want to have your workplace reflect the community and the society in which you operate, it will not happen.

I think the act really imposes a passive obligation. I think it has to be more an active obligation, in which employers are constantly engaging in discussion, not just with the unions in the workplaces where there are unions, but also in the community in which they operate, to recognize whether their workforce is really representative of that community, and if it's not, why not, and how to try to ensure that this does happen. Far too often, because it's seen as a passive obligation, very few resources are committed. It depends on the employers. It varies across the country, to be very candid about it.

Also, with the department's responsibility in promoting the act, I think Canadians are still struggling with the concept of employment equity. It is still perceived as discriminatory in some ways, as reverse discrimination. I think we have to do more politically in this country, if we're seriously committed to building society's equality, in promoting employment equity. To a large extent, it still exists in a vacuum, within the small circles of enlightened individuals who want to make this a true reality. It is critical that we come to terms with it, because if society continues to change as it is changing, employment equity will be an important instrument in making the kinds of changes we see as necessary.

So I do agree with you about specialized training, but we need, again, to put it in the true context, and I think employers in the workplace need to.... Again, the department needs to play much more of a role, and resources for the department are critical. The department cannot provide services to groups of employers if you don't give them the resources to go out there and do that.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Mr. Magon.

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon: I will speak simply from the experience we have had in Saskatchewan. I was with the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 59. We embarked on our first employment equity program in 1981. We found there was a lot of backlash at that time, because everybody thought that because of engagement in an employment equity program, the floodgates were going to be opened and the place was going to be flooded with aboriginal people, people of colour, and persons with disabilities, while all the mainstream, able-bodied white people were going to be left behind. It was a tough task for us to educate our members as to why there is a need for this education on employment equity, why we need employment equity to remedy the past wrongs. We found that by having joint committees, where we had equal representation from the unions and management, it became, as it were, our program. It wasn't something the management was pushing down our throats, it was something the unions were agreeable to and the management was agreeable to. That way we created an environment very conducive to talking about employment equity. We had amazing results.

As for resources coming from the government, I don't see it as a problem. The only involvement from the government at that time was that the HRDC folks came and gave us training on what employment equity is all about. I think one of those who gave us our first training on employment equity is here. He started us on a very good footing. He created this camaraderie between the management and the unions, to ensure that we worked towards a program that works for both interests.

I feel that having joint committees is very important. If there is a buy-in from the union side and the management, only then will you see success in programs. You need to have that buy-in. If that buy-in is not there, you are setting yourselves up for failure, not success.

[Translation]

Ms. Johanne Labine: We consider the merit principle within the federal Public Service to be a highly relevant issue.

As you know, the merit principle is not clearly defined in the PSSRA. For years and years, people thought that the merit principle was absolute, and neutral. But a number of events have demonstrated that, at the end of the day, assessment on the basis of the merit principle is not always applied neutrally in the federal Public Service. These events include the complaint filed against Health Canada; the court decision in the case of Health Canada; and the Task Force on the Participation of Visible Minorities in the Federal Public Service, which prepared the report entitled Embracing Change in the Federal Public Service/Faire place au changement dans la fonction publique fédérale.

We know full well that implementation of the merit principle through selection tools... Earlier, I gave you some statistics. In some sectors, the job application rate by members of visible minority groups is 20 to 22%, but the hiring rate is only 4%. For this group, there is an enormous disparity in the federal Public Service.

There has also been a study conducted on selection tests. The study showed that, out of the 10 tests, some had a negative impact on equity group communities. Obviously, in our discussions with Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, we insist that the Employment Equity Act should prevail over other legislation. We have had many discussions on the fact that the merit principle should be recognized as not being perceived as entirely neutral, a tool unaffected by the work culture which has become established within the federal Public Service.

Frequently, it is in examining selection tools and the make-up of selection committees, the questions put to candidates and the assessment criteria that we understand the obstacles to unemployment which are frequently associated with the merit principle.

That is the source of contradiction between the Employment Equity Act and the PSSRA in their current form.

Á (1150)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) First of all, I would like to congratulate the witnesses who are here today. This is the first time I have seen a group so effectively representing the people they are supposed to represent.

We are talking about designated groups—visible minorities, women, the First Nations and disabled persons. Before us today, I see a number of people representing some of those designated groups, perhaps not all of them but many of them. I congratulate you, because this demonstrates a form of empowerment. These are the groups who are dealing with their issues, and I'm happy to see it. That was my first comment.

I have a number of questions. The first is on immigration, an issue that affects a number of you, I am sure. Some immigrants arrive in Canada with diplomas, be they university degrees or vocational certificates. Yet they cannot find work here because their qualifications are not recognized.

In Quebec, two departments—the Immigration Department and the Citizens Relations Department, have instituted a process that takes immigrants' qualifications into account. The immigrants can submit their diploma and be granted the equivalent Quebec qualification, if not the equivalent Canadian qualification.

What pressure should you be putting on the government to solve this problem? We know that people come to Canada with PhDs and two years later find themselves driving cabs. You focus on the children of those immigrants, but in my view we should also focus on the immigrants themselves, and see how they could find work in this country. That is my first question, and any of you is free to answer.

My second question is on something Mr. Yussuff said: he indicated that the government did not allocate enough resources to public information on the benefits of the Employment Equity Act. I agree, because in the discussions this committee has had with the public, we have noted that the public is indeed poorly informed. I would like you to tell me more about the types of activities that the government, and particularly the department, could implement to remedy this.

[English]

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: That's a very good point about immigration. It seems to me that we go around the world and recruit the best individuals we can find for our country, and then when we get them here, we tell them to drive cabs and clean the washrooms. I think it's quite appalling. We have always supported a system to deal with foreign accreditation. There was a major conference in Toronto a little over two years ago, in which I participated, with MInister Jane Stewart, calling for such a national body to be created. As you know, in this country each of the provinces has responsibility for accreditation issues. We have a mishmash: in some places, if you're lucky enough, they can do it, in some places you're struggling on your own.

I think the federal government made a tremendous mistake when they kept signing these immigration joint responsibility agreements with the provinces. They did not put in a provision to say, if you want us to allocate you a fair proportion of immigrants, you must put in place a system for dealing with accreditation issues. We haven't done that, and I think we should change these agreements, try to write into them very clearly and explicitly, if you want the people, you must be prepared to take into consideration how you're going to use their skills. This has not been done. We've been calling for it. It is necessary and it's long overdue. I think the CBC did a study--I don't know how scientific it was--that said we have the most educated taxi drivers in the world. I don't think that's something we should be boasting about. It shows to me a discouraging phenomenon that is happening in this country. We bring the brightest people from other parts of the world, and we don't allow them to work in the field where they are qualified. I think it speaks volumes about the ongoing systemic discrimination groups continue to face.

On the second issue, about resources for promoting employment equity, I do believe the federal government has a fundamental responsibility, if it's serious about a strategy, to give the department or some other agency the resources. We cannot make any headway in promoting the value of employment equity without having the tools and the resources necessary to do so. I think many employers are prepared to sit down and figure out how they can move the issue forward, if there are some resources available. My colleague Harminder made specific reference to joint committees. In the workplace, despite what may be thought about the labour movement, most of the time we're trying to solve problems, not create them.

In this area, responsibility for employment equity, we are prepared to work, and have continued to work, with employers who desire to do so to promote the agenda of employment equity, because we recognize that we're a very diverse society, and if we're not providing employment opportunities for people, we're going to pay the consequences down the road. So I think it's critical that the committee do make some strong recommendations that adequate resources be allocated to the department, so it can carry out its work, or if not, that an agency be created, as we propose, a federal employment equity commission, with the necessary resources, so as to have everything under one umbrella, to promote true employment equity in the provinces. Other than Quebec, the federal sector is the only sector where there is employment equity legislation. As you know, when Mike Harris was elected, the first thing he did was eliminate employment equity in Ontario, and of course, we're seeing the results of that in employment practices in Ontario. So I think it's critical that you recommend that more resources be allocated to this department to do its work.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Very briefly, Madame Labine.

[Translation]

Ms. Johanne Labine: We also believe that additional resources to facilitate these efforts are very important. Our first recommendation is that regional councils be established by Human Resources Development Canada, and be given the resources and mandates they will need. These councils will make it possible for employers, the unions and equity groups to find solutions and establish working tools to improve employment equity implementation. We agree on this.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. McDonough, you are next. Welcome to our committee. It's a pleasure to have you join us.

[Translation]

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much.

I would like to welcome you before the committee, and thank you for your extremely practical and positive presentations. I have greatly appreciated the spirit in which your comments have been made this morning.

[English]

It must be very tempting to come in and slam the appalling results, particularly in the area of aboriginal and disabled groups. But then, the statistics speak for themselves. I appreciate that what you've come forward with today are very clear, specific recommendations.

In your presentations there's a common thread, which is employment equity as if you mean it to actually succeed. I think the recommendation about targets and timetables, backed up with mandatory monitoring and the structural components that can move all that forward, are essential if we're going to make real progress here. I'm sure it's very frustrating, because I know you've done huge amounts of work and you bring incredible amounts of experience to this. That is why it's so important to put in place the permanent employment equity commission you recommended, the regional committees, the joint workplace committees. I think the suggestion about the parallel parliamentary committee is also very good. Then it adds up to not just a lot of rhetoric and false hopes, but the structural means for moving this forward.

I'd just like to ask a couple of questions, perhaps to the PSAC representative, on the issue of downsizing, shrinking resources, shrinking employment opportunities, and what that actually means in paralysing the path to greater employment equity. I know this is quite specific, but it's noted that you have real concerns about whether the Treasury Board is taking seriously what needs to happen here, particularly in the context of the whole slate of human resources reform measures. So I wonder if I might ask you to speak to that.

Then, perhaps under the CLC umbrella, I have two fairly specific questions. It seems quite evident that the under-representation of the four target groups in the workforce is mirrored by the over-representation of the very same population groups in the ranks of poverty in the country. So I wonder if you could speak to the issue of employment equity in the context of any serious commitment to eliminating poverty.

Second, I would welcome any comments you might have, particularly in regard to the private sector, on contract compliance as a tool for trying to make some real progress.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Madame Labine.

Ms. Johanne Labine: With respect to the resources level for employment equity, it's a question that troubles us. The human resources renewal exercise currently under way has not examined, as far as we know, the requirements of the Employment Equity Act and the CHRA. They've examined other legislative requirements. The central agencies don't do hiring in the federal public sector. For the most part, the hiring is done by each department and each agency. There's been a pattern of delegating increased responsibilities for human resources to each department and agency, and there's been a very limited role that the central agencies have played, for example, on employment equity. They have a very limited accountability and monitoring role, and the public accountability will be amalgamating all the departmental reports and then submitting back to the House.

The specific cuts that have been confirmed are with respect to the positive measures fund. Government is describing that as a sunset fund, but that fund has been around since 1983. It has been known under various other names. It amounts to about $9 million of employment equity tools that have been sunsetted. The hope might be the department and agencies would take on that responsibility through their specific departmental budget. But if you look at the pitiful--I'll say pitiful--performance of the federal public sector, the largest employer in this country, it has a huge gap for racially visible groups and for persons with disabilities.

Nothing in what we're getting today speaks about protecting employment equity resources. In fact, we're hearing about additional cuts at Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, and we'll have details tomorrow when we appear before the National Joint Council committee. We've asked that specific question.

So there's delegation to departments and agencies, and the absence of a credible accountability process of employment equity and human rights is quite troublesome. You should also know that we're the only unionized workers who don't have an automatic entitlement to human rights grievances. So for Madame Robillard to say that bargaining agents are part of the accountability process, because we play the role we play in negotiations and representation, is a bit incomplete, because members have to get permission from the Human Rights Commission for the Public Service Staff Relations Board to hear the human rights grievance. So it is of great concern to us.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: On the two points regarding under-representation of the four target groups and the relationship directly with poverty, I think it goes without saying that there's a direct correlation between poverty levels in the target groups and under-representation in some of the sectors. If you can't get into the good jobs of this country and have an ability to earn your way to get out of poverty, it isn't going to change. All the good intentions are wonderful, but at the end of the day, we still have to create an atmosphere where people can get decent employment. As long there's discriminatory practice, we know for a fact that we're not going to change this reality, and it continues to be an area with a considerable gap. For instance, under-representation of people with disabilities is appalling, and it's not just in the federal sector, it's also in the provincial sector across this country. We don't seem to have the courage to develop a national strategy to respond to this.

The other area that is also appalling is that of aboriginal people. In the prairie region, where we have an abundance of aboriginal people prepared to work, they still can't get meaningful employment. That needs to be addressed. I think the provincial governments and the federal government need to develop a concrete strategy. There are far too many young people growing up in the aboriginal community today with a sense of hopelessness--there is no opportunity for them to get into the workplace. Part of that means we have to change the mindset as to how we're going to get them there. We can't use the same model we've used in the past. There have to be mentoring programs and other programs to support this when they actually do come into the workplace, and if we have to give employers specific support to bring them in, then do so, but you have to do it in a context of developing a framework within the workplace.

I agree with you that there is a direct relationship. As I said earlier, we have to see employment equity within the broader context of other legislation, not just employment equity legislation.

With regard to the private sector and the federal contractors compliance program, the department has done a study, and there has been some leaked stuff in the newspapers about the study. I think the federal contractors program is an important tool in ensuring that the private sector plays its rightful part in promoting meaningful employment equity. It simply cannot be that all you are obligated to do is report where you're at. It has to be that if you want to get government contracts, you have to show some progress, and they need to be told that upfront. I think some of these employers are doing some good things, and there are some of them who have not made any changes in areas of employment. So looking at what needs to be tightened up, there needs to be more than simply saying, if you don't file the report on time, you might get yourself in trouble. Have you made any changes? Have you made any progress? If you haven't, why should we continue to give you a contract from the federal government?

I think there are areas in there where we can make some specific recommendations for changes to the legislation that would make it more meaningful, to ensure that the federal contract compliance program actually does play the role it was intended to play. It wasn't there to simply say, we have these other areas to influence. I think some of these sectors do have the ability, far more so than the federal government, because of the volume, to employ groups. They are sometimes located in communities where they have much more access to target groups they could employ in their specific areas and fields.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Thank you.

We're now going to the second round, and I would encourage members to be brief in posing questions and the witnesses to be equally brief in trying to respond, so we can get as many in as possible.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): I'd like to explore a little further the notion that one could encompass the objectives of employment equity more through the collective bargaining process. We've talked about the emergence and importance of joint committees. We've also talked about the absence, with respect to human rights grievances, of a methodology, if you will, that would be more entrenched somewhere. I'd like you to explore that theme, so that the committee could understand a little better.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: In the absence of a clear legislative mandate, unions have sat down with employers and bargained for joint employment equity committees and a program. They've established a committee, they've established a mandate for the committee as to what it's going to do in the context of that relationship.

The legislation can be explicit in saying where there is collective bargaining, where there are workers represented by unions, there ought to be a joint committee and mandate what that committee should be doing. The employer may or should consult with unions in regard to doing a census and developing some kind of employment equity. We know from experience that most of the time the employers don't feel they need to, or they'll tell us at the end of the day, here's what we're doing, we want your involvement. Given that employment equity's an important principle, I think the act should say where there is a union, the employer and the union will jointly develop a plan. They will have joint committees to promote, but also to implement, employment equity within their workplace. Let them figure out the reality of what that is, because I think they have the better ability, so long as you provide the framework to make that happen. In the absence of a clear legislative obligation, it isn't going to happen. Right now the act doesn't say that explicitly, and you continue to see problems.

There are clear examples, which our colleagues will be presenting this afternoon, where clear strategies have been developed, and Harminder gave one concerning Saskatoon in Saskatchewan, where that has been going on in the absence of a fair legislative obligation.

Â (1210)

Mr. Alan Tonks: One could look at that as a best practice.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: We could supply you with the language in the collective agreements, what it says explicitly and what is the mandate of these committees in promoting that.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I think that'd be very helpful. Thank you.

The Chair: If you could give them to the clerk, we can ensure that every member of the committee gets a copy.

Madame Labine, you had a comment?

Ms. Johanne Labine: I just wanted to add that we, in fact, have tried to incorporate the cost of an employment systems review at the PSAC with our collective agreement. We have gone through the text of our collective agreement to attempt to identify potential employment barriers. Keep in mind that the Public Service Staff Relations Act doesn't allow us to negotiate staff in consultation systems. Staffing is an area that needs joint action on our part, because we could negotiate a staffing framework or protocol that would be equity-friendly and try to close the gaps of representation.

The biggest problem with attempting to negotiate employment equity is that the negotiation process is quite adversarial. So our recommendation speaks to a separate process of bargaining to make sure the people around that table are very clear on their human rights obligations. Unions are very clear on human rights obligations. When we've attempted to identify employment barriers or put in language about barriers and a third-party review process, we have not necessarily met with success.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Skelton, then Monsieur Bellemare, and Mr. Martin, if you have a question.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, CA): Mr. Yussuff, you mentioned that employment equity hasn't worked for a number of unions. Is each of your unions covered under employment equity?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: No. They're covered if they're under the federal sector. I said it hasn't worked in the context. We have had no meaningful involvement in developing any plan or participating in any plan in the context of the act in the workplace, because the act doesn't specifically call for that.

Ms. Johanne Labine: We used to be subject to the Ontario Employment Equity Act, and used that to give ourselves an internal employment equity plan, if that's the extent of your question. We're trying to make good use of the consultation role, however weak it is in the present legislation, to move towards some joint processes, to identify and deal with barriers. We're not subject to the requirements of the Employment Equity Act as an employee organization or an employer, but we do have an internal EE plan.

Ms. Carol Skelton: So most unions do have that?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: The CLC certainly has an internal employment equity plan for its own staff regarding who we hire and how we promote people internally. We're not just here by accident--I just want you to get that point. This is a serious attempt to assure you that we reflect what we talk about.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Yes, I very much appreciate that. Thank you for commenting on that.

The Chair: Mr. Magon.

Â (1215)

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon: In CUPE we have a joint staff employment equity program. The majority of our locals are outside the federal jurisdiction. The majority of our workers come from municipalities, and the majority of municipalities have embarked on joint employment equity programs throughout the country.

Apart from these programs, as Hassan earlier mentioned under-representation, I just wanted to mention something about the under-representation of aboriginal people on the prairies. To increase representation of the aboriginal work force, we have embarked on joint partnership agreements with the provincial government and the health sector in Saskatchewan, which is covered under CUPE, and we are seeing some amazing results. The first partnership agreement was signed in November 2000, and to date I understand we have hired about 1200 new aboriginal employees within the CUPE health sector. That's another way of looking at increase in representation.

Ms. Carol Skelton: Being from Saskatchewan, a member of Parliament from Saskatoon, I would like to see those numbers, if you have them; I would appreciate that. Because from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, with the numbers I have here, the first nations hiring is abysmal.

Mr. Harminder Singh Magon: As an ex-Saskatoonian, it will be a pleasure to give you that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa--Orleans, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Johanne Labine of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Did you actually say that officials did not have access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission? That any conflict could be submitted only to the Public Service Staff Relations Board?

Ms. Johanne Labine: Our members have access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The problem is getting access to the grievance mechanism. Before the grievance can be heard by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the Canadian Human Rights Commission must request that it be submitted to the PSSRB.

Should there be a reference to a case that was heard before the Federal Court and that gave rise to a precedent, we would no doubt attempt to have the PSSRA amended. But at present, unlike other unionized employees, our members cannot file grievances on human rights issues.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I want to come back to a question asked by my Canadian Alliance colleague.

PSAC has an action plan which reflects its workforce, does it not?

Ms. Johanne Labine: As an employer?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, as an employer.

Ms. Johanne Labine: As an employer, we have an employment equity plan in place. It was signed in 1995. Under the plan, we have positions set aside for members of designated groups.

We have achieved better representation for some groups, but other groups are still under-represented. At present, our hiring target for visible minorities is 20.6%, and our target for Aboriginal persons is 6%.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What is currently stopping you from reaching your targets in all four designated groups?

Ms. Johanne Labine: I have sat on the joint union-management committee. As a representative of my union, I know that the hiring process at PSAC normally begins internally, with the employees we already have. Those employees have first refusal, because they participate in internal competitions. External competitions were not often held.

We therefore initiated a process to establish competitions that would be solely for under-represented designated groups. This made it possible for us to go outside the organization in an effort to achieve better representation.

We have made a great deal of progress with this plan and hiring procedure.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Is your progress better or worse than the progress achieved within the Public Service as a whole?

Ms. Johanne Labine: Well, disabled people are not under-represented. In fact, they are very well represented at PSAC. I would have to look at the data, but I would say that we have achieved better progress with Aboriginal persons and visible minorities. I can give you details on our plan.

[English]

The Chair: Again, I think the committee would be very pleased to receive those figures. Perhaps you could send them off to the clerk.

Thank you, Monsieur Bellemare.

Mr. Martin, we'll leave the last question to you

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity, even though I arrived late. And thank you, guests and witnesses.

My first observation, as an NDP MP, is that it's common knowledge we don't have enough NDP MPs, and so we all have to double up on our critic duties. So I'm the critic for labour, aboriginal affairs, and Treasury Board. All three of those things seem to converge on this one issue, and so I have been following with great interest since the report was tabled.

From the presentations I've heard, you're all being far too civil and far too polite over what is really an outrageous failure, from what I can determine, to rectify the under-representation in the public service workforce. Speaking specifically of the aboriginal issue, where I come from, in Winnipeg, we have a huge underemployed population of aboriginal youth between the ages of 18 and 30, in the inner city of Winnipeg 70% or 80% unemployed. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the country province-wide, and yet in the inner city of Winnipeg a massive population of 70% and 80% unemployed, and we've fail to make any match.

So my first question is, do you believe the Treasury Board hiring guidelines for the public service, which dictate a 500-kilometre radius around Ottawa in their job postings, act as a barrier to meeting targets?

Second, according to the most recent report, of 111 audits completed 4 employers were found to be in compliance, and after remedial action 8 more were brought into compliance. So of 111 agencies and federal sector employers only 12 are now in compliance. Could you state your impressions of that? Obviously, the remedies you would suggest are in the recommendations you've made, but I'd like to hear your comments on what I think is an abject failure and a lack of commitment to really making an impact on this issue.

Â (1220)

Ms. Johanne Labine: With respect to the zones of recruitment, the studies that we have seen show that most of the hiring in the federal public sector occurs locally. If you look at the geographic distribution of women and persons with disabilities, they're evenly dispersed across the country, so a rule like that does not necessarily have an adverse impact. But if you look at the aboriginal community and their distribution, and if you look at the racially visible population and their distribution, that rule has an adverse impact. There are discussions currently under way between the federal public sector and its unions with respect to national recruitment zones.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Ms. Johanne Labine: There are issues, though, about geographic economic disadvantage. There are members who live in economically disadvantaged regions, and when public sector jobs open up for their region, there's a serious need for that community to be able to secure those positions. So we're trying to examine this issue from a variety of angles, but certainly local recruitment has an adverse impact on these areas. That's why we speak about barrier-free labour market availability in our recommendations.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

And the other issue was about audits.

Mr. David Onyalo (National Director, Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress): I think this goes back to an initial statement that Hassan made. While in the past we would look at different pieces of legislation in isolation, I think now, more than ever, we need to be able to have a much bigger and broader objective. We are looking to you for some political leadership. Take the questions that have been asked here today. There was the whole discussion on skills shortage. We have an aging population. We have a community that gets torn apart by the backlash concerning employment equity. You have got a growing population of aboriginal people out in the west. I don't think it is any longer okay for a government to look at legislation such as employment equity in isolation, because of the political fallout. For this committee not to be taken seriously when you make recommendations about access of aboriginal people to the workplace I think is just appalling, if the government doesn't listen. The implication of not looking at, for example, the impact of people who come to this country with skills driving taxis, while we continually go overseas to bring in other groups of skilled labour, is absolutely appalling.

Going back to the particular question about of aboriginal people and the fact that this legislation hasn't worked, we are very clear. We see this as a two-part process. Today we want to engage you, give you a sense of where we will be coming back to you when the review is taking is place, when you have legislative language. We will find the weaknesses in this legislation. But this can't be seen by the government as just one piece of legislation that deals with human rights issues. It goes to the very heart of how you build resources in this country. It goes to the very heart of how you improve the economic situation of people in this country. It also goes back to the very heart of equality rights issues.

I just want to make a quick point one of my colleagues made before. One of the key recommendations we made when the human rights review panel was going across the country was the ability for unions and employers to work together in the workplace in joint committees. We have tons of examples of where that has worked in the past, but the reason I bring it up is that there are other pieces of work taking place around this country that have to form an integral part of your recommendations to Parliament.

I am glad you provide us with an opportunity to point to that. Your role is just as critical in making sure this legislation is not seen as piecemeal. We will come back to you with more specific recommendations as to how you can improve this legislation, because we are not very happy with it. We have identified loopholes and will continue to do so.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Mr. Yussuff.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: There is limited time, so I am not going to try to respond to Pat's question directly, but rather to say something to the committee.

Quite often, I assume, as members of Parliament, you will be given the responsibility of sitting on a committee. It is not a mundane task. You have got to perform in your responsibility, but I don't know if you, as parliamentarians, are really understanding what Canadians are going through. I live in the city of Toronto. I also live in the city of Ottawa. Twenty-five years ago the city of Toronto was like any other city. It was a big city, but it has changed dramatically in 20 years. Today it is a mosaic of all kinds of people from all walks of life. When I look at Toronto and I look at this country, it really raises some serious questions. Are we really building an apartheid system in our country? I say this in very strong language because there is a lot of inadequacy in the city that people aren't dealing with. Legislation can't solve all the problems, but it certainly would give us the moral authority to use the legislation to try to bring people in line with what they ought to do that is important.

It is critical, I think, in regard to this review, that you, as members of Parliament who had, I think, very good questions, asking about how we can deal with the situation of employment equity, see it in a broader context. The changes in our country will continue to happen, and too many people are still left out there not able to get gainful employment, because systemic barriers still exist today in the workplace, and more importantly, discrimination is happening, despite the fact that there is a law that says you cannot discriminate. It is critical for us to acknowledge that. If people aren't being discriminated against, why is the workplace still looking the way it is not supposed to look? Why is it not changing at the rate it should be?

So I think it is critical, in the committee's recommendations for changes, to recognize that there is an obligation to make some meaningful amendments to this piece of legislation that really can provide us with the tools. We are here as a trade union saying, we are prepared to work with our employers and government to move this issue forward. We can't do it without tools and we can't do it with no resources. If the department is going to function the way it is expected to, you have got to give it the resources.

I want to come back to Pat's point. The government stated that aboriginal issues are among their central concerns. It is critical for us to see that this is being addressed in some meaningful way. In the absence of a clear obligation of the employer to use employment equity to ensure aboriginal people get meaningful employment in the workplace, it ain't going to happen. It has to be more than passively, every five years, going through a review that does not lead to any kind of change. It is critical that you see your role as really making a significant contribution to assist us. It is all stated in the various briefs we have provided.

Again I want to thank all of you, as committee members, for your thoughtful questions. More importantly, we are looking forward to your recommendations, because we do believe this can make a difference in regard to what kind of society we shape for the future.

The Chair: In the interest of fairness, Mr. Bellemare has been frantically waving his hand, and he had the shortest period of time, so we'll give him one minute, which means 30 seconds for him and 30 seconds for the respondent.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Chair,

[English]

I wonder if we could have the union members reconcile the idea that they're very right in wanting employment equity to be put into effect with one of their main raisons d'être, to protect the union workers, and this protection goes along the line of seniority. If there are a large number of people who are protected by seniority, how do you get employment equity in there as an employer?

Â (1230)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Seniority is not a barrier to employment equity, let's be very clear and blunt about that. It wasn't seniority that created the problem in the first place, it was bad hiring practice by employers and government that created the problem, and they have not to burden those who have come in and gained seniority with the responsibility for fixing it.

Ms. Johanne Labine: There are no seniority provisions in the federal public service. If you compare the seniority provision application in the federally regulated sector and look at the merit application in the federal public sector, we need to look at the hiring decisions, as opposed to looking at the seniority rules.

The Chair: Mr. Johnston, 30 seconds.

Mr. Dale Johnston: In the PSAC presentation, you suggested designated groups should be expanded to include lesbians, gay men, bisexual groups, and the trans-gendered. Since it's unlawful to ask about one's sexuality or sex practices under the Canadian Human Rights Commission, how do you suggest that we go about identifying these groups and setting quotas on them?

Ms. Johanne Labine: You are allowed to ask questions in support of special programs under any human rights provisions, and employment equity is a special program and allows for a process of self-identification by four groups. Our issue with the inclusion of lesbians and gays is that because the census information does not capture information on this group, we don't have a global picture about areas of under-representation or their economic status, as we did when Abella did her royal commission on the status of employment equity.

We do know from information that our members of this community provide to us and from our role in representation that this group suffers quite a bit of systemic discrimination in the workplace. Our recommendation says there ought to be more analysis and more discussion to identify how best to include this group under the Employment Equity Act. And certainly, one key area will mean a modification to the census questions, so that we can have some kind of measure in the broader society of the representation rate of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-gendered.

The Chair: Okay, that's going to have to be the subject of another day. In the interest of fairness--I shouldn't have opened the door, but I did, so I've only myself to blame--30 seconds, Ms. McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Very briefly, I want to thank the government member for asking the question he asked, because I think it gave our guests the opportunity to dispel the myth. It's hate-mongering to create the impression that unions and seniority rules prevent employment equity from succeeding. That's exactly the point of the presentation. There is no group in our society that has provided more leadership, working in solidarity with equality-seeking groups to try to battle racism and break down barriers and advance employment equity, than union groups in this country.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank our friends from the CLC, from CUPE, and from PSAC. You certainly have given us a great deal of information in your verbal presentations and in the written documentation, and we thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of your members and in our deliberations here as we're looking at employment equity.

I will now suspend for 15 minutes. Members of the committee, there are some refreshments at the back. You've been here quite some time, and you will be here until question period, so take this opportunity to grab a bite. We will reconvene at 12:45.

Â (1234)

Â (1246)

The Chair: I want to reconvene the meeting.

We now have the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Claudette Carbonneau and Raymonde Leblanc, and the Canadian Auto Workers Union, represented by Raj Dhaliwal.

Madame Guay, you had a question?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Do we have those documents?

[English]

The Chair: Nothing. It came in one language only. We can't distribute them when they come only unilingual. Theirs came in French, and the other came in English.

Madame Carbonneau, you may begin.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau (Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux): Good afternoon and thank you for your invitation. I would like to introduce Raymonde Leblanc, who is with me today. Raymonde is a union adviser in the labour relations unit and for many years has been involved in issues regarding women and in efforts to fight discrimination.

I would say that the CSN is particularly interested in this issue. It has fought discrimination for years and years. Most of the people we represent work in Quebec and are employees covered by the Federal Labour Code who work in telecommunications, transportation, the milling industry, and correctional officers in the federal Public Service throughout Canada.

This consultation is particularly timely. In the context of globalization, employment equity issues take on a new urgency. In workplaces, we are dealing with rapid change, the introduction of new information and communications technologies, all of which makes it more difficult to achieve employment equity objectives. In other words, more than ever, we must see this issue not only in terms of access to employment, but also in terms of maintaining jobs for people who want to stay in the workforce.

I will focus my remarks on four areas, and will make specific recommendations on each.

To start with, I would like to say that the CSN thinks that the federal act should be amended to include companies with 20 employees or more. As you know, the 100-employees standard means that in smaller companies, there's still some rather disturbing employment discrimination situations. Voluntary measures are proving quite unsatisfactory in dealing with this problem. Consequently, we really think that the scope of the act must be broadened. Of course, we often hear employers say that this would be too difficult to administer. For example, regular reports are required. In this regard, we would suggest, particularly for smaller companies, that the administrative requirements be eased, but that there be a legislative framework that goes beyond voluntary measures.

Another one of our recommendations concerns the designated groups. Of course, the CSN does not challenge the relevance of the groups covered in the current legislation. However, we would like to draw your attention to the concept of cultural communities. Beyond visible minorities, very often people from different cultural communities find themselves working in employment ghettos. Often their access to training, retraining programs and promotions is blocked and they cannot rely on the act to achieve equality.

As a result, we would like the Commission that oversees the enforcement of the act to track closely the actual situation experienced by cultural communities in the workplace. Based on this analysis, we would like the act to provide for steps that could be taken when problems are detected.

We think our third recommendation is probably the most important one. Despite the fact that we have an act, we must acknowledge that the progress has been very slight, and that much remains to be done in order to achieve the objectives set out in the legislation. In our view, one of the most significant weaknesses is a more comprehensive acknowledgment that unions must be involved in order to achieve employment equity objectives in the workplace. Many studies have shown that greater involvement by unions is a factor in helping meet the objectives. We find the act rather weak in this regard. There is a reference to consultation, but no mention of any co-management approach.

Â (1250)

Let us be clear about this. In any workplace, it will always be up to the employer to have a discrimination-free employment system. However, there is an active player in the workplace: namely the unions. There's also the Commission, which could use the help of the unions. the Commission could hear the views and criticisms made by the unions in order to validate the employers' views of the situation within their company. Moreover, in order to take effective action in the workplace, we cannot disregard the important rules that govern its functioning. These include the rules contained in collective agreements.

We hope very much that the role of unions will be reviewed within the current act to put them on a par with employers, so that employment equity objectives can be achieved more effectively.

The fourth aspect of our comments has to do with remedies. We have noticed a number of weaknesses in the present act. Of course, unions are informed, but they have no remedies, nor do employees, for making their views known. There is no provision for hearings. Everything takes place between the employer and the Human Rights Commission.

We think the act must provide for an explicit remedy for unions and employees, because the issue at stake is employees' equality rights. If the need was felt to introduce proactive legislation to make the provisions of the Charter a reality, then this legislation must make it possible to achieve these equality objectives. Not allowing employees or unions who represent them to make complaints and play an active role at hearings is an extremely important contradiction in our view.

We would also like to see the powers of the Commission expanded to enable it to undertake inquiries on its own initiative.

In closing, I hope the government will continue to follow up on the provisions of the act very closely, and that this committee will provide an opportunity to make the act more effective. In my view, careful follow up and improvements to the act are the only tools we have to avoid backsliding and to put an end to discrimination in the workplace in Canada. Thank you.

Â (1255)

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal (Director, Human Rights Department, Canadian Auto Workers Union): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I would like to apologize that we are not able to produce a document in both languages. It will follow shortly.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Canadian Auto Workers Union. I appreciate this opportunity to present our views to the committee.

As we are the largest private sector union in the country, a large portion of our members fall within the jurisdiction of the Employment Equity Act. Thousands of our members also work with employers who are required to comply with the federal contractors program, that is, aerospace and auto assembly employers. I'd also like to say at this point that we worked very closely with the CLC and other groups to develop their brief, and we are in complete agreement with what was presented this morning through the CLC brief and the discussions.

I'd like to raise a number of points. One is the strengthening of the act. We have serious concerns with the progress of people with disabilities and aboriginal peoples under the act, which we all understand. It has been a failure so far. We need to find a way to effect that. We don't have easy solutions, but the government should be looking at that closely.

The second portion comes to responsibility. As was mentioned by others earlier, section 15 of the act requires employers to consult with employee representatives regarding the preparation, implementation, and amendment of the employment equity plan, and the general facilitation of employment equity in the workplace. Employers have interpreted this duty to consult as requiring no more than the solicitation of the information from an employee representative. I think that really needs to be dealt with as to where the proper collaboration should be done.

It is our position that unions should be engaged from the very beginning with employers in examining and reviewing the different aspects of the workplace that affect hiring, promotion, training, job posting, qualifications, with a view to identifying and moving systemic barriers that exist, since many of these categories may fall within the confines of the collective agreement. So it's really logical to have those discussions and work together.

We make a recommendation that there should be joint management-labour committees established. We have a very strong view on that. We believe it should be similar to what is done in the health and safety committees. CAW has experience in the area of workplace committees. We have negotiated the establishment of such committees with the major employers. Due to the lack of time, I won't go into this point.

Creation of employment equity is not enough. Educating the general public and the workforce on the need for and importance of employment equity is as important as its implementation. Education will assist in alleviating myths and misconceptions that are synonymous with employment equity.

Accountability must be increased. There should be means put in the legislation for making employers more accountable. The employers should be expected to allocate proper resources to ensure effective implementation of the plan, and this should include providing the front-line management and the workers with training explaining the issues, so that they can have a better understanding. We do have some experience with that. As a matter of fact, in a number of workplaces we jointly work on their training, discussing the issues with the members, and they are very comfortable, once they understand the issues.

Legislation can only be effective when there are clear, measurable goals and consequences for failing to achieve these goals. As was mentioned earlier, compliance really is not followed through by employers. There is no real penalty, and that should be dealt with.

· (1300)

The inability of third parties to lodge complaints means that employees or unions cannot hold employers accountable. We believe that employees and unions should be allowed to bring complaints forward. We believe the best way to deal with the whole issue is a permanent employment equity commission. Currently, the work is divided between the Canadian Human Rights Commission and HRDC. Combining that would be very useful.

An issue that is very close to us is the federal contractors program. That really should be covered by the same employment equity rules and regulations as the federally regulated sectors. Currently, there is no auditing process. The Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot do that.

In conclusion, I would like to say that employment equity legislation is a crucial step towards achieving fairness for all workers. Key provisions, such as joint development of the equity process by unions and employers, education and communication programs, measurable goals and timetables, and effective compliance mechanisms must be included in order to make this legislation effective. We urge the committee to do the fair and just thing.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will now move to the question portion. I would remind members that we're into about a five-minute round, and that takes into consideration not only the question, but also the answers. So witnesses should remember that the longer they take to answer a question, the fewer questions they're going to receive from anyone--and that may be to your benefit or not.

We'll start with Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, CA): Thank you very much, and thanks for their appearance to the Canadian Auto Workers Union and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you indicated that there were some systemic barriers that ought to be dealt with. Could you elaborate a little on what you meant by a systemic barrier?

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: Systemic barriers apply to the many designated groups. They are not able to get their opportunity for the jobs, and that fact is very well known. As a matter of fact, many studies have been done on that. If there were no barriers, workplaces would reflect the communities where they are based, and the reality is that it's not the case at the moment. High-paying jobs are held by a different group of people from those who have very low-paying, or sometimes no, jobs.

With systemic barriers, let's start with the issue of people with disabilities. Even if the hiring is done, it's very difficult for the people with disabilities to actually carry on with the function of the job, and that includes transportation, coming to work, then having the facilities for accessibility, starting with where the workplace is, where the work station is, how the workers function.

With people of visible minorities and aboriginals, many believe the people from these communities do lack the qualifications or the skills, and that's based on notions that are absolutely incorrect. The people with the same kind of background coming from the U.K.--which I had the privilege to be passing through, living and learning--are gaining much more access than a similar person coming from Africa or the Asian continent, doing exactly the same kind of work. That's the kind of thing going on that needs to be addressed in this.

· (1305)

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'd like to address my second question to Madame Carbonneau. You indicated that resources should be allocated towards the implementation of the management of equity and employment. Exactly what kind of resources were you thinking about? Are these financial resources, personnel resources, physical resources? Could you elaborate a little more on exactly what kind of resources ought to be dedicated, and how would you measure whether the resources that are dedicated to this type of thing are adequate?

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I think some points are clear from our recommendations. For example, when we talk about having remedies and holding hearings, that would obviously involve more staff. I think that dealing with employment equity matters effectively also means that we must work on changing people's attitudes and approach. In that respect, a more proactive Commission, with the resources required to conduct campaigns to promote the legislation, for example, could be interesting.

When, elsewhere in our brief, we suggest that the Commission responsible for enforcing the act be able to initiate enquiries, to go to the field and see what is actually happening, such things do not happen magically. They require more staff to enable the Commission to carry out this power we would like introduced in the act.

Those are some examples.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay. If I might, Madam Chair, is it that your resources, then, are those of the government rather than those of an employer?

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I think that if we want to improve the situation, particularly when we suggest a more active role for unions through joint committees, proper enforcement of the act requires training programs. It is up to employers to contribute to training of this type.

I'm thinking of certain legislative provisions that are well known in Quebec, which do not apply specifically with respect to employment equity, but rather with respect to pay equity. The logic underlying the act is based on the existence of joint committees. In that case, the act provides that employers are responsible for training the committee members required to implement the legislation.

Yes, the government expects to have to assign more resources to this activity, but I think there could also be some legal obligations placed on employers to ensure that the act is enforced more effectively.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: How much time do I have?

The Chair: You're over.

Monsieur Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois--Salaberry, Lib.): Are the joint committees mentioned in the Quebec legislation on pay equity really co-management committees, in which the parties--?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: They are definitely co-management committees, and the commission, because there is a pay equity commission, may become involved if the parties do not find a solution to the problem. In such cases, they turn to the commission, which has the power to settle the dispute.

However, this type of legislative approach does not remove the employers' responsibility: they are required to pay non-discriminatory salaries, and thus to offer an employment system that respects the principles of employment equity.

· (1310)

Mr. Serge Marcil: I understand that nothing is easy in the case of negotiations in the workplace; there are so many procedures today that are covered by legislation that regulate the operation of companies and labour relations as well. However, let us assume that we agree to introduce into the act a provision regarding a joint committee to facilitate the enforcement of the Employment Equity Act. Might we then encounter more difficulties related to the operation of the joint committee with respect to the pay equity act?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: No, I do not think so. I think, rather, that this would be extremely helpful. You are right when you say that each workplace has its own unique dynamic. Certain approaches used are unique to labour relations, and I think we need an act that places the parties in a position of responsibility in this regard.

We are not talking about having the act define in detail those solutions that are appropriate in a particular workplace. Let us leave it up to the parties, management and the union, to do this analysis, and to suggest some solutions. If there are any disputes, we could turn to an expert commission to help out. However, rather than adopting a completely uniform approach, which might not apply in the workplace, let us empower the parties, train them and leave it up to them to analyze their situation and develop their own recommendations. If there are any disputes, let us refer them to a commission and to the legislation to sort things out.

Mr. Serge Marcil: What was the determining factor in limiting the application of the act to only some companies? You suggest having the act applied to companies with 20 employees or more, rather than 100 employees or more. There must be some reason why Parliament imposed this threshold.

At the time, Quebec had gone through a francization process and a type of quota had been established in companies. When the act applies to companies with 20 or more employees, that means that a company with 21 or 22 employees must have a joint committee, because we have to take into account the implementation of the act as well. In a region such as mine, for example, where there are not very many Aboriginal people... I'm trying to see...

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: But the population of your region must be at least 50% women, is it not?

Mr. Serge Marcil: There are not many women working at Expro, as you know.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: You ask why we recommend that the act apply to companies with 20 or more employees. I think you may be in a better position to give us the background to the act and tell us why the figure of 100 was chosen.

The CSN is recommending that the act be broadened to include companies with 20 employees or more mainly because of our view of the industrial structure. The fact is that there are many small companies in our industrial sector. Unfortunately, despite the fact that charters have been in place for quite a while, they're very broad provisions, on their own, have not been enough to eliminate discrimination problems. Consequently, we need more sustained, proactive approaches.

You raised the issue of joint committees specifically. Perhaps the type of participation of a union with the employer may vary depending on the size of the company. It is a question of approach. However I think the guiding principle is to acknowledge that unions and employers have equal powers and responsibility for analyzing their workplace and taking the most appropriate corrective action. In larger companies, perhaps we could consider having a joint committee. But in small companies, even if there were no joint committee, I think that the very fact that unions and employees are given an explicit right to make complaints and to have hearings changes the workplace dynamic considerably.

· (1315)

Mr. Serge Marcil: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Guay, Mr. McGuire, then Mr. Martin.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I am pleased to see that my colleague agrees on that. That is interesting.

I am sure that women account for 50% of the population of your riding, Mr. Marcil. That is official.

Mr. Serge Marcil: I hadn't noticed.

Ms. Monique Guay: No, I meant that in a nice way. I said I was sure that half your riding was made up of women, as is the case for most of us. Fifty two per cent of the people in my riding are women.

I would like to welcome you. I am pleased that you could be here with us today.

I know that the CSN has always felt it was important to hold intense negotiations with management and to obtain solid agreements between labour and management. I am sure that you feel the same way, Mr. Dhaliwal.

This morning, before you spoke, other unions came before the committee, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and they basically proposed the same amendments to the bill that you did. However, you go a little further with regard to businesses employing 20 people or more. That's quite interesting, but it concerns me a little, since I don't know how the act will be enforced. Then again, we will work on that issue in the course of reviewing the bill and we might find a way of enforcing it without entailing huge costs.

Are the unions willing to do their share if the act is amended, and if labour-management committees are created, without entailing huge costs? The reason people may oppose this measure is because it would be very costly. Do you think, however, that it is achievable without entailing huge costs? Do you think labour would support such a move and do its fair share?

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I am absolutely convinced that the unions are greatly interested in becoming involved in these matters. The legislation already provides that labour be consulted.

We are asking labour to be even more proactive by working with management to develop measures. When a union shows up for consultations but is not heard by the commission because it doesn't share the point of view of management, the union still shows up. Let's give labour a more substantial role, more responsibility within the organization. I feel this would guarantee better participation and involvement.

As for the issue of costs, I seem to recall that one of the recommendations we made in our brief was that we were willing to consider streamlining the administration of the act. We can cut down on the bureaucracy. A single model does not suit every situation or every organization. That would be the wrong approach. I refer once more to Quebec's pay equity legislation. Small businesses don't have committees, but labour and management nevertheless have the right to criticize, to question and to file an appeal with the commission. This model adapts itself to different situations and does not minimize the role of labour.

Ms. Monique Guay: Ms. Carbonneau, there's also the issue of women in the public service. Statistics Canada published a paper revealing that women have indeed made progress within Canada's public service. There are more women working in the public service, but also many more women in low-paying jobs. But in positions which pay $45,000 and more, you'll find more men. I would be interested to know how many native, handicapped and visible minority people are included in that group. This issue is not very well defined in the act. Yes, we now have more women, but the situation must be clarified. We still have a lot of work ahead of us.

I would like to end by talking about marketing and advertising.

Recently, in Quebec, there was a huge media campaign promoting the hiring of native people, women and handicapped people. There was a snowball effect. You heard about it all the time on the radio and on television. But there is no similar campaign at the federal level. There is no precedent. It just hasn't happened. Do you think something needs to be done at that level?

· (1320)

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I would like to make two short comments. First of all, in order to work effectively, we need to work on attitudes and be able to promote another way at looking at things. To do that, there is no doubt that public awareness campaigns can be used to change things and influence attitudes. That is essential, in my opinion.

We can do publicity campaigns, but also take other initiatives. I can give you an example from Quebec. In collaboration with the Department of Education, employers and unions, a contest called Chapeau, les filles! was launched five years ago. It is a way of promoting women who go into programs and then work in non-traditional fields. That kind of promotion is very effective and costs less than advertising on the radio or television, and these initiatives are appreciated.

Such initiatives exist. The CSN participates actively, for example, in providing educational bursaries for people with disabilities. That is a way of promoting employment equity values. I think that this type of initiative is absolutely essential if we want to reach our goals.

Ms. Monique Guay: I think that that can be done at a reasonable cost. For example, there is a play being put on regionally where I come from. It is being staged in the Laurentian region. It costs $100,000, but it is being seen in all the high schools. The idea is to encourage girls to apply for jobs in non-traditional areas. The play is only 20 minutes long and involves 3 actors. They are going to go all over Quebec. It is an initiative that is inexpensive, but it works. They go to see young people where education is really happening, and where the decisions will be made.

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I said before that I had two comments to make. When you talk about the difficulties facing women in the federal public service, you are quite right. That is why our brief insists on the fact that the first objective where employment equity is concerned has to be to ensure equitable access to employment. But we need to go further and ensure access to training and to promotions. So those things are also part of the reality of employment equity.

In a context where people no longer stay in one job with one company from the first day they start working until they retire, all aspects of job training become crucial. If we do not look at how we handle that from the perspective of employment equity, I believe that we will fall short of our objectives in many respects.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McGuire, and then Mr. Martin.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just wondering if the CSN suggestion of having joint committees wouldn't be a diminishing of your power to make complaints as a union. If you had a joint committee of union and management in implementing the act, would that nullify your ability to have the role you now enjoy? You wouldn't be able to do very much complaining if you were part of the group that implemented the suggestions or recommendations under the act.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I do not necessarily see any contradiction there, in the sense that if we are talking about a true joint committee, the first point of disagreement may involve not sharing the employer's view of the situation and the solutions proposed by the employer to solve the problem. Some recourse may have to be provided there. If the parties do not agree, a third party, perhaps the commission, can be called on to help resolve the dispute. Of course, if the employer and the union see things the same way and agree on solutions, the problem can be solved at the outset and there is no dispute because everyone is in agreement.

· (1325)

[English]

Mr. Joe McGuire: What role do you play now? I know the disabled and the aboriginals are not benefiting from the act as many people would like to see. What percentage of aboriginals, for example, are employed by your union now, and what efforts has the union made with management to increase those numbers? The United Auto Workers can answer that too, if they choose.

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: The question is, what efforts are made, what possibility is there, what, if any, members of the aboriginal community are employed within the organization?

Mr. Joe McGuire: Right, what percentage do you employ now? I understand it's quite low.

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: Overall numbers of people who work for the organization are very low. It's 150 total, the people who are in non-elected positions. Most people are in elected positions in the Canadian Auto Workers. We do have a number of people from the aboriginal community and the visible minorities who work within the organization. That number is at the moment about 10%, combined.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Have you made any efforts as a union to encourage management to hire more aboriginals and to provide more training for aboriginals?

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: Yes. The joint committee is the only place where we can really have a direct influence. We have, in our view, very successful joint committees. As a matter of fact, we have joint committees in four prominent places, and they vary in the degree of success. Daimler-Chrysler is our best example. One of the reasons is that it's the oldest; that committee was established in the mid-1980s. Then we have General Motors, Ford, and CP Rail. It varies. In each situation we can pick up an easy example. The number of women working in the auto sector was very low, and the efforts of those committees have really helped a lot. We develop joint programs, monitor jointly, everything is done jointly.

Politically, it might be perfect for us not to be associated with the committee, if we simply wanted to play the politics of that complaint. But we want to take our responsibility seriously, and sometimes it becomes difficult to resolve the issues. In the places where we have no mechanism to work together the number of complaints is much higher than in the places where we do have mechanisms.

People have a right to go to the Human Rights Commission, but it's rare, because most situations get resolved by going through the process. Developing of hiring plans was done together. CP Rail was the last one, the process is somewhat new, but we have been working jointly, with some difficulties. There's a commitment on a higher level, for example, in CP, but that hasn't flowed through to the front-line management, because there is no real incentive for them to pay full attention. Even where we have nothing, we have encouraged. It depends where the communities are. A lot of our members are in the bigger cities, where structure is different from that with members spread out all over the country. In Winnipeg Bristol Aerospace is where we have worked, but that's more on a volunteer basis with the employer, not really with an established committee. We also have a very poor record where the employer would not consult and I have no power, Air Canada, CN Rail.

So there are two sides to the situation. It is sometimes difficult for us to take a position, but it's very beneficial and it's our obligation. As a union, we believe we should take a position when it's fair and just.

· (1330)

The Chair: Ms. Carbonneau, you have a very brief response?

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau With respect to your question on aboriginal membership in the CSN, I unfortunately do not have any figures on that. But there are sectors where they are relatively well represented. For example, there are the unionized hospitals in our region, in northern Quebec, on the Lower North Shore, in the construction sector.

Of course, where the situation is probably more difficult and greater efforts are needed to increase the number of aboriginal people is in the highly urbanized sectors. I think that that is one of the difficulties we are dealing with in all major cities in Canada. The CSN, for its part, has made special efforts to set up unions where there are large numbers of aboriginal people, keeping in mind the values of employment equity that we are promoting.

Particular attention will be paid in those cases to implementing the legislation and job training in order to make sure that employers not only spend 1% of their budget on training, but also that the training be available to all groups of employees and that there is no discrimination.

I would also point out that the CSN has collaborated closely with the Native Women's Association.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, Mr. Bellemare, and Ms. Skelton.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

I'd like to begin by recognizing the very valuable contribution the labour movement has made in this whole employment equity debate over the years. In your presentations and those of the previous witnesses a couple of themes seem to be recurring. One is the desire to expand the role of unions in the employment equity file, whether that's by joint workplace committees or other measures. The other thing is, I believe--and perhaps you could tell me if I'm correct in this--pretty much a recognition that voluntary compliance is not working. I would illustrate that with some research we did.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission carries out employment equity audits. In the first full year of activity, since the new act was put in place, the results were that only two of all the government agencies and all the federally regulated employers were in compliance. One of those was Status of Women Canada, the other was AJ BusLines. So out of the whole country, out of the whole public service, two businesses or enterprises were in compliance. In the next full year of activity out of 111 audits conducted four were in compliance. Even after remedial measures were taken, only eight more came into compliance. In other words, we have an absolute, abject failure, and a wilful disregard for the Employment Equity Act.

So getting more to the point, would you support amendments to the act now, in its five-year review, that would give real enforcement teeth to it and institute concrete fines and penalties for failure to comply? Would you go that far?

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: On the issue of enforcement and compliance, we have raised the obvious and serious doubt, as numbers speak for themselves. On the federal contractor side, the situation is even worse than that, because even the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not allowed to have an audit done there. So compliance enforcement is really deemed important; without that, the act is not functioning as it should. To us, the most critical point is having compliance enforcement. That's why we are trying to suggest other things, such as committees, means to make that work. The resources should include other things, but without some kind of enforcement, we don't believe it would work. There have to be some places where we have strength as a union and we are able to do a few things, but generally speaking, if that kind of strength and commitment is not there, it becomes very difficult.

· (1335)

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: Of course, we are not saying that there should not be binding provisions. I think that your figures on compliance speak for themselves. There is certainly room for improvement.

That said, if I had to set priorities on behalf of the CSN, first place would go to ensuring an active role for unions in the workplace, in order to implement the legislation as a first step, without excluding, of course, the need to have penalties available to ensure compliance.

I do not believe, however, given the number of companies across the country, that everything can be based on a more legal type of audit. We also need to count on the people actually working in these areas and on progressive forces that can open doors and move things forward.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: This country has the most centralized public service workforce of all the developed nations; there is no other country that has so much of the public sector working out of one location. Do you believe the current practice of the public sector and the Treasury Board guidelines in their job postings, where they say, no need to apply if you live outside a 500-kilometre radius from Ottawa, create a barrier to increasing the representation of equity groups? For instance, a large group of the underemployed aboriginal people live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and they're not even allowed to apply for a job in Ottawa, even if they're willing to move here to take that job. Do you believe geographic hiring acts as a barrier to employment equity goals?

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: We don't have any real experience in that, because the activities of our membership are generally outside dealings with the Treasury Board. As a union, we have felt, not knowing all the details, that it is desirable that opportunities should be shared across the country. That's the view we hold on this issue and many other issues along the line.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I can tell you that the CSN responds in somewhat the same way. We have very few members in the federal public service. This is quite new. We now have correctional officers, but they have been with us for only a few months.

I think that there are some very interesting aspects associated with your question. In my view, access to employment and keeping employment are a right of citizenship. Now a citizenship right cannot really be limited to a given region of the country or a geographical area.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Bellemare, and then Mr. Johnston, and that will probably take us close to the end.

Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Madam Chair. I really liked Ms. Carbonneau's last comment, to the effect that the right to employment is really a right of citizenship. I find that really inspiring. Well said.

Ms. Carbonneau, you spoke earlier about ethnic communities in the workplace. You also mentioned, at another point, another issue and that was that you would like to see the legislation changed with respect to the number of employees, which you felt should be lowered to about 20. Why are you making that recommendation?

I want to add a follow-up question. What would you do in the case of ethnic communities which have 20 employees or so and that stick together as an ethnic group because they want to develop their identity? You would then have people who come from another country and who stay together in order to work, make their living and get ahead in life. They would encourage each other, a little like the credit unions have done.

In Quebec, you also have large French-Canadian families that operate small companies with about 20 employees. By lowering the number to 20, would you not unduly affect certain ethnic groups or family enterprises?

· (1340)

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: You are asking why we would like to see the act broadened to include firms with 20 or more workers. Here is our basic reasoning. Both the Canadian and Quebec charters prohibit discrimination and have done so for many years. But having these charters has not eliminated discrimination. Discrimination still exists.

The mechanisms provided under the charter involve a complaint process that is very costly, particularly for a small company with less union representation. There are relatively few workers who use these mechanisms to try to have their rights upheld. So the need to protect workers may be more important in small firms than anywhere else because there is not strong union representation.

Moreover, despite the importance of the charter, we need legislation to provide a procedure and means to give practical form to the major principles contained in the charter. Otherwise, we depend on the goodwill of employers, and that goodwill may or may not exist. So that is the second reason that we would like to see more firms covered by the act; the legislation provides procedures and mechanisms that have to be taken into account.

With respect to our recommendation on ethnic communities, I would remind you that, for the CSN, achieving employment equity objectives does not just mean resolving issues of access to employment. For example, where there is a high concentration of women from ethnic communities in a small firm, they often work in entry-level jobs, the lowest-paying jobs. There again, although they are working, another step needs to be taken to provide them with access to retraining and promotions, so that they can move up within the company. So that is more or less why we are saying that...

Of course, we do not dispute the need to put emphasis on visible minorities. We are very much aware of the problems facing that group as a designated group. But we would like the act to provide an opportunity to create a follow-up mechanism in the case of ethnic groups to see whether the types of problems exist that we have seen in the workplace, that is, job ghettos where these workers are concentrated in front-line jobs and entry-level jobs where there are no mechanisms for promotion within the company. In those cases, we would like the act to contain provisions so that those workers, while belonging to designated groups, can also have the possibility of recourse to the act.

That is the thinking behind our recommendation.

· (1345)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Do I have any time left?

[English]

The Chair: I think your witness took all your time.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: We know very well that in collective agreements...

[English]

The Chair: I think the time was up.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Oh. The interpretation didn't get to me.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to share my time with my colleague Mrs. Skeleton.

What I'd like to know from the witnesses is if the administration of their unions is representative of the four designated groups. You made the case that you're just a small union, and so it doesn't affect you. But if it were to be reduced in the act to include 20 or more, would you be in compliance with respect to the four designated groups, and if not, why not, and what would you do about it?

The Chair: You can both respond to it.

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: First, we are not really covered by the federal legislation as a union, because we fall under the provincial acts. Second, on the level of 20 employees, maybe CSN is in the best position to respond to that.

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: The CSN is a central labour body with 2,600 unions. It is also an employer, as are its trade federations. In the CSN and its federations, there are some 600 unionized employees, who are covered by a collective agreement containing employment equity provisions. There is an equal access program for women, as well as a similar program for ethnic groups. People with disabilities are covered by provincial legislation through the Quebec Act on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Among the CSN employees, there are a few that belong to that designated group. It is a concern that we are dealing with, despite the fact that the act does not create any obligations on the CSN to do so.

We also have joint management mechanisms with our employee union. Employment equity is a shared concern, and we have included mechanisms in our employees' collective agreement for at least 10 years.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Carbonneau.

Mrs. Skelton.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Last week there was an innovation paper brought out by the federal government. Do you think the federal government and provincial governments should work harder to enhance the recognition of skilled foreign credentials of people who are immigrating to Canada? What are your unions doing to support the governments?

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: We strongly believe governments should work on this, but I want to make one correction. It's not just the issue of recognizing foreign credentials. They have always recognized in this country foreign credentials from certain countries. The job is to make that system fair across the board. As I mentioned earlier, I was trained to become a skilled tradesperson in England. I didn't have a problem. But someone coming from a place like where I grew up as a child does not get recognition. I was also in a position where I was responsible in the workplace for monitoring jointly with the employer the credentials of the people. There are all kinds of flaws. If a person comes from a certain part of the world, that's okay.

We strongly believe it is only fair that this effort should be made, and we are supportive of the government on that. As a matter of fact, we have been asking for that for quite some time, and we are making similar requests to the provincial bodies.

· (1350)

[Translation]

Ms. Claudette Carbonneau: I believe that your question reflects a real problem. Yes, recognition of foreign qualifications and work experience are issues that the CSN pursues very actively.

When you refer to the need for an innovation policy in this area, my response is that we consider education and labour to be under provincial jurisdiction. In my view, the best contribution that the federal government could make would be to change the rules for equalization and provincial transfers in order to enable the provinces to exercise their constitutional prerogatives more fully in this regard.

[English]

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Thank you.

I know there are differences across the country even with provincial journeymen certificates. Are you working with the provinces too?

Mr. Raj Dhaliwal: We are working with the provinces. This is obviously a very serious concern for the people who come from the communities that are not recognized. We, as the union, first make a request to the provincial bodies, wherever we have the membership, that this should be done. We are in support of that. We strongly believe, as a matter of principle, it should be a level playing field for all people. Each provincial body does make a difference. In each province, as a matter of fact, acceptance of the qualifications is the same. They accept from certain parts, not the rest. So that kind of problem has really existed for a long time. It is a long-standing issue that needs to be finally dealt with.

The Chair: Thank you.

In closing, I am going to exercise my prerogative as chair to make one final comment, and it's on the accreditation of foreign credentials, which has concerned me for quite some time. One might argue that if it is the federal government that is setting the criteria and allowing the points with respect to immigration, perhaps the federal government should take a greater role in ensuring that we accept their qualifications and that procedures are standard across the provinces. Those are just my own little words that I would add.

With that, I would thank the representatives from the CSN and from the CAW. Thank you. You have given us a great deal of information, which we will be reviewing as we continue our deliberations and write our final report.

Meeting adjourned.