HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 28, 2002

Á

1110

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

Mr. René Roy (General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec)

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. René Roy

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas (Executive Coordinator, National Action Committee on the Status of Women)

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

The Chair

Á

1135

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. René Roy

Mr. Johnston

Mr. René Roy

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. René Roy

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. René Roy

Mr. Johnston

Mr. René Roy

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Émile Vallée (General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec)

The Chair

Ms. St-Jacques

Mr. Émile Vallée

Mr. René Roy

Á

1145

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas (Executive Coordinator, National Action Committee on the Status of Women)

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. René Roy

Á

1150

Mr. Émile Vallée

The Chair

Mr. Bellemare

Mr. René Roy

Á

1155

Mr. Bellemare

Mr. René Roy

Mr. Bellemare

Mr. René Roy

The Chair

Mrs. Skelton

Â

1200

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Mrs. Skelton

Mr. René Roy

The Chair

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Â

1205

The Chair

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

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. René Roy

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Émile Vallée

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Tonks

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Mr. Tonks

Â

1220

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Mr. Tonks

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Mr. Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Émile Vallée

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Â

1225

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms.Skelton

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas

The Chair

Mr. Tonks

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. René Roy

Ms. Folco

Mr. René Roy

Â

1235

Ms. Folco

Mr. René Roy

Ms. Folco

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 052

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. This is our 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. In this current round of hearings we're studying the Employment Equity Act, and it's a statutory review of the act.

    We have two sets of witnesses with us today. I welcome Dr. René Roy and Émile Vallée from the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

    We also have with us, from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Sandra Carnegie-Douglas.

    Welcome to you. We'll have both sets of presentations, and then we will follow with questions from members of the committee. Perhaps you could limit your remarks to between five and ten minutes, to give us ample time for questions.

    René will begin.

[Translation]

    Mr. René Roy (General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): Hello everyone and thank you. I am pleased that you called me “Doctor”, but I'm not a doctor yet, although I would like to be one. I'm the General Secretary of the FTQ, and I am accompanied by Émile Vallée, who is a political advisor to the FTQ.

    I'm going to read our presentation. We summarized it so it would not last more than the five to 10 minutes you have allotted us, Madam Chair. However, we sent your committee a full brief on the FTQ's position. As you said, we can answer questions later.

    On behalf of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today since we were unable to respond to your invitation to come on February 19.

    The FTQ represents the affiliated unions of the Canadian Labour Congress in Quebec,that is some 500,000 workers, including 90,000 in all the areas of activity affected by the Act.

    At the outset, the FTQ wishes to adopt as its own the positions contained in the briefs which were submitted to you by the CLC and the Public Service Alliance of Canada on February 19, particularly as regards the work that must be done to achieve the objectives of the Act and the role that unions should play in its implementation.

    Our general remarks are as follows. We wonder whether employment equity has progressed in the sectors affected since the Act came into effect. According to official statistics, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Have the representation objectives been achieved? Yes, in part.

    The representation of women and all visible minorities depends on their availability in the labour market, but these groups are under-represented in a number of occupational categories, which is an indication of the concentration of those groups in underpaid jobs. As to visible minorities, certain subgroups, particularly blacks, have not enjoyed the effects of the Act to the same extent as others. As for Aboriginals and disabled persons, we are still far from achieving our objectives.

    In short, we have made progress in quantitative terms, but still have a great deal of work to do before we can claim victory.

    With respect to the Act's implementation, five years' experience has enabled us to detect certain problems which should be corrected. Should the Act be maintained, as almost all stakeholders have said? We believe so. We clearly cannot rely on market forces to provide everyone with equal opportunity, even less to correct injustices resulting from prejudice.

    In its current version and implementation, is the Act sufficient to enable us to achieve our representation objectives in all job categories?

Á  (1115)  

Our answer to this question is we don't think so.

    In our opinion, a favourable economic situation in the late 1990s facilitated the Act's implementation in the private sector. Strong demand for labour in the economy as a whole and the relative scarcity of labour in certain sectors helped the employment of the groups concerned, but, as we have seen in the past year, we cannot always rely on high economic growth rates.

    In addition, the retirement of the baby boomers in the next few years will radically alter the make-up of the labour force and require greater vigilance on our part if we want that vast reorganization to be consistent with the values and objectives we have set for ourselves.

    Lastly, experience with the Act to date has shown that it is possible to achieve representation objectives if we really want to do so. Small businesses cannot be required to have the means to set and meet detailed objectives, but large employers such as the federal government and the major banks, to name only those two, must be asked to lead the way. It is not too much to ask of them.

    The studies cited in the HRDC report show that it is advantageous, both financially and from the standpoint of productivity, to comply with employment equity and that costs to the Canadian economy are enormous if it is not implemented. We will therefore present a number of changes which we think are necessary.

    Our main recommendations are as follows.

    The first recommendation is that the primacy of the Canadian Human Rights Act be ensured. Certain decisions arising from the Canadian Human Rights Act which have displeased businesses have resulted in a debate on the development of more restrictive provisions in the Employment Equity Act. These clarifications could result in a regression from the fundamental rights' standpoint. Canada's fundamental law should never be diluted in a hierarchy of rights.

    Our second recommendation concerns union and community representation. Full and complete union representation should be ensured at all stages of the employment equity programs and, in the union's absence, at least ensure participation of the community's representative groups.

    Our third recommendation concerns the implementation of the Act. We believe that monitoring of the Act's implementation must be improved, in particular by clarifying the notion of good faith provided for in the Act and the procedure to be followed for the EAPs. All the pretexts used must be avoided and quality of the programs must be guaranteed by allowing unions and other organizations to have better access to this information.

    We also have a recommendation on the adjustments required for the target groups, for women. Despite improvements in overall representation, we are unable to break through a certain glass ceiling. Specific objectives will have to be set for the higher job categories.

    For disabled persons, the obsolete 1991 statistical base must be reviewed on a priority basis in order to determine the availability of those persons. In addition, the self-identification mechanism poses a problem. Some employers inflate their statistics by including slightly disabled persons. Moreover, some disabled persons do not want to identify themselves so as not to suffer subsequent discrimination. Here again, it is essential that the unions and community participate because of their in-the-field knowledge.

    In addition, because of their historical exclusion from schools, persons with disabilities have had to develop their skills outside the regular job market. Emphasis should be placed on introducing a system for recognizing skills and knowledge acquired outside that sphere and promoting adoption of a basic and professional training system.

    For the cultural communities, this Act concerns only the visible minorities. Gains have been made with respect to Haitians, to the detriment of the black community in particular. September 11 may have had a backlash effect on the employment of Muslims. Even if it is not realistic to target each subgroup separately, a way must be found to protect disadvantaged subgroups.

Á  (1120)  

    For Aboriginals, there must be a review of the mechanisms establishing the available pool of that labour, which is mostly in the regions inhabited by the various Aboriginal communities of Canada.

    I will close by discussing types of recourse, Madam Chair. We would like better quantitative and qualitative control to be carried out through participation by the unions and communities concerned by the Act.

    We also ask that the right of presumption be in favour of the victim. Complainants should enjoy a right to presumption in discrimination cases, like the right that exists with respect to practices prohibited under our various statutes, including, in Quebec, in the Labour Code, labour standards and provisions concerning victims of industrial accidents.

    We ask that recourse be harmonized. A number of groups complain of the disparities under our human rights legislation. In Quebec, for example, EAPs and Quebec's contractual obligations program do not apply to persons with disabilities, as a result of which our unions must negotiate measures one day and may no longer be compliant the next day if the Canadian government enters into an agreement with a Quebec business which subjects it to a federal contractual obligation. Thus, the targets, mechanisms and various remedies with the provinces should be more clearly defined.

    Lastly, with respect to remedies, there must be a better definition of what is meant by “employment requirements”. In the context of globalization and pressures on the work place, employment requirements tend to be increased, which is harmful to all groups that are victims of discrimination. The Act and Regulations should use the term “normal employment requirements” and try to...

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Roy, I don't want to interrupt, but I want to leave time for questions, and we're well over the 10-minute mark. So if you could take no more than a minute just to wrap up, I'm sure your other points will be touched on in the questions.

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: I'll conclude. The Employment Equity Act is a statute that requires businesses, workers and communities to change attitudes and behaviour. This is a long-term job which requires both firmness and flexibility: firmness so that there is no ambiguity as to our objectives and our determination to achieve them, and flexibility to take into account our diversity and our ability to adapt to change. Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Carnegie-Douglas.

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas (Executive Coordinator, National Action Committee on the Status of Women): I want to thank you, Madam Chair and committee, for inviting the National Action Committee on the Status of Women to participate in this review.

    I'll start out by saying that for us the issue of women's economic equality is central when we talk about where women are placed in Canadian society and our struggles for equality rights. A recent study, the 2001 status report on gender equality in Canada, was written by Dr. Karen Hadley, who was commissioned by NAC and the Centre for Social Justice's Foundation for Research and Education to do a report looking at where the gap currently lies between women's and men's economic equality. We're in an era where there is the general sense or perception that women have arrived and have achieved equality in this country. What that report is restating in a very strong way is that contrary to what many of us would like to believe, the wage gap between men and women is much wider, women's incomes are 61% of men's--this is based on a special statistical survey done by Statistics Canada--and women are far from achieving economic equality.

    Furthermore, the stats continue to show that women comprise the majority of the population living in poverty, with more dismal numbers for racialized women, aboriginal women, women with disabilities, female lone parents, and young women. This is further compounded by the fact that women are carrying the lion's share of the burden of economic restructuring that brings with it the increase in non-standard jobs, temporary jobs, and government cutbacks and privatization, which have resulted in significant loss in women's jobs in the public sector. All of these structural changes are being carried out on the backs of women.

    For us, this is why it is especially important that in this review of the Employment Equity Act, the changing economic situation for women in Canada that is impacting our economic and social rights becomes a central focus in the review. Where women are situated in terms of their equality rights has to be central, pivotal, in how the act is reformed, especially when we talk about women who are on the margins--aboriginal women, racialized women, women with disabilities, and women who are multiply disadvantaged because they may be a racialized woman with a disability, or an aboriginal woman who is a lesbian, which means something in terms of their further marginalization and access to employment.

    The federal Employment Equity Act needs to be radically restructured to effectively deal with the new realities of Canadian society. If the federal government is intent on addressing employment and equality, substandard work conditions, and improving the economic situation of women, then there must be a fundamental leadership responsibility enshrined in the act and its implementation that addresses the changing and emerging realities for women's economic oppression, marginalization, and exclusion. The act must fundamentally integrate an analysis that recognizes that women are not a monolithic group and that factors such as race, class, ability, sexual orientation, language, and residency status provide differential impact in our experiences of oppression, exclusion, and marginalization.

    The extent to which the act recognizes or discounts these realities makes a substantive difference in whether or not employment equity measures are going to change the conditions for women who are marginalized, let alone women generally. Given the breadth and seriousness of the increasing disadvantages that women are experiencing, it is our belief that for us to achieve economic equality, a major change that must be integrated now in the act is the analysis around diversity.

    The speaker before me talked about the differences in the achievement of goals for racialized people, and the difference when it comes to blacks or people of Asian descent.

Á  (1125)  

    In terms of achieving equity based on the way in which designated groups are defined and numerical goals and timetables are set, there's a tendency to generalize. For instance, when you say “women”, it doesn't automatically mean that all groups of women are going to experience change in their employment conditions in the same way, or that all aboriginal women are going to achieve the benefits of employment equity in the same way. What we are finding over and over again is that, particularly in the case of women, predominantly it's white women who are benefiting. Even so, it's not all white women, and they're not benefiting in all sectors in the sense that, yes, there is improvement in the representation of white women, but when you look at their representation in decision-making positions it is still not there. That increase or that improvement isn't being demonstrated.

    For NAC there are other critical issues with the Employment Equity Act--how it's structured and how it's being implemented. I'll just go through the list. I'll highlight the issues but at the same time I'll put them forward in a way that says these are the places where we think the changes should be made, and how they could be made.

    There is an urgent need for numerical goals and timetables to be set for hiring and promotions of designated groups, gathering disaggregated data by race, ability, sexual orientation, and all the other dimensions by which we identify ourselves. The goals and timetables must also be set for barrier elimination, job accommodation, and positive and supportive employment equity measures.

    We feel that goals and timetables must be standardized as much as possible to ensure that everyone is using similar availability data and timeframes for establishing goals and timetables. Oftentimes the base studies that are used show the representation of groups in the labour market force, but because there is already a low representation of marginalized groups in the general labour force, we're then starting from an already inferior representation of these designated groups. Since that's the base against which employers are setting their goals and their timetables, it's not really setting timetables and goals in such a way that it is going to substantively improve the situation for designated groups.

    The issue in terms of racialized people, people with disabilities, and aboriginal peoples who have the skills and qualifications to do the job, and especially those who are immigrants coming into the country and who are not able to access jobs, is not even being configured in those stats. For us, those are some of the different dimensions and layers--namely, establishing numerical goals and setting the basis for the comparisons--that the present approach does not incorporate.

    The act does not incorporate a strong enforcement mechanism that binds employers. It's still this continuation of negotiating, working from the point of view of “Let's work with you around this, because we want you to do this willingly”. But it is still not improving the situation substantively for women and for marginalized women. Stronger measures and mechanisms have to be put in place for employers to comply with and follow through on.

    The penalty, which is set at $50,000, we think reiterates that this is not taken seriously by many employers. Within the public sector, for government, for ministries, for major contractors, or for banks, $50,000 is negligible in terms of a fine. When you're talking about large populations of people who are excluded and are not faring the same way in terms of their life chances and their capacity to be able to provide for their families, setting a $50,000 fine is, for us, totally redundant.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: You've reached the 10-minute point as well, so perhaps you could wind up.

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: I will.

    We also feel that, in terms of the Employment Equity Act, there needs to be stronger incorporation and focus around other supportive policies and programs that should go hand in hand with the setting and establishing of numerical goals and timetables.

    In that regard, we are talking about putting in place expectations and obligations for employers to have policies in place, such as anti-discrimination and anti-harassment, and having policies that will support women's capacity to be able to balance family life and their employment situation.

    The training program provided is still not reaching women who are marginalized, in terms of when they're able to get training. Most employers are saying they don't have the resources to provide training. That becomes a no-win situation for these groups when they are brought into the workplace. They are basically set up to fail.

    The Canadian Human Rights Commission is an important piece we want to raise. We feel that the role of the commission should be stronger. We also want to propose the establishment of an employment equity commission. It is something we have put forward before. This commission would be an independent body that would have the responsibility of monitoring, enforcing, educating, and taking a leadership position around the implementation of the act.

    The Chair: If you have further written notes you want to submit to the committee, you can do that. They will be added to the record of the committee and taken into consideration when we are studying it. Just because I didn't let you finish all of your oral presentation doesn't mean we won't be considering your written material.

    We'll now move to the question period. I would remind both our witnesses and members of the committee that we are under time constraints. Keep your questions and responses short and concise. That way we can move this along and get in a great number of questions.

    We'll start the first round with Mr. Johnston, followed by Madame St-Jacques, Madame Guay, and Monsieur Bellemare. We'll start with five-minute rounds.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, presenters, for putting your case forward today.

    To the FTQ, Dr. Roy--I guess we'll call you doctor for today anyway--does your organization promote employment equity from within? Do you have an employment equity program set up in the FTQ hierarchy?

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: Do you mean directly in the organization, as employer?

[English]

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes.

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: Yes, we have a program which is not complete, but which is mainly designed to ensure the representation of women in accordance with the number of members we have in the Province of Quebec. It's the same thing with persons with disabilities. We have not yet achieved our objectives for Aboriginals and blacks.

[English]

    The Chair: I think the other group was visible minority.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: This legislation pertains to people in the federal workforce and contractors working for the federal government with more than 100 employees. Would your organization fall into those categories? Are you federally regulated, and do you have more than 100 employees?

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: No. We have roughly 60 employees at the FTQ, and we are not under federal jurisdiction.

[English]

    Mr. Dale Johnston: You made a remark in your presentation pertaining to the glass ceiling and the need for quotas in that area. I think you implied that while employment equity was working in some areas, you didn't think it had reached equity in upper-management positions.

    Did I understand you correctly? What do you see as the solution to that? What is your organization doing to encourage that?

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: We have to clarify our objectives in that area. If we base the representation objective solely on the size of the labour force as a whole, there will obviously be holes or under-representation in the job categories, as is currently the case. We believe that the only way to correct that is to set specific objectives for job categories such as those of middle and senior managers. I don't think we have the choice.

    As for the FTQ itself, as a central body, I haven't done the calculations, but women are definitely represented among senior executives. As for political organization, to encourage the participation of women at the executive level of the FTQ, as a central body, we designated positions for women a number of years ago to ensure that there was regular adequate representation of women at the executive level.

[English]

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Is there a contradiction between designated positions and seniority? I'm really curious, Madam Chairman, how seniority works into this equation.

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: That's a good question. They are more elected positions. So there is what's called positive discrimination in favour of minorities and women in that area.

Á  (1140)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you; merci. That's your five minutes, but you'll get another round.

    Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Mr. Émile Vallée (General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec): I would like to say that the notion of seniority in the collective agreements is clearly based on an employee's number of years of service in a business. If we can introduce good employment access and employment equality programs where there is currently no equality, the situation will be corrected with time. Seniority works in two directions: in the promotions direction, but also in the demotions and lay-off direction. Where there is currently no equality, this obviously works to the detriment of women.

[English]

    The Chair: Madame St-Jacques, and then Madame Guay, and then Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

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

    My question is for the FTQ. Mr. Roy, in your comments, you spoke of self-identification. We often hear that that caused a certain problem. So I wonder if the provisions of the Act should be amended, and, if so, how to go about it.

    You also said that we were going to be facing the retirement of a large number of baby boomers, thus of older persons. Since those older persons do not belong to the designated groups, should the designated groups be expanded by adding the baby boomers? Gays and lesbians also do not belong to those groups. If the self-identification provisions were ever amended, could that cause prejudice for gays and lesbians? This is a bit mixed up, but it's all related.

    Mr. Émile Vallée: There is clearly a self-identification problem with regard to persons with disabilities. The groups representing persons with disabilities have mentioned this a number of times.

    I took part in one of the department's consultations, and this point was raised there. It's clear, and I can understand why those people think that way. Moreover, I think that a new definition of “persons with disabilities” has been proposed which is apparently based on a definition established by the World Health Organization. The status of a person with disabilities would be based on a medical certificate rather than on the person's declaration. I believe that could help not only employees, workers, but also employers. There are employers who have made changes to accommodate persons with disabilities, and ultimately those persons have refused to identify themselves. Thus there were problems.

    It's more difficult with other groups such as gays and lesbians. I'll tell you frankly that we have no clear position on that because, if gays and lesbians are designated as a subgroup, gays and lesbians will be forced to identify themselves. It is they who will have to identify themselves. Are those persons ready to do so? I don't know. There's a problem. We think there should be some thinking on the question. It should be explored further. We do not want to penalize these people because they are gay or lesbian.

     Mr. René Roy: This is a very good approach for older persons. You spoke about employment insurance a moment ago. In Quebec, we have 200 programs to facilitate access to employment for young people, whereas there are only four programs for workers 45 years of age and over. That's an issue. Are we heading toward discrimination against older workers? It seems so. We are currently encouraging the federal government to establish programs for older workers in the context of the employment insurance program. I doubt that they can be covered under the Employment Equity Act, but it's interesting. We hadn't thought of this question in that sense, but it could be interesting to look at it from the standpoint of the definition of the Employment Equity Act.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Madam Guay.

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

    Mr. Roy and Mr. Vallée, welcome. It's a pleasure to see you again. Ms. Douglas, I welcome you as well.

    Ms. Douglas, you mentioned a dual provision a moment ago. This question is for the three of you. We talk about women with disabilities or Aboriginal women who are looking for work. We sometimes even have a triple provision. What is done in the case of these people? Do they have specific types of recourse? Have you already seen people who have double or triple provisions, who are looking for work and who manage to find it? We have heard a great deal about this, and it doesn't seem to be working very well.

[English]

     Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas (Executive Coordinator, National Action Committee on the Status of Women): Yes, in terms of recourse, oftentimes there are no recourses for them, because they cannot find the jobs, or if they do find jobs, often they're temporary jobs where they have no security, no benefits. Then they're on the poverty line, so to speak, trying to access social assistance. And in that arena, they're facing a whole other set of barriers because of the kinds of changes that are happening around social assistance. So, again, you end up finding these women poor, in situations where they're homeless, where they're not able to provide for their children, and so the whole picture plays itself out.

    One of the things that community groups have been doing--and NAC and other groups are also doing--is lobbying our government, but at the same time looking within the community to see what kinds of measures communities can take in terms of community building and training. But, again, if there are no funding resources available to community groups to work with these women, then you're hit on both sides in trying to address the situation.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Roy and Mr. Vallée, you raised an important point when you spoke about analyzing diversity. It is true that we have not conducted that analysis in the groups and in the cultural communities, among others. You were the first to raise this point, and I believe an exercise should be carried out in this regard. You spoke about Haitians relative to blacks or other nationalities. We will have to see how amendments could be made so as not to incriminate nationalities relative to others, but to open the door to everyone and enable everyone to find work.

    I'm going to tell you very briefly what young people told us, and you can give me your comments. We were talking about women a moment ago. Statistics Canada has published statistics, and it is quite clear that the vast majority of women have salaries of less than $45,000 a year. Salaries of $45,000 to $100,000 are reserved for men, which is clearly shown in our statistics. A way must really be found to correct that.

    We were told about the process, which is much too long. It can take up to three years before a business complies with the Act. In the case of a contractor, it's worse because he can complete his one- or two-year contract and simply go away without complying with the Act.

    People told us about fines. To date, no one has been fined. The Act has been in effect for a number of years now. We were told that it was based on good faith and good will and that the Act had no teeth.

    There's also the whole question of marketing. As you will remember, sirs, recently in Quebec, there was a major campaign to encourage visible minorities to apply for government jobs. An advertising campaign was organized on that so that everyone would have access to those jobs because we have employment equity legislation in Quebec. Here, at the federal level, we don't have that. I would like to have your opinion on that.

     Mr. René Roy: At the outset, as regards the work place, because we are in the work place, to be able to judge the situation of the various minorities or of the various immigrant groups in relation to one another and in relation to the dominant class, we suggest that you involve the union movement. The union movement is present in thousands of companies in Quebec. We have union stewards who are very familiar with the grassroots and who often come from minority groups. We have a policy favouring the election or presence of persons from visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, women and so on, and we hope that we will have managed to correct the situation in a few years. We have observed that we no longer see them in our organization. We hope we will see them again in a few years.

    If we are involved with people in the civil community, we will definitely be able to provide data or work to correct this unbalanced situation. That's the way we see this.

    As for processes, we still agree with you. If an employer is found guilty of discrimination or of violating the Employment Equity Act, the Human Rights Tribunal should have a right of order and correction, not to assess fines, since a small fine does not trouble the company a great deal. That's our way of seeing this matter.

    As regards processes, you are perfectly right. We have not considered the question of the awarding of contracts, but I agree with you that a contractor can come and go before anyone can check how he operates.

    Émile may perhaps wish to add a few words to that.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Émile Vallée: Just a word to say...

[English]

    The Chair: You're going to have to wait until the next round. We're well over the time.

    Next is Mr. Bellemare, followed by Ms. Skelton.

[Translation]

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

    Mr. Roy, in the unions, you talk about collective agreements. What takes precedence in collective agreements, at least in my view, is mainly seniority. The objective is always to get a better salary, but seniority and protection of those already in place are very important. I agree on that.

    However, doesn't it become a problem when you want to improve the situation of the four designated groups? You constantly talk about women, women, women. I agree with you, but you had very little to say about the other three groups, of which women are also a part.

    In your opinion, is seniority a barrier to improving the fate of the four designated groups?

     Mr. René Roy: First, you are right to say that seniority is very important. Seniority has no effect on the personnel hired in a business. At hiring, the employer may select the people it wants to select. The collective agreements do not address hiring. The same thing occurs with regard to promotions. The collective agreements do not address promotions which are granted to workers as managers in the business. Those are two very important things from the standpoint of this Act.

    As to the day-to-day management of the business, it is true that, in a collective agreement, seniority for promotion in the various... Once a person has entered the business, promotions are granted based on seniority. Obviously, if the business has not, at the outset, hired people who belong to the four groups concerned, that is Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, persons with disabilities and women--I name them because you seem to think I'm overemphasizing women, seniority will not help those people get ahead of others because seniority is a rule that applies to promotion within the group of a union unit and not outside.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It's said that Quebec has its own Employment Equity Act. I imagine it isn't a perfect act because no act is. If the federal government were to draw a lesson from what is going on in Quebec with regard to employment equity, what should the federal government improve? First of all, is it comparable?

     Mr. René Roy: I would say it is comparable. I haven't studied the Quebec version of that act recently, but I wouldn't cite it as an example because it has been in existence for approximately the same time. The experience I have had with that act has shown that it is also restrictive. It isn't easy to assert these points based on the Quebec version of that act. The process is long. I imagine Quebec will have to take a look at its act at one point, as you are looking at yours now. But we didn't compare it to the federal Act. We looked at the federal process and we...

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I want to come back to the federal situation.

    As a former educator, I often say to myself that we have data on the number of persons with disabilities, Aboriginals, women, men and so on. However, it seems to me that the data on the skills of those people who are available are lacking. For example, if we have a large business and want 10 percent of the employees to be persons with disabilities, we are not in any position to know which of the persons with disabilities who are available are qualified. How does one go about finding the number? How can you find those people?

     Mr. René Roy: Right now, it's possible to do it by going through Emploi-Québec and using its new employment programs. I'm familiar with them because I often sit on Emploi-Québec's Commission des partenaires du marché du travail.

    Among other things, we have recently developed an on-line placement system whereby people can register by computer. Once again, it depends on the person's disability. This on-line placement program may also possibly enable us to do on-line training. It will be much easier for people to have access to training because they won't have to travel to join a particular group in order to receive a particular type of training. People who have a serious disability will thus be able to gain access to training more easily than in the past.

    You are also right when you say it's difficult for businesses to determine the training that people with disabilities have because those people often receive training outside the educational system. So there is no recognition of their acquired knowledge and skills. Determining recognition of acquired knowledge and skills is another thing we're trying to do at this time, that is to say knowledge and skills acquired elsewhere than in the educational environment, where the awarding of diplomas is governed by the Quebec Department of Education. So some opportunities do not exist at this time, but will be available in future.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madam Skelton and then Mr. Malhi.

    Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Sandra, Ms. Douglas, it's very interesting, my mother-in-law's name is Carnegie, so we're going to have to talk later. I know we're related somewhere, way back.

    I'm going to follow up on Mr. Bellemare's question. Mr. Roy said in the presentation there's the myth that equal access programs require companies to hire people who are not qualified. I understand that the act does not require employers to hire unqualified workers.

    What responsibility does the federal government have to help members of designated groups acquire skills for better employment? What is the responsibility of the federal government? I'd like both of you to answer that.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: I think the federal government has an important responsibility there. Again, it's about bridging the gap between the resources employers have to accommodate members of the designated groups and giving members of the designated group opportunities to develop their own skills.

    We're finding over and over again that legislation is being put in place, but at the same time it's not being resourced to develop the capacity within the communities themselves. It's not as if there aren't community organizations available that have the skills and know-how to work with members of their community, do training and development with them, and work in collaboration with employers. But over and over again the fundamental issue comes back to not having the financial resources to do this.

    There has to be a partnership among the government, employers, the community, and designated groups. If that isn't happening, we can talk as much as we like about the Employment Equity Act and enforcing it, but it is going to take that kind of collaboration for it to make any kind of substantive difference.

    For us, the federal government has a major responsibility to play in helping designated groups get to that place where they can increase their opportunities to access positions for employment, because employers alone aren't going to do it.

    There is a reality in their limitations and capacity, in terms of how far the dollars will go. If that is used over and over again as a reason and a justification for why programs can't be implemented and why the act cannot be followed, then the government has to take a serious look at that and moneys have to be allocated to make sure the act is effective and has an impact.

    The Chair: Mr. Roy.

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: Yes. That's moving along perfectly. That money must come from employment insurance. We are aware of the employment insurance surpluses. With that money, the federal government must ensure that it puts adequate training programs at the disposal of those groups to offer, as Mr. Bellemare previously requested, some recognition of acquired knowledge and skills and adequate training to ensure they can readily enter the work place.

[English]

    The Chair: You have one minute left.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: You mentioned earlier, Mr. Roy, that older workers were discriminated against.

    Ms. Carnegie-Douglas do you find a lot of older women are having problems with discrimination?

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: Oh yes, the stats are there that they also experience discrimination. Again, I keep coming back to how it's compounded when you factor in race and sexual orientation. I keep doing that because I think it makes a critical difference in terms of how women end up getting access and which women end up getting access. Over and over again, it doesn't matter which category you look at and evaluate, but the combination of different dimensions of women's identity do play a role in coming together and increasing the marginalization and the exclusion they experience in terms of access to jobs. So, yes, that's an issue.

    As to the whole discussion around whether or not we should expand the number of designated groups, in many ways, yes, we can see where there's a need because there are so many groups that are oppressed. But one of the questions I would ask is, in looking at the groups we have already named, have we actually made any kind of substantive improvements and achievements in their situation? Is it a situation where we want to expand the group for the sake of expanding, and when we expand it, who exactly ends up benefiting again? Will it end up being predominantly white, able-bodied individuals in those groups, as opposed to a racialized aboriginal person with a disability? Those factors make a difference as well.

    When you're contemplating whether or not to expand, those are some of the different elements you also need to take into consideration.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Malhi, followed by Madame Guay and then Mr. Tonks.

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

    New immigrants are facing racial discrimination to obtain or achieve a better or well-paid job. What can the government do to encourage the provinces and territories to establish an effective approach for recognizing their credentials in the Canadian labour market?

    In your opinion, do visible minority women experience greater problems in the labour market than the disabled and the aboriginal? How can this be improved?

    This is the third question. Since the act did not require employers to hire unqualified workers, what responsibility does the government have to help members of visible minorities, especially women, to improve their skills? How can we encourage employers to provide more training to employees?

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: Some of the things around training that the federal government can do is to apply the whole focus again around designated groups in terms of training dollars and where training dollars are allocated, so that there are conditionalities attached to the training dollars that are allocated. Where those programs are targeted, they must reach the communities that do need them--the marginalized communities that are not accessing those training programs.

    Was the other question you asked in terms of women with disabilities?

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: No. How come women from the minorities are facing more obstacles than the aboriginal people and women who have disabilities? You also mentioned the funding.

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: There's a subtle issue here, which one of the committee members mentioned, maybe Monique, of a hierarchy among marginalized groups. Even though that's something we don't want, there is a reality in terms of how oppression is experienced and the forms of oppression people experience. Over and over again racism has been one of the most virulent forms of oppression in terms of attacks and exclusion of people.

    One of the points we want to make is that we need to recognize that not all groups experience the oppression and marginalization in the same way and that you need to understand that when racism is at the core of why certain groups are on the outside and on the margins.... There are times when it's just about a person with a disability, an aboriginal person, or a person's race or sexual orientation. So it's saying that you're not necessarily hierarchizing which oppression is worse but rather recognizing that there's a distinction between the forms of oppression that members in these groups are facing and what is having the most virulent kind of impact on the individual's access to jobs and their human rights. It's integrating that in how you set goals and in how you put in place programs and strategies with the employment equity measures that recognize that.

    I talked earlier about having anti-racism, discrimination, and harassment policies in place, and those kinds of measures are important. An employer may say, “I'd rather hire a person with a disability because I just can't deal with a racial minority person”. This is why you'll sometimes see a predominance of certain groups in certain jobs or sectors. It goes back again to the whole issue of employers being able to exercise a certain degree of discretion and bias in choosing which designated group fits into their work culture and they're most comfortable working with.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Mr. Roy, you have time for a very brief response.

[Translation]

     Mr. René Roy: To help employers, I believe there must be targeted training programs for workers on the job. Those groups must be targeted as is done, for example, for persons who suffer from or have literacy problems. That's what I think.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Next is Madame Guay, and then Mr. Tonks.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The public has to be completely educated on this matter, but businesses as well. We have heard so many witnesses who have come to meet with us. Most claim that the Act before us must be tightened up, even though some said it should simply be eliminated because, in any case, the integration of visible minorities would happen on its own. I don't think so. We have an act because there is a need, and it takes an act that bites, that has teeth.

    I said it was a question of education, and that's where you, the unions, come into play. I believe you have a very, very important role to play with your employees and your businesses, that you can play a virtually essential role in sensitizing your people.

    We have been told about businesses, among other things, which, depending on the number of employees they had, had to hire only one Aboriginal person. So they complied with the Act; they had to go and find one Aboriginal person. However, those persons feel completely lost in a business where they are the only representatives of their community. So they don't stay in the business because they often experience discrimination or because they're not comfortable. They always feel better when there are at least two, three or four persons who together feel they are part of the same community.

    It's difficult. In some provinces, there are Aboriginal communities that are very present, a large Aboriginal population, whereas there are virtually none in other regions of Canada. So it becomes difficult for an employer who must go and find Aboriginal persons for his business when there aren't any. It would have to go and find people from other regions. There's something to be done in this regard. I don't yet know what exactly, but we should discuss it amongst ourselves.

    Mr. Roy, as you know, in Quebec, we also have employment forums. Perhaps something could be done in this direction at the federal level. We could conduct information or awareness campaigns in the communities to offer them jobs of at least equal quality.

    I have one final point here which we have not yet discussed today, but which we have talked about throughout our meetings. That is recognition of international diplomas, from other countries. We know that this is a very big problem here. Mr. Malhi has often spoken about it. We have taxi drivers who have three or four diplomas and who cannot be recognized here as graduates in the same way as Canadians. I would like to have your opinions on that.

    Mr. Émile Vallée: On the question of diplomas, the federal government perhaps has a role to play, but it is mainly the responsibility of the provinces, of the departments of education. We have somewhat the same problem on the union side. We're trying to convince the Department of Education to recognize training done on the job. However, since it's not necessarily done in the context of courses organized by the Department of Education, that training is very often not recognized by the department. So we are still fighting on that score. It's the same problem.

    The professions obviously have a responsibility in this area as well. Whether they are doctors, lawyers or other professionals, they have a job to do in this.

    I would like to mention one thing. We talked about making room for the union movement. It's true that we have a responsibility. Our members are part of the community. The types of prejudices that we want to try to convince employers to forget also apply to our members. So we have an educational responsibility in this, but I believe the existing communities should be used more than is being done now.

    A moment ago, you mentioned Aboriginal persons. I'm also thinking of visible minorities in which there is a community of communities that could be used to help develop access to equality programs because those communities know their people. They know what exists. They know what can be done, and we often forget them. I believe they should be given more room in the organization of programs.

  (1215)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Tonks, then Mr. Johnston, and then Madame Folco. I think we'll call it a wrap at that point.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and thank you for your deputations. I have just one question for Sandra.

    You used the characterization of the Employment Equity Act requiring radical reconstruction. You said it must be radically restructured and that leadership must be entrenched in the act to change the deferential impact that is still occurring with the marginalization of women.

    I'm very interested in getting your response. You talked about new immigrants not being configured and not being represented in the way that traditional statistics are being kept. I would take it from that then that we are not implementing educational programs, skills development programs, and so on that in fact are helping that designated group. Can you give me an example of the new immigrants you have in mind when you say that? What are the cases that are so different, that are so much more of a challenge, that underscore the point you're making with respect to this radical change in the Employment Equity Act?

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: Immigrants are coming in with credentials as professionals, whether they have had formal training as doctors, as lawyers, as economists, as engineers in their home country. Having arrived here and not having citizenship status excludes them altogether from the public sector. That's a fundamental issue.

    Your colleague talked earlier about the barriers in terms of the recognition of their credentials, having to go back through training and reassessment to even be recognized and to have access to any kind of decent paying jobs. Those are some of the major barriers that are there.

    The radical change for us is also centred around the enforcement requirement that's needed with the act. For the Employment Equity Act to have substantive impact, there has to be a strong enforcement capacity enshrined in the act. Continuing to rely on.... It's not going to....

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I appreciate that.

    The issue of credentials has come up, and we certainly take your point on that. But I was thinking more in terms of women who come from cultural backgrounds that make it more difficult for them to mainstream because of their culture, because of the attitudes of men, that patriarchal kind of society, and so on. Do you believe it is going to be a larger challenge to try to overcome those kinds of barriers? They are not barriers that are extrinsically coming through our legislation or whatever, but in fact are part of the cultures that are coming here. Is it a problem for you in this area to help those women who are caught in those particular traditions?

    The statistics you're talking about will not reflect Muslim women who would like to come into the mainstream in Canada and have equitable opportunities here but cannot, because of the culture they are a part of. They will have other issues that we will have to deal with. Is that part of your cause?

  (1220)  

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: That is true. Yes, it's part of our cause. Even for the parent, the mother, her immediate integration into the labour force, so to speak, may not be as easy because of cultural or family barriers that are there. But the access for her daughter, who is integrating into the Canadian culture at a much faster rate, will be part of that statistic.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: That's right.

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: There's a place where you draw the boundaries of where you give the space for women in terms of their own cultural practices and you're not imposing on them in terms of what should happen or shouldn't happen. That change needs to happen gradually. But you also understand that it doesn't change the larger issue. If they make a decision or if there is that choice, whether conscious or not, to not participate in the workforce, in the labour force, the fact of the matter is that there are members of the family who are going to be impacted and it's going to impact on her.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: But you would agree, though, that this will skew the data or the statistics to some extent.

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: To some extent.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Because of the cultural--how do I put it--keeping up, if you will, with that particular reality, it's a generational thing, and it may take some cultures more time to overcome that cultural reality than others.

    I thought it was tying in, Madam Chair. I didn't mean to digress, but this is a very complex issue that I thought you were attempting to grapple with, and we'd never heard that before. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    One brief response, Mr. Vallée.

[Translation]

    Mr. Émile Vallée: I just have one question on that. It should not be forgotten that we all have a responsibility. I believe the expression in English is “outreach”. We have to reach out to these people. There's a group in Montreal, a union unit in the textile industry, where there was a vote to organize union representation and the ballot was in 16 languages. One woman who needed to file a grievance had to wait until her husband had a day's leave because he filed the grievance in her stead. In her mind, it was not part of her culture for her to file it.

    The union and the employers as well must shoulder responsibility for reaching out to these people to ensure their rights are honoured. We have an effort to make.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Johnston.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I heard Sandra say that she didn't think $50,000 was much of a penalty. I beg to differ with her on that. I think it is a large penalty. I don't agree at all that there should be more enforcement in the act.

    I think a lot has been achieved through cooperative effort. I think a lot more could be achieved through incentives than through penalties. I reject the notion that we need more, and more severe, penalties in order to get better compliance.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: My question would then be, what is it you're using as your comparator in terms of the progress for the groups we've talked about, and particularly for the marginalized group? We're saying, comparatively speaking, we haven't seen the improvement in their employment.

    Yes, you'll see more marginalized, racialized people, or you may see one or a few aboriginal women in token positions, but in terms of any kind of lasting changes and improvements, it's not there, and in terms of the retention of women from those marginalized groups, the stats aren't there to support saying that there have been those kinds of improvements since the act has come into place.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: You asked me the question, and the answer I would give is that we've had people, witnesses, come before this committee and say that it is indeed improving, that employment equity is having an impact.

    But rather than get into an argument, I would defer to my colleague, who would like to ask a question.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: Sandra, I'd like to ask something and follow up on what Mr. Tonks was saying. Do you think that a lot of the women who--

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Ms. Skelton, I would really appreciate it if when we're talking to a woman we call her by her last name, just as we call the men by their last names, if you wouldn't mind.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: Sorry, Ms. Carnegie-Douglas. Madam Folco wasn't here when I talked about my mother-in-law being a Carnegie. I'm very sorry about that.

    Ms. Carnegie-Douglas, we're talking about career choices. Following up on Mr. Tonks' question, do you think some of these women from these visible minorities are segregated into certain career choices because of their background, their religion?

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: No, I don't agree. There may be some women, but for the most part, most women, and particularly women from a lot of the cultural communities.... No, I would not agree with that.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: That was something that came to mind when Mr. Tonks.... And that's what I wanted to know. So you are not finding that. The groups that are working with these visible minority women aren't finding that.

    Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas: That they are segregated by choice, because they choose to be?

    I would say to you that there are some women who, by choice, will go into particular work sectors, but for the most part it is not by choice. The systems and the structures that are there segregate them in particular sectors in the employment. It is why you will find, for the most part, in the manufacturing industry a particular group, whether Asian women or Latino women or black women. It is not by choice. It is because they do not have the same opportunities as white women, for the most part. Even within groups of white women, there are different situations as well--when you talk about white women from eastern Europe and when language and immigrant status play a factor. No, I would disagree with that.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm sorry if there was any lack of deference taken with respect to calling any particular person by their first name. It is my understanding that committees are an informal opportunity to have some intercourse of intellectual thought and experience and so on. I have heard other members of the committee refer to men by their first name, if they felt so inclined.

    If there was any problem with that, Madame Folco, I apologize for it.

    Now that I know that is the rule we want to apply, we'll do it consistently. You may like to give some consideration to that, but I will take it as my lead in that I will not do that again. I didn't mean anything by it.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Just in response, it is an informal gathering, and I think there is no set rule. I think we treat all our witnesses with a great deal of respect. Whether we address them by their surname or their first name, I don't think we're showing any less respect. I think we can continue.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I didn't mean it in a patronizing way whatsoever.

    The Chair: I think that's the way we act with our own committee members. I know from time to time I might call one of the members by their first name. It is informal. I think there is a great deal of respect among all of us, and certainly with our witnesses.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I completely agree with what Mr. Tonks has just said. I simply want to add that we can catch ourselves out. It's a bad habit that we have, and I am guilty of it too, of calling women by their given names and men by their family names. I simply want to emphasize this point, which is something I think we should correct and control in ourselves. I didn't want to insult Mr. Tonks or Ms. Skelton in making that comment.

    Ms. Carnegie-Douglas, I would like to congratulate you on the presentation you made a moment ago on discrimination against visible minority women. I got the impression that you accurately described the situation in a few sentences. It was a course, if you will, a lesson, a brief lesson, but congratulations.

    My questions are for the representatives of the FTQ. I have two questions. The first concerns training. You have been asked questions on training, on the responsibility employers have and the responsibility unions of course have as well for training people who can thus enter the labour market more easily, be they immigrants or persons who are born here.

    However, how can you reconcile that with the Quebec government's role in training relative to society's expectations? That's my first question.

    Second, I must say that I couldn't wait for you to come because you represent the FTQ, which represents a very large number of workers in Quebec and carries a political weight that must not be disregarded. A number of persons have mentioned to us that the unions might have a more active role to play in employment equity. That could be done through the unions, either when the unions discuss a new collective agreement with employers, or by entrenching the union's role in the new statutory measure or in a new statutory measure on employment equity. Do you wish to comment on that, please?

     Mr. René Roy: Yes, of course, because those are two very important points for us. You are perfectly right about our role at the bargaining table. Moreover, we have performed it for many years now. We have non-discrimination clauses for all factors. Now, non-discrimination does not mean employment equity because most collective agreements, or all collective agreements I believe, do not control hiring. So, in that respect, the unions have a minor role to play with regard to the hiring of workers from the various groups.

    However, we have a major role to play in pay equity.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: We do too, by the way.

     Mr. René Roy: There's a lot of work on that, too.

    We could very well cite the role we play with the CSST, on worker health and safety, and the role we play in the francization of businesses. Under the Quebec legislation, we have a recognized role on the corporate francization committees. We have a role to play on the corporate health and safety committees. This is also what we suggest in our presentation, that the unions be led to play an active role with active measures. It must be ensured that the active measures are in place and that they are complied with within businesses. So that would be a fairly easy role for us to play because we are familiar with that role since we are in the business.

  (1235)  

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Through collective agreements or statutory measures?

     Mr. René Roy: Through collective agreements. At the bargaining tables, we negotiate them at certain levels, but we're not required by law to touch certain levels. As to statutory measures, I was mainly speaking about statutory measures since the Act respecting occupational health and safety is a statutory measure that tells an employer that there is a health and safety committee and that three or four workers must sit on that committee. So, under the Act, we could obviously have a role to play in employment equity.

    As regards the Quebec government's role on employer responsibility for training... I sit on the Commission des partenaires du marché en travail, which administers the one percent act. There's a one percent act in Quebec which forces employers to give one percent of training to its workers, and those that do not give that one percent must pay a one percent payroll tax, which has created a fund of more than $100 million.

    One of the first criteria, as I mentioned a moment ago, is helping workers with literacy. This affects a large number of immigrant workers. In Montreal, among others, it affects Haitians, who have problems with literacy. That is the first criterion we have, under that fund, to help workers on the job.

    There is also the government's role in the entire management of funds transferred from the federal government, the $600 million which is transferred to Emploi-Québec. Here again, we have on-the-job training. I said earlier in our presentation that we could do it through a statutory measure, but Emploi-Québec can set its own rules. It set rules for persons with disabilities. We have programs to help provide training for persons with disabilities. We have employer assistance programs, wage support assistance programs to enable employer to hire persons with disabilities. So that's the role. I believe that that's the Quebec government's obligation. That's our opinion.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: May I take this opportunity to thank Monsieur Vallée, Monsieur Roy, and Ms. Sandra Carnegie-Douglas. You have given us some very important information, and I thank you for taking the time to share your views and your expertise with us. It will be very helpful as we deliberate and then make suggestions as to what we're going to do with the Employment Equity Act, and I thank you.

    If you have further information you want to leave with us or send to us at some time in the near future, please feel free to do that. It will be distributed to members of the committee and taken into consideration as we review the Employment Equity Act.

    To my colleagues, as we prepare for a week in our constituency offices, have a very safe and productive time, and we'll see you back here in one week.

    The meeting is adjourned.