OGGO Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 27, 2003

0900

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Ms. Judith Wiesinger (President, Foreign Service Community Association)

0905

0910

The Chair

Professor Errol Mendes (Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, External Advisory Group (EAG) on Embracing Change)

0915

Mr. Ray Williams (Member, External Advisory Group (EAG) on Embracing Change)

0920

Prof. Errol Mendes

Ms. Beverly Nann (Member, External Advisory Group (EAG) on Embracing Change)

Prof. Errol Mendes

0925

The Chair

Prof. Errol Mendes

The Chair

Prof. Errol Mendes

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Prof. Errol Mendes

0930

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Ray Williams

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

0935

Prof. Errol Mendes

Ms. Beverly Nann

Mr. Ray Williams

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

0940

Prof. Errol Mendes

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Prof. Errol Mendes

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Prof. Errol Mendes

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Prof. Errol Mendes

0945

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Ms. Judith Wiesinger

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras (Spousal Employment, Foreign Service Community Association)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

0950

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Roy Cullen

Prof. Errol Mendes

Mr. Ray Williams

Ms. Beverly Nann

0955

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Christine Jensen (Spousal Employment, Foreign Service Community Association)

The Chair

Ms. Judith Wiesinger

1000

The Chair

Ms. Judith Wiesinger

The Chair

Prof. Errol Mendes

The Chair

Prof. Errol Mendes

Ms. Beverly Nann

1005

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Ray Williams

Prof. Errol Mendes

Mr. Paul Forseth

1010

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

1015

Ms. Christine Jensen

Ms. Tova Lynch (Office Coordinator, Foreign Service Community Association)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1020

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Christine Jensen

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Christine Jensen

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Prof. Errol Mendes

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

1025

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Paul Szabo

1030

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Christine Jensen

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Christine Jensen

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Judith Wiesinger

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

NUMBER 027

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): We'll come to order.

We have a quorum, so we can begin to hear witnesses.

This is the 27th meeting of this committee and we're looking at Bill C-25. As you all know, we have two groups before us right now and we have two hours.

What we have found useful is that we allow you to make your introductory presentations, both groups, then that will allow members a maximum amount of time to interact with you.

I believe you have been asked to identify a spokesperson and to make an opening statement of about ten minutes each--each group. That is the understanding.

Why don't we start with the Foreign Service Community. You can make your presentation, and then we'll move to the interestingly named External Advisory Group on Embracing Change.

I saw you nodding your head, Ms. Jensen. Are you the person who is going to lead off for this group? No?

Judith. Take it away, Judith.

Ms. Judith Wiesinger (President, Foreign Service Community Association): I am Judith Wiesinger. I'm president of the Foreign Service Community Association.

The Foreign Service Community Association, the FSCA, would like to thank the members of this committee for allowing it to present its case. The association welcomes the words of Ms. Lucienne Robillard in her speech introducing Bill C-25--more specifically, her statement that this legislation will make an important contribution to the quality of life of Canadians. Also, it will provide the foundation required to allow the public service to attract, retain, and develop the people it needs, while maintaining a healthy and productive workforce to serve Canadians.

The FSCA was created more than 25 years ago. It is a volunteer organization that represents the spouses and partners of rotational foreign service employees working for DFAIT and CIC. From its inception, the FSCA has lobbied for measures to facilitate the employment of spouses and partners of these employees.

Spouses and partners face many difficulties as they accompany foreign service employees when relocating to Canada following an assignment to serve the Canadian government abroad. Three of these issues can be remedied by amending Bill C-25.

The first difficulty is not being able to compete for positions in the public service because of the current legislation. For instance, eligible candidates have to be resident in the national capital region when they apply for a position.

The second is that foreign-born spouses or partners who have served abroad with the employee but have not obtained Canadian citizenship are considered last as candidates for jobs in the public service when arriving in Canada.

Third, as things stand, in instances when a spouse or partner has worked for DFAIT or CIC as a casual or contract employee, they are unable to apply for a permanent position when one becomes available because only employees already working as term employees are eligible.

The spouses and partners of rotational foreign service employees can be defined as a discrete group. They are the spouses and partners of the employees of the Public Service of Canada, who in turn are subject to decrees adopted pursuant to section 41 of the Public Service Employment Act, the PSEA. These decrees are the following.

On the appointment and deployment to rotational positions of employees of the Department of External Affairs and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission exclusion approval order, the changes proposed here will apply only to this limited group of individuals.

In your review of Bill C-25, the FSCA is asking that this committee consider a change that will provide a preference to spouses and partners of foreign service employees for a period of at least two years upon their return from abroad with regard to appointment to the public service. More specifically, we are proposing an amendment to Bill C-25, clauses 40 and 41. This will mean offering staffing priority for the appointment of the spouse or partner of a rotational foreign service employee for a period of at least two years after returning from abroad; ensuring eligibility to apply for a position in the public service in an external employment process while abroad--if the spouse or partner has the essential qualifications for an appointment to the public service; and ensuring eligibility while abroad to apply for a position in an internal competition within DFAIT and CIC if the spouse or partner has met the essential qualifications for an appointment to the public service.

¿ (0905)

The FSCA is asking that spouses and partners be judged on the merit principle. It is asking for the removal of obstacles that currently do not allow them to do so.

Spouses and partners of rotational employees of the foreign service have specific circumstances that deprive them of the rights to which Canadians are entitled, notably equity of access and the right to apply for employment in the public service, this despite the fact that foreign service spouses and partners receive no financial compensation while serving Canada abroad. In a recent analysis the DFAIT ombudsman assessed that spouses and partners of rotational foreign service employees do not benefit from non-discriminatory access to employment opportunities in the Public Service of Canada, specifically within DFAIT. This is described in our annex A. A similar situation exists at CIC.

Over a 35-year career a rotational foreign service employee spends an average of 17 years abroad over six different assignments and an average of 18 years in Canada. Spouses and partners consider that each time they move back and forth they are subject to discontinuity in employment and spend up to one year in job search. If and when employment is found, it is often at a level below their experience and qualifications. Overall, this results in loss of salary income and loss of pension benefits. Over time this loss becomes significant. Such a reality is incompatible with the latest statistics indicating that 70% of Canadian families rely on a dual income. Furthermore, under other existing legislation, spouses and partners are not eligible to receive employment insurance benefits on their return to Canada, even if they have made regular contributions while employed at a Canadian mission abroad.

Over the last 25 years several reports have been prepared addressing issues pertaining to rotational foreign service employees and their spouses and partners. In 1981 Pamela McDougall conducted the royal commission on conditions of foreign service. Several other reports concerning the same issues have been issued by DFAIT since then; see annex B.

Employment issues and other concerns related to spouses and partners are not unique to the Canadian foreign service. This is confirmed in the findings of the most recent study, conducted by DFAIT in 2002, the comprehensive comparative study of the terms and conditions of employment in the foreign service, where comparative information was obtained from several countries about their own foreign service. Some of these findings could explain why a number of rotational employees are refusing postings abroad or are leaving the foreign service. Obstacles faced by their spouses and partners in trying to maintain professional activity are considered too great.

Today the FSCA is asking you to review its proposal carefully. Spouses and partners of rotational foreign service employees are full-fledged members of Canadian society and are entitled to the personal fulfillment that results from having a career. For them to achieve this, obstacles inherent to the rotational lifestyle need to be eliminated through legislation.

A favourable response to this proposal is an opportunity to apply public service values--more specifically, two basic values, that of equity of access and that of the right to apply--to foreign service spouses and partners. In doing so, you will be removing the discrimination they have experienced until now under the current PSEA. At the same time, a favourable response gives spouses and partners the same employment rights already available to other Canadians. A favourable response will undoubtedly facilitate the retention of the younger generation of men and women who make up today's and tomorrow's Canadian foreign service.

Thank you very much.

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Wiesinger.

To the External Advisory Group on Embracing Change, who's going to embrace change? Mr. Mendes.

[Translation]

Professor Errol Mendes (Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, External Advisory Group (EAG) on Embracing Change): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will be presenting our brief in English. I apologize, but we had very little time in which to get it translated. After this presentation, we will have it translated for the committee.

¿ (0915)

[English]

I'd like to introduce the members of the committee, my colleagues here, and also share my time with them, so be quite aware of the time.

The reason this committee exists is because of the significant under-representation of visible minorities in the federal public service. This led to the establishment of the task force on the participation of visible minorities in the federal public service in 1999, and that task force released its report, which was called “Embracing Change in the Federal Public Service”, in April of 2000. The government endorsed this blueprint for embracing change, which included a series of benchmarks and other recommendations geared to improving the representation of visible minorities. In endorsing the plan the government announced the appointment of an external advisory group to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary of the Treasury Board and the president of the Public Service Commission on ways to meet the benchmarks proposed by the “Embracing Change” report.

The six members of the committee are presently Ray Williams, who is with me today from Toronto, Beverly Nann from Vancouver, Hoahn Van Dam and Don Campbell from Montreal, Carolyn Thomas from Halifax, and myself from Ottawa.

I'll just give you a brief overview of the statistics. The latest annual report tabled by Treasury Board confirmed that there is a huge challenge in establishing a representative federal public service. Current representation of visible minorities is at 6.8%, versus workforce availability of 8.7%, based on the old census. With the results of the new census, the gap is growing even wider, and at the high executive levels there is a crisis in terms of a lack of representation of Canada's public face.

I'll go over this quickly, because I know you're interested in particulars in terms of the legislation.

One of the key goals we would like to see changed in the bill is the fact that any reference to diversity and a representative public service is only mentioned in the preamble to the bill. As a lawyer, I know, and I'm sure the lawyers among you know, that this is very significant, because the insertion only of critical features into the preamble may lead to a conclusion that this value is hortatory as opposed to mandatory.

We're asking for very specific changes to the bill. We're suggesting that the references to diversity and representativeness should move from the preamble or from being in addition to the wording in the preamble and be added to proposed subparagraph 30(2)(b)(iii) or proposed subsection 30(3) of the Public Service Employment Act, which deal with the needs and future needs of the Public Service of Canada. One could add there that there should be further identification of the values of diversity and representativeness of the public service. We can give you specific wording, if you like, in terms of how that could be achieved. We've suggested this is only reasonable, given that there is a large amount of work in the federal public service devoted to meeting the objectives of the “Embracing Change” plan. I could go through them if you wish.

Second, there is a legal dichotomy between the mandatory nature of some of the critical features of increasing the representativeness of Canada's varied population in the Employment Equity Act and the lack of mandatory references to that act in the legislation. There are various references to the Treasury Board having the duty or the mandate under the Employment Equity Act, but there is no clear recognition that the objectives of the Employment Equity Act are mandatory under the new legislation affecting the Public Service Employment Act. I would ask for that to be changed by the committee.

I will now turn to my colleague, Ray Williams, who will talk a little bit about the lack of any provisions relating to accountability in the objectives of the “Embracing Change” document.

Ray.

Mr. Ray Williams (Member, External Advisory Group (EAG) on Embracing Change):

Under the current Employment Equity Act, the duty falling on the employer, the Treasury Board and its president, to implement employment equity in the Public Service of Canada and to table stats in each house of Parliament each year is clear. The role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding the monitoring of compliance and the conduct of audits is also clear.

However, some clarity is required in the proposed accountability scheme for the PSEA. In that regard, we're very concerned that an external advisory body such as ours, which provides input to Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, is not fully envisioned in the current bill that is being tabled. We'd like to see something very specific around this, to ensure that there is monitoring of the implementation of the provisions for embracing change, diversity, and representation. Such a body would serve as a watchdog, speaking to the active pursuit of the short-term objectives set out in the “Embracing Change” action plan, as well as to the longer-term ones set out within the Employment Equity Act.

We fully believe that there should be a more explicit statutory foundation for making diversity a fundamental characteristic of the Public Service of Canada, and a more proactive implementation of diversity objectives and the accountability regime for meeting the requirements of the Employment Equity Act.

That is my piece.

¿ (0920)

Prof. Errol Mendes: Thank you, Ray.

Finally, Bev Nann is going to talk about the critical need for consideration of the values of diversity and representativeness in the definition of merit.

Beverly.

Ms. Beverly Nann (Member, External Advisory Group (EAG) on Embracing Change): I'd like to speak from the perspective of someone in the community who has worked for over 30 years to implement the federal legislation for developing a multicultural society. I've been working with community groups pioneering the development of programs and services to reach the goal of a multicultural society, as set out in the Multiculturalism Act and the Charter of Rights and in all of the measures for creating that kind of a society.

At this point, I've really come to the conclusion that the only way it's going to happen is that we build this as a core competency in the public service, so that every public servant takes responsibility to create a welcoming environment that values and respects diversity. I have been talking a lot to my colleagues out in the community, who are saying they are having difficulties winning over the hearts and minds of those within the public service. Some have the message, but others don't. It seems to me that the only way the message is really going to get across is if we build this right into their core performance that is to be evaluated. It must be built right into their job descriptions, which is the only way it will happen entirely through the civil service. Otherwise it becomes a priority for the deputy ministers and managers, or the latest flavour of the month that gets forgotten when some other priority pops up.

I'll give you an example of what has in fact happened in my own community in Burnaby. In the community, we worked very hard to put into place a multicultural home-school liaison service that would help bridge the gap between the immigrant families and the students. This was over twenty years ago. There was tremendous support from all of the educational professionals, the community groups, and the ethnic community groups, including SUCCESS, which is a very large agency serving the Chinese population—which I'm sure Paul is very familiar with. We got into what we thought was a core service. Eighteen years later, the whole service has been wiped out—just wiped out—because there wasn't sufficient understanding, I guess, within the school board that this was an essential service.

English is not the first language in over 50% of the homes now. When we started and put that program into place twenty years ago, it was 25%. They're telling us that there is no longer a need for this service. Yet recently we had a thousand parents signing and saying “We need the service. We had a teachers' association and all of the social service agencies and ethnic organizations behind us, yet they still did not listen to us. It's gone.” So that mustn't happen.

The only way it is going to happen is if everyone takes responsibility for creating that welcoming environment for all community groups. So it has to be built into the core competency of all public servants.

Prof. Errol Mendes: Thank you.

Perhaps I could make a few concluding comments.

Under proposed section 4 of the new Public Service Employment Act we note that there is going to be a reduction of the full-time commissioners to just one full-time commissioner and many part-time commissioners. We suggest to you that a single full-time commissioner will not be able to represent the regional linguistic diversity of Canada. And we strongly agree with the recommendations of Scott Serson of the Public Service Commission that the three full-time commissioners should be kept and the appointment should be based on an appreciation of regional linguistic and ethnic diversity issues.

In conclusion, this can no longer be taken as a marginal issue. There are some statistics that say that by 2015 two-thirds of the Canadian labour force will be comprised of the four target groups of the Employment Equity Act. If they are being ignored, you can imagine what sort of further crisis will take place in the Public Service of Canada and in the general labour force itself.

Thank you.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: I'm sorry, could you repeat that last comment about two-thirds--of what?

Prof. Errol Mendes: Two-thirds of the available Canadian labour force will be comprised of women, racial minorities, aboriginals, and the disabled community, and if we regard this area as a marginal issue, we're going to be facing problems.

The Chair: Do you have the math that supports that?

Prof. Errol Mendes: There are statistics that the Public Service Commission can forward to you.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth, you can start the questioning. I'll deal with that later.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I'm certainly striving to get a so-called representative public service. Of course, there's a difficulty when we have competitions and we try to impose somewhat of a regime that would apply to the merit principle so that there's inherently a sense of fairness rather than arbitrariness. And then we find that over time the public service is not becoming representative, as you cite. The problem is, how do we get out of it without violating other good principles? Are we going to give extra points to someone just because of an ethnic background that's not specifically job-related? Are we going to get into the whole business of reverse discrimination?

We look at the affirmative action results in the States, where they have gone down that road, and we see in the studies the deleterious effect of rather active affirmative action programs, where it's actually hurt more than it's helped.

I do like that phrase that you talk about, “a welcoming climate”. It seems to be something that needs to be pursued, and I can be sympathetic perhaps with certain ideals only being provided in a preamble of the section and not listed in the core. Perhaps there is some room for it to be done there, but we're left with this dilemma about trying to apply the merit principle and objectivity.

I'm fighting to improve the merit principle in the bill so that it gives some objective direction to mean the best, or finding the best within a context or within any particular competition. And the colour of a person's skin or whatever background they have should be irrelevant unless it's a particular advantage and skill, based perhaps on the client group they're going to deal with. Perhaps there's an extra language competency or a cultural similarity that helps the person tune in to their clients that would be pointed to as an extra advantage when someone is looking at their overall skills and competency to be able to fulfil the prescribed duties.

I don't see how we're going to get out of doing that purely to obtain some ideal philosophical objective, other than perhaps just doing what you say, putting it in the operational side of the bill and hoping for the best.

Based on those comments, do you have any reaction?

Prof. Errol Mendes: I absolutely do. I'd like to point out to you that there is a wealth of research and literature that shows that what Canada is trying to do is not what you're suggesting we do in terms of the so-called labels of reverse discrimination of quotas or anything else.

The philosophy in Canada, as formulated by Justice Rosalie Abella, in terms of her employment equity report and the foundations of the Employment Equity Act, is to remove systematic barriers that exist to having a fair competition of all individuals.

I'll give you a very concrete example. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals have found that certain departments have developed stereotypes that certain ethic groups are not suitable for management jobs. If you like, I can quote you the judgments.

That's what employment equity and diversity is all about. It's not asking to be given special treatment just because you have a different colour of skin; it's asking that you have a fair competition, not based on stereotypes, not based on systemic discrimination.

I refer you to the Grover decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; I refer you to the Chopra case of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This is widespread, and this is why it is absolutely critical to have in the body of the legislation the requirement for diversity and representativeness to be adhered to by the hiring managers, especially now that the hiring will be delegated from the public service down to the front lines.

Thank you.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, certainly if there's systemic discrimination we all need to challenge it, and I think that is one of your points. Everyone takes it on as a responsibility, not just groups such as yourselves, outside the system, but everyone takes it on as a philosophical ideal.

I want to shift over to the other group.

The Chair: Mr. Williams also wants to make a comment on that.

Mr. Ray Williams: I have a comment also in terms of how we're going about dealing with the whole situation of under-representation within the federal public service currently. And I think this particular document, the action plan that was put together out of the Perinbam report, is a very clear road map in terms of how we go about dealing with the current under-representation of visible minorities within the federal public service. It speaks very clearly to the roles for all particular levels within the hierarchy by way of implementation support, language, and the whole piece. I think this is a very important document, which should be referenced time and time again in terms of the road map that we could probably take to get to where we need to be in having a fuller representative federal public service going forward, without moving into the situation of it being around either reverse discrimination, quotas, or affirmative action. It's none of those things.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I think you've given some strong testimony. You've pointed out both the A and the B. You've pointed out the problem and the solution. I trust the minister and officials will look at that. All of us in Parliament can't be saying one thing and then doing something else, or not doing what we're saying, and I appreciate that.

The Chair: Mr. Forseth, I think we'll have to leave your question for the second round, having noted that potentially the merit principle could be part of the systemic discrimination.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To continue along the same lines, in the preamble to the Public Service Employment Act, in section 12, there is clear mention of the public service being representative of Canada's diversity and able to serve the public with integrity and all that. How is it that you are demanding, over and above the Employment Equity Act, the mention in the preamble and already existing legislation, that specific sections be added to the legislation to lend the necessary weight to this idea that there be not only wage equity but also representational equity within the public service?

¿ (0935)

Prof. Errol Mendes: Thank you for this question. I do not know if my colleagues agree with me, but in my opinion, the Employment Equity Act is reactive. This legislation needs to be proactive.

[English]

We need proactive measures, especially as the decisions concerning employment are going to be handed down from the top to hiring managers. At that level, critical decisions are going to be made on merit and who gets hired. For that reason,

[Translation]

I think that it is extremely important to include mandatory measures for managers in order to include factors related to diversity, representativeness, etc.

[English]

So I think it's critical that we have proactive measures in the legislation.

Ms. Beverly Nann: I'd like to comment as well.

As I mentioned, I've worked in the community for over 30 years, and it has always strengthened my hand if I could refer to the legislation. There are no questions if it's in the act and it's what we're required to do as citizens in the community.

In my consultation with the regional managers on the coast, they said it's the latest flavour of the month. Unless it's embedded there and says they have to do it, they won't, because other priorities become more important. So the whole thrust of what we're doing now gets lost. A lot of money is being spent to put this initiative into place on representative diversity, and it will be lost in the future unless it's embedded in the legislation and it says you have to do it. It just won't get done.

For those of us working in the community, that arms us with something to take to the community and say “Look, it's in the law. You have to do it.” It's as simple as that. If it's not there, written in black and white, they won't do it, because there are too many other priorities that come up and it just gets lost.

What we're doing will be a waste of our time--I certainly don't believe in being window dressing here--unless we embed it in the legislation in a solid way for the future. It will just strengthen what we're trying to do in the community as non-profits to implement federal government policy.

Mr. Ray Williams: I'd also like to provide some quick commentary here.

In response to your question on the reasons why it should be embedded, I fully support both standpoints from Bev and Errol. But it became even clearer to me when I attended an APEX meeting here in February, and Madame Lucienne Robillard was providing information on this very act at the Chateau Laurier. I stood in a large ballroom and looked around, and my reality was what I knew to be the facts that were provided to me by way of statistics, in terms of the lack of representation within the federal public service. I looked around the huge ballroom, and if I excluded myself, Bev Nann, and Carolyn Thomas as visible minorities, people of colour, the faces in the room were predominantly Caucasian.

If that's the case, and we live in a society where very clearly the overall population demographics are pointing to a more mixed society, why are we not seeing that represented and reflected more clearly within the federal public service? There are many reasons, I'm sure, but to me it's very clear that the opportunity is right here and now, with the current review of the Public Service Employment Act, to enshrine some of these components into it.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I know quite well why you are asking for this. I think, too, that there should be a policy on this, a good policy and that it should set out what you are saying. However, since I am, as you know, a lawyer, I think that it is dangerous if specific measures about diversity are included in enabling legislation; the danger lies in the possible interpretations. What kind of diversity? Are we talking about skin colour or about persons with handicaps? What kinds of restrictions will be set?

This can even be so restrictive as to cause problems, whereas if it is set out in a general policy with an anticipated outcome, any problems can be clearly identified if that outcome is not achieved. But I fear that putting something so important in such specific terms in the legislation will limit what you want to achieve. I would like your thoughts on this.

¿ (0940)

Prof. Errol Mendes: With all due respect, I must say that I do not agree because, in my opinion, diversity includes everyone. It does not just mean black people or persons with handicaps or the first nations. Diversity includes everyone, and the public service should be representative of us all.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This is what I do not understand. You are telling me that you do not agree, but I am saying the exact same thing. How are you going to specifically define what you are proposing here? You are telling me that diversity means everyone. Mr. Forseth and I are equally part of this diversity. How can you specifically define diversity in legislation without making a list? I think that it would be a mistake to have a list. You say that you do not agree, but you are saying the same thing I am.

If diversity includes everyone, I do not understand.

[English]

Prof. Errol Mendes: You don't see the problem if diversity is everybody. The fact is not everybody is represented in the public service. There is a problem. So how are you going to solve that problem? You resolve the problem by directing focus in the mind--

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: How will including specific provisions in the legislation change things? It is important, because we are trying to ensure that everyone is represented. If this is not the case, do you think that including this in the legislation will change things?

[English]

Prof. Errol Mendes: We gave you specific provisions in clause 30 to add that the future needs of the public service include diversity and representativeness of the public. In practice, that would mean making sure there were no systemic barriers every time a hiring decision was made. That would go along with the training that's necessary and critical for hiring managers. If you don't have that, people will never look at the preamble.

For example, how many here around this table know what the preamble is to our own constitution? I'll test you on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No doubt there are many. I not only read it, I studied it.

But I think that everyone around the table will be able to endorse what you are adding, because it is minor. In the end, the policy must be changed, because I think that everyone will agree to add the amendment you are proposing to section 30, in addition to the preamble.

Between you and me, however, there is still work to be done. It is fine to endorse this, and we will without any difficulty, but it is essential not to stop there. There must be a policy. If this becomes a consideration or a hiring criteria, similar to what Mr. Forseth said, this must be taken into consideration, but it must not become reverse discrimination.

So, I am telling you that I do not have a problem with adding this in general, but the policy must be changed. I thought that you wanted the committee to enumerate this diversity, and I was thinking that this would be a huge problem. I agree that it should be indicated in general terms, because we are saying the same thing. But, I am also telling you that the policy needs work.

[English]

Prof. Errol Mendes: Absolutely. I agree with you. That's why we're saying it's the first step to put in the body. On the second step--sorry we forgot to mention it--there is a part in the Financial Administration Act, I think it's section 11, that talks about the training needed for the new hiring managers. You could add to section 11 of the Financial Administration Act the need for further training in terms of the policies involved in this.

It's an absolutely necessary first step you would use as a launching pad for the training of the hiring managers, etc. That's what we're arguing for.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.

I'm sorry I missed the early part of your presentation, Ms. Wiesinger. There is something I may have missed in terms of this bill. I can certainly appreciate some of the challenges of the spouses and partners of foreign service officers, and you've described some of them here.

I have two questions on this bill. Are there any changes you'd like to see in the bill that would respond to some of the concerns you've laid out with respect to spouses and partners?

Secondly, over the years I've had the opportunity, as have many of my colleagues, to visit various missions abroad, and we've all been subject to briefings by the staff. The issues there seemed to focus more on compensation, loss of some good people, adjusting salaries to accommodate the local living expenses, a sense of bad morale, etc. Those issues may have all been corrected, but I doubt it. They're probably outside the scope of this bill.

I don't see any evidence of those issues in your brief, or that there's anything in this legislation that responds to some of the concerns all of us have heard from foreign service officers when we go abroad.

Is that outside of the scope of the bill? Is there anything in the bill that would improve that situation at all?

Ms. Judith Wiesinger: Madame Beaulieu-Gingras will address the issue. There is a particular point where we would see an amendment. I'll let Madame Beaulieu-Gingras continue.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm more interested in general terms, not the wording of an amendment, just the broad brush of it.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras (Spousal Employment, Foreign Service Community Association): We're not technical experts.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Nor am I.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: Let me answer your second question first. There are still the issues of the loss of people and low morale. In our presentation we have intentionally avoided talking about that very much because we wanted to concentrate on what can be done with Bill C-25. Certainly it will help improve some of the problems the foreign service is faced with.

At the moment the foreign service has two main problems in terms of its staff. Some people are reluctant to take assignments overseas because their spouse or partner will have difficulty finding or will be unable to find employment abroad and upon return to Canada will experience the same thing. The second problem is that a number of foreign service people are leaving the service for a number of reasons. One is because their spouse or partner has difficulty maintaining professional activity.

Does that answer your question?

¿ (0950)

Mr. Roy Cullen: It does to some extent. I think we understand the problem. I'm looking for solutions not in precise terms but in general terms.

In terms of this legislation, it occurs to me that one aspect that might help the situation with regard to foreign service officers is this--I forget the exact terminology--co-management; in other words, involving the bargaining units with management in the resolution of some problems. Perhaps that could help. Will that help? Are there other aspects of this bill that will respond to some of those concerns and some of the concerns for the spouses and partners?

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: Yes. We think that some aspects of the bill will provide for equity of access to employment in the public service for the spouses and partners. In our presentation we referred to three general types of situations where we are denied access under the current legislation. For instance, if I am in a post abroad and I'm working locally and I want to apply for a competition that is taking place in the national capital region, I am not able to apply for that competition because I am physically abroad. That's one instance. Another instance is that I work at CIC or Foreign Affairs as a casual or contract employee, and there is an opening for a permanent job. I cannot apply because I am not at least a term employee. So we keep losing opportunities.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you. That's helpful.

Mr. Mendes and your colleagues, one of the things this bill does accomplish, it seems to me, is that by giving managers a bit more flexibility in terms of recruitment and selection, it gives them more opportunities, for example, to deal with diversity. The way the system works, as I understand it, is that you have a point system. So someone with 101 would beat out someone with 100.5 just on points. How could you possibly say that 0.5 is a huge difference? This bill will give managers a little more flexibility to bring in the right person for the job, and the right person for the job might be someone who will help reflect better balance in the workplace in terms of Canada's diversity. It might help a manager who is looking at the longer term in terms of the needs of the department, the division, or the branch. I would have thought that would have helped. It may not be all you're looking for. Could you at least clarify that? Does it help at all?

Prof. Errol Mendes: At first sight, Mr. Cullen, it may seem as if it would help. The reality is--and I fully accept this is based only on anecdotes and there hasn't been sufficient research done in this area--most of the systemic problems that seem to have emerged, especially from the human rights case law, have been at the managerial level, where managers make stereotypes of certain people they say are not capable of becoming managers, certain categories of people. Most of the case law seems to indicate actually the reverse of what you're suggesting, that the problem actually exists at that level as opposed to higher up.

In fact, most of the deputies I know are committed to embracing change. So at the higher levels, there's less of a problem in terms of achieving the objectives that have been raised than at the lower levels.

That is why, going back to Mr. Lanctôt's dialogue with us, it's actually critical to have a legal mandate in the act that these considerations have to be taken into account so that those managers to whom the hiring has been delegated must make sure there are no systemic barriers to making the public service more representative.

My colleagues may have something more to add on that.

Mr. Ray Williams: I'd like to add a response to Mr. Cullen.

I think your point is well taken, in that under the proposed new legislation, the opportunity is there for greater flexibility. I would also suggest to you, however, that this may be deemed a double-edged sword.

I interact with people at all different levels in the federal public service in Ontario region, just to get grassroots feedback, if you will, and one of the things I've heard directly from some of the folks--and it comes through time after time--is that there are often situations where a statement of qualifications or requirements is set out in such a way that it will fit only someone of my collar, or this tie with this type of shirt, etc., thus excluding a bunch of folks.

Notwithstanding the fact that the current legislation gives you that flexibility, it could work against the whole piece as it speaks to diversity and simply encourage managers who have that flexibility to use it in a way that suits them, rather than a particular policy that's appropriate for our society.

Ms. Beverly Nann: I'd like to also comment that in talking to senior managers on the coast, they feel they don't have the skill set to be able to outreach, to bring in the visible minorities, especially at the higher levels. So if you really highlight that in the legislation, they'll do it. Otherwise, they'll probably just ignore it and there won't be any extra resourcing for it. This is what they've said to me, that it really has to be embedded in the legislation, and then they'll do it. Otherwise, it'll just fall off the table, and they'll do things as they're used to doing them, in whatever way they've been doing them. They're not going to be looking for new ways of achieving that goal if it's not set out in the legislation.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Cullen, your time is up.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Am I done?

The Chair: You are well done. I would say you are overdone, but you have another round.

I'm going to interject a couple of questions here myself.

To Ms. Wiesinger and her group, I note here that this question of abolishing the distinction between inside service and outside service, those who work in Ottawa and those who don't, was first raised in a royal commission in 1918. You may be getting close to the end of this discussion at this point.

It strikes me that your specific recommendations are helpful. I'm a little bit puzzled by the EI exclusion and what the rationale would be for it, given that one is working in a job and paying into the program. It seems strange, particularly when one's move is forced by circumstances outside of one's control. I'd like to hear a little bit more about that.

Let me ask a question over on this side. I think this debate on merit is always interesting. It seems strange to me that when you do the math on this, we have this kind of rejection of quotas or other tools that push us to consider this. We use a language around diversity. We have policy objectives: we'd like to see a civil service that is socially representative of the community. Yet without active policy to force that issue, anytime you do the math on this it shows that it will be another century before we actually get to this representative position. It takes some tools to actually make it happen. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

There's nothing in the merit principle intrinsically.... There are people of all racial groups who are as meritorious as anyone else. It is the informal application of it that does exactly what your group is concerned about. Those active mechanisms are the ones I think we need to spend a little time on here.

Here's something that's also interesting to me. I believe the foreign service, which funnily enough is the service that operates in most countries around the world, is the least representative--and this is based on my last reading of the report and may be old. I haven't read the most recent report. So the foreign service has bigger problems than--

Ms. Christine Jensen (Spousal Employment, Foreign Service Community Association): It's the spouses who are representative.

The Chair: I thought I would just throw that cat among the pigeons. It just strikes me that this issue.... You'd think in a service that would have a demand to be more representative, you might almost expect it to be biased the other way because of its involvement in countries all over the world. Yet it is the least representative of diversity in our community.

I would appreciate comments on both of those questions. Do you want to start, Suzanne, with that EI exclusion? I just can't think of a rationale for it.

Ms. Judith Wiesinger: It's a little surprising, because we feel--not “we feel”, it is a reality--that prisoners in Canada have a better treatment in terms of access to employment insurance benefits than we do. The problem is that under the current legislation you have to have contributed and you have to have been in Canada a number of weeks before you claim employment insurance benefits.

So if I am employed in Canada, I'm paying my dues, and then I follow my husband abroad, if I am not able to find work abroad, I cannot claim because I am not in Canada. When I return to Canada after two or three or four years, then too much lag time has elapsed. It's too long between the time I finished contributing and the time I'm claiming.

There is one exception, and this is when we are posted to the United States, because there is a special agreement between Canada and the United States. So if I am posted to the United States and cannot find employment there, I can claim employment insurance.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you. So this actually may take an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act, as opposed to the.... Our researchers should look at that.

There's one other thing I don't recall from your presentation. Can you give me a sense of the order of magnitude here? Presumably the number of people in the foreign service is finite. An even smaller number of them would be married, or would have spouses who are interested in this. Can you give me a sense of how many people we are talking about here?

Ms. Judith Wiesinger: I will not give you specific numbers, but I will give you the order of magnitude. We understand that there are approximately 1,500 employees in the foreign service in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and about 350 in CIC. So let's say roughly 2,000 people are rotational. Today we are talking about the spouses and partners of these people, and everybody does not have a spouse or partner. Maybe at the most, we're talking about 1,500 people.

What we would like to obtain for these people with Bill C-25 is that they would be given what under the legislation would be called priority status for access to employment. When we return to Canada, we would like to have this priority status for a period of at least two years, because when we first come back we don't always have time to look for a job; you have to look after the family, look after the house, reorganize yourself.

It's not always possible that, a week after you come back, you can look for a job. Sometimes it takes a little while and sometimes you have to look for something in a different field, in a different organization. We cannot do it immediately. This is why we are saying we would need this extra time. We know, for instance, when there is a change of government the staff of ministers are given priority status, I think for a period of one year. We would like a little longer because our circumstances are somewhat different.

The Chair: Presumably if you all collected EI it would cost the government an amount approximating the copy budget at Privy Council Office.

Would you comment on the representation?

Prof. Errol Mendes: On the representation?

The Chair: On the mechanisms for pushing it.

Prof. Errol Mendes: Yes, I just want to comment on your statement about DFAIT. Yes, DFAIT is one of the laggards in terms of the statistics. But interestingly enough, until recently so was the justice department, and even now, despite Alex Himelfarb being a real champion for this area, in my view, so was the Privy Coucil Office.

I find the most interesting department was health, which was one of the worst until the human rights cases started hitting it. In particular, the human rights cases clearly demonstrated that a stereotype existed among some of the hiring managers that certain ethnic groups did not make good managers. After being hit with the human rights decisions, suddenly the numbers have started increasing.

And this just goes to show exactly what I'm talking about: there is a need to have a legal foundation for diversity and merit, which then gets translated into the training. One cannot wait until the worst scenarios happen, and that's why we're here with what we're suggesting.

In terms of actual proactive measures, and again going back to your concerns, I think every hiring manager needs to be trained in what diversity means, including some of the discussions we've had around the table today, taking into account some of those concerns I know some of your members have in terms of not making this into an affirmative action or quota-related. I hear what you said, Mr. Chair, but I still think we need to have a focus on systemic barriers.

Ms. Beverly Nann: Yes, I agree.

To continue with what Errol is saying and also to affirm what you're saying, there is a need for special initiatives to encourage people to think outside their normal box. I think this is what it does. It really forces them to think in new and different ways.

Despite thirty years of legislation--multiculturalism, the human rights charter--people are continuing to think in the same way and do things in the same way. Well, we're saying, it doesn't work any more because the cultural demographics have changed tremendously in the last while.

I've met with the NCVM, the National Council of Visible Minorities. These are visible minorities within the public service right now. They are finding this group to be a tremendous support group for them in getting through the system. These are all people who are inside the system and they don't know how to move through it and they need to change.

À (1005)

The Chair: I'm sorry, but I must hold myself to the same time disciplines as others or I will be badly beaten up in the next business meeting.

We will move on to Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

I just have a side comment before I get to my question to Mr. Williams.

You mentioned being in this room, looking around, interacting, and having a feeling. Well, if I were standing beside you at that same meeting, probably I would have the very same feeling, because I'm from New Westminster, British Columbia, and everybody's bilingual and often they're speaking French, and I'm totally cut out. Because of my background, I may not be particularly talented in acquiring languages. There's the glass ceiling for people from British Columbia to ever advance in the public service because of the Official Languages Act.

The actual consequence of the Official Languages Act may be one of the issues around representation for visible minorities. I would think perhaps, with second-generation immigrants to Vancouver from Asia, some of them might have an advantage if they were from Vietnam, for example, because there was a French-language background there, so maybe there is some French competence. But other than that, English is already the second language, and then to try to go to French.... I know what it's like. I know what it's like to go to senior meetings where everybody's speaking French and I'm totally cut out. I know what that feeling is like.

So the well-intentioned Official Languages Act also can create that kind of consequence.

Language competency might be a particular barrier. I don't know how to solve that. The least I can say is I can acquire a language, and maybe if I really apply myself, I can change that, where there are other things I can't change.

Do you want to respond before I get on to another question?

Mr. Ray Williams: Yes, the studies have shown clearly that linguistic capacity is a barrier to certain visible minorities--not all, as you said, the Vietnamese, etc. However, I speak for myself. I'm a very strong supporter of the Official Languages Act. I think it is part of the nature of Canada.

I think we can develop specific initiatives to address the gap between a visible minority pool of potential recruits into the public service, especially the higher levels, and achieve the requisite linguistic capacity by creating.... I would recommend you look at the Financial Administration Act, which allows for new categories of ranks to be created, and perhaps address your minds to that. For example, categories of EX minus 1 or EX minus 2 allow for a pool of qualified candidates to go into that pool with the proviso that they would have to meet the linguistic capacities within a year, or two years.

I know this goes against some of the presentation that you heard from the Official Languages Commissioner, but I think those types of initiatives are needed.

Prof. Errol Mendes: Let me just support that, inasmuch as some of the statistics that have been provided to us at our meetings in Ottawa would suggest that language is certainly a major obstacle, and not just for visible minorities, interestingly enough. This is one category, in fact, where the stats would suggest that for the general public service, language is deemed at 50% to be a problem, as opposed to the visible minority component of the federal public service, where it's something like 62% or 65%.

Clearly, around languages there are some substantial problems, not just for visible minorities, but for the federal public service as a whole. So there's probably a need for more focus around support in ensuring that people can get the language skills.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. I will move on to another topic.

In the Canadian Alliance, when we look at a bill we always give what we call the family friendliness test. In relation to the somewhat technical criteria for foreign service workers that you've outlined here, the bill doesn't seem to really meet that family friendliness test.

In the House and across the country, we have certainly been on this issue of general access to the public service for quite some time. We know that merit basically talks about a sense of fairness. Yet yet when I talk to Mr. Serson of the Public Service Commission, the undermining of merit through geographic prohibitions is said to have nothing to do with trying to find representative people from a local milieu who perhaps might be particularly talented. It just has to do with their administrative inability to handle lots of applications. They didn't want to spend the money, the time, or to use the staff needed to do a proper ranking. So it was an administrative inadequacy that undermined the merit principle.

As far as budgetary resourcing and so on are concerned, they're only now beginning to contemplate how to fulfill the law or the ideals we talk about. In the bill, it perhaps looks like there's an undermining of the merit principle to solve an administrative problem of the practicalities of advertising nationally, and getting far too many applicants as a result. They are wondering, “How will we ever handle this?” So the merit principle is watered down with all kinds of narrowing exclusions, so that the number of applications can be physically handled. Rather than responding administratively and maintaining the law, the law is watered down.

I know that the gold mine of government service abroad, especially our embassies, are hiring what we call locally engaged staff. In a typical case, I saw a lady working in the London embassy who was a Canadian citizen. I think her husband was involved in some kind of a technical company and was transferred from Canada to England to work on a project for several years. As a loyal Canadian citizen, she was an ideal candidate to be a locally engaged staff member working on immigration in our London mission. It's often a problem finding qualified locally engaged staff. When that lady comes back to Canada, is she going to get any credit for her work in the public service? Is it gone, or has it just disappeared? That's an issue.

Then, there is the whole issue of access that you talked about. When we want to get the brightest and the best, we have these barriers you talk about, which I put under the title of family friendliness, in terms of dual income and joint planning for a future career. So I would look for some specific points in the legislation that could fix this. You did point to some wording in clauses 40 and 41. Maybe you could help us with that.

I've thrown out a number of things you can respond to.

À (1010)

The Chair: I have to ask you to make your responses relatively efficient, because we have used up quite a bit of time. Then we can come back to you. We have lots of time yet, but Mr. Lanctôt is also dying to get in with a question or two.

So we'll have a quick response from each group.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: In the last part of your statement, I think you provided the answer to your question. When you say family friendliness is in part dual-income families, the recent statistics show that this is the case for most families in Canada. We find that this is very difficult to achieve for the families of the foreign service, because of the barriers we pointed out.

We have to be very clear here that we are talking about a relatively small group of people to whom we would like this priority status to apply. This is a discrete group of people. These people are identified in the legislation where it talks about exclusion orders, which we also refer to specifically in our document. So these are only the people in DFAIT and CIC, because they are ones who come under the exclusion orders. Okay?

So the Canadian citizen who you spoke to, and who was working at the high commission in London, would not be covered by this proposed legislation.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, because they would just be locally engaged staff on a term contract.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: Locally engaged staff can be Canadian and non-Canadian people.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's right.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: It so happens that spouses and partners can be hired as locally engaged staff in embassies or high commissions. There are some small barriers there, but Bill C-25 cannot have much of an impact on them.

À (1015)

Ms. Christine Jensen: If I could add something, in the London example, it could be that this lady moved there for a single assignment because of her husband. Yet in the case of the rotational staff at DFAIT and CIC, people are constantly going back and forth, about six times in their lifetime. So we spend a lot of time writing résumés and looking for jobs, which is the problem we want to rectify.

Ms. Tova Lynch (Office Coordinator, Foreign Service Community Association): I just wanted to add another fact. We have 159 hardship posts, and the salaries there, if you're hired locally, are much lower. This is out of 210 posts.

The Chair: Okay, can we move on to Mr. Lanctôt?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will ask you other questions later about the harassment issue. For now, I want to go back to representatives of the Foreign Service Community.

Personally, I am a bit bothered by your request, not because you do not deserve it, but I wonder if this is the right forum and the right place in which to make it.

This seems more a human resources problem than about requesting priority over others, with regard to the Public Service Employment Act. I find your request noble, and I would like to be able to tell you that I support it. However, I wonder if the proposed reform of Bill C-25 is really the right context in which you should be making this request.

In my opinion, this is a human resources problem. When husbands and wives go abroad, they must make a choice. The same thing happens in the private sector. Lawyers, accountants and engineers make choices if they want to go work elsewhere. The spouse can decide to accept the posting or not.

However, since these couples are working for Canada's public service and are therefore in important positions, perhaps it would be a matter of passing specific human resources legislation—you are saying there is a problem with employment insurance—, enabling legislation that would state that spouses are entitled to compensation because they have to leave the country. I think that this is more important than asking for priority or privileged status in legislation that clearly states that the best candidates with the essential qualifications must be hired.

Why should you be treated differently than someone belonging to a cultural or linguistic minority? Why should you get priority? This bothers me.

I do not care if you have special status or if you are entitled to one year's salary if you had a job here to help you find something else in another country. But, for this, there needs to be human resources legislation. Go see Human Resources Development Canada and ask for enabling legislation to this effect. Surely this has already been done. That is what I would do if I were you. I am extremely uncomfortable with what you are asking be done in terms of Bill C-25.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: I do not know if this is the right answer to your question, but I want to tell you that we regularly see very specific cases of spouses being refused, due to the legislation, jobs for which they were qualified. The legislation is being invoked in each of the current cases. The major obstacle is the Public Service Employment Act.

Financial compensation can be provided through other means. But you know the song by Félix Leclerc, which says that the best way to kill a man is to keep him unemployed. Work provides us with an income, but also with personal satisfaction, which is difficult to obtain without a job.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I agree with you, but the special status you are requesting is troubling. You are asking for two or three amendments, because, currently, it is a requirement to live in the national capital. This is quite ridiculous.

If you choose to work elsewhere, you must be considered, but you are not entitled to get special status for this. There are specific points that you were to submit to the committee to improve the legislation so that you could, if you have the essential qualifications, be hired as if you lived in the national capital. I quite agree with you, but I do not understand your request for priority status.

À (1020)

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: We are asking for a priority for a specific number of individuals who spend their entire careers working for the Canadian government. Currently, important legislation by this same government is creating huge obstacles for us when we want to apply for jobs in Canada's public service. That is the reality. It is not because we want priority. The current legislation is causing the problem. If we thought there was an easier solution, we would certainly go that route, but we see an opportunity in this new legislation that has been long awaited for all kinds of reasons. In our case, by making a minor amendment that would affect a limited number of people, we could solve a huge problem for this limited number of people.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I hope that your brief will convince me.

Ms. Christine Jensen: I would like to highlight the difference between a lawyer and some else who decides to live abroad. When members of the foreign service go abroad, they are fulfilling part of their contract. They must go. They do not have a choice. In many cases, individuals remain in Ottawa while their spouses go to Paris, Washington or Korea, because they cannot go with them. This is part of their contract of employment.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I know, but the same thing happens in the private sector. Yes, it is a matter of choice.

Ms. Christine Jensen: Yes. That is why—

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do I have any time left? I would like to ask a question.

There is nothing in the bill about harassment. You saw the statistics: one out of five individuals is a victim of harassment. Harassment is general, is it not? It can be psychological, it can concern minorities, etc. What is your opinion on this? I did not hear your opinion. Do you think this is a weakness of the bill or not?

[English]

Prof. Errol Mendes: We refer to it in the context that part of the systemic barriers minorities face is harassment. There are many references in the legislation to where Treasury Board “may” take into account diversity, etc. I think that should be changed to “shall” take into account the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prohibit such harassment.

[Translation]

I agree with you that it is very important to include anti-harassment measures, because there is no point in hiring more minorities if they do not stay.

[English]

For that reason I think it's absolutely essential to have that mandatory wording in the legislation, that the Treasury Board, the employer, must train and order its delegates to implement the letter and the spirit of the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Chair: Thank you.

Maybe you can pick that up later; we'll have time for maybe one more round.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I too would like to thank the witnesses for appearing here.

I must apologize for leaving for that short period of time. I had some business in the House, but I'm glad to be back.

My question is to Mrs. Wiesinger. In your presentation you suggested that your members be given priority for employment opportunities within the Department of Foreign Affairs both at home and indeed around the world. I understand, however, that the department has an employment policy that commits the department to providing a number of employment-related services to spouses, and I'm just going to cite three: pursuing reciprocal employment arrangements with governments of foreign states where Canada is involved in missions; facilitating spouses' employment within international organizations Canada supports financially; and the other one I'm going to cite is having managers both at the headquarters and at missions identify suitable work projects for spouses.

It's my understanding that the department also provides a services centre that develops and applies policies to improve the employment situation for foreign service spouses in Canada and abroad.

I'm going to refer you to page 121 of Bill C-25, paragraph 22(2)(a). I believe that currently under this bill the PSEA provides that the PSC may establish priorities through regulations in addition to those stated in the act, and your request could indeed be one of those additional priorities. Is it that you don't believe this is sufficient assistance?

I recognize that the bill is quite voluminous, and I'm not certain if you've had an opportunity to look at it.

À (1025)

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: I'm afraid I don't have the document in front of me.

I think it has to be clear enough, and we have not proposed how it should be worded. We are very much aware of the precedent of the case of the ministerial staff who lose their employment when there's a change of government, for instance. They are given priority status. We are aware of the case of veterans who are also given priority status under some circumstances. We are asking for this type of priority status for a period of at least two years when we return to Canada after a posting abroad.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: So you haven't had an opportunity to review this particular portion of the bill.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: We have concentrated on what we think should be done, and not so much on how it should be put in the legislation, because we do not have that competence. But we would be most willing to work with whoever comes up with the words to make sure it solves the problems we are faced with.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I just draw that to your attention so you understand fully that there is something in there. It's just, does it go far enough or is it still too general?

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: I'm afraid it's too general for our purpose.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

Since you made such efficient use of your time, I'd like to ask one related question to the group. Wouldn't the same conditions apply to military spouses?

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: Let me say first in answering that many military staff are posted across Canada. We are always posted outside Canada.

The Chair: But some number of military staff are posted outside Canada with their families, and for those, would this not--

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: They are under a different regime altogether, and in many cases these assignments abroad are one in a lifetime, one in a career. They are not in what we call the rotational lifestyle, where we have on average six assignments abroad over a career.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Szabo, you have time for a couple of quick questions, and then we'll pick you up on the next round.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I'd like to ask about the consultation process on Bill C-25 as it relates to your issues or, if you're aware of it, beyond your own issues. Was it appropriate? Was it adequate for you to make the representations you felt were necessary to have some impact on the bill?

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: I am afraid I find this quite difficult to answer. We were aware that there was this committee. As a matter of fact, we did ask the Department of Foreign Affairs to make representation to this committee, so we have been aware of it.

But you see, we are a volunteer organization, so we do not have the resources and facilities to monitor the work of committees such as yours in a systematic way. But because we realized that this was linked to the Public Service Employment Act and because we are aware of all the constraints it poses for the spouses and partners, we looked into the legislation, we consulted, and we came up with this proposal we are submitting to you today.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I think it's unfortunate, because once a bill is printed it's difficult to change because there is defensiveness about it. With your input from the responses to our questions, I think you've made your case extremely well, and I hope we can seek some opportunities to reflect those sensitivities we should have now that you've informed us of them.

Are you satisfied that you have made specific recommendations the committee should seek to incorporate into the bill? You've made your case with regard to the broader issues, but how about with regard to the specific recommendations we should be aware of?

À (1030)

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: I think we have done as well as we could. Hopefully, we have made it clear that this applies to a limited number of people, and they are easily identified. We're asking for a priority status for these people, and this will take care of the main obstacles we have described; that is, not being able to compete in competitions, whether because we are abroad and it's happening in Canada or whether because we don't have the employment status required to be considered eligible to apply.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you. That's helpful, and we'll certainly do what we can to make the necessary inquiries of the officials to see what possibilities there may be. I think you've made your case very well.

Ms. Suzanne Beaulieu-Gingras: I think, if I may, this will be helpful to the spouses and partners, but in the end it will benefit the whole of the public service, because, as I said earlier, at the moment they are confronted with people being reluctant to go abroad or people wanting to leave the service. In part it's related to the difficulties faced by the spouses and partners in trying to maintain their professional activities.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

We'll now come to Mr. Forseth. Do you have any further questions?

Mr. Paul Forseth: You folks had earlier referred to page 128, I think it was, and you did cite proposed sections 40 and 41. Mr. Tirabassi pointed out that paragraph 22(2)(b) on page 121 says the bill provides for the legal capacity to determine “the order of priority of the rights to appointment established by any regulations” made under the paragraph. Then there are a whole bunch of permissive clauses that allow administratively to respond to what you're saying.

But then you had cited proposed sections 40 and 41, and I was just wondering if you had any specific wording for those, seeing you had mentioned it.

Ms. Christine Jensen: We had put in some wording in the first draft, and I think we put it as paragraph (c). We created the paragraph, but we have different professional lives; we are not lawyers, but we did some wording on it to try to define the group we represent. We'll be more than happy to send it to you when the document.... We worked until very late, and we didn't have time to translate it.

Mr. Paul Forseth: But you were zeroing in at least on that section. You felt that's perhaps--

Ms. Christine Jensen: That's exactly the section where we would like it to be inserted.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's on page 128 of the bill.

That's about all I have at this point.

The Chair: I note that we have a few minutes left. Is there anything left unsaid, anything people feel needs to be addressed before we adjourn this portion of the meeting? Everybody's happy? It's a nice day.

I'm going to adjourn this meeting, then, and we are going to reconvene at 11 o'clock for the meeting with Mr. Scott Serson from the Public Service Commission and Alex Himelfarb. If members don't stray too far, we may call the meeting to order a few minutes early if Scott appears.

Ms. Wiesinger.

Ms. Judith Wiesinger: I'd just like to say thank you very much for allowing us to appear and to present our case to you.

The Chair: Well, thank you. I found it interesting, and we'll see what occurs.

We're adjourned.