HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Á

1115

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

Mr. Fo Niemi (Executive Director, Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations)

The Chair

Mr. Fo Niemi

The Chair

Mr. Fo Niemi

The Chair

Mr. Fo Niemi

The Chair

Mr. Baljinder Gill (President, National Association of Canadians of Origins in India)

The Chair

Mr. Keder Hyppolite (President, National Council of Cittizens of Haitian)

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Mr. Joseph Jean-Gilles (President, Equality Access Program, National Council of Citizens of Haitian Origin)

Â

1215

Â

1220

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

The Chair

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

The Chair

Mrs. Yelich

The Chair

Mr. Fo Niemi

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Mrs. Yelich

The Chair

Ms. Folco

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Folco

Mr. Fo Niemi

Â

1230

Ms. Folco

The Chair

Ms. Folco

Mr. Joseph Jean-Gilles

The Chair

Mr. Baljinder Gill

Mr. Fo Niemi

The Chair

Ms. Guay

Â

1235

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Guay

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Guay

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Guay

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Guay

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Guay

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Fo Niemi

Ms. Guay

The Chair

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

Â

1240

Mr. Baljinder Gill

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Fo Niemi

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Mr. Joseph Jean-Gilles

The Chair

Mr. Fo Niemi

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Mr. Baljinder Gill

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

The Chair

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC/DR)

Â

1245

The Chair

Mr. Fo Niemi

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

The Chair

Mr. Norman Doyle

Mr. Baljinder Gill

Mr. Keder Hyppolite

Mr. Doyle

The Chair

Â

1250

Mr. Crête

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Crête

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Â

1255

Mr. Crête

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Mr. Crête

·

1300

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 053

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): I'll call to order this 53rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We are continuing our study of the Employment Equity Act. This is a statutory review.

    Today we have witnesses from three organizations with us, and we welcome them. We will be hearing witnesses and having a question session from now until 12:30 p.m., and then we'll move to other business, because we have a motion on the table.

    Without further ado, I would welcome Fo Niemi, from the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations; Baljinder Gill, from the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India; and Keder Hyppolite and Joseph Jean-Gilles, from the National Council of Citizens of Haitian Origin.

    Welcome, gentlemen. I know the clerk has told you that you're to keep your remarks between five and six minutes. There will be some flexibility, but I want to leave the maximum amount of time for members of the committee to pose questions.

    We will go in the order in which you're listed on the agenda. We'll first hear from the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations, and Mr. Niemi.

[Translation]

    Mr. Fo Niemi (Executive Director, Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I'm going to make my presentation in both languages.

    I would like to thank you for giving us...

[English]

    The Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, but we have no interpretation.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: Maybe I can go back and forth so that people won't lose....

    The Chair: Why don't you do your own translation?

    Mr. Fo Niemi: I'll do my own translation simultaneously, without repeating myself if possible.

    Basically, I would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to provide our comments on the Employment Equity Act. Our intervention's focus—

    The Chair: I'm sorry. We will have to suspend for five minutes, with the hope we can get this cleared up.

    [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

  (1114)  

---

  (1135)  

    The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, the problems here are a little more serious than we originally thought, but I'm told room 208 is available and that interpretation won't be a problem over there. It's just across the hall.

Á  (1136)  

---

Á  (1143)  

    The Chair: All right, we're back in session.

    Mr. Niemi, I apologize.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: No problem.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee.

[English]

    In our five minutes, what we would like to talk to you about is the fact that the act has areas that have to be improved. We have tried to be as specific and as constructive as possible.

    Basically, the act is a very important piece of legislation, similar to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Official Languages Act. At the World Conference against Racism, these were the pieces of legislation that were lauded as Canada's legislative achievements. Because of that, I think it gives us another impetus to look at ways to make the Employment Equity Act work even more.

    Our comments focus mostly on the issue of the impact of the Employment Equity Act on race and racialized minorities. We use the expression “racialized minorities” for the visible minorities in order to be more specific about the problems encountered by people of colour in dealing with systemic or direct discrimination in employment.

[Translation]

    Our comments concern three specific types of issues: fundamental issues, legislative issues and legal issues.

    We believe the federal government must be consistent in its approach to employment equity. In this regard, you already know, because witnesses have talked to you about it, that it must be ensured that the Act applies to staff of the House of Commons and Senate.

    We also want to draw your attention to the fact that all the major national institutions, namely the Supreme Court, the Office of the Governor General and so on, still have a dramatic under-representation of racial minorities in particular.

    Furthermore, the process of appointing election officers, returning officers and assistant returning officers, who are often appointed by the Governor in Council, is not subject to the Employment Equity Act. The Chief Electoral Officer has confirmed that the Employment Equity Act does not apply to this election officer hiring process. It must therefore be ensured that this deficiency is corrected.

    We also want to draw your attention to the need to proclaim the Act's application to non-civilian staff of the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Canadian Armed Forces. It is quite abnormal that, after nearly six years, this provision has not yet been implemented.

[English]

    To really ensure equality in employment for members of racialized minorities in all spheres of federal activity, we should also look at amending paragraph 16(4)(c) and section 19 of the Public Service Employment Act. The former discriminates against non-citizens in the federal public service. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the law could be maintained, but as the sole intervener in the case, we still believe the law is outdated and wrong. In dealing with employment equity and labour market development, we believe that in its negotiations on and signing of accords on labour market development, the federal government should ensure

[Translation]

that all these manpower development agreements signed with the provinces respect employment equity and contain employment equity clauses, which is not currently the case in the agreements signed with Quebec and Alberta. We know that Ontario is in a period of negotiation. We believe this type of deficiency undermines the effective implementation of the Employment Equity Act.

[English]

    Lastly, we believe the section of the Employment Equity Act that reduces the role of the CRTC in supervising the implementation of employment equity in the broadcasting industry needs to be revised. Under the present system, the CRTC does not have a clear, comprehensive, and consistent system or methodology for dealing with employment equity among those broadcast undertakings under its jurisdiction, i.e., those having 99 employees or less. As a matter of fact, since the CRTC amended its employment equity policy as a result of the EEA, the Employment Equity Act, we have not seen any reports on the part of the CRTC, annual or otherwise, on the state of employment equity in the broadcasting industry.

[Translation]

This is an extremely important sector.

    Moreover, we do not recommend that the visible minorities group be divided, as some groups have proposed, because division of the visible minorities group into subgroups would create more division and, in some instances, tension.

    We do not support the inclusion of other groups, apart from the groups already designated in the Act, among the categories covered by the Act. We know that some recommend that the categories of gays, youths and the elderly be added to the Act. We believe that they are putting too much into one bag. And you know what would happen to that bag.

[English]

    We also believe we have to pay special attention to the situation of racialized minorities who, at the same time, also belong to what we would call official-languages communities—racialized minorities who are English-speaking in Quebec, and racialized minorities who are French-speaking outside of Quebec—because these are the groups that suffer double and triple the barriers, especially in working with federal agencies and the federal government. As you may also know, the situation of anglophones in the Quebec division of the federal government is always a critical issue.

[Translation]

    Here are a few brief points on the implementation and monitoring of the implementation of the Act.

    We were, of course, here in 1993, but, this time, it must be said that the minorities and groups designated by the Act have a place in the entire process of implementing, developing and evaluating the Employment Equity Act. At present, it is mainly employers and unions that are expressly mentioned in the Act. Consequently, those groups must be given a place, and this must be clear because, ultimately, we're talking about their conditions of employment.

[English]

    Our brief places a special focus on the role and responsibility of labour unions. We support the notion that unions should be an equal and active partner, with joint and shared responsibilities with employers at every stage of the employment equity process. However, we believe the Canadian Human Rights Commission needs to develop guidelines and criteria to qualitatively assess the development of the ways and means of the unions' involvement. In dealing with racialized minorities in particular, we find that many unions across this country have not been able to match discourse with concrete action and allocation of resources to ensure that racialized minorities are full and active participants even in their own structures. Lastly, we believe that whenever the Canadian Human Rights Commission audits federal agencies, the bargaining representatives and designated equity group representatives should be consulted by the commission.

    Lastly, we suggest that the sections in the Employment Equity Act that deprive third parties of the ability to file complaints on the basis of fiscal data alone should be changed. We find that sections 40 and 50 of the EEA raise the stakes for direct or systemic discrimination victims, and may even compromise their right to have access to effective remedies and recourse.

    Lastly, we want to say the monetary penalties are too low. We have to index them to the inflation rate. We suggest a certain amount of a raise, perhaps to $50,000 for a single violation, and $250,000 for repeated violations.

    We find it to be absolutely important that the Federal Contractors Program be reviewed from the head down, inside and out, because the way in which this program has been implemented is a complete mystery to many of us who have worked on the Employment Equity Act for a long time.

    Lastly, we'd like to say that in terms of promotion and public education, we feel there is a certain bias in favour of employers in the way in which the act is designed, established, and administered, and that HRDC does not work with the equity groups enough. The Canadian Human Rights Commission does not have the resources to work with the equity groups and with the unions on this, although we are concerned mostly with the equity groups. In terms of public education, we believe that should be corrected in order to ensure that there is a certain process and certain standard of equity that will be applied to the way the act will be implemented.

[Translation]

    Here are a few recommendations which we would like to make. I would like to emphasize the fact that, in the revision of this Act, in the annual reports and implementation review process, there must absolutely be a regional portrait, apart from the national portrait, of the way in which employers discharge their employment equity obligations. Particularly for racial minorities, we fear that the Ontario and British Columbia figures are inflating the representation rates in the national reports. Regional realities must be taken into account to ensure that equity is truly in place.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Next, we'll hear from the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India, and Mr. Gill, please.

    Mr. Baljinder Gill (President, National Association of Canadians of Origins in India): Good morning. On behalf of the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India, which is mainly known as NACOI, I would like to thank the committee, the chair, and the staff for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation. Again, my presentation will be more limited to the visible minority parts.

    NACOI is a non-profit, non-religious, and non-political membership organization. Its membership is comprised of Canadians of origins in India who have very diverse linguistic and religious backgrounds and are spread from coast to coast. Our origins go back to the subcontinent of India; however, some of us have our most recent origins in countries such as Kenya, Uganda, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Singapore, the West Indies, etc.

    My presentation is mainly in four parts: how effective the provisions of the act related to visible minorities have been; the status of representation of visible minorities in the private and public sectors; recommendations to amend the act in order for it to be more effective; and foreign credentials, which have a direct bearing on visible minorities' participation in the Canadian workforce.

    Most of our brief is heavily drawn from the sources of the government, Human Rights Quarterly, other employment equity reports, Treasury Board annual reports, Embracing Change in the Federal Public Service—a task force report—and a Canadian human rights discussion paper. They have made a number of recommendations, and we are also following on those.

    The first point is on how effective the provisions of the act have been. The Employment Equity Act received royal assent on December 15, 1995, and came into force on October 24, 1996. In the first part of the act, sections 15 to 21 clearly lay down the employer's obligations. The Canadian Human Rights Commission was to begin its compliance order in November 1997, and the employer had a two-year lead period to fulfill compliance and be ready for audit. However, the results are known to everybody and have been very disappointing.

    By the end of 1998, initial audits were completed on 36 employers, and only two were in compliance. One was Status of Women Canada, which has only 104 employees. By the summer of 1999, 76 initial audits had been, and still only two employers were in compliance. By the end of 1999, 111 initial audits had been completed, with only two more employers in compliance, those being Nortel and the National Parole Board. During 1999, 39 follow-up audits were done on employers who hadn't met compliance earlier, and only eight out of those 39 met compliance. Only one of them was in the public sector, that being the CRTC, with 394 employees. The 2000 picture was no better. An additional 19 audits were done, but only two more employers were in compliance, one of which was the Canadian Transportation Agency.

    In assessing the progress over three years, the Canadian Human Rights Commission observation was that the resources and employment equity techniques needed for real progress are only rarely applied—and this was done just before the audit was started, so they had little paperwork done. Employers still had to complete work on as many as nine of the twelve statutory requirements, and this further delayed the work on the second stage. It has been almost five years since it was completed, and the first part is not done.

    It is our opinion that non-compliance and prolonged negotiations create doubts in the commitment, as well as in the good faith of the vast majority of employers, particularly in the public sector. It is regrettable that five years have gone by and we are still in the first stage.

    Two major departments of the federal government, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada, with close to 9,000 employees, are challenging the implementation of employment equity and Canadian Human Rights Commission directives. We wonder what role the Clerk of the Privy Council and his committee of service officials could play in such situations. Nevertheless, we are encouraged by the Privy Council's commitment to developing an action plan, shifting away from a reactive recruitment to a more proactive strategy of recruitment.

    On the status of representation of visible minorities in the private and public sectors, statistics from various reports show that visible minorities are underrepresented in the private sector, and more so in senior management. However, the private sector is better represented than the public sector, mainly because the private sector has been under employment equity legislation much longer. As of March 31, 2000, visible minority representation in the federal public sector was only 5.5 pourcent. This was just half of the 1996 labour market availability level of 10.3 pourcent.

    In the executive category the situation is really bad. In 1997, 28 people joined the public service as a member of the executive group, but none of them were visible minorities. In 1998, out of 38 new appointments, four were from a visible minority. In 1999, out of 31, two were. Also in 1999, 130 were terminated from the executive group, and six out of them were visible minorities. The Treasury Board report of April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000, shows that of 3,296 members of the executive group, only 103 are a visible minorities, or about 3 pourcent.

    In terms of labour market availability, unless recruitment targets are set well above labour market availability, visible minorities are never going to catch up and achieve equitable representation in the workforce. It is now 2002, but we are still using 1996 census figures placing visible minority availability at 10.3 pourcent. Treasury Board resources have reduced that figure to 8.7 pourcent by excluding non-citizens. In 2002, we are planning for three years from now but are using 1996 figures. Why are we planning for 2005? Those stats are out of date. The non-citizens of 1996—and even 2002—will be citizens by 2005.

    Earlier this month, there was a press report about a federally funded study by the Canadian Council on Social Development that is entitled “Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats? The Labour Market Experiences and Incomes of Recent Immigrants,1995 to 1998”. It found that three of four recent immigrants to Canada belonged to visible minority groups. Immigration is expected to count for virtually all growth in the Canadian labour force by 2011. To keep up with this development, I think the Employment Equity Act has to be more forceful and the numbers have to be changed. In our considered view, realistic planning for visible minority representation in the labour force should use population projections for the year for which we are planning.

    The Canadian Forces, the RCMP, and CSIS are not even covered by this legislation, so naturally regulations are not in place, even after five years. For Parliament, it is ironic that in the very body whose staff support this, the guardians of the act are not covered by the provisions of the act. It is strongly recommended that the House of Commons, the Senate, the Speakers, the staff, and the Library of Parliament also be covered by it.

    The Canadian Human Rights Commission has made fifteen recommendations associated with visible minorities. We support those, and we recommend that those be kept. I therefore don't see any reason to read them all, though.

    Lastly, I would like to say something on the recognition of the foreign credentials of visible minorities. The participation of those individuals is dependant on that recognition. Here, we are proposing that there be two committees at the higher level to oversee the implementation of the Employment Equity Act. The first is a cabinet committee to be chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and to include, among others, the President of the Treasury Board and the ministers of Human Resources Development, Industry, Finance, Immigration and Citizenship, and Canadian Heritage. The second is the existing committee of deputy ministers, which is chaired by Clerk of the Privy Council. It should also be given a mandate to cover the issue of recognition of foreign credentials and to make recommendations to the appropriate authorities for implementation.

    Thank you again for giving me this opportunity.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gill.

    Finally, we're going to hear from the National Council of Citizens of Haitian Origin, and Mr. Hyppolite and Mr. Jean-Gilles.

    Are you going to split your time, or is just one of you going to make the presentation?

[Translation]

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite (President, National Council of Cittizens of Haitian): We are going to make our presentation in two parts. I will begin, and Mr. Jean-Gilles will present the part containing the recommendations.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, perfect.

  (1210)  

[Translation]

     Mr. Keder Hyppolite: Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee members, for the opportunity to appear here today to give our views on the effects of the Act and to offer certain recommendations.

    First, I'm going to talk to you about the National Council of Citizens of Haitian Origin. It is a non-profit organization in the service of the Haitian communities established in the various provinces of Canada, in particular Quebec. CONACOH works for the integration of citizens of Haitian origin into their host society and for their full participation in the various areas of activity. It promotes joint action and cooperation between the organizations, groups and associations of the Haitian communities, on the one hand, and those of the ethno-cultural communities of Canada and Quebec on the other.

    Above all, CONACOH has taken on the role of representing the various Haitian communities at the various levels of government, federal, provincial, municipal and even educational, to the union federations, public, parapublic and community organizations, as well as the various institutions of the greater community. It encourages and supports the actions of the various organizations, associations and groups constituted to offer or administer services and programs for citizens of Haitian origin.

    CONACOH favours dialogue and advocates the search for sustainable solutions to identified problems in a spirit of respect and fraternity. It encourages and supports the efforts of members of the Haitian community in their struggle against discrimination in all its forms.

    The purpose of our appearance here is to give our views on the effects of the Employment Equity Act, assented to on December 15, 1995, and entered into force on October 24, 1996.

    The Act states:

The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the work place so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.

    In its general outlines, the Act aims to correct a discriminatory situation which creates extensive inequalities between citizens of the same country. The citizens concerned are identified in the Act as designated groups. They are women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

    We will pay special attention to this last class of persons concerned. But first of all, allow us, in light of section 3 of the Act, to define and identify those who belong to the class of visible minorities as being persons other than “aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”. In 1996, 3.2 million Canadians, 11.2 percent of the country's population, said they belonged to a visible minority.

    The purpose of the Act, is without a doubt, laudable. However, more than five years after it came into effect, has the Act achieved its objectives? Has it made it possible to achieve some significant progress? A review of the literature and the everyday reality do not leave us optimistic. Has the government led by example? Let us try to answer these questions.

    As though to ease its conscience, it has established an action plan which today enables us to verify the extent to which the recommendations of the Task Force on the Participation of Visible Minorities in the Federal Public Service were complied with or implemented. That task force was established by the federal government in 2000. Its document is still available and contains many recommendations.

    The task force recognizes that professional representation and advancement of visible minorities in the Public Service have progressed far too slowly, as a result of which the Public Service lags behind the private sector and organizations under federal regulation.

    The task force establishes a ratio of 1 to 5, which it believes is achievable if it is scrupulously applied at a number of levels, whereas one Canadian citizen in nine claims to belong to a visible minority, only one federal public servant in 17 is a person from a visible minority; among federal public servants, one man in 16 claims he is from a visible minority, while only one woman in 17 is from a visible minority, and one executive officer in three in the Public Service is a person from a visible minority.

    To get there, the government will have to expand the pool of candidates: by increasing the geographical selection area in order to reach broader recruitment pools; by using the Public Service Commission's inventories of candidates who are members of visible minorities; by setting aside money to assist managers in paying higher resettlement costs.

    The government will also have to ensure that qualified candidates who are members of visible minorities are oriented rather than eliminated. Very often, a qualified person cannot get a position because his or her qualifications are said not to meet the requirements of the position. However, that person nevertheless holds a qualification and a diploma. He or she may be entered in the system and directed to places where his or her skills may be useful. To that end, the government must review the criteria applicable to the position selected and hire based on skills, particularly new skills, rather than on the basis of the duties of the position alone.

    The government must guarantee the integrity of the selection process. For that purpose, it must establish departmental inventories of members of visible minorities who may be part of selection boards; those inventories must include members from the private sector. It must also offer training to public servants who are members of visible minorities so that they can be part of selection boards.

    The government must use innovative methods for recruiting and making contact. For that, it must establish departmental inventories of members of visible minorities who may take part in contact and recruitment campaigns.

    The guidelines are all laid down. The figures we have today tell us that, at March 31, 2000, the representation of visible minorities in the federal Public Service amounted to 5.5 percent, which is slightly less than in the previous year, when it was 5.9 percent. That decline is largely attributable to the disappearance of Revenue Canada, a large department which has now become a separate employer and in which the representation of visible minorities was 8.5 percent, which was distinctly above the average for the Public Service.

    If Revenue Canada were also excluded from the 1999 figures, it would be seen that the representation of visible minorities in the rest of the Public Service rose from 5.0 percent to 5.5 percent, an increase of 1,000 employees identifying themselves as members of a visible minority.

    In the past, increases of this kind were often attributable as much to increased self-identification as to new recruitment. The data suggest that it was the same in 1999. The Treasury Board's recruitment figures, including the staffing measures taken at Revenue Canada until November 1999, show that visible minorities obtained a 5.7 percent share of all recruitments, slightly more than the 4.4 percent from the previous year. It is disappointing to note, however, that this share is still far less than their availability (10.3 percent) in Canada's labour force.

    Figures on the private sector are as follows: the representation of visible minorities more than doubled from 1987 to 1999 from 4.9 percent to 10.5 percent; for the first time, it is slightly greater than their availability rate of 10.3 percent based on the 1996 census.

    It should not be overlooked, however, that this estimate does not take into account the proportion of members of that designated group who have entered Canada since 1996. It is expected that the 2001 census will reveal a higher availability rate in the case of visible minorities.

    On the whole, the recruitment share of visible minorities has slightly dropped from 11.3 percent in 1998 to 10.6 percent in 1999, but remains above the availability rate established by the census and far above the 5.2 percent figure recorded in 1987.

    Members of visible minorities were better represented in the banking sector, where they reached their representation figure of 15.8 percent, slightly up from the previous year and well above the 9.5 percent figure from 1987. Their representation also increased in the communications sector, where they formed 9.3 percent of strength. While that figure remains below their availability rate, it is twice as high as their 4.0 percent representation recorded in 1987. The gains realized in these two sectors are attributable to the fact that their share of recruitment has constantly been higher than their general level of availability.

    Although progress has been slower in the transportation sector, representation of visible minorities has regularly increased there. In 1999, it was 7.1 percent. Although the recruitment share of this group has always been less than its availability, its share of terminations has not been disproportionate, which has enabled it to make certain gains.

    In the other sectors, visible minorities lost ground in 1999. Although much higher than the 2.5 percent figure recorded in 1987, their representation continued the decline that started in 1997, falling from 7.9 percent in 1998 to 7.4 percent in 1999. Their share of recruitment, which was 6.4 percent in 1998, reached 9.1 percent in 1999, but remained below their availability rate and was not sufficient to reverse the trend.

    Despite the group's regular progress, it still has a long way to go. Members of visible minorities are still concentrated in certain groups, such as professionals, and under-represented in many others, in particular among senior executives, where their representation rate is less than half their availability rate.

    I will let my colleague Mr. Jean-Gilles continue the presentation.

    Mr. Joseph Jean-Gilles (President, Equality Access Program, National Council of Citizens of Haitian Origin): The task for us is to defend a very sensitive case concerning skills, a case of social justice and equity which cannot be based on skin colour because, in our view, personal abilities, qualifications and competence must always be decisive.

    Do we, in our so-called visible communities, have those skills? Yes, we have them. All the figures confirm it. However, as a result of the reality in the field, these people are under-employed. However, given equal levels of instruction, Montreal blacks have much fewer opportunities to hold a job than other Montrealers. In 1996, only 17.5 percent of Montrealers who had not completed high school were unemployed. Among university graduates, the unemployment rate of black university graduates was identical to that of non-blacks who had not finished high school. So you see the reality in Montreal.

    This is what we retain from the Act. When we talk about employment equality policy, we learn first of all that the private sector is nevertheless more successful than the government.

    The other thing we denounce with respect to the Act is that the federal government does not feel accountable to that component of the community, of Canadian society, disregards its own legislation and shows a pronounced lack of political will.

    The future appears very dark if the government does not immediately take the necessary steps to correct the situation.

    The observations we make still stand. If the trend continues, there is a risk that a situation of ongoing injustice toward persons from visible minorities will continue in the Public Service.

    We also note that the government is currently making efforts to achieve full immigration levels, but more from the white-race countries.

    As for implementation, in monitoring implementation, Parliament would do well to use verbs such as “shall” instead of suggestions. There are a lot of suggestions in the Act, but not many obligations are imposed on the government.

    This is true of subsection 23(1), where Parliament provides, and I quote: “For the purposes of ensuring compliance [...], a compliance officer may conduct [...]”. Normally, we should see, for example, “a compliance officer shall [...]”. So these are suggestions that are being made in this part.

    We believe that Parliament not only provided means, but also established monitoring and orientation mechanisms: the review order, for example, and the Employment Equity Review Tribunal.

    Despite the claim that they deter offenders, monetary penalties may have considerable untoward effects. The fact that they reach a maximum of $10,000 for a first offence and $50,000 for a repeat offence may leave room for systematic discrimination because, for certain offenders, this means they can buy peace. Thus, they will have no obligation to comply with the Employment Equity Act.

    We are also saying that the government should negotiate facilitating clauses in collective agreements which would make it possible to implement the policy. The government would do well to draw on certain practices which consist in rewarding employers or government organizations which comply with the directives of the Act by awarding them certificates of distinction.

    As for those that do not comply with the Act, it goes without saying that they should be sent notice that they are not cooperating, together with a deadline for compliance, which notice may be published in the newspapers, and so on.

    As to the general provisions, we can legitimately doubt that they are being implemented because, with regard to the means available to the department responsible for promoting, informing and advising, particularly Public Service organizations, certain negative factors in the implementation of the Act have come to our attention.

    Here are our recommendations regarding recognition of experience acquired outside Canada. Training and experience acquired outside Canada in certain fields are underestimated. Candidates who are members of visible minorities face persistent prejudice when it comes to recognizing the value of the training and experience they have obtained outside Canada.

    We will close with the staffing system. The staffing system clearly contains systematic biases against candidates who are members of visible minorities in view of the fact that that system reflects only the values and practices of the majority and does not take into account this desired pluralistic Canada. An assessment of the measurement and rating instruments and hiring practices seems necessary in order to guarantee equal opportunity for all.

    Thank you.

  (1215)  

  (1220)  

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: I should emphasize that we have taken the figures we presented from the following documents: Evolution of the Black Community in Montreal: Changes and Challenges...

[English]

    The Chair: Excuse me, but you're well over your 5 to 7 minutes. You're at 14. I have members of the committee who are very anxious to ask questions and who have to leave in a short period of time. Can you wrap it up in under 30 seconds?

[Translation]

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: These are simply my sources, which are the documents I have left here. They are known sources. The figures we have presented here come from: Evolution of the Black Community in Montreal: Changes and Challenges, a McGill University study; Unequal Access, by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation; Embracing Change in the Federal Public Service, a Statistics Canada document which was presented in 2000.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Yelich, you have 7 minutes to pose your questions. You can take all or some of that time. And I know you're running late.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I'm sorry, but I am running late and I have to get back to my office.

    I really appreciated the presentations. I thought they were all very good. I'm glad to see the work that you're doing, especially in communicating to the public some of the problems that you have with eliminating racism. I think educating the public is a really important thing. However, I'm just going to ask something from the point of view of the employer.

    Thinking of compliance, I want to know if you think it's necessary for the Employment Equity Act to distinguish between the different visible minority groups and to limit the Employment Equity Act's coverage to those groups that are most disadvantaged. Do you support the act's current definition of “members of visible minorities”, which says they are “persons, other than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”?

    If someone has identified himself as a minority because the person is non-Caucasian, or if the person is a woman, do I, as an employer, choose? There are almost two minorities there, both a woman and non-Caucasian. Where do you start when you're defining “visible minorities”? From an employer's point of view, how would they comply with something like definitions of “members of visible minorities”?

    I'm thinking of disabled people as well. Would a disabled person in a wheelchair have an edge over someone who is non-Caucasian? I'm wondering, because I would find it very difficult. What would you have as an answer to that?

    I'm also interested in your comments on private and public, in that the private corporations are doing so much better at complying with the Employment Equity Act. I found that very interesting. I thought the statistics were very high, so I wonder if you want to expand on that and tell us why you think that's the case?

    But I would like an answer to the first question, because I am in a hurry.

    The Chair: I suspect that's open to all three groups, but you can decide amongst yourselves.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: First of all, after almost twenty years of implementation of employment equity in this country, most employers have developed and know the technical tools to identify people, because the law allows self-identification and it's a voluntary process.

    Secondly, for purely pragmatic purposes, our organization supports the present definition of “members of visible minorities”. It's a much more improved definition than the one in the previous version of the bill.

    We're very concerned about breaking it down into subgroups, because then we're going to get into the question of which group is more disadvantaged. If you look at the reports made by the minister to the standing committee and at some of the literature put out by HRDC, part of the concern is the variables or criteria being used to decide which group is more disadvantaged in the labour market. Is it the unemployment rate, is it average income, is it occupational segregation, or what? Unless we have a very clear set of consistent variables to decide how we measure a group's particular disadvantage in employment, we have to be very careful. That is one of the risks of subdividing things, and it will create more headaches for everyone, and especially for employers, because then employment equity will become strictly a data collection game instead of being a process to redesign the way you develop and manage your human resources.

    Many employers, many unions, and even many members of equity groups, complain that we have to make sure it's not going to become a data game. Instead, employment equity should be a process about how we change the way we recruit, hire, promote, train, and retain staff in such a way that the personnel reflect the locality in question.

    We use the term “racialized minorities” because of the evolution of certain mindsets, but we still know who we're talking about. When the next census comes out in June 2003, this is something that I hope will settle the question, but the employers know how to collect the data, the tools are there, and the techniques are there.

    I'd just like to bring in front of you the fact that there was some mention of the fact that the private sector usually does better. We have to qualify that. Some sectors of the private sector do better than others. The transport sector does not do as well as the banking sector, for very established reasons. So we have to qualify our statements in order to make sure we do not give credit more than where credit is due.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Do you have any response, Mr. Gill? No?

    Mr. Hyppolite.

[Translation]

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: I completely concur in the comments by my colleague Fo Niemi, but, to respond briefly to everything you've said, I must say that we persons from visible minorities here would like the federal government to make the same effort it made when it had to integrate women and Francophones into the Public Service. That's what we are asking. Apply the same measures to us, the same principles, and a little more.

    We have told you that one of 16 public servants comes from visible minorities. It's not hard to choose if you have five candidates before you, including four whites, one Chinese and a black, and everyone has the same qualifications. So, while you already have 16, there are two more who can pass, if you have to choose two. It's not a difficult equation.

    To respond briefly, I will say that it's not as difficult as that. It's enough for there to be the political will to do so. It's enough for the means to be in place for things to be done like that.

[English]

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

    The Chair: Madam Folco, followed by Madam Guay, Mr. Malhi, and Mr. Doyle.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to tell you how pleased I am to see friends on the other side of the table, friends whom I have not seen for a number of years, since I was here in Ottawa, and to see to what extent people in Quebec are really for the Employment Equity Act. So thank you very much for being here.

    I have two questions. I'm going to ask the first because I would like to have a big answer and, if I have the time, Madam Chair, I would like to come back later and ask a second, but we'll see.

    The first applies to the agreement between the federal and territorial governments and the federal government on manpower development. The question is this: do you think that, in the discussions on a new stage of the agreement, the Employment Equity Act should be part not only of the discussions, but of the agreement itself, which could be done in the near future?

    I put the question to the person who can answer it.

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: I believe we probably have to think first about improving the Act before even considering including it in any agreement whatever. Yes, the Act should be part of it, but not in its current state, because there has been considerable delay and many provisions have not been implemented or not complied with. If you permit the expression, the Act must simply be revamped before it is included in any agreement whatever.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Of course, my question has a second part: if so, how? Excuse me, Mr. Niemi.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: I would like to add something to that answer. The first agreement was signed in 1996, I believe, between Alberta and the federal government, and I believe that, since 2001, all the agreements have been in the process of being evaluated with a view to a five-year plan.

    As we said earlier, two provinces have signed agreements in which the notion of standard or national equity standard in labour force development has not been complied with: Alberta and Quebec. In Nova Scotia, for example, the native blacks of that province have been recognized.

    In our brief, we say that the objective and principle of employment equity--and the term “employment” must be interpreted broadly to include manpower training as well--must be confirmed in every government activity designed to develop the labour force and people's skills. That's what's really important, and that could also help employers wishing to set up these kinds of measures.

  (1230)  

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Does anyone else wish to respond? If not, is there still enough time for me to ask a second question, Madam Chair?

[English]

    The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Two organizations mentioned the role of employees and the role of persons representing them, that is to say the unions. I put the question to the FTQ, I believe, which was here a few days ago. I put the question to them and I would like to put it to you as well.

    I believe we take it for granted that you are in favour of the unions having a clear role in the matter of employment equity, but the question is rather this: how and at what point do you see the unions intervening? Two points have been proposed to us, the first being that the unions' role should appear or be explained in the Act itself, and the second being in the discussions on collective agreements between unions and employers.

    Do you have any other suggestions? Could you give us an idea of the point or points where you would see the unions intervening?

    Mr. Joseph Jean-Gilles: You mentioned two stages. I don't believe they are different from one another in that I believe that can be monitored very well. At all levels, it will be necessary to integrate these... In Quebec, the union movement has a certain degree of sensitivity on certain questions. The unions will have to be interested in this question.

    It's the same thing when we talk about collective agreements. Since I am a former member of the FTQ--I'm still a member because, according to the agreement, you are a member of that union for life--I know that the same thing was done when it wanted to set up, for example, committees on the status of women, when it wanted to help people who had had problems with the social councils regarding psychosocial interventions with our clientele who had had problems with alcohol. I believe an effort will have to be made to turn this into a debate within our unions.

    So that would be part of the clauses in our collective agreements to facilitate access from people visible minorities to the Public Service.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Gill.

    Mr. Baljinder Gill: I wanted to say that the unions should be involved. At the same time, though, the act should also be applied to the unions themselves. If they're not following it, then I don't know how they can monitor it.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...more than just concentration. Where it matters is in the regulations and in the “guidelines”—I think that's the word—developed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in order to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the degree to which the unions can live up to their equity obligations vis-à-vis the employer. One of the things we strongly recommend is that the unions should also be assessed in terms of their own employment equity practices, because unions are major employers.

    At the roundtable we held in March and April 2001, one of the biggest unions in Quebec said clearly that they had employment equity, but for women only. How can racialized minority members of the union trust a union executive when that executive does not live up to his group's public commitment to racial equality? That's why we suggest that it has to be clearly outlined in the act, and why the commission has to come up with higher standards of union obligation and responsibility, in addition to the other union roles.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame Guay.

[Translation]

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

    I would like to thank you for coming to make a presentation to us today. It is very interesting, and I see we have heard similar views once again. Many witnesses have come to meet us and we have heard quite similar opinions from everyone.

    Mr. Hyppolite, you said the government had managed to integrate more women into the Public Service and more or less everywhere. Yes, there are more women, but they earn smaller salaries. Women are not yet in executive positions, which are still mainly held by men. So there is still a great deal of work to be done. Of the four minorities concerned, women clearly have made the most progress.

    One question was asked a moment ago and very much intrigues me. Could an employer that hires a woman from a visible minority or who perhaps even has a disability, be recognized as having hired in the three sectors? This is a question we must ask ourselves. In hiring a single person, would that employer not be recognized as having touched on the three sectors and would it therefore have its hands free? Do you have any experience in this area?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: If we want to confuse the issue and dilute the question we're dealing with now... It would of course be ridiculous to think that way. I believe an employer who hires someone to fill a position first considers the person's qualifications, as you said, and as everyone has said. It must first be determined whether the person is competent and has the necessary qualifications to occupy the position.

    It's also a staffing matter. No one is going to say he's looking for someone who is a woman, who is black and who has a disability.

    Ms. Monique Guay: No, that's not what I said.

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: These are situations which will never occur. Do you understand?

    Ms. Monique Guay: They may occur.

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: This argument is often used to ridicule the issue. I believe it's barking up the wrong tree. In my view, it would be unacceptable for an employer to present us with that type of situation. At that point, he would have to turn on the lights. There has to be an act, a directive that prevents things such as this from happening.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Precisely, and I don't believe that is in the Act.

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: Precisely. It should be done.

    Ms. Monique Guay: There should be a directive.

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: Precisely, and it should be in the form of an action, not a suggestion: “shall” and not “may”.

    Ms. Monique Guay: You're right, and that point should be emphasized because it is very important.

    There is also the entire question of subcontractors which concerns us very much. In the Public Service, in the departments, audits can be conducted quite quickly. However, if two years are granted in order to apply the Act to subcontractors who obtain contracts from the government, they have the time to perform the contract and to say: goodbye, it's over.

    You didn't talk about this entire question, but you must have an opinion on it.

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: You're talking about contractual obligation.

    Ms. Monique Guay: It represents a lot of people and a lot of money.

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: Yes, a lot of people and a lot of money. It's a sector that's very much beyond us. We can make observations, but we do not have the means to go and check what is going on in that area. It is indeed something we are very concerned about. We know there are examples of this in the United States. I even have books on it. There are obligations as such, and systematic audits are conducted of employers that have contracts with the government. It is determined whether they have complied with the contracts they signed with the government with respect to persons from visible minorities whom they must employ.

    Ms. Monique Guay: So the amount of time should perhaps be reduced.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm going to remind you that this is not a dialogue between the member and the witness. You must go through the chair.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: If I may, we did not go into length on the Federal Contractors Program.

[Translation]

In our view, among other things, an annual report must absolutely be produced on the status of implementation of those programs. At the present time, there is very little information on the management of those programs and on the employers' representation rates. We know very little about these things, and we believe there is a lack of accountability in the way in which the federal contracts program is currently administered.

    Ms. Monique Guay: Here's a final question. In certain provinces, we have very large aboriginal communities. In other provinces, there are virtually none. It is therefore difficult to enforce the Act across the board. It can't be done in that way.

    I don't know how it could be done in the Act, but we will have to point this fact out in our report. There are minorities which are grouped together in the major centres such as Montreal. That must be treated differently, we can't treat them all the same way. We will have to see how we can adjust matters so that everyone can find his place in this.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Niemi. No? Thank you.

    Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.): Why have the members of visible minority groups made the least amount of progress in the federal public service? Should the government be more active in providing training—language training, job training—for visible minority people?

  (1240)  

    Mr. Baljinder Gill: My opinion is that the Employment Equity Act, especially in the government, has not been implemented properly. There has been no training given to the personnel, and there is no training in regard to hiring practices. There are no strict rules given to management, so they are not accepting of it. I had been a civil servant at one time, and I know how the reports are prepared at the last minute.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Should the federal government establish standards to recognize foreign credentials? Should a federal body such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission monitor professional associations, which are often under provincial jurisdiction?

    Mr. Fo Niemi: If I may, that's an area under provincial jurisdiction, under education. Perhaps there are two best ways to look at it. One is through the Council of Ministers of Education. The other way is through labour market development strategies and with regard to some sort of basic standard when the post-secondary education funding is given to the provinces. But that's provincial jurisdiction and we don't want to go there.

    So the best way, perhaps, is to start with the Council of Ministers of Education. That's where things block with regard to the professional access to professional corporations.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Do you think the points awarded to the individual who enters Canada under the skilled worker clause should be based in part on whether or not an individual's education and work experience are recognized in this country?

[Translation]

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: I believe this question is being reviewed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Yes, points are given for training and language knowledge, but, at this stage, this is being reviewed. These are things that are taken into consideration. That's all I can tell you because the review is under way right now. The Minister will propose something to us and we will react to it very soon.

    Mr. Joseph Jean-Gilles: What is deplorable is that points are given for training obtained outside Canada, but that training, in many cases, is not recognized in the job market.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Niemi.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: Madam Chair, I just hope those questions could be addressed by an agency that has not appeared here. Perhaps the Canada Career Consortium could be invited to appear before the committee and could be asked those questions. That's the national organization that would be best placed to address many of those questions.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: When they come to my constituency, these professional people often have a Ph.D. or some other degree. They complain that when they have gone for interviews, nobody has mentioned to them that they need experience over here, and this and that. That's my concern.

    Mr. Baljinder Gill: I wanted to add that there is a little difference of opinion. One department of the government is recognizing and is granting the immigration permit to an individual candidate based on his professional experience, credentials, and all that, but when he comes here, even other government departments don't recognize the same person. There is a difference between the two areas of the same government, so something should be implemented and it should be monitored.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Doyle, the last question of the round is to you.

    Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC/DR): I'm wondering about the various barriers to visible minorities receiving employment. How big a barrier, for instance, is the language barrier for visible minorities in terms of obtaining employment?

    I don't know too much about the marketable skills of visible minorities. Could you make a comment on that? Is there a lack of marketable skills among visible minorities?

    Also, maybe you could comment on the manpower agreements with the various provinces. Did I understand correctly that these manpower agreements do not promote the hiring of visible minorities or do not contain clauses that require a certain percentage of visible minorities to be hired? If not, why not?

    The numbers on the compliance audit are very interesting as well. Are you confident that compliance with the act could very well grow as time goes on? Does lack of compliance have more to do with the fact that the Employment Equity Act is a fairly new concept? Employment equity itself is a fairly new concept, so does that lack of compliance have more to do with that fact? Does the fact that it's a new concept among Canadians have anything to do with that, or would it have more to do with a lack of enforcement?

    I know I covered two or three different areas, but perhaps you could comment first of all on the language barrier if there is one, and then on marketable skills if there is a problem there, and finally on the lack of compliance with the act.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Mr. Niemi.

    Mr. Fo Niemi: I would just like to say one thing about the labour market agreements, the accords with the provinces. There are two or three different regimes of transfer of labour market development resources to the provinces.

    One of the effects of not having equity as a national standard that is built into those accords is that once the funds and resources transfer to the provinces for administration, the province can in turn take and fund community-based organizations, as in Quebec and Alberta. If there is no equity standard for the four designated groups, the provinces can take the money and say they're going to prioritize other target groups.

    In the case of visible racial minorities, a lot of community organizations that used to receive funding from HRDC suddenly now get funding from Emploi-Québec, and visible minorities are no longer a target group. This is where the resources certainly have been taken away at the grass-roots level. And it's the same thing for anglophones in Quebec. They're not explicitly recognized. There's only a guarantee for access to services in English, but not to fund those organizations from the community to serve those communities. Since those accords are being reviewed, these are matters that have to be taken into consideration.

    That's all I have. Maybe my colleagues have something else to say.

[Translation]

     Mr. Keder Hyppolite: On the point concerning audit and compliance with the Act, the concept is not a new one. We have been talking about employment equality for more than 15 years, even though the Act is quite new. I don't believe the Act in itself will be complied with if, based on what we, the four presenters, have said here today, the government makes no effort and does not take the necessary measures. Incentives must be created. More incentives must be put into the Act for it to be complied with. The government must reward, punish and inform. All kinds of things must be done. The idea is not simply to say that we have an act. It has to be complied with.

    There are audits, committees, subcommittees and training for public servants. Here is a list of persons from minorities who could belong to the selection committees. These are all measures which can be taken to make it possible for this Act to be complied with. It's important. It's a series of measures, a set of decisions that must be made to permit the implementation of this Act. Everyone must feel concerned; it's not just the government and public servants who must be concerned. We are concerned and we are here today. Can we afford to come back before you in two years to tell you that we made a presentation, we produced a report, but we saw no progress? Can we afford to challenge you to make it work? All that is part of the mechanism that should be put forward for the Act to be complied with.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Doyle.

    Mr. Norman Doyle: Is there any kind of language barrier that prevents employers...is the language barrier a big factor among visible minorities? Or is a lack of marketable skills a factor?

    Mr. Baljinder Gill: I don't think so. In most of these cases, many of them are working with the different industries or the public sector. It's quite obvious that there is no language problem, especially at the professional levels. They've been doing quite well and have achieved quite a few accomplishments.

[Translation]

    Mr. Keder Hyppolite: I don't believe the language barrier is really a fundamental problem. Persons from visible minorities here constitute a resource, an asset for the Public Service. Sometimes they speak four languages; they are polyglots. It's indeed not a problem of linguistic accessibility.

[English]

    Mr. Norman Doyle: Thank you.

    The Chair: I want to thank you for appearing before us today, witnesses. I would like to let you know that if you have other information that you want to share with the committee, you have to get written documentation to us before April 23. That will then give us the time required to make certain that the information is included when we begin to deliberate and to write our report.

    I again thank you for your appearance today, and I apologize for the problems we had with translation earlier on.

    For the members of the committee, moving to other business, we have a notice of motion from Mr. Crête. The notice of motion is that the committee study and adopt the action plan of the Bloc Québécois concerning the guaranteed income supplement.

    Mr. Crête, I would give you an opportunity to make your case.

  (1250)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Following the work we did in committee on the question of the guaranteed income supplement, my colleague from Champlain, Mr. Gagnon, toured across Quebec, where he has met 18 groups to date in an attempt to conduct a more in-depth search for solutions to make people eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and so that those who are not receiving it can receive it. Following that tour, he filed the plan of which you received a copy with our notice of motion.

    The main points are as follows. It says that the government must conduct a very specifically targeted information campaign. It has been realized that, to date in this matter, the federal government has taken action, but that action has not been very broad. For example, advertisements were placed in newspapers, but no specifically targeted approach was taken to identify persons. However, Mr. Gagnon has realized from this tour that these are often people who do not read newspapers or watch television. So other ways of reaching them have to be found.

    The second point is that the government must simplify access to its services. Elderly persons have systematically told us in all these meetings that they have considerable difficulty getting through on the 1-800 line and when they...

    Ms. Guay, you aren't leaving?

    Ms. Monique Guay: You want me to stay?

    Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, please.

    So I was saying that the second point for the elderly is access to services, the 1-800 number. I have personally tried to do it and it's very complicated. You often go from one call to another. Staff has been added, and that has been good. I believe our pressure has produced partial results, but we think there should be a place where people would be certain of getting an answer from a person and not only from a recorded voice.

    There have also been efforts to simplify registration, but no one has yet found the mechanism to enable people to register adequately in one step.

    The government must also grant full and complete retroactivity. If there was one thing we were told during the tour that has reinforced the committee's recommendation regarding full and complete retroactivity, it is really this comment by elderly persons who find it unacceptable that people who were owed money could not obtain it fully and completely, particularly in a certain number of pathetic cases of people who should have received it retroactively for five, six, seven or eight years, who did not receive the supplement during all that time and who lived on virtually nothing during that period. We think it appropriate that these persons obtain it.

    So even though the committee produced a report and we expect a reaction from the government, we think it's urgent, in view of the fact that we are in tax season, when people can register and obtain the forms, that the government make an additional effort. It is in this sense that we are asking that our action plan be adopted by the government.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

    Ms. Folco.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    To the Bloc québécois's proposal, I would answer that a certain number of suggestions and recommendations made by this party have previously been implemented by the government. I will not consider each of those proposals as it has done, but I can tell you that the government has already begun a publicity campaign. I can also tell you that the language of the form has been simplified and that the form will be distributed in the community. Recently, we have also done a great deal of work with the Quebec associations for the elderly. I'm talking only about Quebec, but the same could obviously be said about Canada as a whole. I know that teams from Revenue Canada will be in the shopping centres to answer people's questions. We are working on cooperation between Human Resources Development Canada and Revenue Canada so that the people from Human Resources Development are on the premises to answer questions from the elderly and to help them complete the form.

    I wanted to inform the committee so that it knows that an enormous amount of work has been done and is still being done to respond to the Bloc québécois' proposal.

    Thank you.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to refer back to a few of the examples that Ms. Folco cited.

    In my riding, we have published information in the weeklies, but that information does not necessarily get to the people who are the target public. It may be that some are illiterate. This is a very specific clientele which finds itself in a very specific situation. If they're not often helped by other persons, they cannot make it.

    As to the idea of having Revenue Canada people in shopping centres, I think it's an interesting idea. They will indeed reach a somewhat larger clientele, but it is harder to achieve that result in rural areas.

    I have read the simplified form which the department has prepared to ask people to tell it whether they want a study done on their right to the guaranteed income supplement. The form is indeed much simpler. However, that does not mean that people will not ultimately have to complete the other form or to report all their needs in one way or another. What I understand from the form that was prepared is that it is one way of reaching the people who are not currently receiving the guaranteed income supplement so that the department can determine whether they are eligible for it. However, this does not enable the person to know how the calculation is done. That's something that should be clarified.

    For the Bloc, it was apparent that action should be sped up, that the department should not simply maintain cruising speed in this case. It would be interesting to know whether the government has achieved promising results to date. Of the 280,000 persons identified by the committee, have 20,000, 50,000 or 100,000 been found? What percentage has actually been achieved. The purpose of the Bloc's action plan is to speed up these results.

    Mr. Gagnon, who is in Vancouver today for a meeting of another parliamentary committee, has systematically met with seniors representatives in the course of the tour he has conducted. Among other things, in my region, mailings have been sent to 8,000 or 15,000 persons concerning this matter. The same thing was done for the Christmas baskets in the Montreal area, but further action is needed. The desired results cannot be achieved merely by the actions of a single member.

    As regards government action, additional efforts must therefore be made. The Bloc even went so far as to suggest that students do it this summer. People could be sent into the field to reach these persons in the context of an additional envelope to Human Resources Development. I believe it would be a good social experiment for them, and, at the same time, it could produce results. So we put the plan forward in this perspective and we hope it is adopted by the committee.

[English]

    The Chair: We'll get one last word from your side.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I can't disagree with what Mr. Crête says. The only thing I can add is that major government intervention is currently under way because now is the time when people prepare their income tax returns.

    As for seniors associations, I wish to say that we are meeting with them. I'm not speaking of myself as a member, but of government representatives. We were as shocked as you by the extent of the problem. We are working on it. Be assured of that.

    Mr. Paul Crête: I would like to know whether the number of seniors for Quebec, for example, has been increased. We were told that there were 15 persons for all of Quebec dealing with these matters in client relations. These are sorts of contact agents for seniors and I believe they were swamped.

    Could you give us an indication of the extent of the success of the government's efforts? In other words, how many persons have managed to register for the guaranteed income supplement since the operation began?

·  (1300)  

[English]

    The Chair: I'm not sure whether she can answer it today or whether she has to get that information from the department. She'll make note of it.

    (Motion negatived)

    The Chair: We have one tiny bit of housekeeping in regard to the information we discussed before. I'll just run over it briefly, because we did it during the break.

    The last committee hearing on this would be on April 30. On May 2, we will make our recommendations to the researchers. We will hear about the estimates on May 7 and 9, and we'll consider the report in the last two weeks of May.

    I just wanted to read that into the report.

    The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.