Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 2 - Evidence, December 7, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 7, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, authorized to invite from time to time the President of Treasury Board and the President of the Public Service Commission, for the purpose of examining cases of alleged discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the Federal Public Service, met this day at 4:04 p.m.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome, members of the committee and invited guests and particularly the Honourable Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board.
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is mandated to invite from time to time the President of the Treasury Board and the President of the Public Service Commission, their officials as well as other witnesses to appear before the committee for the purpose of examining cases of alleged discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the federal public service and to study the extent to which targets to achieve employment equity for minority groups are being met.
Welcome, Mr. Alcock. We have had the Chair of the Public Service Commission before us. You know that we are not studying individual cases, but rather we are looking at process, policies and practices that would achieve full opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the Public Service Commission and to eliminate any forms of discrimination and look to how you attack the issue of employment equity.
With the new bill that has been put in place and with all the other practices, we are interested in hearing your opening statement. Please proceed.
The Honourable Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board: Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here this afternoon to talk about the progress the Government of Canada has achieved in creating a public service which is representative and inclusive of Canadian society, reflecting thoroughly the rich diversity of peoples who make up this great multicultural society.
I with have me today Mr. Glen Bailey, who is Vice-President of Human Resource Planning and Accountability, and Mr. Wally Boxhill, who is Director for Employment Equity Policy, Planning and Reporting. Both work for the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. This agency now has lead responsibility in collaboration with the Public Service Commission and individual departments and agencies for ensuring the implementation of the Employment Equity Act as it relates to the public service. The Canadian Human Rights Commission also has the responsibility for monitoring and audits of compliance with the act.
I would like to begin by outlining for you the major components of the act and the distribution of responsibilities across the government for its implementation. The purpose of the act is to use positive measures to increase representation and participation in the workforce of designated groups. It applies to all federally regulated employers and responsibility for administration of the act is with the Minister of Labour. The act sets out the obligations of the public service with respect to achieving equality in the workplace for Aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities and women.
There are seven main organizational elements involved in carrying out the measures set forth in the act and their responsibilities vary as follows: The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency is responsible for the employer functions related to employment equity and for developing the human resource planning and accountability frameworks necessary to achieve the act's goals. It also supports departments with training and monitors and assesses the performance of departments and therefore the public service overall. Various training programs, best practices and tool kits have been developed for departments.
Departments are responsible for meeting their goals, considering the particular structure of their workforce and their recruitment patterns.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission monitors and audits compliance with the Employment Equity Act by way of departmental audits.
The Public Service Commission is responsible for recruitment and staffing. As for the bargaining agents, the Employment Equity Act requires the employer to consult and collaborate. This is accomplished through the Joint Employment Equity Committee of the National Joint Council. Mr. Boxhill is the co-chair of this committee of the National Joint Council.
Designated groups and representatives provide advice and advocate for improved performance under these objectives.
The External Advisory Group on Embracing Change provides independent external advice to the agency and to the Public Service Commission on the implementation and direction of the Embracing Change Action Plan.
Two weeks ago, I met with three members of the External Advisory Group, including Professor Errol Mendes. We exchanged ideas on how we could advance the objectives of increasing representation of visible minorities in the public service and how to heighten awareness of the diverse fabric of Canadian society.
Within the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency, 35 staff are dedicated to this program with an ongoing budget of $3 million. Over the past 10 years the government has disbursed $30 million in program funds to support activities, such as recruitment initiatives described by Maria Barrados when she appeared before you last week, as well as the projects within individual departments. Approximately $15 million remains to be disbursed over the next several years.
Officials in the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency are working closely with individual departments to develop additional projects, and you will want to hear about the progress achieved.
Let me summarize some of the major outcomes over the last several years. Close to 4 per cent of all public service employees are Aboriginal people, which is higher than their participation in the national labour market. This proportion has been increasing steadily. The number of Aboriginal staff in the executive category is 124. This has doubled since 1988-1989.
The Career Assignment Program which identifies middle managers with strong prospects to become executives has a strong representative of Aboriginal employees, nearly one in ten. This will have a major impact in the near future.
Proportionally speaking, women are represented in the public service in greater numbers than in the national labour force. Nearly 53 per cent of employees in the public service are women and this is 5 per cent higher than in the last decade. Over the past five years, the number of women in executive positions has increased by more than 50 per cent. In the executive category, 35 per cent of the total EX population is women.
Overall representation of persons with disabilities is one and a half times their participation in the workforce. There are over 200 EXs who are persons with disabilities, up from 101 in 1999. They are very well represented in the Career Assignment Program and in the Management Training Program.
There has been a steady growth in the number of visible minorities at all levels, up 5,000 since the year 2000. Overall representation, however, remains below labour force participation levels, approximately 8 per cent in the public sector versus 10 per cent in the national labour force. We remain well short of the Embracing Change objective of having one in five recruits being drawn from the visible minorities at all levels, even though we have more than doubled the percentage intake of visible minorities.
We have been very successful in recruiting visible minorities into a number of special programs to develop the managers and executives of the future. The level of participation varies from one in five for the Management Training Program to one in three for the Career Assignment Program. Since the action plan in 2000, we have doubled the number of visible minorities in the executive category.
I mentioned the Embracing Change initiative a moment ago. As this is an important initiative, I will say a few more words about it. It is a plan to address under-representation of visible minorities in the public service. It has been in effect since the spring of 2000. Embracing Change sets a one-in-five benchmark for the hiring, promotion and career development of visible minorities. It also sets out measures for developing a more inclusive corporate culture in the federal workplace.
Government commitment to the plan and its objectives is reflected in its support. Thirty million dollars was made available between 2000 and 2003 toward implementing the plan through investments and projects aimed at outreach, career development, recruitment, retention and encouraging change in the corporate culture. Fifteen million dollars for the employment equity fund was set aside for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 to improve diversity performance with a particular focus on visible minorities and meeting the executive challenge.
This progress has yielded a number of success stories. In my home province of Manitoba, Embracing Change funds were used to support efforts by regional union representatives, members of the National Council of Visible Minorities and middle managers in the public service to recruit and retrain.
Between 2000 and 2003, we have increased the participation of visible minorities in Manitoba from 238, or 4.4 per cent, to 357, or 5.9 per cent, of the federal employees in that province. The Management Training Program operated by the Public Service Human Resource Management Agency was successful in targeting recruitment of visible minorities with more than 20 per cent in the last intake.
Correctional Services Canada has held more than 100 sessions of diversity training for 2,000 managers and HR professionals in the last year. Audits of the Employment Equity Program performed by CHRC demonstrate that 53 departments and agencies are now in full compliance with the Employment 7Equity Act.
Twenty-three per cent of participants in the Accelerated Executive Development Program are members of visible minorities.
The Ontario regional office of PWGSC has established special relationships with the Canadian Paraplegic Association, the Canadian Hearing Society and Miziwi Biik, which is an Aboriginal agency, to facilitate recruitment from designated groups.
I would like to talk for a few minutes about how we ensure employment equity is front and centre in daily operations. There is no doubt that success in achieving a truly representative workforce and a culture open to diversity will come only when it pervades all elements of human resource and business planning. They cannot be marginalized activities nor considered as add-ons.
Employment equity is now fully integrated with HR planning and accountability. It is a central element in the review of individual departments for each designated group. The assessment of the situation and progress achieved form part of the discussions that the Secretary of the Treasury Board has on an annual basis with deputy ministers. They are held to account.
There is also a direct link to the executive performance agreements. The Clerk of Privy Council has written to deputy heads regarding his priorities for the current year, and the attainment of goals with respect to diversity has been emphasized. Deputies and their executives will be assessed against their performance.
Of course, every year as President of the Treasury Board I table in Parliament an annual report that outlines progress made in the attainment of objectives across the public service. The report for 2003-2004 is in preparation, and I expect to table it in the near future. Until then, I cannot speak to its specific details, but I can assure the members of the committee that it will demonstrate clearly that we continue to make progress.
As the largest employer in the country, the public service must demonstrate leadership to other jurisdictions and in the private sector.
This past year, working with Senator Oliver, the government supported a major research program conducted by the Conference Board of Canada to identify specific constraints and experiences of visible minorities and best practices in the public and private sectors to address or overcome these barriers.
Two favourable outcomes of the project are a leader summit of senior executives from the private sector held to improve participation of visible minorities, and an employer's guide, now in preparation, which will provide managers with examples of successful practices that have been used to bring out the best in visible minority employees.
Like you, I am eager to maintain the momentum on these important initiatives. I believe that they will soon produce the kind of public service we all want, one that is open to all qualified Canadians, one to which the best in Canada and the best in the world will come to make their careers.
We are, all of us, part of the process required to make this happen. It is a pleasure for me to come before the standing committee and I look forward to the dialogue.
The Chairman: Mr. Boxhill and Mr. Bailey are here to assist you and to answer any specific questions. Am I correct in that assumption?
Mr. Alcock: Yes.
Senator Oliver: Welcome, minister, and congratulations for an excellent report. What interested me in listening to the way you presented your report is that in Canada we do have four target groups. In your report you indicate that women, Aboriginals and the disabled have really done quite well. The government is to be commended for the numbers it is able to produce.
The fourth group is called visible minorities and the report is quite poor.
I want you to know, minister, that racism against visible minorities in the public service of Canada is still rampant. I have received dozens and dozens of emails and letters from all across Canada, from people working in the public service of Canada, complaining about the barriers that are systematically placed before them, preventing them from being able to advance and being able to be treated equally and fairly.
Minister, I know you feel that this is shameful. Many visible minorities look to you as their champion, a minister who will stand up for right and a minister who is no shrinking violet, a minister who is not afraid to make innovative change where it is necessary to level the playing field for all Canadians.
Minister, we need the creation of a new parliamentary officer, a commissioner of diversity, responsible to implement the Embracing Change one-in-five initiative that you have talked about, working out of the PCO, which is the political arm of government, where the muscle, the power and the might is located. Will you act immediately to take the steps necessary to create such a post called a commissioner of diversity?
Minister, I did not say commissioner for visible minorities but of diversity because once people understand how you make the diversity case for the economy and for business, that is what will make us all succeed. Will you work for the creation of such a post?
Mr. Alcock: I particularly appreciate your interest and your advocacy. For the benefit of senators, Senator Oliver and I have had several conversations about this matter outside of committee.
I appreciate your comments on how well we have done with women, Aboriginals and the disabled. At the intake level, that is quite true. We still have a ways to go on the executive side. We have not hit comparable targets there, although the recruitment and some of the advancement activities with the special management intakes are encouraging and we should get there. I remind all of us that we have an enormous opportunity coming as the executive class begins to retire. In fact, one of the things we are spending a lot of time thinking about is how we will adjust to the demand.
In the area of visible minorities, it is true that we have made significant progress, but we are not where we need to be. We are not there yet. That would be true in both cases, although, again, we are ahead of recruitment as we need to be in those management programs that will help at the executive level.
We share exactly the same goals. We need to find and take advantage of every mechanism to get us where we need to be. I have said to you that I would like to discuss a little further the best way to do that, whether the creation of yet another parliamentary officer is the best way. Frankly, one of the things we are discussing is executive compensation in this new management model because we have substantially restructured how we provide management and accountability within the public service. In that performance management program, one of the criteria that managers will be assessed against is their success at advancing these goals. It may be that this will get us where we need to be.
We have the oversight of the Human Rights Commission already. The only hesitation I have in giving you an absolute yes is simply around the creation of yet one more parliamentary officer. I believe there are many ways we can get to where we need to be.
Senator Oliver: All of the complaints and concerns that I receive on a regular basis seem to say that there is no one place in all of Canada where visible minorities can go to have someone who has the authority and the will of the government to make the change that must be made. If a commissioner for diversity for all of Canada had the same types of powers as the Commissioner of Official Languages, that person would have the clout and would be able to do it. Who else can go to a deputy minister and say, ``You have failed in meeting the targets that have been set for these four target groups, so I am slapping you on the wrist?'' That is not good enough. A commissioner who had the rank of a deputy minister and had the ear of the Prime Minister and the PMO in PCO, it would work because that is my understanding of the power structure in Ottawa. Am I wrong in that assumption?
Mr. Alcock: You are absolutely right. Neither one of the two gentlemen on either side has poked me yet, so I will keep going.
You are right in the sense that the person who will provide the greatest amount of drive on this issue is the most senior public servant in the country, the Clerk of the Privy Council, who manages the performance appraisals of the deputies. He has included in their performance measures their ability to meet these goals. You have a very powerful tool there.
A parliamentary officer is a very useful tool at exposing problems. There is absolutely no question about that, but none of the parliamentary officers can act to produce change. The Auditor General herself, when she says, ``This is wrong and in need of correction,'' she cannot order change, and quite deliberately because she has to then audit whatever happens.
In a similar vein, the Human Rights Commission has the very power you are looking for, to examine, respond to complaints and expose them in a report to the Prime Minister or the House. Once we get to a fully diverse labour force and this becomes a non-issue, then we can go on to other things happily.
If you feel — and this is the agreement that you and I have had to work on — that a different instrument than the ones we have right now would help, I am more than willing to discuss that with you. I am simply reacting to the parliamentary officer term, which I feel is a much more cumbersome vehicle.
To get to the goal that you wish to get to, Senator Oliver, I want to assure you that I am with you 100 per cent.
Senator Oliver: Because you are no shrinking violet.
Mr. Alcock: I am very cautious about that. Senator Carstairs is here. She knows I have been trying to shrink for years.
Senator Poy: Minister Alcock, you mentioned that the only group that is not making as much headway or acceptable headway is the visible minorities group.
Do you think that the official languages policy, as it is currently applied in the federal government, may be detracting from the merit principle? That problem comes up again and again. Are the best candidates either not entering the public service because of bilingualism, or are they leaving the public service after a few short years because of those policies?
Mr. Alcock: As you point out, that is a question. We have had a number of comments on the impact not just of the official bilingual policy overall but also the upgrading of the qualifications at the EX level.
The question of new Canadians and their difficulty of having to learn a new language — either one of the two official languages and then a third language — has been pointed out. It merits investigation to see whether that is a barrier. I spoke about that with the Embracing Change group when I met with them.
I would point out something else, however. I have four young people working for me who would fit that criteria, being from a visible minority community, and each one of them are fluently bilingual. As we well know, first generation new Canadians tend to pay a lot of attention to education and tend to develop the skills very quickly. That is not to take away from the problem encountered by a new Canadian coming to Canada. I do think our policy merits investigation.
Senator Poy: It is not just new Canadians. The language problem could be regional. Someone from B.C. may not be as bilingual, as it relates to percentages, as they would be, say, in Quebec or in this region.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, although that does take us into a different area in this sense. To restate, someone who is a new arrival to Canada and who has to learn one and then both official languages presents questions that we should look at.
Beyond that, we are an officially bilingual country and have been for a long time. People seeking a career in the public service are aware of that. It is not like it was in the seventies, where we were just developing the policies. If you are somebody graduating from high school or getting into university with a desire to work in the federal public service, you know that this is a requirement. You know that there may not be a fully bilingual requirement if you live in a non- designated part of the country and are in a non-designated position, but you know that if you want to advance in management, then this is something you will have to do. I am not certain that is an onerous requirement in an officially bilingual country. There are 100,000 kids in Western Canada in emersion programs right now. There is enough notice now and enough support that it is not an issue. I am not satisfied that it is as big a barrier as some would make it out to be.
Senator Poy: From the material that I have read, it seems that the language requirement often comes first in the public service instead of merit. It is not what people can do or their training that counts. The language requirement seems to have been quite a big problem in the public service.
Mr. Alcock: Senator, I come from the West. This has been an issue virtually all of my working life. I am old enough to have grown up with this issue.
There is some concern right now because of the more stringent requirement at the EX level and the imperative staffing rules that have been brought in. You may have seen some questions raised recently.
One never knows whether the evidence bears out the concern. You hear people citing examples of problems, but it is not a definitive case yet. There has been some concern about the testing that is done. Those who run it with are prepared to look at that.
It is always hard to know when you look at the statistics about the number of designated positions, the number of English versus francophones versus others. The current statistics do not bear the concern out.
Senator Poy: It is stated that by 2011, net labour growth will be from immigration. Do you have any plans of what to do about the new labour force coming into the country?
Mr. Alcock: That question takes us back to that first comment. I do think that there is an issue there. Many people come into the public service and do not have to meet the bilingual requirements in their early years. The imperative staffing hits at two levels. There are the designated bilingual positions as you move up into the senior management categories. In most cases you would not be at that level upon entry into the public service.
There is a case to be made for the triple requirement of learning one of the two official languages and having to learn a second one. We need to think about that.
Frankly, I do not got a solution for you. This is relatively new on my table. Where a case can be made, we should at least take the time to examine it to determine the impacts and how to address them. You are absolutely right.
I would argue that this is a problem that we will have across the entire public service. We will be in a fierce competition for employees in another decade at all sorts of levels. We will be in direct competition for professionals. If we do not start to think about how to address that now, we will have a very serious problem as we move out.
Senator Pearson: It has been brought to my attention, although I have no supporting documentation, that the private sector is doing better than the public sector in attracting visible minorities. Since I do not have the documentation, this is a word-of-mouth kind of conversation. I would be interested to know if you feel that we are in competition for a certain number of these extremely talented young people. We do not pay as well as some of the other places. Is this an issue as well? Is this a challenge?
Mr. Alcock: Senator Pearson, there is shuffling here to see if we can provide any evidence relative to your contention about the private sector. Since you opened the door, let me spend a few minutes on the second part of your question.
As you know, I am the employer and bargaining agent for the public service. Before we went into this last round of bargaining, I had a number of studies done looking at the shape of wages in the public sector.
It is indisputable at the senior levels of the public service. You could argue that the EX-1 level is at rough parity with comparable jobs in the private sector, but as soon you move up, it is not comparable. We underpay badly. We simply must confront this issue.
We want a much higher standard. The provincial credential and professional certification in comptrollership and audit functions will put us into direct competition with large private sector agencies that are adjusting to the new rules of the securities commissions. In the area of computer programmers and techs, we have had to adjust our wages to be competitive.
Another thing that disturbs me has to do with a broader malaise in public sector management. I visit the campuses all the time. I am old enough now that I can say, ``When I was a kid.''
When I was a kid, working in the public service was a nice thing to do. It was exciting. The public service was an employer of choice because it was doing interesting and exciting things.
Today, if you speak in front of 350 students on a campus and ask how many are planning a career in the public service, you are lucky to see a hand raised. I do not think that is only because of money, but it also has to do with the general malaise in public management.
I said to Senator Oliver at the Senate National Finance Committee that one of the things that I value about that committee is that it takes these issues seriously and work hard on them. We have to rebuild public sector management to make it a welcoming environment to everyone, not just members of the visible minority community.
Senator Pearson: Did you find that information?
Mr. Alcock: Isn't that depressing.
The Chairman: Perhaps you can put it together and file it with the clerk.
Mr. Alcock: I can tell the senator that in the representation of women, we are ahead. For Aboriginal representation, we are ahead. On disabilities representation, we are ahead, but we are behind, as you said — 7.4 per cent as of March 2003 in the federal public service and 12.2 per cent in the private sector.
Senator Pearson: Thank you.
Mr. Alcock: That is interesting.
Senator LeBreton: I have two questions, one is with regard to women. One of your predecessors and a colleague of ours in the Senate, Senator Carney, when she was President of the Treasury Board she commissioned a study, which I keep in my office. Senator Carney would probably insist that I do. It was a report on the hiring of women, especially at the senior level. I would hope that it was required reading when you took over as President of the Treasury Board.
In your statement, you noted that in the executive category, 35 per cent of the total population are women. What was the percentage five years ago?
Mr. Alcock: Can I add another piece of information that was just offered to me in the case that this committee may want to take up an examination of the regional distribution of the federal public service. Forty per cent of public servant positions are in Ottawa and there is not a large visible minority population here. There are large numbers of visible minorities in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The private sector is drawing from a larger pool.
Senator LeBreton: You stole my second question. I asked the same question of the head of the Public Service Commission regarding the recruitment area.
Mr. Alcock: I am told that in 1999 it was 26.9 per cent.
Senator LeBreton: The number has gone from almost 30 per cent to 35 per cent in five years.
As I just mentioned, you anticipated my next question. I asked this question of the head of the Public Service Commission. In the recruiting of visible minorities, the potential pool in the National Capital Region is not as great as it would be in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver — just to name three major centres — as well, probably, as other areas in the country.
We get into this issue that only certain people can apply if they live in certain area codes. What steps are you taking to blur the lines in terms of who can be recruited, and what incentives are being offered to attract visible minorities to first apply and to then move to the National Capital Region from Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal? Is there any assistance offered for people to do that?
Mr. Alcock: It is an interesting question. I have been dealing with the national area of selection policy from a different perspective. Frankly, I just asked the question as to whether we know whether that has been explored.
The national area selection policy was simply meant to manage volume. I believe that it was in the 1960s when that policy first came into play. Ms. Barrados has been working on a proposal to allow national electronic recruitment to overcome that.
It has never occurred to me, nor to people possibly wiser than I in this department, whether that has any impact on access to people from Montreal, Toronto and the big centres where there are larger numbers of visible minorities.
Do we know the answer to that question?
Mr. Glen Bailey, Vice-President, Human Resources Planning and Accountability, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada: No, I do not. I am not sure that that specific angle has been looked at, but we have looked at post-secondary recruitment or other specific recruitment initiatives that we have talked about in particular departments. As mentioned by Ms. Barrados during her previous appearance, there have been efforts to target visible minorities and other designated groups in the recruitment processes.
Senator LeBreton: Toronto is one of if not the most multicultural city in the world. I agree that we have to make people think that the public service is a much more attractive career. It seems to me that this would be a good place to start by not only actively recruiting, because there are some very talented people available, but also begin a program that allows them to move.
Mr. Alcock: Frankly, you have stumped me on this one. It seems that I am joined in this by two others.
I will look into it. It is a worthy question. Toronto is a wonderful city, almost as nice as Winnipeg. There are many places outside of this town from which we could recruit.
Senator LeBreton: We seem to be surrounded by people from Winnipeg today.
Mr. Alcock: We run in packs.
The Chairman: That is not discrimination.
Perhaps after looking into that problem, you could get an answer back in due course. The issue that was raised by me, a few other senators and members of the House is that if we want to change the perception of the public service, we have to reach the students at a young age so that they can understand the issue. The programs that you have for summer employment are geared to residents of Ottawa. That precludes young people from across Canada, including young people that I know from the University of Saskatchewan who were willing to come here on their own hook. They were not asking the government to pay for their transfer. They wanted the experience, but they were precluded.
When you are reflecting on this matter, you should consider a new base. Some people believe that there is discrimination on the basis of regions.
Mr. Alcock: On the first question of effective recruiting in the larger centres, I will get back to you as soon as we can develop an answer.
Regarding summer jobs, I know those two young women quite well. They wrote to me. I met with them. I have had a rather focused conversation with them on a solution. They are two extremely bright young law students from Saskatoon. They raised a real issue, and one that are looking at.
The Chairman: They are assertive and they are in law school, which helps them. When we look over the broad spectrum of people in agriculture, health, et cetera, there are young people who do not know that there is this opportunity to come to Ottawa and would not know how to get themselves here. If it were offered to them, I think you would see a dramatic difference in the public service.
Mr. Alcock: Absolutely. There are other issues. You are right. We will pursue that topic.
We have other problems in our recruitment processes. We are in this transition from a more traditional way of doing things to this new public service modernization management regime that should address our capacity around recruitment.
I do not know if you spoke to Ms. Barrados about her report, but the current energy we put into recruitment and the results it shows is not encouraging.
As we go through this transition, we will hopefully come out of it in better shape to deliver on some of these accountabilities. Right now, there are some challenges.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My question concerns language training, mastering the two official languages and equal opportunity for members of visible minorities.
We all know very well that immigration contributes to the growth of Canada's population. We also know that the number of French-speaking Canadians is not increasing at the same rate as that of English-speaking Canadians.
Studies have shown that immigration is one of the factors that could contribute to this situation for the following reason: new immigrants don't necessarily stand the same chance of learning French, if they so wish, as they do of learning English.
I had the opportunity to discuss French language training with newcomers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan as well as Winnipeg in my home province. They said that it is very easy to get English language training as compared to French language training, which is often unavailable.
The ambassador of France, who arrived in Canada just a few months ago, gave the example of the Chinese population in British Columbia who are so eager to learn French that the Alliance française cannot open enough satellite offices to satisfy their needs for French language training. The ambassador confirmed this fact during a mini conference he was giving.
My questions are the following: Does the Employment Equity Act provide equal opportunity for new arrivals to learn both this country's official languages? If not, do other policies deal with this question? Do you have a role to play in this regard and are there any objectives?
[English]
Mr. Alcock: Are you talking about new immigrants to Canada, period, and their capacity to learn both official languages, or are you talking about new immigrants to Canada who would be members of the federal public service?
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Actually, my question concerns both of those groups. If they don't have an equal opportunity to learn both languages when they arrive in Canada, how can they have an equal opportunity to positions in the public service?
[English]
Mr. Alcock: I am working on this.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Monet, Vice President, Official Languages, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada: As regards immigration and the development of minority groups, the Official Languages Action Plan sets out initiatives and financing to support minority groups.
I know that the Department of Immigration has several similar projects that work towards this objective. It is not only a matter of welcoming francophone immigrants but also of encouraging their integration so that they can live their lives within minority communities in Canada.
I am glad to know that the Alliance française cannot manage to finance it all because that means there are many people interested in language training. With regard to the public service, I would like to point out that 39 per cent of positions in the public service are bilingual. There is therefore ample opportunity for Canadians, whether recent immigrants or otherwise, to have a career in the public service, even if they are not bilingual. That goes to answering your question on whether they have access to positions within the federal administration. The answer is yes and language training is available in the public service if they want a bilingual position; proactive training is being increasingly promoted.
[English]
Mr. Alcock: In the 2002 public service employee survey, 11 per cent of visible minority respondents indicated that a lack of access to language training had significantly affected their career in the previous three years. This would seem to support your point.
As a result, the policy changes placed renewed emphasis on providing better access to language training earlier in people's careers. This is supported by a study currently underway on the future delivery of language training and language testing. This is being led by the Canada School of the Public Service. As you are aware, that school is being restructured. It is part of my portfolio.
The leadership training and accelerated groups, in which the visible minority community is well represented, also has a second language component to assist people.
It is still reasonable to say that if you come to Canada and have a first language other than English or French, you face an additional challenge in entering and advancing in the public service. You must learn two other languages.
Senator Carstairs: The process begins much sooner than when one enters the public service. In a quick analysis that I did of public high school requirements, I noted that math, English, French literature, science and social studies are required of all. Second language is required in no province or territory in this country.
Have you and your officials had any discussion with provincial and territorial education ministers about moving toward making the second language of Canada a compulsory requirement for graduation from high school, at least at the core level?
Ms. Monnet: This would be a discussion to have with the officials from Heritage Canada, who are in the process of reviewing the agreements with the provinces in the area of education.
To my knowledge, there are no such discussions. However, I caution you that this is not my field.
Mr. Alcock: This goes beyond simply providing support for French language training programs within the provincial schools. You would be suggesting that there be some negotiation with provincial ministers of education to see whether they would make it a core requirement.
Senator Carstairs: I am talking about basic discussions dealing with the future needs of the public service and the increasing need for bilingual people. I do not think that this has anything to do with Heritage Canada, but everything to do with the Treasury Board indicating to departments of education across the country that we have identified a problem. Treasury Board should be wondering if it can get some help from the provinces to make language training part of the core curriculum.
By the way, it was part of the core curriculum until the mid-1960s. I had to have the French in order to graduate from high school, as you did. Yet we passed the Official Languages Act and then did away with that requirement. That happens to be my bone of contention for today.
You talked about the commissioner of diversity. I happen to agree with you. I am not sure that putting another parliamentary officer in place is the answer. However, I do think there is an answer in making senior EXs accountable. I would like to know what you would think of tying their bonus — which I understand 96 to 97 per cent of senior EXs receive — to their progress on diversity?
Mr. Alcock: I will speak to your first point about the provincial ministers of education. I met with the Minister of Education from Manitoba on a related issue relative to the Aboriginal community. There would be no reason why we could not at least have that conversation.
One of the mandates of the agency is to look at current, future and emerging needs of the public service. I think that would be quite possible.
The question of bonuses is one that I am sure Senator Oliver's group will take up in the National Finance Committee because I want to talk about executive compensation. We are moving to a different form of management in the public sector. We will hold the deputy heads and the senior executives to account for outcomes as opposed to processes. That is clear in the Public Service Modernization Act.
This figure of 97 per cent is a bit erroneous. I am currently looking at this and can share the real figures with you. The program is a bit more complicated than that.
You raise the question of whether this could be part of the criteria upon which those bonuses are assessed. The answer is, ``Yes, absolutely.''
I spoke on Monday with Carol Stephenson, who heads the Stephenson Group, which looks at executive compensation for the government. She is the head of the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario. We are meeting in January to talk about how this program might be expanded.
We are moving to increase the specific accountabilities of public servants. I am coming down with a report on this early in the new year. Expanding those programs would be quite useful. It is a way — to go to Senator Pearson's question — of beginning to also reward for excellence.
Senator Oliver: One of the ways to make a huge difference in places like the public service in terms of overcoming the obstacles and barriers visible minorities face is to have senior visible minorities appointed to positions of importance. Prime Minister Mulroney did that in the case of Lincoln Alexander and by making a visible minority person the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Canada.
I know you are working on corporate governance and Crown boards. Are you prepared to tell this committee that you will work in cabinet and work in your capacity as an official of the Crown to ensure that visible minorities are afforded opportunities for senior executive positions on Crown boards and advancement within these boards?
Senator Poy: I am not sure whether the public service has recruitment at universities, especially around graduation time. If it is does, how well does it compete with the private corporations?
Mr. Alcock: Senator Oliver, a quick answer to your question first.
Absolutely. I will work on this. It is a feature of the current governance paper that I hope will be out within a few days.
There are two things you want concerning the boards. You want competency and you want characteristics. You want the characteristics of Canada of which diversity would be one, so absolutely.
On recruitment, I would say we do very poorly. We were on the campuses and encouraged a number of bright young Canadians to apply for federal jobs. Approximately 22,000 students wrote exams, and we hired less than 500. That is shocking.
There are systemic reasons for why that is, but it is not acceptable. Ms. Barrados knows it is not acceptable. She wrote about it in her report and she and I discussed it. I have discussed it with the people at the agency.
We are caught in this transition between the old ways in which Public Service Commission hired everybody to a new form. In the same year, we hired about 490 or so for the commission. Nine thousand of those kids were judged excellent. We hired less than 500. We hired 30,000 in other ways.
Is there a problem here? Yes, there is. Will the Public Service Modernization Act address that? I believe it will. Right now, we are in this transition. That is as frank as I can be.
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, I will pose a thought for you, and I do not expect you to answer it. It seems to me that you are not quite as old as I am, but you do have a history, as you said.
Mr. Alcock: I feel older every day.
The Chairman: We have always approached discrimination from the perspective that women want in, minorities want in, Aboriginals want in and the disabled want in. Now when we looking at our labour force, we cannot replace ourselves from our own population. We must look at people in the four target groups to whom Senator Oliver refers and new immigrants as opportunities for Canada as opposed to bringing these people up to a standard. In other words, they have equal value that we have underrated. We must look at recruitment of people because of their particular skills and their contribution rather than opening the door to let them in and somehow join us. They come to us with attributes that we should recognize as opportunities for Canada.
I leave that thought with you, Mr. Minister. I thank you for your openness and frankness. I hope that this will be the first of many dialogues in the future.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you very much, senator. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I am deeply interested in these public service management questions, as Senator Oliver will tell you from my visits to his committee. Any time you wish to discuss issues of this nature, I will be here.
The Chairman: I appreciate the offer.
The committee adjourned.