HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 21, 2002

Á

1105

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

Mrs. Skelton

The Chair

Mrs. Skelton

The Chair

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby (Senior Executive Vice-President, Human Resources and Public Affairs, RBC Financial Group, Canadian Bankers Association)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Gendron (Chair, Employment Equity Subcommittee, and Senior Manager, Employment Equity and Official Languages, CBC/Radio Canada, Federally Regulated Employers, Transport and Communications)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper (Vice-President, Diversity and Workplace Equity/EAP, Bank of Montreal, Canadian Bankers Association)

Á

1130

Ms. Shirley Boucher (Manager, Employment Equity, Canada Post, Federally Regulated Employers, Transport and Communications)

The Chair

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Mr. Terry Campbell (Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Bankers Association)

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Á

1135

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Mrs. Carol Skelton

The Chair

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

Á

1140

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. Shirley Boucher

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Terry Campbell

Á

1145

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Á

1150

Ms. Guay

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Ms. Guay

The Chair

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

Mr. Terry Campbell

Á

1155

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Mr. Malhi

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Â

1200

Mrs. Skelton

Mr. Johnston

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Mr. Dale Johnston

Â

1205

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. St-Jacques

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Â

1210

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. St-Jacques

Ms. Shirley Boucher

Ms. St-Jacques

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. St-Jacques

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. St-Jacques

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Â

1215

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Shirley Boucher

Â

1220

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. Skelton

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Â

1225

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. Guay

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Guay

Mrs. Skelton

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Â

1230

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton)

Ms. Shirley Boucher

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper

Mr. Johnston

Ms. Hélène Gendron

Â

1235

Mrs. Skelton

Ms. Libby Davies

Mrs. Skelton

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 056

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 21, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to welcome you to the 56th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

    We are continuing to deal with our review of the Employment Equity Act, and today we have with us witnesses from the Canadian Bankers Association and from FETCO.

    Normally, we hear presentations from both groups. We would ask that you try to keep your remarks as close to five minutes as you can, so that we have an opportunity for the committee members to make representation and to have a fairly interesting dialogue in question and answer.

    Also, I would tell the members of the committee that I have to attend a meeting at noon. So at 12 o'clock I'm going to turn the chair over to our vice-chair, Mrs. Skelton. We have actually two vice-chairs, and I thought this was a good opportunity for Mrs. Skelton to take the chair in my absence. I'm not leaving because I'm not interested in the presentations. It's just that sometimes we have a bit of a conflict.

    Also, Mrs. Skelton, you had a notice of motion that you wanted to introduce so we can get it on the record.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Yes, please.

    The Chair: We will do that very briefly, so that we can deal with it at a future meeting.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Madam Chair, I would like to introduce notice of the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development invite the Minister of Human Resources Development to committee to discuss her failure to amend section 19.3 of the Employment Insurance Act as recommended by this committee in its report “Beyond C-2” tabled in the House in May 2001.

    The Chair: That notice of motion will be distributed to members of the committee in both official languages and will be dealt with at our next meeting.

    Without further ado, from the Canadian Bankers Association I have Terry Campbell, Elisabetta Bigsby, and Lesya Balych-Cooper. I don't know which one of you is going to take the lead.

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby (Senior Executive Vice-President, Human Resources and Public Affairs, RBC Financial Group, Canadian Bankers Association): I am. Thank you very much, and good morning.

    I'm here as the chair of the senior human resources committee of the Canadian Bankers Association. I'm also senior executive vice-president for human resources and public affairs at RBC Financial Group. As you indicated, Lesya Balych-Cooper is vice-president, diversity and workplace equity and employee assistance plans, at the Bank of Montreal, and Terry Campbell is vice-president for policy at the Canadian Bankers Association.

    We are pleased to be able to participate in your committee's five-year review of the Employment Equity Act. I believe you have all been provided with copies of a written submission, which sets out in detail our views on the act, as well as some areas of concern to our industry. I will summarize our views on the legislation briefly, after which, of course, we would be pleased to answer members' questions.

    The banking industry has been committed to the principles of employment equity since discussions took place prior to the passing of the first Employment Equity Act in 1986. The passing of the act was useful on a number of fronts. For example, with the legislation in place, we were allowed, for the first time, to survey employees with respect to diverse groups in order to get an accurate picture on the composition of our workforce, something that had been against the law before the Employment Equity Act. In the 15 years since then addressing the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce has been a major focus in the banking industry.

    We have invested significant resources in a range of initiatives, and I will list a few: ensuring that our work environments are welcoming and accessible to all employees and potential employees, especially people in the four groups designated in the act; developing specialized training programs for managers and supervisors to strengthen their competencies in employment equity, including sensitivity training and diversity management; developing new and more effective approaches for outreach and recruitment; designing accommodation policies and processes; building more flexibility in general into human resource management; and finally, developing and implementing systems to collect, analyse, and report data to help us be more effective as we manage in this environment.

    I'm proud to say that in the banking industry we are achieving results. Although there is certainly more work to be done, we have been able to reach and surpass the government's benchmark for representation of women in senior management and middle management, and we have exceeded the benchmark for members of visible minorities in overall employment and at the middle management and professional levels. But I also want to say that we are not yet what we want to be. More work is needed, for instance, in achieving progress with aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

    What have we learned over these 15 years? First, we have learned that achieving and building a representative workforce is very much a work in progress. Working with the legislation is a learning process and a process that requires thoughtful planning, careful management, and regular assessment of what works and what doesn't work and why. As with any positive learning process, the journey is as important as the destination.

    Second, we have learned that for employment equity to succeed, we need a coordinated effort from all our partners in the community. The issues are much deeper and broader than can be addressed entirely in legislation or by the efforts of employers, important though these aspects are. Indeed, achieving continuous progress in employment equity involves fundamental ongoing societal change. All of society is involved, schools, universities, community organizations, the media, and governments at all levels.

    Third, we have also learned there are some specific things that would help us to move forward. What would be particularly helpful is continuing dialogue among those with a stake in this matter, for example, sharing knowledge, success stories, and best practices to help us all be more effective, training sessions, seminars, enhanced guidelines to help all participants better understand the issues at hand, and further research to provide the basis for effective policy development. These are the kinds of things that will help employers now and in the future, and these are the kinds of initiatives in which government can play a leadership role in fostering and facilitating positive change.

Á  (1110)  

    A premature legislation change would not, in our opinion, be an effective next step. In our view, the act is working well and does not need to be changed at this time. While we appreciate the Canadian Human Rights Commission's initiative in consulting with us recently on the recommendations they are considering for changing the act, we believe that now is not the right time to implement changes. In fact, we think many of the changes the commission is considering are matters that can be dealt with outside the act. For example, the recommendation to clarify the duty of employers and to show the proper sequencing of employment obligations could be handled very well in guidelines or other non-regulatory aids.

    We recommend that the commission complete a full cycle of audits and follow up on it with all employers before the government considers overhauling the legislation. Policy-makers, legislators, industry, and community groups all need a clearer picture of how the act is working in order to assess the act appropriately and consider changing it.

    This is not to suggest that the statute could not be improved. As we have discussed in our written submission, we believe the definition for people with disabilities is problematic. The act currently defines people with disability as, in addition to other factors, persons who consider themselves to be disadvantaged in employment. Many working people with disabilities do not consider themselves to be disadvantaged in the workplace. This results in the reduction of the number of people who self-identify on workforce surveys and contributes to under-reporting of industry data and a less than clear and fully developed picture of how employment equity is progressing in the marketplace.

    We suggest that only very minor changes are required to improve the definition. For example, improvement could be accomplished by the simple decoupling of the three major components of the current definition of disability: the fact of having a disability, which includes persons whose functional limitations because of their impairment have been accommodated in their current job or workforce; perceiving oneself as disadvantaged in the workplace; and believing the current employer or a future employer would perceive the person as disadvantaged. By taking such an approach, employers could use a clear three-part question on their workforce surveys, each of which would require a yes or no response. People with disabilities would not have to consider themselves disadvantaged to self-identify, and the employer and government would collect more useful data.

    In summary, I wish to reinforce the fact that the banking industry is committed to employment equity. It makes good business sense, it strengthens our ability to respond to a change in marketplace, and it is the right thing to do. We have made good progress today, and we are confident of future success. We believe the act is working and does not need an overhaul in order to continue to meet its goals.

    Madam Chair, these are our brief introductory comments. Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you. We look forward to your questions.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bigsby.

    Now we will hear a presentation from FETCO, Hélène Gendron and Shirley Boucher.

    Ms. Hélène Gendron (Chair, Employment Equity Subcommittee, and Senior Manager, Employment Equity and Official Languages, CBC/Radio Canada, Federally Regulated Employers, Transport and Communications): Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of this committee, on behalf of the FETCO membership, we thank you for this opportunity to appear before you this morning.

    For those of you who might not be familiar with FETCO, it stands for Federally Regulated Employers, Transport and Communications.

[Translation]

    In French, our association is known as the Employeurs en transports et communications de régie fédérale.

[English]

    The organization represents Canadian employers in rail and truck transportation, airlines, telecommunication, broadcasting, marine and longshoring industries. It is a voluntary, non-incorporated association, and all FETCO members fall under employment equity legislation. FETCO companies have more than 410,000 employees. This amounts to over 60% of all those employed by companies subject to the current Employment Equity Act. Aside from the public service employees, FETCO companies employ the largest group of employees under federal legislation in Canada. Unionization among FETCO members averages 56%. Although the spectrum is wide, from a low of 20% in the trucking companies to a high of 95% for Canada Post, for example, this constitutes approximately two-thirds of the unionized work force under federal legislation.

[Translation]

    FETCO is an active supporter of the objectives of the Employment Equity Act. Over the years, considerable time, energy and resources have been devoted to implementing the spirit and letter of the legislation.

    FETCO considers that the present EEA is effective and that, together with other legislation and initiatives, it forms an integral component to achieving a truly diversified and just society in Canada.

    The revisions adopted at the last review introduced a compliance audit model giving the Canadian Human Rights Commission the responsibility to monitor and enforce the legislation. The Commission has developed a framework and established an ambitious work plan. Since the Commission has not completed a full audit cycle yet, FETCO believes that, before any substantial changes to the Act are contemplated, the cycle must be completed and an assessment of the impact of the audit process should be conducted.

    Information gathered from our membership indicates that much of the trucking industry, that is some 70 out of 110 organizations, have yet to be audited and among the larger corporations, many have just received their audit notice. In fact, four that received their notice in November 2000 comprise over 100,000 employees. Others are currently discussing their undertakings with the Commission to ensure compliance with the legislation.

    Given these facts,it may be a little premature to be thinking about lessons to be drawn and about which pitfalls to avoid. Fundamental changes can be considered only after the Commission, employers and other interested parties have had the chance to stand back and reflect on the lessons learned from the audits.

    The Commission has already indicated that it feels the time required to complete a full audit is too lengthy. It may be right, but this is new territory both for the Commission and for employers. FETCO is convinced that, as time goes by, the Commission, and we as employers, will improve our respective capacity to respond more efficiently and accurately to the demands of the audit.

    Until such time, FETCO is of the opinion that changes to the present Act are premature.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    We have included in our submission a series of undertakings by the FETCO membership that we feel have had an impact on the implementation of the act. Let me just highlight a very few of these. There are within our organization numerous outreach initiatives aimed at designated groups, such as targeted recruitments, scholarship programs, sponsorships, participation at career fairs, partnerships with organizations representing designated group members and with educational institutions to raise awareness of career opportunities. Special internship programs for occupations where there exists underrepresentation of designated group members have been developed, with coaching and mentoring as essential components of these internships.

    I would like to dwell now on some aspects of the act of particular concern to us.

[Translation]

    As long as the self-identification process remains the sole basis of statistical data and results, under-reporting of designated group representation in our respective workforces will persist. Self-identification therefore remains an issue for all FETCO members, large and small, and an impediment to gaining accurate workforce representation data.

    There is still some unwillingness among employees to self-identify or even complete a self-identification questionnaire. As a result, numbers included in employers' reports or by HRDC are inaccurate and should be used with caution.

    FETCO believes that the current voluntary process including alternative means of identification must be reviewed for consideration. We have already voiced our concerns to the department and have recommended a more proactive approach in encouraging broader public awareness and understanding of the principles of employment equity and the importance of the self-identification process.

[English]

    This leads us to discuss more particularly the definition of persons with disabilities. FETCO's position is that the current definition leads to under-reporting and results in unreliable data. The definition as currently written combines into one lengthy question the issues of having a disability, the perception of disadvantage, and accommodation. FETCO membership's experience is that not all employees with disabilities perceive that they are disadvantaged in employment, because they have been accommodated or because the disability is not apparent.

    FETCO has already indicated to HRDC its views on the tracking and reporting requirements, and we have included comments in our brief. We have also indicated to HRDC our willingness to work with them to try to alleviate that burden, so employers can spend more time dealing with the fundamental issues of achieving a more fair representation in their workforce. Numerical employment equity data and reports represent only one tangible measure by which to ascertain employment equity issues and progress. However, FETCO firmly believes numerical data should not be the only or primary focus for determining an employer's effectiveness and success in managing employment equity. That's why FETCO would not support a recommendation to have complaints submitted strictly on the basis of statistical information.

[Translation]

    FETCO supports the need for consultation and collaboration with unions and employee representatives to facilitate the implementation of employment equity in the workplace. However, we would not support legal requirements specifying how this should be implemented. As employers are ultimately responsible for employment equity, they are in the best position to determine the appropriate method of consultation and sharing of information.

    Employers need the flexibility to adopt the means of consultation consistent with their operational structures and level of unionization. Heavily unionized employers already have consultation processes in place and have integrated the consultation on employment equity within their existing structures.

    As we noted at the start of this presentation, FETCO is of the view that generally speaking, the Employment Equity Act has been effective and it would not welcome exhaustive changes at this time. FETCO believes that there have been improvements, even if they are considered modest by some of the stakeholders. We believe that the current Employment Equity Act is still a valid and useful framework to achieve this goal.

    We thank you for your attention and welcome any questions you may have for us.

    Merci, madame la présidente.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    To prepare committee members, my speaking list as I have it now is Ms. Davies, Ms. Skelton, Mr. Tonks, Madame Guay, Mr. Malhi, Mr. Johnston, Madame St-Jacques.

    Ms. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much. I appreciate the other opposition members allowing me to go first. I have to rush off to a meeting for Alexa, who's sick today, and I'll come back after it. So thank you.

    Thank you to the witnesses for coming today, because I think it's very important that we hear from those employers in the private sector who are covered by employment equity. It's actually been very refreshing to hear today about your commitment to the act and the principles of employment equity.

    I've got two questions. One is really more general. I've been very concerned that there are still so many myths and stereotypes about employment equity. We've heard at this committee, actually, that it's based on a quota system and somehow it's forcing employers to do things they don't want to do. My own belief is that with employment equity, we end up with a better workforce. When you have diversity in the workforce, I'm sure it means you can serve your customers a lot better, whether it's in the banking system, the airlines, or whatever. So I wanted to put that to you. Do we need to do a better job? Do you, as private sector employers, need to do more to get over information to the broader community about the importance and the benefits of employment equity, that this isn't something that is seen as a horrible chore, but we actually end up with better practices? So if you're able to give us any examples of how you've seen your own sectors improve because of employment equity, I think that would be very helpful to have on the record.

    Second, if there's time, there's this issue of representation of aboriginal people. It's come up a number of times, the under-representation, and I'd like you to tell us whether or not you look at specific measures to encourage representation from aboriginal people coming into your employment and what happens to aboriginal people when they're in your employment

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper (Vice-President, Diversity and Workplace Equity/EAP, Bank of Montreal, Canadian Bankers Association): I'd be glad to respond to part of your question.

    We look very closely at both quantitative and qualitative goals for employment equity efforts within our industry, and it has been very important to the achievement of those qualitative and quantitative goals to have a robust discussion about the business case for employment equity. In the private sector there is a strong business case for employment equity, but sometimes it is very much a competition for spotlight, with the whole conversation about what employment equity legislation actually is. We found it very beneficial to put the discussion in terms of a business model that considers what we've identified as six areas very clearly associated with the business case for employment equity. Being a good corporate citizen and in legislative compliance is one of those six elements, but there are still very solid business reasons for engaging in a discussion and in the activities concerning employment equity.

    In no particular order, I can tell you that it is very much part of our corporate values as to what we want to have as an equitable and supportive workplace, where employees are seen and feel themselves as part of this employer. It's very clear that it's becoming more and more a strategy in the competition for talent. We are looking for top talent wherever we can find it. Traditionally, there have been certain places where we have looked for talent, whether it was in universities or in certain areas, but we want to look for that top talent wherever we can find it. Yet being able to hire top talent is only one part of that element. It's also being able to retain top talent, and being able to provide that equitable and supportive workplace is an incredibly important element in that retention strategy.

    The third area we focus on in that discussion is managerial competency. In a business case we can hire people, we can tell them this is a great place to work, but if management doesn't foster and help produce a very equitable, supportive workplace, the employees will experience a situation where they will not stay, they will want to leave. So management competency and training management to be able to create that environment comprise a third and very critical element.

    Fourth, we go on to our association with our communities and, within the businesses, with the customers we have. As one of the members mentioned, it is important that we talk about how we interact with our communities, that our workforces reflect the communities in which we do business. It makes good business sense to do that.

    The fifth element is very important. It's about our corporate image and our ability to build brand equity. We want to be known as equitable, supportive employers. So that's another element that we discuss.

    Sixth, but not last, is our legislative compliance. We want to be good corporate citizens in compliance, and it's also very good governance to be able to go through this expression of our commitment to employment equity and actually show that we have made such progress.

Á  (1130)  

    Ms. Shirley Boucher (Manager, Employment Equity, Canada Post, Federally Regulated Employers, Transport and Communications): On your second question, with respect to aboriginal people, many of our members, as Hélène mentioned in her opening remarks, have specific programs in place, such as internship programs, for aboriginal people specifically. It's a formalized program, where you bring them in and train them. As part of that training program, you have a membership program in place, so that they can buddy with individuals that are already in the company and, hopefully, move into the company in permanent positions they are interested in, as well as advance. A lot of our members also have scholarship programs for aboriginal people, such as CP, CM, etc. This is another means of promoting education, certainly an issue with aboriginal people.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Skelton.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: I'd like to hear the banking association on the aboriginal question.

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: I think the answer is very similar. We tend to work on a variety of fronts. Scholarships and education are one aspect, community activities are another. There are co-op summer student programs, so that aboriginal people can have a working experience in one of our institutions, which is generally conducive to them, more permanent employment. Among the community activities we have after-school programs or other forms of cooperation. So it's not very dissimilar in respect of efforts.

    Mr. Terry Campbell (Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Bankers Association): We partner and have outreach with aboriginal business groups, aboriginal business associations, to spread the word as well.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Do you find that it's working very well?

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: It's a long-term strategy. I believe, and our experience in the banking industry has shown, that there is a pool of potential employees within each of the designated groups. Each of them does have areas where we would be specifically looking for ways of being able to bring them into our workforce. For example, with the aboriginal community, we may have different outreach programs from those we have for women. And generally, in the aboriginal community it is focused more on education and finding the appropriate avenues to provide support, with an intake program through educational efforts that start, perhaps, somewhat sooner than they may in other areas. So we have educational programs about staying in school, going to post-secondary institutions to prepare certain skills and abilities to become part of the workforce.

Á  (1135)  

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: We were talking about identifying oneself, and some individuals naturally choose not to do that. Do your organizations have problems with that, and how have you solved them in your organizations?

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: Yes, we do, it's a consistent problem. Even though we've made several attempts at awareness raising and the like, there seems to be fluctuation in the drive. There will be a period when they will self-identify, but sometimes it goes down. It is a fluctuating thing, and we're still looking for ways and means to overcome that. We've been in discussion with the Department of Human Resources Development Canada, and we do believe that if there can be a strengthening of the public awareness, education, as well as development of some tools that would help not only the public, but ourselves as employers, we might overcome it.

    In some of our industries we have a very broad scope. With the CBC, for instance, there seems to come a time when people feel they are slowly being integrated, and they don't want to factor this in as one of the reasons they are being hired. So they will choose not to identify, and they will even let it be known that they will not do that.

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: From speaking with potential employees, both within the financial services sector and from public service and elsewhere, we see that people want to be identified as top talent, they want to know they are being hired entirely on merit, and they're very proud of that. Most people who have some issue with self-identification are concerned about the definition itself, and my colleague Elisabetta has set out one way for your consideration of dealing with that difficulty in being able to self-identify. But clearly there is another group of people who won't self-identify because they feel they want to be recognized as top talent.

    I refer back to the business model that makes so much sense on employment equity. Employment equity under the legislation is an important factor, but this entire idea of being able to look in every place we can for top talent for our workforce is still the paramount consideration, and being able to build a supportive and equitable environment that makes people want to stay and sees people able to be productive in that environment.

    Mrs. Carol Skelton: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    I want to follow up on Mrs. Skelton's questions with respect to self-identification, particularly as it relates to designated groups of persons with disabilities. It seems to me that if we can't deal with that, the under-representation is going to be a statistic that is subject to all kinds of legerdemain of one sort or another.

    The definition of persons with disabilities refers to persons with a long-term or recurring physical, mental, sensory, psychiatric, or learning impairment who consider themselves to be disadvantaged, who believe an employer is likely to consider them disadvantaged by reason of that impairment. This is the one I think is important: it includes persons whose functional limitations, owing to their impairment, have been accommodated in their current job or workplace. It would seem to me that's one step towards making people feel satisfied that a physical disability is not a handicap with respect to excellence, qualification, and so on. What else, then, could we do to make people feel that this is a merit-based definition? How can we allay their fears? Do you have any suggestions in that regard?

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: This is not a legal expertise statement, but from a practical point of view, from working with a council of people with disabilities, people are telling us essentially two things that seem to make this definition not very practical. The first is the complexity of the definition. Apparently, some people, as they work through, begin to wonder what the right answer is, not the right answer in absolute terms, but for themselves. But the part that appears to be the most difficult to deal with is this combination: in order to be, so to speak, counted, they have to declare that they have a disability and are disadvantaged. So decoupling these two components maybe is not the right solution, but is something that would make some headway in limiting the problem of the number of people who say, yes, I have a disability, but I'm not disadvantaged. It seems to us that would help.

    Ms. Shirley Boucher: I could perhaps add that at least it's recognized within the act that once you accommodate a certain employee, he may be part of the definition as such. This has helped, but it's a double-edged sword, in that quite often, as you hire an employee who is disabled or you go through considerable expense--though some of them are not as expensive--of accommodation, the employee turns and feels he is no longer a disadvantage in employment, because you've made him completely able to do the work you've hired him for. I would strongly support the banks' comment that the way the definition is currently written, with the major components you must say yes to, plays against self-identification.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Right.

    Madam Chairman, I have just one additional question. I noted that the banks, in relation to the objective of two programs, ability edge and career edge, have undertaken to evaluate some of the issues related to recruitment, accommodation of individual needs, employee attitudes, internal communication, and problems related to self-ID. As a result of this survey and the prescriptive work that now is being taken up by the banks, will there be an additional report on those indicators, using those points, recruitment efforts, employment attitudes, and so on, to develop some indicators on evaluating persons with disabilities, and perhaps making recommendations on how we could change the criteria or how we could meet the self-identification issue?

    Mr. Terry Campbell: A lot of the work we're doing through programs like ability edge is as much directed to helping us do a better job in recruiting and seeking out people. It gave us some pointers as to what further steps we would need to make to have an effective recruitment program, an effective outreach program, rather than having the indicators per se or having a more precise definition of disability. I think, if you took the definition now as we've suggested and did some rearrangements, coupled with the broad review that the labour program is doing on the definition of disabilities throughout the government, it would go a long way to addressing those issues. I think a lot of our work is saying, we're doing a lot of programs already, how can we do it better?

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Guay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the witnesses. It's rare that men are in the minority here. Welcome and thank you for your extremely interesting presentations. They will help us to make some important changes to the act.

    To date, a number of witnesses have told us that self-identification is one problem area. There has to be some way of dealing positively with the case of a disabled person who refuses to self-identify because he feels this put him at a disadvantage. There has to be some way to get around this problem. A disabled person with the same qualifications and skills as another person should feel pride in having such an important job. I don't know what we can do, but there has to be a solution to this dilemma.

    Much has been said about inquiries. We've heard how the process is lengthy and laborious, particularly in the private sector. Often, the employer, who is on contract with the government, terminates the contract without having complied with the EEA. This is a serious problem, one that needs to be addressed.

    Much has also been said about relations with the unions. We heard that when it comes to self-identification rates, among other things, unions could do more to increase awareness among employees and employers. They could work to get the message across, given that it's part of their job. Their role in applying the provisions of the legislation could also be expanded.

    Mention was also made of fines. However, neither one of you addressed the issue. Perhaps you could touch on the subject later. We heard how fines were too low and how employers should be penalized more severely.

    Lastly, much was said about marketing. Among other things, the Quebec government invests in the promotion of jobs for women in non-traditional occupations. It spends on advertising to invite members of visible minorities to seek employment in the public service. It runs ads on television inviting people to apply for government jobs. That's the approach taken in Quebec. However, I'm not sure if the federal government takes similar action. Perhaps you would like to comment further on that subject.

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: The first thing you mentioned was self-identification, particularly in the case of persons with disabilities. I'm not sure how we can effect any real changes. Let me briefly relate a story to you.

    Recently, while consulting one of our lawyers about the Employment Equity Act, I reread the act and the relevant definition. The person we were discussing suffered from an olfactory problem. She had taken all the necessary precautions in the event of a fire at home. On looking at the definition, we determined that she fell into the category of a person with a disability, even though she did not consider herself as such. Obviously, she had made the necessary adjustments in the workplace and adapted to the problem.

    There are many types of disabilities. How can we convince people to identify themselves as having a disability when in reality they have learned to function very well?

    I believe the sub-committee on persons with disabilities did a study on this very subject and issued some recommendations. If the government was prepared to initiate consultations, we would be ready participants in the process. We're looking for a way to accommodate persons with disabilities in particular.

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Monique Guay: What about fines and marketing?

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: According to our interpretation of the act, a fine is levied in the case of failure to table a report. To my recollection, at FETCO, we've never discussed the possibility of fining an employer for failing to achieve stated objectives. A fine may be levied if the employer either does not file or is late in filing a report. We've always interpreted the provision this way. Does it go too far, or not far enough? We make every effort to file our reports on time. That's all I have to say on this.

    Ms. Monique Guay: And what about banks?

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: I think the idea of doing some marketing is very sound. I said at the outset that as a solution, this could benefit a range of stakeholders. Generally speaking, a marketing approach could be used to make the general public realize that some individuals can function very well in different environments. Getting information out to the public is always very useful.

    As for the complex nature of the studies or the time required, I think this proves that issues are not black or white. In some cases, a standard approach is taken and the figures reflect... Basically, however, we have a range of employers dealing with a range of market challenges and objectives.

    The issue has become complex as people try to understand why the standard approach doesn't work and why it's better in the case of aboriginal persons than for persons with disabilities.

    That's my view on the matter.

    Ms. Monique Guay: It may also depend on the region. Some regions have a larger aboriginal population. In such cases, it's easier to apply the provisions of the act. However, the reverse is true in those regions with a very small aboriginal population.

    I have one final, quick comment, Madam Chair. Banks have done some tremendous work in terms of employment for women. However, according to Statistics Canada, women still hold down many term, low-paying jobs. A high percentage of women earn less than $45,000, while inequities are considerable in the $45,000 to $100,000 salary range.

    How would you describe the situation within the banking industry?

[English]

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: Thank you very much for your question.

    We have had an excellent representation of women in the highest ranks of our organizations. We're very proud of this. They have been recruited from outside, but there has been a very strong promotion from the inside as well. Women may have had a larger role in the past in the lower level jobs, in the clerical jobs, but we have seen many women promoted from those lowest levels to the very highest levels, and we're very happy to see that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before I take my leave, I want to take the opportunity to point out to the members of the committee that today is the last day for our researcher Julie MacKenzie, who has served us very faithfully for a good number of years. I don't know how we're going to fill your spot, Julie. Julie is moving on to National Defence, where she'll be working in the area of security preparedness and in her particular area of expertise in health. Julie, we wish you all the very best in your new endeavours, and we're going to miss you dearly.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Next is Mr. Malhi.

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

    The current act covers women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities. Should any new group be covered by the Employment Equity Act?

    Mr. Terry Campbell: Before legislators and policy-makers consider whether new groups should be added, I think you need to ensure that there is a very clear demonstrated need based on some good solid research. The four groups that are in the statute now came out of the Abella report, as you know. That was based on some very detailed research and some very detailed thinking and identification of the groups that had historically experienced disadvantage. In the absence of a clearly documented need based on research, our view would be that the statute as it's now constructed addresses the groups that have needed the assistance of the statute and other programs going forward. More broadly speaking, if there are groups that feel disadvantaged in other areas, there still is the whole program of complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to address that, if needed. So I think we'd really need to focus on issues of clearly documented need.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Many highly qualified professionals, especially new immigrants, cannot get work in their field, because their foreign credentials are not recognized. The Canadian Bankers Association or FETCO, how are you dealing with this situation?

    Also, is there anything the federal government can do to establish a standard to recognize foreign credentials? Almost every month in the newspaper.... In fact, today in the Toronto Star, they said the federal government should do something. They are blaming the provincial government, and the provincial government is going to the federal government. What are your suggestions about that?

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: Thank you for your question.

    We have asked some of our members, because we have been following the debate and we know this is a question that has been raised on several occasions, what they feel about that. I think you heard from some other witnesses that this is not a federal jurisdiction, but it's either the professional corporations themselves or the provincial government. Some of our members have indicated that they are already active in trying to see how some of the professional associations can be convinced of the value of foreign experience or foreign diplomas, as well as working with the provincial government.

    Given the wide spectrum of where we're coming from, it's more right now on an individual basis, where there's a need and when they come against a barrier where they want the talent. There are those kinds of barriers, and they would create pressure. But at this point, this not being a federal legislated responsibility, it's very difficult to have a single position, and we don't have a single position on that.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: I agree with you, and other witnesses mentioned that they know this is a provincial matter, but the question is how the federal government can take some action to put pressure on the provincial government to negotiate about this issue.

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: I was here when, I think, some of the members of the visible minority groups appeared, and they suggested that there be some provincial-federal discussion held on the labour market or employment. That might be a route conducive to some suggestions being made. We would certainly welcome any kind of discussion that could be held, because it is a barrier. The more instances we have to discuss, the heavier the burden before you get talented people into your industries.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Earlier Ms. Guay mentioned under-representation in the senior management positions, especially of women. I don't want to go for that debate with you, but you said you have so many promotions, this and that. Where do these questions come from, if you are claiming that you are satisfied with all the things and all the promotions?

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: I think what leads to those observations with respect to women in banks, as I think Madam Guay did mention, is that there's a disproportionate number of women making less--I believe you said 45,000 or 40,000, I forget. I think what that does bring up is how many jobs in a financial institution are at that level. It is historically correct that more women than men work in banks. If 70% of the jobs are actually junior jobs, which is essentially the case, the average income of women will be lower, just because they populate those jobs. Conversely, the average for the industry, if my memory serves, is over 20% of women executives; it varies between 21%, 25%, 26% across the different organizations. So I think that's what Lesya was referring to. If you take equal jobs, I think at the middle management level it's about 50-50, and at the executive level it's 20% to 25%, which may not be perfect, but is a big improvement. That's where the dichotomy comes in big numbers.

  (1200)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance)): Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Johnston, Madame St-Jacques, and then Madam Neville.

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

    First, maybe I should point out to Ms. Guay that not only are you, Mr. Campbell, a minority on the panel, but we men are a minority in Canada.

    To the Canadian Banking Association, I think it's important that we look at the recommendations you made here, and when you made your presentation, you didn't refer to them. So I guess I'm giving you an opportunity to expand on your recommendations a bit. In particular, you say, with the identification of people with disabilities, the definition should be harmonized with the criteria used in the PALS to collect census data. I'd like you to explain that, as I'm not familiar with PALS. And I think it's important that you get your other recommendations on the record as well.

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: What we really want to focus on is a fair calculation of that designation. It is technical. There is a certain calculation of people identifying themselves in a corporation against the total population of that corporation or that organization. We would suggest a more accurate representative number would come from the people who self-identified in the organization against the total number of responses from that organization, which is significantly different from the absolute total number, because we do know there are a certain number of people who don't identify. That is the primary calculation issue we were putting on the table.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay.

    As for the rest, I see you strongly recommend that the government be required to undertake this PALS exercise with each census, every five years.

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: Yes, we think it's very important that it be considered, because right now this census is taken every ten years. Ten years is a very long time between statistical input. Five years would produce a much more realistic reflection of our workforce, especially if we consider that a majority of our workforce is aging.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: You also say the banking industry strongly supports the part of the Human Rights Act that forbids the laying of complaints based solely on statistical information. You don't recommend any changes there. Do you see any need to make any other changes to the act? We've had groups come before us and say they think there should be more compliance, there should be harsher penalties, more teeth in the act, for lack of a better term. It seems to me that both groups here think the act is working just fine the way it is. That's basically what this whole thing is about: is the act good enough the way it is, or does it need to be changed?

  (1205)  

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: It's not that the act doesn't have problems or that we're all perfect, it's more that since it was changed in 1995 and the enforcement mechanisms were set up, we haven't had a chance to find how it best operates. We've heard from the commission about the resource problem they have. Could it not be that it takes so long because they are running into that kind of problem, much more than the fact that people don't want to comply? This is a question we are asking ourselves at this point. We think it may be an aspect, because some of our members who have been audited have had to go through two auditors, sometimes three.

    So it's not so much that we think it's not working, it's just that it needs some time. We are learning, the commission is learning. This enforcement mechanism is rather new. I don't think that there is a whole lot of expertise out there, and we should give it some time to build the expertise. Then we can reflect and find out the lessons we can draw from that, so that we can be more efficient and maybe take less time. That is basically what we feel at this time. Let it run at least one full course.

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: We all want to make informed decisions. Until the act has had a chance to be played out, with a full cycle of audits, we may be making a less informed decision than we can make. We want to hear what those auditors have. You've heard today from some of the witnesses that a large proportion of their groups still have not experienced an audit. This means we have not been able to learn from what that process will reveal. The journey is as important as the destination. We learn by going through those audits, by understanding the mechanisms involved in the act. If there is still a large proportion of employers who haven't had the benefit of that, going to the next step, without making these informed decisions, I think we would need to think back and say whether or not that was the best route.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Thank you.

    Seven minutes, Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

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

    Ms. Gendron, you mentioned that many reports had to be prepared and that perhaps some thought should be given to reexamining this whole issue and considering alternate solutions. Different witnesses also told us that preparing reports was a costly, time-consuming process, but that little money or effort was devoted to follow up action. What alternate solution would you propose? I'd like to put the same question to the Canadian Bankers Association.

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: One of the problems with which we must contend is the need to meet the requirements of the act and to prepare reports for HRDC. This process is marginally useful to most of us, who have had to develop parallel systems to respond to managers' questions. In some cases, for example, some of our members have even integrated a system with the one supplied by HRDC because this is less complicated than using the EECRS. However, we've initiated discussions with the department in an effort to find solutions to this problem.

    Last year, we met with departmental officials and I believe some of us are scheduled to get together shortly to brainstorm...Right now, we don't have a solution, but our members and the department have made it known that they want to spend less time on a report which essentially, ends up being shelved. We certainly feel that there are people who consult the report. I'm not prepared to admit that the job categories developed by Judge Abella several years ago serve no purpose. However, in order to plan and establish objectives, we must translate these job categories into a language that is suitable to our managers and this is somewhat time consuming.

    Therefore, if some other way could be found to devote more time to achieving the aim of equity, not the aim of drafting the report... If we continue our discussions with HRDC, maybe we can devise a solution to simplify things, a solution that will satisfy some of us.

  (1210)  

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: I have to say that we certainly agree with that position. We believe we need to spend more time exchanging results, not in the statistical sense, but rather letting others know that, for example, a co-op program tested at one particular location was quite successful and could prove useful to other employers who may not have had an opportunity to do the same thing.

    We have put systems in place and they have now become part of our work methods. However, certainly as the next step, we would like to move on to practical solutions and exchanges of information, rather that complicate matters or make the statistical part of our work more complex. It would be better to focus on achieving results.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: For now, nothing happens when applications are used and results achieved. Information is not exchanged so as to give other organizations an opportunity to use the same formula that you did. This just isn't happening.

    Ms. Shirley Boucher: Employers hold informal discussions. We have many associations and we meet with banks and so forth.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: You have informal discussions, but not...

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: I'm not much of an expert on information technology, but we have all kinds of Internet sites. Why not have a site highlighting all of the successes in the area of employment equity? People could consult the site, see what catches their interest, for example, point 3.1, and then try it out.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: We're not reinventing the wheel.

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: Precisely.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you.

    That's all, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Thank you.

    Ms. Neville.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

    First, let me apologize for coming in late. I am sorry, but I had a previous commitment.

    In another life I was quite involved with the banks in Manitoba in establishing entry level programs for targeted groups, aboriginals, disabilities, persons of visible minorities, and I come from a community with a large aboriginal population. My first concern focuses on the retention and promotion strategies for aboriginal peoples in the banks, and disabilities as well. We heard much conversation about women, and I think a lot of progress is being made, but what progress is or is not being made with aboriginal communities in all their different manifestations? What are you doing?

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: I'd like to again frame it in terms of the business case, because I think that is still where we really find the meat of why we're doing this, not only why we want to engage in employment equity discussions, but why we must.

    I come from a small community in Saskatchewan with a very high aboriginal population. We can talk about availability, but there is also a real focus on the current reality in a population across Canada. A large group like a bank, with a population scattered across Canada, needs to have outreach and targeting opportunities and strategies that are specific to the climate. For example, if a particular outreach strategy is working very well in Toronto, we cannot assume that same strategy is going to work equally well in Saskatoon. There might be a strategic focus for looking at a population that has a top talent pool with a higher representation of aboriginal people in Saskatoon, and maybe another one with a higher visible minority opportunity in Toronto. If we know staying in school, co-op programs, etc., work well for aboriginal intake programs in Saskatchewan, we can apply those kinds of programs in Saskatchewan to capture the available talent pool there, and still as adeptly and in a focused manner capture the top talent in the pool of available employees in Toronto with another strategy that is equally well targeted.

    However, there are some underlying realities we recognize have been looked at. Perhaps the best example, if I can draw on the experience we have had in our own bank, is an objective evaluation of our current workforce. In our first years of looking at our workforce from an employment equity perspective we had four task forces that looked at all the four different designated groups, identified stereotypes and myths, and then looked at our population, found the evidence that supported or rebutted those myths, and communicated the results to not only our employees, but also the communities in which we do business. This is putting aside stereotypes and showing the reality that these people from the designated groups are available, they are skilled, they have the opportunity to come to work, and we welcome them and have an equitable and supportive environment. This pulls together all those elements that are able to create this diverse workforce.

    We do have strategies that have already shown themselves to work with women and visible minorities, and I think, as we become more adept at applying them, we will see that these are not short-term strategies, they are longer-term strategies, that they do work, that they need constant upgrading and evaluation, that they aren't the same in 1991 as they are in 2001, because we have learned so much in that interim period, so that we can continue to apply a very focused and strategic way of developing this highly talented, diverse workforce. And it is kept through an engagement in this equitable and supportive workplace.

  (1215)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Would you like to respond to that, Madam Boucher?

    Ms. Shirley Boucher: We're not in the banking industry, but I can certainly comment. What we have found successful is really going out to the community. In the past we have had an aboriginal liaison officer, who was aboriginal herself, as well as a manager of aboriginal affairs, who was also aboriginal. What they found very effective was going out to the community, to the reserves, to make a presentation on what our employment is all about: here are some of the job opportunities, some of the expectations. Some of it is as basic as providing pre-interview training programs, so they can understand that when they come in and apply for Canada Post in a small northern community, there is a process that has to be followed with respect to interviews etc.

    So in addition to what we said about before about internship programs, I think that's what we find works, going out to the community.

  (1220)  

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

    I'm familiar with many of the recruitment strategies, and I'm certainly very familiar with many of the initiatives the banks have taken, particularly in regard to special programming, co-ops, internships, and the opportunities for employment. My real concern, though, is not just the entry level positions, it's the opportunity to move forward in the organization. I'm hearing that you're meeting with success with women's groups, with visible minorities, but that there is a lot of work yet to be done with first nations and aboriginal communities and those with disabilities. Is that a fair comment?

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: I think it's a fair comment that more progress needs to be made. I think we need whatever approaches were effective in other groups. What we're learning cannot just be transferred and applied, so we need to find new ways. For example, in our organization, in some areas, we have now instituted--and it seems to be helpful--peer group support. I'm not saying it would work anywhere, but it appears to be helpful, because the problem is not so much recruitment, it is retention. We all have HR functions that are intended to respond to cases of distress, or the ombudsman, and they do in general, but for example, it turned out that aboriginal people don't go there. Whatever makes them unhappy, they leave, and so the recruitment success ends up in a non-retention. We are now experimenting with this peer group, and that seems to be a better approach. I'm sure there are others, and we need to continue trying to find out what is more effective.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Ms. Guay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    There's no reason for you to be concerned, Mr. Johnston. Here at Parliament, you're in the majority. Women MPs account for only 20 per cent of elected parliamentarians. That's a fact. Efforts are being made to recruit women, but politics is not always an obvious choice of profession, particularly for young women. Politics and family life are not necessarily well suited, in my opinion.

    Having said this, Ms. Gendron, what percentage of your companies--because you represent a good many of them--have been audited for compliance with the act? Do you have that information?

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: I don't have the exact figures, given the number of member associations. Since we're a voluntary organization, we don't keep a data bank. The information I shared with you this morning was obtained from conversations I have had and for a variety of reasons, some associations chose not to respond to our inquiries. All I know is that if there are 410,000 employees in all and four of us--in fact, there are three here today--received an audit notice in November... Including Bell Canada, the four of us represent about 100,000 employees.

    When my colleague from the Truckers' Alliance informed me that 70 out of 110 companies had received audit notices, obviously it's because they deal with a certain number of very small firms.

    Ms. Monique Guay: However, very small firms are not affected by the act.

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: I'm talking about companies with 100 or more employees. The companies I mentioned are those likely to get audited.

    Therefore, I can't tell you exactly how many companies are affected. I can tell you, however, that 100,000 have not been audited yet, including a number belonging to the Truckers' Alliance. We know that a number of companies have yet to be audited.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Monique Guay: I see. And what of the banks?

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: All of the banks have already been...

    Ms. Monique Guay: Fine.

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: The process is under way. Some have already been audited, while others are being audited as we speak. However, all of them will be...

    Ms. Monique Guay: After all, the legislation was enacted six years ago. It's surprising that more progress hasn't been made on the audit front.

    Someone made a suggestion that I found amusing, and valid at the same time. It was suggested that an independent commission be struck to oversee the application of the act and to report every year to Parliament on the progress made. This would assist us in reviewing the act, since we are required to carry out a review every five or ten years, and the legislation has already been in place for six years. The process has been very laborious and we have yet to gauge whether or not the legislation is truly effective.

    I would appreciate your comments on this matter.

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: I believe that... isn't this the second time...?

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: It's the second review.

    Ms. Elisabetta Bigsby: Then this is the second review and it promises to take just as long to complete. As for appointing a commissioner, based on what you decide to do at the conclusion of these hearings, it could always be useful to have an impartial, third party involved in the process.

    Ms. Monique Guay: In my view, it's important to know how interest groups feel about this suggestion. We have learned to work with the different organizations that deal with such questions. As far as institutions are concerned, there seems to be less confusion that there once was. This might be of greater benefit to interest groups who wonder who they should be speaking to and who deal with many different players. We haven't had time to give the matter much thought, although we have taken note of the suggestion.

    Radio-Canada did agree to a so-called voluntary review well before the 1995 legislation providing for the audit process was enacted.

    As I indicated earlier, is the process so drawn out because the institution charged with conducting the review lacks the necessary resources or experience? I believe many different opinions have been expressed on the subject.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Clearly, resources are a problem. We've heard this mentioned throughout the course of our hearings. Some changes are in order.

    However, a commissioner could play a neutral role. He could say when something doesn't make any sense or when something is impossible to do, for whatever reason. Basically, his role would be to facilitate the application of the legislation. This suggestion was made to us on Tuesday and I think it has some merit, although how the proposal could be implemented remains to be seen.

    Thank you very much for your input.

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Mr. Johnston.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Some of the witnesses who have appeared before this committee in the past suggested too much time and money is used on the audit process and that sort of thing. What are your feelings on that, both groups?

    The other thing I was wondering about is, since nobody is required to hire anybody who's not qualified, what responsibility does the federal government have in helping these people gain the skills they need in order for you to employ them?

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: I'd like to answer your second question first, because this is something we have already engaged in very dramatically. We have found that it is very much in our own interest to have an association with educational institutions through partnering in job fairs or these kinds of recruitment activities, and also in sponsorships, commitment of time, etc. We want to understand that this grooming and choosing of financial services as a profession or career direction starts early. That kind of skill building assistance we can provide early on to help recruit talented people, whether they are from the four designated groups or not. What we really want to do is secure access to that top talent.

    If the federal government could have a role in helping to promote the skills and the capabilities of young people coming out of school, out of secondary or post-secondary institutions, so they are ready to be engaged in our workforce, we would greatly appreciate that. That would be in line with all the efforts we are making on our own.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: What kind of results are you getting for all your efforts? Are you getting results?

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: Yes, and this encompasses part of Madame Guay's conversation, as well. We are looking for people coming into our institutions at entry levels, men and women. We are finding more and more young men who are looking at banking as an opportunity at an entry level, as well as young women coming into banking at an entry level and seeing solid career progression capabilities through the ranks. This firmly applies to the four designated groups, as well. We do track promotions for everyone, as well as for the four designated groups.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Ms. Boucher.

    Ms. Shirley Boucher: Perhaps you could repeat your first question, but on the second, we would see a great role--I think we said that in our brief--for Human Resources Development Canada in public education and with respect to marketing and promoting employment equity. We see there is a greater role there. Again, we do not know. There may be a question also of resources that may be needed to assist employers more, to meet with employers, to bridge sometimes the gap between the designated groups and the employers when we're doing outreach, recruitment, skills building, etc.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: My first question had to do with whether the money, time, effort, personnel, everything that went into doing the audits was money well spent. What I'm hearing from you people, as employers, is that it's in your best interest to have a diversified workforce and to hire on merit and promote on performance. I'm hearing that you have great recruiting, educational, and mentorship programs, all the things you'd think would be absolutely in compliance with best business practices. I'm just wondering if you think the money that's spent by your employers, and by the government too, for that matter, on all this auditing is money well spent, or if it could be better spent somewhere else.

    Ms. Lesya Balych-Cooper: I'd go back to what I said earlier. I wouldn't want to make an uninformed analysis of that. The audits aren't over. We don't know what the results of those audits are going to be for our learning process. To make a recommendation to change something we haven't even seen a full cycle of is an uninformed decision, and I wouldn't want to go there.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Fair enough.

    Ms. Hélène Gendron: I just want to support that. When we've gone through at least one cycle or we've all been audited, we will see what kinds of lessons we have learned there. I'm sure there are things we can do better, more efficiently. So the second time around, if it comes back to the same thing, we can at least say we can do this better. Right now I think it would be premature to say whether we are spending too much time, too much money: la chance au coureur.

  (1235)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Ms. Davies, we're just finishing off here. Did you have another question?

    Ms. Libby Davies: No. If somebody else has another question, that's fine.

    The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carol Skelton): Okay.

    I want to thank everyone for appearing before our committee today. We really appreciate your being here. We appreciate your presentations. Safe journey home on the first official day of spring.

    I declare this meeting adjourned.