HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 11, 2001

• 1107

[English]

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

This morning we are very pleased to have with us the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw, Minister of Labour, and two of her officials, Gerry Blanchard and Neil Gavigan.

Welcome to the committee, Minister. Today we're dealing with the order of reference dated December 3, the statutory review of the Employment Equity Act.

Madam Bradshaw, I know you have some introductory remarks for us on the review before us.

Honourable Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.): Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

Honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about the Employment Equity Act.

What I would like to do over the next few minutes is emphasize the continuing commitment of the Government of Canada to employment equity and offer some commitment and thoughts on our experience with the legislation.

[Translation]

Much of Canada's success can be attributed to our multicultural and inclusive values. The eminent historian, Ged Martin, from the University of Edinburgh, has written: "in the crucial combination of mass participation, human rights and self- government, Canada's history is second to none in the world."

[English]

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC/DR): Madam Chair, we're having trouble with our listening devices for translation.

The Chair: It's very low, yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: We really can't hear much of what the minister has to say.

Sorry, Claudette. You were on a roll too.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I want to make sure you hear me.

The Chair: The English translation has high volume, but the French translation is very low.

Okay. I think we can carry on.

[Translation]

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you.

It would be difficult to think of an achievement of which we could be more proud.

Our country's efforts to promote inclusiveness and equity are well known around the world. I have said this to you before, but it is worth repeating: in 1998, the South African government of President Nelson Mandela used our Employment Equity Act as a model for its own employment equity legislation.

• 1110

The aspiration to be a society of fairness, equity, justice, acceptance and inclusiveness is an aspiration that is common to all of us, no matter where you go in Canada.

[English]

The Employment Equity Act goes to the heart of the Government of Canada's inclusiveness philosophy. It tries to break down the barriers that have prevented individuals from the designated groups—aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, and women—from taking their rightful place in this country's economic and social life.

We have had 15 years' experience with employment equity legislation and 5 years' experience with legislation that has a stronger enforcement provision. Now it is time to review and assess the impact of this legislation.

It seems to me the central questions we have to address are whether the act is working, whether it's doing what it is supposed to be doing, and how it might be improved.

My officials have produced a report on employment equity to help you in your deliberations. It contains no policy recommendations, but it does contain some statistics to help you assess the effects of the legislation, and it sets out some issues you will need to consider. I understand you've already met with some of my officials. They will be available to you whenever you need their assistance. Let me quickly go over some of the data my officials have gathered for the committee.

With respect to aboriginal people, they make up 1.5% of the federally regulated, private sector workforce, but this representation is below their labour market availability. The same pattern of representation holds true for persons with disabilities; that is, their representation in the federal public sector is lower than their labour market availability.

The situation is different for visible minorities. Their representation in the private sector is slightly higher than their labour market availability. However, the data show a serious underrepresentation of visible minorities in the public sector.

The average salary of women as a percentage of the average salary of men increased from 75.9% in 1996 to 77.6% in 1999. The narrowing of the wage gap in the federal private sector is a slow process, but it is moving in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the glass ceiling is still an issue for both women and visible minorities. They remain concentrated in lower-level positions. However, with respect to the situation of women, good progress is being made in occupations previously viewed as non-traditional for women. Also, in 1999, women received more than half of all promotions in the federally regulated private sector.

[Translation]

Progress for Aboriginal people and persons with disabilities has been particularly difficult, especially in the private sector. For persons with disabilities, a perception of a glass staircase exists. In general, their labour market availability stands at 6.5% but they make up only 2.4% of the federally-regulated workforce. That is a serious under-representation that we cannot ignore.

Persons with disabilities have experienced the least progress under the legislation. They had made some advances—but very small ones—in representation, recruitment and promotion between 1995 and 2000. A major issue appears to be job accommodation for persons with disabilities.

• 1115

Aboriginal young people are experiencing high levels of unemployment, as are youth in general. The situation is likely to assume greater urgency since Aboriginal peoples constitute the fastest growing demographic group in this country, and have a higher proportion of children than the overall Canadian population. We will have to do more to ensure that there are an adequate number of good jobs open to Aboriginal youth.

What the numbers are telling us, I think, is that progress towards a more equitable society is being made, but it certainly isn't rapid. For some, it is painfully slow.

[English]

In preparing our report we had several consultation sessions with stakeholders across the country. They met with employer representatives, labour unionists, and organizations that speak for the four designated groups. A number of important points emerged from the session.

For instance, no one argued that the need for employment equity legislation had lessened. Also, we heard calls for amendments but no calls for major changes to the legislation. Indeed, most participants spoke of the usefulness and relevance of the act and urged its continuation.

Frequently heard was the need for more education about employment equity. There is still a good deal of misinformation about employment equity and there is still an inadequate amount of training in employment equity for managers.

The labour program will have to devote more attention to these issues. The position adopted by the business community needs to be highlighted. Business people from one end of the country to the other have expressed support for the legislation and its objectives.

The following statement from the Canadian Bankers Association is typical of the commitments we have received from businesses:

The CBA continues to believe that, as a policy instrument designed to promote fundamental long-term change, the Employment Equity Act (EEA) in its present form remains an effective, appropriately focused and balanced law and is an important component, although not the only one, of the efforts that will help Canada achieve an inclusive society...

I am delighted to have that kind of support from the business community. I think it confirms what I said earlier, that the aspiration to be a fair and equitable society is deeply felt in this country.

Women seem to have made the most progress under the act, but many noted during the consultation sessions that employer efforts to help women balance their work and family lives are inadequate. I know that many employers have worked hard to accommodate their female employees, but clearly more must be done.

[Translation]

Many Aboriginal spokespersons pointed out that Aboriginal workers have difficulty adjusting to corporate cultures and that the workplace is frequently an unwelcoming one. Thus, retention rates tend to be very low.

Representatives of visible minorities observed that they are still under-represented in the federal public service, particularly in the management category. They also discussed whether the definition of “visible minorities” ought to be revised.

• 1120

A major concern of persons with disabilities is workplace accommodation. Participants suggested that written accommodation policies be made mandatory under the Act, and that employers be held accountable for their written commitments.

[English]

These are just some of the concerns and issues that were raised during the consultations, and many others were raised. So while there is a consensus as to the desirability of maintaining the legislation, many knowledgeable representatives of the designated groups have legitimate concerns and well thought out policy ideas, all of which you may want to consider thoroughly. These comments and others are contained in the report to which I referred earlier.

Once again I offer my full cooperation and the assistance of my officials to respond to your requests for further data and information. Clearly your agenda is a heavy one. I wish you good luck, and I look forward to the results of your deliberations.

Thank you for accepting to do this work for us, because I think it's so important.

[Translation]

I would like to thank you very much for agreeing to do this work because I think that this is very, very important work for all Canadians. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Now I have to leave, but if somebody had a specific question to ask, I'm certainly open to answer.

The Chair: Madame Bradshaw, the difficulty is that I think there are probably 18 specific questions, and you put me in a difficult situation in trying to pick one of my fellow committee members.

In the normal rotation the Alliance would have the first question, and if you're prepared to stay through that one then we'll see how things go.

Mr. Johnston, you have the honour of asking the first question.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Madame Minister, for your report.

It sure would have been nice to get this Employment Equity Act review a little ahead of time. It's quite voluminous, and I'm sure it would prompt a lot of questions. I have one question specifically for you, though. It's one I put to the human rights group that came before us, and they had an answer for what their budget was as far as the human rights aspect of this affirmative action legislation is. I was wondering if you could tell me what is the labour program's budget for this program.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Johnston, the report we just gave you was a Christmas gift, so that you may read it over the Christmas holiday, so that you may do beautiful work after Christmas.

The budget is $3.7 million for 50 staff,

[Translation]

for a staff of 50 employees.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston: How much has that increased? The last legislation we had was in 1996, so over the last five years, how much would that have increased?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: We have less funding in it than we had five years ago, before we amended the legislation. A lot of that is due to the technology.

Mr. Dale Johnston: So it's gone up or down?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Down.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Actually you asked for specific questions for yourself. Do you yourself consider the employment equity program a success, or if you had your druthers, how would you change it?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: You're going to tell me how we should change it, and that's why I think it's really important to bring it to committee. I know what I'd like to see, and I want to see what you're going to be telling me, as a minister, about the changes you would like to see. That's why I hope you're going to travel, I hope you're going to take it seriously, and I hope you're really going to look at the issues.

• 1125

When we have the Canadian Bankers Association working with us as closely as they are on this issue, I believe it's really something we want to do. The unions are involved with us. The Canadian Bankers Association is involved with us. We're working very closely with FEDCO. So I believe that all our partners want the review done and all our partners want to continue the work we began.

The Chair: Could you take another two minutes worth of questions?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Chair, on a point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I've never been before a committee where the minister appears and then tells us after she presents her brief, without copies of that brief being available—and I'm not being personally critical of the minister—that she's leaving before every member of this committee has had an opportunity to question her. I find that insulting to every member in this room, including yourself.

I believe the minister has a duty to sit here before this committee. It's not every day that we have the opportunity to question the minister, and truly it's an insult to this committee to sit here assuming the minister is going to be here only to find out she's going to leave.

Could we get a specific timeframe on how long the minister will be here and how many members are entitled to question this? This is truly unfair. And it's nobody's fault but her own that I'm a member of the fifth party, or the fourth party, or the third party, or the second party. To sit here and be subjected to this type of humiliation is wrong.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Thompson. My schedule today is packed and I said I would come in.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Many of us have schedules that are packed—

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I understand that.

Mr. Greg Thompson: —but we took the opportunity to come to the committee knowing you were going to be here.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I understand that, and I really appreciate the work the committee is going to do. That's why I said, look, I'll answer questions. I didn't feel comfortable coming in and just reading my report and leaving. That's why I will put back the other meeting and answer questions for the committee because I feel very good that you're going to do this for us. I feel it's important. Personally, I was not comfortable coming in and reading the report and then leaving. I wanted to make sure I spent time with committee members to answer questions.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Do I understand that to mean that you are staying for the duration of the meeting, Madam Minister? In other words, are you changing your schedule? It appears so. Maybe I misunderstood what you said, but from your statement it appears that you're going to change your schedule to allow you to stay. Is that correct?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: What I said, Mr. Thompson, is that previously I was going to come in and read the report and my officials would be here to answer any questions you might have. I felt, because I appreciate so much that you've accepted to do this work and it's so important, that I would stay. If I need to get to my next meeting later, then that's what it means.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Bradshaw. Perhaps we can also have an undertaking that if we don't complete the round of questions to the committee's satisfaction, in the new year, when your schedule permits it, you could come back and answer more specific questions as we continue on with this.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you.

The Chair: The rounds will be short. I'm going to go to Madame Guay and then Mr. Malhi.

[Translation]

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

Ms. Bradshaw, I will be asking some very short questions.

First of all, I would like to thank you for appearing before us today. As a minister, you have made yourself very available for us this year and I would like to congratulate you on this. I know that you have a very heavy schedule, we do as well. At the end of the session, this is just about the case for everybody.

Madam Minister, earlier you spoke about a glass ceiling. I would like you to clarify what you meant by "glass ceiling". You also talked about visible minorities. This is a term that we hate. I feel that this term really does smack of segregation. I don't know, but perhaps we could use a term such as "cultural communities" or something that is much more positive than "visible minorities". This is clearly a term that we no longer use in Quebec. Our Employment Equity Act no longer uses this term either.

I had another question for you, and then I will let you speak. Here, the Employment Equity Act doesn't apply to Parliament, to the Library of Parliament or to the staff of political parties. My question, therefore, is as follows:

• 1130

If we are to practice what we preach, why is it that this legislation does not apply to people working on Parliament Hill?

We have a report on the table. As a final question, I would like you to tell me exactly what is going to happen as of today. We will analyze this report and hear witnesses. Will we be submitting a new report? Will we be suggesting amendments to the legislation? What is the program for this bill?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: These are all questions that you are going to answer for us. This is exactly why we wanted to appear before the committee. The legislation was amended five years ago. I feel that it is important to talk to Canadians in order to find out what they think of the legislation. You will have an opportunity to read the report and, once you have read it, you will have many more questions. Questions such as the ones you asked me about Parliament Hill staff and changes to the definition are questions that you have to ask yourselves. As you know—and I said this when I first appeared—I'm very open to recommendations that you make.

In the workplace, there are so many things that can happen to an employee, and we are not always aware of what these may be. I have sat on many committees and came to the realization that it's often when we travel and give people an opportunity to really talk to us that we learn about the real stories, and that's how we really understand the situation.

I think that employment equity is such an important issue that you should go and talk to people in the field. I am very, very open to any recommendations you may make, and I hope that you will consider the three questions that you asked.

Ms. Monique Guay: We are therefore going to be meeting Canadians throughout the country.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: I hope so.

Ms. Monique Guay: Are we also going to be able to draw comparisons? We have employment equity legislation in Quebec. Perhaps we could determine whether or not there are things that work well and others that work less well, and try to adjust these two pieces of legislation, because we do have both Quebec and Canadian experience. We must be able to take advantage of the good things and do away with the things that do not work.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Exactly. And if we know someone who already has something that works well... Before the meeting, we talked about the possibility of looking at other countries that do things very well, who have already implemented what we want to have. If we bring something before the committee, it is because we want to acquire the knowledge of the people who are involved.

Ms. Monique Guay: You will give us the time we need to examine the law properly. That is what you are telling us.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's up to you and Madam Chair to decide on this.

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Malhi and Ms. Davies.

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

First of all, I'd like to thank the minister.

I have a question. The contract covers women, aboriginal people, visible minorities, and people with disabilities. Would there be any benefit in amending the act to include older workers, especially since there are an increasing number of older workers seeking employment?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: That's a very good question. In my community work, I dealt a lot with the older worker groups. If you wanted to look at older workers, that would not be a problem for us.

Mr. Neil Gavigan (Director, Labour Standards and Workplace Equity, Labour Branch, Department of Human Resources Development): When the designated groups are looked at in terms of who is a member or what groups require the assistance of an employment equity legislation, we look at indicators in the labour market, such as unemployment rates, concentration in occupations, overall wage rates, and overall participation rates. This has come up during the consultations, and I believe it's referred to in the report.

One of the things you find with older workers and with other groups is that while individually they may face discrimination, people who are over 45—and unfortunately, I include myself there—tend to have the lowest unemployment rates in Canada. They tend to have the best paying jobs. So as a remedy for the discrimination they may face, an employment equity program to try to increase the representation of older workers traditionally hasn't been the solution sought.

• 1135

As the minister has said, certainly these kinds of questions have come up in consultations, depending on location, etc.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: The other point you bring up is that it's going to be important for you to work very closely with the staff so that you're aware of the work that has already been done with the staff. After you read the report, you might have some questions on issues they've already looked at. There might be something in the report and you wonder why it was done that way. Well, they have already looked at it. So you will want to work very closely with the staff in the work they have done.

The Chair: Mr. Malhi, I'll come back to you in another round, but I'm trying to get as many in a short first round as I can.

Ms. Davies, please.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and thank you to the minister for appearing today.

I'm here with my colleague Pat Martin, who's our labour critic, who spoke in the House recently on the Employment Equity Act. First I want to say that the NDP strongly supports the legislation and the continuing need for an employment equity program.

I think there's a lot of misrepresentation, a lot of misunderstanding, about employment equity. There's still the myth that it's somehow about promoting special interests or giving people favours, which of course is absolutely not the case. This is about making sure our workforce is representative of the available workforce of qualified people.

Having briefly looked through the report, it strikes me that one of the critical issues in continuing to show leadership around employment equity is actually what does happen within departments or within the federally regulated private sector. To have something on paper is one thing, but when you look, for example, at the number of terminations of aboriginal people, which was more than a thousand, it seems to me that there are still huge issues around education within the departments.

To bring people in is one thing, but then to continue to deal with the cultural barriers, the systemic barriers, or just an environment where people don't feel they're part of what's happening in terms of promotions.... I feel there's a lot of work that needs to be done here. I wonder if you would comment on that.

As well, I know there's a program called the “one in five”, which is basically trying to ensure that visible minorities are also being promoted into management or executive positions. I understand that has really not done too well either. Could you comment on those things in terms of the education within the department?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Yes. Thank you for your comment. As we were meeting this morning before I came, one of the areas we talked about, and we hoped you would be looking at, is the whole issue of education. We hope you will be speaking to people and that you will be able to come to us with a good package of what they need to know and how we can proceed with the whole issue of education. It's one of the subjects we were talking about this morning.

Someone who is also embracing the changes is the minister, Madame Robillard, who will come in as a witness. You might also want to speak to Madame Robillard on many of your issues. To me, listening to you and what you're saying, and listening to our members, this is really the future of our country. We need to take employment equity really seriously.

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you think there's more of a need, though, to follow up in the private sector? How do you see the private sector doing vis-à-vis the public sector?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: I think there's a need to seriously look at both. We never really make the difference in labour, because it's a package. We're all partners in this. We all live in the same country. I would want you to look at all the sectors and see what we can do and how we can better what we have now.

The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Thompson next and then Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Madam Minister, for staying with us.

Who enforces the Employment Equity Act, Madam Minister?

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: There are 410 companies under the federal jurisdiction, and it's being enforced through the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay. One of the things—

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Then you have—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay, no, that's fine.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: But then you have 850 companies under provincial jurisdiction that are being audited by us as a labour program. So you have two.

• 1140

Mr. Greg Thompson: Regarding the enforcement of the act, the act does not require employers to meet employment equity quotas. So if that's not required within the act, what are they enforcing? In other words, the act itself is weak.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Well, you're going to be looking at how weak the act is, as we study all of this.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Would you consider this a deficiency within the act, the fact that employers are not required to meet equity quotas?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: It's one of the questions you're going to have to ask yourselves.

Mr. Greg Thompson: But I'm asking you as minister.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: If I had all the answers.... We decided we would have no quotas. Now you must decide, as a committee, and that's why we're asking you to review this. You're going to have all of those discussions. Would you like to see quotas? Would you not like to see quotas? That's going to be a discussion you will have, Mr. Thompson, when you review the act.

Mr. Greg Thompson: What kinds of penalties are imposed upon employers by the commission, Madam Minister? Are there penalties that can be imposed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Our staff will give you different examples of what happens.

Mr. Greg Thompson: But is it your understanding that those penalties have ever been imposed on any of the employers?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: If we want to work in cooperation with our partners, we don't necessarily want to give penalties. We necessarily want to work with them when there's a problem in the workplace. We're there to basically give them directions.

Mr. Greg Thompson: What are those penalties? What do they range from, Madam Minister? What is the range of those penalties?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We give them direction, Mr. Thompson, rather than penalties. We want to go in and give them direction, so that we're able to work with them. We're not there—

Mr. Greg Thompson: It's like a slap on the wrist as opposed to enforcing the act, if you will.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: We like to believe in the labour program. If you look at the Canada Labour Code, if you look at the program itself, we like to believe that we work in cooperation with our partners. With regard to the Employment Equity Act, we like to believe that we work the same way with them. I don't think you get far by frequently slapping people. I'd rather be able to work with them in partnership and give them direction.

As Ms. Davies said a while ago, we want to put some more emphasis on education, and I'm looking forward to hearing what you're going to have to say about that.

Mr. Greg Thompson: It is my understanding that the only time—

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, I'm going to remind you that I'm here, and you're going to go through the chair in your questioning.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay, Madam Chairman.

Am I allowed one more question?

The Chair: One very short one.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay. It's my understanding that the only time any of these employers have been, if you wish, fined or disciplined is simply because they failed to file an equity employment plan. Is that your understanding?

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: No. The staff here is going to answer you on enforcement, so you'll have a clear definition.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: There are two processes for enforcement within the Employment Equity Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission audits companies under the act, and if a company is not in compliance with one of the provisions of the legislation, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the power to issue a direction. That direction could then be appealed to an Employment Equity Tribunal, which would be appointed. There is no monetary penalty attached to that. If at the end of the day, the tribunal upholds that order or chooses to change an order, that becomes an order of the Federal Court.

The Minister of Labour has the power under the act, if a company fails to file a statistical report at the end of each year, to impose a fine of anywhere from $10,000 for a first offence to $50,000 for subsequent offences. In the past five years that we've had that power, no fines have been imposed. And as the minister has said, we work in the labour program on the basis of a compliance policy through which we try education and persuasion. Thus far, while we are monitoring some cases of non-compliance, we have been able to use persuasion to get companies into compliance. So there have been no fines imposed for failure to report.

Mr. Greg Thompson: None?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: None.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Ever?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Ever.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay.

The Chair: We're moving to the second round.

Madam Bradshaw, your officials will remain with us until the end of the meeting, I trust. We look forward to seeing you back at the committee as we proceed through this very important review of the Employment Equity Act.

Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Thank you again, and Merry Christmas. I hope you will have good reading during your holidays. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

• 1145

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the minister's presentation here today. I truly do believe that if we're going to exact the total opportunity from every Canadian, then we have to give every Canadian an opportunity to participate. I think the review of this employment equity legislation is very opportune for us to do that.

My question is actually along the same lines as that of my colleague, Mr. Thompson. When in our tradition we advanced the cause of an affirmative action program, we did it within the framework of a proactive equity program as opposed to an affirmative action program in the American tradition of having quotas, reviewing those quotas, and so on. When you did your initial consultation, did you make it clear to stakeholders that there had not been the progress that we would like to see within targeted committee groupings?

My question is put that way because, and I understand the minister said this is a very painful process and that workplaces are frequently unwelcoming.... But if people knew we were making very slow progress against the urgency of this issue for the country, would they perhaps have been a little more demanding in terms of the kind of legislative changes they'd like to see?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Just in response, when you have an opportunity to look at the report we presented to you, appendix A includes a discussion paper. When we prepared to do the consultations across the country with various stakeholders, we produced a very short discussion paper, which includes statistical information on the amount of progress that has been made. While we didn't go out and say we're not making good progress, what we went out and said was, here is data on the progress that has been made, and basically left it open to groups and employers and unions to tell us whether or not they thought that progress was sufficient. There's no doubt that from the perspective of many members of designated group organizations across the country, as the minister said this morning in her remarks, clearly certain groups feel the progress has not been sufficient, particularly persons with disabilities and aboriginal peoples.

Mr. Alan Tonks: My question is a spin-off of that. Again, it's the one that I think Mr. Thompson was trying to get a handle on, which he was doing through the chair—and I will also, Madam Chair.

In those targeted groups, do you think the environment has changed such that in our employment program and in the crossover in terms of enforcement—if there is any crossover, and I think that's what we're trying to get here, because we've sat through hearings with our first nations representatives and this is a huge frustration—it has come to the point where we may have to change our approach and establish, or at least get closer to establishing, targets or quotas?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: When Minister Bradshaw was responding and speaking this morning, she basically said that's the kind of advice she would like from this committee. It was obvious, particularly with aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities, that the progress that has been made has not been very good. I think Minister Bradshaw was very clear on that point. In the consultative report, we don't take a policy position on what the answers are there, although one of the messages that I think the minister heard clearly from groups is that we definitely need to do more in the way of education.

From an administrative point of view, when we hear a recommendation from a group, our first response is to see whether there is a way we can do this without amending the legislation. Is there a way we can improve our representation or the activity or the results for aboriginal people and persons with disabilities within the current legislation?

• 1150

I think from the perspective of the minister and the officials working on the legislation, we're anxious to hear from your deliberations with these groups: do you feel we need to strengthen the act, or do you feel there are ways in which we can strengthen implementation, or put together an operations strategy that would achieve those results?

Mr. Alan Tonks: I would like to say I'll look forward to hearing from the Canadian Bankers Association very specifically about what progress they have made, and since they are so happy with the Employment Equity Act, what changes they would suggest in terms of those targeted areas.

Thank you.

The Chair: I look forward to hearing that as well.

Mr. Spencer, please.

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

I have a couple of questions. I don't understand exactly why you made the same statement that I think the minister made, which is that you've not made enough progress in the area of people with disabilities and aboriginals. Am I correct in hearing that? I want to question those two areas.

I think you also mentioned that people with disabilities are actually overrepresented in their population group, yet you say there is the least progress. How can this be? I see in Madam Minister's statement, in the beginning of the report it says employment equity is about ensuring equal access to employment. If they are overrepresented, would we assume they have less access?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Let me start by apologizing for that, sir. That was a typographical error. The message should have read that persons with disabilities are underrepresented in the private and public sectors. I believe when we prepared those remarks, we simply erred with that particular word. I apologize to the committee for that mistake.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay, but she was speaking, and I didn't see it written. Well, that answers that question. That takes away a bit of fog.

I have reason to be concerned about the aboriginal community. I have an aboriginal son who is approaching 30 years of age and hasn't figured out exactly what he's going to do yet. This, we understand, is a fast-growing group.

In your estimation, would the greatest barrier to employment for this group be a lack of education, or would it be the lack of opportunity or openness by employers? Which is the greater here? Which needs to be addressed most?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I don't know that I can pinpoint this particular barrier or that.

There's no doubt that where we've seen success—and there was discussion this morning of best practices and examples of what has worked—there are many examples of where employers have taken some initiatives. By creating an opportunity at the same time, employers who have invested in training have shown they can remove barriers and help integrate aboriginal peoples.

I think it's a complex issue, and you can't just say it's one barrier or another. Within the aboriginal community, clearly there are severe social problems that are being faced, levels of education.... You heard the minister this morning talk about the very young age profile. At the same time, there are some traditional views and barriers that employers have to deal with and unions have to deal with. I think really a combination of factors is at play here.

I can't sit here and say it's their education or it's somebody else's discrimination. I think it is a package, and it points to the complexity and difficulty that particular issue places in front of us.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Part of my reason for asking that question is I understand the Employment Equity Act has been brought into force in order to deal with people's attitudes and create more openness to hiring certain groups of people.

Now we've recognized that this particular group, and maybe others included, have other problems besides simply the lack of openness in employers. They have difficulty in meeting certain qualifications.

• 1155

You've mentioned over and over that we need more education for the aboriginal group. When you put that word “more” there, my question is whether there are educational processes already in operation under the employment act for aboriginal people and you need to increase them, or whether you are depending on the education to be delivered from some other source.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: When we refer to education, we're using that term very broadly. We mean, certainly, opportunities for training for individual groups, but we also mean opportunities to inform employers in the broader community about their obligations under the act and about the benefits or the best practices that can be employed to improve employment equity and the representation of various groups.

Under this Employment Equity Act there is no education component per se. When we, within the labour program of HRDC, want to work on areas of education, we'll work with the Aboriginal Relations Office, ARO, that is involved with aboriginal training agreements, human resource agreements, and the like.

One of the things we do in the legislation is make it clear that the employer is not required to hire anyone who is not qualified for the job. The challenge for the employer is to examine the level of qualification and make sure it's appropriate, that they're not inadvertently eliminating aboriginal people from even applying. We want to try to make sure the employer is setting the standards in the workplace fairly, based on what they need, legitimately, as an employer, and also based on the method that has the least negative impact on a group of people.

When we look at best practices, particularly in this community, we do see some examples. I always want to mention Syncrude in northern Alberta for some of the initiatives they've taken to partner with the aboriginal community and the educational system to ensure both training and fair employment within the company. Many other companies across the country have started doing those kinds of things as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Spencer.

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Madam Chair, just to continue with Mr. Spencer's line of questioning on our aboriginal communities, he mentioned they are a fast-growing community in Canada today. In fact, in a lot of areas there are more people off reserve than on reserve, and there's little enough opportunity for those who remain on reserve.

You've identified in your assessment some of the problems they encounter as far the cultural differences are concerned. I'm just wondering if you've come to any conclusions or have any proactive measures to overcome the cultural differences to encourage people off reserve who have gone to cities to look for education, look for work, and still find there are barriers there that prevent them from keeping full-time jobs, and sometimes even make them quit full-time jobs because of differences in culture and in background. You've identified some of those. Have you come to any conclusions yet about how to overcome those problems you've encountered?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: In the report, and in our role before this committee, we don't have a particular policy stand or conclusion we would want to draw for you.

What we have done at the officials level is engage in some more direct consultations with organizations that are directly involved in providing aboriginal employment opportunity and training.

When we crossed the country in our consultative process, we met with, for example, organizations representing aboriginal people and organizations who were directly involved in trying to find employment opportunities. When we set up the consultation meetings, we made sure we had both the designated group organization, in this case the aboriginal group, and also representatives from employers and unions in the room, so we could try to generate a dialogue.

We've been working a bit more with the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Council, which is an organization that's in part funded by our colleagues in HRDC. We're looking at working with them in a cooperative way to see if there aren't possibilities whereby some of their efforts in education, in providing cross-cultural training, in helping companies to address some of the barriers, can perhaps be effective. We see that as part of our ongoing responsibility to provide support to companies covered by the legislation, and it is timely in the context of this review as well.

• 1200

Mr. Joe McGuire: Are HRDC and the provinces in any way coordinating efforts in addressing the problem of aboriginal employment that you're aware of?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I'd have to get that answer for you, sir. I would have to ask our colleagues involved in the aboriginal affairs office to provide me with an answer.

I know, for example, if I were to discuss persons with disabilities, I'm aware, as obviously this committee is also aware, of the efforts there on the federal-provincial front through In Unison to ensure employment opportunities and services for persons with disabilities. But I would have to come back to you with an answer on what initiatives are under way for aboriginal peoples.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGuire.

Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would simply like to point out that it is too bad that the minister had to leave. I hope that if we ever need to ask her other questions, she will be available to us when Parliament comes back, in January. It would be good if we were able to continue with our series of questions at that time.

The federal Employment Equity Act is applied on a regional basis, as pointed out in the report. Would it be possible to obtain the statistics referred to by the minister, but broken down according to geographic zones? Would it be possible to send this information through our clerk? This would help us be able to do a more regional assessment.

Earlier we referred, on several occasions, to the education that is required to enable people from visible minorities, or Aboriginal people, at any rate people who belong to the target groups, to progress in their workplace, obtain more satisfactory employment or positions that are better compensated or more important.

In Quebec, we are very touchy this year when you talk about education. Education truly does come under provincial jurisdiction. I would prefer to talk about training. Would it be possible to use this language? Is any training currently being done in companies? Under this legislation, are you authorized to tell companies that they need to train people? If companies were to decide to provide this training, can the government intervene and help them financially in setting up training programs to help these employees?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We used the word “education” in a very general context, and I think that we understand this word the same way.

Ms. Monique Guay: This wasn't a reproach. I wanted to clarify things.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The Labour Program does not provide any programs to help employers, but the big Department of Human Resources Development does provide programs to help the disabled and Aboriginal people. We could find out the details of these programs. Unfortunately, I do not have them with me here right now, but we could prepare an answer to this question and provide you with the details of these programs.

Ms. Monique Guay: Quebec has had a program to assist the disabled for some time now. We work jointly with the associations or persons with disabilities and we help these people find jobs. The first step is done under the Quebec Employment Equity Act. We go to the targeted companies to try and find employment for people with disabilities. Could we not envisage a similar formula at the federal level?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Anything is possible. It became clear from these consultations that progress for persons with disabilities has been inadequate. As Ms. Bradshaw said earlier, we will find strategies. We are quite open to the idea of finding strategies and listening to people to see how we could work better in order to improve the situation.

Ms. Monique Guay: In yesterday's budget, it was announced that money had been invested in the workplace and in associations in order to help persons with disabilities. I hope that this will enable us to improve their situations, because when you look at the statistics and the reports that have been submitted to us over the past few weeks, you can see that not much progress has been achieved in this sector.

• 1205

Aboriginal people have achieved very little progress as well. Only women have made progress, and this is certainly because women have assumed their place along the way. Women are very educated and are probably capable of finding employment more easily than individuals from visible minorities, as you call them. We do not like this term very much. We prefer to call them cultural communities. That is much more positive.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. We have Madame St-Jacques, Madame Bailey, Madame Neville, then Mr. Thompson.

[Translation]

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

In the report, you state that during the consultation sessions, the participants indicated that the four initial groups could be broadened. We could include groups such as homosexuals, youth and seniors. As Mr. Malhi mentioned, we have a problem with seniors, but we also have a problem with youths.

Could the department look into how we could include youths in the Employment Equity Act? Has the department already looked into the possibility of setting up a mentoring program, so that there would be an incentive for seniors, before they retire, to pass on their knowledge to a young person, so that there would be some type of transition? There could be some type of mentoring that would enable the young person to acquire some experience with the older person who is already on the job, and who could pass on this knowledge, and that in turn would help the young person be able to find employment. That is often the problem. We often say to young people that yes, they do have a diploma, but no experience. It comes down to a game of cat and mouse. They have nothing to go to.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard (Director General, Labour Operations, Department of Human Resources Development): That idea does have merit, however, like many other things, it may come under other legislation. As in the concrete example that you just gave, there may be frequent opportunities to do mentoring and there may be people who would be prepared to do this, but what impact might that have on their pension? Could that affect those who want to begin winding down? Some people want to not work so much in order to give others an opportunity. Unfortunately, I have got to an age where you start thinking about things like that. There are often limitations in these programs. They might hurt an individual's average income and have an impact on his or her pension. But these are certainly situations that we should be looking at.

As Ms. Guay mentioned, some provinces have programs that we could look at to see if we could learn anything. I think that the purpose of these consultations is to try to find solutions to the problems, to try to see what is working and what we could try. We could even look at other regulations or other laws that may exist in the country and which have a negative impact on that. These things may also be amended. It would be quite interesting to have a look at that.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: But you have not yet done any studies to determine what type of impact that could have.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Not really. I think that one of the reasons for that is that people look at the current system and find reasons to say that it would not work. Instead, we need to find reasons to say why it could work.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: This could certainly work and it could be done on a volunteer basis.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Davies, please.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much.

I'm not aware of a Canadian employment equity program that actually has out-and-out quotas. We've stayed away from that in Canada. Nevertheless, employment equity programs are mandated to produce certain results, i.e., making your workforce representative of the available qualified people in the broader community.

Picking up on Mr. Thompson's question earlier, education is very important; training is very important for the employers and the managers, but I know my colleague, when he spoke in the House, pointed out that out of 111 agencies and companies, only four were in compliance. I think this was in 1998. Then when a second audit was done, another eight were brought forward, so it went up to 12—and 12 out of 111 is not exactly a great success rate.

• 1210

So I think there is a question about how seriously employers are taking this act. Do we need to actually look at more stringent compliance mechanisms that will say to employers, this is not something you can rush through at the end of the year because you have an audit to do and you can scramble together the numbers? This is about an ongoing commitment, both within the workforce and bringing new people in.

I wonder if the department has actually looked at the question of compliance and is already considering what might need to be done. It's the carrot-and-stick approach, so that where employers are maybe not taking this as seriously as they should, the compliance aspect is clearly visible and there are real consequences to not having compliance.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: You're probably touching on one of the most controversial issues that's going to come out when you interview or talk to people: the question of quotas. On one hand, you're going to see that people are very much against it. On the other hand, some people feel that unless there are some, how are you going to get results?

Also, there's the balance between enforcement and convincing people that it's to their advantage to do this; in other words, viewing an equity program as an opportunity rather than a burden. These things are going to be coming out from various groups that will take very polarized positions on that.

Our review shows that, yes, there are situations of non-compliance. On the other hand, the experience we have is that where we have been able to assist people, they are employers who want to comply who haven't figured out how to best do it, and sometimes with assistance they turn around and do comply. There are some people who won't comply unless they're forced to.

But it's an issue of that balance between enforcement and obligation and viewing this whole issue as an investment opportunity when we're seeing that in Canada we're going to be lacking a lot of people. Utilizing our human capital to the best of our advantage is maybe one of the solutions to some of the problems we'll have. It's going to be a very interesting balancing act. Hopefully, parties, instead of being polarized in this, can try to work together to find solutions.

Even in issues like safety and health—and I'm responsible for that too—I don't have enough watchdogs to enforce everything I need to enforce. That's a problem there. It will be a problem here also. But it's a question of analysing.

Ms. Libby Davies: Madam Chair, maybe it's a question of ensuring that part of the mandate is for the employer to provide adequate resources so that they actually can figure out why they're not doing what they claim they want to do.

But I feel that somehow the message is not getting out there that actually having a diverse workplace makes a better workforce. To have employment equity that's operating throughout a department systematically in all of its various aspects produces a better workforce. Somehow we haven't yet made that connection. I think too many employers still see it as a “we have to do this” kind of thing. Somehow, we have to change that attitude.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: I think what we see in a lot of cases is people won't necessarily talk against the theory—

Ms. Libby Davies: No.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: —but when it comes to practice it's a different story.

You mentioned some of the programs you had with the handicapped people and incentives. Maybe we can look at what works and what can't work, and see if we can't have incentives that help people at least try it on.

In most cases, when people try it and they see it working, all of a sudden they become converts because they see it as an opportunity rather than.... But you have to get in to make it. You have to have some tangible results for it to work.

The Chair: Ms. Neville, and then Mr. Thompson.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to build on some of the questions that have been asked already. I have a number of questions, which I'm going to put out and let you answer.

The minister, in her remarks, made reference to unfriendly workplaces. I know myself that this is not an uncommon situation, but I also know that workplaces become friendly when there's an economic imperative to respond.

What kind of sharing of best practices and information goes out to employers in terms of effective workplaces and best practices? You identified Syncrude. There are certainly others that have been very effective. I guess I'm focusing particularly on first nations communities, aboriginal populations. That's one question.

• 1215

Yesterday in the budget, the minister identified more resources going into sectoral councils. I'm wondering if these sectoral councils have been used, and if so, whether they have been effective in identifying best practices employment equity strategies for different workplaces.

My third question for the moment is about what the report recommends. I wasn't here earlier when the Canadian Human Rights Commission was before the committee, but I'm wondering what is the timetable for the Human Rights Commission to get through a complete audit of those companies that are mandated to comply with the employment equity legislation.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Let me just give you kind of a generic answer to the first part of your first question.

One of the things we've found works the best in convincing people to be proactive and positive in this area is when they have peer reviews or talk to their peers. That's why we're very interested, for example, in working with various associations. If the Canadian Bankers Association sees value in this, they tell their banks that they see value and give examples of things that do work.

I can probably say the same would be true of the aboriginals. If the aboriginal councils or people who belong to that area can give tangible examples of what works, their peers or the people in the same sectors are going to be more apt to listen to them.

So that's one of the areas we work at very much through the various associations and groups that are recognized by people so that they have credibility when they come forward and give examples. Maybe Neil can give you some more specifics on those things.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I was just going to add that every year, when the minister tables her annual report in Parliament, there's a chapter that summarizes the executive summaries and the initiatives that companies have chosen to report to her in terms of the report.

Also, every year the minister hosts an annual awards ceremony, where we honour companies and in some cases companies and unions that have worked together to implement employment equity. These are companies that haven't just gone to the letter of the law, but have gone beyond it and made it into a very excellent program. We try to highlight that every year in that kind of environment.

You mentioned a timetable as well. The commission has set itself a mandate to review all the organizations under the act over a seven-year period. Normally, from start to finish, an audit could last for as long as three years. The reason for that is that they don't just go in and find a company in non-compliance; they go in and negotiate an undertaking so that the company isn't just hammered over the head, if you will. They're given an opportunity to work their way into compliance, and our staff in the field are there to provide some help for them as well.

Ms. Anita Neville: What about the sectoral councils?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: As Gerry was mentioning, we work with large sectors, such as the bankers association and FEDCO, which is the large federally regulated organization. Our experience with sectoral councils includes, for example, the Aboriginal Human Resource Development Council. I'm aware that there has been some activity with sectoral councils, and I can't speak to that for you, but certainly we can have that looked into.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Madam Chair. You're being more than generous.

I'm going to cover some ground that we've already been over, just to emphasize my question when I get to it. We do understand that under the act, in 1996, the Human Rights Commission was given the power to enforce the act. We also know from testimony this morning by our witnesses that fines have never been imposed on anyone ever, even though those fines can range from $10,000 to $50,000. They focus more on persuasion, if you will, rather than imposing fines and other punishment.

• 1220

In addition to that, employers who decide to contest directions given or lashings dished out by the Human Rights Commission can contest those before what we call the Employment Equity Tribunal.

Now, how many cases—if we can use the word “normally”—would appear before the tribunal in a year? More importantly, who makes up that tribunal?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Thus far there have been no tribunals. Thus far, with the 75 cases of organizations that are in compliance—it's probably even greater than that now—no one has gone to tribunal. The legislation, when it instructs the Canadian Human Rights Commission as to their mandate, makes it clear that the commission is obliged to use persuasion and negotiation, and go to tribunal as a last resort.

There are two ways tribunals can be established. One is an employer appealing a direction. The other is the commission finding that an employer has not complied with the direction. The commission can take that to tribunal.

There are five tribunals scheduled, but that's for the coming year. I can't at this particular moment tell you how many the commission is taking and how many are employer appeals, but at this particular point there have been no tribunals.

The tribunal is appointed. The act makes it clear. It's the normal appointment procedure for a human rights tribunal. When dealing with a matter for employment equity, it is named the Employment Equity Tribunal. The only other stipulation in the legislation is that there will be an effort to appoint people who have some background or knowledge of employment equity.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay. Are these tribunal members appointed by Order in Council? I guess that's the point I'm trying to get to.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Yes.

Mr. Greg Thompson: They're appointed by Order in Council. So basically, at the whim of the Prime Minister, the cabinet of the Government of Canada, they are appointed. Would that be correct? That's the definition of Order in Council. Correct?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: They're appointed by Order in Council.

Mr. Greg Thompson: What's the pay regime for these people? Are they basically on a retainer, or is it per diem? How is this tribunal that never meets and has never heard cases paid? Is it basically a political reward for work previously done? On what criteria are they selected?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Some members of the tribunal are full-time, which would mean they'd be paid, and others are appointed on a part-time basis and would be on a per diem.

Mr. Greg Thompson: How much are these full-time tribunal people, who never meet and never hear cases, paid? How much does it cost the Government of Canada to keep this tribunal that never hears cases, is never active? How much does this cost the Government of Canada on a yearly basis?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I'm sorry, I can't answer that.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Maybe that's one the Auditor General should take a look at. Would you agree?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I will just point out that the tribunal is a human rights tribunal and works fairly regularly on human rights cases that go before it. It's only when it's constituted as an Employment Equity Tribunal that it would hear a case in employment equity. So it's not as though there's a tribunal sitting out there with nothing to do over the course of the year. They do in fact have a responsibility under the Canadian Human Rights Act. It's when they're appointed to deal with a matter under the Employment Equity Act that they become an Employment Equity Tribunal.

I don't know how many cases they deal with under the Human Rights Act in the course of a year. They have not yet been called to deal with an employment equity matter.

Mr. Greg Thompson: So that's one part of the act that's never been—

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, very briefly.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay, one further question.

I'm just going to skip topics here, because I know you'll never get back to me, Madam Chair, given the time restraints.

The Chair: Not at this meeting, but we'll get back to you.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Oh, okay. Well, thank you again for your generosity.

One of the points that has been brought up.... The couriers didn't get my package to me in time. On many of the federal government job advertisements, they actually ask visible minorities to identify themselves. How does this self-identity work, and how is it substantiated? I guess the other part of that question is whether that is still part of the hiring process. When does that kick in? For example, if you were advertising for an economist at a certain level, when does the commission decide they're going to put this particular clause in?

• 1225

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The process of self-identification is fundamental to the legislation for an employer, whether it's private sector or public sector. To be able to determine the representation of the four designated groups, they do that through self-identification. The principle here is that the data is used only for employment equity and that the disclosure is voluntary.

In actual fact what we mean here is that rather than, as a manager, me saying, “Well, you, you, and you are members of a designated group”, I give you a questionnaire and ask you to voluntarily disclose whether or not you are. There is absolutely no follow-up to say that in actual fact you're not who you say you are. You say you have a disability. I do not go back and contest that in any way. It is a basic process of recognizing that there is information out there that is private, that is needed for employment equity, but it is also private information. To respect the privacy of those individuals rather than have a manager or a union representative try to name individuals, self-identification is used. The employer is required to have that information at the time of hire. If they choose to ask it on the application form, they may choose to do so. But the commission—and I'm assuming you mean the Canadian Human Rights Commission—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Or the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The Public Service Commission may choose to—and I believe they do actually—have it on the application form. The Canadian Human Rights Commission does not tell the employer to put that on their application form. They only have the responsibility to ensure that the self-identification process that the company or the department uses in collecting that information is done in accordance with the legislation and the regulations. In other words, it's done fairly and it's done voluntarily.

The Chair: Thank you.

That's it for this year, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Immigrants, especially from the visible minorities, who are highly qualified as engineers or doctors, often have difficulty obtaining certification to do the work they're qualified to do because of the red tape of provincial and other associations in their field. Can anything be done to develop federal standards so that obstacles are reduced among professionals such as doctors and engineers? Could immigrants be more quickly certified to work in their fields?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Our data shows that visible minorities overall are doing fairly well in employment, but they're still not working in all occupational groupings. They still are concentrated. One of the issues that we've heard from groups has been the question of qualifications and having those qualifications recognized, and some of the difficulties they've encountered.

This is another question where there is a part of HRDC that is working on it. It's called the prior learning assessment process. They're looking at trying to ensure that employers expand their acceptance of prior learning, not only for immigrants with degrees from abroad, but also for people here who have done voluntary work, for example. They want those skills recognized as well. It's all part of the process of just simply recognizing that the future of Canada's economic growth is in part based on our ability to work with and take the best advantage of the skills that are available to us. The removal of barriers—getting employers involved in examining their levels of qualification and accepting skills in the broadest of all possible contexts—is certainly an important strategy.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: You mentioned part of HRDC.... A couple of years ago, when I was on the Standing Committee on HRDC, they were asking about this as a part of Labour. I don't know. When something like that comes, they blame it on each other. HRDC says this is a part of Labour; Labour says this is a part of HRDC. This is a big problem, especially for those professional doctors and engineers from abroad. They can work over there and then they come over here, and there are some you saw in the paper last year who were delivering pizzas, doing odd jobs, driving taxis. There are so many obstacles for them to be qualified and have their degrees recognized. Could anything be done in the employment equity report?

• 1230

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Not specifically, no. The Employment Equity Act makes it clear that the company has to address and remove those barriers. But the issue of prior learning was discussed during the consultation. I believe it's reflected in the report.

When I get back, I will certainly make a call over to Mr. DeJong, who is responsible for prior learning assessment over in HRDC, and I'll make sure we work from the same page and give you proper information on what is being done.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

Very briefly, Mr. Johnston, and then very briefly, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Chair, you know it's difficult for me to be brief, but I'll try.

I actually think that if we're going to have employment equity legislation, it should be persuasive, and it should be an education program. It should not have anything attached to it like affirmative action or quota systems. If two applicants have basically the same qualifications, you should not discriminate against them because they fit into one of the four categories. If they're able to do the job, then everyone should be on an equal footing. Basically, that is all this legislation should cover, in my opinion.

The whole idea you get into with quotas intimates that now you have to say, well, these people are roughly equivalent, but the quota system says I have to hire someone out of one of these four groups. I would hope, Madam Chair, that we never in this country get into that situation.

I think this persuasion and education idea is the way to go. Having said that, I'd like to follow up on what Mr. Malhi was talking about.

We seem to have a bit of a stumbling block in this country as far as foreign credentials are concerned. When you have people who are educated in other parts of the world, we seem to get tangled up as to whether or not they qualify here as teachers or whatever. Now, I can understand if language is a barrier, but other than that, you'd think a PhD in economics, for example, should be fairly universal. What, in your opinion, can be done about that?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: You're talking about something that intermingles with a lot of other laws in our legislation. I think you're right. This is probably something that we're going to see coming more and more to the forefront, because we've all talked to people who are from other countries and seem to be working much below the level of their education.

We have to work in partnership with our various associations. We have to work in partnership possibly with universities and our educational institutions as to whether ways can't be found where we can transfer credits from one to another, and have some kind of system where we can have an evaluation as to whether a degree from somewhere else should in actual fact be equivalent to what we look at here.

Those are complex issues that entail many other partners. What we need to do is highlight that as a problem and then try to work our way toward solutions.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you very much.

I think we need some kind of accreditation program here, so that we can just say they have qualifications, give them a quick test, and determine that.

I have one very brief question. We have independent consultants evaluating the program. Can we expect an interim report soon on those evaluations?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The evaluation of the federal contractors program is just in the process of being finalized, and when it is finalized, we'll certainly make that available to you. The evaluation of the legislated program, which is the Employment Equity Act, is just under way. We think within the next several months we should have a report there. I'm hoping we can get that to you prior to the conclusion of your efforts here. We certainly will make every effort to get that to you.

• 1235

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tonks, very briefly.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

Within the context of Canadian employment equity in particular targeted groups, if we want to avoid having to look at quotas and very strong mechanisms for backing up our employment equity plans, it becomes obvious that there are other instruments that will have to work. You see the line of questioning is that you can't talk about employment equity unless you talk about training and education and so on.

My question is this. Do the labour market development programs that we enter into agreement with the provinces on target specific groups such as aboriginals and the disabled? Do they provide for programs that would be focused with respect to education and training?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I believe some do. We'll have to actually get you an answer on that, sir. I know that when it comes to aboriginal people, we actually do human resource development agreements with the aboriginal community. I believe that obviously does target. Through the Opportunities Fund and through the Office for Disability Issues, there are targeted programs directed for persons with disabilities.

In terms of the rest of the labour market development agreements, we can get that answer for you, but I don't have it for you today.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I think that's a major piece of background and research that we need, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

The Chair: I agree.

At this point, just prior to suspending the meeting—after we suspend, we're going to a private consultation on future business—I want to thank Mr. Blanchard, who is the director general of labour operations, and Neil Gavigan, who is the director of labour standards and workplace equity in the labour branch. I know we will be seeing a great deal of both of you gentlemen as we continue our studies. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We are now suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]