HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

Á

1105

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

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Scott Serson

Á

1120

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

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

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Greg Thompson

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. James Lahey

A voice

Mr. Scott Serson

The Chair

Mr. Scott Serson

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Dale Johnston

Á

1135

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Douglas Rimmer (Vice-President, Policy Research and Communications Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada)

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Scott Serson

Á

1140

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

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

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Scott Serson

Á

1145

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

Á

1150

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Amelita Armit (Vice-President, Staffing and Recruitment Programs Branch)

Á

1155

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Amelita Armit

Ms. Monique Guay

Ms. Amelita Armit

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Scott Serson

Â

1200

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Scott Serson

Â

1205

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Scott Serson

Â

1210

The Chair

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

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Â

1215

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Scott Serson

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Bellemare

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Â

1220

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Bellemare

Mr. Scott Serson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

Â

1225

Mr. Scott Serson

Â

1230

Mr. Greg Thompson

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Scott Serson

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. James Lahey

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Â

1235

Mr. James Lahey

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Scott Serson

The Chair

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1240

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Scott Serson

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Larry Spencer

Mr. James Lahey

Â

1245

Mr. Larry Spencer

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Scott Serson

Â

1250

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Scott Serson

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. James Lahey

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. James Lahey

Ms. Carol Skelton

Mr. James Lahey

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Â

1255

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. James Lahey

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Davies

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 045

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, January 29, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Thank you for joining us. Our agenda is pursuant to the order referring to us a review of the Employment Equity Act, and we have witnesses from two groups today.

    Mr. Crête, I realize you sent a letter. Normally, when we have witnesses, we deal with that after the witnesses, and we will reserve time at the end to deal with your particular correspondence, if that's all right with you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ): At the end of the meeting?

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, before the meeting is concluded and after we have finished with our witnesses.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: Fine then. Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have witnesses from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: James Lahey, the associate secretary; Cynthia Binnington, the assistant secretary, human resources branch, employment equity; and Wally Boxhill, the director of the employment equity division. I am told you have a five-minute presentation. I would hear that, and then we'll move to the Public Service Commission, and then we'll have questions from our committee members.

    Mr. Lahey.

    Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you.

    Good morning, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address the committee today as a representative of the Treasury Board Secretariat. I'm pleased, in addition to Cynthia and Wally, whom you've already introduced, to be here in the company of colleagues from the Public Service Commission to provide an overview of our roles and responsibilities and to outline our progress in implementing employment equity in the Public Service of Canada.

    As the employer for the core public service, Treasury Board and its secretariat are committed to implementing employment equity, and we're committed to this not simply because it's a legislated obligation but rather because we firmly believe that a representative public service is better equipped to meet the needs of our diverse Canadian society.

[Translation]

    The federal public service must be an inclusive institution open to all qualified Canadians. In this way, it will be capable of providing Canadians with the high quality of service they expect and deserve.

    As you know, the current Employment Equity Act has applied to the federal public service since 1996, providing a strong legal foundation for our goals and actions, aimed at improving our representativeness. The Act helps us to focus on removing barriers, instituting positive policies and programs, and ensuring consistent application of employment equity principles across government.

[English]

    The Government of Canada's commitment to employment equity is bearing fruit. When we compare the situation in 1996 with what we reported in the president's last report to Parliament, covering up to March 2000, we can point to progress for all designated groups. Representation of women was over 51%, compared to 48% five years ago; for aboriginal peoples, 3.3%, versus 2.3%; persons with a disability at 4.7%, from 3.1%; and visible minorities at 5.5%, versus 4.5%. From preliminary indications, I can say that the report for 2001 will show further improvements in all four areas.

    This program has come from the diligence and efforts of many players. The act prescribes, as you know, a sharing of responsibility for employment equity in the public service between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission, and of course we both work with departments.

    The President of the Treasury Board is responsible, as I said, for tabling an annual report in Parliament on the status of employment equity in the core public service. This reinforces transparency for parliamentarians and Canadians and ensures there is accountability for implementation of the act in the public service, and Madam Robillard will be tabling the latest report in the next few weeks.

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    Central agencies such as the Treasury Board Secretariat have a policy and monitoring role. The Secretariat develops a policy framework and tools, as well as provides leadership and guidance to government departments. Our role includes consultation and collaboration with unions and employees in the designated groups.

    The Secretariat has also made use of the authority given by the Act to institute positive policies and programs such as the Employment Equity Positive Measures Program and an Embracing Change initiative aimed at improving the participation of members of visible minorities.

    Over the past few years, we have seen an increasing delegation of human resource functions--such as employment equity - to departments. Deputy heads have assumed primary responsibility for employment equity. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canadian Human Rights Commission from whom you have already heard each individual department is subject to audit by the CHRC to determine compliance with the obligations that Parliament has legislated.

[English]

    Departments are therefore responsible for addressing issues that arise out of the audits while we monitor and address issues of interdepartmental significance.

    Now that I've outlined the secretariat's role within the Government of Canada's overall employment equity commitments, I'd like to elaborate briefly on where the public service as an institution stands in terms of meeting its employment equity goals.

    As required by the act, we assess our performance against what is described as labour market availability for each of the four designated groups. For three of these four groups we have been doing quite well in overall representation: representation of aboriginal peoples and women in the federal public service exceeds their labour market availability, and the most recent data on persons with a disability shows that their representation is very close to their availability. These are very positive trends; nevertheless, we face challenges specific to each of these three groups. For aboriginal peoples, for example, we must address better retention issues. For persons with a disability, we are anticipating a gap between representation and availability to widen when Statistics Canada releases new data next year. Also, we seek to improve the representation of women in our executive ranks, for example, where currently only one in three is a woman.

[Translation]

    In regard to women, however, I should note that we have seen remarkable progress over the past two decades, where traditionally male-dominated fields like financial management, law and program administration have become gender-neutral - or even female-dominated - fields. And we expect that trend to continue.

    Unfortunately, we are not yet as representative with respect to visible minorities. The Secretariat's Embracing Change program was implemented to respond to this challenge by setting benchmarks for the recruitment, promotion and training of visible minority employees and focussing on ways to change the corporate culture in our institutions.

    In summary, we are working to become truly representative, inclusive and a workplace of choice for current and future generations of Canadians. We recognize that while much has been achieved together, much more remains to be done. This review of the Employment Equity Act is important to make sure that employers are meeting and will continue to meet Parliament's expectations.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    In this vein, we recently undertook consultations within the public service to determine what, if any, changes were required to the act from our perspective, and I can say that in general we found support for the legislation. In fact, our view is that there is no need for major changes. There may be opportunities, however, for greater clarity in areas such as distinguishing the responsibilities of central agencies versus departments, improving the definition of who is considered the employer under the act. You may wish to consider amending the definition of reasonable accommodation to reflect the changes made to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

    Madam Chair, as you know, Canada is a diverse country of many cultures and with people from many backgrounds. Their perspectives must be part of our policies, our advice to ministers, and the programs and services we deliver to Canadians.

[Translation]

    The Treasury Board Secretariat looks forward to receiving the Committee's report and to responding to any recommendations made.

    Thank you again for inviting me here today and for your attention.

[English]

    I should just mention that we've left some material for the information of members, if you're interested afterwards, including the last report of the president on employment equity and the report on the employment equity positive measures program, as well as some other materials.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: For members of the committee, the clerk reports that those documents were sent to her office. We don't know whether we'll get them before the end of the meeting, but certainly members of the committee will get them before the next meeting.

    Thank you, Mr. Lahey.

    We'll next hear from the Public Service Commission of Canada: Scott Serson, Douglas Rimmer, and Amelita Armit.

    Mr. Serson, are you making the presentation?

    Mr. Scott Serson (President, Public Service Commission of Canada): Thank you very much.

    Good day, bonjour. Again, as Jim did, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today about these important issues.

    First is the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is an independent agency reporting to Parliament that ensures that staffing and recruitment for the public service are conducted according to the principle of merit.

[Translation]

    Merit is the fundamental concept on which staffing in the public service is based. My colleague at Treasury Board talked briefly about our responsibilities with respect to employment equity. More specifically, our role consists of developing policy, overseeing the merit system and promoting programs and special measures.

[English]

    Our policy role ensures that recruitment and staffing policies support employment equity objectives. We have established a policy framework, which states that merit is achieved through a balance of six values. We seek to achieve three results in the Public Service of Canada--competence, non-partisanship, and representativeness--through processes that are fair, equitable, and transparent. So the goal of employment equity, the establishment of a representative workforce, is integrated into our policy framework for merit.

    The second aspect of our mandate relates to oversight of the staffing system, that is, ensuring that the balance between those six values is respected and they are balanced with, but not subverted by, managers' requirements for efficiency and flexibility. Part of this work involves identifying and eliminating staffing and recruitment barriers that may result from staffing and recruitment systems, policies, or practices. This includes conducting employment systems reviews required by the Employment Equity Act.

    Finally, the Public Service Employment Act and the Employment Equity Act allow us to put in place positive policies, practices, and accommodations, such as government-wide positive measures, to allow us to work with individual departments to target their recruitment efforts.

[Translation]

    What has been the result? When we look at the progress made to date, we must keep in mind that for many years, we were operating in an environment that made increasing representation very difficult.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    Program review had departments cutting staff rather than hiring the next generation of public servants. The good news is that the public service is now in a recruitment mode, and it will be for some time. Current demographic realities are creating an unprecedented recruitment challenge. Approximately 47% of the public service workforce will be eligible to retire over the next 10 years.

    At the same time, we face another demographic change. By 2016 nearly two-thirds of the Canadian labour force will be made up of designated group members. These numbers present both a challenge and an opportunity to redress imbalances and build a representative public service. Our annual report shows that some encouraging progress is being made towards this goal. In fact, our figures show that all the employment equity groups experienced a recruitment increase last year. Only persons with disabilities continue to be recruited at levels well below availability, and this is of concern to us. Still, given the progress to date, some may argue that the system will fix itself and that over time representativeness will become a reality without any special actions. We don't believe this is true. We believe the system continues to require tools and support to help departments meet our employment equity objectives. The elimination of barriers on its own will not correct the under-representation that exists. So positive measures are necessary. The public service has been active in providing such measures, like our rapid access project, which brings hiring managers in direct contact with qualified, job-ready candidates with disabilities.

[Translation]

    The PSC has played a key role in implementing employment equity in the federal public service since the legislation came into effect. Overall, we are comfortable with the Employment Equity Act as it stands...

[English]

    Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC/DR): Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I've brought this to the attention of the committee before, and there's some discussion on this side of the table. Prepared texts are being delivered that have not been presented and we don't have in front of us, to my knowledge. Maybe some of the members do. It's very difficult for us to critically evaluate what the presenter is saying, if you will, and remember it all without that text before us. Do we have that text? Was that text presented?

    The Chair: To my knowledge, no.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: This is a continual habit of witnesses before this committee. They come in without presenting a prepared text for members of the committee, which puts us at a tremendous disadvantage.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Madam Chairman, perhaps the deputy can correct me if I'm wrong. While he's not following the exact text on a word by word basis, the overall presentation I have received, which was just handed out, is in fact an overview and presently the deputy is on page 6. I will admit it is hard to follow inasmuch as a great deal of it has been left out and we're jumping into the objectives of the program, etc.

    The Chair: The clerk tells me it was sent to your office this morning and that the document Mr. Tonks is referring to was in your office this morning.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): The earlier one was received when we got here.

    The Chair: The earlier one was received when we got here this morning.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Do we have it? It was only--

    The Chair: I'll just refer to the clerk for one moment, please.

    The Clerk of the Committee: l will just check, because there were so many documents when I arrived here this morning that I have to see what's what.

    We received Mr. Lahey's presentation in a bilingual version, but I could not distribute it because the bilingual version was not appropriate. It is not fully French and fully English, so I did not distribute that version, obviously.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Just for the record, Madam Chairman, from my point of view, and in the view of my colleague from the Bloc and of the other members of the committee as well, I think that's unacceptable. On this side of the table I think we're somewhat disappointed in that type of presentation, that sort of hurrying and scurrying to the last day or minutes or hours before the committee presentation. I say that for the record.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: I note that for the record. But I would also note that part of the process when a witness comes before us is their oral presentation. We ask them to send written documentation. Quite frequently the written documentation they send us is much fuller than their oral presentation. They're given only five minutes to make that oral presentation so we encourage them to send background information.

    In this particular case, a full package was sent to the office, and I don't think they can be faulted for not following the full presentation when we, as a committee, restrict them to five minutes at the time of their appearance.

    I appreciate that there are times when nothing comes and it is very difficult. But again, Mr. Thompson, you do know that we encourage them to give us as much information as they possibly can. We are under a bit of a time constraint, and in this particular case the documentation was in your office.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): I just want to make a brief comment, Madam Chair.

    We have been given a summary, not the full document. Admittedly, we are jumping from one subject to another. However, I would like to state for the record that whether we're dealing with a department, Treasury Board, or public servants...Everyone is well aware that documents must be submitted in both official languages and that they should be made available to us for committee meetings. That's the least government witnesses can do.

    It's different in the case of outside witnesses. However, in the case of government witnesses, care must be taken to ensure that documents are available in both languages so that they can be of use to us immediately.

[English]

    The Chair: I have taken note of that, and I can assure you that when we're asking departments of government to make presentations we will again reiterate how important it is that they have documentation in both official languages, and we will encourage them to send it as far in advance as they possibly can.

    One very short intervention.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I'll be brief, Madam Chair. I was about to echo the words of my Bloc Québécois colleague. While we sometimes receive a document that is partly in French and partly in English, I think this is unacceptable in the case of government witnesses. It's important to have two copies of the same document, one in English, and one in French.

    I'm sorry to say this, but it's unacceptable to us to receive a document in this bilingual format. I realize that you've made an effort, but you've come up a little short.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: The record will reflect the comments made.

    Mr. Lahey.

    Mr. James Lahey: I can't be certain, but I understand we sent versions in English and French yesterday afternoon. The version I have is slightly different, but for the record, I believe we did send English and French versions yesterday afternoon.

    A voice: A version was sent electronically, but not the one they got here.

    The Chair: All right. This is something about which we'll have a fuller discussion amongst the committee members, perhaps at our next steering committee.

    Let's get back to our witnesses.

    Mr. Scott Serson: Madam Chair, we, too, sent both an English and a French version. Perhaps it arrived too late, for which I apologize.

    I also apologize to Mr. Thompson for not indicating at the beginning that...I thought five minutes was the limit before committees, so I was trying to break mine down in order to do just five minutes' worth, whereas in the speech we tried to provide a little bit more background for members.

    The Chair: Yes, and that's certainly the case. You were told you had five minutes to make the oral presentation, yes.

    Mr. Scott Serson: Let me finish fairly quickly, then.

    I wanted to indicate that we have been working together with Treasury Board in our role as co-employer, on a number of occasions and on a number of issues. One example is the area of demographic analysis, much of which is used for employment equity purposes.

    We believe that in any modernized system of human resources, the employer roles and responsibilities in the Employment Equity Act should continue and should be aligned with the institutional arrangements of the federal public service. But we also wanted to draw briefly to the committee's attention some systemic challenges that have come to our attention.

    One challenge has grown out of the evolution of the concept of merit. When the Employment Equity Act modified the Public Service Employment Act, we began to talk about merit, as I've said, in terms of three results values—competence, non-partisanship, and representativeness—but we believe the relationship between merit and representativeness remains widely misunderstood among public service managers.

    A notion persists that employment equity programs do not require the selection of the best qualified persons and therefore are not merit-based. This is not the case. The merit system is broader than requiring that the best qualified be selected under all circumstances. Appointments made under the authority of the employment equity programs are indeed based on merit.

Á  (1130)  

[Translation]

    Another challenge we have encountered has been brought on by the push for efficiency in a modernized human resources management system. While efficiency is important, a certain amount of due process is required to ensure equity and transparency in the process.

[English]

    Our ongoing concern is that we maintain an appropriate balance between increased efficiency in the staffing and recruitment process and the process values of fairness, equity, and transparency.

    Finally, we see a need to integrate employment equity as an essential part of the human resource management framework. We believe many managers tend to think of employment equity as an add-on. Correcting this situation has more to do with changing the management culture in the public service than legislative change, and this will require a sustained effort.

[Translation]

    In conclusion, the PSC, in its role of overseeing the staffing system and protecting merit, remains committed to helping foster a positive culture in the public service, and to providing managers with the tools and supports needed to meet the government's employment equity goals. We believe strongly that merit and representativeness are integrated concepts and that the current framework for employment equity is workable.

[English]

    Challenges beyond the framework continue to exist, but they are not insurmountable.

    Thank you, Madam Chair, for this invitation and the opportunity to discuss these important issues.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Serson.

    Colleagues, given that we have a full committee membership here today, along with a number of witnesses, we'll start the first round of questions as a seven-minute round, beginning with Mr. Johnston, who will be followed by Mr. Malhi, Madame Guay, Mr. Tonks, Ms. Davies, and so on.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, witnesses, for your presence. I, too, was having a little problem following along with your presentations. It would have been nice if we could have had the documentation in front of us so that we could have followed along.

    You mentioned, Mr. Serson, some statistics about 2016. I scoured through these notes, and I didn't catch.... Would you go over that? You said that by 2016, two-thirds of the workforce...would you just reiterate that for me, please, because I didn't—

    Mr. Scott Serson: I said that by 2016, two-thirds of the workforce will be made up of designated group members, so if we include women in that, that's how we're making it up. That's a forecast.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: That's interesting. In my office I'd probably be in contravention because 100% of my workforce is female, a fact of which I'm fairly proud, by the way. I'm also proud of their competence.

    One of the things I notice in here is that it appears we have changed the definition of merit. As a matter of fact, on page 5 of your presentation it says, “The merit system is broader than requiring that the best-qualified be selected under all circumstances”. That requires some explaining. I would think that would leave the system open to abuse. You could say, "I hired this person because of the definition of merit I see in this presentation". I think that would allow someone to get around hiring one of the persons in the designated groups who was very well qualified.

    Could you explain that?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Scott Serson: I was trying to signal there, Mr. Johnston, that the 1993 amendments to the Public Service Employment Act did not define merit. The act does not define merit. It refers to merit, and then it refers to the types of processes that need to be put in place to ensure that merit is achieved.

    Over the course of quite a number of years, largely through judicial interpretation, merit had come to be defined as the best qualified. We had been working strictly on the basis of relative merit, which was the process that allowed us to take a number of candidates, assess them, and determine the best qualified.

    In 1993, Parliament created, through subsection 10(2), the flexibility to allow the Public Service Commission and public service managers to determine merit by comparing the individual's qualifications to the qualifications necessary for the job.

    We now have two means of determining merit. One is the pre-1993 reliance on a competitive process. We continue to use that process, but we have the option, which Parliament gave us in 1993, of using a comparison between the individual's qualifications and the qualifications of the job, to make sure the individual's qualifications are up to the standard the job requires, rather than using a competitive process.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: It seems to me that merit shouldn't be so difficult to qualify. The definition of merit should simply be the best-qualified people, regardless of what group of people they belong to. All the rest of this stuff, in my opinion, is mumbo-jumbo.

    Mr. Scott Serson: Perhaps Doug could give you an example of where we use this concept of individual merit, to see if it clarifies things.

    Mr. Douglas Rimmer (Vice-President, Policy Research and Communications Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada): Yes, indeed. When we manage our research science community--and these are scientists who work in a number of different departments--we use what's known as an incumbent-driven promotion process. Each year, individuals who believe they have attained a higher level of proficiency can go through a peer review process. If they're deemed, on the basis of their individual merit--not relative to their colleagues, but on the basis of their accomplishments as research scientists--to have demonstrated a higher level of proficiency, they can be promoted and essentially compensated for that higher level of proficiency. They continue to do essentially the same work of research scientists but they have demonstrated that they are at a higher level of proficiency. In many cases, they are world-renowned experts.

    We believe those incumbent-driven programs, based on the individual merit process Mr. Serson described, are a valuable means of recognizing merit and give the system additional flexibility.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I agree with you that the whole thing could be simplified in that the person who is the best qualified would get the job, regardless of their social status, their ethnicity, their religion, and that, simply put, is all that is needed for there to be a fair employment equity program. All the rest of it is excess luggage.

    Mr. Scott Serson: I don't think we're disagreeing. We're both agreeing that merit should be a governing principle, but I would say, Mr. Johnston, that if you're arguing that there should never be any expression of preference in the government's hiring.... Previous governments have created those expressions of preference in the past.

    We've had a veterans' preference; we've given them a certain degree of priority. The law allows us to give a local hiring preference in certain circumstances. We give a preference to those who are public servants who are at risk of being laid off.

    So the system is not without its ability to identify when special measures are necessary. What we are saying, or trying to reassure the committee of, is that even when we take those special measures, we apply a rigorous test of merit.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I hear what you are saying about preferences and so forth, but I think we're confusing training with merit. For instance, if we say we're going to give this particular group preferences in this area over this group of people, who are better qualified for the job, then what we have is a training problem. We should take this group of people and train them to do something that would bring them up to the same level of qualifications as this group of people, who we have rejected in favour of this other group. I think this is a complicating factor in something that need not be complicated.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Johnston, I have to move on. I'm sorry, Mr. Serson, you'll have a chance to make your point another time.

    Mr. Malhi, please. I remind you that it's seven minutes and through the chair.

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

    The Employment Equity Act currently covers women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities. Should it cover any other groups, such as older people, older workers, and professionally qualified new immigrants?

    Mr. James Lahey: It's a hard question to answer because it calls for a judgment, which, I would say, parliamentarians are in a better position to exercise than we are.

    In the case of older workers, given the demography of the public service, we're well endowed with older workers, as a practical matter.

    The question of recent immigrants raises the issue of citizenship and the preference in the staffing process for Canadian citizens. As I think you would be aware--I'm sure you're aware--there's a court case challenging this that is at the Supreme Court. So we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say.

    Our view would be that there's not a particularly well developed case at present for adding more designated groups, but that's a judgment, and parliamentarians will no doubt make that call.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Some of them are citizens. Either they're new immigrants or they're citizens, and they are qualified, being such things as professional engineers or doctors. They are delivering pizzas; they are working in the factory; they are doing odd jobs.

    My concern is about this and whether we can do anything in the Employment Equity Act for those people.

    Mr. Scott Serson: In some ways, from the Public Service Commission's perspective, it's not a question of doing more in legislation to get at those talented new immigrants coming to Canada. In part it takes an effort on the part of at least the government to do that.

    We at the Public Service Commission ran an employment equity fair here in Ottawa last year. Managers in the public service were staggered by the fact that over 6,000 people attended, and the quality of the qualifications of those who participated in the job fair was just excellent.

    We have to recognize that those talented people are there. There is often a challenge. If they have foreign qualifications, we ask that their qualifications be certified by a Canadian university. Having done that, we need to take advantage of that talent.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Why is the federal public sector unable to match the performance of private sector employers and crown corporations in hiring members of visible minorities?

    Mr. James Lahey: First of all, I would for, context, mention that in regard to the other three designated groups, I believe the federal public sector's performance has been more successful than the private sector's, so it's difficult to make these comparisons. You have different sets of tasks. You have different working conditions and so on. However, as both Scott and I acknowledged in our opening remarks, we're not satisfied with where we are in terms of the employment of visible minorities. We've seen improvement, but not enough.

    As you know, we have a guideline we adopted in response to the Perinbam report in 2000, namely that we aim to have one in five people recruited externally to be members of visible minorities by 2003. I believe we will meet these goals and eventually exceed the performance of the private sector.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Are there other federal institutions that could be covered by the act, such as Parliament, for example? If so, what would these be?

    Mr. James Lahey: The law that was passed in 1996 covered those parts of the public service the Treasury Board is the employer for, about 150,000 employees. It also covered so-called schedule 2 of the Public Service Employment Act, such as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, so it covers them already. There are the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP, which are provided for in the act, but they haven't actually come under the act yet because the regulatory framework hasn't been completed, although I understand that will be completed very soon.

    So basically you cover the public service in its entirety. As for institutions such as Parliament, we public servants generally take the view that Parliament should decide about those things, and I don't actually have an opinion about that.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Malhi. Madame Guay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have been inundated with documents. Indeed, we have a lot on our plate.

    Thank you for coming today. All of these documents have arrived at the same time and we haven't had time to read through all of them. Once we've had time to peruse them, and if we have any additional questions, perhaps we can call you back, if that's possible.

    For a variety of reasons, I'm pleased that the committee is reviewing the Employment Equity Act. As you know, similar legislation has been enacted in Quebec. In fact, I've done a study comparing the federal and provincial acts, to identify respective strengths and weaknesses. I think this will prove very useful to us as we consider amendments to the legislation.

    I do have a number of concerns. For example, the Library of Parliament has produced a table showing the difference between men and women occupying positions in the public service. The information was gleaned from a Treasury Board document entitled Employment Statistics for the Federal Public Service. Note the number of men earning between $45,000 and $50,000. For the most part, women hold down positions which...The proportion of women in this category is inordinately high, but once salaries exceed the $50,000 mark, the majority of positions are filled by men. Therefore, there is still considerable room for improvement in this area.

    I have another question for you. You stated earlier that by the year 2016, nearly two thirds of the population will be comprised of persons belonging to groups targeted by employment equity. This is merely an unofficial estimate. I don't think we need to wait until 2016 to make some positive changes. Yours is an even greater responsibility in that the federal public service must lead by example. I'm not saying that you aren't already doing that, but I think there is room for improvement, particularly in so far as persons with disabilities are concerned.

    For the past year, Quebec has had officers working in all regions of the provinces to ensure the integration of persons with disabilities into the labour force. They work closely with associations for persons with disabilities and with the Quebec Department of Labour. Could you give us an idea of what the federal public service is doing exactly? I can appreciate that it is often a costly process to integrate disabled persons into the work force, sometimes because of the special training they require, but I would like a little more information.

    Furthermore, as I mentioned to you earlier when referring to some of the statistics I had, is any effort being made to integrate women who are as qualified as men to hold down key positions with salaries in excess of $45,000 per year? Is any attempt being made to recruit more women to bring the proportion of women in this salary range up to 50 per cent in the future?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. James Lahey: Perhaps I can begin to answer your question and I'm sure Scott will want to add something.

    As for increasing the proportion of women earning higher salaries, clearly this is an important objective. Earlier, I mentioned that in certain traditionally male occupational categories such as law, financial management and program administration, the proportion of male and female employees is fairly equal. Salaries in these categories are relatively interesting, I would say.

    Indications are such that a similar thing is happening in other fields such as engineering, where the proportion of males and females is relatively equal. Twenty years ago, women accounted for less than 10 per cent of all employees in this field. Today, the figure is in the 30 per cent range. Things are starting to improve.

    As I also mentioned, in the management category, about 30 per cent of positions are held by women, and this figure is increasing every year.

    I realize that we must continually work to increase the proportion of women in these categories. However, we are making some progress.

    Mr. Scott Serson: Last year's figures indicate that women accounted for 59 per cent of all promotions in the public service. Therefore, we can see that...

    Ms. Monique Guay: You're not just talking about management positions.

    Mr. Scott Serson: Not at all.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Well, I'm interested in management positions. Women in the public service are making some progress. That's abundantly clear. However, I was referring to management positions where salaries are high. Progress has not been as great on this front, that's for certain.

    Mr. Scott Serson: I would have to agree with you, but we want you to know that we are making some progress.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Yes, I'll admit that there has been some progress.

    Mr. Scott Serson: My colleague Amelita Armit would like to say something further about disabled persons.

    Ms. Amelita Armit (Vice-President, Staffing and Recruitment Programs Branch): Regarding persons with disabilities, we now have many experimental programs in place to increase the representation of persons with disabilities in the public service.

    For example, we have instituted a Rapid Access Program to provide persons with disabilities with an opportunity to meet face to face with managers.

    This program has resulted in our hiring 33 individuals this year. Furthermore, we are conducting a pilot project in Newfoundland and Labrador where the province and the federal government are working together to find qualified persons with disabilities to fill government positions.

    There is a Treasury Board unit working to adapt technology to persons with disabilities. This is one specifically targeted area and we are working with four departments that operate the same kind of unit.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Monique Guay: Have these programs produced some results?

    Ms. Amelita Armit: Yes, they have.

    Ms. Monique Guay: And have they been positive?

    Ms. Amelita Armit: Very positive.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Then we keep up the good work. Job fairs are an excellent initiative. We hold them on a regular basis...

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks, please

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your deputation.

    My colleague, Mr. Johnston, is struggling with this notion of how to ensure that merit is the guiding principle. In trying to separate that out, I've always looked at equity and having a level playing field, so people, through merit, could achieve a particular entry into the civil service or private sector. That was the key premise.

    Equity is a process of achieving a sense of equality. My questions concerning that level playing field within the public service are possibly answered in some of this documentation you have provided. As for proactively taking people who may lack the skills within the public service, you've mentioned the rapid access program. In respect of peer counselling, skills exchanges, and so on, could you give the committee a sense of the expansiveness of those programs?

    My second question is, what are the benchmarks you use to measure your success, if you will, in taking people who are at a particular level, giving them the skills upgrading, and then measuring, within a reasonable period of time, how effective those programs have been from the lists of people who have attempted to qualify?

    Mr. Scott Serson: Basically, what we are doing at the corporate level...there are a large number of departmental programs going on in this area. We've had several former deputy ministers of Indian and Northern Affairs try to increase the level of representation of first nations in the Public Service of Canada.

    At the corporate level we've been working through our corporate programs to try to enhance the representation in those programs. My colleagues will correct me if I'm wrong on the details, but by now we have made a special effort with respect to visible minorities with our accelerated efforts to promote executives in the Public Service of Canada. The career assignment program takes people through the transition from senior officer to manager. We have made special efforts for both first nations and visible minorities.

    We're working through the program on that basis, and again, the measure of progress is against the standard of competency. At the end of those programs those people are put through an assessment, an interview, to assess whether they've reached the standard of competency of a senior manager level one.

    In the case of the accelerated executive development program, it's whether they've reached the level of an EX-03 and are ready to move to the ADM category. They then try to enter the ADM pool process.

    So this is a kind of broad range look at some of the central efforts.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: May I just follow up on that, Madam Chairman?

    Thank you for that answer. The issue of foreign credentials is huge, not just with respect to the public service but in the private sector, with respect to both professional and trades' credentials, and so on.

    How are foreign credentials evaluated, and how do we take those, with respect to the program you just mentioned, and try to mainstream these skills and credentials as quickly as possible?

    Mr. Scott Serson: My colleague may want to add something, but as I understand it, Mr. Tonks, what we do is ask that an individual's foreign credentials be certified by a Canadian university. If a university certifies those foreign credentials, then we're prepared to accept them as valid in our staffing processes.

    Now, I'm looking at my colleagues, but I think that's the short answer to your question.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: We're going to have to do some more research; I'm not sure whether the universities are totally without systemic problems even among our own Canadian universities. Accepting each other's credentials is the problem, never mind foreign credentials

    

    The Chair: I think we could have a whole series of meetings on that.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I think we could.

    I think you may have given an evaluation with respect to the sum investment we are making in programs for designated groups. I'd just like to trace this for a moment in extracts from this document. I would like to know generally how that expenditure--as an indicator of our commitment--compares to what we spend on non-designated groups in terms of skills upgrading and so on and so forth.

    Mr. James Lahey: I don't have figures on this at the tip of my fingers, so to speak, but we could send you some information on it once we have a chance to look at it.

    In general, the upgrading expenditures of the federal government are variable across departments; it's actually one of the things we need to do better. But I'd be happy to share with you the information we do have about our investments in upgrading skills, both generally and in regard to designated groups.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Supplementary to that--and I don't want to put you to researching and gathering data that's totally irrelevant--but would you not agree that, generally speaking, expenditures for programs along the lines that you've expressed, right across the full spectrum of our public service, would be an indicator of commitment and could be measured against the success in a particular category?

    Mr. Scott Serson: I think it's going to become increasingly less so, if I had to be honest. I think increasingly what we're finding is we need to make this special effort to go out and inform our equity employees that these programs exist. For instance, our experience with the career assignment program and the accelerated executive development program tells us that if we can show, for instance, visible minority members of the Public Service of Canada that they can succeed in those programs, that they can participate and succeed, we set the example that whether or not they are visible minorities is going to become less relevant. They're just going to apply.

    This is a fact. I think more and more, for instance, our visible minority employees want to be less dependent on special programs and more integrated into our regular programs as the way they would like to see us go. And I think what we have to show is that they can succeed.

    Much of our work over the last two years has been going to employment equity groups and saying, here's how you prepare yourself if, for instance, you want to try an executive job. This makes all the difference in the world, as does talking to their colleagues who have succeeded and asking how have they prepared. It's those kinds of interventions.

    So I'm a little bit nervous that in future years that kind of notion of expenditure on individual groups will not be a good measure of overall success in the public service.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Ms. Davies.

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

    First of all, thank you to the witnesses for coming today. While the employment equity program, for sure, isn't the highest-profile program of government, and I think people often don't think about it, I believe it's really one of the most substantive things that happens, because it does have a huge impact in terms of our workforce and the kind of public service that is provided.

    I know for the community I represent in east Vancouver, which is a very diverse community, my constituents expect that the public service is going to be representative of the community at large in terms of qualified people.

    Having said that, I'm rather taken aback by some of the comments by my colleague, who puts it all down to mumbo-jumbo. I think even using that language is an indication of how much work has to be done.

    That really leads me to a couple of points I want to make. It seems to me that one of the biggest barriers we face still in employment equity is this incredible myth that employment equity is not based on merit and that somehow designated groups are getting special favours to be hired, as opposed to the truth, that primarily the problem is with the system and all kinds of historical and traditional practices that have led us to a very one-sided workforce. The evidence is here even at the committee.

    I think it's still a huge question that we have to overcome with public education, both within departments and in the public at large. So that's one thing you might want to respond to. This act has now been here for seven years. Obviously, we still have a lot more to do in that regard.

    Secondly, I know when we had some of the earlier presentations...it's a good program, but I think the question does arise as to enforcement and compliance, or however you want to call it. It seemed to me that some of the material I'd read made it clear that we do need to have stronger compliance. And I think it was alluded to here today when you talked about some of the managers who see it as sort of an add-on. Their attitude is oh, my God, we have to get our report in.

    One issue is changing the corporate culture, whether it's in the public service and the departments or the private sector, but I think partly that comes through compliance and being tougher on that compliance. I wondered if you had any comments on that.

    Third, if there's time, while employment equity, as it stands now, relates to the qualified pool, I think there is a much bigger issue, and that is, what barriers are there beyond this that are preventing people from becoming part of the qualified pool? This would certainly relate to--and I think Mr. Mahli and Mr. Tonks have referred to this--the kinds of credentials or barriers that exist in post-secondary education for certain target groups. Does anybody in the federal government, in your departments, deal with that? Is anybody keeping their eye on that broader picture? If we just rely on the qualified pool, yes, that's a good part of the job, but it seems to me there's a broader debate that needs to take place and maybe some action around that.

    Mr. Scott Serson: I'll try to comment on all three questions.

    First, I will comment on the question of the mythology of merit and representativeness not being compatible. I guess we have become more concerned about that because we have been increasing at the Public Service Commission our oversight of the staffing system. So as we talk to more managers, as we do more oversight activity, surveys and so on, we can see the signs that this myth continues to be present in the public's mind.

    Our particular preoccupation with respect to employment equity is making sure that hiring managers understand this situation.

    We are in fact working on a little document that we hope to release in the next couple of months that would address this. We've been trying to get it ready and we are focus-testing it with human resource professionals. It would speak to this myth and try to get behind it and help managers think this through.

    This comes to your second point. The commission believes, as a philosophy, that we have to work both on public education and enforcement, so we're trying to do both.

    Because deputy ministers operate their staffing systems on a delegated basis from the Public Service Commission, we have enhanced our delegation instruments with every department. We are now asking them to report annually to us on the application of these staffing values in their departments and agencies, and representativeness is one of those that we expect them to report on.

    We do believe that we have to put equal emphasis on both sides of the equation, and we are trying to address both. This is where we've been cooperating with the Treasury Board in terms of visits to departments to explain the needs and the rationale behind the employment equity program.

    On the question of barriers, I think in the Public Service of Canada we are going to be talking more about the need for proactively going to these communities. If I look at what the private sector is now starting to forecast about labour market shortages, we've experienced them in the Public Service of Canada in the last two years in a number of areas. Some of those areas have changed now that the economy has slowed down, but we really believe that as the economy picks up we are going to be in a very competitive situation. Reaching out to those employment equity groups and those designated groups to find the talent in employees we're going to need in the future is absolutely essential.

    So that's how we're trying to colour the mind of the public service manager to think about the demographics of the country and to think about how important those labour pools are going to be to us in five or six years if we're going to have the resources we need to deliver programs and policies to Canadians.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: We'll have Monsieur Bellemare and then Mr. Thompson, and that will end the first round. Then we'll move into five-minute rounds. You have seven minutes each.

    Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

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

    Demographically speaking, since 52% of my constituents work for the public service, I am especially interested in all matters affecting public servants.

    At Treasury Board...

[English]

    You set policy. I see you as the group that sets policies for employment. I see the public service as the overseer and perhaps the auditor of what is happening in the departments. I`ve seen the role of the public servants disintegrate in the part where you look at employing. You don't employ any more. The departments employ. It's done on the ground. The finance department does its own employment, the revenue department, and so on--you name the department. You don't seek out...people send you material, their CV, their résumé.

    You used to have a data bank. Anyone who comes to my office says, “Would you send that to the public service?” and I say, “You'd better pick a department because they don't keep them; they throw them away. They refuse to accept them unless it's specified in the computer system that you're looking for a particular job and you're doing a search for departments.” The true battlefield or terrain for hiring is actually in the departments. Isn't that true?

    Mr. Scott Serson: I'd like to comment on that more generally. I think the battlefield is in the departments. I don't deny that.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: He knows my name. He's from my riding.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, exactly.

    The battlefield is in the departments. The Public Service Commission also went through program review, and we were downsized. Our ability to retain the kinds of inventories you've talked about is quite limited now. In fact, the committee should know that we do struggle to keep inventories on employment equity and citizens who are trying to join the public service. Departments have told us that's quite a special capacity that they would like us to perform.

    We continue to do much of the recruitment through national programming, post-secondary recruitment programming, etc. But the fact is that we have a challenge in our recruitment practices, post-program review, and that is that a lot of it is done initially on a short-term basis.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Can I interrupt?

    Mr. Scott Serson: Sure.

    The Chair: Remember the chair is here, Monsieur Bellemare.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: May I interrupt, Madam Chair?

    The Chair: Yes, you may.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There's the question of the merit system. I lived through the previous government, Mr. Thompson's government, between 1988 and 1993, when they changed the Public Service Act.

    In the committee I sat on, I was very miserable when they changed the merit system. The merit system was not that the best person gets the job, but rather those who are qualified for the job are the meritorious ones. Then the managers in the departments are the ones who select. They say, “Well, he fits the job. He happens to be my cousin. I won't tell it publicly or write it down in the file.” This is what is happening. How do we get by this thing? “Oh, I don't like him; he's too fat.”

    Mr. Scott Serson: Monsieur Bellemare, I don't claim that we have a perfect system, but I'd like to go on record stating here that the Public Service Commission is still there and it is still pushing back. If somebody comes to us to say we have an individual who has been working with us on term or on contract, we will ask whether this is a situation in which there's a shortage of that specialized capacity. In that case, we might let them.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You've hit the nail on the head of what I was going to get at.

    You've been handcuffed. I'm trying to be helpful to you. I may sound like the devil's advocate here, but it's really to be helpful.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Scott Serson: We'll take all the help we can get.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I've been complaining to different ministers about the “contractuels”. I find that there are the permanent employees called indeterminate--I don't where the hell you got that terminology--and then you have the non-permanents and of course you have those on contracts. Over the last 14 years, I've seen games being played to accommodate budgets, budget constraints, and other reasons, some of them not so palatable.

    I remember that during the Mulroney years they wouldn't tell me how many people were on contract, how much money we were spending. I was then told it was about $1 billion on contracts. Then I said no, it's more like $6 billion. Because I was from the Ottawa area, they thought all the public servants were feeding me this information, which they weren't at all, unfortunately. But then the government came back and said it's $4 billion. Well, I had raised the level--$4 billion!

    Then, under the Liberals, the same thing occurred. It was the same thing, this contracting for jobs and then who gets in, who gets out. You get these people who may work for five years. They work for five years less one day and they're out, so they don't get on the rolls for a pension and all the rights. Is that area of contract, indeterminate, and non-permanent being resolved now?

    We need a

[Translation]

    rejuvenation or renewal of the public service.

[English]

    You guys and I are getting old. We're going to quit soon, and we'll need replacements. They're not there any more; they're not there.

    Mr. Scott Serson: There are three levels of response to that question.

    First, we know the President of the Treasury Board is working on reform of the human resource management system, and I'm sure she will look at those kinds of issues at that level.

    For ourselves, we are working with our colleagues at the Treasury Board, who have, out of the last contract with PSAC, agreed to do a study of the situation with term hiring. I want to underscore that, through our oversight with departments, deputies are doing the hiring, but they're doing it on delegated authority from us. As I say, we still continue to be closely involved in the appointment of EXs, the senior managers, and in many recruitment areas.

    There, we are trying to challenge them to think things through—and this applies to employment equity as well, which is the situation Ms. Davies raised—and we are encouraging them to do better human resource planning. Do they need this term and contract hiring? Is that a business decision, or is it a holdover habit from the program review days, when they were uncertain about their financial base? It is clear to us that if you are in a competitive labour market and you want to attract the best and the brightest, you don't offer short-term jobs, because people are interested in long-term jobs. So we're trying to challenge them to think through whether or not their use of terms is business-related or just an unfortunate habit.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare. Your time is up. We're equal opportunity here too.

    Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to comment on something Mr. Bellemare said. I guess he credited me with...“my government”; that was the term he used. If I had known it was my government at the time, I would have invited him to join us in cabinet. Anyway, I guess our relationship does go back quite a while, and I'll forgive him for that oversight.

    What I'm concerned about is on page 2 of the brief presented by Mr. Serson, in his bullet points. In the fourth one down he says:

Under our current approach, merit aims to produce a competent, non-partisan and representative Public Service through a staffing process that is fair, equitable and transparent.

    I take exception to that, and I want to point out why. At least one member of Parliament, possibly more, has written to the president of the Public Service Commission expressing some concern about the practice of setting geographic criteria for hiring.

    That's a little hobby horse I've been on before, as you well know, Madam Chair. I feel very strongly that it violates the mobility provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, number one. It violates the mobility agreements and labour agreements between the federal government and the provinces because it restricts certain Canadians from applying for certain positions within the Public Service of Canada.

    I have before me a number of job postings from the commission that verify this. If you'll allow me, Madam Chair, I just want to point out one of them. It's for a production manager in Esquimalt, B.C., and they're telling us who can apply. It says persons residing or working across Canada and Canadian citizens living abroad. That's fair, but it also says preference may be given to residents of Vancouver Island, if a sufficient number of candidates apply. That's pretty broad, isn't it? Who determines whether or not there's a sufficient number of candidates?

    Here's another one. It's a posting for a paralegal, in Ottawa. Who can apply for this one? Again, only persons residing or working in eastern Ontario or western Quebec can apply, who have businesses or personal postal codes beginning with--this is not coming out of the blue, this is how it was advertised--K1 to K7, K8A to K8H, K0A to K0J, J8L to J8Z, J9A to J9J, or J0X.

    That prevents 90% of the rest of Canada, if you will, from applying for a position in the nation's capital, which I find absolutely unacceptable. How can they justify this fairness and equity in terms of the merit positions within the statement?

    Let me go through this one, picking up on Mr. Thompson's and Mr. Johnston's remarks. It says:

We've also established a policy framework that states that merit is achieved through a balance of six values.

    I suggest that all of those values are missing in all of those job postings. In the three results values of competence, non-partisanship, and representativeness, and the three process values of fairness, equity, and transparency are all at the whim of the commission determining who will be able to qualify for jobs that every single Canadian should be able to qualify for.

    Then they talk about efficiency and flexibility. Those are pretty broad terms. They just seem to change the criteria for any particular job at whim, and are given pretty broad powers to determine where they're going to advertise for these positions.

    I'll leave it at that, but I'd like to know from the commission whether or not they've heard representation from other members of Parliament on this issue, and whether or not it's going to be addressed, because I think there's some patent unfairness in limiting access to federal jobs to certain parts of Canada.

  (1225)  

    Under some of these job descriptions, for example, our own present Governor General wouldn't qualify for the position she has.

    I've got tons and tons, Madam Chair, of these positions, advertised in certain areas of Canada and excluding millions of other Canadians from applying.

    I'll leave it at that and ask Mr. Serson to comment.

    Mr. Scott Serson: We have received representations from other members of Parliament and we believe we are addressing it, Mr. Thompson. We gave a technical briefing to members of Parliament who wanted to attend before Christmas. It explained that we have already taken steps to expand the number of jobs in the public service to which national area of selection would apply.

    We've gone down to the level of senior manager minus one and minus two. We are running a series of experiments across the country over the next six months in which we are trying to look at the impact that national area of selection could have on issues like local preference, which some of your colleagues will also be concerned about and by which we can ascertain the kinds of volume challenges we are going to receive if we go national with the area of selection.

    Don't forget, in many cases there is a real job to be filled serving the Canadian public. That could be in the area of health and safety. If we apply a national area of selection and receive 1,000 or 5,000 applications--there was a recent competition for a fairly specialized job in Yellowknife where there were 800 applicants--we need manpower, if we're going to be fair, to screen, to rank, and to assess those applicants. All that takes time, money, and energy, which at the current point, as Monsieur Bellemare inferred, we do not have.

    So what we're trying to do is create an evidentiary base for members of Parliament and the government to say, “If you want us to take steps expanding the national area of selection”--which we understand as a principle and sympathize with--“this is what it is going to cost you to process those applications, if you want to keep a relatively efficient staffing and recruitment system”.

    If you look, Mr. Thompson, at the press related to human resource management reform or any other subject related to staffing and recruitment in the public service, most of the complaints are about the efficiency of the system. We are pushing back and saying, hey, wait, there have to be considerations of fairness and equity in the system.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Greg Thompson: I have one short question, again regarding the intervention by Mr. Serson. We're going on to--I believe it's page 7. There's something missing here; please help me on this one. We're going down the bullets to the sixth bullet on page 7. He says section paragraph 6(c) of the Employment Equity Act “reaffirms this”--and he's talking about merit--“by stating that persons should be hired or promoted based on selection according to merit.”

    I know he has addressed this before, Madam Chair, but by whom is merit defined? I don't believe the act actually defines merit, so this idea of merit is a highly subjective one of the commission. In other words, you're setting the terms and definitions of merit; is that not correct?

    Mr. Scott Serson: Well, we do have some--

    Mr. Greg Thompson: I guess the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Serson--sorry to intervene here--

    The Chair: We're running out of time here.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: --but you're basically disregarding.... I mean, that bullet doesn't connect to the previous bullet, so basically you're dodging the bullet when it comes to merit, because you're quoting a section of the act that really is not consistent with your definition of merit, if you go down through your presentation. We should have ten or fifteen minutes to go through this. I know the chairman is being generous.

    The Chair: You're over your time. You have thirty seconds, Mr. Serson.

    Mr. Scott Serson: Thirty seconds. The short answer is, as I said to Mr. Johnston, that no, there is not a definition in the Public Service Employment Act, Mr. Thompson, but there is a definition of processes necessary to achieve merit. They are quite extensive and they follow through into regulations.

    The Chair: Madam Folco, you're on, then Mr. Spencer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions, some of which may seem naive. However, I would appreciate a brief answer to my first question about the structure or, if you like, the system.

    I've learned that the Employment Equity Program includes a special measures component which...In fact, we're not actually dealing with special measures. If I understand correctly, some organizations, referred to as special services agencies, are not covered directly by the act. One such agency is the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Another is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As I understand it, certain measures apply to agencies of this nature. Why is this the case? That's my first question.

    For my second question, I'd like to know why we don't have a somewhat more homogenous system that could apply more or less to all federal government organizations? I would appreciate a quick answer to that question, because I have another one for you. Thank you.

    Mr. James Lahey: Let me just briefly say in response to your question that section 4(1)(c) of the Employment Equity Act covers administrative matters and the application of the legislation to 15 agencies deemed to be independent employers pursuant to their enabling legislation. These agencies are fully responsible and accountable for human resources management, including employment equity issues. They are accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Therefore to set up another body to monitor their activities would amount to a form of duplication.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I wasn't suggesting another level of oversight be introduced. Not at all. I was merely suggesting that perhaps the current system could provide for a mechanism to have all government agencies monitored by the Public Service Commission and by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I'm not interested either in having another level of oversight. Things are fine as they are. Thank you.

    As I was saying earlier, my other question may seem a little naive. I've worked extensively on employment equity issues, particularly as regards Quebec's visible minorities . Quebec appears to be dealing with the same problems that exist elsewhere in Canada; for all sorts of reasons, members of visible minorities are not well represented in the public service. They are always the last people hired, and apparently also the first to be let go.

    It's also a fact that members of visible minorities who immigrated to this country three generations ago often worked in the public service in their native country. Although they aren't the only ones, I'm thinking here about immigrants from the British West Indies who went directly into teaching. Therefore, I can't understand why, given this tradition and the proactive strategies referred to earlier by Mr. Serson, members of visible minorities across Canada are not well represented in the federal public service. If fact, if I understand correctly, the figures and percentages for visible minorities are the lowest among all designated groups.

  (1235)  

    Mr. James Lahey: As stated earlier, we agree that the numbers are too low and must increase. That's the only answer I can give you. On the positive side, representation has increased, but not as much as we would like. However, the numbers are rising.

    I also think that we are possibly dealing with the critical mass phenomenon to some extent. Shared contacts and knowledge can be very helpful. The success model also encourages people who might be somewhat hesitant to seriously consider employment in the public service. These models have made this type of employment more attractive.

    I agree with you that we need to do more. Your suggestion is a valid one. Persons who work in the public services sector could theoretically be good candidates for federal employment.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Madam Chair, I'd just like to add that these visible minority groups now include...I'm excluding former immigrants from the United States, the Black Canadians who settled in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. I'm focussing in particular on immigrants who have arrived in this country since the 1950s. We are now seeing third generations of families. These individuals are no longer immigrants. They were born here in Canada, as were their parents.

    I would suggest to the public service that it adopt more concrete strategies geared to this particular population group. Otherwise, the consequences for our society will be dire indeed. I don't think I need to draw you a picture. These individuals must be included fully in this societal initiative. Obviously, this is a pious wish on my part, but I'm leaving it to you to make this wish a reality. I'm not familiar with all of the efforts you have made to assist these individuals, but I encourage you to press on and to achieve even greater results. Speed is also of the essence because time is passing and we have already seen how generations have been impacted as a result of being excluded from society.

    Mr. Scott Serson: I think we agree on this.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Spencer, and then Madam Guay, five minutes.

    Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Mr. Serson mentioned the fact that some groups look forward to being able to be counted mainstream, rather than being treated as a special group and as a representative of a certain group. I'm glad to hear that, because it seems to me that would indicate that there must be some way of knowing when we've achieved equity. I'm just noting, for instance, in the public service here--and I'm looking at numbers, not the group they represent--one group is represented by 51.4% of the public service, and yet that's a group we're still pushing. Another one is only 3.3%, and yet both of those groups exceed the availability. What I'm really wanting to know is how you really define equity--and please, another shorter answer. How do you define that equity, and how will you know when you've achieved it?

  (1240)  

    Mr. James Lahey: I know you were addressing Mr. Serson, and he will want to comment, but could I just make a comment?

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Sure.

    Mr. James Lahey: Take the example of an unspecified group with 51.4%. The issue before us at this stage with women in the public service isn't the number of people, obviously, it's the distribution; it's the participation in the full range of types of work, levels of responsibility, as Madam Guay said, and levels of income. I don't think we're looking for a complete system, where every single level, every single profession, everything, is 50%, and therefore it's perfect. But there is lots of room for women to have more opportunity in the leadership and in the professional and high-paid jobs in the public service.

    In a sense, the challenge changes over time. The goal, I think, is not really a statistical one. The goal is a public service Canadians can see themselves in, such that when they see their public servants, they can see themselves. It's also a public service where ministers and parliamentarians can be confident that they are hearing the perspectives of the full range of Canadians, so that policies develop, so that programs are administered with an understanding and a sensitivity to all these perspectives. Even if we had all the numbers perfect, there would still be a challenge, potentially, for what we could call inclusion.

    Maybe I'm getting carried away, but that would be my answer. Scott, do you have a comment?

    Mr. Scott Serson: No.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Do I understand that equity has nothing to do with numbers? The numbers can keep rising with any one group until it reaches.... As you have pointed out, these groups are looking at coming up to two-thirds of the workforce in a few years anyway.

    Mr. James Lahey: It has something to do with numbers. Numbers are a way of indicating whether you are in the ballpark. Take the example of visible minorities. In general, if we forget for the moment about labour force availability, there are about 10% of the Canadian population who are visible minorities, various groups, and so on and so forth, whereas in the public service it is probably of the order of 6%. So that is an indicator, a suggestion, that we are not sufficiently representative of visible minorities yet. Do we have to be the exact number? No, I don't think so. Maybe we could be more, maybe we could be a little bit less. But it's an indicator that there is an issue still to be addressed. I don't think it is a scientific or a mathematical sort of thing, but I think it is indicative of issues to be pursued.

    Mr. Larry Spencer: So what you are saying is, once you are on the list, you are on the list forever.

    Mr. James Lahey: It's hard to predict the future, as you know. I don't think it's necessarily so. This is one of the reasons, I presume, Parliament decided to have a review of this act after five years. Maybe you will decide to do that again. It is to take stock, to decide whether social change and the phenomena we're observing require this kind of attention. In fact, we could hopefully reach a stage where you don't need any special programs and it happens naturally. I don't know when that will be.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Larry Spencer: Madam Chair, that is what I was wanting to make sure we note. It will happen naturally, and the further we go along, the more naturally it will happen. You commented on, for instance, women's involvement in the field of engineering. I would suggest that has a lot to do with the number of women who studied that subject. It's very specifically related to education, and those things are opening up as we go along, quite outside the employment equity program, I might add. It seems to me that at some point we need to recognize that we can back off on some of this. It does not seem to me necessarily the primary purpose of government to educate people as to what job they can hold. That seems to be a large part of what you are doing.

    The Chair: Madame Guay.

[Translation]

    Ms. Monique Guay: Today's discussion has been most interesting, but there is still much work to be done. We've exchanged some rather different ideas. Our goals are different as well. Our work isn't done yet. It's my impression that the general public views securing employment in the federal public service as a difficult task. The lingering perception, one that we need to alter, is that jobs are out of reach.

    Let me give you an example. The Quebec government holds job fairs to give everyone an opportunity to apply for employment in the provincial public service. Another example is the current advertising campaign under way in Quebec inviting members of specific designated groups to seek employment in the public service. We don't see this happening at the federal level. At least I haven't seen anything like this. I've never heard any announcements or seen any posters of this nature. While there may be openings, these aren't advertised. Therefore, there is room for improvement on this front. I don't know if we can change things through the act. However, perhaps advertising job openings should be made mandatory.

    Regarding persons with disabilities, a subject near and dear to your heart, Amelita, there is also much work left to be done. I realize that action can be costly, but surely steps can be taken to reduce costs. Efforts could also be made to integrate persons with disabilities as well as cultural minorities. It's very important that these groups be represented. Mr. Malhi rightly gave the example of taxi drivers who have multiple degrees, yet cannot secure employment in the federal public service. Admittedly, the same thing occurred on a dramatic scale in Quebec. Today we have made great strides. We need to look to these examples and I encourage you to keep up the good work.

    I don't really have a question, but I am interested in knowing if you do any kind of advertising or if you intend to do any. Could you keep us informed of this situation?

    Mr. Scott Serson: We visit universities on a regular basis. We operate a program whereby we recruit ambassadors in universities.

    When it comes to the problems raised by Mr. Bellemare, we face a formidable challenge. This year, as a result of our post-secondary recruitment program, I believe we received a total of 22,000 applications for 900 job openings in the public service. As you can see, interest in the public service is high. The problem we now have is converting term positions into indeterminate positions.

  (1250)  

    Ms. Monique Guay: If you receive 22,000 applications...If 600 people apply for a particular job, will you give preferential treatment to applicants from a designated group, assuming they have the same qualifications and abilities and equal merit? Is that what you do?

    Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, that does happen. However, the department has to advise us on how it wishes to proceed.

    Ms. Monique Guay: In closing, I'd like to share with you one of my concerns. The legislation was enacted several years ago and when I asked if any investigations had been launched or if any person or company failing to comply with the legislation's provisions had been charged or prosecuted, I was told no one had. This means that something isn't working. It can't be that all government contractors are complying with the law. That's impossible. Certain procedures aren't being followed. Perhaps improvements can be made to ensure that everyone complies with the act, not just the public service but government contractors as well.

    Mr. James Lahey: Overall, this is more a matter for HRDC which is responsible for the act. However, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has, in certain instances, issued directives to the department. I believe some proceedings have been instituted.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Editor's note: Inaudible.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have three more who want to talk. We're getting very close to the end.

    Mrs. Skelton, you haven't had an opportunity. I'll ask you to be very short, and then I'll go to Mrs. Davies and Mr. Tonks.

    Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to know how many federal departments and agencies have been audited by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. How many departments were non-compliant, and who were they?

    Mr. James Lahey: My understanding is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission representatives will be here in the next couple of days, and they might be better able to give you the details. However, my understanding is that 42 out of 48 departments with more than 100 employees have been or currently are being audited by the CHRC; that 17 were found to be in compliance with their procedural requirements; that another three are expected to be compliant shortly; and that 20 are in various stages of progress towards completing their undertakings with regard to the CHRC.

    I would repeat, though, that it would be better to get.... I mean, I don't certify these facts, so to speak, in that this is what we've learned from the CHRC. I think they're coming to speak to you tomorrow or the next day, but I could be wrong.

    A voice: It's next Tuesday.

    Ms. Carol Skelton: May I ask, do either of you know the rationale for having both your groups engaged in the preparation of employment equity reports? Why didn't you combine and put the two together?

    Mr. James Lahey: You're referring to HRDC and ourselves? Well, HRDC's responsibility is in regard to the whole federally regulated labour force, so it includes public sector, private sector--the whole thing--and that's their perspective.

    We are one of the employers. We're the largest employer, but we're one of the employers. So just as the individual employers in the private sector make reports, we do too. Besides, we're required by the law, as it's currently written, to do it. We're one of the employers within the universe that HRDC is responsible for, so I don't think it's really a duplication; it's quite a different role.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Libby Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Just very briefly, this was touched on earlier, but I think it's actually a really important point. Mr. Malhi touched on this, that Parliament itself, the Library of Parliament, and even the political parties are not covered by employment equity, which I think is very weird actually.You would think we should be leading by example. I realize you may not feel you can answer it, but I think it is kind of glaring that even the Human Rights Act does not apply to Parliament. We've had a case recently involving that. The Canada Labour Code doesn't apply.

    We're here today talking about employment equity, and what I want to ask you, if you could answer, please, is whether there is any objective reason this legislation should not apply to Parliament itself. I'm very proud of the fact that I belong to a political party that does incorporate affirmative action principles, for example, in searching for candidates. That's up to the parties to decide.

    But in terms of Parliament, we're a public institution as well. Is there any objective reason, any other reason other than a political decision that was made, that we should not be covered by this very important legislation?

  (1255)  

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: On a point of order, that's not a fair question to ask a public servant.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Well, he'll tell me if he can't answer it.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That is not a fair question to public servants.

    The Chair: I'm going to respond by indicating, Ms. Davies, that we've just handed out a list of potential witnesses for upcoming meetings, and I would point out that we've suggested the federal institutions not covered by the act be asked to appear at the committee. While I know it's something you're interested in, Mr. Bellemare may have a point that it's probably not fair.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I worded it very carefully to say any “objective” reason--

    The Chair: No, and I appreciate that.

    Ms. Libby Davies: --from their professional capacity of dealing with employment equity. It seems to me they should be free to answer that, and if they don't feel comfortable, I'm sure they'll tell us. It's a fair question.

    Mr. James Lahey: I heard your colleagues listening to you carefully.

    The Chair: As I say, there will be a meeting. I think we all believe those were questions that perhaps needed to be asked, and there will be a meeting devoted to that.

    Mr. Tonks has relinquished his time in the interest of a very short period of time.

    I thank the witnesses for their patience with us, and I thank the committee for being so diligent in adhering to the time limits.

    Just before I adjourn, I would encourage members of the committee to look over the suggested lists of witnesses to review the ones we have already booked. I'd also remind them there is a steering committee meeting, a general meeting, following next Tuesday's meeting. I think you'll find that all of the names you have submitted have been included in the list of suggested meetings.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So this is just a suggested list. Where's the list of the witnesses then that...you said there's another list?

    The Chair: No, all the lists you submitted have been incorporated in this. On Tuesday we will have a fuller discussion on the order and whether there are some additions we might want to make.

    Ms. Libby Davies: At the steering committee or at the main committee?

    The Chair: It will be a main committee after the presentation, which is scheduled for about 45 minutes. Following that, it will be a hearing of the entire committee. It will be on future business of the entire committee.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So there's not a steering committee meeting then?

    The Chair: No, I'm sorry, it's future business.

    The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.