HUMA Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 11, 2002

1110

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

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons)

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo--Cowichan, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

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

1125

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Alan Tonks

William Corbett

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. William Corbett

1130

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. William Corbett

Mme Guay

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Corporate Services, House of Commons)

1135

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Luc Desroches

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Mr. Luc Desroches

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. William Corbett

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. William Corbett

1140

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons)

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Mr. William Corbett

1145

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Phillip H. McLarren (President, McLaren Consulting Group Inc.)

1150

1155

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Phillip McLarren

1200

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Phillip McLarren

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Phillip McLarren

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

1205

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Phillip McLarren

The Chair

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

1210

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Mr. Malhi

Mr. Phillip McLarren

Mr. Malhi

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Phillip McLarren

1215

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Phillip McLarren

The Chair

Lieutenant-Colonel Mary Romanow (Acting Director, Military Gender Integration and Employment Equity, Department of National Defence)

Lieutenant-Commander Elspeth Naismith (Director, Military Gender Integration and Employment Equity 3-5/ Staff Officer for Persons with Disabilities, Department of National Defence)

The Chair

LCol Mary Romanow

1220

1225

The Chair

Assistant Commissioner Jim Ewanovich (Chief Human Resources Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

1230

1235

The Chair

Mr. Dale Kinnear (Director, Labour Services, Canadian Police Association)

1240

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

1245

A/Commr Jim Ewanovich

Mr. Reed Elley

A/Commr Jim Ewanovich

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

LCol Mary Romanow

1250

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

LCol Mary Romanow

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

LCol Mary Romanow

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

LCol Mary Romanow

1255

Ms. Monique Guay

LCol Mary Romanow

Ms. Monique Guay

LCol Mary Romanow

Ms. Monique Guay

LCol Mary Romanow

Ms. Monique Guay

LCol Mary Romanow

1300

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

A/Commr Jim Ewanovich

Mr. Alan Tonks

LCol Mary Romanow

Mr. Dale Kinnear

1305

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Dale Kinnear

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Jim Ewanovich

1310

Mr. Dale Kinnear

LCol Mary Romanow

1315

The Chair

Ms. Folco

1320

LCol Mary Romanow

Ms. Raymonde Folco

LCol Mary Romanow

Ms. Raymonde Folco

LCol Mary Romanow

Ms. Raymonde Folco

LCol Mary Romanow

The Chair

Mr. Dale Kinnear

1325

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 057

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 11, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the 57th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I apologize for the short delay, but I see we now have the required number of members, so we can proceed.

This morning, as we continue our review of the Employment Equity Act, we have with us some very distinguished guests. I would like to welcome William Corbett, who is our Clerk; Robert Walsh, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; and Luc Desroches, Director General, Corporate Services. Welcome, gentlemen.

I think you're well aware we generally allow our deputants about 10 to 15 minutes, followed by a healthy round of questions and answers. So, gentlemen, you may begin.

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

I have a short presentation. I will begin with that presentation right away and then would be happy to take questions at the end.

[Translation]

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to appear today. I have a short presentation that I would like to make to the Committee and then I would be prepared to answer questions.

[English]

It's a pleasure to be here today to speak to the committee about what the House administration has been doing in support of employment equity. The House administration fully supports a policy that was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy in 1992 on employment equity and is committed to ensuring that its objectives are met through our daily operations.

As a result of the changes that were made to the act in 1996, it is important that our employment equity-related initiatives reflect the revised standards of the act. As a national institution, we must strive to be representative of the diversity that exists among Canadians.

I'd like to share with the committee some of the progress that has been made over the last several years to integrate employment equity standards into our day-to-day operations.

[Translation]

As a standard practice on open competitions, we solicit applications through the Public Service Commission Website. We target organizations that represent the designated groups, such as the Active Alliance of Canadians with Disabilities, the Canadian Hearing Society, the Assembly of First Nations, and the Native Women's Association of Canada.

[English]

All competition documents are available in alternate formats, such as Braille, audio cassette, or large print. During the interviews and assessments, staffing advisers indicate to candidates that alternative methods are available for assessment purposes and ask about special accommodation needs.

We use the Public Service Commission's Personnel Psychology Centre for many of our pre-screening tests. They provide a variety of testing methods to accommodate special needs.

In awareness initiatives, we updated our “Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace” policy in 2001 and are in the process of conducting awareness sessions with all managers and employees. This aims to foster a workplace free of behaviours, comments, or material that could reasonably be perceived as offensive, humiliating, or demeaning to employees. This includes the prohibition of harassment on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, sex, disability, or other enumerated grounds of discrimination as found in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Translation]

We have a life threatening illnesses policy which strives to maintain a healthy work environment for all employees, where individuals with life threatening illnesses are not subject to discrimination or harassment.

Job accommodation: We accommodate new and existing employees who have special needs through various means: flexible work hours, modified job duties and/or work sites, modified transportation arrangements, work at home arrangements, special job aids/equipment.

Á (1115)

[English]

Information: Our question period is broadcast in sign language and real-time closed captioning. Audio versions of House proceedings are available to a person who is blind or visually impaired, and all parliamentary publications are on the parliamentary website and can be viewed in large print.

We're balancing work and personal life. A day care facility is available on site. We also offer flexible leave arrangements to assist employees in balancing their work and personal responsibilities. The occupational health, safety, and environment section of our human resources directorate offers regular training sessions to assist employees in balancing their work and personal responsibilities--for example, retirement planning, crisis management, and personal financial planning. The services of EAPlus have been retained to provide confidential assistance to employees and to their families.

On the maternity and parental leave allowance, a maternity allowance is available to eligible employees and consists of a payment equal to 93% of the weekly rate of pay during the first two-week waiting period and of up to 15 additional weeks of payment equal to 93% of an employee's weekly rate of pay less the amount received under the EI maternity benefits.

[Translation]

A parental allowance is available to eligible employees and consists of a payment equal to 93% of the weekly rate of pay during the first two weeks waiting period and up to 35 additional weeks' payments equal to 93% of the employee's weekly rate of pay, less the amount received under the EI parental benefits.

Physical access and transportation: All main entrances to our buildings are wheelchair accessible. Washrooms and food-services facilities have also been modified to accommodate individuals with special needs. All new design work takes into account the accessibility factor, as defined by Treasury Board guidelines for persons with disabilities. Our Visitors' Centre meets all applicable standards.

[English]

Designated parking spaces are available as well for persons with disabilities, and two buses are in operation that can transport individuals in wheelchairs or with other disabilities.

The buddies program: We have a cooperative venture with Ridgemont High School to train students with intellectual disabilities in skills and behaviours that will help them find work in the future. Each student is assigned a buddy or coach who volunteers their time to train the individual, and since the venture began in 1986, a total of 128 students and 143 House of Commons employees acting as buddies or coaches have participated in the program.

Madam Chairman, I'm proud of the work we've been doing, but there is more work that will have to be done in the future. There are a number of windows of opportunity on the horizon that will facilitate the further integration of employment equity principles and practices into our workplace. We recently conducted a detailed demographic analysis of our workforce, and currently 27% of the workforce is over 50 years of age; by the year 2005, if conditions remain unchanged, 43% of the workforce will be 50 years old and above. This will provide an opportunity to recruit new employees, including members of the four designated groups.

We are also in the process of updating our HR management practices and systems and will be looking at our recruitment, learning, succession planning, and performance management practices to see whether there are any barriers that exist that need to be addressed.

We're also updating our policy framework, and the staffing and the employment equity policies are a priority.

[Translation]

We have a long-term renovation plan in place whereby many of the Parliament buildings will be renovated to ensure that they continue to be safe, secure and meet the applicable standards for persons with special needs.

We will develop a proactive strategy to conduct a self-identification survey with all employees, highlighting the benefits of self-identification.

Á (1120)

[English]

Madam Chair, given the late start, I think I'll stop there rather than reiterating my point, so as to permit a greater number of questions from members of the committee.

Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Corbett.

Welcome, Mr. Elley. This is your first meeting with us. We look forward to many more. On behalf of the committee, I think you will enjoy it here. You have the honour of the first question. If you try to keep it to about three minutes, we'll have an opportunity for everyone to participate.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo--Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the introduction, and I am looking forward to working on this committee. It's good to see representatives from the House of Commons with us this morning. Welcome, and thank you for your submission.

I'm particularly interested in employment opportunities for disabled people. I have a little daughter who is physically challenged and is in a wheelchair. Of course, as a parent of a physically challenged child, I think about her future and her opportunities for employment. Certainly employment equity as it pertains to those who are physically and otherwise challenged in our society is very important to me.

As I have viewed the work of the House of Commons and the physical layout of the building, which of course has been with us for a number of years, I wonder sometimes how easy it is for people with those kinds of disabilities to work in the House. I don't see a lot of people roaming around in wheelchairs and that sort of thing.

When you do your hiring, are some of the physical limitations of the building a barrier to hiring someone who is well qualified and could do the job?

Mr. William Corbett: Indeed the age of the buildings and their heritage status over the years have made it somewhat difficult to guarantee the fullest possible level of access to all corners of the parliamentary campus. We work closely with Public Works to try to overcome as many of these difficulties as we can. I know for a fact that there are at least one or two of the committee rooms in this particular building where the access is extraordinarily difficult and convoluted. We've had to make special allowances.

Most of the buildings are accessible in large measure, but you're right indeed that not all of every corner of every building is accessible at this time. This will certainly be planned into the major 20-year renovation plan for all these buildings. When they are rebuilt, we will be able to meet the standards we cannot meet at this time.

Mr. Reed Elley: Is it fair then to say that at this point in time, a well-qualified individual who is in a wheelchair may be disqualified because of the physical building?

Mr. William Corbett: I would not go so far as to say that, no. We've had a number of employees of the House administration who have indeed been in wheelchairs and have had no difficulty having access to the building in which they work or to other buildings, and a capacity to move around the campus, the parliamentary precinct.

Mr. Reed Elley: In your estimation, this is only going to get better?

Mr. William Corbett: My estimation is that it will get better over time. But it is not an impediment at this time, and we do a great deal to accommodate where we can.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Elley.

Mr. Tonks.

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

Do you keep statistics with respect to the designated groups? In other words, we have been used to receiving an update on what the capacity is in a particular designated group within the employment environment, and then what percentage we're in actual fact achieving in terms of meeting a projected target, if you will. Do you keep those kinds of statistics?

Á (1125)

Mr. William Corbett: I have to be honest with you, Mr. Tonks; we do not have a reliable database of those sorts of statistics at this time. The House administration has made in the past two attempts at a self-identification survey. Both of those attempts came up with a result that was less than 25% of the employee population. This gives you no reliability whatsoever. I have to also say that subsequent attempts to do self-identification surveys have been to some extent overtaken by events.

We had, several years ago, an employee survey that went out that was contested by our unions. We were taken to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and were admonished by the Public Service Staff Relations Board for having done this survey. We had to set out on rebuilding a relationship with our unions. When we went to our unions with a proposal to sensitize the population to try to achieve a better level of return on the self-identification surveys, we were told by our unions to back off at this time. We had also other additional priorities, such as a major update to our harassment policy, that we were working on in consultation with our unions at that time.

Mr. Alan Tonks: It sounds to me that while the Commons and Parliament are not under the jurisdiction of the Employment Equity Act, you're attempting to meet the spirit and in fact similar provisions as advice. Is that a fair observation?

William Corbett: That is true, Mr. Tonks. We have a policy in place from the Board of Internal Economy with regard to employment equity that largely mirrors the requirements of the law. It does require some updating. It indeed is one of our policies that will be updated in the near future.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Guay.

[Translation]

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

Welcome. I am pleased to have you here as witnesses.

Many witnesses have told us we should preach by example, that the House of Commons should be covered by the Employment Equity Act.

Why is the House not covered? Would you agree that the government should preach by example and that the House of Commons employees should be protected by the Employment Equity Act?

Mr. William Corbett: That is a good question. I don't have any opinion on that, Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: I am not trying to make fun of you. I know you are trying to enforce the act even if the House is not covered. However, employees would feel reassured if they knew they were protected by the act.

Mr. William Corbett: Right now, we are not dealing with employment equity, but with parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege is Parliament's right to run its own affairs and to organize its relations between employees and the employer as it sees fit. That right is protected under the Constitution. The underlying principle is that the House is sovereign and must not be accountable to one of its creations, in this case the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Á (1130)

Ms. Monique Guay: That does not make any sense.

Mr. William Corbett: It is a constitutional principle, and not something I can support or not.

Ms. Monique Guay: It is a good thing you are explaining it to us.

Mr. William Corbett: That is why the Employment Equity Act does not apply to the House.

Ms. Monique Guay: It does not apply to the House, except that--

Mr. William Corbett: However, the Board of Internal Economy has always tried to implement similar policies that reflect the intention of the Employment Equity Act.

Ms. Monique Guay: Could you possibly send the committee, through our clerk, information on the percentages of women and aboriginals as well as on the salaries?

Mr. William Corbett: Unfortunately, as I explained to Mr. Tonks, we tried to carry out such a survey on two occasions, and the response rate from our employees was less than 25%.

Ms. Monique Guay: So we cannot have those figures.

Mr. William Corbett: Those figures are not in the human resources data bases. We tried a third time to heighten our employees awareness of the importance of a survey, and our union asked us to set that aside.

Ms. Monique Guay: Really? Even the unions told us those figures would be very useful to attract target groups in order to increase their numbers within the public service and elsewhere.

I have one last short question. Treasury Board had a resource centre for disabled persons that was closed March 31. I took steps to try to prevent its closure. Do you think that centre was useful? Have you ever used its services?

Mr. William Corbett: I am not aware of that service. Perhaps it was there for the public service. The House administration is completely separate from the entire public service machinery.

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Guay, just as an update, we had written to Madam Robillard and Mr. Serson, and the clerk has just informed me that Minister Robillard has indicated there will be a response by April 22 on that issue. So we'll look forward to that.

Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

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

In your brief, you talked about the buddies' program, that was set up in 1986. Can you tell us about the results of those initiatives to help disabled persons? Do you know whether those people had an easier time finding a position upon completion of the program?

I would also like to know whether there are programs for other target groups, such as aboriginals. If that program is successful, could it be applied to other groups? I think it is an interesting formula.

Mr. William Corbett: Thank you, Ms. St-Jacques. I will ask Luc Desroches from Corporate Services to answer those questions because I am not quite familiar with those details.

Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Corporate Services, House of Commons): Thank you, Madam Chair.

We do not have any statistics on the program we have with Ridgemont secondary school, here in Ottawa, or the number of people who found a position more easily.

However, I can say we have a number of reports of people who have been successful, who have managed to find positions. We have also heard from the principal and the teachers who work at that school. Once a year, the clerk has breakfast with those children, with the buddies and the teachers at Ridgemont school, and we have heard that the children have had an easier time getting placed. But we do not know what percentage or how many children from Ridgemont got a position because they had participated in the House of Commons program.

Á (1135)

As for your second question, no, there are no other programs for the other target groups.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Do you think other groups could benefit from this program and that it could be extended beyond the National Capital Region? Can it be easily applied elsewhere given the way you operate?

Mr. Luc Desroches: I do not know whether it could be easily applied elsewhere. I know it was tried with disabled persons. A long time ago, the Board of Internal Economy had given the House some resources with a view to enable us to attract and train candidates, to provide them with work experience. The program was not very successful.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: My question is about training. Does the House of Commons have training programs to help the target groups move up the ladder? Is anything being done systematically in that regard?

Mr. Luc Desroches: We have in-house programs and we also often retain the services of outside firms to help train employees. As our clerk said in his opening remarks, we plan to review our staffing and training policies, among others, to see whether there are systematic barriers hindering the people from those four target groups from getting jobs and moving ahead. Of course the entire question of mentoring and further training of our employees is always a priority at the House of Commons, and not only for those four groups.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

Thank you for appearing today.

I have a similar question to Madam Guay's, but I'll try to ask it in a slightly different way. First of all, I think it has to be said that if there's any wonder why people feel cynical about politics, this has to be probably the best example. Here we have a whole committee studying the Employment Equity Act, spending hours and hours and months and months doing it, and we ourselves are not part of it, whereas we actually have absolute control over what we do. We're presumably the masters and mistresses in our own House, literally, over there.

I realize you can't answer that question, Mr. Corbett, but let me put it this way. Suppose Parliament were covered by the Employment Equity Act. What would you see as the benefits? Or maybe there are some negatives, I don't know. But suppose we were covered. How would you see that in terms of what kind of workforce we might have? Do you see it as something that would be an enhancement of the workforce on Parliament Hill?

Mr. William Corbett: Through you, Madam Chair, to Ms. Davies, we're entering into a very complex field of endeavour here when we get into discussing parliamentary privilege, the application of laws to--

Ms. Libby Davies: I'm speaking hypothetically, then.

Mr. William Corbett: --Parliament, and the issues of whether or not this would apply simply to the administrative staff of the House of Commons, as to whether the House would decide to try to make this apply to members' staff, caucus research staff, etc., and what would be the implications for that on the functioning of the House of Commons and--

Ms. Libby Davies: Just to make it easier for a response, I believe that it should apply to everybody, including members. I don't know why we should be exempt. But for the purposes of this discussion, if the act were applied to the administration of the House, not to members and caucus research, what kinds of benefits would you see on that basis?

Mr. William Corbett: I can't say that it would be any different, given the fact that we have a policy of our Board of Internal Economy that largely reflects the requirements of the Employment Equity Act. It could result in the intervention of tribunals in the internal workings of the House of Commons such that it could make it difficult for the House administration to serve the House in an unimpeded fashion.

Á (1140)

Ms. Libby Davies: But we could end up with a more representative workforce.

Mr. William Corbett: I can actually turn this over to the law clerk, who might be able to give you a more detailed answer as to the legal implications.

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't propose a more detailed answer. Maybe I can offer a fairly simple one to respond to the concern of both Ms. Davies and Madame Guay and other committee members as well.

First of all, the obvious benefit of the Employment Equity Act applying is that just by the terms of the act you would have a more representative workforce and the institution as a whole would obviously represent the Canadian population. Persons who have disadvantages wouldn't feel less opportunity to work here than would others.

The overriding concern here, Madam Chair--and it's not just employment equity, it applies in other legislative regimes that are out there--is not in the principles or the objectives of the act; it's in the enforcement of the act. If there's a legal regime in place under a legislative scheme that allows for investigations, searches of workplaces, proceedings in front of tribunals, orders made by tribunals, enforcement of those orders, and so on and so on, what the House has to always be concerned about is how that process would impair the operations of the institution: the chamber, its committees, and the members of Parliament and their respective offices.

There's always this balancing between how the House can serve the objectives of this act, which the House does fully accept, as the clerk has indicated, yet at the same time do so in a way that preserves the operational independence and constitutional position of the House.

Ms. Libby Davies: I really hear what you're saying, but we can also create our own monsters and barriers and set them up so high that they seem insurmountable. My opinion of this place is I've never seen a place that has so many processes and things you have to go through, so it's not as if we're not used to that kind of environment.

I feel some disappointment that.... And this is really something within our committee; I'm not placing it on you. If we believe in those principles, then surely there must be a way we can find for them to work in this environment. I have no shadow of a doubt about that, and the benefits would be enormous. I don't know why we would preclude that from happening.

You're speaking here about having a workforce in a few years where almost 50% will be over 50. It seems to me that there are huge issues you are going to be dealing with.

The Chair: Unfortunately, one of the things I have to do is stick to the time, and you're well over your time.

Mr. McGuire.

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

On page 3 you say that you're doing good things, and it certainly seems to me that you're doing a lot of good things, especially when as I came out here this morning.... You don't really have to do good things, but you're responding to the spirit of the act and doing a very good job of implementing the intent of the act.

But on the same page you say that as a standard practice you solicit applications on open competitions on the Public Service Commission website. These days people outside the Ottawa region are getting more sensitive about the opportunities--or the lack of opportunities--for employment in the public service outside the Ottawa region. I was just wondering, do you have any policy of accepting applications from, say, Manitoba or Prince Edward Island, or do you limit yourself to hiring from the immediate area of the national capital region?

Mr. William Corbett: Firstly, I'd like to just state that we as the House administration and I as the head of the House administration are bound by the Board of Internal Economy's policy on employment equity. I don't feel we're in any way liberated from this dossier, no. We have a policy, and we believe in it and work toward its implementation. It may not be four square with the conditions currently in the act, but we're working on bringing it as close to the act as possible.

In response to your question, I have to say that when we get involved in large-scale competitions for employment with the House, we generally try to go national. In the last year and a half, we hired 16 new procedural clerks because we identified the demographic reality coming our way that the workforce was aging. That was done, with the assistance of the Public Service Commission, on a national basis. It was cross-country recruiting.

We have the page program, which on an annual basis recruits nationally. We get representation from virtually every province. I think occasionally one of the territories may come up short in a year, but generally we have representation of all provinces and some of the territories on an annual basis.

Where we might be falling short at this time would be in the one-off competitions where there's a position open and it has to be filled on a fairly quick basis. We perhaps are being more expedient in terms of hiring locally and filling the position as fast as we can.

Á (1145)

Mr. Joe McGuire: Out of those 16 procedural clerks, how many would have been outside of the national capital region?

Mr. William Corbett: I don't know that figure off the top of my head, but I can certainly get back to the committee on that, Madam Chair, and get that statistic for you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Unfortunately, it looks like our time has come to an end. I want to thank you, Mr. Corbett, Mr. Desroches, and Mr. Walsh. You certainly have given us a lot to think about.

To members of the committee, if I cut you off, I apologize. It's one of those tasks that I have to perform to keep things moving. We'll wait while these deputants leave and our next deputation arrives at the table.

A witness: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: While Mr. McLaren is taking his seat, I want to thank him for his patience. For the members of the committee, you know Mr. McLaren was scheduled to be here on Tuesday. In fact, he did arrive in Ottawa and was patiently waiting, only to find out that the business of the House had been suspended as a result of the passing of the Queen Mother. It was our national day of mourning and committees were not meeting.

Mr. McLaren, I particularly thank you for making the effort to come back to visit with us today. Without further ado, I will give you the floor.

Mr. Phillip H. McLarren (President, McLaren Consulting Group Inc.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

[Translation]

I would first like to say that it is a pleasure for us to have this opportunity to share our comments and ideas with you today.

[English]

McLarren Consulting Group is a human resources management consulting firm specializing in employment equity, human rights, and diversity consulting for large national employers. During the past year, we have done major employment equity compliance projects for some 21 companies. Of these, 12 companies are federally regulated, with an average size of 10,500 employees. The remaining nine are federal contractors, with an average size of 1,400 employees. MCGI and its predecessor company have provided similar services since 1986 to over 80 companies.

Our purpose today is to comment on practical aspects of executing the legislated employment equity program and the federal contractors program requirements in the private sector. My comments summarize our written submission, which I understand will be in your hands shortly.

Based on our experience, the Employment Equity Act has had a positive impact on employment and human resource management practices generally. Employers are more aware of the benefits of formalized management practices and are also better informed as to how to make these practices fair and just for all.

The most pressing need at present does not involve legislative reform. The need is to ensure that resources are sufficient to enable the administrators and enforcers to fully implement their leadership role through education and communication, a role for which they should be held accountable. The act is fine; the programs can be more effective.

The administration and enforcement of the programs inadvertently puts undue emphasis on numerical representation. The result is that many employees, and in fact other stakeholders, are more concerned with statistics than with the qualitative change essential for sustainable progress.

MCGI believes there are four questions that, if properly addressed, could significantly enhance the contribution of these programs to fulfilling the purpose of the act. The programs are too often viewed as simply numbers-driven compliance issues.

The first question is whether reporting requirements are too onerous.

The effect of the reporting requirement is to put too much emphasis on numbers and not enough on developing systems, procedures, and practices that will cause those numbers to change dramatically. Throughout the act preeminence of corrective action is emphasized, beginning with the purpose statement. It is time to balance numerical reporting with encouragement and direction on how to change practices to make employment equity effective.

We recommend amending section 18 of the act to provide for private sector employers to file reports every second year, rather than every year, at their option. Then a task force of stakeholders should be set up to determine how reporting could be changed to reduce its dominance. The whole issue of the reporting requirements is fraught with a lot of hidden issues and a lot of stakeholder considerations.

Secondly, how can the audit and review process be modified to enhance action and to de-emphasize numbers?

Perhaps the most essential element of the planning process is the employment systems review. It identifies what needs to change in order to remove barriers to designated group members and to enable employment equity to be realized. Employers are expected to know how to identify activities that are barriers causing under-representation and what interventions should apply. In fact, many employers are not clear as to what are possible systemic causes of under-representation, much less how to eliminate the causes.

We recommend the audit review process should incorporate as a guideline a list of interventions proven successful in enabling dramatic change and suggest respondents use the guideline to indicate those interventions that have been applied, other interventions attempted, and results achieved--both positive and negative--by each intervention.

Third, what is required to ensure employers are committed to meeting or exceeding their numerical goals?

The CHRC has adopted a minimum standard that says employers must set goals at least equal to census data availability percentages for designated groupings. This standard is impractical in many cases. Census data are quite appropriate as benchmarks, but not as standards--especially minimum standards.

Examples of this issue are included in our written presentation. When census data are treated as minimum standards rather than as benchmarks, employers are inclined to view them as maximum goals or quotas. Without the psychology of minimum standards, employers may be more inclined to set targets above the census data benchmarks, and more importantly, make realistic plans to achieve them.

We recommend the CHRC amend assessment chapter 7.1 in its document Framework for Compliance Audits under the Employment Equity Act to reflect the wording in the act with respect to goals. At the present time it sets the minimum standard as a requirement.

Á (1150)

The fourth question we address is why is the change in representation of people with disabilities so dismal? We make four observations in our submission, and two are of particular significance. First, those representing the interests of people with disabilities usually come from agencies where they have little opportunity to understand the cultures of private sector workplaces. As a result, there are often serious limitations in the ability of agency staff to anticipate and understand issues that will inhibit successful placement of constituents. Second, in our experience there is usually little or no reference in policies or procedures that would encourage managers to consciously process in their minds whether or not a person with a disability might be a valuable asset for a given job or assignment. Employing people with a disability is too often regarded as a societal obligation, not a business advantage. Managers must ask continually, how can a person with a disability do this job?

We make four recommendations in a written paper. I'm only going to mention one here, that HRDC enlist employers who would be willing to provide four-month work assignments designed for staff of agencies serving people with disabilities. This program would be designed to help interested parties to identify, understand, and appreciate skill requirements needed for specific jobs and to obtain practical knowledge of how corporate culture affects job performance. During the course of these work assignments, participants would be expected to communicate better understanding of integration issues facing their constituents. The objective would be to ensure more effective integration within the labour market of people with disabilities.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that typical employment practices, as opposed to policies, are based too much on comfort and fit. The Employment Equity Act emphasizes honest assessment of merit. Effective administration and enforcement of the act must continually demonstrate this fact. If the four questions raised in our paper are addressed with intelligence, the act will enhance fair and just employment practices to an even greater extent.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll now begin our round of questioning, and again we're going to try to stick to three minutes.

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. McLarren, for coming and sharing with us this morning the results of your consultation in this area.

I would like to ask you a question, particularly in terms of the auditing process. It's clear that many people who have appeared before the committee--and obviously in your own consultation--feel that this process takes up far too much time at the employer level and that the money that's spent in this area could be better used to help people, people who may be part of groups that fall under the Employment Equity Act, to really find jobs. Do you have any suggestions from your observations as to how we can reach that goal in terms of actually changing this situation at the ground level?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: I think the CHRC is doing an admirable job of auditing the process, with respect to the LEEP employers. But their process is seen by many employers as being a little too detailed, shall we say.

It would benefit the whole process greatly if the CHRC took more of a coaching role and a leadership role, as I said in my paper, with respect to education and the development of employment equity, rather than simply monitoring whether or not they're doing it correctly. There is an awful lot of time spent talking about how to do employment systems reviews correctly; how to do workforce analyses correctly. I think the CHRC could spend more time on coaching and development.

Â (1200)

Mr. Reed Elley: Perhaps what we're looking at here is a paradigm shift, where you would move from the audit role into a more proactive role, in terms of actual resources and helping people find employment. That would mean a real change in the department and the kind of people they send to the employer.

Mr. Phillip McLarren: That's correct. At the present time, that's ostensibly the role of HRDC. They are the administrators and are supposed to be providing the education function. They are doing the best they can with the resources they have available to them.

As you said, changing the direction of the audit process so it is more of a supportive function, as opposed to a criticism function, would be advantageous.

Mr. Elley Reed: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I thank you for being here, Mr. McLaren.

I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit. You were in the room when we had the discussion on the exemption we enjoy, under the Employment Equity Act, for our own employees. While you heard we are meeting the spirit of the employment equity legislation, we still aren't included under the employment act. Do you have an opinion you'd like to express on whether federal employees, in terms of the House of Commons, should be governed under the act?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: There's no question that the employee should be. The thing about employment equity is that if it's properly applied, it will cause employers, generally, to employ more efficient employment practices. It's all about fair and just employment. How do we make sure we're not recruiting from a narrow base of eligible candidates, but from a broad base? That means changing a mindset to say there are lots more people who can do this work than this narrow group we traditionally go after. Does that help?

Mr. Alan Tonks: Yes, it does help. I'm not going to ask a supplementary on what you feel the mindset is.

On the designated employees who, from your review, are falling short, why are aboriginal peoples and peoples with disabilities so far below the targets?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: There are two basic reasons. First of all, the issue of persons with disabilities is far more serious than the aboriginal issue. I don't want to minimize the aboriginal issue, but for people with disabilities, by and large, it's a mindset issue. We all think in terms of who is best qualified for the job, and automatically eliminate people who have disabilities. Managers need to ask how a person with a disability can do this job. It's a mindset shift.

In the work we do we never see, in the documented practices of companies, questions like “How can this job be made so people with disabilities can do it?” Those kinds of questions should be asked continually through the recruitment process, the selection process, the training process, the development process, and the promotion process. That's half the answer. The other half has to do with educating the people in the agencies who represent these people.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madame Chair.

Mr. McLarren, your presentation sheds a great deal of light on that matter. I am looking forward to seeing the documents. We will read your recommendations once they are translated into both official languages.

Mr. McLarren, you referred earlier to a report to be published every second year rather than annually. Right now, that report is being prepared every year. Isn't it dangerous to ask that it be changed to every two years? Don't we run the risk that businesses will be less inclined to enforce the act? I am wondering.

Â (1205)

Mr. Phillip McLarren: Some employers think that may be a problem. Employers are saying that because all the administration is clearly...

Ms. Monique Guay: It is too taxing.

Mr. Phillip McLarren: Yes, doing that every year, but for the others, for HRDC, I do not know whether it is a problem because they just need a normative database. it is possible to have a two-year normative database.

Ms. Monique Guay: Fine. So in your view, it would be easier and more efficient to do it every two years?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: It would probably be easier to do it every two years.

Ms. Monique Guay: You are entirely correct when you talk about the House employees. I would have run out to catch Mr. Corbett so that he could hear you earlier. He must be covered by the act; in fact, that will probably be one of the recommendations in our report, if we manage to all agree on that.

The Human Rights Commission has two roles: the first is to assess if the Act is being enforced, and the second is to receive complaints.

Mr. Phillip McLarren: There is a difference between the two.

Ms. Monique Guay: Yes, there is a difference between the two, but she has a lot on her shoulders. Some of our witnesses talked about the possibility of having a commissioner responsible for the enforcement of the Employment Equity Act.

I would like to have your opinion on that. Do you think it would be worthwhile appointing a commissioner responsible for the enforcement of the act, similar to the Environment Commissioner?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: Commissions must play two roles, one of which must be to handle complaints, which must be totally distinct from the monitoring the act.

Ms. Monique Guay: I am talking about a commissioner who would be truly responsible for ensuring that the act is applied, because the people who appeared before the committee, both businesses and unions, told us there were not enough resources. There is a resource problem. There are too many businesses that do not enforce the act, but it takes years to check whether they are doing their homework.

We were told it might useful to have a commissioner who would focus solely on that task.

Mr. Phillip McLarren: The same two things?

Ms. Monique Guay: No, I mean strictly the enforcement of the act. I am not talking about hearing complaints.

Mr. Phillip McLarren: It is difficult to answer that because...

Ms. Monique Guay: In any case, think about it, because we have heard witnesses mention that a number of times, namely the possibility of appointing a commissioner responsible for the enforcement of the Employment Equity Act, similar to the Environment Commissioner.

Mr. Phillip McLarren: Yes, I know, but I do not think it is necessary; it would be effective, but it is not necessary.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Malhi.

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

Are those companies you have been working for satisfied with the level of employment equity support from Human Resources Development Canada?

Â (1210)

Mr. Phillip McLarren: That's an interesting question, Mr. Malhi. Most companies don't have an opinion with respect to whether HRDC provides sufficient advice because they don't know what advice they should be getting. The result is that they go along doing what they think they're supposed to do, when in fact they do need help; they do need coaching; they do need more direction.

The HRDC has put out a series of guidelines that are supposed to help companies identify exactly what they're supposed to implement the various aspects of employment equity. Those guidelines have come under some criticism from employers. They don't see them as being particularly helpful in some respects. So there is certainly room for more help from HRDC, but it's got very limited resources.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: But do you have any suggestions on how it can improve this situation?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: It can improve things by providing more hands-on education. And I'm not talking about education in the form of setting up committees and task forces; I'm talking about HRDC's coming up with specific programs and making them available so it can have an impact on changing employment equity.

Take for instance the one I talked about, a specific four-month program in employers' workplaces for representatives of agencies for people with disabilities. This would be a huge development, because one of the biggest concerns that even the agency people I've talked to have is that they don't understand how workplaces really work, so they can't really help to identify how their constituents might do work in a given company.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Do you think the absence of a national system for recognizing the education and skills of immigrant workers is a problem in this country?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: Yes I do, definitely. Absolutely.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Do you have any suggestions on what we can do about this?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: Yes. There should be some kind of a program to recognize the skills learned and authenticated in other countries much more quickly than they currently are, especially for doctors, lawyers, and engineers.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Aside from these designated groups, do you think any others should be included in this employment equity initiative?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: No, I think not. We should increasingly look upon the designated groups as representative of fair and just employment practices. The whole area of counting people in the designated groups--how many are in this job or that job--should be more of a benchmark and an indicator, rather than something specifically at issue.

If my company is under-represented in three of the four designated groups, it probably means we are not accessing labour markets in an effective way in all respects, in terms of any group you'd care to mention.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: So what would that--

The Chair: Mr. Mahli, your time has expired.

Next is Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much, Ms. Chairperson.

And thank you very much for staying.

I wanted to pick up on something you said. I gather the general thrust of your remarks is that you would like to see more emphasis on the outcome rather than on the workforce analysis and data collection, which I think is very important because we have to have it as a base.

For example, you said about the employment systems review, which is I know a very important part of the process, that often companies or departments here don't really know what to do. They might know they have a problem but they don't really know how to go about fixing it. They don't know where those systemic barriers are.

So am I correct in thinking that you're suggesting we need to have a better system for actually providing guidelines or resources, the idea of best practices, so that various federally regulated companies or departments of the federal government could actually look at something and say okay, we can see what they did there, and maybe it's something we should look at? Is this what you're suggesting?

Mr. Phillip McLarren: I'll be a little more specific than that.

First of all, may I compliment you, because you're absolutely dead on. The employment systems review is the essence of what will make employment equity work, because it identifies our systems and practices that act as barriers. The reason people with disabilities don't get hired is because our systems and practices just won't allow it. The answer to your question, actually, is specifically identified on page 5 of our report, where we talk about the employment systems review. And yes, what we're saying is the Canadian Human Rights Commission has access to all the interventions that have worked and haven't worked. What I'm suggesting is they should set up as a guideline a list of the most successful interventions, and as part of the audit process ask companies which of these or other interventions they have tried, and with what degree of success.

Â (1215)

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chair: Do I have anything else on the other side?

Mr. McLarren, I thank you for your presentation today. I know members of the committee are anxiously awaiting a full translation of your brief. It's our responsibility, not yours. It will be sent to members of the committee as quickly as possible. Again, I thank you for your patience with us, and your perseverance in coming back to be with us today.

Mr. Phillip McLarren: It's an important process, and I'm very pleased to be part of it.

The Chair: Thank you.

To members of the committee, while we're waiting for the next deputations to arrive at the table, I'll just give you an overview of where we are with our deliberations.

Our last witnesses on employment equity will be on April 30. May 2 is the day we'll set aside for in-camera direction to researchers, so you can be thinking about that. We've set aside the week of May 7 to 9 for main estimates, so we'll be hearing from the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Labour, and the Secretary of State for Children and Youth. The following week, the week of May 13, is parliamentary break week. We're hoping to see a draft report of our committee on May 21, May 23--in that area--and we'll see what happens. Obviously there's a great deal of material to go through, and we're trying to give our researchers and writers as much time as possible. Those are the dates we're aiming for. It may be a day or two later. That's a sort of a general overview of where we are.

I would also remind members of the committee there's a light lunch at the back that you can pick up. We're not going to suspend; you'll just be munching along as our deputations are making their presentations.

I know we have at least some of the group that were expected at 12:30. I'm going to ask the representatives from the Department of National Defence to join the table. I think you'll find name tags. I think we also have someone from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with us. And the other group that will join us as soon as they come in the room are from the Canadian Police Association.

We're going to start our submissions in this round with members of the Department of National Defence. I'm going to remind our deputants that we have about five to six minutes for your presentation. We will then move to a presentation on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and then the Police Association, after which time we will open it up to questions.

I'm going to ask those who've joined us from the Department of National Defence to introduce themselves and begin with their presentation.

Lieutenant-Colonel Mary Romanow (Acting Director, Military Gender Integration and Employment Equity, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm Lieutenant-Colonel Mary Romanow. Currently, I'm the director for human rights, employment equity, and gender integration for the Canadian Forces.

Lieutenant-Commander Elspeth Naismith (Director, Military Gender Integration and Employment Equity 3-5/ Staff Officer for Persons with Disabilities, Department of National Defence): Good morning. My name is Lieutenant-Commander Elspeth Naismith. I'm the staff officer for persons with disabilities for the Canadian Forces, and I'm also currently the officer in charge of the Canadian Forces census.

The Chair: Thank you.

LCol Mary Romanow: We have about four minutes of remarks we'd like to make, as an opening statement.

First, the implications of the Employment Equity Act being applied to the Canadian Forces are all positive. For both altruistic and practical reasons, the activities and programs called up through the Employment Equity Act are important to the future viability of the Canadian Forces, and they carry the weight of law.

The Canadian Forces are a national institution. As such, they should be composed of a reasonable reflection of the general Canadian population, limited only by the bona fide occupational requirements necessary to maintain an operationally effective and efficient armed force.

On a more practical level, the activities and measures outlined in the Employment Equity Act can only serve to improve the viability and strength of the Canadian Forces. For example, through completing and maintaining the population profiles required by the Employment Equity Act, the Canadian Forces will have a better understanding of its demographic makeup. This, in turn, will help improve recruiting.

Canadian workforce and general population data will permit us to target potential recruitment areas that may not have seemed otherwise evident. In addition, employment barriers, real or perceived, that unrealistically limit the ability of some Canadians to join their armed forces, if they so choose, can be systematically identified and dealt with.

The concept of an employment equity plan is a valuable tool to not only ensure that action is taken in problem areas, but also to maximize the value and effect of diversity and equity education.

The Canadian Forces have been working on the implementation of employment equity practices for some time now. Unfortunately, promulgation of the Canadian Forces regulations has not moved as quickly as we had hoped. We sincerely hope the regulations can be law by summer.

I am certain you understand that I cannot review the proposed Canadian Forces employment equity regulations in detail with you because they are presently cabinet confidence. I will discuss, however, some of the considerations we looked at, in relation to employment equity and the Canadian Forces.

Part IV, section 41 of the Employment Equity Act allows for separate employment equity regulations to be made, to adapt the Employment Equity Act for the Canadian Forces. First we had to consider how to coordinate the requirements of the act with the structure, governance, and terminology of the Canadian Forces, as defined in the National Defence Act, which is our employment act. For example, terminology such as enrolled instead of hired, and released instead of terminated should be clearly defined to relate to the Employment Equity Act. Also, what for military members constituted full or part-time employment had to be considered for Employment Equity Act applicability.

Similarly, the occupational structures outlined in the schedules to the Employment Equity Act do not reflect the military occupation structure. Indeed, employment areas such as infantry, artillery, and air and maritime weapons trades are not found elsewhere in Canadian society. Therefore military occupational structures and groupings had to be examined to enable meaningful comparisons, in relation to representation of the employment equity designated groups.

As members of the Canadian Forces have neither defined employee representatives nor bargaining agents, empowerment to set up a meaningful consultative process, as required by the Employment Equity Act, had to be studied. Deliberations were held around a prescribed methodology for carrying out the workforce analysis and employment systems review, and creating reporting formats developed for the military population.

We also had to consider what, if any, special caveats or conditions might be needed, in relation to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces, as stated in article 41. Were there potentially unique requirements embodied in the concept of the Canadian Forces not already addressed in the Employment Equity Act? For example, would there be any impact in the conduct of compliance reviews on military national security, and if so, what measures could ensure that we were able to comply with the requirements of the act?

Â (1220)

Another area for consideration related to the Canadian Forces as a national organization. The Canadian Forces draws from all corners and regions of Canada, and sends their members across Canada and abroad to serve where they are needed, for the period of time necessary, and often practising skills unique to military service. Given this context, deliberation was needed to determine a meaningful comparator group to measure the Canadian Forces against in terms of employment equity.

Finally, the enrolment, retention, or promotion of any Canadian Forces member must be consistent with the Human Rights Act and with the liability to be able to perform any lawful duty as stated in the National Defence Act. We needed to consider how to include the concept that Canadian Forces members are soldiers, sailors, and air force personnel first and trades persons second in implementing employment equity.

In summary, the Canadian Forces sees no need to amend the Employment Equity Act itself to meet any special military requirements. In thinking about the context and content of potential Canadian Forces employment equity regulations, the primary goal was to ensure that they parallel, and where necessary amplify, the articles of the Employment Equity Act to reflect military terminology, organization, structure, and operational effectiveness.

The Canadian Forces have been working diligently through the lengthy preparation and approval process required to make the Employment Equity Act applicable to the armed forces. We are anxiously awaiting the availability of the results of our workforce analysis and the employment systems review to be better able to eliminate real or perceived employment barriers. An ongoing employment equity program and reporting procedures will give us valuable tools to better educate our membership and improve our representation.

A diverse military, more reflective of Canadian society, is essential to ensure that the Canadian Forces is not only upholding the law and doing what we honestly perceive to be the right thing, but also to ensure the future viability of an effective and efficient Canadian Forces.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll now hear from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Jim Ewanovich.

Assistant Commissioner Jim Ewanovich (Chief Human Resources Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you. Please accept the regrets of Commissioner Zaccardelli. He would have liked to be here, but he's in Europe at this particular time.

I am the chief human resources officer for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What I would like to do is take a few minutes to describe the RCMP coming under the act, along with some of the issues, challenges, and recent successes I believe we have had in respect of diversity.

The first thing I would like to say is that we, the senior management in the RCMP, are committed to an organization of excellence. To have an organization of excellence that is world-renowned, it is important to have a workforce of excellence. To us, that workforce is really a diverse workforce. Our members must be representative of the Canadians we serve across this land.

As background, the RCMP is administered under the RCMP Act, but since 1989 we have submitted annual employment equity reports on a voluntary basis to the Canadian Human Rights Commission concerning our representation of designated groups and our initiatives. In 1991 the RCMP, in preparation, participated in a review of employment equity within the justice system by means of a joint review. This joint review, going back ten years, started to provide the necessary guidance towards achieving representation in our membership and preparing us for mandatory compliance with the provisions of the new Employment Equity Act.

It is our intent, and certainly our commitment, to follow both the letter and the principles of the Employment Equity Act. The RCMP is now preparing its report to CHRC for 2000-2001. This will likely be our last voluntary report. However, we expect to be covered under the act from this year, and of course future reports will be submitted to Parliament through the board.

Furthermore, in preparation the RCMP has completed analysis of compliance under the act, a workforce review, a survey of the workforce, an analysis of the workforce, and an employment systems review. The Employment Equity Act will apply once the Order in Council is passed to that effect.

I'd like to mention, though, that most people are not aware that the RCMP has three categories of employees. We have regular members, uniform members, with civilian members hired under the act. We also have public service employees. Currently, employment equity for public service employees is governed under the Employment Equity Act and regulations. The necessary conditions for compliance under the act for public service employees are in place. We have approximately 4,000. An initiative is certainly under way right now to merge our two categories or two types of civilian employees.

With respect to our regular member component, at this time we have just over 15,000 RCMP regular members, of whom 15.9%, or 2,400, are women, 5.5% are aboriginal, and visible minorities represent 4.5%. We have a diversity management branch and programs in place.

What I would like to emphasize is that we have been very successful in recruiting to the RCMP in the last ten years. When I look at our recruitment and improvement over the last ten years, it indicates that. This past year, for example, we enrolled 586 cadets into our training centre in Regina, of whom 20% were female, 8% were aboriginal, 5% visible minorities. I'd like to mention that starting this Monday, we will have our first Inuit cadet troop entering Regina, with fifteen cadets this year, eleven for the following year, and we will be continuing thereafter.

It's not necessarily just in recruitment that we need to improve initiatives within the RCMP. It's really the issue of becoming a diverse organization.

Â (1230)

[Translation]

The RCMP was very successful with its recruitment and its strategy on recruitment diversity. Now it must become an organization to be used as a model of excellence in diversity.

[English]

An organizational culture where diversity is recognized is what we have to move to. We need a learning strategy that embraces diversity, and we are putting this into place. We have established a diversity strategy for the organization in which the policies and practices will be adapted to the realities of diversity. All communications will address diversity in terms of personnel management and human resource management. Our human resource management information system supports diversity at this particular time, and we have ongoing monitoring of our recruitment, selection, management, and career development of designated groups.

However, at this point the challenges facing us are in the area of diversifying our executive group. We will have staff turnover at the executive level of approximately 50% in the next five years. It will be an opportunity for us to become more diverse than we currently are in our management executive groups.

Another challenge for us is to look at the career management of designated persons so we can use our mobility opportunities to allow members from designated groups across this country to move to employment that suits both their needs and our needs as an organization. We need to put into place both mentoring and developmental programs to ensure that the atmosphere in the work environment is adequate and appropriate to all our workforce.

Our RCMP superannuation plan is being amended to look at our requirement for mobility. We need to make changes that allow the flexibility of people who want to move into or out of the organization. And of course work-life balance is a huge issue for the organization, especially after September 11.

We've had good news. I've mentioned Inuit recruiting. Under the “Embracing Change” initiatives, we've been able to establish in the east a public service temporary civilian employees program, currently with ten people in it. We call it our recruitment and career development program.

A cultural diversity committee has just been established in Alberta. It represents an integrated effort from five police forces of the lower mainland. This is a very important way for us to put into practice our belief in integrated policing. Our recruitment numbers are moving along in an appropriate direction; however, once again, some of our initiatives remain outstanding. We have a visible minority committee to the commissioner that provides advice and guidance, not just on policing, but also on our human resources policy. An aboriginal youth training program is in place, and of course we have our aboriginal policing program and recruitment programs in place.

One of our important initiatives will be a complete job analysis, looking at the competencies and skills we need in the RCMP to actively carry out our mandate of international, national, provincial, and municipal policing. Looking at those skills and abilities and adapting our positions to ensure that we're a diverse workforce is one of our first priorities.

Thank you.

Â (1235)

The Chair: Thank you.

We'd also like to welcome to the table a representative from the Canadian Police Association, Dale Kinnear--I apologize if I've pronounced your name incorrectly. We welcome you. You have between five and six minutes to make your presentation, which will be followed by a round of question and answers.

Mr. Dale Kinnear (Director, Labour Services, Canadian Police Association): Thank you very much, Madam Chair--and you've pronounced it correctly, thank you.

Madam Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to offer the Canadian Police Association's views on your review of the Employment Equity Act.

The Canadian Police Association is a national association representing 30,000 rank-and-file police personnel across Canada. The CPA consists of ten provincial and three federal police associations and federations, one of which represents members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Although this particular CPA affiliate does not represent all members of the RCMP, it is truly representative of the RCMP working environment. It includes officers assigned to national, federal, provincial, and municipal policing responsibility. They cover the gamut of realities of policing in Canada's national police force.

We appear today not to criticize the Employment Equity Act, but to appeal for the status quo. As it relates to the RCMP, we feel that the Employment Equity Act got it right the first time. We commend those who crafted this legislation for recognizing the unique realities of the RCMP and of the police occupation.

Although the act as it stands refers to goals, it had the foresight not to establish quotas. Some may consider quotas the optimum method for achieving equality in the workplace. This may be true; however, quotas and employers' efforts to comply in this type of application have a propensity to affect the quality of employees hired.

We must also commend the drafters of the legislation for enumerating the importance of qualifications when exercising the provisions of this legislation. Policing is an occupation that requires careful screening and hiring standards to ensure qualified and capable candidates wear the uniform and hold the office of constable. The status and authority bestowed on police officers by statute and common law to enforce a rule of law demands a very high standard for candidate selection.

Police officers have the ability to restrict basic charter rights. A police officer's authority to limit rights and freedoms by virtue of legislated powers of search, seizure, detention, and the use of physical and even deadly force, justifies the import placed on qualifications in achieving the objectives of this legislation. Furthermore, we feel that the status and authority of police officers and the responsibilities and mandate of the RCMP in Canada justify the special provision for regulations specific to the RCMP and the Department of National Defence in section 41.

Employment equity in the RCMP is the right thing to do, for all the reasons expressed in section 2 of the act. However, the committee must be mindful of the fact that policing is like no other occupation or profession affected by this legislation. We believe it is important that police services strive for a workforce that is as representative as possible of our population. There are, however, some inherent problems in accomplishing an exact match in every community or with the general population, and simply removing barriers or establishing goals won't rectify these issues.

While policing may appeal to some as a lifelong career, many within the act's designated group would never consider becoming a police officer, but might otherwise jump at the wages, benefits and security of any other sector of the government workforce. These inherent problems range from issues related to shift work or the perceived confrontational nature of police work held by some females, to a negative perception of the occupation among some visible minority groups that is often based on experiences and attitudes they bring with them from their native countries. These are difficult obstacles for any police service to overcome.

In appendix A of this report you will find a sector study report sponsored by Human Resources Development Canada. This sector-driven report,Strategic Human Resources Analysis of Public Policing in Canada, includes an analysis of employment equity in the public policing sector. The report recognizes that there is room for improvement and the sector must continue to overcome obstacles or barriers. However, this comprehensive analysis does not recommend quotas or other such measures to balance those numbers.

Â (1240)

The chapter in the report on “The Human Face of Policing in Canada”, at pages 37 to 55, provides an excellent overview of the employment profile of police services in Canada. The section “Characteristics of the Police Workforce”, at page 45, examines gender and minority status in public policing. The report makes recommendations to the sector on how to address these and other human resource issues.

In the report at page 25 you will find well-thought-out recommendations based on sound research and consultation with sector experts that speak to equality in employment issues. These recommendations, ranging from recruitment methods to retention practices, will help the sector achieve a more representative workforce to the extent possible. We think you will find that the report and recommendations are in tune with the goals and objectives of the federal Employment Equity Act and provide excellent, relevant, fact-based research material for the committee to consider in your review of this legislation.

Appendix B provides you with the demographics of public policing in Canada as of June 15, 2001, as reported by Statistics Canada in Police Resources in Canada, 2001. That was issued in February 2002. Part I of that report, pages eight to fourteen, addresses demographics with particular attention on women in policing. Statistics Canada reports, and I quote:

“While the number of male police officers increased 1.1% from 2000, the number of female officers increased by 8.4%, indicating that recruitment of women continues with positive results.”

This demonstrates that the sector is making an effort to recruit women in policing and that their efforts are attracting candidates who are truly interested in the occupation and do credit to their respective police services. We believe these positive efforts in recruitment by the RCMP and other police services will help to increase interest among women over time.

In closing, we ask that you not tinker with the act and establish quotas. We believe such measures would result in a lowering of hiring standards, which over time would reflect poorly on the designated groups and the occupation.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a great deal to consider, having heard three very interesting deputations.

I will now turn to questions from the members of the committee, and we'll start with Mr. Elley for three or four minutes on this round.

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the representatives from the Department of National Defence and police organizations in Canada for coming today and providing their input on a very important topic.

I would like to tell you the tale of two sons. Both are my children. One is a 31-year-old white male who is a paramedic in the province of British Columbia. He is looking at a career change because of some of the cutbacks in that province and is considering joining the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. My second son is aboriginal. He is 22. He is considering a career in native policing. Because of the requirements of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in terms of their hiring on the basis of a points system that also includes race as one of its criteria, my 31-year-old son will most likely not be accepted into the RCMP, but my 22-year-old son will most likely be accepted.

Can you tell me, sir, as a representative of the RCMP, why we should support a system that is based on race as the final criterion when both of my sons, from my perspective as a parent and a father, have all of the necessary qualifications to do the job?

Â (1245)

A/Commr Jim Ewanovich: First of all, I'd like to say that I'm pleased that they're both looking at the RCMP as a choice of employment, because it's a wonderful organization.

With regard to their qualifications as individuals, I can't comment on that, of course, because I haven't seen their applications.

In terms of our recruiting and hiring practices, I think you mentioned that race was the final point of selection. It's not. It's certainly not the final point. We do base our selection on a wide variety of criteria, including testing and physical abilities. Quite frankly, I don't know what their chances are of getting into the force right now. We have about 11,000 applications.

Mr. Reed Elley: I'm glad to hear that in the selection process race would not be considered as the determining factor. However, is it not clear that under your point system in the RCMP my aboriginal son will score higher?

A/Commr Jim Ewanovich: Yes. I think it's important to understand that if we are to police Canadians and be representative of the citizens we serve, we have to put the programs and practices in place to ensure that we are representative. For instance, historically, we would transfer our cadets from Regina across the nation. Now, in order to be able to meet our policing needs and our obligations in terms of reflecting communities, we are sending more and more cadets back to their home provinces and territories, where they know and understand the situation in the communities they'll be policing. So, in effect, it's both a decision in terms of business--it's good police business--and it's important in terms of our organization being representative.

Mr. Reed Elley: I would just make one concluding final statement, Madam Chair, and that is that I'm concerned about a system that at the end of the day may be replacing equality with equity.

That's all I'll say.

The Chair: Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Madame Chair.

I'm sorry I missed the beginning of Ms. Romanow's presentation.

My question is about women working for the Department of National Defence. We have heard horror stories about harassment, but we have also heard that there is a huge recruitment problem. I know efforts have been made in that regard and I was wondering whether the results had been positive. Have you succeeded in hiring more women? What steps have you taken to solve the harassment problem within the Canadian Armed Forces and have those measures been effective?

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: First of all, on the recruitment of women, basically, we take the people who come to our recruiting centre door and test them to meet basic enrollment standards. We don't care if they're male, female, aboriginal, whatever. We do get a fairly large number of women at the recruiting centre door. With regard to women, our problems are more with retention than with recruiting. It's not necessarily the military way of life or the military career aspects; it's more where women want to be at certain times in their lives.

The military is a career. It has been a birth-to-death career, with no breaks allowed, type of concept. We are now very close to putting in place rules, regulations, and terms of service that will allow breaks, that will allow people to move quite freely between the regular and reserve force, for example. Maternity and parenting leave is equal to the federal government right now--about a year--and all of these things encourage women to have a career and a family life as well. And women, for some reason--I know, I'm a wife and mother myself--tend to be a little more attached to their families and protective when it's time to go than men generally are. We're trying to adapt to that, and hopefully we will greatly improve our retention of women.

Â (1250)

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Was there any progress after the implementation of the anti-harassment measures?

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: I think so. I think the cases you hear about are unfortunate. I'm not saying harassment doesn't still exist, because I also get human rights complaints, and I review all harassment grievances and things. I think if you ask me or any member of the forces, male or female, over the last five to seven years we've had tremendous turnaround, simply in terms of awareness of what offends people.

We published, in December 1999, a brand-new harassment policy, actually based on Treasury Board guidelines, because it's for military and civilian staff within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. It's very leading edge and a total turnaround of our previous concept of harassment policy. Before it was “find the harasser and punish”. Our new program goes very, very much toward prevention and resolution. In fact, it's called our prevention and resolution program.

When harassment first became a topic of education and there was more and more awareness back in the early 1990s, we ran a program called the harassment awareness program. In fact, every member of the Canadian Forces had to take a one-day harassment awareness session. That was the start of a real turnaround. If you look at a lot of the complaints that I handle and that you're aware of, they pre-date 1997-98, and we're already seeing the results of our new policy, which came into effect in 1999.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I don't know whether the situation has improved, but we had heard that the women who were victims of harassment were afraid of disclosing those problems. Has the program you mentioned made things easier?

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: It's a function--unfortunately, because it's not necessarily true--of military life that some people perceive admitting a weakness as not being fit. Certainly in military leadership we don't teach that to our leaders and we don't encourage that concept, but a junior private, shaking in his boots, hoping to have a military career, sometimes feels that way.

In order to address the concerns of some of these people who didn't feel comfortable going through the chain of command, or in fact if the chain of command was the harassment chain, we've put in place several programs and organizations so that people have side complaint mechanisms and mechanisms that will not affect their career. In fact, for example, on the human rights side of the house, in the cases that I deal with, very often a boss or a chain of command doesn't even know if an individual has a human rights complaint in, because only my office handles them.

Similarly, we have the ombudsman's office, and we also have a 24-hour 1-800 number and little cards that I know most people have in their office or carry in their wallets, because I've seen them. It is a help line, a crisis line, a prevention line. People can call that line at any time, whatever their mood, to get help, guidance, and direction on where they should go next, without the personal fear that they may be jeopardizing the actual performance of their on-job and military duties.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madame Chair. Welcome everyone. Ms. Romanow, I am very pleased we have invited a female colonel to our committee. I am pleased to welcome you here. I hope there will be more in the future.

We know that in the armed forces, there are more men holding positions as colonel or other high ranks. Women are slowly being integrated, but men still dominate the upper-ranks in the hierarchy. Am I correct?

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: On a percentage basis, I don't have the exact facts, primarily because we're just completing a Canadian Forces census right now--which fortunately is a lot more accurate than some of our nominal rolls, so we'll have an exact idea of representation. But yes, they're a relative representation at senior ranks, at the colonel and brigadier-general ranks, which we consider our executive ranks.

Â (1255)

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Do the Canadian Armed Forces offer training programs to women who want to have more senior positions in the Canadian army?

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: I should point out that they're not unrepresented at that rank level, because we do have a female general and several female full colonels.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: We don't doubt that.

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: The armed forces training program, in general, tries to treat everyone equally, in that it doesn't single out women, but there are certain special programs in effect. For example, at our staff college, which is the first major training for anyone going on to the senior officer ranks, majors--

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Is it open to everyone?

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: It's open to everyone, but we have a certain number of additional seats, based on a percentage of the class size, dedicated to women other than those who would normally get there through their own career management. So we have extra women there to help those who are just under the line--the bridesmaids, as we say.

In addition, we have a mentoring program coming into effect, particularly for officers and senior ranks, that will help women understand the “old boys net”, if I can use that term. But it's also an “old girls net”. It's simply a matter of knowledge and experience.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Women do not have to adopt the same attitudes as men. They can remain women even if they are in jobs that are traditionally not held by women. Moreover, in Quebec, we are doing a lot to promote non-traditional jobs for women precisely because we believe that there is a place for them there.

Earlier, you said that life in the army was a career. You are right, but if a woman elects to pursue a career in the army, does that mean that she has to renounce her role as a woman and refrain from having children? You said that some adjustments are being made. I hope that significant adjustments are being made. Can women who decide to start a family or to continue living life as a real family, a normal life, advance in the army? Does that really keep them back? Perhaps you may not want to answer my question, but it is important that we know the answer.

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: I don't think it is today. Again, speaking personally, I have two daughters who are 18 and 21 now, so I've had children and a military career for a while. I've been married to a military member who recently retired, but he had the same demands made on him that I did. I honestly don't think it's an obstacle to a woman's career or her advancement, and it's fully recognized.

The only contract that members of the armed forces sign is called the unlimited liability contract. Basically, in signing we agree to do what our country asks us to, although within that envelope we make a lot of accommodations for personal circumstances and look at each member of the armed forces, including women, as individuals. We base our decisions on their individual cases, and give them a lot of choices and chances, in terms of looking after things.

As a short addition to that, when I said there were changes coming and it was a lifelong involvement, that's to the present. If you wanted a regular force military career and you wanted to leave to look after children, take a mental health break, or whatever, it was a break in service and affected various benefits and awards.

We're now moving to put in place a system whereby you can take breaks and move between the various components of the armed forces. You can get out and then re-enroll where you left off, instead of having to start your training over again, or whatever.

· (1300)

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: This is very important. For women, at any rate, this is a priority.

Madame Chair, may I ask one final question?

[English]

The Chair: You're going to get a second round.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm a little distressed--if I can use that word--that my colleague isn't here. I want to pursue where he left off, in terms of his statement that he has a fear that we are replacing equality with equity.

My question is in search of a philosophical bridge between policy and practice, and I think it's equally applicable to policing, generally, and to our military. Are our forces and their capacity to carry out a broad spectrum of undertakings enhanced by having aboriginal people or persons with disabilities or whatever? Is our capability enhanced by having those people represented in our forces? Maybe from a policing perspective first and then from a military perspective....

A/Commr Jim Ewanovich: Absolutely. Given the diversity of our population and the nature of the people in Canada, it is an important attribute to know and understand the cultures, languages, and situations people are living in, to provide policing services in communities across this country.

For instance, I mentioned we were bringing in a troop of Inuit cadets. In Nunavut, we require people to speak Inuktitut to deliver policing services to the citizens of the north. We need aboriginal persons to be police officers, to deliver those services among our aboriginal persons in Canada.

It's the same with different cities--the cultures and differences. It diversely enriches us as a police force. It allows us to have the skills, knowledge, and capacity to deal with the situations, not just on the local level, but on national and international levels. So I believe it's absolutely essential.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay, and from a military perspective...?

LCol Mary Romanow: I would like to echo everything that was said by the RCMP. Also, if you look at the demographics, if we want to recruit from the brightest and best it's essential, because the white male population is in decline. So there's a physical imperative, as well. There's no question we feel very strongly that as a national representative institution, and the only national armed force, we should be representative of Canadian society and the Canadian people.

In a lot of our activities, both in Canada and internationally, we interact with various ethnic groups, women, and cultural groups. If the understanding is there, we can be better peacekeepers and soldiers. We can better serve not only Canadians, but those other people we're called on to serve in a military way.

Mr. Dale Kinnear: If I could, Madam Chair, I would like to echo the comments of Mr. Ewanovich with regard to the importance of that for not only the RCMP but policing across the country. I think it's of particular import to the RCMP, given the number of first nations areas and territories they police in this country. I think it's important for all police services.

I base that on my own experience as a member of the Ontario Provincial Police in northwest Ontario with a particularly large reserve in a lovely little community by the name of Pickle Lake, about 200 miles north of Thunder Bay, where one had to go south to get a Christmas tree. I saw a lot of members come up there who were born and raised in downtown Toronto, or other parts of the province, white males who had no experience with first nations people.

I was born and raised in the Cornwall area. I was involved throughout school with people from the Akwesasne territory. Although it's the Crees versus Mohawks, it gives you a little bit of an understanding of the difference in the cultures, if you will. There is a difference. I would say if there has probably been a difficulty with Canadians and the first nations population, it's not recognizing those cultural differences, those value differences.

I think it's very important that those people in those communities see their own people in that police uniform so that they understand and they recognize that the justice system can and will treat them fairly--it's not just handed out by white males. If they see people of their own culture and of their own designated group in those uniforms, I think it helps them to better understand the justice system and how it works and why it's interacting with them the way it does.

I think it's very important that we make those efforts to try to achieve this goal, as I mentioned in my opening statement, to the degree that we can. I don't think we can get to any magic numbers that are going to give us that 50-50 balance, but I think it's very important to have these goals in place and strive for organizations to try to accomplish it to the degree they can.

The Chair: Madam Guay.

· (1305)

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Why not 50-50, Mr. Kinnear? We represent 50 per cent of the population and I don't see why it would be impossible to eventually reach this objective.

[English]

Mr. Dale Kinnear: I think we may have some of the answers to that right here. You represent one of these designated groups. When you were pursuing employment, did you ever consider employment in your local police, the RCMP, or the Sûreté du Québec?

As I mentioned in my opening statements, it's an occupation that does not appeal to some of these designated groups as their first choice for an occupation, and this may be, for instance, because it involves working shift work and how that relates perhaps to the child care issues. I know a lot of the female members I've worked with, after a number of years, ten to fifteen years, have decided that for reasons like this, child care or elder care, this is not the occupation and have moved on to something else.

Over the course of my 25 years as a police officer I have had conversations with lots of females who I thought would be excellent police officers. They are just not interested in it as an occupation. Whether that's a case of getting to these people in the public schools and in the high schools and trying to make them more aware of that.... It is not an occupation that appeals to everyone. I think there's a relatively high proportion of the female population, based on my own experiences, who just aren't interested.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I have seen a great deal of progress in the policing sector. Here, on Parliament Hill, in the RCMP, there are a lot of women and their number is increasing. There are even more and more women who are in the local police force. I can tell you that 50 per cent of the police officers in my town's municipal police force are women. I find that women are becoming more and more interested in the so-called non-traditional jobs.

Madame Chair, I have one last question. We have not spent very much time talking about aboriginal people, visible minorities and people with disabilities. Do you have specific programs for these people? I know that this is not necessarily an easy thing to do in the army or in the police, and I'm not talking about quotas because I am against that. I find that quotas penalize people rather than help them. We often end up penalizing the groups we are targeting. Are there any programs for these specific groups, including people with disabilities? I know that this is not an easy thing to do in the army. You have to be logical. You would not ask a blind person to fly a plane. That is obvious.

So, are there any specific programs for integrating people with disabilities in each of your areas?

Mr. Jim Ewanovich: It is difficult to recruit people with disabilities in the police force because recruits must have to have the physical ability required to do the job. Nevertheless, we do have programs for recruiting and training people with disabilities in the civilian sector where 4.7 per cent have a disability.

Ms. Monique Guay: That is good.

· (1310)

[English]

Mr. Dale Kinnear: Yes, I think there are programs out there to try to raise awareness among them. I'm speaking now of native communities and some of the other designated groups that are mentioned. I know in the city of Toronto, whether it be an outreach in the Chinese community or a very multicultural area, that city is probably one of the most diverse in the world, I think, if not in North America, and you try to make your inroads where you can.

I think one of the things that helps out the most is when you have qualified candidates in that uniform, and people from those groups, whether it be females, first nations, or ethnic groups, see people from their own group in that uniform, see them excel at that job and do credit to the uniform and to their particular cultural group. I think that is the way to approach it. You have to continue to raise the awareness of it, and I think that is having an effect in the RCMP, and in other police services across the country, although they're not touched by this act. I think it speaks to probably the preferred method of trying to accomplish that.

I think you'll see from the Juristat document and from the HRDC document that it's starting to build, it's building slowly. I think what you're going to see in some of the ethnic and cultural groups is probably the second and third generation may be more inclined to take it up as an occupation than some of the first generation. Obviously with some of the first generation people who may be old enough and maybe qualified enough, there may be some language barriers, but over time, if we don't hit the panic button here and try to establish through quotas.... If you lower those standards and you get people in that occupation wearing that uniform interacting with their own community and doing a bad job of it, a poor job of it, that just compounds the problem in terms of how these people view their local constabulary.

LCol Mary Romanow: We actually do surveys in the armed forces among the general populace, using Environics, the professional public opinion poll-taker, about every three years. One was conducted in 1997, and one in 2000 was the latest. We found that 5% of aboriginal persons, 13% of visible minorities, 20% of women, and 62% of non-designated group members responded yes to the question, “Would you be interested in joining the armed forces in the next year or so?” So we actually surveyed the general population. It's done by our recruiters. We use this as a recruiting mechanism.

We also have two particular aboriginal entry programs, because we found, by and large, that it's a culturalization problem with the aboriginals. It's a huge change for them to leave their homes or their family environment and come into the armed forces. So we have the Tommy Prince program, and also the Canadian Forces aboriginal entry plan, where we don't put aboriginals directly into basic training, but give them weeks and even months of culturalization and a decision period to see if they really want to join the armed forces.

Next we have designated desks within my organization where we target populations such as visible minorities, different types of visible minorities, and aboriginals. We have a program with the black community, for example, in the Maritimes. We do a lot of liaison, trying to show them that the face of the armed forces is not necessarily what they perceive a military to be from the fiction, perhaps, in the movies. Also, in a lot of the visible minority communities, the recent immigrants have a bad taste for police and militaries because of the way their countries' police and military perhaps treated them, and there's also a public relations program to show the true face of the Canadian Forces as a friendly and honourable occupation in a democratic country.

· (1315)

The Chair: Madam Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My comments pertain primarily to the two individuals representing the Canadian Armed Forces. I must tell you that I had a wonderful experience last year. The Minister of National Defence invited me to be part of the Canadian army, part of the 22nd Regiment in Bosnia-Herzegovina, providing that, before I went there, I would spend one week at Valcartier in order to do basic training with the soldiers. There were two major differences between the soldiers and myself, the first one being that they were men and I was a woman, and the second which was even greater, is that they were a lot younger than I was. However, this proved to be a very rewarding experience. I learned a great deal about the matter we are examining today.

The first thing that I learned was that working in the army was very physically demanding. I carried weapons, I marched, I spent time in tents, and so on, and I saw how difficult it was for men and how much more difficult it was for a young woman. I don't think that I am sexist, but I must say that, generally speaking, women do not have the same physical strength as men. I saw young women who were working very, very hard. Given the type of person I am and my interests, I took the opportunity to talk to the young women who were there and who were members of the army. They all told me that they loved being in the army, but that it was very hard. However, it was also clear that many of the women did not intend to remain in the army for a very long time, precisely because the life was very hard. However, they all really liked it.

The observations that I made were naturally limited by the duration of my stay in the army. I noted the respect that the men in the army had for their women colleagues, but I also noticed the flip side of the coin, namely, that there were networks among the men. Moreover, we see that here in Ottawa, on the Hill, right? The men tend to form groups amongst themselves and tell each other stories that are more or less dirty in nature, rather more than less, which somewhat intimidates the women, isolating them and pushing them to form groups amongst themselves as well. We do see that an effort is being made, however. I have noticed that the army has made a considerable effort. The situation is not ideal, but we are heading in the right direction and I am very optimistic.

Later on, when I went to Bosnia-Herzegovina, before Christmas of last year, I talked at great length about the role of women. In particular, I asked a lot of questions and I noticed that the officers were making an effort. We were right in the field. I noticed that the Canadian officers, in certain circumstances, tried not to assign work to women which would have been difficult to do, not intellectually but physically.

I raised the matter with the colonel there, and he explained that it was quite normal for them to try to make things easier for the female soldiers, but at the same time, that created problems for them. When a certain number of positions are posted for women, there may be not enough men for those assignments where the work is a lot more physically demanding.

I don't really have any questions, but if you would like to respond to my comments, I would be pleased to hear what you have to say. I understand why the army—and I would imagine that the police forces are dealing with more or less the same thing—are finding so difficult to recruit women, on the one hand, and, on the other, why the army is having such a difficult time retaining women for very long, even though we have before us women who have remained there for a very long time. I think that you are the exception rather than the rule. I must say that I really appreciated the conversations that I had with the women, conversations that were very free and open. No one was around and they were able to say what they wanted to say. I simply wanted to make this comment and to thank you.

· (1320)

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: First of all, I think the long time is part of the problem, for men and women, because I know even my own children are being educated that they can expect to change jobs frequently to have a career in the modern world. So I think that might be a little bit daunting to young men and women walking into a recruiting centre and looking at potentially the next 30 years of their lives. I mean, we've done extensive psychological studies that show that people really can't plan beyond five.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: [Editor's Note: inaudible].

[English]

LCol Mary Romanow: That's true.

The other thing I'd like to say is that Colonel Labah's reaction was certainly not...I hope it was non-standard and not policy, not our normal practice.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I didn't mention any names. I'm not saying the name you just mentioned is the correct one, either.

LCol Mary Romanow: Oh, you meant “over there”--là-bas?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm not mentioning any names.

LCol Mary Romanow: Okay.

We have certain enrolment standards, and part of these enrolment standards are physical tests and medical fitness. These are gender neutral in their basis, and they're also generically based. They replicate basic military tasks. One example--and we actually validate these tests through the real tasks--is to load x number of gas cans or jerry cans on the back of a truck within a certain period of time. Men may pick them up with their hands, and women may give them a boost with their knee or their hip, but the important thing is getting them on the truck. If someone completes that test or an equivalent test of that type of strength to accomplish a task, we'll take them in the armed forces.

Going back to a previous question, men and women also have different leadership and operating styles, but eventually accomplish an end. It is hoped that people in the armed forces will be treated equally, in that they'll be given a mission or a task and allowed to accomplish it in a safe and effective manner. I think that's the attitude and the education we want to foster on our leadership to help ensure equality.

The other thing is that for a lot of junior people in the armed forces, yes, it is hard, but it isn't hard forever. You get conditioned, and you rise in the ranks to a more intellectual--although you have to retain a standard of fitness--and less direct task base, to more directive roles. To that extent, although officers are expected to lead soldiers in the field and to a certain extent carry the same weight and everything else that the soldiers do, as you go through a career and your postings to a desk, a regiment, or an air squadron or whatever, there are breaks in between and it's not as bad a picture as most one- to five-year enrollees see.

The Chair: You certainly had an opportunity.

I'm going to give it to Mr. Kinnear.

Mr. Dale Kinnear: Some of what used to be referred to as “systemic barriers” have been removed through the court process. The Meiorin case out of British Columbia was a very important one that dealt with bona fide occupational requirements. Now it must be established that this type of test is representative of the actual task and that there is some type of accommodation is built in to make up for differences in physical characteristics. A lot of those potential barriers are being overcome, including fitness exams for the entry level.

I was involved in a process within the last two years to review and revisit these bona fide occupational requirements. There were people from the RCMP and the Department of National Defence looking at candidate testing and on-the-job testing, if you will. Through the charter and the human rights code and the decisions that have been made in the courts, we're getting beyond some of these things. The necessary accommodations are being made.

Probably more importantly, a new relevance is being brought to this now. You may remember that the Meiorin case involved 40 feet of hose that had to be hauled up and down x number of hills, or whatever the case was. The Supreme Court got it right in that case when it established that this was not representative of the job a female firefighter had to do, and therefore wasn't satisfactory as a bona fide occupational requirement. Many of those things have been addressed through legal decisions and the corresponding moves made in reaction to them by the affected departments or agencies.

· (1325)

The Chair: Thank you.

The only thing I would add is that a number of years ago, when my brother was at Aylmer, before he joined the OPP, I recall him coming home one day and talking to my dad in the corner. He was lamenting the fact that he had been beaten in several categories by some of the women who were also taking the course. He was feeling like he had to go back and work a little harder. I know he never felt that the women he served with were any less capable of doing the job than he was. That's my own personal aside.

I want to thank the representatives from National Defence, the RCMP, and the Canadian Police Association for your presentations today. I thank you also for the documentation you've left for us. It will give us some light reading in the next couple of days as we're going over them and getting ready for the report. I thank you once again, and I thank the members of the committee.

The meeting is adjourned.