HUMA Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): Good morning. Welcome to the 42nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

This morning, we're beginning our review of the Employment Equity Act. It was referred to us yesterday, so we have clerks and researchers who are way ahead of us here, and we have arranged for a technical briefing.

• 1105

With us today are Mr. Gerry Blanchard, director general of operations for the labour program at HRDC; Neil Gavigan, director for labour standards and workplace equity, also from the labour program; and Ms. Helen Beck, from HRDC's legal services.

Welcome to the committee, lady and gentlemen. We would normally restrict you to about ten minutes. Given that this is a technical briefing, though, you can take as much time as you require to give us the information we're going to need to begin this study.

Mr. Blanchard, we can begin with you.

Mr. Gerry J. Blanchard (Director General, Labour Operations (DGO), Labour Program, National Headquarters, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Good morning everyone and thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today.

[English]

I'm very pleased to be here with my team to talk to you about employment equity.

We will try to be brief as far as our opening remarks are concerned, in order to leave enough time to answer your questions. That's probably the way we can spend our time providing the best value. We will try to give you a bit of historical context; talk a bit about the actual situation of the Employment Equity Act as it stands, and what has brought us to this review; maybe tell you a bit about some of the things we've heard and learned from discussions with the client groups to date; and then leave it open for your questions and answers to those questions.

[Translation]

I will be asking my colleague to review briefly the historical context of the Employment Equity Act and to tell you where things stand today. With me is Neil Gavigan, our Director of Labour Standards and Workplace Equity. He was personally involved in our discussions with clients which resulted in this submission.

[English]

Neil has worked directly with the clients, and his staff are the ones preparing the material in the background. We're going to be here to assist you. We'll try to answer your questions to the best of our ability. If we don't have the answers for some, we'll find them very quickly for you. We'll try to give you an idea of those areas in which we can be of assistance to the committee in your deliberations over the coming period, in conducting this review that is mandated by the act, as you know.

Without cutting into any more time, I'll ask Neil to give you a brief overview, and then we'll turn it over to a question period.

[Translation]

Mr. Neil Gavigan (Director, Labour Standards and Workplace Equity, Labour Operations (DGO), Labour Program, National Headquarters, Department of Human Resources Development): Thank you.

I'd like to begin by putting this review in its historical context and by giving you some basic information about the programs administered by HRDC and about the Labour Program in particular.

Employment equity was established following the release of a Royal Commission report. Created in 1983, the Royal Commission was chaired by Justice Rosalie Abella and was entrusted with a mandate to examine equal employment opportunities. The Commission's recommendations led to the passage of the first Employment Equity Act which became law in 1986.

The stated purpose of the act was, and continues to be, the elimination of all impediments to workplace equity through the adoption of special measures and the accommodation of differences. In short, employment equity targets those obstacles preventing members of designated groups from realizing their full potential within the context of economic and social development.

The act refers to four designated groups: women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. It applies to federally regulated businesses with fewer that 100 employees.

The purpose of the legislation was to get each employers to hire staff and in the process to mirror the representation of members of the four designated groups in the community. Federally regulated employers under the 1986 legislation are required to table an annual report on the breakdown of their staff by professional group and salary. They are also required to provide data on recruitments, promotions and resignations. Representational data is then compared to the availability of these group members in the labour market. Lastly, the findings are used to gauge the success of each employer in the area of employment equity.

The application of the act was to be reviewed five years after the coming into force of the legislation and every three years thereafter. A first review was in fact conducted in 1991 and a second in 1994.

• 1110

In 1994, in addition to reviewing the application of the act, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities examined Bill C-64, an Act to replace the Employment Equity Act.

[English]

On October 24, 1996, a new Employment Equity Act came into force. The main changes in the 1996 act were to include the federal public service and clarify the role to be played by Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission; to provide authority to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to conduct on-site audits and to enforce compliance; to recognize federal contractors in the legislation and demand equivalent compliance; to clarify employers' obligations—and one of the things that did happen in the 1996 legislation, versus that of 1986, was that the basic employer obligations remained essentially the same, but the 1996 legislation further clarified things to make sure the understanding was clear—and to clarify the key roles played by the Minister of Labour, including the annual report to Parliament, the publication of guidelines to assist employers, unions, and other organizations with the development of their equity programs, policy development, research to forward the issues around employment equity, conducting public education, and the administration of the federal contractors program.

To effect employment equity, employers are required to collect information and conduct an analysis of their workforce; to monitor representation rates; to identify and eliminate barriers to employment; to institute positive policies; to achieve representation; and to prepare an employment equity plan.

The data provided by the annual reports allows interested parties to assess how well each of the employers is progressing. Labour department staff subsequently consolidate these data into an annual report, which the minister tables each year in Parliament. The emphasis is on educating employers that employment equity is the right and fair thing to do. As our economy shifts to a greater emphasis on skills, we see a greater emphasis on the link between employment equity and sound business practices.

The Employment Equity Act also calls for equivalent application of the federal contractors' program. These contractors fall outside federal jurisdiction. However, if they have a hundred or more employees and they bid on federal contracts with a value of $200,000 or more, they must commit to implementation of an employment equity plan in their workplace.

Currently, the act covers the following types of employers: 410 federally regulated employers, with a workforce of some 620,000 employees; 66 federal public service departments and agencies, with approximately 150,000 employees; separate employers, such as separate operating agencies like the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency—and there are 15 employers like this with more than 100 employees, accounting for some 60,000 employees. In addition, there are approximately 850 contractors, with 1.1 million employees, covered by the federal contractors program.

As a result of the 1994-95 review, and based on the committee's report to Parliament, the current Employment Equity Act came into force on October 24, 1996, with section 44 calling for a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this act, including the effects of those provisions, every five years. We are now in that fifth anniversary year. In fact, that was a subtle change made to the 1986 legislation in 1996. Rather than subsequent three-year reviews, the current legislation calls for subsequent five-year reviews.

An important issue especially worthy of note is that, to date, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has not yet completed the first full round of audits. At last count, they had initiated some 215 employer audits showing some 75 employers in compliance. Those 75 include 18 government departments—and I understand the commission will be coming to this committee perhaps later this week, so they may be able to provide you with an update on those figures.

Let me explain briefly how the labour branch of HRDC has prepared to assist you in your work. At the outset, a discussion paper has been drafted to initiate input from interested stakeholders, including employers, unions, designated group members, and other non-governmental organizations. Cross-country consultation sessions were held with almost 300 participants, in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa-Hull, Montreal, Moncton, and Halifax. Several bilateral also meetings took place with national organizations—for example, FETCO, the federal umbrella organization for employers in transportation and communications; the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Labour Congress; the Assembly of First Nations; the Métis National Council; and other fairly large organizations. You will likely be hearing from some of these same representatives during your deliberations.

• 1115

A summary of the consultations that we've conducted is being incorporated into a report, and that report is currently being finalized to assist you with your work. The report will also outline the history of employment equity; identify the key players in the implementation of employment equity—both in the private and federal public sectors—describe the social and economic impacts of employment equity; and provide some data showing the progress of each designated group since the first reporting year of 1987. We expect this report will be presented to you next week by Madame Bradshaw when she makes her appearance.

In closing, I want you to know we and the team we have here today will be available throughout the process during the public sessions that you'll be holding, in order to assist you in any way we can with information you may require throughout your deliberations. We'll respond to all of your requests for information or for data as effectively and as quickly as possible. I wish you good luck with your mission. We're looking forward to your recommendations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Blanchard, are there any other comments you or your two officials want to make at this time?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Not at this point. I would just reiterate the fact that we're going to try to assist you as much as possible. If we're not doing the right thing in that sense, just guide us accordingly and we'll react.

The Chair: I'm sure we won't have any problems.

I think I will open with six-minute rounds. Mr. Johnston, you can lead off.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to thank the officials from the department for being here this morning.

I didn't get a chance to read through the entire report, but I'm wondering how the business sector is responding to this. How are the contractors and the employers who work for the federal government and come under the Canada Labour Code reacting to this now that it has been in place some five or five and a half years? Do the employers consider the whole area of employment equity to be a success?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We actually have a written brief from the Canadian Bankers Association in which they have endorsed the Employment Equity Act. We will also have a paper from FETCO, probably in a week's time. Again, FETCO represents the federal jurisdiction employers, and it will also be providing an endorsement of the Employment Equity Act. I shouldn't speak for FETCO, but I think that organization's view is that the act represents a reasonable, balanced approach to achieving an equitable workplace. Having said that, within the context of the act and the regulations, these employer groups may come up with a number of concerns around definitions and around reporting requirements. We're working with both of them to see if we can try to resolve those.

The act deliberately covers only companies with a hundred or more employees, so many of these companies are seeing the benefits of employment equity in the context of good human resource management, in terms of what Canada needs to do to fulfil our skill needs in the future.

And just as a final point in terms of company recognition, the act actually requires the minister to publicly recognize companies that do a good job. Every year, we do an awards program in which we acknowledge the good work and partnership work that employers have done in implementing employment equity programs. I'm proud of the fact that, over the years, with both contractors and the act, we've had very few cases of difficulty, but we have had many cases of awards for a job well done.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm wondering about the reporting process. It says it's necessary for these companies to file an annual report. I'm wondering how onerous that is on the employer, how detailed it is, and how much actual work goes into filing that report. Could you give us a bit of an education on that?

• 1120

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Admittedly, it is a very detailed report. In terms of representation in the workplace, companies are required to report on the representation of each of the four designated groups among those hired, promoted, and terminated, and it must be broken down by location. The larger the company and the more diverse it is across Canada, the more complex the reporting process.

We recognized several years ago that this was a difficult administrative process, and it took some education with the employers to help them with the reporting. We've actually done several things. We've produced a software package that we give to the companies covered by the legislation. With that, they can download their HR data right into the system, and it will help them with the reporting process. Secondly, we have staff situated across the country in key regional locations, and their job is to actually go out to help the companies with their work.

So we've heard both... in the consultations, I was actually surprised by some of the small or mid-sized, 200- to 300-employee companies saying that the first year was tough, but that they seem to have it now. It seems to be more of a difficulty for companies with larger turnover, when new people are taking it on year in and year out.

Mr. Dale Johnston: If I hear you correctly, some people in the department have the express job of receiving these reports and helping employers to file reports if they have any problems. Does that mean additional people have been hired in the labour branch expressly to do that job?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Over the years, in fact, we had a team that did this. Every summer, the reporting begins at the beginning of June. We instituted the software initiative several years ago, and we actually went the other way. We used to have to use a team of some 25 people to manually deal with the reporting process, but we've been able to bring that down to 12 simply because the process is much more streamlined and automated. So rather than hiring new people to do the reporting, we've actually been able to go the other way.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Let's just say I'm a contractor who, up to a certain date, has never been successful in getting a contract with the federal government. Now I happen to bid just right and I get the job, but my workforce is made up entirely of aboriginal women, for instance. Does that mean I'm now somehow in breach of the act because my workforce doesn't represent the workforce as a whole?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: No, in the case of a contractor, once the contract is in place and the obligations kick in, the company has to look at its workforce and make some decisions about itself in terms of whether or not it is representative. If you're an employer and you have only aboriginal women, and a hundred aboriginal women at that, you're very unique in Canada. But depending on where you're located, you may also be a very representative organization. The real challenge is for an organization to look at its workforce to determine if that workforce is representative, and to take the necessary steps if it is not.

There's no prejudgment that a company is in compliance or non-compliance. The first step is for the company to do the work itself. And incidentally, once a company gets a contract, the contractors program delays any action. Other than the provision of information, no initiation of compliance activity occurs for at least a full year, in order to provide the a chance to do some of that preliminary work.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I would have liked to follow up.

The Chair: I know, but six minutes doesn't leave you much.

[Translation]

Ms. Folco.

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

I must admit that employment equity is an issue near and dear to my heart. I was very involved in this area while serving in the Quebec government.

I do have several questions for you, but before I get to them, I want you to know that to my mind, the government has a responsibility to ensure through employment equity programs that businesses working for the government or with economic ties to the government assume their responsibilities toward the public.

• 1125

It's obvious that I'm a staunch supporter of employment equity programs. However, I also realize that there are inherent flaws in the system, the first being the "last hired, first fired" policy. Our economy is currently in the throes of a general slowdown. No one knows for certain how bad things will get

I would like to ask you the following related question. How do you plan to deal with the principle of "last hired, first fired"? How can we ensure that persons hired, whether members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities or members of some other designated group, remain employed for one or two years and are not quickly thanked for the services when the economy slows down? How do you intend to deal with this situation? That's my first question.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We grappled with this problem during the 1980s after the legislation was adopted and the economy slowed down. To begin with, section 8 of the act safeguards seniority rights. Clearly, in this particular instance, seniority is an impediment to the employment of members of these designated groups. We don't want to see a situation where an employee is laid off only to be replaced by another person. First and foremost we safeguard these rights.

Secondly, we encourage unions and employers to consult and work together on finding solutions. Establishing an employment equity program is a daunting task and an employer can do an analysis to identify barriers to employment and to find alternate employment systems which are more effective and more equitable. Unfortunately, the reality is such that because of the economic downturn, employers will be faced with some difficult adjustments. However, our hope is that both parties, that is unions and employers, will work together to find solutions and to eliminate the need to cut jobs.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You do not get involved in the process yourself?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We can provide assistance. This isn't really my area of expertise, but we do work with Part I. We offer mediation and conciliation services and try to help employers and unions work out their problems.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do I have any time remaining, Madam Chair?

The Chair: You still have one minute.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My second question relates to what the people of Canada refer to as ethnic groups, and Quebeckers, as cultural communities. In Quebec, cultural communities are one of a number of designated categories. We try to identify people who arrived in Quebec some time ago, who understand how society works and who are able to integrate private sector businesses.

To the Government of Canada, cultural communities are not a designated group. The designation applies only to members of visible minorities. In view of the number of immigrants in Canada, how immigration is likely to increase in the future, and how immigrants will need to integrate into the country's economy, do you have any plans to make cultural communities a designated group?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: That's a very interesting question. On the one hand, I'm looking forward to your recommendations on the subject. On the other hand, if we look at the rate of immigration, we see that nearly 75 per cent of immigrants to Canada are members of visible minorities. In order to determine which groups should be deemed a designated group for the purposes of the act, we look to their economic situation, that is we consider the rate of unemployment, the average income, the rate of participation and the concentration of workers in a small category of occupations. Working with these four economic indicators, we compare these groups with others in Canada. Our findings point to a real problem for these four designated groups. We cannot say that ethnic groups and cultural communities experience the same kinds of problems.

• 1130

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'll put my third question to the witness a little later.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, a little later.

[Translation]

Ms. Guay.

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

First off, I too am delighted that we are reviewing the legislation to ensure that its provisions remain timely. After all, the legislation has been effect for some time now.

Will we have access to certain reports? A large number of companies and departments are involved and reviewing all of these documents represents a fair amount of work for MPs. Will we have access to certain reports which were issued by the department after the five-year period?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Yes. For instance, each year, the minister submits an annual report to Parliament. In addition, we are in the process of drafting a report further to our consultations and we have charted the progress made by each designated group. As I stated earlier, we hope to have this report available next week when Ms. Bradshaw makes her presentation.

Ms. Monique Guay: I see. Then, she'll be presenting a report for our consideration.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Yes.

Ms. Monique Guay: Excellent. That will assist us in our work.

Quebec also has employment equity legislation on the books. However, there are two different statutes, one for the government and one for employers. At the federal level, various provisions are incorporated into a single act. Do other provinces have similar legislation?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: No, Quebec is the only one. The other provinces look to the Human Rights Act to guard against discrimination. However, only the federal and Quebec governments have enacted proactive employment equity legislation.

Ms. Monique Guay: I'm happy to hear that because I feel it's important for us to set an example. Invoking human rights legislation is not enough to ensure employment equity. A victim of discrimination may not always think of invoking the Human Rights Act in an effort to secure employment.

I'd like to know if there have been any administrative problems arising from the application of the two acts, that is the federal statute, and the Quebec legislation. Do they apply to the same persons, or do they target two completely different sectors?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The federal act applies only to federally regulated businesses. The Quebec act applies to the public sector, including universities and hospitals, as well as to the municipal sector. Our Federal Contractors Program applies to universities. Some 35 universities in Canada are subject to the Federal Contractors Program, including four Quebec institutions. We maintain regular contacts with officials from the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec and we endeavour to ensure that...

Ms. Monique Guay: You try to ensure that there is no jurisdictional overlap and that there is agreement on employment equity issues.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Yes, absolutely.

Ms. Monique Guay: That's all very interesting.

This legislation applies to companies with 100 or more employees. What happens to these companies if they fail to meet their obligations under the act? Are they fined? Does the government impose any kind of sanctions?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The Canadian Human Rights Commission is authorized by law to exercise certain powers. It is responsible for conducting investigations and for visiting workplaces to monitor compliance with the legislation. It is also responsible for ensuring that each organization covered by the act is following the appropriate course of action. The Commission is not authorized to impose fines. However, it can advise on such matters.

• 1135

An employer has the right to appeal to a tribunal and the tribunal in turn has two choices: it can either overturn an order or confirm it, in which case it becomes an order of the Federal Court. Under the provisions of the act, the Human Rights Commission may not specify the amount of the fine.

However, based on the reporting system at HRDC's Labour Program, we know that the Minister of Labour can impose fines ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 on employers who fail to...

Ms. Monique Guay: ...who fail to apply the act's provisions in the workplace.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: This is the only area in which the reporting system is used.

Ms. Monique Guay: Until now, have there been any reports of cases that have gone before the courts and where the courts have ruled that the provisions of the act had been violated?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: No.

Ms. Monique Guay: None at all?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: None to date. It's interesting, because the act is clear. It clearly directs the Human Rights Commission to resort to negotiation and persuasion before imposing sanctions.

Ms. Monique Guay: Sanctions of a legal nature.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare.

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

How does Canada compare to other G-7 countries in this area?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Here in Canada, we have a unique program. I don't have a copy with me, but a report was prepared on several other countries. For instance, I know that Ms. Bradshaw is very proud of the fact that the government of Nelson Mandela patterned itself on our act when drafting its own legislation for South Africa. The United States have also adopted our model. On the one hand, they have the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs which is administered by the U.S. Department of Labour.

They also employ a process and system similar to that used by the Human Rights Commission and covered under the Civil Rights Act. Discrimination complaints are filed and the organization investigates the complaint.

Canada is virtually alone in having enacted this type of legislation whereby all employers, for all groups, are subject to the same regulations. England, for example, has a special program for persons with disabilities, another for race relations, and yet another for women.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Was the aim of the U.S. program to address racial problems?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Initially, yes, but now the provisions are applied to aboriginal peoples, veterans...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Getting back to Canada, is there any kind of quota system in place?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: This legislation does not provide for anything of the kind. The act states quite clearly that the Human Rights Commission shall not impose quotas. However, it does ask employers to set their own goals and timetables. In effect, it asks employers to set goals of both a qualitative and quantitative nature, bearing in mind employment related considerations in each company.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If a company with 200, 300 or 500 employees hires one person from each of these groups, does this amount to anything more than tokenism?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We want to see an action plan that corresponds to the reality of the company. Some companies in Canada have hired many employees in recent years. Others unfortunately have not experienced any growth.

• 1140

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are unions covered? For example, does the act apply to a 200-member union?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The act applies only to federally regulated companies, not to unions. The act...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Does the act apply to public service unions?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: No. Unions are subject to the terms of the provincial legislation.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Then, PSAC and other unions aren't covered? Why is that?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: As I explained to you, unions, as employers, are subject to provincial legislation.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I see.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: It's related to the kind of work they do.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Does the government keep statistics on the types of complaints filed? Do these complaints relate to

[English]

job entry, as opposed to getting a promotion? We read in the papers about problems with promotions. We've seen certain highlighted cases of late.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The Employment Equity Act imposes a proactive responsibility on government departments and federally regulated employers to implement an equity program. It doesn't contain a complaints mechanism. As an individual, if I wish to make a complaint about my rights to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, it's done under the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Employment Equity Act. The act makes it clear that if someone feels the organization's employment equity program isn't adequate, it becomes an internal matter that is to be communicated through the union or directly to the employer.

The commission's audit function is to measure the process and the quality of the employment equity plan against the law and against the business reality that the organization is in. This law actually eliminates the possibility of complaints against an organization because of its employment equity plan. You can complain against your organization if you feel you've been discriminated against individually, but not because of the employment equity plan.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The government has a great number of NGOs, especially in the area of international cooperation. That particular department contributes to and hires a great deal of those NGOs. Are they affected under the law?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: No, they're not. The law covers only organizations under the jurisdiction of the federal government, federal government departments and agencies—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You said at the beginning that federal contractors that have contracts of more than $200,000 should be part of that.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Right, those are contractors for goods and services. A university that does a research contract, or an IBM that provides technical equipment or what have you, would be covered. But for federal government contributions that would be made through a grant or contribution to an organization—an NGO is an example—unless it's a good or a service contract, they're not covered by the program.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Spencer, please.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): We're talking about numerical equality as it would relate to the workforce. Can you tell us exactly how that specific workforce is determined? For instance, for the IPSCO steel mill in Regina, how would that workforce be determined?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The company would do a self-identification survey of its employees in order to ask which of their employees are persons with disabilities, aboriginals, or visible minorities. They could also ask them to identify as men or women, but the assumption in the law is that organizations already have that information. So IPSCO—and as a Regina native, I know that company well—would simply conduct a survey, using clear definitions that are clear in the act. In the context of the employment equity program, it would ask its employees to identify themselves as members of those designated groups. That's the summary answer.

• 1145

The long answer is that IPSCO would also do a consultation with the union, and would educate its employees about the purpose of the process. But the bottom line is that managers do not go around, point to individuals, and say they're a member of this group or that group. The employees have the right to say they are members. It's self-identification.

Mr. Larry Spencer: In other words, the workforce is a reflection of what that company has already hired.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: That's correct.

Mr. Larry Spencer: It's not a reflection of the community itself.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Again using IPSCO as an example, the company does its survey and determines the representation of the four designated groups across occupations. Based on the census, the labour branch of HRDC would provide information on the representation of those four designated groups in the community. We would provide information on education levels and on people in jobs similar to what IPSCO has, listed by the four designated groups. We would provide that at the level of Regina, the level of Saskatchewan, and the level of Canada if IPSCO did any national hiring. The company would then have information that it could use to compare itself to the external community.

Mr. Larry Spencer: I understand that in 1987, the Supreme Court forced CN Railway to increase its percentage of women in the non-traditional occupations to exactly 13%, because that was representative of the workforce. What was the court's authority for that? Was it using the Canadian Human Rights Act, or was it using the Employment Equity Act?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: That was a response to a complaint of discrimination, so the court was using the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Interestingly enough, if you were to take that complaint today and apply it against this act, while those individuals who complained of discrimination then could still file their complaint now, the statistical data contained in the employers' reports for employment equity could not be used as part of that complaint process. What this act did in 1996 was make sure the employer doesn't face double jeopardy. The statistics-based complaint has been eliminated because of this act. The 1987 complaint and other complaints that we're probably familiar and that took place prior to the amendments of 1995-96, are no longer a factor.

Mr. Larry Spencer: It's interesting, because I can see a contractor or some particular company that specializes in certain things, like IPSCO does, undertaking a large expansion in which it might add a hundred jobs that very few women would want. Those women might want office jobs, but the expansion might not impact the office. Is the company required to have that same number of people hired in the new positions?

An hon. member: That's just a ridiculous statement.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Well, let's just face reality. There are physical jobs that a lot of women do not want.

An hon. member: Like firefighting.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Oh yeah, Larry. Sure.

The Chair: There's a question, and we'll have a response.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Actually, no assumption is made that a woman or anyone from any other group would be forced into a job they didn't want. The challenge for IPSCO, in a community like Saskatchewan, is to determine what women want not based on assumption, but simply by telling women and other groups in the community about what kinds of jobs it has available. Certainly, in conjunction with other concerns that the company has about making sure the jobs are healthy, safe, and open, IPSCO would then simply apply the numerical targets.

For example, it might say it's in the company's interest to increase the number of women in these jobs, and if it's unable to do so, it's going to have to ask why. Part of the reason may be that some women don't want to take that kind of work, but part of the reason might also be that IPSCO hasn't taken enough steps to eliminate the barriers to make sure women have access to those kinds of jobs.

To get to the technical part of the question, what it boils down to is the idea that the company would take the goals is has set for itself and apply those goals appropriately to the workplace situation, considering the jobs, the availability of people with the necessary skills, and the geography.

• 1150

Mr. Larry Spencer: So to some extent, they're able to respond according to the applications they get for particular jobs.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I think the act envisages the company being a little more proactive. I confess to you that I'm from Saskatchewan, and my experience is that many companies want to hire aboriginal people, but they'll sit and wait for them to come in. The challenge in a province like Saskatchewan—and it's repeated elsewhere in the country—is for companies to actually reach out to some of those communities and encourage them to come in.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I understand that with the establishment of the act in 1996, authority was given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deem compliance. A year would be given with respect to officially coming up with a plan, and the Human Rights Commission would then arbitrate or hear cases in which there was non-compliance, and would then have the authority to mitigate or to give orders with respect to a mitigation plan.

I'm interested in what seems to be on the horizon, what may have been beyond the parameters of the mechanisms in the 1996 act, but which we're trying to anticipate. One of the big problems on the horizon follows my colleague's line of questioning with respect to last in, first out. Without getting into the details of it, I want to use a case study to show the conflict between public policy in a general area, and the real issue with respect to the mechanism that is very traditional, which is seniority.

The case in point is Air Canada. I could suggest that there will be many more of these for which a general public policy exists, but a mechanism is there that seems to be difficult to counterbalance. If you go with the public policy, we set a bilingual policy as one we have various programs to achieve in a very proactive and affirmative way. However, if you apply the characteristics of seniority, you then come up with two juxtaposing and perhaps unobtainable ends.

Without getting into that issue, but just to take it as an illustration, what do you see as the role of the Employment Equity Act? What do you see as the role of the department in terms of those kinds of issues? I see more of those on the horizon.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The act itself does deal with the issue of seniority, and it recognizes that there can be circumstances in which seniority might be a barrier. Section 8 of the act makes it clear that seniority rights are not considered a barrier in the context of layoffs. As we go through this period of time when there have been signs of layoffs, it is a reality that... I believe that when the government established this legislation, it did not want to see existing workers penalized by an employment equity program.

However, that same section goes on to say that where seniority can be shown to be a barrier internally, where it is a factor, the act asks that the employer and the union work together to try to come up with an appropriate solution. Unions have actually put forward proposals calling for designated group members to be given average levels of seniority—in other words, they would not be moved to the bottom of the list to be cut out, but be moved to the middle so that they have a fair shake with other employees. The act doesn't impose that, but it encourages companies and unions to sit down together to come up with creative solutions that meet their needs and fulfill the objectives of employment equity at the same time.

• 1155

The minister publishes guidelines, and while the act doesn't require companies to establish a committee process per se, we provide information for companies and unions in the guidelines. The guidelines recommend that if they establish a committee to work together to resolve these kinds of issues, their chances of success might be greater.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Just to finish that line of thinking, other than a general mediation type of mechanism, does the act contain any specific trigger with respect to binding, third-party arbitration beyond the Human Rights Commission itself?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: No, the compliance process vis-à-vis the act has issues of directions being appealed to human rights, which becomes the Employment Equity Tribunal. The employer could then appeal a tribunal order in the Federal Court, but no other process is in play. Other than when the commission is doing the audits, the staff tend to provide help at the same time, and our staff in the field provide help as well.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I come back to where we left off with my colleague's question. Is it desirable to leave it that way? Conversely, with the experience in third-party arbitrations and so on, would the department be looking at more formal means of settling on what could be very difficult issues for the tribunal approach?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I apologize for maybe being coy on this one, but when it comes to issues around collective bargaining in the federal sector, a mechanism is in place through part I of the Canada Labour Code and through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. When there are disputes involving the collective agreement and business on the labour side, a mechanism is in place.

Our report will indicate that when you look through your deliberations when you hear from business groups and from labour, you'll hear two different requests. You'll hear labour come forward saying it wants a more formal process built into the legislation, whereas business will come back and say it agrees with a need for a process, but that it should be left to business to determine on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

The Chair: It's an interesting topic that I think will be raised again.

Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: The act provides for penalties between $10,000 and $50,000. Have any of those penalties ever been assessed against an employer? Surely not every employer who has worked with the federal government has complied precisely with this. If no penalties have been applied, how has the whole employment equity situation been addressed?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: The penalty scheme that is there is for failure to report or for reporting violations. While the Canadian Human Rights Commission does the auditing of most of the compliance activity, those companies that must report annually to the minister have a potential penalty or fine ranging from $10,000 for a first offence, to $50,000 for subsequent offences. That's applied if they fail to report, if they falsify a report, or if they fail to report in the required manner.

In the five years that have passed since the act was amended, we have not imposed a penalty. We have the power to do so, but you're right, not every company gets it right. There have been problems, and we've been tracking those.

While the commission is required to use negotiation and persuasion, that doesn't necessarily apply to this section. However, we in the labour program operate from a compliance policy that makes it clear to us that regardless of what element of labour law we're dealing with, our preferred method of operation is to use education, persuasion, and negotiation to achieve compliance, rather than using a sanction that we consider to be a last resort. Thus far, while we are tracking and working with companies that have had difficulties—and we've published those names in our annual report—we have not yet felt it necessary to impose a fine. Certainly, we have been working and using negotiations to the best of our ability.

• 1200

The size of the company also matters in this particular case. Most of these companies have human resources people, and when they realize there is a potential penalty, they're usually able to take advantage of the services we provide to get themselves into compliance.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you. Could you provide us—

The Chair: Just a second.

Mr. Blanchard, did you have anything to add?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: In the annual report, the company performances are also listed. They have a kind of peer review of each other, and nobody's really interested in appearing below their competitors in that area, so that's a strong motivation. I've personally been involved in raising the level, and writing, for example, to a higher level in the company to say it's not complying with this. I have to say that does bring about results most of the time.

The Chair: Good, thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Could the committee be provided with a copy of the program with which the employers should comply, the forms they would have to fill out?

The other thing you mentioned that I would like to see is a copy of the minister's guidelines. You said the minister publishes guidelines, and I would like to have a copy of them, if I could.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Certainly. In fact, the report we will have before you next week will have, as an appendix, the act and the regulations. Those reporting forms form a part of the regulations. We could also provide you with a copy of the software package that we provide to the companies. We will endeavour to print the guidelines for you, but I will warn you that they're fairly voluminous. I would much rather give you our website address, but I will certainly give you a copy of the guidelines for your—

Mr. Dale Johnston: We can negotiate that.

The Chair: Can that information be sent to the clerk electronically?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We can send the website address to the clerk. The guidelines are probably too big an attachment, but we can arrange to get those to you through the clerk.

The Chair: We might be able to of transmit them electronically as well. Perhaps you can liaise with the clerk to find the best way to get us the information.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

You have a little bit more time, Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm curious to know about hiring practices. If you have a job opening—and, again, we're talking about someone who is working for the federal government and comes under the Canada Labour Code—if the qualifications for the job are very specific, if you have two people who are roughly equally qualified, and if you have someone who is a visible minority or is from one of the identified groups you have here, how much latitude do you have as an employer? Does it get to the point where you have to select a lesser qualified person you may have to train more simply because they belong to one of those groups?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I don't believe either we or the Canadian Human Rights Commission get involved at that level of detail with an organization. I've been a hiring manager in government for a number of years, and when we make hiring decisions, we certainly consider the importance of representativeness. It becomes a factor in terms of trying to reach out. If we see in our applicant pool that no women are applying for a certain job or visible minorities aren't applying, then we try to make sure people get in. I have to say, though, that I've never seen a situation in which it has ever come out perfectly equal and I've had to make that kind of stark choice.

• 1205

I think what the act envisages is that organizations need to re-evaluate and reassess hiring practices. A lot of hiring practices exist based on traditional assumptions. We were talking about IPSCO a while ago. We've seen police departments and fire departments make tremendous progress over the years. Years ago, though, it used to be that if you weren't five-eleven and 180 pounds, you didn't bother applying for the RCMP. At the time, they probably felt you needed to be tall, strong, and physical to be able to do the job. Well, we've learned and they've learned that the job requires physical fitness, but it also requires an ability to work in diverse cultural communities and an ability to negotiate. Organizations like the RCMP, and perhaps others, have therefore had to re-examine their concept of what “best qualified” is, and they've realized in many cases that the best qualified may actually defy some of our traditional assumptions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

True to myself, before I move on to my question, I would like to say a couple of words to Mr. Spencer about women in non-traditional jobs. Let me say that I was—

Mr. Larry Spencer: I'm not on the panel.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Well, it's something I've been involved with and care about a great deal. I just want to say that before I was first elected, I was involved in a number of projects in Quebec that involved women in non-traditional jobs, as mechanics, as women who went up telephone poles, and that kind of thing. The projects consisted of training women. They got money from the Quebec government to train the women and to help them and other women get jobs in these areas. I would say the projects I was involved in were certainly very successful.

Nobody's obliged to go into these things. They're for women who might find them interesting. So I just want to say that we're sometimes very surprised by what kinds of jobs women might like. Not everybody wants to stay home and type on a machine. A lot of people want to do... I just came back from a visit with the Royal 22nd Regiment—

The Chair: Is this a prelude to a question you're going to ask our witnesses?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Yes, but I just wanted to say that there are happy surprises for all of us.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: ...let it go longer than we should have, but I know you have a question for our witnesses.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do I have time for a question?

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd like to ask you the following question. I noted in Ms. Bradshaw's report figures on the improved level of representation in the four designated groups in 1999. I observed that the numbers were up for all groups and wondered if this was connected to the overall increase in the number of persons in these designated groups.

I don't know if my question is clear or not. For example, I note that the percentage of aboriginal peoples hired increased from 1.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. That's an overall improvement of .2 per cent. What I'd like to know is whether this increase corresponds to the increase of this population group in Canadian society.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: At this particular point in time, there's no way of knowing, because the figures used in the annual report are taken from the 1996 census. We're now awaiting the results of the 2001 census which won't be available until June. By next year, we hope to have the figures indicating any real changes. As far as visible minorities are concerned, we expect to see a fairly significant increase.

The situation is more difficult to predict in the case of persons with disabilities. A post-census survey will enable us to evaluate more clearly the current situation with respect to this designated group. Aboriginal peoples will also be surveyed. Since 1997-1998, we have been using the figures from the 1996 census. By next year, we will likely have the figures for 2001.

• 1210

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Does this mean that when you get the new census figures, you will proceed to make adjustments to the figures in the profiles you submit to companies?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We will forward the new figures to employers across the country so that they can adapt their plans.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I invite my colleagues to look at how you've interpreted in your report the results for each business. You've included a rating, namely A, B, C or D, next to the number of women, aboriginal peoples, and so forth.

I've only had time to glance quickly at the report. However, in terms of the number of women and aboriginals, there is still much work to be done. Moreover, I would be tempted to say that the situation is disastrous for persons with disabilities. However, on the visible minorities front, some progress has in fact been made.

I'm concerned because although the act has been in force for the past five years, no charges have been laid - I put the question to you earlier - and no situation has arisen requiring charges to be laid. This could be taken to mean that everything is going swimmingly. However, I don't really believe that because I feel any act can be fine-tuned. Either its provisions are not applied properly, or they aren't stringent enough. I'm not sure which it is and I would be interested in getting your opinion.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: As I stated in my introduction, the Human Rights Commission hasn't yet had an opportunity to audit more than one third of the organizations covered by the act for the purposes of monitoring compliance. In any event, even if they were audited, it would be difficult to assess whether or not they were capable of making improvements. We hope that they are.

Right now, in the case of women and visible minorities, it's clear that their representation has increased in certain job categories. In the case of persons with disabilities and aboriginal peoples, there is still a way to go. I think your comment is a fair one. You'll see from our report next week.

Ms. Monique Guay: You work together with most unions. In Quebec, the CSN and the FTQ, among others, see it as their duty to set an example, for instance, by hiring as many women and members of visible minorities as possible in proportion to the population. You talk about members of visible minorities, while we prefer to speak of cultural communities because this is a much broader designation.

Does the department work with unions to ensure that businesses are also making an effort in this area?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: We work closely with the unions and with the Canadian Labour Congress. For instance, we are very respectful of partnerships. We are constantly in contact with the CLC as well as with the Canadian Bankers Association and FETCO. We know for a fact that the CLC has an employment committee and we have consulted directly with this body. We know that it supports the aims of the legislation. In essence, we try to work in partnership with the unions.

Ms. Monique Guay: I have a few closing remarks, Madam Chair.

As Ms. Folco said earlier, many women obviously opt for non- traditional jobs. Several programs have been developed in Quebec targeting this group. In creating non-traditional jobs, companies can arrange to have them filled by women. Perhaps this formula could be expanded to persons with disabilities. While there are programs in place specifically designed for persons with disabilities, there may not be enough of them, hence the poorer results.

• 1215

However, I think we need to familiarize ourselves with this sound report and I'm looking forward to reading it next week. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): I was reading in section 4.2, on pages 37-38 of the annual report, that the Maritimes have the highest women's representation in the workforce under the act, ranging from 48.1% in Newfoundland to 51.9% in P.E.I. Nova Scotia has increased from 45.8% to 49.8%, etc. Are the types of economies directly related to the compliance under the act? The people who seem to be doing better... As you say, almost nine out of ten women in the workforce were located in the four most populous provinces, yet the highest percentages were from the least populous provinces, and from the provinces more reliant on seasonal industries. Did you look into any connection between the types of economies and the compliance rate, or how they react to the act?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: In the report, we do a sectoral analysis to determine if certain sectors—such as banking or transportation—are encountering any particular difficulties or, for that matter, any particular successes. There is an obvious regional breakdown, and one of the important factors is the size of company.

In the report, we count the company by head office location. When you're looking at firms with a hundred or more employees, you're looking at a larger concentration in Ontario and Quebec, and somewhat in B.C. and Alberta. In provinces like Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and some of the other smaller, less populated provinces, there are some federally regulated firms there, but the employees of the Bank of Montreal in Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan would not necessarily be shown as that. We actually see more of the high growth in those areas where the head offices are located.

Mr. Joe McGuire: What do you mean by 51.9% in P.E.I. and 45% in Ontario?

A voice: Are you still on page 37?

Mr. Joe McGuire: Page 37, yes.

The highest women's representation in the workforce is in P.E.I., at 51.9%. What does it mean when you say that? We're going by percentages here, we're not going by numbers.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: It means that of the employees in the federal jurisdiction, in these companies under the act in that particular province, 51.9% of those employees are women.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Then 45% are women in Ontario.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Right, and I think the 45% is more in line with the national average as well.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Doesn't it also mean that where the workforce is—

The Chair: You were going to wait and go through the chair, were you not?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Madam Chair, I just wanted to point out that I'm sure that in areas where the workforce is smaller, it takes a smaller group of people to influence percentages.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: That's probably true as well.

The Chair: Thank you for your clarification.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It was a point of clarification.

The Chair: I know that's what it was. We'll take it in that spirit.

Mr. McGuire, you still have about a minute left.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I'm fine.

The Chair: You're fine.

Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer: I'm almost afraid to ask tough questions—

Ms. Monique Guay: You have a woman next to you.

Mr. Larry Spencer: —because it seems to me that we only get answers to easy questions. I have a couple more tough questions, because this reminds me that I grew up in the south as a child. You can probably distinguish a little bit the accent that I occasionally come out with. You all notice that.

Anyway, as I said, I grew up in the south. I came here many years ago. I saw segregation, and then I watched the desegregation taking place in the United States. I saw the regulations that it required, and those kinds of things. But as those movements pick up momentum, you can back off on regulations. I'm presuming—and excuse me if I'm wrong—that this is part of the reason for five-year reviews of this kind of legislation.

• 1220

I think we should be entitled to ask a few of the hard questions, because we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that what we are doing is favouring some people by their standing of birth. By nature of that very act, we are disfavouring some other people by their standing of birth. That's just a fact of what we're doing, so I'm presuming that we want to get at some reasons why, and at some understanding of what's going on.

I just have one question on the economic impact that this has. I don't know of a government program that doesn't cost money, so I'm presuming it's costing us some money. I could be wrong; maybe we're making money off of it, I don't know. But how much does the required reporting and the efforts to comply cost the economy, cost our companies, or cost our government?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I will attempt to summarize.

In our phase two office at the labour program, we have approximately 30 people who are involved directly with the administration of the equity program. That includes the administration of the act, the administration of the federal contractors program, and an equal pay advisory service. Regionally, the number fluctuates a little bit, but 22 to 25 people are located regionally across the country. The total salary budget is under $3 million.

These are the staff who are administering this program, and I can tell you it's not a number that has grown over the years. In fact, when we've tried to streamline and to make the process more effective by better use of technology, we've actually turned the numbers the other way.

So we have some 30 people in Ottawa and some 25 or so in the regions. We have a total salary budget in the neighbourhood—including both those two numbers—of around $3.1 million. And in terms of operating expenses, we're looking at about $600,000.

Now, I'm not costing the Canadian Human Rights Commission for you.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Okay, but it's obvious that you said each company needs to have a plan. They need to have an outreach plan for these different groups. That's a cost you're not even looking at here.

Mr. Neil Gavigan: That's a cost to the company.

Mr. Larry Spencer: You're expecting them to make specific efforts to reach certain groups, rather than just a simple advertisement for employment. Is this true? Do you want some targeted publicity in that area?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: I won't say to the company that it must do targeted publicity. Based on its community, based on its job needs, I'll ask the company what the best way is that it can go out to do a better job of recruiting aboriginal people. IPSCO won't need me to tell it how to find aboriginal people in Regina. The company will know that, and resources in the community will help it to do that.

The Chair: I'm sure that's a question you're going to put to the employers when they come before us, Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer: Thanks for reminding me.

The Chair: You still have one minute left, if you wish.

Mr. Larry Spencer: No, that's okay.

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Just following on costs and on the line of questioning Mr. Spencer was pursuing, recognizing that this report comes under the umbrella of HRDC, and recognizing that some sectors do have a huge problem on the horizon—for example, the construction industry in particular areas—when you look at compliance—let's talk about women in the construction industry—to what extent does this report find its way to another part of HRDC that deals with apprenticeship programs, policies, and those kinds of things? Is there any integration of research and actions, or is that not where you are in terms of policy development?

• 1225

Mr. Neil Gavigan: Managing the implementation and doing the assessment in the federal sector is a job in itself, but this information is shared with colleagues in the rest of the larger Department of Human Resources Development, particularly on issue bases.

For example, I believe Madame Guay raised a question about aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. We work very closely—and we're trying to work even closer—with the Office of Disability Issues within HRDC, and with the Aboriginal Relations Office within HRDC, because we can see ways in which the efforts we're undertaking can perhaps be perceived in a more regulatory environment, but also in the encouragement of a persuasive environment. There may be ways in which we can provide a better service to the company trying to hire aboriginal people if we do a better job of linking at the partner end.

Actually, while it's not my place to perhaps speak on policy, I'll tell you that in the consultations, it was evident from groups in the community that they felt—and I believe it will be reflected in our report to you as well—that those kinds of efforts to facilitate stronger partnerships at the community level—partnerships whereby aboriginal groups and persons with disabilities could link at a level closer to the employer and understand what the employer needed—would allow us to actually achieve results. That's where I think we have room for stronger linkages with our larger department.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I want to stay with my case in point, which is the apprenticeship system. Does anything in this report talk about obstacles faced by women in terms of access to apprenticeship programs in, say, carpentry, electrical, or whatever? Would anything in this report direct me to anything that would give us indicators of obstacles, success, or whatever?

Mr. Neil Gavigan: A chapter in the report does deal with best practices and good practices that employers have implemented. The act doesn't require employers to submit their equity plans to us, but it does require that they submit a short summary of initiatives. It's from that summary of initiatives that we draw some of those good practices, what employers have done in this industry or that.

I should point out to you, though, that construction is one of those fields that is not in the jurisdiction of the Employment Equity Act, so we don't tend to see information on apprenticeships, other than perhaps in the case of, say, the B.C. or maritime employer associations when they do their hiring in the shipping business. We don't tend to see those kinds of jobs and issues, but there is a place in the report to highlight some of the good things that employers have done. Also, in our awards program, in which we do get into contractors, we do have examples of organizations that bring good ideas and are rewarded for them, so we do highlight those.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Folco, we have about a minute and a half left if you want to take up the rest of this meeting.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I realize that you are public servants and that your job is to apply the provisions of the act. However, given that you are involved in this area on a daily basis, I would like to ask you the following question.

Our mission is to produce a report in which we may recommend changes to the current act. Given your daily involvement, are there any improvements you will like to suggest to counter some of the shortcomings observed in the application of the legislation?

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: First of all, our job is to make available to you as much information as possible, and to share with you what we observe as we go about our day-to-day business.

Obviously, this means asking for reports from field workers on problems that may exist. We will also let various persons make representations to the committee. Once you have the information in hand, our job will likely be to ensure that you have access to research data that may or may not confirm the information received.

• 1230

We are public servants and our job is to remain somewhat neutral. We work with the legislation. Mention was made earlier of costs. Perhaps we could give you some examples of where making an investment was worthwhile. Often, the solution to problems in our society consists of taking advantage of our assets, which include all members of society.

We may be somewhat biased given that we believe in the program, but we will try to provide you with as much neutral information as possible so that you can make your own assessment. Most likely you will be hearing different views from management and from employees.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: I'd like to stay with this subject, because it's important for us to hear your views, given that you apply the act's provisions. I understand your reluctance to get involved in the politics of this business, but nevertheless you can... We have an opportunity to improve the legislation. Therefore, you need to tell us what works, and what doesn't, and what your requirements are. I think it takes more than 50 people to apply such an important piece of legislation. I also think that a $3 million budget isn't the end of the world. You're the ones who apply the provisions and now is the time to let us in on your needs. Now is the time we can make some changes for the better.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I want to thank Mr. Gavigan, Mr. Blanchard, and Ms. Beck for appearing before us.

Just as a bit of an editorial, I've worked with some of these people over the past couple of years. I can tell you they'll be very fair, very firm, and very forthcoming with information. I look forward to working with all of them as we study the Employment Equity Act.

Members of the committee, this is a heads-up. On Thursday, we have members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission before us, and some of the questions asked today can also be put to them. We hope to hear from the minister on Tuesday, and she will bring with her the review that has been referred to. Perhaps after the minister has visited with us on Tuesday, we might sit as a committee very briefly just to discuss our work plan and to put forth a preliminary list of witnesses we might want to hear from.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: We'll have time to invite witnesses and to attend to that in January.

[English]

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mr. Gerry Blanchard: Thank you very much.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.